Why are there so few protected landmarks in Seattle?

I get that question, and a lot of others, from locals who mourn the loss of a building like Queen Anne's now deceased Black House, designed by noted architect Andrew Willatsen. This question doesn't have a simple answer, but is related to what people think about preservation's place in Seattle, and what role they play, if any, in protecting what's left of the city's historic character.

Well, it's a young city, a lot of people say, there just isn't much history here, and not so many important older buildings to save.

Seattle was founded in 1851, which is not a long time ago geologically speaking, but is older than other communities with many more designated landmarks than we have. Seattle has a significant history, important to the country, and a sizable heritage community who knows and cares about it. HistoryLink, the nation's first online encyclopedia dedicated to local history, was established here. That resource is loaded with easily accessible proof that Seattle has no lack of history. It's not an issue of quality or quantity.

And there are a lot of younger communities who are beginning to embrace their post WWII heritage. Richland, Washington, developed primarily as a company town for the Hanford Nuclear facility just saw its first historic district designation -- of workers housing from the mid-1940s. Richland is home to perhaps the only nuclear reactor recognized by the National Register, also built during World War II. Richland is increasingly recognizing the value of what makes it unique, and is incorporating this into city planning and cultural tourism. The high school's mascot has long been a mushroom cloud.

The history that Seattle has is its own, unique, shaped by its specific geography, geology, politics, climate, and its place on the national map. It's the northwest corner of the continental US, as far away from East Coast conventions as one can get if one wants to live in a city. That context lends significance to the place and the character of its older buildings and structures.

Well, everything worth saving has been saved.

A member of the preservation community actually said this to me a few years ago. While a number of cherished landmarks and landmark districts are protected by city ordinance, there are many, many more, both downtown, and in the city's many neighborhoods. A list of potential landmarks in the expanded downtown area, as identified during a number of environmental impact studies, includes buildings like the potentially threatened terracotta-clad Lincoln Mercury dealership on the edge of South Lake Union, the Medical Dental Building on East Olive Way near Pacific Place Mall, and a number of older hotels that might not pass muster on their own as landmarks, but might as a district.

Seattle's neighborhoods are chock-a-block with significant buildings, not yet landmarked. Though not threatened, the Sorrento Hotel in First Hill is arguably one of the city's most outstanding historic hotels. Period. It's not a designated city landmark. The Egyptian Theater on Capitol Hill, which was beautifully restored and is well taken care of isn't landmarked in the city either. Nor is Millionaire Row, a collection of dazzling houses on Capitol Hill, nor are some of the remaining mansions on Highland Drive in Queen Anne.

Well, people interested in landmarks and preservation are elitists trying to keep status quo. Seattle just isn't that kind of place.

Actually, Seattle is known, nationwide, for its rehabilitation of hotels, apartment buildings and large historic homes into affordable housing. Local preservation architecture firm Stickney Murphy Romine seems to do little else. Two of the first big preservation wins in Seattle were associated with low income and working class history - Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market, respectively.

Seattle's version of Jane Jacobs, activist architect Victor Steinbrueck, was as much a labor advocate as he was a preservationist. His father worked for the railroad. No silver spoon there. Even wealthy philanthropists, like the late Patsy Collins, bought and preserved an old family property with an aim to sustain its operation through work -- in that case, a catering company. Historic Seattle, chartered in 1974 to protect the city's architectural heritage has generated 80 units of affordable housing in its development projects.

Conversely, many of Seattle's Public Development Authorities, conceived with broad development objectives, or to create affordable housing, have rehabilitated historic buildings in the process of their work.

Well, in this economy, preservation just has to take a back seat. It's time to hunker down. Basic services are what's important. Preservation is frivolous.

Actually, preservation tends to take place in inverse proportion to the economy. When the economy is good, threats of demolition are often higher because there's more money for new development. Higher and denser building envelopes make more of a difference to preservation when someone can actually take advantage of the opportunity. When the economy is bad, less security and capital tends to mean that developers will expend less money to fix up a property and make it useful, or at least not tear it down while it generates some revenue. Tacoma's preservation benefited from extended economic doldrums.

A number of studies have demonstrated that historic preservation produces more jobs that new development because they tend to be more labor intensive. Preserving the unique character of places has also been linked to increased business activity in older neighborhoods and urban districts. The National Trust for Historic Preservation maintains a collection of case studies demonstrating the link between preservation and economic revitalization.

The New York City Independent Budget Office published a study on September 9, 2003 entitled, "The Effect of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values." Among its conclusions were that, all things being equal, the prices of houses within historic districts are higher than those for similar houses outside historic districts.

Florida commissioned a study of preservation's impacts on its economy. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has a collection of publications on the economic benefits of historic preservation in towns and cities around the country.

When unique and historic character is a neighborhood selling point, chronic tear downs might be seen as lowering the desirability of a place, as do infill projects with designs incompatible with their historic context.

Preservation is tantamount to communism!(paraphrased from an interview with a long-time preservationist who cut his teeth in Ballard.)

