In addition to design review based on a project's individual merits, developments planned next to a City of Seattle landmark must be evaluated by the Landmarks Preservation Board and landmarks staff. This policy is a part of State Environmental Protection Act regulations governing the review of impacts to the natural and cultural environment.

In compliance with a local amendment to the SEPA requirement, Seattle's city preservation officer crafts responses to these proposals based on comments from the Landmarks Board. These are then provided to the planner stewarding the project within the Department of Planning and Development who oversee project review and permitting in Seattle.

Landmarks Review

The Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board is a diverse group, some of whom are design professionals who have trained to look at, and talk about design and the built environment. Being a part of a preservation board is a great education in reading visual information - much of the work of the board relates to evaluating new designs as much as assessing the historic significance of buildings and places.

This role as design reviewer was illustrated at the March 17th meeting. The Board received a briefing on the project planned to replace First Methodist Church, to provide the city's preservation officer with comments.

Michael Whalen, the primary architect in charge of bringing the concept through design review and permitting, presented one element of a three-part design.

Three design groups are focused on discrete parts of the project. 1) Bassetti Architects is responsible for the new church design; 2) Whalen produced the scheme for the office tower; 3) Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen are working with the Rainier Club on a health club facility which will connect the south side of the landmark with the new construction on the other half of the block.

This tripartite design has yet to come together neatly; the landmarks board and staff review the office tower and Rainier Club addition separately, though they are all a part of the same project on the same block. The church design is exempt from design review.

The new church will be located on the south side of the block, and in its preliminary form, greatly resembles our new City Hall building. The church proscribed that their building be a discrete architectural statement, clearly discernable from the office tower - this is the case, but the end result right now is awkward. Further review may iron out some of the problems.

Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen's design for the health club recedes in its context. The design is horizontal gesture that disappears into the new church and the base of the office tower.

Landmarks Review Comments

The Design Review Board (DRB) evaluated the office tower design on February 24th. They did not consider the design's historic context, which was a point addressed at the March 17th briefing. They focused on mass, scale, volumes, the proposal's relationship to other tall buildings, and materials.

Though the DRB role is to consider the new design only, the commission's failure to evaluate the relationship between the Rainier Club and the new design is considered a significant problem. Based on comments from various Landmarks Preservation Board members, Karen Gordon, Seattle's Historic Preservation Officer, had the following to say about the proposal:

"The sculptural composition of the new sanctuary is a departure from the First United Methodist's existing presence on the block, relative to the Rainier Club. Through this design, the church would have a strong presence on Columbia as well as on Fifth Avenue. That is a dramatic switch from what is there now and as a result, the form of the new sanctuary competes with the Rainier Club rather than providing a backdrop similar to the current church education wing..."

"There is also a desire to have a more graceful transition from the base of the sanctuary to the proposed addition to the Rainier Club."

The Landmarks Preservation Board was also concerned about levels 3 through 5 in the office tower.

"The plinth, from which both the office tower and sanctuary springs, looms over the Rainier Club, and the wall that extends to the shared property line enforces the verticality of the new projects, which together diminish the presence of the Rainier Club. Additionally, the contrast of the dark shadows of the plinth area with the light walls of the new tower is a concern.

"Like the sanctuary on the corner, that feature also competes with the Rainier Club and a more subdued backdrop for the building is recommended. We believe that this can be achieved without disrupting either the programmatic needs of the church or the usable square footage of the building."

The Code

So what exactly to does the code say about proposed developments adjacent to landmarked resources?

from SMC 25.05.675, H

d. When a project is proposed adjacent to or across the street from a designated site or structure, the decisionmaker shall refer the proposal to the City's Historic Preservation Officer for an assessment of any adverse impacts on the designated landmark and for comments on possible mitigating measures. Mitigation may be required to insure the compatibility of the proposed project with the color, material and architectural character of the designated landmark and to reduce impacts on the character of the landmark's site. Subject to the Overview Policy set forth in SMC Section 25.05.665 (SEPA regulations), mitigating measures may be required and are limited to the following:

i. Sympathetic facade treatment;

ii. Sympathetic street treatment;

iii. Sympathetic design treatment; and

iv. Reconfiguration of the project and/or relocation of the project on the project site; provided, that mitigating measures shall not include reductions in a project's gross floor area.

Sympathetic Design?

What does this mean? How can a design be sympathetic? Fortunately or unfortunately, the degree to which a given design is sympathetic to its existing context is somewhat subjective, guided in part by the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Structures. Guidelines established by the Department of the Interior also relate to additions to historic buildings, not just the conservation of materials. These guidelines state that the addition "should always be clearly differentiated from the historic building and be compatible in terms of mass, materials, relationship of solids to voids, and color."

In a May 2003 article in Preservation Seattle, Steven Day, AIA, provided insights into these guidelines as relates to modern additions.

Clear differentiation between old and new, and compatibility of design elements is a very general directive, quite open for interpretation and debate. Anything might qualify as clearly different from the historic fabric so long as it does not exactly mimic the old. Where does the sympathy lie?

Visual Literacy

Oftentimes, sympathy is in the eye of the beholder, or at least what's directly in front of them. It's often easier to understand what doesn't work when incompatibility is evident in a rendering, drawing or model.

The problem facing all reviewers, the Landmarks Board, the Design Review Board and the general public in the case of a charrette or open house, is interpreting visual information provided which may or may not adequately represent the actual design. Some designers carry their design-school-cool too far with the general public, which leads to confusing images which may work as art, but not as a form of communication.

The case of the proposed project adjacent to the Rainier Club (the one replacing First United Methodist Church) provides yet another example of selective reality in visual communication.

One of the images, while attractive, presented the Rainier Club as a void, a white absence in the shape of the building, next to the new design. The intention was to remove "extraneous" information from the drawing. The result was to assert that the new design was more important than its context.

Come Again?

It's up to the reviewer to say (or admit) they don't speak or comprehend the language. It's also perfectly valid, just like a report or an impact statement, to ask for more information. The problem is, many people who aren't design professionals feel a little intimidated and self-conscious when reading visual information.

Design review meetings are generally pretty sparsely attended as a result, and comments are generally restricted to "that's too big, I don't like it, it's ugly, it blocks my view," and so forth. That means architects, design professionals, planners, and other professionals are the primary reviewers, and the general public are left to speak generally, and often don't comment in ways that designers can incorporate in new versions of the design.

Given the significance of new construction within a historic context, and in general, this problem suggests public programs that train community groups and interested individuals to be effective design critics.

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top