In just decades, a Lake Washington fish evolved to survive without pollution
King County »A proposal to make all King County elected offices nonpartisan qualifies for the ballot
Animals / Wildlife »A gathering of thousands of sturgeon at a Columbia River dam baffles scientists
Microsoft »One Laptop Per Child, running Windows XP
Science / Environment »UW and IBM are researching new rice strains using 'clustered' PCs around the world
Ferries »It's not over until Hillary Clinton's cash runs out
Seattle goes gah-gah over choo-choos
The city's own series of tubes
As long as we're beating up on the mayor today ...
A city of scolds
(23 comments)
As long as we're beating up on the mayor today ...
(9 comments)
Seattle goes gah-gah over choo-choos
(9 comments)
It's not over until Hillary Clinton's cash runs out
(6 comments)
Responding to her readers on paid family leave
(6 comments)
Why Hillary Clinton should stay in the race
(6 comments)
The city's own series of tubes
(5 comments)
Puget Sound on Prozac
(4 comments)
Fast times and loads of fun, despite expensive gas
(3 comments)
Hillary Clinton, will you please go now!
(3 comments)
The former Denny's in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood, aka Manning's Cafeteria. circa 1964. (Eugenia Woo)
The Ballard Denny's in June 2007. (Chuck Taylor)
Fans of preserving modern architecture had two victories to celebrate after the meeting of the Seattle Landmarks and Preservation board on Wednesday, Jan. 2. Two mid-20th century modern buildings had their landmark nominations approved and now head for an official designation hearing early next month, Feb. 6, where their fate will likely be decided.
Interestingly, the two buildings anchor opposite ends of modern architecture's bell curve: One is a sleek high-rise box of reflective glass that epitomizes the sophisticated International style, the other a swooping 1960s Googie diner with all the chic of a Stan Boreson polka.
The first is downtown's Norton Building, a marvelous late-1950s reflective box that is one of the last examples of its kind in Washington. The building was built by Northwest timber baron, businessman and patriarch Norton Clapp. It was one of the first buildings to be nominated by the city as part of a controversial new city initiative to pro-actively nominate important downtown structures. While some downtown building owners have objected to the city's nominations, the owner of the Norton Building did not — they only expressed hope that the board would show some future flexibility if they need to make changes or upgrades to continue to offer Class A office space in the downtown core.
The second was the Ballard Denny's/Manning's "Taj Mahal," which has been covered extensively on Crosscut, which first sounded the alarm that the building might be landmark-worthy last summer. The building is currently owned by Benaroya Companies and sits on the site of a planned condo development on a key intersection — Northwest Market Street and 15th Avenue Northwest — that many regard as the gateway to the Ballard business district. It was built in the mid-1960s as part of the Manning's restaurant chain, a company founded at the Pike Place Market in 1908 as the city's first premium coffee company (the Starbucks of its era). It was designed by Clarence W. Mayhew, an important modern architect from the San Francisco Bay Area. The building was saved from demolition once before in the mid-1980s when Denny's took it over.
While the vote for the Norton Building was a no-brainer (it was approved unanimously by the board), the Ballard diner posed a more difficult problem. For one thing, the current owner and the prospective condo developer, Rhapsody Partners of Kirkland, want to tear it down and submitted the nomination to the board in the hope that it would be denied. As Benaroya's attorney Jack McCullough told the board, they were "not looking for a positive outcome."
The property owners felt completely blind-sided by the fact that there was any question about the building's significance. For one thing, the Seattle Monorail Project had planned to tear it down for a station. When the project went belly up, Benaroya picked up the property, confident that the site and been cleared in a review of possible historic sites along the route. However, the monorail project was not required to look into buildings fewer than 50 years old, so the Denny's was never researched. Marc Nemirow of Benaroya said the diner looked "like it ought to be torn down and replaced."
