Preservation in Progress

Historic Seattle’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Advocacy Update’ Category

Mama’s Mexican Restaurant Building Nominated

mamas_building_posterOn Wednesday, December 7, 2016, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board voted unanimously to nominate the iconic Mama’s Mexican Kitchen building at 2234 Second Avenue (in Belltown) as a Seattle Landmark. The nomination was submitted by the property owner/developer, who has plans to redevelop the property. Preservation advocates call these types of nominations “anti-nominations,” in which the owner tries to make the case that the property does not meet the designation standards of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and/or does not possess integrity or the ability to convey significance.

The developer’s attorney, Jack McCullough, started out by arguing that it was a “run-of-the-mill” structure that didn’t deserve to be protected. David Peterson from NK Architects, who prepared the landmark nomination, highlighted the building’s supposedly poor condition and physical alterations – including the 1950s aluminum storefront on the center bay, signage over the transom windows, and other infill along the north facade – that compromised the overall integrity. Referencing the neighborhood historic context statement, he stated that the Mama’s building was a “simple, utilitarian” structure and not significant enough to meet Standard D of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, (a property “embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or a method of construction.”)

Historic Seattle joined representatives from various community groups – including Friends of Historic Belltown, Belltown Community Council, and Project Belltown – to offer public comments in support of the nomination. Friends of Historic Belltown noted that “Belltown doesn’t have many fancy buildings, but rather that the community’s history is with working buildings for ‘the common man,’ and that the Mama’s building embodied that history.”

David Levinson, a Belltown Community Council member and longtime resident, described how the restaurant served as a community gathering place for decades, including Belltown’s labor union members who met there regularly.

The Board demonstrated support for moving the nomination forward to the designation phase, noting that the building may meet several standards and still remains largely intact. Deb Barker said that the portions that haven’t been altered (NE and E alley façades) make it “crystal clear” what the building was. Julianne Patterson stated that the alley facade has “almost perfect integrity,” and she mentioned the idea of “intangible heritage” and how the building is tied to its association with Mama’s Restaurant, even though the restaurant is no longer there.

Friends of Historic Belltown say they “feel a bit bad for the developers, who had been working with the community to design a proposed development that fit in with the neighborhood,” adding that they did not take into consideration the building’s historic value before purchasing the property. “It’s like buying property with a wetland and eagle’s nest on it — you can’t simply bulldoze it just because you didn’t know those features have public values that are protected by law.”

A designation hearing for the Mama’s building will be scheduled in January or February 2017. Friends of Historic Belltown are “elated that the Board saw things the same way we do” and are “looking forward to the next round — the Mama’s Superbowl – to establish our second Landmarked building on ‘the block.’” The Wayne Apartments, built in 1890 and located adjacent (south) of Mama’s, was recently designated a Seattle landmark.

 

Images: Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board votes to nominate the Mama’s Mexican Kitchen Building, photo: Steve Hall; “Preserve the Mama’s Building” poster, Friends of Historic Belltown

Nuclear Reactor Bldg Demolished

NRB_It's Brutal_blog

Nuclear Reactor Building (1961 – 2016)

Brutal ending for a building once celebrated. University of Washington erases its own history by demolishing the Nuclear Reactor Building. 

On Tuesday, July 19, 2016, the Nuclear Reactor Building was unceremoniously and quietly (as quietly as one can bulldoze a structurally sound concrete building) demolished by the University of Washington. The destruction of this historically and architecturally significant building ends a years-long effort by preservation advocates to save an important piece of UW history and architecture.

