From: Cari Hornbein To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD: FW: SMP update Date: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 11:48:30 AM Attachments: DLP I Phase II SMP impacts on buidlign design(11-5-10).pdf
From: Mort James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 4:42 PM To: Cari Hornbein; Keith Stahley; Todd Stamm; Darren Nienaber Cc: [email protected] Subject: SMP update
The West Bay Neighborhood Association has the following questions regarding the draft shoreline Master Program (SMP). We will need answers to these questions to be able to comment on the draft plan prior to the Nov 15th deadline. Please do your best to respond to as many of the questions as possible on a timely basis for us to be able to submit our comments.
1. How did we go from 6' step backs for building design on blocks facing the waterfront (UW-H District) to 100 foot setbacks? This is a radical deviation from planning and design on west bay…what is the factual and scientific basis for this radical policy change?
2. From where is the vegetative buffer measured? Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) based on what standard of measuring OHWM?
3. From where is the building setback measured? Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)?
4. From Where is the 100’ building step-back measured ? OHWM?
5. Can the Vegetative buffer be inside the building setback buffer and can a waterfront trail for pedestrians and bikes also be within this 30’ building setback (which would eliminate most of the vegetative buffer? a. The vegetative buffer is 20'. The building setback is 30'. A waterfront trail is 22'. Please explain how these three requirements would be designed.
b. Would the vegetative buffer need to be entirely on the waterside of the trail?
4. What happens to the current West Bay zoning ordinance that allows greater heights and up to 70% horizontal view blockage for providing amenities? The most restrictive would apply, so would that result in 65’ building heights up against the street with up to 70% horizontal view corridor creating a tunnel effect when driving through the middle section of West Bay?
5. What is the purpose of 2 tiered building step backs of heights along this stretch of West Bay waterfront?
a. what is the scientific basis for any environment reasons to limit building heights and step backs on west bay further than already planned through extensive and exhaustive research over the past 20 years b. how exactly do tiered building step back for heights promote view protection.
If you leave the existing land use regulations in place and still allow 70% horizontal view blockage and 65 building heights up against west bay drive but limit the heights within the first 100 feet of waterfront to 42’ , then you will achieve significant view blockage of views the bay and the city and the capital from the public street along west bay. Especially in the middle section of west bay at hardel and reliable properties.
6. Why was our neighborhoods Imagine Olympia comment document and the other comments submitted in the SMP process entirely ignored?
7. Was the planning commission informed about the previous history of planning on west bay and the difference topographic regions on west bay.
a. Does the planning commission realize that the northern end properties on west bay have little or no land within the 2nd 100' of shoreline that allows 65' height? This allowance of 65 feet in the second 100 feet of shoreline is worthless for the properties on the northern end of west bay that have no view blockage to begin with due to the topography of the properties
b. Was the planning commission briefed on any of the previous planning documents specific to west bay and the topography of west bay? c. Does the planning commission realize the impacts of the right of way requirements on the street side of any development and then the building setback, vegetative buffer and then building step back requirements on the waterfront side, that will leave little or no developable area in the middle?
8. Even the State shoreline management act allows heights greater than 35' if the development does not obstruct upland views. Why is our local draft SMP more restrictive, forcing property owners into pursuing variances and other legal remedies? What is the reasoning based on facts in the record that support this legislative decision?
9. Was there any discussion regarding the effect of 42' height restriction and 100’ building step back on building design, especially rooflines?
10. What environmental value is promoted by reducing height along West Bay when mandated view studies will be a requirement of development?
11. Does staff and the Planning Commission believe that this draft SMP promotes the vision of mixed-use development on West Bay in the comprehensive Plan, or does the Planning commission what to significantly revise that vision?
We would very much appreciate your answers to these questions as best you can prior to Nov 15th so we may prepare our comments based on your answers. We realize some of the answers to these questions may take more time, but we are required to comment by November 15th, and since our comments have been largely ignored to date it is imperative that we get some factual basis for these decision or the lack thereof documented for the record.
