Woodland Park Zoo is a great example of a historic cultural landscape. The story of how the park has evolved and developed over time illustrates not only changing cultural values, but also technological and philosophical advances in zoological management and ecological awareness. Some of this story can be read in existing landscape features.

Today, many preservation advocates and community groups are urging local planning agencies to expand traditional concepts of preservation to include cultural landscapes, whose work parallels the educational efforts of the National Park Service. The role of preservation within the overall development of the park and its new plans demonstrate the complexities of cultural landscape preservation.

A Cultural Landscape History

In 1903, John C. Olmsted designed the first plan for the zoological gardens on the grounds of what had been the estate of Guy C. Phinney. In 1889, Phinney established a small menagerie of animals, along with other amenities such as a hotel, bandstand and ball park. He hoped to develop adjacent land as a real estate investment and established a street car line from Fremont to shuttle prospective buyers.

In 1899, six years after his untimely death, the city purchased the property from Phinney's widow. John Olmsted's suggested expanding the zoo's assortment of animals, and as a result, the city accepted the donation of several from Leschi Park, owned by the Lake Washington Cable Railway Co. Between 1908 and 1911, Olmsted developed detailed plans and new facilities were added. At that time, Olmsted was involved in the siting, research of technical requirements, and conceptual planning for all new buildings.

One of these was the Primate House (1911), the only one of these original buildings still extant. Olmsted often guided the development of architectural elements within his firm's landscapes, although the final design was still the province of an architect.

While the southwest corner of the park was laid out in a formal plan including various buildings conceived to "display" the animal collections, other areas of the park were planned with trademark Olmsted pastoral style. This included areas of open spaces, surrounded by natural vegetation and curvilinear paths that followed the topography.

Today, the original path that encircled the former "Great Lawn" still serves as the primary circulation route around the zoo. The "North Meadow" is the only extant remnant of the "Great Lawn." The Rose Garden, still gracing the south entry area at Fremont Ave, was originally constructed by Guy Phinney and incorporated into the Olmsted landscape plan.

Further developments included the additions of a wading pool, tennis courts, a ferris wheel, a carousel and the construction of a lion's den by 1919. During the 1930's, Works Progress Administration (WPA) projects included Goat Hill and Monkey Island. Also during this era, the park was greatly effected by the extension of Aurora Avenue, which divided Upper Woodland Park from Lower Woodland Park upon its completion in 1932.

The amusement rides were removed in 1953. Around the same time, the idea of zoo animals as curiosities presented for amusement and entertainment was being replaced by a scientific and conservation oriented approach. This changing view spurred more naturalistic settings and exhibit design. A Feline House, "naturalistic" bear grottoes and the Ape House (demolished) were built with funds from a bond issue put forth in 1948.

No Small Plans

The first master plan for zoo development was put forth in 1968, but public response to the proposed lidding of Aurora Avenue caused a sound rejection of the plan. In 1974, Jones and Jones Landscape Architects began developing a new Long Range Plan (LRP). When it was presented in 1976, the scheme revolutionized zoo planning. The firm's concept of creating "bioclimatic zones" for naturalistic habitat and an emphasis on understanding the sociobiological needs of the animals grew from the objectives of the newly formed Zoo Action Task Force.

The guiding objective was to place primary interest on fostering public understanding of the history of animal life and its relation to ecological systems. This new "systems view" was a move away from the traditional taxonomic ordering of displays. The ground-breaking Gorilla Exhibit was the first of its kind, and allowed gorillas to form natural social bonds in groups and to roam naturalistic settings, free from their isolated indoor cages.

The Zoo Commission was formed in the mid-1980's to address the lack of funds needed to implement other projects set forth in the 1976 LRP. The Commission successfully campaigned for a bond issue that funded the development of the Elephant Forest, Tropical Rain Forest, Northern Trail, and Trail of Vines between 1989 and 1995.

With these additions, the zoo's reputation as a leader in progressive design expanded and visitation grew. In 1995, the Zoo Commission II reported that the zoo's future focus was to shift away from defining how animal facilities should look towards a new role in defining how a zoo is to be used. Thus, programmatic considerations are to guide future planning.

In February 2002, the Woodland Park Zoo released the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for its 2002 LRP after a three-year planning process. This plan, an update of the zoo's pioneering 1976 LRP, was undertaken to address the changing conditions and needs of the facility in order to accommodate more visitors, provide spaces for visitor activities, and to expand educational programs.

The Public Response

During the public comment period following the release of the draft EIS in April of 2001, the public voiced several concerns about the project proposal. Neighbors worried about the impact of increased traffic and parking lot additions in a residential area. Thus the FEIS was required to present various alternatives for parking addition proposals.

Additionally, many neighbors and preservation advocates wondered why "historic and cultural resources" were not addressed in the draft document. As part of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, the City of Seattle's Parks and Recreation Department (as lead agent in the project) is responsible for determining which "potential impacts" must be addressed in the EIS. Although they did not initially identify potential impacts to historic and cultural resources, public comment was strong enough to dictate such an addition in the FEIS.

Last March, the Phinney Ridge Community Council contested the adequacy of the FEIS for the zoo's 2002 LRP. They charged a lack of appropriate alternatives for the parking additions and noted there was no discussion on the fate of the Primate House, despite the new addition of a section on "historic and cultural resources." However, the subsequent ruling by the City Hearing Examiner determined that the FEIS was adequate in terms of addressing the historic and cultural resources. The examiner conceded that an addendum to address, more completely, the parking and traffic issues was needed.

