Stephen Dooley heard a jackhammer gouging into the side of the 1925
building where he works on Eighth Avenue and Lenora Street on a
Saturday afternoon in mid-July. High above the sidewalk, a man on a
cherry picker aimed the tool’s tip at the ornate terra-cotta frieze
that wraps around the two-story structure, then dug into the brittle
tiles. “You’d have to be deaf not to hear it. The jackhammer was
against the tiles, and they were smashing on the ground,” Dooley
says.
“I asked, ‘What are you doing? Are you repairing something?'” says
Dooley, who studied historic preservation at the University of Georgia.
“He didn’t know exactly what was happening; he was just doing what he
was told to do.”
Defacing the intricate facades of old downtown buildings isn’t new.
The Ames Building, a 1914 building on Second Avenue and Stewart Street,
was stripped of its white moldings last October and replaced with beige
fake stucco. And the ornate tile work of another building, the Pande
Cameron store at Ninth Avenue and Pine Street, was removed several
years ago before the building was demolished. All three share something
in common: Property owners and developers have plans to use the sites
for tall buildings, even studying designs or submitting plans to the
city. But if the existing buildings were to be declared landmarks, that
would scotch their plans.
As part of the city council’s decision several years ago to allow
taller buildings downtown, former city council member Peter Steinbrueck
commissioned a survey of all the old buildings affected by the new rule
“so we could avoid threats to buildings due to redevelopment,” he says.
Other buildings are automatically surveyed if they are over a certain
age.
The 1925 building on Eighth Avenue, formally called the Store and
Loft Building for George L. Seibert (that’s actually its name),
“appears to meet the criteria of the Seattle Landmarks Preservation
Ordinance,” a Department of Neighborhoods inventory of historical sites
declared in 2006. The building’s architect, Earl Roberts, designed it
in the beaux arts style. (He also designed the Fifth Church of Christ,
Scientist—now the Rainier Valley Cultural Center—in
Columbia City.) The most historic component of the Store and Loft
Building was its detailed and colorful tile work. “The very striking
terra-cotta cladding skin is surprisingly intact,” the 2006 survey
concluded.
Two weeks after the terra-cotta was damaged, someone complained
anonymously to the city’s Department of Planning and Development (DPD).
Reached by phone, the anonymous person expressed concern that a piece
of the city’s architectural heritage was being destroyed. Indeed,
flourished caps were smashed off, dozens of brightly colored tiles
between the decorative scrolls had been gouged and cracked by the
jackhammer, and parts of the finely detailed trim around the arching
windows were broken.
“As an architect, it offends me that someone would do that,” says
Tyler Engle, who works a couple blocks away. “It’s the terra-cotta that
makes it impressive—that ornamentation.”
But DPD spokesman Bryan Stevens says it’s perfectly legal. The
building was nominated as a landmark in 2006, but it failed to make the
cut because the city’s Landmarks Preservation Board—locked in a
4–4 vote—didn’t give the building the six votes necessary
to protect it. However, two board members, whose votes could have
reversed the decision, weren’t present at the meeting.
Absenteeism seems to be a recurring problem at the landmarks-board
meetings, which require a quorum to be present but a majority of all
voting members to declare a building a landmark. Records from the
September 2006 meeting note that landmarks-board member Thomas Veith
said that the vote for the similar Ames Building, the one on Second and
Stewart, was “very close, and had more board members been in
attendance, that may have affected the vote.” That 1914
building—a terra-cotta-clad structure built in the boom following
the Klondike Gold Rush—failed to receive landmark designation two
years prior, even though board members voted to declare it a landmark
by a 5–2 margin. Of the 12-member board (the board’s size
fluctuates), seven votes were necessary to make it a landmark, but five
members of the board were absent, according to Sarah Sodt, coordinator
of the downtown Landmarks Preservation Board. It too “appears to meet
the criteria” of the landmark ordinance, the city had found. The
building would have been eligible for another landmark nomination again
this year, five years later. But last October, hammer-swinging crews
broke off the terra-cotta trim and threw the pieces into Dumpsters.
“They slipped under that five-year time frame,” Sodt said last
fall.