Thank you,
West Bay Neighborhood Association Board Members Mort James III AIA, President
West Bay Neighborhood Association POB 7070, Olympia, WA, 98507-7070 & 1801 West Bay Drive NW, Suite 202 Olympia, Washington 98502 360-943-7015 [email protected] NOVEMBER 4, 2010 SMYTH LANDING PLANNING
65’ max height street side = 100’ off set from OHWM 42’ max height water side
WEST BAY DRIVE REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE DEDICATION
20’ VEGETATIVE BUFFER
REMAINING BUILDABLE AREA SITE PLAN
HELIX DESIGN GROUP, INC. NOVEMBER 4, 2010 SMYTH LANDING PLANNING
100’
65’
42’ = BUILDABLE AREA
30’ BUILDING SETBACK
WEST BAY DRIVE
SECTION
HELIX DESIGN GROUP, INC. Nancy Lenzi
From: Shoreline Update Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 2:42PM To: Nancy Lenzi Subject: SMP RECORD FW: Draft SMP Questions
From: james lengenfelder lmailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 02,2010 8:36 AM To: Shoreline Update Subject: Draft SMP Questions
Cari Hornbein Senior Planner City of Olympia
Dear Cari,
Thank you for taking my phone call today.
Since there is not a cross walk between the current Shoreline Management Plan and current Draft Shorelíne Management Pløn (SMP) issued October 2010 reviewing the current document, trying to determine it's impact upon the Olympia Yacht Club is a challenge. I'd appreciate your sharing as much information as possible to determine the impact of this draft SMP on our faciiily. I recógnize that some of my questions may relate to the current SMP, the new draft as well as local zoning. Letme say in advance that I really appreciate your help.
I understand that the state's and region's effort at "no net loss" as a underlying philosophy. Apply that to any given situation is going to be a challenge. I wish you the best of luck in making the transition from current regs to the new.
As background and as I'm sure you know the OlympiaYacht Club is located on the Budd Inlet's shoreline within the City of Olympia City's boundary. Its street address is 201 North Simmons St. Further the property underlying our docks, boat houses and club house directly north of that address is under a long term lease from DNR. The draft SMP has classified our property as "Urban Intensity."
Here are the questions: 1. Are any properties with the City of Olympia boundaries exempt from a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Section 10 permit under the River and Harbors Act of 1899?
2. Currently part of our facility is "nonconforming." Under the new draft the parking lot will be out of compliance. What are the implications? Will it continue to be "grandfathered."
3. As I understand the current set back (from the high water mark) is 15 feet. Is that the current SMP standard, city zoningor both? What are the implications of the new proposed set back of thirty feet? (That line will run through the middle our current parking lot.) 4. Since our club house is currently over the water (nonconforming use) may we build (expand) that strucfure to the south? And 5. There are foundation pilings to the east of the club house (which we are currently using as a patio). These were put in the past to allow expansion of our club house eastward. Will the new SMP allow completion of that structure?
6. I'm confused as to the height limits between the city's zoning and the SMP. Will the current and further expansions be limited to 35 feet? And 35 feet from what level? 7. Under the new category of "Urban Intensity'' Table ó.1 shows Covered moorage as"X2" -Prohibited. Table 7.1 Piers and Docks as "P" - permitted. Are these current standards or new in this draft? And how do they relate to current nonconforming uses or new nonconforming uses?
8. Several other places indicate that covered moorage (boathouses) is prohibited (6.6.1 .F, 6.6.5.4, Table 7-1, 7.6.1.D Are these current standards or new in this draft? And how do they relate to current andlor new nonconforming uses?
9 Dredging will be allowed in the OYC boat basin if a "comprehensive management plan" has been evaluated and authorizedby local and state governmental entities (7.4.I.C). What is the form and content of that plan and who are the govemmental entities who must approve and how is that different from currently required?
10. Why is there a differencre in setback standards for fresh water and tidal water for side property boundaries (Section 7.6.5.2C)?
I l. There seems to be a mismatch with the environmental concern of water temperature during the summer (and its resulted dissolved oxygen levels) and the desire to provide shade to help cool the water with the standard to require light penetration to the water under all over the water structures. If this is the case why are over-water coverage moorage and boathouses no longer allowed? (Section 7.6.I.1)
12. Finally Section 6.6.4.8. implies live-aboard vessels are permitted only if adequate solid waste and sanitary facilities are provided. Currently all live-aboard vessels in lower Budd Inlet are serviced by a mobileþortable water-side service. None of the Olympia marinas have facilities to handle solid waste. Is this a new standard? Does the new SMP going to require facilities to be installed and if so what "facilities" will be necessary to meet this requirement?
