1962 Monorail Landmark Designation

How will landmark designation impact planning for Seattle's Green Line?

On April 16, (2003), the Seattle Landmarks Board voted unanimously in favor of designating the 1962 monorail. The Board included the system's concrete pylons, the interiors and exteriors of the cars, and the Seattle Center station within its ruling. This decision ran against the expressed hopes of a number of community members, as well as the wishes of the owner (Seattle Center) and those of the Seattle Monorail Authority (SMA), its future owner.

Prior to Board deliberations, a number of people testified, mostly against the inclusion of the pylons in the designation. These structural elements do not correspond to the technology of the new monorail whose route currently follows that of the 1962 line. No one claimed the monorail wasn't significant, in general. A few speakers noted that the line had detracted from business development in the Belltown-Regrade neighborhood.

These comments did not relate to the criteria the Seattle Landmarks Board uses to designate city landmarks.

The Board considered how the monorail met or did not meet the six established criteria for significance. New Board member Tom Veith began the discussion by asserting that if the monorail is considered a system, the resource cannot be compared to a railroad, which was an analogy presented by the SMA's consultants. The monorail system, unlike a railroad, is uncommon.

Another Board member noted that unlike a railroad, the monorail system was only a mile long, and a discrete prototype. Another pointed to the acquired meaning of the 1962 monorail. The system, including the cars and the pylons, is iconic, and appears commonly in representations of the city, such as one might see in a snow globe. Yet another Board member noted that the monorail system tied many cultural themes together -- Seattle's view of progress, technology, and innovative transportation solutions are embodied in the 1962 prototype.

The Board concluded that the 1962 system met criteria A, D, E and F. Explanation of these criteria as relates to the historic monorail appeared in last month's Pending Landmarks feature.

The nomination of the entire system has drawn criticism from many who believe that the effort, which led to the designation of the pylons, stymied the planning process currently underway for the Green Line. Appeal of the Landmarks Board's decision will likely follow.

Mike Lindblom with the Seattle Times likened the designation to a political roadblock for the Seattle Monorail Authority. What has not been mentioned in the press, and was not addressed at the meeting, was that a nomination for the 1962 monorail would have been included as a result of environmental analysis required for the project's EIS. The structure is too iconic to have missed the radar of either the consultant team working on the report, or the community whose input the team must consider.

The nomination came from interested parties within the preservation community. Its volunteer preparers have been active in local design and preservation advocacy for years. The report, as a result, was more thorough than most prepared as a requirement of the project review process. Had a less thorough nomination been prepared, without full information about the elements of the structure, the nomination process may have taken longer. When skimpy nominations come before the Board, it often asks the preparer to provide more information on selected elements. Staff to the Seattle Landmarks Board helps applicants anticipate what the Board will require to expedite this process.

The source of the nomination will also help the Monorail Authority cover its bases in the preservation community. Though not all preservationists support the preservation of the 1962 monorail's pylons, enough do to suggest a decision against designating the pylons may have been appealed.

The testimony at the April 16th meeting suggested a central misunderstanding of the role of nomination and designation. The designation of the monorail, and the future of the monorail are separate considerations for good reason. On April 16th, after the initial nomination presentation in March, the Board considered whether or not the structure was significant based on at least one of the six criteria, and what components of the structure contributed to this significance. As a rule, the Landmarks Board does not consider proposed plans for the structure when determining significance. The Board considers changes to the resource later as a part of the Certificate of Approval process.

The Board considers these two issues separately because it cannot make decisions based on speculative information. The question of whether or not a building is significant, and questions about how the landmark should be adapted for new uses are distinctly different sets of problems. One is a question of history, the other of design and feasibility. Many structures and buildings coming before the Board as potential landmarks are part of development projects involving their demolition or significant alterations. Plans do not always pan out, however. The Landmarks Board cannot adjust its assessment of historical data based on concepts that may or may not come into being.

Roosevelt High School Proposal Received Preliminary OK

On April 2nd, the Seattle Landmarks Board addressed a larger-than-usual crowd on the 10th floor of the Arctic Building. Most in attendance came to speak for or against a preliminary proposal (a Certificate of Approval, or COA) to demolish part of historic Roosevelt High School. The school, located at 1410 NE 66th Street, was designated in June of last year. The designation included the school's 1928 boys' and girls' gyms, and an auditorium that was originally a lecture hall.

Roosevelt High School is comprised of a series of additions. The original building, constructed in 1922, was designed by locally-renowned architect Floyd Naramore. Naramore designed a 1928 addition similar to his original design. Two other buildings were added to the site in the 1960s. While all people involved in the debate over changes to the school are dedicated to providing Roosevelt students with the best facilities, opinions have differed regarding the new plans.

The April 2nd meeting was the culmination of years of planning, countless hours of public meetings, subcommittee groups, and long-range work by Seattle Public Schools.

Roosevelt High School is a part of comprehensive plans to improve local school facilities. In the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) developed to analyze changes to the historic building, the School District identified four possible scenarios, and weighed their respective impacts. One of these was no action at all. The EIS process is an integral part of project planning and helps identify impacts, not only to historic resources, but to a number of critical elements such as noise, air, traffic, light, and other environmental issues.

Bassetti Architects developed a number of schemes based on a decision-making matrix that included the programmatic requirements established by the district, as well as concerns about maintaining the historic character of the school. A design team involving the architects, representatives from the school district, and the Roosevelt community discussed design issues as plans for the school developed.

A member of the design team, Andrea Wilson, and other community members who formed a group called the Friends of Roosevelt High School, were concerned that plans seemed to short change key designated interiors. Wilson, an interior designer by training, and her husband, Chris Larson, developed an alternative to Bassetti's plan that would preserve more of the building. Wilson and Larson have presented iterations of this alternative during review meetings with the Landmarks Board over the last several months.

At the April 2nd meeting, Wilson and Larson presented this plan to the Board after Bassetti's Marilyn Brockman presented the school district's plan which is a part of a preliminary certificate of approval for alterations to the building. The plans are preliminary for practical reasons -- the designers needed initial approval of general ideas before more time and money are spent exploring plans involving demolition of designated interior spaces.

Comments from the Landmarks Board included support for a proposal that would expose more of the 1922 building by removing 1960s additions, and concern about the reversibility of proposed changes (a component of National Park Service standards for rehabilitation of historic buildings). One board member acknowledged that the process of considering changes to Roosevelt was one of the hardest she'd faced. Another recognized that the current auditorium, which will be adapted to become the school's library, was currently not functioning well as an auditorium, and underutilized generally. Another board member noted that the library function seemed more consistent with the original function of the space, which was a community meeting venue, not an auditorium.

A larger-than-normal number of people testified for and against the proposal. These included teachers concerned about the limitations of the existing conditions, Friends of Roosevelt High School representatives, Chris Jackins representing the group Friends of Seattle Public Schools, and Roosevelt alumni. Local activist Matthew Fox spoke out against the demolition of the 1928 gyms. Testimony from alumni was arguably the most surprising. Some older alums wanted to see the historic building come down for a brand new school. All "Golden Grads" in attendance were in support of changes that would support the highest quality education for Roosevelt students.

After some deliberation, the Board voted in favor of the preliminary proposal which would demolish the historic gymnasiums.

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top