What would you do if, at the age of 55, someone told you that you are going to be executed because you are no longer useful and do not contribute to society? That you are taking up space and will be replaced by something shinier and newer. Sure, you had your day in the sun during the Atomic Age. You were the latest thing in nuclear engineering technology and appreciated for your contributions to science and research. You were also unique because unlike similar structures at other university campuses, you didn’t hide underground or behind windowless walls. You stood proud and strong and seemed indestructible. You were an architectural, engineering, and artistic marvel designed by a stellar team of talented University professors and alumni. On a campus defined by its Gothic Revival style architecture and Olmsted Brothers legacy of campus planning and landscape design, you set yourself apart with your Brutalist features. But then things changed…

By the 1970s and 1980s, nuclear energy was not valued, but feared. You were decommissioned in 1988, and by 1992, your owner, the University of Washington, closed the Nuclear Engineering Program. You sat vacant and unused, but your land became valuable. Then in 2008, the attention was back on you. Your head was on the chopping block. The University applied for a demolition permit from the City of Seattle. One of those big white land use notification signs was placed in an inconspicuous spot in the back, not very visible to passersby. Except one student noticed it. An advocacy movement began. Students and some faculty and staff believed you were significant and could be adaptively reused. The University had no immediate plans for your site other than to get rid of you and replace with a landscaped plaza. This would clear the way for future development.

nrb 2_john stamets_blogPreservation advocates around the state were alerted. Docomomo WEWA, Historic Seattle, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation teamed up to support the efforts of the students. You were even listed on the Trust’s Most Endangered Properties list in 2008. That same student successfully got you listed on the Washington Heritage Register in 2008 and on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009. The UW objected to the listing of course. You made the press—local and national media covered your story and plight to be appreciated and used again. You welcomed adaptive reuse with open arms. And you believed there was room for a new building if it was sited and designed well. But you continued to be ignored by the very same entity that created you. You became a polarizing figure. Like some of your Brutalist siblings you were called “ugly” and “cold.” Some called for your destruction saying you were “getting in the way of progress.” Social media has made it too easy to hide behind anonymous comments. But you persevered. The vitriol directed at you was hurtful but you had thick concrete skin. These insults emboldened you and your supporters.

The recession bought you some time, an eight-year stay of execution. The University backed off on its plans for demolition in 2011 but we knew those plans were just on the backburner until the economy improved and the desire for your site trumped all other factors. Sure enough, in 2014, plans for your demolition and use of your site came back in full force. You would be replaced by the technology darling of today, computer science and engineering.

Advocates galvanized again. You were once again listed on the Washington Trust’s Most Endangered Properties list in 2015. This time around, the advocacy efforts stepped up. The Save the Reactor effort was born. Knowing full well that the University’s own environmental review process would only yield conclusions supporting your demolition, Docomomo WEWA submitted a Seattle Landmark nomination application and the University promptly filed a lawsuit against the City and Docomomo WEWA in late 2015. Historic Seattle and the Trust joined in the lawsuit.

Unfortunately, an April 2016 decision by a King County Superior Court judge ruled in the UW’s favor, clearing the way for your demise. Although you are now gone, you will not be forgotten. Your death will not be in vain. Advocacy efforts continue, focusing on the long game as we look to protect the integrity of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. This advocacy effort is bigger than you. There are broader implications and impacts related to the entire campus and to any property the University owns—the ultimate question to be decided is whether the University of Washington (and potentially other state institutions of higher learning) is subject to local regulations. Docomomo WEWA, Historic Seattle, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation have joined the City of Seattle in an appeal of the trial court’s decision to the State Court of Appeals.

And that student who sounded the alarm about your endangered status back in 2008? She graduated from the University of Washington with a Master in Architecture degree. Her master’s thesis topic was on your adaptive reuse potential. When asked for her thoughts about the demolition, Abby Inpanbutr had this to say:

To me the Nuclear Reactor Building was a special case. It was not just an important example of Northwest Modernism, an elegantly designed building by important architects from this place, but it also represented an idealistic point of view we are no longer familiar with today. The building was designed and built with such optimism for the future of the world and the potential of design and engineering. This shined through even when the building sat empty. The Nuclear Reactor Building could have been reinstated as a crown jewel on the campus, there was so much potential. I am very sorry this opportunity has been lost.

