Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Miami]On: 24 November 2014, At: 17:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Planning PerspectivesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rppe20
Conflicting élites and changingvalues: designing two historicdistricts in downtown Seattle,1958–73Sohyun Park LeePublished online: 02 Dec 2010.
To cite this article: Sohyun Park Lee (2001) Conflicting élites and changing values:designing two historic districts in downtown Seattle, 1958–73, Planning Perspectives, 16:3,243-268, DOI: 10.1080/02665430152469584
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02665430152469584
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Con�icting elites and changing values:designing two historic districts in downtownSeattle, 1958–73
S O H Y U N P A R K L E E *
Urban Design and Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Seattle’s Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market have maintained their reputation as symbolic urbanplaces in the city and as exemplary historic districts in the United States. This paper illuminates theemergence of these two historic districts from the standpoint of the con�ict between the two elite camps,as well as their motivations in shaping downtown urban forms during the 1960s. The con�ict occurred aspart of a transition from the time when business leaders’ economic values fuelled a CBD-centredpromotion, through the point where planning for downtown fringe districts came to incorporate art anddesign professionals’ cultural values. The local elites played their distinctive roles in creating the twohistoric districts in downtown Seattle, sometimes in line with the nationwide trends and sometimes apartfrom them. The making of the two historic districts was eventually realized as a part of federally fundedurban renewal and demonstration programmes, which the business elite initially ushered in and thecultural elite later tailored to �t its downtown values. While the shift in perspective did yield, as manyhave recalled, moments of a ‘people’s victory against the establishment’ and ‘preservation virtues againstredevelopment harms’ in downtown planning, this paper suggests that the shift involved local planningcircumstances that were too complex to be characterized in such dualistic terms.
Introduction
On April 27, 1970, the Seattle City Council approved the ordinance creating the PioneerSquare Historic District, located on the southern fringe of downtown. Similarly, onNovember 2, 1971, a citizen vote passed the initiative creating the Pike Place MarketHistoric District just west of the central business district [1]. (Figs 1, 2, 3). Since then, thetwo downtown districts, Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market, have been cherished assymbolic urban places in the city and have maintained their reputation as exemplary historicdistricts in the United States [2].
A number of articles have described the success story of Pioneer Square and Pike PlaceMarket and many of them have praised the making of the two historic districts frompreservationist points of view [3]. In contrast, the emergence of those districts in the contextof broader changes in Seattle’s downtown planning has received relatively little attention from
Planning PerspectivesISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online # 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journalsDOI: 10.1080/02665430110041728
Planning Perspectives, 16 (2001) 243–268
*Sohyun Park Lee received her Ph.D in Urban Design and Planning at the University of Washington, where she iscurrently a lecturer. She holds Master degrees in Historic Preservation from the University of Oregon and inArchitecture from the Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. Her research interests include planning and design issues inpromoting historic districts in American and Far Eastern metropolises.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
244 Park Lee
Figure 1. Map of Seattle in 1970. This map shows the locations of Pioneer Square, Pike Place Market,CBD and surrounding areas, along with urban programmes being applied at the time. (Source: ArthurGrey et al., People and Downtown: Use, Attitudes, Settings, Urban Renewal Demonstration GrantProject, Wash. D-1, Seattle, September 1970, no page, University of Washington, Architecture andUrban Planning Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
historians and planners. Particularly, scholars have not paid much attention to the perspect-ives of leading agents and their motivations in shaping downtown urban forms. Examining thetwo historic districts as case studies, this paper outlines the con�ict between two elite camps, aswell as their changing values with respect to downtown design. This con�ict ranged from thetime when business leaders’ economic values fuelled a CBD-centred promotion, through thepoint where municipal planning for fringe districts in downtown came to incorporate art anddesign professionals’ cultural values.
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 245
Figure 2. Boundary of the Pioneer Square Historic District, as �led in City Ordinance No. 98852, 1 May1970. (Source: Pioneer Square Historic District Subject Files, Washington State Archives, Puget SoundRegional Branch.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
246P
arkL
ee
Figure 3. Boundary of the seven-acre Pike Place Market Historic District within the larger boundary of the 22-acre Urban Renewal Project ofthe Market area. The seven-acre district was created by the citizen initiative passed in November 1971. (Source: City of Seattle, Department ofCommunity Development, Urban Renewal Plan, Pike Place Project, Wash. R-17, amended 4 January 1974, p. 66, University of Washington,Suzzallo Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
This shift in Seattle in part mirrored broader changes. According to Carl Abbott,American downtowns have been planned within ‘a continually changing framework ofconceptions and assumptions about the nature of the central business district’. Ideas onwhich the interpretation of downtown is based have changed and so have preferredplanning approaches and design solutions. Abbott explains that the emergence of down-town historic districts represented a nationwide shift in conceptions of downtown fromthat of a ‘declining real estate market’ to a ‘federation of subdistricts’ between 1955 and1975 [4]. This paper �eshes out the nature of the shift in one urban setting by tracing theevolution of Seattle’s two fringe areas into historic districts. Contrasting models for changein Seattle’s downtown design were encapsulated in two planning documents – Compre-hensive Plan for CBD Seattle (1963), also known as the Monson Plan and Planning forDowntown Seattle (1973). The Monson Plan, which re�ected the interests of the CBDbusiness elite, proposed that the downtown fringes be replaced with new parking facilitiesand that expressways be built through them to enhance the CBD. Ten years later, however,the 1973 plan oYcially acknowledged the departure from CBD-orientated planning andembraced area-based, district-planning approaches in downtown.
While the Seattle cases evolved in accordance with the national trend, there were at thesame time distinctive local factors that propelled the shift. These factors have to do with thoseelite groups that directed downtown planning. During the 1950s, Seattle’s downtown businessleaders were mostly concerned about losing their share of pro�t to rapidly growing suburbanshopping centres. City oYcials, in turn, feared a drastic decline in municipal tax revenue fromdowntown, which had traditionally provided a third of the city’s property taxes [5]. Securingthe economic stability of the CBD became one of the most urgent goals in downtown planningand urban renewal was considered an optimum solution. Emphasizing the aesthetic, historicand symbolic values of old fringe districts in downtown, however, local artists and architectsemerged in the 1960s as another elite group (that might be called a cultural or aesthetic elite)and challenged the business elite, city oYcials and the CBD-centred economic values that theyapplied to downtown design. A number of young architects and artists moved into the PioneerSquare area, rehabilitated old buildings and became actual residents of the community.Members of local art organisations allied against the redevelopment of the Pike Place Marketarea and provoked citizen participation to empower the members in downtown planningdecisions. As the general public responded positively to these changes, municipal agenciescame to accommodate these diversi�ed in�uences in downtown planning. Consequently,CBD-enhancing redevelopment approaches were distinctively modi�ed to safeguard therehabilitation of old fringe districts.
