Casey Corr
Casey Corr
Seattle City Council, Position 4
RESPONSE RECEIVED: August 30
1. Why is historic preservation important?
The history of Seattle is retold every day through our historic buildings. With the loss of each historic property, we loose a part of our identity. Preservation strengthens our link to the past.
People move to Seattle in part because of the city’s physical beauty. When important historic buildings are torn down, our city is diminished. If this trend is unchecked, we risk loosing an important reason people come to this city. Historic preservation is also important because of the economic vitality it fosters. Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square are two “must see” locations on any tourists list. These areas contribute to Seattle’s identity and help make this a special place.
2. What should government’s role be in local, state, and national preservation issues, concerns, and opportunities?
Government should work harder to preserve our historic public structures. We have met some success with the work on the State Capital campus, but we can do better locally. Schools have a spotty track record in preservation. Big questions will arise in the transfer of ownership at Ft. Lawton/ Discovery Park. The Parks Department often neglects historic “gems.” Often these come down to prioritizing competing demands for limited resources, but we can do better.
Government can also create and enforce incentives that promote preservation. I am impressed with our Landmarks process, but think something needs to be done to save less significant- yet important historic buildings- like the historic housing stock in our neighborhoods.
3. What is your track record of supporting local historic preservation programs?
My family is rooted in Seattle, now in our third generation. My interest in history and preservation started at a young age hearing stories from my parents, grandparents and their friends. (For example, my mother’s father worked at the Frye Meat Packing Plant near Boeing Field- in a building that suffered the ill effects of a plane crash during WWII.) Much of my support of preservation is present in my work as a journalist. I believe that awareness of our past is the best way to help save it. At the Seattle Times and P-I I urged support for the preservation of our historic waterfront, and called for strong public involvement. I was critical of the convention center overpass and what it did to the historic view-lines of buildings and the waterfront. I wrote books on pivotal figures in Seattle’s history including Dorothy Bullet and Craig McCaw and another on the Northgate Mall and its significance to the built environment across the nation.
4. Local government entities own many historic properties, both designated as well as eligible for designation as landmarks. What is your position on the stewardship of these properties? What amount of funding for maintenance and rehabilitation would you support for these properties?
Preservation often comes down to competing public demands, but once a building is gone, it is gone for good. We owe it to future generations to save what we think is important- and fund maintenance and rehabilitation accordingly.
5. What policy changes would you support to strengthen protections for designated landmarks?
The TDR system is an interesting solution, but it needs to be tweaked to make it work better. We should look to local preservationists- both at the city and at organizations like Historic Seattle to find solutions that work, but also don’t stifle the economy. We should also look to other cities to see if we can replicate their good work and not recreate the wheel.
6. What policy changes would you support to strengthen protections for buildings which have previously been surveyed and were determined to be eligible for a landmark designation?
If a building is eligible to be a landmark, let’s make them a landmark. If there are a number of similar buildings or of a similar type- we should work with owners, neighbors and interested citizens to develop a sensible blanket landmark process.
7. What policy changes would you support to strengthen protections for older buildings which have not yet been surveyed and have not been evaluated for eligibility for a landmark designation?
We need a comprehensive survey of historic buildings. Without knowing what we have, we won’t know what we should save. Then we need to work on incentives to help owners and developers save the important ones. There should be a “tool kit” of some kind available to owners of important buildings that aren’t landmarks per say, but are also worth saving. This “inventory” would be fun and educational. We could enlist the media, say the P-I, to help build awareness.
8. In communities across the nation, public funds have been used to survey the historic integrity of neighborhoods. In what ways would you support a comprehensive survey to identify, evaluate, and potentially designate properties as historic landmarks?
My understanding is that the city is in the process of conducting a survey. This should be funded and perhaps fast- tracked, especially in light of zoning changes and increasing development pressures. I’m not yet aware of the specific proposed budget.
9. Some community plans call for protection of architectural character and historic buildings with the establishment of conservation districts and design controls. What actions would you support to sustain community character?
Neighbors on the South end of Queen Anne have recently seen older buildings with distinctive character torn down. It’s time for the council to look at ways we can provide incentives to preserve our heritage.
10. FOR CITY OF SEATTLE CANDIDATES ONLY: The Mayor has proposed height and density increases in the downtown area. This proposal, combined with an improving economy, will increase pressure to demolish historic structures. To address this concern, the proposal includes additional incentives for retaining historic structures. Do you support these changes as proposed? If not, why not? What other preservation incentives or controls do you think should be considered?
I support the proposal for height and density increases in downtown. More people living in the urban core will decrease pressure on suburban sprawl and make Seattle a more vital place to live.
I am concerned about potential unintended consequences of these changes. We need to look closely at these changes and make sure they do what we want and not destroy legacies.
11. FOR CITY OF SEATTLE CANDIDATES ONLY: Designated historic districts are already established in Seattle, including Pioneer Square, the International District, Columbia City, and Ballard. How would you support the allocation of additional city resources to continue architecturally sensitive development in these historic areas?
Our Historic Districts are treasures that need continued protection. I support the Department of Neighborhoods’ efforts in the preservation of these areas. City council should insure that they get the funds they need to do their job right.