Each building that fails to become a landmark makes it more
difficult for future buildings to achieve protection. For instance,
minutes from the meeting about the building on Eighth Avenue show that
board member John Schwartz reckoned that, because the Ames Building
wasn’t considered a landmark—again, probably because nearly half
the board was absent—it would be difficult to argue that the
building on Eighth could be landmarked.
In both cases, developers may have had financial motivation to strip
off the terra-cotta trim. The Justen Company had submitted plans to the
DPD for a 230-unit tower for the site on Eighth Avenue. And a spokesman
for developer CollinsWoerman says that the landowners of the property
on Second Avenue hired his company in 2006 to study plans for a
20-story office building on the site.
A building also may fail to get landmark status because no one
advocates on its behalf. An attorney and a consultant representing
developers for the building on Eighth Avenue each made eloquent
arguments that the building wasn’t a landmark. But nobody argued
the other side, in favor of preserving it, to the board. If this were a
panel of court judges hearing a case—or a jury—it would be
the rough equivalent of hearing from two prosecutors but no defense
attorney.
“People make different judgments based on the information they have
been provided,” board member Veith says. But he says board members
aren’t swayed by one-sided arguments from developers. As for
absenteeism, he says, “People have lives. They can’t be at every
meeting.”
Evan McMullen, the agent of the building on Eighth Avenue, which is
owned by Cascadia Holdings, says the tiles were removed because some
were loose and the owners wanted to see if they could be “recycled”
(even though according to a witness they were smashed to fragments on
the sidewalk). When asked if the building was being defaced to avoid
future historic designation, he said, “Not to my knowledge.”
The city’s Department of Neighborhoods, which oversees the
landmark-preservation process, refused to comment on whether there were
flaws in the preservation process. Spokeswoman Lois Maag would only
forward records. But this month, Landmarks Preservation Board
coordinator Sodt did acknowledge that she heard the building on Eighth
Avenue was being defaced.
City council member Sally Clark, chair of the city’s land-use
committee, acknowledges a problem. “Clearly the value of mowing down
the buildings has been greater the last 10 years than keeping them,”
she says. “In some of the cases, we are going to lose the great
buildings.”
Clark intends to appoint a task force that could calculate
incentives, such as tax breaks, to give property owners reason to
preserve an old building instead of strip it and destroy it. She says
the city may look at stricter rules, too. At a minimum, Clark should
consider requiring attendance of all landmarks-board members at each
meeting (or a voting alternate), requiring permits before altering any
building in the historic survey (even ones not yet designated as
landmarks), and prohibiting anyone with a financial stake in a
building’s demolition from advocating for or against its landmark
status.
Clark can’t do it soon enough—the city’s stock of historic
buildings is small and dwindling. Plenty of parking lots exist downtown
where developers can build and where we can achieve density. But we
need to close this loophole before losing another great building.
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
Evan McMullen, the agent of the building on Eighth Avenue, which is owned by Cascadia Holdings, says the tiles were removed because some were loose and the owners wanted to see if they could be “recycled” (even though according to a witness they were smashed to fragments on the sidewalk). When asked if the building was being defaced to avoid future historic designation, he said, “Not to my knowledge.”
Uh, Evan McMullen was (until recently) the tenant in that building, the shady proprietor of Cosmopolitan Motors. He also lived on the top floor for a while.
Not exactly a reliable source, to say the very least.
Thank you. It’s sad when the stranger has to come up with ideas on how to preserve our history.
What did you expect?
If you want real green growth, you’ll have to elect an active city council and mayor who don’t work for the developers.
Like Mike and Mike and Dorsal.
Oh, hey, Dorsal has free pizza at Piacora’s tonight, plus stamps, if you haven’t mailed in your ballot yet. I might get you some beer if you can legally drink.
Thanks for the article. This has been going on for way too long and it’s high time it starts getting some attention. The loss of these facades is a serious attack on Seattle’s architectural history.
It’s kind of ridiculous that absenteeism basically blocks landmark status (re the 5-2 decision). The decisions should be based solely on those present to vote. That said, not every building that’s tried for landmark status is worth saving. I’m no architect, but I don’t really see how the 8th and Lenora building is really that special. That Denny’s in Ballard had more going for it and I still didn’t think it was worth saving.