Some studies have tended to portray this kind of shift in perspective in terms of binaryoppositions, such as ‘people’s victory against the establishment’ and ‘preservation virtuesagainst redevelopment harms’. Local activist and historian Walt Crowley, for example,proclaims in celebratory tones that the battles that made the Pioneer Square and Pike PlaceMarket historic districts marked ‘de�ning moments’ of the city’s ‘democratic change andsocial renewal’, and that ‘Seattle reclaimed its soul’ through them [6]. The shift in perspectivedid yield ‘populist’ and ‘democratic’ moments and signalled a meaningful turning point thathelped incorporate more pluralized goals and voices in downtown design. Yet, in examiningkey individuals and groups with respect to their downtown values, this study suggests that theshift involved local planning circumstances that were too complex to be characterized in
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 247
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
dualistic or triumphalist terms. First, the business elite that promoted downtown redevelop-ment plans maintained its own rationale, the implications of which deserve historians’ andplanners’ attention if downtown planning of the period is to be put into perspective. Second,local architects and artists, while they contributed to diversifying downtown values andvoices, were none the less another elite group that knew how to exercise planning and designpower to promote its own downtown goals. Third, the cultural elite did not so much turndown the business elite’s urban renewal schemes as make ‘diVerent kinds’ of urban renewalapproaches available in Seattle’s downtown design. Indeed, the making of the two historicdistricts was, in large part, �nanced and implemented through federal urban renewal anddemonstration programmes, which the business elite initially ushered in and the cultural elitelater tailored to �t their downtown values. Analysing primary sources of planning documentsand records of downtown Seattle at the time, this study argues that local elites played theirdistinctive roles in creating the historic districts of Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market indowntown Seattle, sometimes in line with the general trends and sometimes apart from them.
Planning and design agents in downtown Seattle, 1958–63
Abbott’s de�nition of downtown as ‘a constructed concept’ responding to broader trends in‘political thought or cultural expression’ provides a helpful frame for understanding changesto downtown Seattle. Speci�cally, Abbott’s observation that American downtowns wereviewed as a ‘failing real estate market’ between 1955 and 1965 becomes a starting point forthis study [7]. According to the 1954 Census of Business, gross sales in Seattle’s centralbusiness district rose 5% between 1948 and 1954 (which represented an actual net declineconsidering the in�ation rate), but the increase in sales for the rest of the city was 50%. Inaddition, premium downtown retail sites in 1956 commanded only half the market price ofequivalent premium sites 30 years earlier, while outlying shopping centres’ peak land valueshad increased by up to ten times their former value [8]. Responding to the emergence ofpopular outlying malls, such as Bellevue Square, which opened in 1946, and Northgate Mall,which opened in 1950, Seattle’s business and civic leaders grew worried that downtown wasfalling behind the suburbs in hosting the city’s major retail businesses and developments [9].Protecting businesses as well as municipal tax bases from expanding suburban shoppingcentres became one of the most signi�cant objectives for downtown businessmen and cityoYcials.
In 1958, a group of downtown business leaders and property owners formed the CentralAssociation of Seattle to ‘meet the challenge of decay’ and to promote ‘proper downtowndevelopment’ [10]. The Central Association of Seattle (renamed the Downtown SeattleDevelopment Association in 1973 and today known as the Downtown Seattle Association)started with 30 leading businessmen in 1958, but received support from 268 of the city’s mostprominent �rms within three years [11]. The Association immediately engaged in co-operativeplanning with the city and, in May 1959, the two agencies jointly released a report, Planningfor the Future of Seattle’s Central Area. A basic agreement between the city and the CentralAssociation about the direction of downtown planning, the report proposed ‘attracting newbusinesses and cultural activities, developing a circulating ring-road and public transit system,stimulating urban renewal, and adding new city blocks’ [12]. The Central Association
248 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
admitted that the 1950s was the time of ‘�ight to suburbia’, but proclaimed that ‘downtown’would be the scene of major construction and redevelopment in the 1960s. New oYcebuildings, slum clearance, high-rise apartments, freeways, rapid transit and new visitorattractions were envisaged as the enterprises that would bring downtown back to life [13].
Pursuing ways to revitalize the declining CBD, members of the Central Associationspearheaded the development of a World’s Fair near the city centre, and envisaged urbanrenewal as proper strategy. The fair organizers, many of whom were downtown businessleaders and CAS members, were well aware of what urban renewal could bring to downtownenhancement, as they had seen how business elites in other major cities had utilized it inrebuilding their downtowns [14]. The ‘blighted’ Warren neighbourhood, a northern down-town fringe district, was cleared and renewed to make way for the fairgrounds. The SpaceNeedle, the Science Center, the rebuilt Opera House, the Monorail and other facilities wereconstructed to provide a new focus for downtown [15]. The layout concepts for thefairgrounds, largely borrowed from designs of shopping centres and theme parks, re�ectedthe CBD elite’s view at the time that suburban models could cure the decaying downtown [16].The positive experience of the World’s Fair left the city a legacy of ‘can-do spirit’ and, mostimportantly, assured Seattle (or at least the downtown business people) that downtown‘action plans’ would be developed in this direction [17].
Encouraged by the successful execution of the 1962 World’s Fair in Seattle, the CentralAssociation expedited drafting a downtown comprehensive plan by hiring a head planner,Donald Monson, from New York; Comprehensive Plan for Central Business District Seattlethus appeared in 1963. Known as the Monson Plan, it was adopted by the City Council inNovember 1963 and became the �rst oYcial report to outline a comprehensive plan forSeattle’s downtown. The Monson Plan asserted that implementing features of suburbanshopping centres, such as a pedestrian mall in the centre of a development surrounded by hugeparking lots and a distributing road system, would bring about a ‘modernization of down-town’, as had occurred in other major cities. To that end, downtown fringe areas were assignedpriority for total redevelopment, while ‘extensive blight’ and ‘problems of land assembly’ weretaken as evidence that federal support should be sought. Pioneer Square and the Pike PlaceMarket were to be replaced by new parking garages and shopping malls, and ring roads wereto be built through them [18]. The concept of applying the suburban model to downtown was,in essence, designed to eYciently accommodate cars the way shopping centres did. Whenplanning inner-ring roads and parking facilities, it appeared logical to route them through thedowntown fringe areas, which had shown the greatest degree of blight (Figs 4, 5).
Concerns over blight in old fringe districts were reinforced when a group of national realestate experts studied Seattle to advise city oYcials on preparing downtown for the future. TheBuild America Better Committee of the National Association of Real Estate Board, invited bythe Seattle Real Estate Board and by Seattle Urban Renewal Enterprise (SURE), visited the cityin April 1964 and produced a report, Seattle in Transition (1964). The report acknowledgedthe Monson Plan as a dramatic cure for the decaying downtown. It especially warned aboutthe negative eVect of the two fringe districts, Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market, on the‘otherwise vital and attractive central business district’, and urged that they should not beallowed to remain as ‘deterrents to healthy development of the business district’. Dependingon how Seattle rose to the challenge of renewing deteriorating segments of its real estateinventory, the report warned, this city was approaching either a ‘new era of urban
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 249
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
magni�cence’, or the ‘commencement of complacent middle age’. By undergoing urbanrenewal treatments for old fringe areas, Seattle would appear to be a city that ‘thinks . . .and acts big’ [19]. Downtown’s ‘health’ and the larger city’s ‘maturity’ seemed to be at stake.