A “wake” to mourn the loss and celebrate the life of the Nuclear Reactor Building (aka More Hall Annex) will be held at the site at the University of Washington on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, at 5:30 pm. Please wear all black attire. We’ll go to a local pub afterwards. Save the Reactor advocates Docomomo WEWA, Historic Seattle, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation hope you join us!

In lieu of flowers, we encourage you to share stories and memories of the Nuclear Reactor Building at the wake, on the Save the Reactor Facebook page or email us at info@savethereactor.org.

Read Knute Berger’s obituary of the Nuclear Reactor Building in Crosscut.com.

Nuclear Reactor Building (AKA More Hall Annex)
University of Washington, Seattle
Built: 1961
Demolished: 2016

Designed by The Architect Artist Group (TAAG):
Wendell Lovett, architect
Daniel Streissguth, architect
Gene Zema, architect
Gerard Torrence, structural engineer
Spencer Moseley, artist

Photo credits: Demolition (Docomomo WEWA); “It’s Brutal” graphic (Save the Reactor); the Nuclear Reactor Building in 2008 (John Stamets for Docomomo WEWA)

Demo Permit Issued: UW to Destroy Historic Building

Update (July 19, 2016): The University of Washington has demolished the Nuclear Reactor Building. We’ll post the full story and images soon. 

Original blog post:

Yesterday, July 12, the City of Seattle issued a demolition permit for the National Register-listed Nuclear Reactor Building.

Here’s what has been happening before the permit was issued:

The historic and architecturally significant structure has not been looking too good recently. The University of Washington (UW) erected a chain link fence around the site in May to prepare for demolition. On June 20, the University began deconstructing the building—WITHOUT a demolition permit. The UW submitted a demolition application in early May but evidently just could not wait to start destroying this significant structure.

Complaints were filed and the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections issued a stop work order and notice of violation. The UW claimed that it was abating the lead in the caulking of the windows (original character-defining features). We do not doubt there will be hazardous materials abatement that will need to be performed in preparation for the demolition, but the building has sat vacant for years and posed no threat. Windows on the two primary facades were removed, leaving massive openings into the building. It took the University almost a week to board up the openings, a requirement of the City.

demo prep_nrb_01_blog

What’s Really Going On?

Save the Reactor (Docomomo WEWA, Historic Seattle, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation and supporters) has been monitoring the process and has been communicating with the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) about the process and code requirements for the University’s demolition application and master use permit application for the new construction. What we discovered was a failure in the City’s own system of review including not following its own Land Use Code correctly. Here’s what we heard from a senior level planner when asked to explain its process and code requirements: “It is certainly true that SDCI has not always correctly applied the Land Use Code Section I cited in my earlier email to you. With this current demolition project we have had the chance to carefully examine how the code applies. I can only reconfirm we are confident the exercise of our substantive SEPA authority in a case like this (another agency has completed procedural SEPA and the application to us does not include a Land Use Code – identified Type II MUP) is not a decision subject to public notice or appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Even though this departs from our practice in the past, we feel we have no option but to proceed in a code compliant way.”

We are not making this up. We asked SDCI if it has a complete accounting of every case in which the Land Use Code section has been incorrectly applied. We are waiting for a response. We believe citizens of Seattle expect the City to correctly apply its own codes.

Adding to the confusion is we believe SDCI may have directed the University to place a large white notice of proposed land use action sign last week but that will be taken down soon as well because evidently that was also a mistake. Essentially, the City is not requiring the University of Washington to post public notice of the proposed new construction project, demolition of the Nuclear Reactor Building, and removal of at least 44 trees. No public comment will be taken.

While the City may be following the Land Use Code, it doesn’t mean it makes any sense or should not be reformed.

It’s always been clear that the University wanted to scrape the Nuclear Reactor Building site for its new Computer Science and Engineering II project and all the information in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) supports that conclusion and not the other alternatives. Yes, the University did everything it needed to do to comply with SEPA but it’s more about checking boxes than an objective review of alternatives that are feasible.

