The Role of Historic Sites in Seattle's
Disaster Recovery Plan: Which Buildings
Would You Choose To Save?
On April 23, 2008, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ran an Associated Press story about new seismic hazard maps released by the U.S. Geological Survey. The maps revealed two previously unknown earthquake faults in Western Washington located north and west of Puget Sound. Also, a known fault south of Whidbey Island was discovered to be longer than previously thought and extended into Seattle. This fault " has the highest hazard level of any fault in Western Washington and could produce a magnitude 7.5 earthquake." The cumulative data revealed that Washington and Oregon have about 100 known faults, and that more than 1,000 earthquakes occur in Washington each year.
As those who endured the 2001 magnitude 6.8 Nisqually Earthquake already know, a major earthquake in the Central Puget Sound region will have a significant impact on Seattle and surrounding communities. The next quake on the Seattle Fault which bisects the city would be the so-called "big one," with disruption and losses much greater than the $2-4 billion in damages caused by the Nisqually quake. The Seattle Fault is roughly parallel to I-90 and was the source of major damage when it shifted 1,100 years ago. Back then, the fault movement generated landslides into Lake Washington, rockslides on nearby mountains, and a 22-foot uplift of a marine terrace on Bainbridge Island. Although Native Americans were present at that time, the built environment and population density in the same area is much greater today.
If the Seattle Fault moves today, the disaster relief and recovery program would be handled by multiple local, state, and national agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Experts project that a 6.7 seismic event on the Seattle Fault would result in 1,660 deaths, 24,200 injured, 9,700 buildings destroyed, 29,000 buildings unsafe to occupy, and 154,500 buildings moderately damaged with use restricted. After people are rescued and communications and transportation are restored, the work of rebuilding Seattle can begin. Damage to homes, commercial buildings, bridges, and the tall buildings of the central business district would be severe, so some triage decisions would need to be made about a rebuilding program. Part of any planning for disaster recovery effort includes concurrence of all involved parties on which parts of the built environment receive priority for repair and reconstruction. Hospitals, water conveyance facilities, bridges, airports, harbor facilities, and major roads are always at the top of the list.
King Street Station, a designated City landmark
But what about Seattle's landmarks? Should the icons of our community receive some repair and reconstruction priority? As of the summer of 2008, Seattle's designated landmarks include such memorable sites as the Space Needle, Rainer Club, Arctic Building, Flatiron Building, Stimson-Green Mansion, as well as many schools, fire stations, churches, and hundreds more (the full list of hundreds of landmarks can be viewed at http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/landmarks_
listing.htm. Additionally, Seattle enjoys seven designated Historic Districts including Pioneer Square and Ballard Old Town (you can view them at http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/historic_
districts.htm. Just as the reconstruction of the early colonial village at Williamsburg, Virginia gave Americans hope and pride during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the reconstruction of Seattle's damaged landmarks and historic districts could provide a much needed source of local strength and stability after suffering the disaster of a major earthquake.
Seattle Space Needle, a designated City landmark
The prevailing post-earthquake attitude toward designated landmarks was best expressed by former California State Historic Preservation Officer Cherilyn Widell after the 1994 Northridge quake in Los Angeles:
In time of emergency when our human instinct is crying to gain control, to strike back and show strength, demolition nicely fills those needs. Woe to that person that says “No! Wait, shore it up, this property is historic, there might be money because your property is historic; you do not have to tear it down right away. Let us help you find a solution.”
Who will decide which of Seattle's landmarks and districts should be rebuilt and what criteria should be used to make those decisions? Much will depend on which landmarks are total losses and which are determined to be repairable. Historic buildings placed on soils that liquefy will settle or tip. Landslides will bury some structures, especially if rainwater has saturated the soil before the earthquake strikes. Landslides along shorelines will generate local tsunamis that will flood historic buildings near water bodies. Seattle's older and un-retrofitted structures near the fault line will sustain heavy damage. Most of these pre-date 1940 and are concentrated in Pioneer Square and the International District. After a major earthquake disaster, severely damaged buildings will be deemed irretrievable by the City's building inspectors and be demolished.