In many ways, the Monson Plan was the culmination of the period’s exclusively CBD-orientated planning modes, driven by the coalition of downtown businessmen and cityoYcials, both of whom prioritized economic values in downtown promotion. However,
250 Park Lee
Figure 4. ‘Healthy CBD uses’ and concerns over ‘blight’ in downtown were among the most mentionedterms in planning documents of the 1950s and early 1960s in Seattle. This map of land use in 1958 revealsdowntown fringes’ high degree of ‘blight’. To restore ‘healthy CBD uses’, ‘blighted’ fringes wereperceived to need clearance and redevelopment treatments. (Source: City of Seattle, Seattle’s CentralBusiness District, A Land Use Study, February 1958, Map 23, Degree of Blight, no page, University ofWashington, Suzzallo Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Figure 5. Comprehensive Plan for Seattle’s CBD, known as the Monson Plan, adopted by the city in1963,was a culmination of CBD-centred planning approaches in Seattle. The Monson Plan proposed that thedowntown fringes, including Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market, be replaced with new parkinggarages, shopping facilities and expressways. In this way, it was believed that downtown would competemore eVectively with outlying shopping malls and oYces. (Source: City of Seattle and the CentralAssociation of Seattle, Comprehensive Plan for Seattle’s Central Business District, prepared by DonaldMonson, February1963,Plate 4,CentralArea Plan, no page, University of Washington, Suzzallo Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
there were other in�uential members of the city who supported this CBD-centred planning ofthe period, but with a slightly diVerent rationale. An elite group of artists and architectsforesaw the cultural and aesthetic value in the business elite’s plans for downtown. Indeed, theCentral Association’s early downtown proposals were backed by local architecture �rms,including Fred Bassetti & Morse, John Graham & Company, and Durham, Anderson & Freed[20]. In 1959, the Municipal Art Commission, formed in 1955 with ten members includingartists, architects, landscape architects, and others, praised the Central Association for its‘promising starts’ in attempting to bring new character to downtown [21]. Most noticeably,Allied Arts of Seattle, a local artists’ group formally incorporated in 1955, acknowledged thepotential cultural and aesthetic outcomes of downtown rebuilding with respect to providingcivic facilities for high arts. Envisaging the 1962 World’s Fair as a chance to have a moresupportive downtown environment for the arts, Allied Arts backed the Exposition andendorsed the renewal of the Warren neighbourhood for the fairground site [22]. The SeattleChapter of the American Institute of Architects also acknowledged the important roles of boththe Monson Plan and the Association in future downtown development, although it urged thatthe Plan be regarded only ‘as a goad to the further study, not a �xed guide for a �xed system ofcapital expenditure’ [23]. The CBD-centred downtown promotions, initiated by businesselites, were generally endorsed by Seattle’s cultural elites between 1958 and 1963.
As long as the business elite’s economic values and the cultural elite’s aesthetic or artisticvalues pursued the same goal in the promotion of downtown rebuilding, the two groups, whichtogether represented a signi�cant fraction of the leadership in the urban area, worked hand inhand. The business elite could achieve economic success through downtown rebuilding and thecultural elite could ful�l its interest in maintaining the central district as an intellectual andcultural focus. However, these two elite groups diverged when speci�c redevelopmentproposals for Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market led them to take contrasting stances onhow to rebuild the downtown fringe area during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Con�icting elites and changing values
pio neer squar e
The diVerent stances held by the business elite and the cultural elite largely stemmed from thetwo groups’ con�icting views regarding ‘what to preserve’, based on what they each valuedabout the old fringe areas. In Pioneer Square, for example, the business elite acknowledged thehistoric signi�cance of Pioneer Place, the triangular half-block surrounded by First Avenue,Yesler Way and Pioneer Place, as ‘the birthplace of Seattle’ and actually proposed itspreservation. A joint report by the Central Association and the Planning Commission in1959, entitled Pioneer Square, recommended closing the Pioneer Place road from Cherry toJames Streets to develop a commemorative urban park on the enlarged triangular block. TheMonson Plan (1963) reiterated this urban park idea in its open space proposals. A re�nedurban renewal study prepared for local investment groups in 1966, called Pioneer SquareRedevelopment (known as the Graham Report), also suggested that the enlarged Pioneer Placearea be made into a historic pedestrian plaza [24] (Figs 6, 7).
It was primarily economic values that drove the business elite to recognize and utilize
252 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
the historic signi�cance of Pioneer Place as it pursued means to rehabilitate the open spaceof Pioneer Place as a tourist spot. Although Pioneer Place was acknowledged for potentialrestoration with possible economic incentives, the area of about 20 blocks south of YeslerWay in Pioneer Square was perceived as a ‘depressed’ and ‘blighted’ zone in need ofurban renewal. Addressing these circumstances, the Monson Plan proposed that innerring-roads plow through Washington and Main Streets and that a parking garage beconstructed between First Avenue and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. In addition, the GrahamReport recommended a number of superblocks in the area south of Yesler Way, includingthe high-rise oYce buildings, parking garages, pedestrian plazas, and retail shops. Basedon real estate values, the business elite clearly distinguished areas to preserve (PioneerPlace’s open space and immediately adjacent buildings) from areas to redevelop (the onessouth of Yesler Way in Pioneer Square). As long as Pioneer Place was preserved, believed
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 253
Figure 6. ‘Rehabilitation of Pioneer Square’, envisaged by the CBD elite in 1959. The idea of closingPioneer Place from James Street to Cherry Street was initiated from this proposal. (Source: CentralAssociation of Seattle and City Planning Commission, Pioneer Square, 1959, Plate 3, ProposedRehabilitation of Pioneer Square, no page, University of Washington, Suzzallo Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
the business elite, historical preservation in the entire Pioneer Square area was well takencare of.
Many members of the cultural elite, on the other hand, had diVerent ideas about andapproaches to the planning and preservation of Pioneer Square. Ignoring the business elite’sappraisal that most buildings south of the Yesler Way were not �nancially worthy ofrehabilitation, Ralph Anderson, a local architect, purchased the Jackson Building on hisown in 1962 and moved into the run-down, economically depressed area without any outside�nancial support. Subsequently, Anderson’s friend Richard White took out a long-term leaseon the Liberty Building in 1965 to open an art gallery. In 1966, Anderson purchased anotherbuilding in the area, the Union Trust Building [25]. These and several other buildings wererenovated in the coming years by Anderson and converted into architectural oYces, artstudios, galleries and other professional facilities. Contrary to the business elite’s predictions,many of these buildings, most of them restored by their owners with private money, attractedenthusiastic tenants faster than space could be made available [26]. A photo in a local
254 Park Lee
Figure 7. ‘Redevelopment of Pioneer Square’, proposed in 1966. Super blocks of new oYces andshopping facilities, as well as parking grounds were to be built. Only a small commemorative open spacewas proposed on the triangular block of Pioneer Place. Most properties south of it were regarded as‘blight’ warranting total clearance. (Source: John Graham and Company, Pioneer Square Redevelop-ment, July 1966, p. 59, University of Washington, Architecture and Urban Planning Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
newspaper in November 1968, showing Ralph Anderson, Allen Salsbury, Richard White,Terry Wilson and Frank Okada, along with other newly settled residents, planting �owerbulbs along Occidental Avenue for the coming spring, represented the area’s new residents andtheir neighbourhood activities [27].
