James Fearn, general counsel for the Seattle Housing Authority, is chair of Historic Seattle's governing council. He has been an active member of Seattle's preservation community since the 1970s when he worked in the City of Seattle's law department. In this interview, James shares his thoughts about the value of preservation, the evolution of the local movement, and what's keeping preservation from becoming all that it needs to be in Seattle.

HM: Do you consider yourself a preservationist?

JF: I do, because architecture is my favorite art form, and I want to preserve what pleases me, and a lot of architecture does. I guess that's the primary nature of my interest in preservation although I'm also interested in some degree of cultural and environmental preservation.

Being a traditionalist, I like holding on to some part of what we have and how we live. A rush to the future isn't always good. There's comfort in traditions and neighborhoods and structures. I think many of these things are more important than we realize. We're getting away from them, or they're getting away from us.

HM: So that's what you mean by environmental and cultural preservation, not just preserving the most beautiful and best examples of a design by X architect…

JF: Exactly, the environmental, social and cultural elements relate to how we live, and trying to hold onto the best parts of that, recognizing that things will change.

HM: Have you engaged advocacy for preservation, as a part of your work, besides your being on Historic Seattle's Council? When would you consider your start in historic preservation, and how did that manifest itself?

JF: I got substantially involved when I first went to work for the City of Seattle law department in 1978, and the Landmark's Board and the historic districts became my clients. I asked for the assignment because I had interest, but prior to that time I had not been directly involved with preservation organizations or in particular preservation efforts.

HM: So you were a friend of preservation within your role in the law department, but do you think you would have considered yourself a preservationist then?

JF: I think I've always considered myself a preservationist. I'm not sure where it comes from. Probably just the love of structures and wanting to keep them, but at the time I went to work in the law department, I had pretty much an academic and intellectual interest in preservation.

HM: What are some of the most significant obstacles to preservation, then and now?

JF: I don't think there's really a constituency for preservation, which is what Mayors and Councilmembers respond to. If preservation doesn't move them personally, they have no reason to make it a cause or get involved in it at all. Preservation can also be controversial, and what elected officials like least is controversy.

Initially, there was very little sympathy in City Hall for preserving the Music Hall Theater, when something actually could have been done to save it. The reason is there was no constituency advocating for it. When the building was about to be torn down there was a significant constituency against the demolition, and the council's reaction was much different. There have been ad hoc constituencies on various issues (Franklin School also comes to mind), but there generally has been no organized constituency for preservation in general.

HM: Where were these people when the first decisions were being made?

JF: As I said, I had hoped for some kind of constituency, but there really was none. I made call after call just to get people to testify at the hearing on the certificate of approval, which essentially authorized the demolition, and I couldn't get any interest in it.

HM: Not even Historic Seattle?

JF: Historic Seattle is a much different organization then than it is now. They didn't take positions on controversial issues. So no, not even Historic Seattle. There may have been individuals who, if somebody had been able to gather them up, would have formed some kind of coalition that would have made some kind of difference in City Hall, but it did not happen. The Music Hall had no friends when the decision was being made as to whether it would stay or go. It's a little simplistic, but elected's count votes and money, so if preservation is to influence elected officials, you need people or money, and preferably both.

HM: The years for the Music Hall controversy were the late 80s, from when the initial decisions were being made, and it was ultimately demolished in the early 90s. So it was a long time coming?

JF: Right, they just wanted to get permission to tear the building down so they wouldn't have to worry about it later, when they were ready to develop the site.

HM: So, do you think what happened at the Music Hall, that long process, had some kind of positive impact on preservation in Seattle?

JF: Yes, I think it did. People come out when the bulldozers show up, and then everybody's concerned, and there is a vocal constituency and people do listen to it, and there were some changes that were made in the ordinance so yes, preservation is better off.

HM: So what do you think makes up a critical mass, a constituency that has an effect on local politics?