This building is super f-ing rad and I can’t believe this happened. I look straight onto that part of the building every day and there was nothing wrong with that facade.
whoever did this deserves a massive karmic kick in the nutz
There has to be some sense of balance. Other than terra cotta tiles that look cool, what historical significance does this former antique car dealership have? You can’t save em all, and given the probable increases in value of square footage downtown over the next 50 years, does it really make sense to preserve low density buildings like this because of a building facade?
It makes more sense to use the historic preservation laws in cases where there really is history attached to the buidling–otherwise, what is the true purpose of these laws? Preventing development? Your other option is sprawl, which appears to be unpopular with Stranger writers and readers.
@8
The terra-cotta tiles don’t just “look cool.” Terra-cotta facades in Seattle have historical architectural value because they were designed to function as rain shield cladding. The polished terra-cotta was a really efficient, functional, and beautiful way to keep downtown buildings dry and clean. Whereas brick facade buildings accumulate grime over time, these terra-cotta facades stay clean by letting the rain wash the dirt off.
I don’t think there’s any lack of development opportunities in Seattle right now. Take a look at all the parking lots and empty plots. Historic preservation regulations do not, as you suggest, aim at “preventing development.” They are, rather, guidelines for ensuring that development or renovations happen with respect to buildings of historical importance for the city.
@9, so I guess I just misunderstand the historic preservation regulations. I didn’t know they were intended to protect structures that use historic building materials.
I think there’s a real disconnect between what people think these laws are for–retaining buildings of historic value–and how they have been recently used–trying to protect a Denny’s restaurant. People even tried to invoke the law to save the Sunset Bowl, at tilt slab structure about as historic as a Target store.
I get the desire to not see cool old buildings torn down and replaced with boring, lowest cost designs, but in a lot of cases it seem these laws are really being stretched to protect buildings of marginal historic value.
@10 The more we tear down buildings with character and replace with unremarkable architecture the more we lose the sense of who we are and where we came from.
If developers had their way, Pioneer Square would be a parking lot these days and I think people forget about these battles we have faced and won. We can only lament the losses over the years (like the Pande Cameron building on 8th at Pine)and attempt to protect the buildings that reflect the character that makes Seattle unique.
Areas that have managed to retain some of their original charm bring the soul to the city that is missing in many metropolitan areas that are constantly looking toward the bottom line building up. I am an advocate for responsible urban density but it can not be at the cost of losing our soul. We have too many examples in the past few years of denisty leading to unremarkability.
This is a major problem with the landmark process, as is a requirement that the majority of the board agree on the same criterion (of the 7 possible). With Waldo Hospital, we had a majority agreeing the building was a landmark, but they did not agree on the same criterion so it failed.
Those from the community who choose to participate in the landmark process are often villified, sometimes in these pages. I’m glad Dominic notes buildings over 25 years old have to go to the Landmark Board regardless of whether anyone from the community is willing to play the role of building “defense counsel”.
Defacing the building is a very common tactic by those who wish to create landfill instead of reuse perfectly good structures. It’s not always as obvious as jackhammering architectural detail. More often it is allowing weeds and tagging to sprout.
That said, the Landmark Board is charged with judging whether the building ** in the original condition ** is worthy of landmarking. This point is not well understood by too many of the Board members. So, the 8th and Lenora building should be adjudicated based upon photos with the undamaged detail.
The City’s Landmark STAFF is then charged with determining through their process whether they will condition development on the site to include restoration of the damage or if the building can be called historic and still torn down. The Staff’s opinion is backstopped by Seattle City Council.
Frankly, the Board and Staff should revisit this building at the first opportunity if only to make a point to others who deface buildings to avoid landmark status.
Thanks, Dominic, for shining some light on this issue. Not all of us will agree on whether a building is worthy of designation, but we should be able to agree the process has some holes that need to be fixed.
#8–
“You can’t save them all” is exactly what every developer wants us to think in this city. And their hope is that they can tear each and every one down fast enough so that 20 years from now, when we are walking through our suburb in the city, those pesky things like cornices, tile work, history, and aesthetic won’t even matter because we will be too busy staring into our iphones on a light rail that probably still won’t go to the airport. I’m all for density and a more dynamic city, but what city is Seattle really trying to build? Is another building that looks like the Olivian(that fucking building SUCKS) more important than trying to incorporate historical buildings with character into the landscape? You can’t save them all but, could we please try to save a few before they are all gone?