L.C. Smith Tower , a designated City landmark
The moderately damaged buildings in all of Seattle's historic districts will present challenges to the community's historic preservation boards during the disaster recovery period. Should those buildings damaged beyond repair be razed and reconstructed as copies of the original to maintain the character of the neighborhood? Should new designs with modern sustainable building standards be constructed in their place? If so, should the new designs be compatible with the old or should Seattle choose a design orientation that looks to the future instead of the past? What can we learn about post-disaster landmark reconstruction from other modern urban communities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Kobe, Japan?
A common issue among disaster recovery officials is the differences in perception of each agency's priorities. Historic preservationists often perceive emergency management agencies to be oblivious to the heritage values of a place while disaster management staff often assume that the cultural heritage professionals wished to protect everything and that there is no prioritization of sites. The 1995 development of a threat matrix model for sites affected, or potentially affected, by the Exxon Valdez oil spill has proved to be a good method for overcoming such misunderstandings.
Pioneer Square, a designated City landmark district
Whether Seattle's historic assets return as recognizable features of the community's landscape is a matter of civic choice. It will be far more expensive to repair damaged historic structures than to raze them and construct new buildings. The quality of the new construction, however, will not be comparable to the more durable materials and craftsmanship standards used in the old buildings. The restoration of historic properties will be one of the key recovery issues facing local and state officials in addition to removing debris, rebuilding transportation infrastructure, reprioritizing capital investments, and revitalizing the region's economy. Earthquake recovery in particular can be drawn out due, in part, to extensive structure damage requiring engineered repairs and the propensity for some damage to remain undiscovered until long after the event. The fact that the Federal-State Disaster Field Office for the Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles remained open for more than ten years is a telling sign of how long it will take a severely impacted Seattle to recover.
Earthquake damaged wood-frame house
As soon as possible after the President declares an earthquake-stricken Seattle as a disaster, the State of Washington and Federal Emergency Management Agency will establish a Joint Field Office to administer federal assistance programs. Some of these programs provide funds to help public agencies and eligible nonprofit organizations reconstruct damaged facilities. Further, the state will convene a Recovery and Restoration Task Force comprised of representatives from key state and local agencies to coordinate recovery and mitigation efforts and to advise state government on appropriate policy issues.
Seattleites need to heed to call-to-action from seismic experts who are clamoring for disaster recovery planning and coordination efforts to be developed now. The earthquake disaster recovery period will be an opportunity to implement plans and policies that Seattle still needs to adopt. Such plans need to include policies and incentives related to historic preservation. Addressing the retrofit of unreinforced masonry structures will be important, as these buildings become more vulnerable with age and each earthquake.
Earthquake damaged commercial buildings
The reconstruction process for damaged historic structures and districts will be complicated and time-consuming. Lack of agreement between property owners and the community on appropriate repairs or demolition can result in lengthy negotiations. Additionally, federal regulations often come into play at historic sites. According to the National Historic Preservation Act, the Federal Emergency Management Agency must review the effects of demolition, repair, or reconstruction on disaster-damaged historic structures before awarding funds for their restoration. This review occurs regardless of whether or not buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Protracted repairs can hinder the economic recovery of an area depending upon the attractions of its historic character.
Now is the time to act. We cannot wait for the next big devastating earthquake to develop contingency plans for Seattle's historic buildings. We already have had three reminders during the last fifty-five years in Puget Sound with quakes in 1949, 1965, and 2001. Within and among local, state, and federal disaster recovery agencies there is clearly a need to explain what each agency actually does at each government level. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and other government agencies with jurisdiction over historic properties must continue to explain their legal authorities and requirements, as well as the procedures adopted and the management philosophy espoused. Their responsibilities often overlap when heritage resources are effected by disaster mitigation and response.
One of the lessons learned from the 2005 Katrina hurricane disaster in New Orleans was how and where to store the community's historic site records. When Katrina disaster recovery managers sought a list of designated historic properties and found their electronic records inaccessible due to power outages, they turned to the paper files maintained in Louisiana's capital at Baton Rouge. To everyone's chagrin, those records had been destroyed by Katrina-caused water damage. Consequently, during New Orleans' disaster recovery efforts, no one could access a list of the City's designated landmarks.