JF: It takes a number of forms. There's no magic number. Paul Allen seems to be critical mass all by himself. John Fox has had an effect on local politics for years as the Displacement Coalition coordinator. Dog owners and athletic field users are a large organized constituencies that get heard. The commitment, persistence and resolve of the constituency are more important than the size.

HM: Yes, it's just John Fox with a huge email network of people.

JF: I don't think influence is proportionate to the numbers. It's really not a numbers game. It's who you have and how effective they are in impressing upon the decision makers that there are consequences to not doing what we think should be done. I think John Fox's influence has been that he's acted as the irrepressible conscience of elected people. He's there telling them that they're not doing the right thing, and they listen, they say, 'oh my god, you know, deep down inside, you know, I think he's right'

How do you get elected officials to have that same feeling about preservation? It's tough. Preservation is a less essential, people can look at housing, at poor people, and say we have an obligation, I feel we have an obligation to do this. But when preserving a building, people may say, yes, I think this is something that should be preserved, but then a couple things happen.

First, somebody on the other side says "No, if you don't let me demolish this I will be financially injured," which is something you don't have with low income housing for the most part, you don't have anybody saying "no, we shouldn't do it," whereas, with preservation, there's usually an influential person saying, no, we shouldn't do it. There are also economic arguments against preservation which are serious. A person who owns a piece of property, is, in our capitalist culture, entitled to realize some return for that property. How much return is the thorny issue. If there's no structure to be preserved , they're entitled to the maximum return. Once you say, you're not entitled to that, then deciding what you're actually entitled to can be a problem.

First Methodist Church is a great example of that. They don't object to preserving the building, they just say, 'our desire is to have the money. And between keeping the building and having the money, we feel we need to have the money.' And there are a lot of people who identify with that argument. Creating a real preservation ethic is something that I think has to happen over a long period of time. When I was in Charleston, SC and Savannah last year, it was really remarkable to be in a place where preservation is just in the blood, and the assumption is that all buildings will be kept and strong arguments have to made NOT to keep the building. Okay, so I was thinking, 'how do you get to that in Seattle, is it even possible to get to that in Seattle?" Here, I suppose if somebody wanted to tear down Smith Tower, everyone would say, no no no, you can't tear down Smith Tower, but for 99% of the buildings here, I don't think anybody would care. And I don't know how you make people care about the built environment.

HM: I like what you said about it taking time.

JF: Well, I think there's a large number of people who believe in preservation in Seattle, and who would be willing to do something to save particular structures or to advance the cause of preservation in general but someone or some group needs to identify these people and get them organized.

There are a lot of structures in Seattle that are not worthy of preservation, that is, dedicating the land they occupy to that particular use, because that's really what you do, you say, okay we're going to take this piece of land, and it will be used for this purpose, for all time. Generally, this means, getting less economic return from the property, both publicly and privately there are thousands of structures in Seattle that, if replaced by a another structure, the society will not be the loser for it. But it is important to keep examples of what we have experienced and some of that should be done at public cost. Or funds could be raised through charitable donations, and public contributions.

HM: I agree, I think preservation advocacy should include working with developers on how to improve the financial incentives to help preservation become more of a convention. There needs to be more economic parity. We have some incentives now, but there's a long way to go.

JF: In this debate over TDRs, it became clear that preservation doesn't have influence, and so affordable housing got the lion's share of the TDR benefits.

HM: If Historic Seattle could accomplish one great thing that would do some of the things you were talking about related to the constituency, what kind of thing might that be?

JF: I would say, it would have to be development of a constituency in the membership. If Historic Seattle could double the membership in two years, I think that would do more than anything we're talking about. I mean, completing the Cadillac or preserving First Methodist, that would be a great accomplishment, but I think working on this climate issue and putting together the input, the coalition that would be effective in advocating for preservation would be more important than any specific preservation activity we might engage in.

View last month's Voices article

Back to Top