To get the landmark hurdle out of the way, the nomination was placed in the hands of an architectural consultant, Larry Johnson. He was hired after the first consultant, hired by the developer, Mildred Andrews, was let go, reportedly for being too sympathetic to the Denny's.
Johnson put together a nomination package [5.4 MB PDF]. At the meeting, he did a PowerPoint presentation that frequently seemed designed to put the building in the worst possible light. Highlighted, for example, were pictures of the Denny's boarded up. The restaurant was still operating this fall when it suddenly closed. The owner insists this was not a ploy to make the place look worse, but Johnson certainly took advantage. He used grim shots of the now-boarded-up diner, when other perfectly good pictures were available — some even included in Johnson's own written report. One opponent called the tactic "cynical." The pictures were meant to underscore Johnson's argument that the building met none of the six criteria for a landmark and that the building was too altered and too junky to be a viable landmark.
The building, however, had its passionate advocates, including Eugenia Woo of DoCoMoMO-WeWA, the modern architecture preservation group; Al Hess, California architect, author, and expert on modern roadside architecture; Andrews, the spurned consultant who submitted a letter to the board saying that she disagreed with Johnson's conclusion and thought the diner may well be worth saving; Christine Palmer of the preservation group Historic Seattle; and a number of other architects and Ballard residents who submitted letters or came to testify on the diner's behalf.
The pro-Denny's case was led by Alan Michelson, head of the Architecture and Urban Planning Library at the University of Washington and an architectural historian who has done extensive research on Bay Area architects. He wrote a lengthy pro-nomination report that outlined why the building met several of the landmark board's qualifications, notably that it "embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style" (Googie); that "it is an easily identifiable visual feature of its neighborhood ... and contributes to the distinctive quality or identity of such neighborhood or the city" (everyone passing by Ballard knows it); that it "is associated in a significant way with a significant aspect of the cultural, political, or economic heritage of the community, city, state or nation" (the Manning's coffee/restaurant chain); and that "it is an outstanding work of a designer or builder” (Clarence Mayhew).
No one seemed to have a good handle on how the landmarks board would vote. During the course of the evening, the board issued death sentences on three charming old brick apartment buildings on Capitol Hill near Cal Anderson Park. They were almost unanimous that they failed to meet the city's landmark standards. The buildings are being razed to be used as a staging area for Sound Transit construction. In addition, making the case for modern landmarks can be difficult. Older buildings are more easily regarded as historic while younger ones (less than 50 years old) often fall into arguments about taste rather than significance.
But as it turned out, the landmarks board agreed with most of Michelson's points. Some members were downright enthusiastic about the diner's qualifications. And at least one lamented that they hadn't had the chance to save the old Twin Tee Pees diner on Aurora. Some members didn't seem to want to let another unique piece of roadside architecture slip through their fingers. The nomination was approved by an 8-1 vote. Here's a description of the landmark process and what the next steps are.
The vote stunned both proponents and opponents of the nomination, who immediately left the hearing room and formed two caucuses in the hall outside.
One group, mostly in suits and ties, could be called the "What the Hell" caucus. This consisted of the shocked representatives of the owners and developers who couldn't believe anyone was taking the building seriously. Benaroya's Nemirow said he was "surprised and disappointed." The developer's spokesman, PR man Louis Richmond, said they would continue to fight the landmark designation and predicted that no developer would want to develop the property as long as the building was standing. It'll just become "another blighted block," he predicted, and he criticized the process for not taking into consideration the financial implications of the decision.
The other stunned group, dressed mostly in black, consisted of pro-diner architects and preservationists. Call it the "What Now?" crowd. They pow-wowed to figure out how to bolster their case and counter the next moves of Benaroya and company. But everyone seemed shocked that the preservationists, fighting above their weight class, had won a round bout against the big boys.
It seemed like a vindication of modern architecture — even the kitschy, commercial kind — as landmark-worthy. It was also a victory for old Ballard, a community once defined by its quirky character, not just its proliferating condos.