The capitalistic spirit that drives developers and homeowners with an eye toward maximizing return on their investment is the most difficult element of preservation advocacy in Seattle, and in most other parts of the country. Property rights concerns are strong in the West, so strong that it is somewhat surprising we have so many historic structures still standing. Clearly, property rights and a laissez faire attitude toward the past aren't the only forces driving development here.

Preservation is a bipartisan issue, supported by a number of Presidents on both sides of the two-party coin. The Clinton Administration had Save Americas Treasures. The current administration has Preserve America. Though the two parties might bicker about what constitutes a landmark, preservation has something for both groups. Preservation's bipartisan character makes lobbying for better preservation incentives - tax incentives, grants, mitigation packages, federal and state programs - and funding for regulatory preservation offices, slightly easier.

Preservation's close relationship with sustainability could make it compatible with the Green Party's agenda, but this has yet to emerge on that party's platform.

Though most preservationists are not communists, at least not in this country, some communist countries are seeing the value of heritage tourism. Havana, for instance, has preservation police.

Preservation in Seattle isn't what it used to be in the days when Pike Place Market was saved. Those were the days. People just don't have that kind of activist passion or leadership anymore.

While true, the character of preservation has changed in Seattle, from a fringe group of activists operating in the political context of the late 1960s and early 70s, in many ways, its just a lot easier for preservationists now, the issues are slightly different, the field is more professional, policies are more mature and supportive, and the nature of advocacy has changed with the development of the world wide web.

Many of the big battles that helped motivate the first generation of preservation's advocates in the 1960s and 70s have passed, have been won or lost, and in many cases, passed out of memory for those of us in the next generation. What's left to save is the vernacular environment of streets and neighborhoods, collections of buildings that contribute to the character of the whole. This kind of preservation takes neighborhood activism which is far from dead in this city.

The institutionalization of preservation has helped protect our historic built environment by establishing a set of rules, regulations and criteria for establishing significance and appropriateness of changes, but has, in some ways, alienated a large segment of the population passionate about saving the good stuff. Nothing drains passion like reading through a 400-page environmental impact statement, or sitting through a three hour public hearing waiting to speak for two minutes.

People seem interested in helping out, but often feel disempowered by the very processes designed to solicit their input.

Why doesn't Historic Seattle do more to save endangered buildings? Why are we still losing old buildings with all these regulations in place? Why doesn't Historic Seattle or the City just landmark all buildings worth landmarking? How can Historic Seattle let building's like the Black House and the Twin Teepees be torn down without a fight?

When Historic Seattle was first established in 1974 as a public development authority, it was charged with preserving the city's architectural heritage. For many years, and with very little staff support (just an Executive Director and some administrative assistance), Historic Seattle developed many endangered properties, and is unusual within the preservation community nationwide in this regard. Most preservation groups are education and advocacy oriented, in part because its much cheaper not to develop properties. Developing properties is also extremely time consuming.

Historic Seattle's Executive Directors have had relatively little time to attend all the community meetings, conduct research, follow public processes, develop relationships and build grass roots support necessary to be effective advocates. Slowly, over the past thirty years, the organization has grown to support more educational programming, and in 2001, raised enough money to hire a full time preservation advocate.

The first years of this new role in the community have laid the groundwork for better vigilance, but our advocacy still needs to grow and improve to be effective. Advocacy requires eyes in the community looking out for potential threats, and help from the city's Department of Planning and Development who review all permits.

Now that full-time advocacy is three years old at Historic Seattle, we're much better able to support an endangered buildings list, due out in the next few months. This list, which we're calling "Lost, Saved, and Endangered," will help educate the general public about past and present threats, in hopes that we can build community support. Landmark nominations are one component of advocacy, but can be time consuming for one person working on a number of issues at once. If many people work on nominations together, many can get produced quickly, and in some cases, proactively.

Last year, Historic Seattle and the City's historic preservation program hosted a landmarks nomination workshop, which we're improving this year. The goal of the workshop is not only to empower anyone to write a successful nomination, but to actually start a number of real nominations with a built-in support group. This year (2004) the workshop will take place at the Good Shepherd Center on May 8th from 9am to 1pm and is free and open to anyone.

Historic Seattle is still dedicated to preserving Seattle's built heritage after 30 years, but needs more members, more community support, and an expanded network of engaged watchdogs. We can provide the technical assistance, the coordinated central point for networked information, educational information about threatened buildings, and share community concerns with policy makers. We can also go through those 400-page policy documents and make official comments.

What we need is the dedication and passion of engaged neighbors and their volunteered time -- time spent preparing nominations, writing letters, walking through their neighborhoods with eyes toward potential trouble, and attending public meetings.

There's plenty of work to go around to save the best of Seattle's past. The question is, will you lend a hand to the cause?

For more information, contact me, Historic Seattle's Preservation Advocate at advocacy@historicseattle.org or call at 206-622-6952 extension 226.

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top