As City Council considers the Landmarks Preservation Board's decision to approve designation of the 1962 monorail, more than the fate of the less-than-popular pylons is at stake. Throughout the landmarks review process, those protesting the designation have apparently misunderstood the role of the landmarks board, the criteria, and the process. In an effort to explain how the Landmarks Board made (and makes) their decisions, board members Larry Kreisman and Lorne McConachie wrote a guest editorial that appeared in the Seattle Times on May 15th.

The debate continues on July 9th at a public meeting scheduled for 5pm in the Council's chambers on the 11th floor of the Municipal Building (600 Fourth Avenue). The Council has not made a habit of overturning Landmarks Board decisions, in part because the Certificate of Approval process, which would be the next step if the 1962 monorail were proposed for demolition, is the conventional route by which changes to (or demolitions of) city landmarks are considered. Designation does not freeze structures in time or prevent future changes.

As a part of the landmarks process, City Council makes the final decision related to ordinances controlling designated landmarks. Because the 1962 monorail stands in the path of the preferred Green Line route, City Council has been mulling over the reasons for or against the landmark designation.

What has given the City Council pause is the scope of the designation. Within the designation language, the Landmarks Board treated the resource as a system, not a set of pieces with greater and lesser significance. This means that the cars (whose importance hasn't been debated), original concrete beams and pylons as well as elements of the Seattle Center station are included within the designation being considered by City Council.

The City Council can accept the Landmarks Boards designation as is, reject it outright, or choose to designate fewer features than recommended in the controls. They can also vote for designation with no controls.

If the Council accepts the Landmarks Board recommendation, the 1962 monorail can still be torn down - this would occur after review of a Certificate of Approval for demolition, which would require that the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority demonstrate that no feasible alternative exists to preserve the system while building the Green Line. Much of the feasibility work required for this argument has already been conducted.

Councilmember Nick Licata called a meeting for July 9, 2003 to air the controversial issue. In his email newsletter Urban Politics dated June 6, Licata explains why he is not inclined to support historic landmark status for the 1962 monorail. He writes:

"I believe that voters cast a vote to tear it down when they voted to build a new monorail system. I believe a new monorail will improve 5th Avenue, and will deliver on the Belltown community's long-standing desire for a neighborhood station. I do support landmark status for the monorail cars, and believe they should be preserved."

Though the route of the 1962 was mentioned in the Elevated Transportation Company's description of the prevailing Green Line concept before the vote, planning for the system was only preliminary before 51% of Seattle voters approved the new monorail on November 5th last year. Since then the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority has conducted numerous community meetings to scope out the content of the Environmental Impact Statement that would help determine how best to implement the Green Line.

This decision, to overrule or maintain the Seattle Landmarks Board's recommendations, is the first of many preservation-related decisions the City Council will have to make as a part of the new monorail planning process. Construction of stations and guideways will have an impact on designated and potentially significant buildings, especially in the urban core. The Second Avenue segment has numerous designated landmarks, and is itself, historically significant. The segment joining the Sinking Ship garage with King Street Station cuts through Pioneer Square, a local, state and nationally recognized historic district.

Supporting the Landmarks Board decision will not prevent the SPMA from developing its preferred plans. If City Council chooses to deny landmarks designation in this case, much care should be taken to distinguish how the circumstances supporting their decision are truly extraordinary, and do not reflect lack of support for the Seattle Landmarks Board and their role in protecting this city's unique heritage.

Anyone interested in this issue should plan to attend the July 9th public hearing. Nick Licata has scheduled a discussion and possible vote in the Neighborhoods, Arts & Civil Rights Committee on Tuesday, July 22.

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top