There were many comments submitted for the draft SEIS (including those from Historic Seattle, Docomomo WEWA and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation), but like any EIS process the comments were just noted or we got referred to a page in the SEIS that the lead agency (UW) felt it had adequately addressed the issue.

How Did We Get Here?

After the disappointing Superior Court decision was issued in favor of the University (because of a ridiculous technicality), Save the Reactor reviewed options. We encouraged the City of Seattle to appeal the decision to the State Court of Appeals and asked the City to seek a stay of demolition. The City chose to appeal but did not seek a stay. We assume this was for political reasons mostly. And the City is more focused on the larger jurisdictional issues of City and University. But for Save the Reactor and other supporters, this advocacy has been about BOTH the Nuclear Reactor Building and the larger issues. We joined the City of Seattle in its appeal to the State Court of Appeals. We also looked into seeking a stay of demolition but after much discussion with our attorney, we decided not to pursue a stay because of the possibility of having to post an appeal bond backed up by collateral. Docomomo WEWA has no real property to use as collateral but Historic Seattle and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation both own significant historic properties. If the stay was granted and we lose the appeal, then we could be liable to the University who could claim damages from delay of demolition and construction of its new project. This is a risk that Save the Reactor could not take. The UW has an annual operating budget of almost $6 billion. Save the Reactor has a combined operating budget of less than $3.5 million. We’re somewhat outmatched when it comes to resources.

As a public institution the University of Washington needs to be a good neighbor within the city. For years, we have maintained that there are alternatives to demolishing the National Register-listed Nuclear Reactor Building and there is at least one alternative site for its proposed Computer Science and Engineering II building. Of course, this case is not just about the Nuclear Reactor Building. There are broader implications and impacts related to the entire campus and to any property the University owns. The University need not be so afraid of external efforts to recognize and honor its history and legacy. We have always advocated for a creative design solution that presents a win-win for the UW and advocates, but this position has been consistently ignored by the University.

What’s Next?

We anticipate going before the State Court of Appeals this fall, with a decision in early 2017. This appeal is about the long game–protecting other University owned historic resources through landmark designation. It’s too late now for the Nuclear Reactor Building. The University’s plans are to demolish the Nuclear Reactor Building after completing SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act) mitigation and obtaining a demolition permit. The UW’s self-imposed “mitigation” for demolition is documenting the exterior to HABS Level 1 standards and producing a 3-D virtual tour of the interior. That’s it. In our view, there’s no mitigation for demolition because once a resource is destroyed, it’s gone forever. The University intends to clear the site—the building and over forty trees—as soon as possible. We do know the University would like to start construction in January 2017 if it obtains the required permits in time for that start date. We do know there is no administrative appeal to the City Hearing Examiner for the demolition permit and master use permit, but the City’s decisions on whether to grant or deny the permits can be appealed to King County Superior Court through a land use petition. All three Save the Reactor organizations have standing in this situation and can appeal. However, we would still need to seek a stay or injunction to stop the demolition. And we would be back where we were before.

Save the Reactor plans to gather together to say goodbye to the Nuclear Reactor Building. Stay tuned for details…

Photos: Docomomo WEWA

An earlier version of this article appeared in the Docomomo US e-news (June 27, 2016) and in the Save the Reactor blog (July 8, 2016).

UW Wins on a Technicality

From Save the Reactor:

On April 14, 2016, King County Superior Court Judge Suzanne Parisien issued an order granting the University of Washington its motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit against defendants City of Seattle and Docomomo WEWA, and intervenors Historic Seattle and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation.

We are obviously disappointed in Judge Suzanne Parisien’s decision which did not rule on all the substantive issues of the case. Instead, her Memorandum of Opinion states that the University is not an “owner” as defined in the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance, and as such, did not bother to rule on the other issues. This “technicality” is somewhat farfetched because in what other scenario would the UW say it’s not an “owner”? The University clearly owns the Seattle campus. It voluntarily submitted a landmark nomination for Husky Stadium (which was not nominated by the Landmarks Preservation Board). The UW complies with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance when it seeks Landmarks Preservation Board approval for work on its buildings at Sand Point Naval Air Station Historic District. And UW Tacoma is located in a designated local historic district. Is the UW not an owner in those cases?