In Seattle, the records about all locally designated landmarks and historic districts are maintained both electronically and on paper in the Historic Preservation Office of the City's Department of Neighborhoods in the Seattle Municipal Tower, and in the Seattle Municipal Archive in the same building. For King County's designated landmarks, the records are maintained both electronically and on paper at the King County Historic Preservation Program in the County Office Building at 701 Fifth Avenue. For properties listed on the Washington Heritage Register and the National Register of Historic Places, those electronic and paper records are maintained at the State Historic Preservation Office in the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Olympia. Are backup copies of these records maintained in a secured off-site location? Are these records easily accessible after a disaster? These are questions for Seattle's elected officials since the answers will inevitably entail a funding allocation.
What can individual Seattleites do to ensure that those designated landmarks and historic districts that are community favorites will be restored during a disaster recovery program? The best way to start is to become aware of where each of these historic properties are by defining them with a street address and parcel number—just describing "it was near the corner of" will not help during a disaster recovery program. Next, determine where the records for each property are maintained and where backup copies might be. A crucial action for landmark lovers is to open a dialog with landmark property owners to discover each building's structural condition and ability to withstand a major earthquake. If the building appears to be at risk, help the owner to find financial incentives for seismic retrofitting. Help is out there for those historic property owners who qualify.
Finally, be sure your elected representatives at the local, state, and national level are aware of your concerns about disaster recovery planning for historic sites before the next earthquake strikes. Ask them about creating a statewide Seismic Safety Commission that would function to unify program coordination, legislative recommendations, plan implementation, and public education. Find out what your elected representatives think, and then tell them what you think. Follow through by giving them a copy of this article along with the bibliography below. Education and awareness is always the first step in any worthwhile effort.
Ankeny House, a designated City landmark in the Queen Anne neighborhood
Seattle's disaster response plan 2008
If a large earthquake were to strike Seattle, the Mayor would lead the response, with county, state and federal officials providing support. After a major disaster occurs, f irefighters, police, volunteer organizations, and other emergency crews respond to provide immediate aid. They alert the Mayor and the County Executive. The City and County activate the local emergency operations center and request aid from the state Governor.
The Governor activates the state emergency operations center, declares a state of emergency, requests presidential emergency declaration, calls up the National Guard if needed, and informs the federal government via the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The FEMA Regional Director a ctivates catastrophic disaster response group, emergency support team and contacts the President of the United States. The President d eclares an emergency/major disaster and appoints a Federal Coordinating Officer who sets up the Disaster Field Office and works with an Emergency Response Team.
The Emergency Response Team supports and provides transportation, communications, public works and engineering, firefighting, medical services, urban search and rescue, food and other services and supplies. With these resources, local, state and federal responders comprise the disaster field operations that provide ongoing disaster relief and recovery.
Cooper House , a designated City landmark in the Capitol Hill neighborhood
Tips for Dealing with Disasters
From the National Trust for Historic Preservation Big Cities Workshop 2006
Preparation
Keep important data (surveys, maps, contact lists, employee information, membership and donor data base) in electronic format, with hard copies and electronic backup stored off site.
Store at home emergency and cell phone numbers for all employees, including emergency contact information for out-of-town relatives; keep a record of employees’ home e-mails.
Keep emergency bags in the office stocked with copies of licenses, passports, bank records, flashlight, water, and protein bars.
Host e-mail off site; don’t host through your own server; or, alternately, take your server with you in case of evacuation.
Set up an off-site phone number for employees to call to let everyone know their status or if they’re okay; if something should happen in one area of the city, ask field staff to call in as soon as possible.
Identify a location where everyone would try to meet if something happens.
Compile a preservation resource directory with a section for repair services, roofers, haulers, and other important numbers people might need in an emergency or when responding to the disaster.
Pike Place Market , a designated City landmark district
Response
Streamline the permitting process for rebuilding; use “one stop” forms that include guidelines, application, and certification.
Develop unified standards for tagging affected properties; as much as possible, make sure that taggers are “our people,” i.e., preservationists.
Be prepared to do things right away; people want to see activity and have a sense that something is happening.
Try to avoid multiple planning processes; call for a unified plan.
Identify key iconic buildings associated with success; tackle those first to be a catalyst for rebuilding.
Distribute the resource directory and other information on who is qualified to do repairs and rehab.
Organizational Impact
Recognize that a large-scale disaster may mean staff and budget cuts and a loss of members and donors.
Be prepared for job descriptions to change; employees must be ready and willing to do anything and everything.