If you can’t be bothered to actually honour your duties, then get off the board and find someone who would care.
@8: “Other than terra cotta tiles that look cool, what historical significance does this former antique car dealership have?” Previous use is not the only factor in determining a building’s historical value. There is serious significance in the style and construction of a building because it’s often determined by historical trends, so its physical appearance is in fact itself a bit of history.
“It makes more sense to use the historic preservation laws in cases where there really is history attached to the buidling.” That depends on your definition of “history.” Are buildings only “historical” if they’ve been occupied by lofty and prestigious institutions?
@10: Historical preservation laws often stipulate that in the repairs of a historical structure, identical or similar materials must be used. Materials are highly relevant.
Increasing density while also preserving a city’s historical character is completely possible. Toronto isn’t the best example because it has done atrocious things to itself over history, but look up Osgoode Hall. It’s a fantastic 19th century building smack downtown, and it’s surrounded by green lawn, trees, and wrought-iron fences. They could fit a skyscraper on the same land. And the fact it was preserved didn’t stop development; it’s in a neighbourhood of tall skyscrapers. It’s steps away from all the major hospitals and the city’s financial district.
Communal heritage expressed through individual property is an extremely complicated issue. An owner, a libertarian might say, has every right to do unto their private property as they wish. Those such as myself who believe in preservation, point to the responsibilities an individual has to a larger society that shares “ownership” of the heritage a structure represents.
The real problem though is not that every building rejected by the landmarks board makes it harder to protect other buildings. The real problem is that when asshole property owners disrespect our community’s culture and history, it drives others to overreact and soon you get shit nominations like a run down Denny’s in Ballard. Then the landmarks board becomes a national joke and people don’t take Seattle heritage seriously. Some buildings (especially a Denny’s) have to sacrificed on the alter of authenticity in order that higher priority artifacts have a better chance of being saved and respected.
@14 “Increasing density while also preserving a city’s historical character is completely possible.” I never implied that density does not add character to a neighborhood. There are great examples other than Toronto, (the Old Arlington Church next to modern skyskraper in Boston, The London Norman Foster Skyskraper)in fact too many to mention.
If you have visited the South Lake Union developments lately, you will see that almost nothing looks the same. There are some creative reuse of old edifaces(Alley 24) some nice new walking cooridors, beautiful new condo projects(Rollins Street)but it is also mixed with mostly bland new architecture. Almost nothing remains of the days when this Cascadia area was the blue collar printing and publishing district of the Northwest. The only reason some of the old buildings remain is the recession.
The issue at hand is not this one building(although an immediate review by a full board would settle that matter). The issue is underhandedness by money grubbing building owners that think they are above regulations. I am sure the owners of the 8th/Lenora building have used the same preservation laws they are now evading to receive tax breaks in the past for maintaining a historically significant building(I would love to see this investigated!). Now that these owners see more significant dollar signs behind redevelopment they want to play the loopholes in the system.
As an architect and citizen of this crazy town, I am completely outraged this is still happening. We should all be outraged!
Our history will be gone and we will be no different from Bellevue.
Mr. Nickels has proven over and over again he places developers at the forefront of his agenda. Crappy schools, roads, and city government are clearly too much to hassle with.
This town continues to really SUCK in so many ways.
hmm, i wonder how that slipped in there…
great reporting. here’s hoping the city council acts quickly to fix the landmarks process.
I cringe every time I drive by the 8th and Lenora building!! I keep fearing the day I drive by and it’s a pile of rubble. It is one of my favorite buildings in Seattle. Take a look as you drive by… beautiful arched doorways, high ceilings, hardwood floors, ornate moldings, huge windows… that’s beauty!
The tiles are cool. The building is a pit. Despite the “not to my knowledge” claim, it’s very likely McMullen hired the contractor to remove the “loose tiles” to deface the building so it couldn’t be listed as a landmark. If you query Cascadia Holdings in the WA business license registry McMullen is the only person who is listed under “governing people,” so not only is he the agent, he likely stands to profit a great deal from any sale to developers. Used car dealers earned their reputations for a reason