I did mention them but not by name. If you go to the Seattle Landmarks Board website and click "current nominations," you will see nominations (text and picture files) for three buildings: Marynel/Chevlier Apartments, Marianne Apartments, and the Agincourt Apartments. The board turned down their landmark nominations last night. No one from the community was there to speak up for them and the board was nearly unanimous in turning them down. They are part of a group of some 17 buildings Sound Transit wants to tear down in order to construct the light rail station on Broadway. This includes the block north of John and wonderful places like the building housing Vivace Cafe.
I'm not sure. The station takes up much of the one block; I think the stuff south of Denny is for staging construction. Hopefully the community will bird dog Sound Transit on the design station and what comes after for those properties.
I am informed that the Norton Building approval was its final designation, so its fate has been decided by the board. The Ballard Denny's/Manning's will have its designation hearing on Feb. 6, as mentioned.
If you look at the actual landmark criteria, the Denny's appears to meet at least two or three of the requirements. A landmark need meet only one. One of the most important is the fact that it was designed by a highly regarded modern architect--a fact that was unknown previously. Your point about the public outcry is an important point. When the Denny's was threatened with demolition in 1984, there was large community resistance and it was saved. Denny's kept the old Manning's building, though they made modifications. Today, those old Ballardites are mostly gone, and along them much of the community memory about the place. Though not all: several Ballard people spoke at the hearing about it. nevertheless, those leading the charge to save the place are historians and architects--people who have taken on the task of remembering its significance.
Telly: The landmark consideration does not include the adjacent building with Sudden Printing, etc., only the Denny's/Manning's. If it is designated a landmark, the representative of Benaroya, Marc Nemirow, told me that Rhapsody would not buy the property for its development because the deal is contingent on it coming to them unencumbered, and landmark status would be considered an encumbrance. Whether a new deal could be negotiated or a new buyer/developer found I don't know, but the property is large enough with its parking lot that it does seem possible that the diner could be built around, but I don't know whether that is feasible or whether the landmark designation would allow that. It's not clear how much of the site would be included in the landmark. It does seem to me that the corner could be developed more creatively than the other corners of 15th and Market.
When I get info on comment procedures, I will post them in this comment thread and in a future update on the story. If anyone knows, please feel free to share.
This whole issue is seriously bothersome from a property rights and liberty standpoint.
Piper: A couple of comments. landmark laws are Constitutional--just like zoning laws. Every property owner understands the concept of buyer beware, and the fact is that if you want to change the use if a property, you have to deal with the regulations and obtain the proper permits and approvals. Also, it is false to suggest that the property is not developable if the building is protected--they would have to develop a new plan in consultation with the city. A new developer might find great promise in restoring the building--imagine it as a new Tom Douglas restaurant or a Top Pot donut shop, or a community gathering place that welcomes people to the Ballard business district. This is being done, for example, with the Methodist Church downtown: with tax incentives and partnerships, historic buildings can revitalize their surroundings, and property owners can make a lot of money from it. That's one reason historic districts can do so well.
Among the people who contend Mayhew is important are Al Michelson of the University of Washington and architectural historian Alan Hess of California. No one is confusing him with Bernard Maybeck, who is a personal favorite of mine, but his work was earlier and distinctly non-Googie.
In response to Knute's reply to my first post...
How much of your own money are you willing to invest to "save" the Googie Denny's?
Kieth: The report you're referring to is the one put together by Larry Johnson working for the developer--a report designed to downplay Mayehew etc. The best case for the building was in a length report by the University of Washington's Alan Michelson which was submitted as part of the public response to the landmark nomination. It contains a section on Mayhew's significance. It's part of the public record, but to my knowledge not available online.
I will be a guest on David Goldstein's radio show on KIRO tonight (Jan. 6) at 9pm talking about historic preservation. It's a call-in show. The number is 1-877-710-KIRO (5476).
Report a violationPosted by: jfollansbee on Jan 3, 2008 8:51 AM