Meanwhile, Bill Speidel, a local writer and entrepreneur, published Seattle Underground, apictorial story and tour guide, and opened the Seattle Underground Tour in 1968, provingPioneer Square’s potential as a popular tourist spot [28]. By the time the fashionable BrasseriePittsbourge restaurant was opened in the basement of the Pioneer Building in 1969, thepreviously ‘blighted’ area of Pioneer Square was �lled with critical numbers of fancyboutiques, galleries, restaurants, architectural �rms, interior design oYces, artists’ studiosand law �rms [29]. Indeed, the demography of both residents and tourists, as well as thephysical appearance of the area, were changing in the late 1960s. Essentially, Pioneer Squarewas being renewed without major outside support and without many contributions fromprofessional planners or CBD interests.
Along with new residents and business owners in Pioneer Square, local architects andartists again played a big role in enacting the historic district ordinance for the area. In May1968, for example, the Seattle Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), whosepresident was Fred Bassetti at the time, presented Action: Better City, design guidelines foreach section of the city, as a statement of local architects on the city’s planning direction. Iturged that Pioneer Square retain its major historic buildings and demanded the preservationof the entire area’s historic character [30]. The Seattle Chapter of the AIA held a paneldiscussion on the future of Pioneer Square in July 1968 by inviting Ralph Anderson, RobertHintz, J. P. Willison, Phyllis Lamphere, A. Bumgardner, and Bill Speidel. And, as an outcome,the architects oYcially requested the �rst public hearing on the status of Pioneer Square’shistoric district ordinance, which had been sporadically studied by the City since 1966without much progress [31].
During 1969, local architects and artists as well as new residents and business owners in thePioneer Square area repeatedly pushed the City Council to pass the Historic PreservationOrdinance for Pioneer Square. However, the proposed ordinance was still pending, mainlybecause CBD businessmen expressed strong concerns over the controlling power theordinance would carry [32]. Finally, in December 1969, the Pioneer Square Association, thelocal neighbourhood organization whose leading members were now mostly new residents orproperty and business owners, confronted the CBD opposition and demanded that the Councilpass the ordinance by a certain date, which was February 15, 1970. The Central Associationpersistently opposed some parts of the proposed ordinance, as it had done before. MechlinMoore, Executive Vice-President of the Central Association, insisted that the ordinance was‘punitive’ and represented a ‘serious infringement’ on property rights. Moore suggested properpreservation approaches would include public purchase of properties for development rightsand subsidies to private owners for restoration. Moore opposed provisions in the ordinancethat would not let building owners ‘paint or change a door knob without city approval’ andwould ‘put the area in a deep freeze’ [33].
As some residents of the Pioneer Square area contended, however, the Central Associationdid not represent Pioneer Square land or property owners. Besides, by 1969, the PioneerSquare area had already gone through changes in its economic and demographic bases. Two-thirds of the residents of the Skid Road section had moved out in the past two years, and
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 255
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
businesses moving into the area were seeking to preserve its historical character. Bill Speidel,past president and secretary of the Pioneer Square Association, asserted that many currentresidents and property owners believed more money could be made by restoring the oldbuildings than by tearing them down, and that the city was needed to co-ordinate this work.Clearly, many property owners in Pioneer Square disagreed with the Central Association onthe ordinance issue [34].
Although it failed to meet the requested deadline of the Pioneer Square Association, the CityCouncil �nally took up the ordinance to create the Pioneer Square Historic District on April27, 1970. The Central Association requested that the District’s boundary be shrunk in half, aswell as that more time be given to study the ordinance, but the Council overruled thoserequests and voted 7–0 to adopt the ordinance. District boundaries were Columbia Street tothe north, a line between First and Second Avenues and between Occidental and SecondAvenue to the east, a line one-half block south of Jackson Street to the south, and WesternAvenue to the west. The ordinance established the Historic Preservation Board, appointed bythe City Council, which would review any remodelling, demolition and rebuilding plans forthe area [35] (Fig. 2). The passage of the ordinance assured Pioneer Square of protectionagainst total redevelopment treatments and encouraged more restoration. Most signi�cantly,through the newly created Historic Preservation Board, local architects and artists gainedsubstantial in�uence over planning and design decisions in the area.
In order to understand background factors that helped the cultural elite challenge thedominant business elite, it may be useful to look at some of the changes in Seattle’s politics atthe time. As late as 1967, according to Roger Sale, the City Council ‘collectively continued tounderstand their task as . . . keeping downtown people happy, and keeping the books inbalance’. In the election of 1967, however, Phyllis Lamphere, Tim Hill and Sam Smith wereelected to the Council, supported by a group called CHECC (Choose an EVective CityCouncil), whose members were young professionals convinced of Seattle’s need to change itsmeans of self-government [36]. In particular, Phyllis Lamphere, the chairperson of theCouncil’s Planning Committee, and Wes Uhlman, the mayor elected in 1969, had moresympathetic views towards downtown fringe areas than did their predecessors and supportedthe ordinance to create the Pioneer Square Historic District. Additionally, as a result of theForward Thrust bond election in 1968, the Seattle Design Commission and the King CountyDesign Commission were brought into being. The Seattle Design Commission had respons-ibility for reviewing designs for any civic projects. Ibsen Nelsen, a local architect, wasappointed to head the new Seattle Design Commission in March 1968 [37]. This could beinterpreted as a sign that the practice of controlling physical planning and urban designthrough design review mechanisms was becoming more accepted by the public and, thus,incorporated into mainstream planning processes.
In terms of bringing more ‘democratic changes’ to downtown planning, the passage of thePioneer Square Historic District Ordinance in April 1970 did mark a turning point. Thepassage con�rmed the shift of planning powers from one dominant source to a variety ofsources. Citizen participation in downtown planning was achieved as new residents andbusiness owners of the area initiated, as well as participated in, the decision-making process.At the same time, however, there were also complex planning situations embedded in thatshift, which might render the widely accepted descriptions of ‘democratic changes’ and‘preservation virtues’ too simplistic.
256 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Above all, it is important to note that neither of the elite groups between which the shift ofplanning power mostly occurred made much provision for the less advantaged. To someresidents of Pioneer Square, the business elite’s urban renewal agenda and the cultural elite’spreservation agenda both entailed the same consequence – eviction of them from the oldbuildings they had regarded as their homes. Displacement occurred as some old buildings wererestored and other old buildings were shut down when they failed to meet building codes.People were evacuated, or evicted for not paying rent. In 1972 a survey was made of CensusTract 92, the area bounded by South Jackson Street, Yesler Way, Maynard Avenue and AlaskaWay. It found that 61 hotels and apartment buildings had been demolished or vacated between1965 and 1972, and a population of 2286 in 1960 had dropped to 921 in 1970. In particular,single, transient men who traditionally had found cheap rooms in the area were being forced tomove. Some might have escaped to another skid road and others might have become homeless[38]. Many did not participate in the ‘people’s victory’.