As a public institution the University of Washington needs to be a good neighbor within the city. There are alternatives to demolishing the National Register-listed Nuclear Reactor Building and there is at least one alternative site for its proposed Computer Science and Engineering II building. Of course, this case is not just about the Nuclear Reactor Building. There are broader implications and impacts related to the entire campus and to any property the University owns.

The University need not be so afraid of external efforts to recognize and honor its heritage and legacy.

We are reviewing our options at point. Just know that our advocacy efforts will continue.

Read the judge’s Memorandum of Opinion here

Recent media coverage on this issue:

The Seattle Times

Crosscut.com

 

Photo: Oral arguments in King County Superior Court, April 1, 2016; source: Eugenia Woo

UW Lawsuit: Nuclear Reactor Bldg

On April 1 (no joke!) the UW’s lawsuit over the landmark nomination for the Nuclear Reactor Building goes before King County Superior Court for a hearing. We’ve been blogging about this for a few months now, but the time has finally come. This issue of whether the University of Washington is subject to the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance will be decided (or at least at the Superior Court level). Read about this issue more in depth on the Save the Reactor website (the post gets into some of the arguments put forth by the parties involved).

The hearing is open to the public (for observation only; no public testimony) and will take place at 10:00 am in Judge Suzanne Parisien’s courtroom (W-764) in the King County Courthouse (516 Third Avenue, Seattle, WA  98104). Counsel for all three parties will present oral arguments. The hearing should last about one hour and twenty minutes.

Crosscut’s Knute Berger and the Seattle Times just published articles about this dispute.

“UW flips city bird over historic preservation,” Crosscut.com

“UW suing Seattle over control of historic campus buildings,” Seattle Times

Alki Homestead to be Restored

An Advocacy Win for “Homestead Coalition”

advocacy_homestead_jean sherrardThe preservation of the Alki Homestead in West Seattle has been a sustained advocacy effort for Historic Seattle since 2009. Originally known as the Fir Lodge, the Homestead is one of West Seattle’s most beloved landmarks. The 1904 log building has been vacant for over six years, after a 2009 fire caused significant damage and forced the closure of the Alki Homestead Restaurant.

A coalition including Historic Seattle, Southwest Seattle Historical Society, 4Culture, and the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation has persistently advocated to save the building.

On Friday, March 13, the landmark property changed hands. Tom Lin, owner since 2005, sold the property to Mercer Island builder/investor Dennis Schilling, who plans to rehabilitate the landmark structure and construct a new six-unit apartment building on the adjacent parking lot. Mr. Schilling forged an agreement with the Southwest Seattle Historical Society, which holds an easement on the Alki Homestead parking lot and operates the Log House Museum one-half block to the south.

On Saturday, March 14, the Southwest Seattle Historical Society and Schilling put on a press conference to formally announce the news of the Homestead’s future. For details about the press conference and links to local and national media coverage, check out the Society’s post on its website.

Photos: Alki Homestead (2012), Historic Seattle; “This Place Matters” photo event (2010), Jean Sherrard

Modernist Site Up for Landmark Designation – Nov 6

Aerial view of Battelle Memorial Institute Seattle Research Center in Laurelhurst, ca. 1971 / Courtesy Collection of the Friends of Battelle/Talaris

Aerial view of Battelle Memorial Institute Seattle Research Center in Laurelhurst, ca. 1971 / Courtesy Collection of the Friends of Battelle/Talaris

Tomorrow, November 6, 2013, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board (LPB) will hold a landmark designation hearing for the former Battelle Memorial Institute Seattle Research Center. This exemplary example of Northwest Regional Modernism is located at 4000 NE 41st St. in the Laurelhurst neighborhood.

Public comments will be taken at the meeting which begins at 3:30 PM in the Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Avenue, 40th Floor in Room 4060. An agenda is posted on the Seattle Historic Preservation website.