Good Shepherd Center , a designated City landmark in the Wallingford neighborhood / Photo: Marissa Natkin
Sources
Architectural Resources Group. "An Assessment of Damage Caused to Historic Resources by the Loma Prieta Earthquake." San Francisco, CA: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Aug. l990
Astaneh-Asi, Abolhassan, et al. Seismic Performance of Steel Bridges during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake: Preliminary Report. Berkeley, CA: Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of California at Berkeley, UCB/CE-Steel 94/01, 1994.
Atwater, Brian F., and E. Hemphill-Haley. Recurrence Intervals for Great Earthquakes of the Past 3,500 Years at Northeastern Willapa Bay, Washington. U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper #1576, 1997
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division. Scenario for a Magnitude 6.7 Earthquake on the Seattle Fault. June 2005
Eichenfield, Jeffrey. 20 Tools that Protect Historic Resources after an Earthquake: Lessons Learned from the Northridge Earthquake. Oakland, CA: California Preservation Foundation, 1996, 49 pp.
Green, Melvyn. "Conservation Code Changes," Earthquake Risks and the Architectural Landmark: Proceedings from the International Seismic Isolation/Historic Preservation Symposium: Salt Lake City, Utah, May 11-14, 1988. Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Historical Society, 1990, 8 pp (not paginated).
Harthorn, Roy W. Temporary Shoring & Stabilization of Earthquake Damaged Historic Buildings: Practical Considerations for Earthquake Response & Recovery in California. Sacramento, CA: California Building Officials (CBO), 1998, 36 pp.
Harthorn, Roy W. The Post-Earthquake Safety Evaluation and damage Repair Assessment of Historic Buildings. Northridge, CA: California State University, 1994. (Graduate project)
Kamba, Nobuyuki. "Preparing for Disasters," Risk Preparedness for Cultural Properties. Saito Hidetoshi, ed. Tokyo, Japan: Chuo-Koron Buijutsu Shuppan, 1999, pp. 361-366. (Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake)
Pratt, Thomas L., Karen L. Meagher, Thomas M. Brocher, Thomas Yelin, Robert Norris, Lynn Hultgrien, Elizabeth Barnett, and Craig S. Weaver. Earthquake recordings from the 2002 Seattle Seismic Hazard Investigation of Puget Sound (SHIPS), Washington State , Open-File Report 03-361 . Seattle: U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, 2002
Seattle Contingency Planning And Recovery Management Group. http://www.orcontinuity.org/CPARM/About_CPARM.htm. Accessed September 2006
Seattle Project Impact. http://www.seattle.gov/projectimpact/default.htm. Accessed September 2006.
Spennemann, Dirk H.R., and David W. Look, eds. Disaster Management Programs for Historic Sites. San Francisco, CA, and Albury, Australia: National Park Service, Western Chapter of the Association for Preservation Technology, and The Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University, 1998
Thomasen, Sven E. “Seismic Stabilization of Heritage Structures in California”, Proceedings of Seventh NPS Conference on Balancing Safety with Cultural Heritage 26 International Conference on Structural Studies, Repairs and Maintenance of Historical Buildings, Bologna, Italy, June 1999. Southampton, U.K.: WIT Press, 1999.
Turnbull, Sandra. "Traditional Conservation and Modern Technology," Earthquake Risks and the Architectural Landmark: Proceedings from the International Seismic Isolation/Historic Preservation Symposium: Salt Lake City, Utah, May 11-14, 1988. Salt Lake City, UT: Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Historical Society, 1990, 7 pp (not paginated).
Vangelova, Luba. “The Architecture of Optimism: Napier, New Zealand, Revels in its Art Deco Buildings, which Helped it Cope with Destruction from a 1931 Earthquake,” Preservation Magazine, Vol. 55, No. 2, March/April 2003, pp. 56-58.
"When Push Came to Shove Between Historical Preservation and Political Histrionics Over the Demolition of Santa Cruz's Cooper House, Did the City's Power Structure Prove Weaker than the Landmark's Sturdy Wall?" Pacific, Vol. ?, est. 1989, pp. 33- 37.
Wiley, Peter Booth, "City Hall Shakedown: How San Francisco is Preparing its Historic Buildings for the Next Big One," Preservation, Vol. 49, No. 6, Nov./Dec. 1997, pp. 20-22.