There was still another limitation to the ‘democratic’ dimension of making the PioneerSquare Historic District. This was re�ected in the ways Pioneer Square came to utilize thefederal Model Cities Program, which had been largely intended to improve the social as well asphysical conditions of ‘depressed’ minority neighbourhoods, like the Central District inSeattle. When Pioneer Square was �rst proposed as a part of Model Neighborhoods in1967, there were some complaints from Central District residents, who argued that PioneerSquare was not a minority ghetto but a mobilizing commercial area. They distinguishedPioneer Square from the Central District, whose ‘more than enough problems and needs’deserved the Program’s aid. However, the city oYcials had always intended to include PioneerSquare in their proposal to obtain any funding sources for revitalization; furthermore, ‘blight’and bad housing conditions in the area were well enough known to overcome the complaintsfrom the Central District [39]. Federal money that might have gone to the truly needy wasspent instead on an already gentrifying neighbourhood.
When the Model Cities Grant became available, one of the �rst projects carried out inSeattle was the creation of Pioneer Place Park and Occidental Park in Pioneer Square [40]. ThePioneer Square Historic District, with its two urban parks, became more attractive and enticedmore revitalization of the area. In a way, Pioneer Square got critical help from the Model Citiesfund, which had originally been earmarked for minority communities with more serious socialproblems, ironically resulting in more displacement of the original residents of the area. Inshort, the Pioneer Square Historic District certainly brought some element of ‘democraticchanges’ and ‘preservation virtues’ to downtown planning at the time, yet these ideals tendedto bene�t those with means, rather than those less privileged.
pike pl ace mar ket
Perhaps the celebration of ‘democratic changes’ and ‘preservation virtues’ had more relevancein Pike Place Market than in Pioneer Square, as the passage of the citizen initiative creating theMarket Historic District has been hailed as a ‘victory of the people’ since 1971 [41]. None theless, the leading roles in making the Market Historic District were played by the two elitecamps, the business elite and the cultural elite, which once more found themselves followingdivergent planning paths.
Inspired by the recommendations of the Build America Better Committee, the Central
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 257
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Association and the Seattle Urban Renewal Enterprise (SURE) immediately undertook a jointfeasibility study called Pike Place Redevelopment in August 1964. Following the MonsonPlan, Pike Plaza Redevelopment proposed clearing the area’s blight to provide needed parkingand transit facilities, a water view park, in-city living apartments, a hotel, new oYces and retailshops. Claiming the Market area redevelopment as ‘the single most important redevelopmentproject in Seattle’s history’, the Central Association and SURE urged the city to oYciallyengage in the federal urban renewal programme for the Market area [42]. Their request wasaccepted by the City Council in January 1965; the City Urban Renewal OYce prepared anapplication for survey and planning funds to study the Market area and submitted it to theregional oYce of the department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in September ofthat year [43]. When HUD announced its approval of initial funds for planning the Marketredevelopment in December 1966, a federal urban renewal project was �nally on its way todowntown Seattle [44] (Fig. 8).
Contrary to general perception, the CBD elite recognized the value of the historic Marketand proposed to ‘preserve’ the Market in its own way. In the Monson Plan (1963), forexample, the urban renewal promoters insisted that
the charm and drawing power of the Market is not in the sheds within which it now operates but in thecharacter of the vendors, the quality of the produce sold, the attractive way in which they are displayed,and in the arrangement of the stalls and concession areas. The character of the Market can be retainedand reproduced under a new roof [45].
Some local architects, such as John Morse and Paul Kirk, advocated similar ‘preservationideas’ to those of the Monson Plan. They maintained that ‘cleanup’ of the dilapidated areawith well-designed, trendy, ‘tall blockbusters’ could preserve the Market because its historicfunctions would be enhanced in ‘an attractive market complex with new land uses [46].
As the total redevelopment of the Pike Place Market area began to materialize, however,many members of the cultural elite expressed concerns and proposed diVerent approaches.In 1964, for example, Allied Arts organized the Friends of the Market, a private ‘watchdog’group designed to preserve the Market from the proposed urban renewal. Headed by localarchitects and artists including Victor Steinbrueck, Fred Bassetti and Mark Tobey, thisgroup regarded the Market function very diVerently from the way the business eliteregarded it. Victor Steinbruck, called ‘a patron saint of the Market’ by Councilman WingLuke, stated that the Market was ‘a most important symbol to the City’ and that ‘all of usown a part of the City when we walk down there’. Mark Tobey, a world-famous localartist, asserted that the market ‘has been a refuge and an oasis’, as well as ‘the heart and soulof Seattle’. This was followed up by Fred Bassetti’s often quoted statement, ‘the Market isan honest place in a phony time’. Bassetti, a respected local architect, maintained that theMarket (the physical place, not merely its function) was worth saving ‘because it is uniquefor our region’ [47]. Recognizing the aesthetic, symbolic and historic value of the Market,many architects and artists challenged the business elite’s economic values that legitimizedthe total redevelopment of the Market area.
This kind of local confrontation well re�ected the national trends of the time. In the mid-1960s, people increasingly called for a re-evaluation of mainstream planning approaches –especially those promoting clearance and redevelopment modes that paid little attention tolocal culture and history. There were also critics who objected to these urban renewal
258 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Designing
historicdistricts,Seattle
1958–73259
Figure 8. The Market area redevelopment plan, proposed by the CBD elite, who claimed it as ‘the single most important redevelopment projectin Seattle’s history’ in 1964. The Plan reiterated what the Monson Plan envisaged for the area. (Source: Central Association of Seattle andSeattle Urban Renewal Enterprise, Pike Plaza Redevelopment: A Preliminary Feasibility Study, August 1964, p. 13a, Schematic, Pike PlazaProject, CBD Plan 1963, University of Washington, Architecture and Urban Planning Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
approaches based on their negative eVect on cities and city people. Among others, KevinLynch’s Image of the City, Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life of Great American Cities and HerbertGans’ Urban Villagers cautioned architects, planners, and policy makers to be moreappreciative of diverse, smaller-scale building blocks and existing old neighbourhoods [48].From another angle, Martin Anderson’s Federal Bulldozer documented the failure of theclearance strategy by showing the high cost and slow progress of massive demolition [49]. Inaddition, the validity of previous generations’ planning practices, especially elite profes-sionals’ top-down strategies in making decisions, came to be widely questioned. Articles suchas Paul DavidoV’s ‘Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning’ urged planners to pay more attentionto the demand for advocacy planning based on grassroots involvement [50].
New waves of criticism of urban renewal programs, along with vigorous social movementsof the time, such as the Civil Rights movement, anti-war protests, the women’s movement,environmental awareness and inner-city rebellions and riots, contributed to acceleratingchanges in national urban policies. The 1966 Model Cities Act, the 1966 Transportation Actand the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act, for example, required federal admin-istrators to take special care to protect historic sites, as well as to take into greater accountsocial and environmental considerations in urban renewal. In particular, the passage of theNational Historic Preservation Act in 1966 was one of the most remarkable achievements inprotecting historic buildings and sites from development, as the Act provided various tools for‘integrating preservation activities into government bureaucracy’ [51].
Compared to the urban, racial crises in major American cities of the east and the south, theproblems of Seattle might have been less serious during the turbulent years of the 1960s. Yetthe civil rights movement in Seattle, whose impetus came from such local issues as ‘job bias,housing discrimination, and de facto school segregation’, directly challenged and changed thecity’s existing political systems [52]. In particular, protests and demonstrations by the CentralDistrict’s residents during the summer of 1968 encouraged the city and its citizens to emergewith new urban politics that were more inclusive of a wide range of people than before [53].However, in the matter of planning and preservation of the Market area, as well as of PioneerSquare, the cultural elite (and not yet ‘the people’) led the way.
