Earthquake damage to the King County Courthouse, and ongoing changes in the administrative needs of the many entities who use the building, have rankled the brow of more than a few lawyers who regularly occupy the landmark. The following academic debate (the building will be reused and upgraded, though not restored) on the fate of the building is an excerpt from a opinion piece to be printed in October's King County Bar Association Bulletin

Con: The Courthouse is an Outdated Relic, Let's Move

It's unfortunate that we didn't have this debate ten years ago. We could have undertaken the planning and public discussion process that is so time-consuming but so necessary for the success of any major public project. Meanwhile, the earthquake threat became a reality that could not be ignored. So now we are making the responsible short-term response: we are retrofitting the courthouse at a tremendous expense and with significant disruption.

But there is also a longer view. Does anyone really think that the current courthouse will be adequate to meet our needs twenty-five years from now? Or even ten years? Are the visions of those who designed the five-story courthouse in 1914 and of those who designed the six-story expansion in 1927 still viable today? (And what were their "visions," to begin with?) When virtually all of county government operated from the courthouse, it made sense for the King County Executive and the County Council to be headquartered there. But does that still make sense now, when the County's administrative functions are dispersed throughout the county? Do we need a jury room attached to every courtroom? Do we need a judge and a judge's chambers attached to every courtroom? How much more money do we want to commit to what is unfortunately a non-descript building architecturally and a dysfunctional one administratively?

Which brings us to the preservation conundrum. Sure, we should preserve an architectural heritage for the benefit of the future. But the current courthouse stretches the limits of any meaningful use of the term "heritage." Let's face it: the courthouse is an office building, and a pretty mundane one at that. Its exterior style can best be described as "builder's classical," with the occasional gargoyle and some column facades now mostly covered in the 1967 modernization.

The interior certainly has a lot of marble hallways. And that's about it. The elevator lobbies have been granted some sort of preservation status, which is fine except for the fact that the elevator system is simply inadequate for the volume of traffic. (I have no hard data for this, other than the fact that everyone I know frequently takes to the stairways if they want to get in, out or around the building within any reasonable time period.) Most of the courtrooms are too big; the remaining ones are too small. The Third Avenue lobby is anti-inspiring. It's depressing to spend any time in the building (even when your case is going your way).

So what to do? Let's resolve to get ourselves a new courthouse. It will take at least five years to do the planning and public review, so by that time we hopefully will be out of the current recession and back into spending money. Let's think, if not out of the box, at least around the edge. Perhaps we should recognize that most of our courthouse resources are devoted to criminal cases and reorganize the new courthouse accordingly. For example, since the prosecutors and public defenders are in the courtrooms daily, should they both have their offices in the courthouse? Should we have a separate courthouse for criminal cases, or a dedicated portion of the courthouse for those cases? Where should the Seattle District Courts be located? How can we best make use of the property where the Juvenile Court is located? Are there any related family or domestic law functions that should handled on the same campus as the Juvenile Court? Do we need/want a court facility on the Eastside?

For starters, let me suggest that, if we decide not to raze the courthouse, we consider a swap: the Executive, the County Council and the county administrative offices now in the County Administration Building (let's hope that even the most fanatical preservationist would have the good sense never to suggest that it should remain standing one day longer than necessary) move into the current courthouse building after its interior is renovated as a functional office building. And we tear down the County Administrative Building (including the fortress walls on Fourth Avenue) and build a new courthouse on the site.

I realize that there are innumerable political problems involved in achieving the consensus to build a new courthouse. But they can be dealt with, and overcome, in time. We lawyers are the logical group to begin evaluating the need for a new courthouse and then work with others in our community to bring about the construction of a courthouse that hopefully our great-great grandchildren will be fighting to preserve many years from now as a true architectural heritage.

Pro: A Landmark with a Future

The King County Courthouse, located at Third and James Street, should be rehabilitated and retrofitted, and continue to provide its historic function. The Courthouse has served as the headquarters of local government for over eighty years, and is a local and regional landmark. The Courthouse possesses great physical integrity and has played a major role in the history of local government. It is associated with important local leaders and is an excellent example of early 20th century architecture and is the outstanding work of prominent local architects Henry Bittman and A. Warren Gould.

Keeping current municipal functions within the historic courthouse visibly connects government with our region's rich heritage, and maintains this architectural and public history for future generations. The King County Superior Court in 1988 formally acknowledged that the courthouse's historic courtrooms were "a symbol of the judicial and democratic processes in King County," and that "preserving, protecting and maintaining (historical) features in the 19 historic courtrooms for the appreciation and education of present and future citizens of King County" was a mutual goal of both the Superior Court and the King County Landmarks Commission.

Maintaining the current courthouse and function is also the most practical, cost-effective solution. In the late 1990s, King County considered the relative costs of either rehabilitation or replacement of the historic building, as well as staying within the current facility versus finding a new location and building anew.

In an internal email dated March 21, 2000, Wendy Keller, a King County Project Control Officer managing various elements of this study, outlined the County's assessment. Within this communication, she summarized several published and unpublished feasibility reports. Below are her primary points:

· The courthouse's current location near the jail is ideal. The cost of transporting prisoners, when the Regional Justice Center and the Prosecuting Attorney's Office are not directly connected, can be expensive. The County spent much time examining these costs, and compared bottom lines associated with prisoner transport in several other states.

· The resale value of the building is limited by its shape and floor heights designed specifically for use by the courts and court-related activities. These features, according to internal King County studies, do not translate well into other uses.

· Between 1990 and 2000, the County spent 46 million on building upgrades. The County studied the replacement costs for a new building and determined that moving is prohibitively expensive. There is little available land near the jail that would make relocation more economically feasible.

· Legal issues surrounding the relocation of work and educational release participants, beds for these individuals, and the extremely lengthy SEPA process related to any substantive changes (including demolition and change of use) of the landmark make the schedule for any new building activity longer than fixing the current courthouse.

These considerations led to the County's decision to stay in the current location. The cultural and historical significance of the building was also a stated concern.

The King County Courthouse was, at the time of its construction, practical, grand and a very good deal. When built, one critic wrote "it can be truly said that the taxpayers receive more for their money than any public building of equal cost around the country. It was constructed at a time when building materials were at their lowest and labor plenty." Prior to the Courthouse's construction, County government was decentralized, with different functions occupying private homes, meeting halls and commercial buildings. The 1916 Courthouse represented the maturation of County government, and dignified the law as Seattle and King County grew from a frontier town surrounded by small farms and forests, to the most populous region of the Pacific Northwest.

Other historic buildings in the blocks surrounding the courthouse have been, or are in the process of being repaired and retrofitted. In many cases, property owners have sacrificed a great deal to save and upgrade historic buildings. The County's decision to give up and move out, which puts more demands on taxpayers than staying, is not only impractical, but is disrespectful of the community whose interests it represents. How can a government that demolishes or abandons the architectural embodiment of 80 years of municipal history expect citizens to respect and preserve the historic built environment, and abide by laws set up to govern the management of irreplaceable cultural resources?

View last month's Pending Landmarks article

Back to Top