On September 18, 2013, the LPB unanimously nominated the property, an 18-acre site owned by 4000 Property LLC. The property is currently used as the Talaris Conference Center. Presented by the Friends of Battelle/Talaris, the nomination is the work of a grassroots group of Laurelhurst neighbors who have come together as advocates for the preservation of the property. Historic Seattle has been providing technical assistance and advice on landmark nomination preparation, research and advocacy strategy for the Friends of Battelle/Talaris.

We hope the LPB will unanimously designate the property tomorrow, thereby formally recognizing a unique and important modern resource. Looking to the future, we hope the City and the Owner will negotiate Controls and Incentives that protect/preserve the site and buildings, and be flexible enough to allow for new construction for a sustainable and economically viable project.

For more info on this advocacy effort, read MAin2’s previous post.

Ballard Carnegie Library – Landmark Designation Hearing, November 7

Ballard Carnegie Library Building / Photo: Eugenia Woo

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board (LPB) will decide on whether to designate the Ballard Carnegie Library as a City Landmark. The LPB unanimously nominated the property at its September 19, 2012 meeting. The Board received almost 40 letters/emails supporting the nomination. Historic Seattle attended the meeting and gave public testimony in support of the nomination.

Owner Karoline Morrison has been a long-time steward of the building, preserving much of its character-defining features. With landmark designation, the building will be preserved well into the future.

To learn more about the building’s history and significance, you may read the nomination which is posted on the Department of Neighborhoods website under the heading of “Current Nominations.” Download the meeting agenda from the DON website. The nomination was prepared by architect Larry Johnson of The Johnson Partnership, co-nominated by the Ballard Historical Society. Here’s a blog post on the topic from the Ballard Historical Society’s blog.

The Board meeting is open to the public and takes place at 3:30 pm, Seattle Municipal Building, 700 5th Ave, 40th floor, Room 4050/60.

Digital Scans Continue to Be Available from UW Special Collections

Yesterday, MAin2 wrote this piece about the closure of the photo lab at UW and how that would mean the public could no longer obtain reproductions (in print and high resolution digital files) of historic photographs from Special Collections. We asked you to write to UW Administrators to voice your concern. Your voices were heard! Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns and how you value Special Collections.

Please read the comments posted on this blog regarding the closure of the photo lab. Notable comments are the two posted by Paul Constantine, Associate Dean of University Libraries and Director of Special Collections, University of Washington Libraries and the comment posted by Christina Burtner, one of the two photographers who work at the Classroom Support Services (CSS) Photo Lab. Check out the CSS Photography blog and learn more about these fabulous professional photographers who have been running the lab.

MAin2 is happy to report that the University of Washington Special Collections will be working with a new service provider for digital scans of materials.  Here’s a message received today from Paul Constantine,

“Thanks to all who have expressed concern about the impact of the closure of the CSS Photo Lab on users of Special Collections. I am writing to let you know that as of January 20, 2012, Special Collections will be working with a new service provider for digital scans of our materials. While this digitization service will continue without interruption, I ask your patience as we work out new workflows and procedures.

Thank you for sharing your concern and for your support of excellence in the UW Libraries. I hope that you will continue to make use of Special Collections.”

The Special Collections website has already changed its message from yesterday and now states that they will be working with a new service provider. Thank you UW Administrators!

Success! 4Culture Saved!

Call it 11th hour. Call it a “Hail Mary” pass. With only a couple hours left in the legislative special session last night, SSB 5834 passed in the House. This bill permits counties to direct an existing portion of local lodging taxes to programs for arts, culture, heritage, tourism, and housing. This means 4Culture’s funding will continue and we’ll all benefit from their fine work supporting arts, heritage and preservation in King County. Thank you all who contacted legislators. Thank you to the legislators who have voted for the various senate and house bills that support 4Culture. It has been a roller coaster ride but it’s finally over. The bill has been delivered to the Governor for her signature.