Responding to both the national and local circumstances, the cultural elite, represented bygroups such as the Friends of the Market, went through quite an ordeal to ensure thepreservation of the historic Market. After many eVorts to protect the Market fromredevelopment, Victor Steinbrueck in 1969 nominated the Market area to the NationalRegister of Historic Places created by the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act; itsboundary was de�ned by Union, First, Virginia and Western streets. In February 1970, thisseven-acre Market historic district became one of the �rst geographical areas in WashingtonState placed on the National Register. The area of the Market historic district, however, wasreduced to 1.7 acres in August 1970 at the request of city oYcials, who, along with CBDinterests, worried that the seven-acre historic district might threaten federal urban renewalmoney earmarked for the area [54]. Subsequently, the urban renewal promoters promised thatthey would accommodate the preservation of the 1.7-acre historic district within the proposedMarket urban renewal plan. This meant that the CBD elite �nally came to change its stance onMarket preservation from total clearance (providing brand new facilities ‘to preserve andenhance’ the historic Market function) to partial rehabilitation (containing physical andfunctional preservation within the 1.7-acre historic district). This symbolized a meaningful
260 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
shift in the conception of Market area preservation and it was, indeed, well earned by thecultural elite, who had continuously challenged the CBD elite.
Supporters of preservation for the historic Market had new allies in City Hall. MayorUhlman responded more positively to the Market preservation than had the previous mayor,and proposed in May 1971 that the 1.7-acre Market area be designated as a historic districtunder city ordinance. In addition, the proposed district was to be regulated by its own DesignReview Board appointed by the city. Uhlman advised that the Pioneer Square Historic District,recently adopted by the city in 1970, be used as a guide in the drafting of legislation concerningthe Pike Place Market Ordinance [55]. Many business and civic leaders, as well as theDesimone family, the owner of the Market buildings and land, now supported the proposal ofthe 1.7 acre Market Historic District [56].
Not satis�ed, however, the Friends of the Market prepared a citizen initiative to restore the7-acre historic district and create a Market Historical Commission, appointed by the Friendsof the Market and others, for reviewing any development and alterations within the district.The Friends of the Market asserted that the Market was not just the Market buildingsthemselves, but ‘a way of life’, the integrity of which required the preservation of the wholearea (7 acres), not just of the Market buildings and surroundings (1.7 acres) [57]. The initiativewas placed on the ballot of November 2, 1971, and passed by a margin of 76369 to 53246, inspite of urban renewal promoters’ collective eVorts to defeat it [58]. The original Marketredevelopment project now had to be revised accordingly. Contrary to some civic and businessleaders’ concerns, the revised project, containing the component of preserving the 7-acrehistoric district, was approved by HUD and the federal urban renewal money was grantedwithout much controversy [59] (Fig. 3).
The Pike Place Market Historic District has often been described as having been created bythe passage of this citizen initiative. Even if the initiative had not been passed, however, therestill would have been a Historic District and a Design Review Board under city ordinance, asMayor Uhlman had proposed them in May 1971. Indeed, what the initiative brought was notthe creation of a historic district, but its enlargement from 1.7 acres to 7 acres. Whether the1.7-acre Historic District could have served preservation purposes and other planning goals aswell as did the seven-acre District is an issue for further speculation. However, the establish-ment of the Market Historical Commission did bring an indisputable turning point in the shiftof planning and design powers from one elite group to another in downtown Seattle.
The Market Historical Commission, whose members would be appointed by Allied Arts,Friends of the Market, and Market business owners, was indeed a safeguard for localarchitects and artists to exercise full design control over the Market Historic District as ‘acity administrative agency’ [60]. The creation of the Market Historical Commission especiallyirritated the property owners in the Market area, as the Commission would have substantialauthority over their holdings. Records show most of the property owners preferred theprevious urban renewal plan, as well as the 1.7-acre historic district proposal, and largelyopposed the Friends of the Market’s initiative. Property owners insisted that the Commissionwould ‘infringe upon the private owners’ property rights’ and ‘prevent them from alteringtheir own property without the consent of the proposed Commission’. This property-rightsargument received strong support from city planning agencies and business leaders and wasendorsed by the local newspapers [61].
The voters, however, who generally did not have �nancial interests in the Market area,
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 261
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
acknowledged the symbolic value of the Market and empowered the Commission to overrideproperty owners’ rights. In essence, what the Market initiative stood for might have been theestablishment of this mechanism for substantial control in downtown planning and design.Through the Commission, the aesthetic, historic and symbolic value of the Market for whichlocal architects and artists had so eagerly fought �nally came to have an oYcial voice inplanning decisions and, in many instances, now took precedence over the economic values thathad previously dominated most planning approaches in downtown. Initiated by the culturalelite, the real contest in the Market case was again between the two elite groups, but this timethe ‘people’ had a chance to exercise their power and impose their will on the CBD elite thathad been used to running downtown as it saw �t. In this sense, as a more ‘democratic politics’was indeed an outcome of the contest through a city-wide vote, it is valid to say that theMarket case brought about the ‘victory of the people’ and ‘preservation virtues’.
The vote, however, did not emerge from the ‘people’ themselves. Rather, it occurredbecause the cultural elite needed leverage for overcoming the resistance to preservation of theseven-acre Market area among other civic leaders. In this capacity, it would be meaningful tobring a pro�le of the ‘people’ to the discussion. According to one geographical study, 38.9% ofthe total electorate participated in the election on November 2, 1971, which was actually amoderately large turnout; the Market initiative was passed by 76369 to 53 246 votes. Yet thestudy also explained that, while the Market initiative contained very confusing and subtleissues, it was mostly perceived as a binary choice between preservation and demolition of theMarket. This simpli�ed matters, because the real choice was between one kind of preservationand another, and the simpli�ed perception could have led to the voters’ misunderstanding ofthe initiative. Most signi�cantly, though, the study pointed out that the vast majority ofMarket merchants, residents, farmers and frequent users were not always the ‘people’ who hadin�uence on the passage of the Market initiative [62]. There were about 440 residents livingaround the Market area, as observed in a diVerent survey conducted in 1968. According to thesurvey, the Market ‘residents’ were mostly single, male, working people who saw themselvesas better oV than those in other downtown fringe areas, especially the Pioneer Square area.Pertinently, the ‘residents’ tended not to involve themselves in the changes in the Market area,nor to belong to any groups to voice their concerns, and hardly participated in elections [63].
The making of the Pike Place Market Historic District realized signi�cant aspects of‘democratic changes’ and ‘preservation virtues’ in Seattle’s downtown design, overall moreconvincing than in the Pioneer Square case. Yet these ideals again were realized in large partfor those with means rather than for those less privileged.