Preservation Issues and the Planning Process

On February 18th, 2003, the City Landmarks Board will review the nomination of Woodland Park Zoo's Primate House to determine eligibility for landmark status. The building is the oldest on zoo grounds, and one of several historic buildings at the zoo that will be adversely effected by the zoo's 2002 LRP. Other historic cultural resources that may see negative impacts, as noted in the FEIS, include the Administration Building (ARC), which may be demolished, and the Commissary. The foreman's residence, West Gate comfort station, and the War Memorial Garden may be indirectly effected.

The ARC (1948), designed in the International Style, the Commissary (1930) built as a WPA project, the prairie style foreman's residence (1911) and the colonial revival comfort station were all characterized as having good integrity in the FEIS. Although the FEIS states that the Seattle Landmarks Board will be reviewing all of these buildings for determination, the Primate House, which is not even addressed in the document, is the only building for which a nomination form has been prepared. The other buildings have been documented in a cultural resources survey.

Although the FEIS states that Board staff have indicated that these properties would likely be determined eligible, the FEIS concluded that there were no "significant unavoidable adverse impacts" that will occur under any of the proposed alternatives for the plan. It appears as though the War Memorial Garden has not been physically documented as a potential cultural resource.

The city survey format is designed, primarily, for historic structures, not landscapes. Documentation methods and survey formats for cultural landscapes are still in the earliest phases of development -- even the National Parks Service is grappling with the issue though cultural landscape preservation is a priority for that agency.

The EIS, produced as part of the SEPA review, is merely a planning tool used to identify and analyze adverse impacts and to suggest possible alternatives or mitigation measures. It does not serve to make any binding determination of action to be taken. The designation of landmark status, however, carries weight and significantly helps prevent demolition of a cultural resource. However, even if a building is designated, permits for demolition can still be granted through a mitigation process.

While individual buildings are sometimes designated separately within a landscape, such designation is usually dependent upon the interpretation of criteria weighted more heavily towards aesthetic values or more traditional associations with famous people or events. Zoological gardens in themselves are eligible for consideration as a National Historic Site under the category of historic designed landscape. Washington Park Zoo in Michigan City, Indiana is an example of a designated National Register Historic Site, with eleven buildings also listed individually on the Register.

In the summer of 2000, the New York City Landmarks Commission designated the Bronx Zoo's Baird (now Astor) Court (1899-1910) complex of animal houses as a city landmark. The designation encompasses five buildings, including the Primate House, and the North and West Stairs used to access the terraced court. Inspired by the "City Beautiful" Movement, the neoclassical buildings are symmetrically arranged and embellished with elaborate stone and terra-cotta animal sculptures.

Two of these former animal houses have been adapted for re-use for administration and visitor facilities. The designation summary notes that the buildings contribute to making the Bronx Zoo "one of New York City's major cultural attractions." (NYC Landmarks Commission). Interestingly, the design of the Woodland Park Zoo's Primate House was influenced by Olmsted's research of the Primate House at the Bronx Zoo, which had been newly built at the time (Seattle Landmarks Board, Nomination, Primate House).

Under the standard criteria for landmark status, it is often difficult to designate structures whose significance relies heavily on its context. In specific cases in which history is subtly connected to a resource, or if the building in question has been altered over time, a building may not be designated for lack of a strong argument or because the building is altered in a way that makes the original structure difficult to read.

For example, some advocates argue that the Primate House's significance lies in its educational value. Its alterations are significant in that these demonstrate changes in zoo technology and management. Its original neoclassical façade is no longer legible, but the reasons for this are important to understanding zoo history. The Primate House, which was one of the first heated animal houses in a public zoo, was considered both technologically advanced and progressively humane for its time.

Other considerations of preservation values in landscape planning include the traditional emphasis on "object buildings", while historic landscapes are only just beginning to be recognized at local levels around the country. Seattle has a strong reputation for progressive preservation planning since its community-driven rallies to save the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square in the early 1970's. As in the past, present-day community organizations such as the Friends of Olmsted Parks and the Phinney Ridge Community Council provide support and impetus for the next stage in the evolution of grass roots preservation.

In Seattle, landscapes associated with the Olmsted legacy are being recognized and protected by both governmental and community stewards, as well as regulatory bodies like the Landmarks Board. Cheasty Boulevard and the Hiawatha Playground, West Seattle are two examples of locally designated Olmsted landscapes. Volunteer Park is not designated as a local landmark, but is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

A comprehensive survey of Seattle's historic landscapes would be ideal, as would a survey of Olmsted Parks. The Landmarks Board has noted the great value of this in meetings in which fragments of the Olmsted system are up for review and potential designation. Funding is the stumbling block. For this reason, the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department has only persued evaluations on an as-needed basis. Even under such conditions, community advocacy and the public process continue to be the driving force behind successful campaigns for the inclusion of preservation issues in the debate over planning.

For more information about the Woodland Park Zoo visit their website at www.zoo.org. For more about the Seattle Parks and Recreation Departments projects, click here.

To learn more about the history of the Woodland Park Zoo visit Historylink, and online encyclopedia of Seattle and King County history at www.historylink.org.

To review all public government planning documents related to both current and past planning at the zoo (such as the EIS or LRP), go to the Seattle Central Library reference desk.

For preservation related documents go to the Department of Neighborhoods to review the City Landmark Nomination Form for the Primate House or to review historic resources survey documents for the zoo's other historic buildings (request property inventory forms #DPR105 thru #DPR108).

View last month's Preservation & Environment article

Back to Top