Print
Email
The New York skyline is a phenomenon all its own, and you'd think that a city with so many landmark towers wouldn't have a problem with a new one. But the owners of the Empire State Building, once the tallest building in the world and a Big Apple icon, have opposed the construction of a new nearby tower which would block the view and take away some of the historic building's singularity. In other words, it wouldn't stand out like it used to. The owners proposed that no tower challenging the Empire State Building be built within a three-quarter of a mile radius.
That no-skyscraper zone was rejected and a new tower has been approved. It may or may not be built, but there was little sympathy for the Empire State Building's position — or the precedent it would have set if a city of skyscrapers began imposing such limits. But the request is not altogether unreasonable: For some structures, their position on the landscape is an essential part of their character. How would people feel, for example, if giant high-rises crowded out the Eiffel Tower?
Here, as I wrote recently, the Space Needle is inherently important not just because of the view from it, but also the view of it. The Needle stands largely apart from downtown Seattle as a regional platform of power, not unlike the Empire State Building. And its situation, as well as its design, is an important part of its architecture and continuing value.
As a kid, I remember going to the top of the Smith Tower, then the tallest structure in Seattle, and having a clear view of the under-construction Space Needle. Now, there's a forest of skyscrapers in between. Still the Needle stands well enough apart, so far, to have escaped being overgrown or crowded. It has some protection, by city ordinance, from being impinged upon in the area immediately surrounding it.
But as downtown and Belltown have grown taller and high-rises have marched closer to Queen Anne, and with the growth of South lake Union and the potential for more waterfront development, it's not hard to envision a day when the Needle might no longer have its slice of low-rise skyline to itself. Will it still be the symbol that it is? Is a landmark still a landmark if it's not a landmark anymore?
The Space Needle, by virtue of its unique design, still seems contemporary. The Empire State Building seems more like a historic relic, and a glorious one at that. But it's no surprise that it would begin to feel pressure from the very powerful, commercial impulses that built it in the first place. I'd hate to see the day when the Needle is swallowed whole by our "world class city" ambitions. Let's hope it never comes to that, but it certainly could.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Aug 30, 2:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Nobody has proposed anything of any real height for the several blocks around the Needle. Nor has any zoning change been proposed for any real height in that area. At most, there might be something half the Needle's height a few blocks away at some point, south of Denny. That's much like the Empire State Building, which has a lot of highrises surrounding it.
I don't get why you talk about being a "world class city" so much. That has very little to do with skyscrapers getting built, or getting zoned for. Highrises are allowed by zoning because the centralization of jobs makes transit work better, helps Seattle remain the region's dominant office core, etc. Highrises get built because someone thinks it's a good business bet.
Personally, living near the Needle and going up frequently, I'd love to see my Belltown neighborhood get taller. But I can understand the moderate proposals that have been made for highrises in SLU.
(disclosure...I work for a contractor that gets hired to build buildings...)
Posted Mon, Aug 30, 8:25 p.m. Inappropriate
The Space Needle is built in what is traditionally a residential and light industrial area. There should be no problem in protecting the surrounding area from encroachment if the zoning remains the same, and the city has the will (something it typically lacks). As someone who has always seen the Space Needle from the south, in my youth when it was standing beside "the box it came in"; now fleetingly just beside the Smith Tower where the view opens up momentarily on the ramp between I-5 north and I-405 East (why doesn't anyone shoot pictures of Seattle's skyline from that angle?) I'd hate to see the "classic view" of Seattle go the way of my traditional view.
The Space Needle is truly a precious, defining and historic part of Seattle's skyline, just as the Eiffel Tower is for Paris. It's worth the effort to preserve that. It's important to remember the pivotal place Seattle had in defining a future that was bright and inviting. Ever since the 70s, the future has pretty much sucked. I want the World's Fair's future back, dammit.
Posted Tue, Aug 31, 7:50 a.m. Inappropriate
The city has already destroyed the view down Pike Street to the waterfront thanks to the Convention Center. The once iconic view down Pike, with the red Farmer's Market sign beckoning you to come down for a visit, is gone now. It's buried behind a convention center that seems to be designed as a barrier between the residents of the city and the tourist-heavy shopping district. Looking at downtown Seattle from Pike & Boren reminds me of a solid wall surrounding a medieval city. The view of the Space Needle itself from that corner is now more of a peek-a-boo view than a would-you-look-at-that kind of view.
It's inevitable that the long views of the Space Needle are going to be buried behind tall condo towers and office buildings. It is doubtful that the views across Lake Union from I-5 or from the waterfront would be blocked, but views from Capitol Hill are likely doomed.
Posted Tue, Aug 31, 8:43 a.m. Inappropriate
How many acres or square miles of sprawl are views worth?