As I'm preparing for the Nov. 15 Public Hearing and I must go before the OYC Board on the 1Oth I'd appreciate your timely response.
Jim Lengenfelder 360 943-6199 WWVV. ATMLAWOFF]CE. C OM LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN T. MILLER,rrl,c November 2,2010
^fiStsy;,YåL;fl,i,ÌiiF; Olympia Planning Commission City of Olympia PO Box 1967 Olympia, WA 98501
Re: City of Olympia Shoreline Master Program Update File No. 09-0094
Dear Chair and Commission Members:
We represent former Govemor and United States Senator, Daniel J. Evans, former Governor Albert D. Rosellini, former Governor Booth Gardner, former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, former Justice of the State Supreme Court, Robert Utter, the Capitol Campus Architectural Historian, University of Washington Professor Emeritus, Norman J. Johnston, Michael S. Hamm, Principal Landscape Architect at the Portico Group, the designers of the North Capitol Campus Heritage Park and Law Enforcement Memorial, Former Chair of the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board, the National Association of Olmsted Parks, the Friends of Seattle's Olmsted Parks, and the Capitol Lake Improvement and Protection Association. I will be unable to attend the November 15, 2010 public hearing, so please consider this testimony on behalf of our clients regarding the above-referenced SMP update.
As a land use attorney, as former chair and member of the Olympia Planning Commission, and as former chair of the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owner, our clients and I want to ensure that the SMP properly protects Capitol Lake as a shoreline of statewide significance under Chapter 90.58 RCW in order to preserve the historic design principles of the State Capitol Campus by Capitol Campus Architects, V/ilder and White and the Olmsted Brothers. The SMP update's policies and regulations for Capitol Lake should also refer to the Legislature's findings in RCW 79.24.100, which recognize and protect the historic facilities of the Washington State Capitol Campus as "the most important public facilities in the state. " RCW 79.24.710 includes Capitol Lake as one of these most important of the State Capitol's public and historic facilities. See Exhibit 1.
OFFICE (360) 754-9156 . FAX (360) 754-9472 . CELL (360) 402-3376 . EMAIL: ALLEN@A'IMLAWOFFICE.COM
1801 WEST BAY DRIVE NW . SUITE 205 - OLYMPIA, WA 98502 Our clients want to ensure that the SMP update recognizes and reflects the ninety-nine years of state law and policy for the State Capitol Campus. As you know, Wilder and White and the Olmsted Brothers incorporated five design principles into their plans for the State Capitol Campus. These principles include: (1) the City Beautiful Movement, (2) the Capitol Group of buildings, a revolutionary design of legislative, executive, and judicial buildings to look like a singular Capitol building when viewed from Budd Inlet, the Isthmus, and the Fourth Avenue (Olympia Yashiro Friendship) Bridge, (3) the borrowed landscape of the Olympic Mountains and Budd Inlet to frame the design, (4) the northem orientation of the Capitol Group and Campus to Capitol Lake, Budd Inlet, and the Olympics and (5) a body of water to reflect the buildings on the bluff, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. See Exhibit 2.
The historic origins of Capitol Lake were first stated in an August29,l9ll report from Wilder and White to the State Capitol Commission "A tide lock at the Boulevard (5tb Avenue) would form a lake and the whole effect would be visible from most parts of the city as well as from the sound." See page 33 of "Washington's Audacious State Capitol and Its Builders", by Professor Emeritus Norman J. Johnston. (Exhibit 2).The Olmsted Brothersl9l2 landscape plan also included a reflecting lake as part of their design. (Exhibit 3).