Conclusion
The creation of the two historic districts with their own design review boards connoted manychanges in Seattle’s downtown planning. As a consequence, it led to the revision of the 1963Monson Plan and to the preparation of Planning for Downtown Seattle in 1973 as Seattle’snew downtown comprehensive plan. The 1973 Plan oYcially rejected some of the elements ofthe Monson Plan, such as ring road conceptions and an extensive system of malls indowntown. Not surprisingly, the new Plan encouraged each subdistrict, including PioneerSquare and Pike Place Market, to develop distinctive land use and activity patterns of its own
262 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Figure 9. Creating the historic districts of Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market in downtown Seattle ledto revising the Monson Plan and to preparing a new downtown comprehensive plan. Planning forDowntown Seattle (1973) was the result. Drafted ten years after the Monson Plan, the new plan re�ectedthe shift away from the CBD-centred planning approaches of clearance and redevelopment andembraced the promotion of area-based, district-planning modes. Each downtown district, includingPioneer Square and Pike Place Market, came to be acknowledged as a substantial planning unit. Oncede�ned as blighted zones, downtown fringe districts were now re-conceived and re-designed as specialdistricts containing a variety of downtown functions. (Source: City of Seattle, Department of CommunityDevelopment, Planning for Downtown Seattle, Report no. 5, Concept, 1973, p. 6, University ofWashington, Suzzallo Library.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
[64] (Fig. 9). Indeed, departing from CBD-orientated planning approaches, each fringe districtcame to be recognized as a substantial planning unit, and downtown was perceived more as a‘federation of subdistricts’ than as a ‘failing real estate market’, in Abbott’s terms.
When re�ecting on the successful creation of the two historic districts, and when accountingfor how Seattle’s downtown went from a ‘failing real estate market’ to a ‘federation ofsubdistricts’, it needs to be recalled that it was elites – and not ‘the people’ – who led thechange. Although there is some validity to the idea of a ‘people’s victory’, it is then necessary toconsider exactly when and to what extent ‘the people’ participated in changing downtownplanning, and to ask whether some of these ‘people’ were excluded from the planning process.The citizen participation that went hand in hand with the cultural elite’s in�uence representedthe relatively well-to-do folks who mostly lived away from downtown, rather than those lessprivileged people who had originally lived in downtown. As a consequence, for some ‘people’,both the business elite’s CBD-centred redevelopment and the cultural elite’s subdistrictpreservation implied the same thing – displacement from downtown.
264 Park Lee
Figure 10. Recent scenes of Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market. Epitomizing Seattle’s downtown as a‘federation of subdistricts’ in Abbott’s terms, the two historic districts attract enormous numbers ofshoppers and tourists, whom the business leaders had so eagerly tried to lure in order to redirect the‘failing real estate market’ of downtown through redeveloped, super-block retail centres. While themaking of the two has been widely hailed as the ‘people’s victory against the establishment’, it did end upsatisfying the CBD elite as well. In contrast, some ‘people’ who were unable to aVord them had to leavethe areas as a result of ‘the people’s victory’. (Photos by the author.)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
Ironically, the historic districts of Pioneer Square and the Pike Place Market, epitomizingSeattle’s downtown as a ‘federation of subdistricts’, eventually did satisfy the CBD elite aswell. This was because the two historic districts did end up attracting enormous numbers ofshoppers and tourists, whom the business elite had so eagerly tried to lure in order to redirectthe ‘failing real estate market’ of downtown through redeveloped, super-block retail centres atthe time (Fig. 10).
Acknowledgements
This article is based on a portion of my dissertation. I would like to thank my advisor,Professor John M. Findlay at the University of Washington, for his guidance in writing boththis article and the dissertation. I am also grateful to the reviewers for their comments.
Notes and references
1. Seattle Times (April 28, 1970); Seattle Times (November 3, 1971).2. The National Trust for Historic Preservation held a national conference in 1975 and devoted one
session to the Seattle experience of the Pioneer Square Historic district as a remarkable case. Thepapers from the conference were published as Economic Bene�ts of Preserving Old Buildings,Washington DC: Preservation Press, 1976. Downtown design and planning texts frequently quotethe two cases as exemplary. A quick reference includes B. J. Frieden and L. B. Sagalyn, DowntownInc.: How America Rebuilds Cities. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1989; S. Tiesdell et al., RevitalizingHistoric Urban Quarters. Oxford: Architectural Press, 1996; L. Ford, Cities and Buildings:Skyscrapers, Skid Rows, and Suburbs. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994. Bookson Seattle generally list the two cases as the city’s symbolic places.
3. One of the most recent studies about the preservation history of the two areas cites L. Kreisman,Made to Last: Historic Preservation in Seattle and King County. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress, 1999, pp. 13–25, 83–99; N. Tayler, Historic Preservation: An Introduction to Its History,Principles, and Practices. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, pp. 61–3, 22–4.
4. C. Abbott, Five Strategies for Downtown: Policy Discourse and Planning since 1943, in M. Sies andC. Silver (ed.) Planning the Twentieth-Century American City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1996, p. 406, 408.
5. City of Seattle, Seattle’s Central Business District: A Land Use Study, July 1958, p. 2.6. W. Crowley with P. Dorpat, National Trust Guide, Seattle: America’s Guide for Architecture and
History Travelers. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; Washington DC: Preservation Press, 1998,p. vii.
7. C. Abbott, op. cit. [4], pp. 407, 408.8. City of Seattle, op. cit. [5], pp. 3, 4.9. J. M. Findlay, Magic Lands: Western Cityscapes and American Culture after 1940. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1992, pp. 221, 222.10. Central Association of Seattle, Annual Report, 1958–9.11. Central Association of Seattle, Annual Report, 1961–2.12. City of Seattle and Central Association of Seattle, Planning for the Future of Seattle’s Central Area,
May 1959, preface, p. 5.
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 265
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
13. Central Association of Seattle, Annual Report, 1960–1.14. J. M. Findlay, op. cit. [9], pp. 223–4.15. J. M. Findlay, The OV-Center Seattle Center: Downtown Seattle and the 1962 World’s Fair. Paci�c
Northwest Quarterly 80 (January 1989) 7.16. J. M. Findlay, op. cit. [9], p. 244.17. Central Association of Seattle, Annual Report, 1961–2; 1962–3.18. City of Seattle and Central Association of Seattle, Comprehensive Plan for Central Business District
Seattle, prepared by D. Monson, February 1963, pp. 3–9, 10–12, 24–5.19. National Association of Real Estate Boards, Build America Better Committee, Seattle in Transition,
an advisory team report to City of Seattle, June 1964, pp. 7–8, 10.20. Central Association of Seattle, op. cit. [11].21. Seattle Municipal Art Commission, Annual Report, 1959.22. J. M. Findlay, op. cit. [9], pp. 226–7.23. Seattle Chapter of American Institute of Architects, Inc., Monthly Bulletin (August 1963) 1.24. Central Association of Seattle and the Seattle Planning Commission, Pioneer Square, August 1959,
pp. 1–2; D. Monson, op. cit. [18], p. 59; J. Graham and Company, Pioneer Square Redevelopment,July 1966, pp. 54–5.
25. R. Anderson, interview by author, tape recording, Seattle, WA, 25 July 2000; A. F. Black, MakingHistoric Preservation Pro�table – If You’re Willing to Wait, in National Trust for HistoricPreservation (comp.) The Economic Bene�ts of Preserving Old Buildings. Washington DC:Preservation Press, 1976, p. 21.
