On March 5, the Seattle Landmarks Board considered whether or not to nominate the 1962 Monorail to the city's landmarks register. The nominators (Susan Boyle and Andrew Phillips, two preservation architects volunteering their time) and the Seattle Monorail Authority's consultants (Roger Pearce, attorney and Kimberly Demuth, preservation consultant) both agreed the structure was a landmark. The issue is not significance, but rather, what parts of the 1962 prototype should be protected by the landmark ordinance. The questions raised by the nomination at the meeting will no doubt play into the deliberations leading to the designation of the structure on April 16th when the Board makes its landmark landmark decision.

Many of the Seattle Landmarks Board members in attendance were well aware of the significance of this case. The Board's role is not to imagine how their decision will play into future developments that impact the landmark, but rather to identify how the structure in question meets or does not meet the city's landmarks criteria. They will also specify which parts of the structure illustrate this significance so that these elements are identified and protected by law.

The two architects presenting the nomination provided research to support most of the city's established landmarks criteria. The Seattle Monorail Authority's attorney (Roger Pearce) submitted a seven page letter with comments from Kimberly Demuth in response to the nomination's claims. The letter also made suggestions to the Board about how it should interpret the significance, integrity and the methodology of its specific protections.

Linear Resource versus Operational System

The Seattle Monorail Authority's preservation consultant suggested that the Board consider the monorail a linear resource, like a National Register-designated historic rail line which includes contributing and noncontributing elements. The consultant pointed to a Historic Seattle survey, conducted by Victor Steinbrueck and Folke Nyberg in the 1970s which stated that the monorail was a "linear landmark." This treatment is standard practice for Section 106 review which is related to compliance with our state's environmental protection legislation. The role of Seattle's Landmarks Board and Section 106 review is different, however, in that Seattle Landmarks ordinances are regulatory and very specific to each individual landmark while the federal program is a standard process for reviewing impacts to significant natural and cultural resources.

The issue of integrity was a critical part of the Seattle Monorail Authority's response to the nomination. The SMA's consultant stated that the trains, the Seattle Center station and the route contributed to the significance of the 1962 monorail, but that the other elements, including the supports and the Westlake Station were altered so that they lost their historic integrity. The Board discussed integrity as a part of its initial consideration, but eventually decided that each Board member should carefully review the entire line before any final decision could be made about designation of system elements.

How to approach the monorail, whether as a linear resource of contributing and noncontributing elements, or a system whose parts are all significant to the working of the whole, is a question the Landmarks Board will have to decide. As with any nominated landmark, the nominators and the community provide information to the Board, who then applies this information to the criteria to make a final decision about significance, and protected elements. Proposed alterations to designated landmarks and demolitions are separate actions requiring a Certificate of Approval. The Board cannot make decisions about nominations and designations based on future plans.

Contested Criteria

While no one present at the landmarks meeting contested that 1962 monorail met some of the city's criteria, opinions split on which criteria the structure met.

These included:

Criteria A: The monorail is significantly related to an important event in local history, namely, Seattle's Century 21 World's Fair. Along with the Space Needle, the monorail was an iconic image of the fair. Both the nominators and the Seattle Monorail Authority's consultants agreed on this point.

Although some would argue the monorail is significant because of its association with Axel Lennart Wennergren (the monorail is an ALWEG design, which is named after Wennergren), the nominators did not attempt to make this case. One audience member at the hearing stated that the monorail has inspired thousands of children, and thus is significantly associated with a generation of transportation planners and monorail enthusiasts.

Criteria C: The Monorail is significantly related to important trends in our area's history. Specifically, the monorail is linked to our transportation history in a way that makes it a historical benchmark. During the audience's and Board's discussion of this criteria, the relationship between the Monorail and our region's technological history was also considered. The Seattle World's Fair was a significant reflection of our city's identification with progress and the future, and the monorail was an important manifestation of this image. The nominators suggested that the monorail met this criteria.

The Seattle Monorail Authority's representative contested this point, stating that the association with the fair is part of criteria A but not C.

Criteria D: The Monorail's design recalls elements of eclectic modernism. The nominating team pointed to the Brutalist straightforwardness of the supports, the cars' streamlined Moderne style, and the whimsical modernism of the Seattle Center station. Landmarks Board chair and architect Lorne McConaghie stated that he was challenged by this criteria. The Seattle Monorail Authority's consultants also contest this. Criteria D also covers construction method of the specific resource. In this case, the monorail's construction may play a part in its designation, although it will be important for the nominating team to consult with an engineering expert or someone who can speak to the specifics of the monorail's construction and how this relates to other monorail systems.

Criteria E:The nominating team asserted that the Monorail's design is a significant work of an architect or builder. They stated that the 1962 Monorail is the only full size, operating example of an Alweg monorail system in the world. The Seattle Monorail Authority asserted that Criteria E does not hold because the design was sold to Hitachi and was adapted for use worldwide. The nominating team used the same information to support their claim that the early design is significant because it influenced so many others. The SMA's consultant notes that the system's integrity is compromised so that the design is not an outstanding example of the original Alweg design.

Criteria F: Both the nominating team and the Seattle Monorail Authority asserted that the 1962 monorail met Criteria F which relates to the potential landmark's distinctive and easily identifiable visual features. The nominating team notes that the monorail is an iconic visual element of Seattle's urban landscape. The Seattle Monorail Authority interpret the significance somewhat differently. The route is significant, they claim, not the specific concrete columns or guideways.

After considering the preliminary information, the Board chose to nominate the 1962 monorail for landmark designation.

Though the March 5th meeting was an important review of the issues, the April 16th meeting will carry more weight. The latter meeting will determine which criteria the 1962 monorail meet, and which elements will be protected by the city ordinance.

New Board Members

Three new additions to the Seattle Landmarks Board will sit at their first official meeting on March 19. These include Tom Veith, who is filling a vacant historian position, Molly Tremaine, who is filling an "at large" position, and John Schwartz, a real estate specialist.

Tom Veith was a contributor to the University of Washington publication Shaping Seattle Architecture, produced in 1994. Veith graduated from the University of Washington's Masters of Architecture program in 1991. Molly Tremaine once coordinated Historic Seattle's educational programs and volunteers, and is still an active member. John Schwartz leads his own real estate development company, and is a preservation architect. Past projects include the Lake Union Steamplant and Pier 66.

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top