The Olympia SMP update needs to reflect the public trust of recognizing, improving, and preserving the Capitol Lake as a shoreline of statewide significance. All the citizens of Olympia hold Capitol Lake in trust for the people of the State of Washington and have a fiduciary duty to see that the Wilder and White and Olmsted Brothers design is preserved for its statewide and national significance.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Allen T. Miller We'stLaw West's RCWA 79.24.700 Page I
West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Curentness Title79. Public Lands (Refs & Annos) RBChapter 79.24. Capitol Building Lands (Refs & Annos) (E State Buildings and Parking Facilities--1969 Act + 79.24.700. Findings
The legislature finds that the historic facilities of the Washington state capitol are the most important public facilities in the state. They are a source ofbeauty and pride, a resource for celebrating our heritage and democratic ideals, and an exceptional educational resource. The public and historic facilities of the state capitol campus should be managed and maintained to the highest standards of excellence, model the best of historic preservation practice, and maximize opportunities for public access and enjoyment. The purpose ofchapter 330, Laws of2005 is to provide authority and direction for the care and stewardship ofthe public and historic facilities ofthe state capitol, to facilitate public access, use, and enjoyment of these assets, and to carefully preserve them for the benefit of future generations.
cREDTT(S)
[2005 c 330 { l, eff. July 24,2005.]
West's RCWA 79.24.700, WA ST 79.24.700
Current with 2010 Legislation effective through January l, 201I
(C) 2010 Thomson Reuters.
END OF DOCUMENT
EXrrrBrT I
@ 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Westtaw. West's RCWA 79.24.710 Page I
West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 79. Public Lands (Refs & Annos) RE ChaÍfier 79.24. Capitol Building Lands (Refs & Annos) (E State Buildings and Parking Facilities--1969 Act Ò 79.24.710. Properties identified as "state capitol public and historic facilities"
ForthepurposesofRCW79.24.720,79.24.730,43.01.090,43.19.500. andTg.24.0ST,"statecapitolpublicandhis- toric facilities" iàcludes:
(l) The east, west and north capitol campus grounds, Sylvester park, Heritage park, Marathon park, Centennial park, the Deschutes river basin commonly known as Capitol lake, the interpretive center, Deschutes parkway, and the landscape, memorials, artwork, fountains, streets, sidewalks, lighting, and infrastructure in each of these areas not including state-owned aquatic lands in these areas managed by the department of natural resources under *RCW 79.90.450;
(2) The public spaces and the historic interior and exterior elements of the following buildings: The visitor center, the Govemor's mansion, the legislative building, the John L. O'Brien building, the Cherberg building, the Newhouse building, the Pritchard building, the temple ofjustice, the insurance building, the Dolliver building, capitol couf, and the old capitol buildings, including the historic state-owned furnishings and works of art commissioned for or original to these buildings; and
(3) Other facilities or elements of facilities as determined by the state capitol committee, in consultation with the department of general adminishation. cREDTT(S)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
*Reviser's note: RCW 79.90.450 was recodified as RCW 79.105.010 pursuant to 2005 c 155 g 1003.
West's RCWA 79.24.710, WA ST 79.24.110
Current with 2010 Legislation effective through January l,20ll
(C) 2010 Thomson Reuters.
END OF DOCLIMENT
@ 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. Washington's Audacious State Capitol and Its Builders
NORMAN J.JOHNSTON
EXIIIBIÎ 2
llLJlH L.€rÉ-'æ
- Washington's Audacious State Capitol and lts Builders
NORMAN I. IOHNSTON t /t 1'/'*l c 4tnF2,
Çniversity of washington Press seattle andLondon ) whrch rarsecr rne rs¡tuË/ rrur urc It was the competition Pfogram' howeve{' 'et' axis developed through the center of the architects. The program 'iut"i'
s
though, is that anY be likelY,to fail. Not onlY area was g and soil conditi s unstable but the iaitroad stations and its yards; all these factors any effort to create an access to the campus by stairs and roadwaYs' record made all the contestants of whom we have any Nevertheless, axi¿l gestures towa¡d ac arrangement, doin and ramPs. With a grouped in U-shaP intemrPtion to the block that vista bY know howevet that even after the awa remaining in the minds of of the program which theY Archives has a firewritten dated August29, l9ll' an commission, d answer to a query from"ttre commission ,rr .^-^^. in hand and they could- presumably this requirement, nowthat the awa¡d was respond more oPenlY' wild",,whowasinorvmpia'***:lîlîlli;îîJÏlll""irT:;ï:t