26. ‘Rough Draft’, Model Cities, Pioneer Square Report, 10 March 1967, G.O.G. Pioneer SquareFolder, Washington State Archives, Puget Sound Regional Branch.
27. Seattle Post-Intellligencer (November 10, 1968).28. B. Speidel, Seattle Underground: A Pictorial Study with Historical Footnotes and Interesting
Anecdotes about the Forgotten beneath Modern Seattle. Seattle: Seattle Underground, 1967, p. 1;Seattle Times (October 10, 1968).
29. R. Sale, Seattle, Past to Present. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1976, p. 239.30. Seattle Chapter of American Institute of Architects, Inc., Action: Better City. Seattle: Seattle Chapter
of AIA, 1965, no page; J. Ochsner, ed., Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to theArchitects. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994, p. 338.
31. Seattle Times (July 28, 1968).32. M. Blankinship, Chairman of Seattle Planning Commission to the City Council, 8 April 1969,
Pioneer Square Historic District Subject Files, Seattle Municipal Archives; Seattle PlanningCommission, ‘Pioneer Square Historical Ordinance, Revised Seventh Draft’, 12 March 1969,Pioneer Square Historic District Subject Files, Seattle Municipal Archives; Seattle Times (December14, 1969).
33. Seattle Times (December 16, 1969); Seattle Post-Intelligencer (December 16, 1969); CentralAssociation of Seattle, ‘Five Point Program Proposed to Restore Pioneer Square’, Immediate PressRelease, 29 November 1967, G.O.G. Pioneer Square Folder, Washington State Archives, PugetSound Branch; Central Association of Seattle, Newsletter, 5 December 1967, no page.
34. Seattle Times (December 16, 1969); Seattle Post-Intelligencer (December 16, 1969).35. Seattle Times (April 28, 1970); Seattle Post-Intelligencer (April 28, 1970).36. R. Sale, op. cit. [29], pp. 223–4.37. Seattle Municipal Art Commission, People, Art, City: Municipal Art Commission Annual Report,
1967–8, no page; Harvey James Jager, ‘Design Review as a Method of Improving Urban Design:Seattle Urban Design Commission and King County Design Commission as Case Studies’. Master’sThesis, University of Washington, 1971, p. 14.
38. Seattle Times (May 14, 1972); Seattle Post-Intelligencer (March 1, 1970). The surveyed tract was a
266 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
little larger than the 1970 Pioneer Square Historic District on the eastern bound, but the area’sdisplacement situation could be gleaned from it.
39. F. L. Hruza, ‘Seattle Model Cities Program: A Case Study of Citizen Participation in the planningProcess in the Initial Planning Year, 1967–1968’. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1972,pp. 89–90.
40. City of Seattle, An Economic Evaluation of the City’s Commitment to Pioneer Square, July 1974,Table II, no page.
41. Seattle Times (November 3, 1971).42. Central Association of Seattle and Seattle Urban Renewal Enterprise, Pike Plaza Redevelopment: A
Preliminary Feasibility Study, August 1964. Conclusions and Recommendations, no page.43. City of Seattle, Urban Renewal Division, ‘Pike Plaza: Survey and Planning Application’, April 1965,
Pike Place Market Files, Seattle Municipal Archives.44. City of Seattle, Department of Community Development, ‘Pike Place Project Fact Sheet’, (1974),
Department of Community Development Files, University of Washington Archives.45. D. Monson, op. cit. [18], p. 40.46. F. Bassetti to J. Morse and P. Kirk, 6 March 1968, Friends of the Market Files, University of
Washington Archives; a Statement by F. Bassetti upon request by P. Kirk regarding the Seattle P-Iarticle of 25 July 1968, Friends of the Market Files, University of Washington Archives; SeattleTimes (July 26, 1968); Build America Better Committee, op. cit. [19], p. 13.
47. Allied Arts of Seattle, Inc., Minutes, ‘Breakfast at Pike Place Market’, 18 July 1964, Friends of theMarket Files, University of Washington Archives.
48. K. Lynch, The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1960; J. Jacobs, The Death and Lifeof Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961; H. Gans, The Urban Villagers. NewYork: The Free Press of Clenco, 1962.
49. M. Anderson, The Federal Bulldozer. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1964.50. P. Hall, The Turbulent Eighth Decade: Challenges to American City Planning. Journal of American
Planning Association 55 (1989) 280; E. Birch and D. Roby, The Planner and the Preservationist: anUneasy Alliance. Journal of American Planning Association 50 (1984) 200; P. DavidoV, Advocacyand Pluralism in Planning. Journal of American Institute of Planners 31 (1965) 336.
51. E. Birch and D. Roby, ibid, p. 202; J. M. Fowler, The Federal Government as Standard Bearer, inR. Stipe and A. Lee (ed.) American Mosaic. Washington DC: Preservation Press, 1988, pp. 52–6.
52. Q. Taylor, The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle’s Central District from 1870 through theCivil Rights Era. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994, p. 190.
53. R. Sale op. cit. [29], pp. 216–17; Q. Taylor, ibid., p. 200.54. Friends of the Market et al. v. Odegaard and the City of Seattle, Superior Court of the Washington
State for King County, 9 December 1970, Friends of the Market Files, University of WashingtonArchives.
55. Mayor Wes Uhlman to Seattle City Council, 20 May 1971, Friends of the Market Files, University ofWashington Archives.
56. R. Sale, op. cit. [29], p. 226.57. Uhlman to Seattle City Council, op. cit. [55]; R. Sale, op. cit. [29], p. 226.58. Seattle Times (November 3, 1971).59. City of Seattle, Department of Community Development, ‘A Memo of Immediate Press Release’, 8
June 1972, Pike Place Market Files, Seattle Municipal Archives. Numerous correspondences amongthe regional HUD, Seattle Urban Renewal OYce, and Department of Community Developmentindicate that there were collective eVorts to secure the federal funds for the revised Market renewalplan, and that Senator W. Magnuson played a critical role.
60. City of Seattle, Law Department to Irving M. Clark, Jr., Chairman of the Pike Place MarketHistorical Commission, 2 February 1972, Pike Place Market Files, Seattle Municipal Archives.
Designing historic districts, Seattle 1958–73 267
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
61. Uhlman to Seattle City Council, op. cit. [55]; Committee to Save the Market, ‘Questions andAnswers on the Pike Place Market’, 20 September 1971, Friends of the Market Files, University ofWashington Archives; Committee to Save the Market, To Preserve the Pike Place Market, Vote NoInitiative 1 (no date), Friends of the Market Files, University of Washington Archives.
62. D. L. Stallings, ‘Environmental Cognition and Land Use Controversy: An Environmental ImageStudy of Seattle’s Pike Place Market’. PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 1975, p. 56.
63. Greenleigh Associates, Inc., A Study of the Residents of the Pike Plaza Redevelopment Project Area,Seattle, Washington. A report under contract with the Seattle Urban Renewal Division, April 1968,pp. 7–9, 24.
64. City of Seattle, Planning for Downtown Seattle, Report no. 5. Concept, 1973, pp. 8–9.
268 Park Lee
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f M
iam
i] a
t 17:
16 2
4 N
ovem
ber
2014