might port' be westward from Main Street (now Wilder labeled tlús a route of only "ac would be only two blocks long' nowhere and ending indefinitely'' The route reasonable and its n east would be to iustific the citY"-West "turn i Olympia, across Budd Inlet from the site' would be the dissociation of the Even more unfortunate, continued Wildeç be entirely cut off. Finally, he felt city site from its water views, which wourd cus
three distinctive ridges contained in--the city a fine boulevard. . connecting the ns' On the aús of the caPitol a fine of the stePs would be made with a carriage to Tumwater along the water's edge there ;*.î;*,åï:îï,:hHi"i.l, * A lake was detteloped in this way, but not until the earlY 7950s'
33 'fhe Wilder and White EnttY EXTTTBIT 3 Suggestions for visitors... fhe state Capitol Visitors Services I Program offers tours of the Capitol. Special tours of the grounds may be available. Check www.ga.wa.gov for details. For More Information... fhe 2009 West Capitol Campus I Landscape Master PIan is available at: \ryww. ga.wa. gov/MasterPlan/ Guide to the Olmsted Legacy LandscapeMasterPlan.pdf The Olmsted legacy in the Pacific at the Washington State Northwest is nationally signifi cant. Capitol Friends of Seattle's Olmsted Parks was formed in 1983 in response to this growing recognition, in order to promote Olympia, Washington awareness, enjoyment and care ofour Olmsted parks and landscapes, both public and private. A Guide to Seattle's Olmsted Interpretíve Exhibit at the Volunteer Park ll/ater Toy¡er provides an introduction to Seattle's park and boulevard system as well as the Olmsted national legacy. Guide to the Olmsted Legacy at the University of Washington celebrates the legacy from the Alaska-Yukon-Pacifi c Exposition in 1909. For more information visit SeattleOlmsted.org. The National Association for Olmsted Parks has developed a brochure for the National Capitol grounds in Washington, D.C., which Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., designed ín 1874. The brochure is available for download at Olmsted.org.
DESIGN OF THIS BROCHURE BY FRIENDS OF SEATTLE'S OLMSTED PARKS - 2O1O PBINTING BY WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION PBODUCTION AND PBINTING MADE POSSIBLE IN PABT BY CONTRÍBUTIONS FBOM: Fnrexos or Se¡rrle's Or-rvlsrEo Prnxs N¡ro¡¡el Assoo¡tto¡¡ ¡oR O¡-n¡sreo Ptnxs Le¡cue or Wor¡e¡¡ Vorens or Wasnlncron Eoucarro¡¡ Fu¡¡o Leacue op Wor¡e¡¡ Vorens o¡ Txunsro¡¡ Cou¡¡w Eoucalo¡¡ Fu¡lo WasxllcroN Sure Socrery Deucurens o¡ ruE A¡¡entcaru RevoLurloH Olmsted Legacy in \Mashington The \Mashington State Capitol The Washington State Capitol rFhe Olmsted Brothers firm began I Campus has one of the most I work on the Capitol Campus-in extensive and intact Olmsted-designed 19 I 1 . John Charles Olmsted was on his capitol landscapes in the nation. In all way from San Diego to the University there are eleven capitols with Olmsted of Washington in Seattle to advise landscape plans, including Kentucky, the Regents on future campus plans. Alabama, Connecticut and New York, He stopped in Olympia to consult as well as the United States Capitol. on the landscape for the new capitol. After the initial consulting period, Tohn Charles Olmsted first came James Frederick Dawson, Olmsted's to Washington in 1903 when J associate partner, Seattle Park Commissioners invited returned in 1927 the Olmsted Brothers firm to prepare a to develop the comprehensive plan for a park system. landscape plan The extensive Olmsted legacy in itself, creating the state includes park and boulevard one of the most systems for Seattle and Spokane, prominent campus plans for the University of Olmsted Brothers Washington, Whitman College and landscapes in Northern State Hospital, the 1909 Washington. Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, and he Washington State Capitol Insurance and Legislative Buildings numerous public and private landscapes, Baouze PANEL oN Campus is shaped by the cultural, as well as the landscape. This era THE DOOB OF THE including thirty residential estates. natural and economic resources of its encompasses the Olmsted Brothers' Lectstanvr Bwtomc ¡t1 (191 sHowtNG rHE FoBEsr sErrtNG oF rHE 1855 Tennroaut Ceprot setting. The historic West Campus consultation 1-1 912) and design BTJ;LDING, oBtGtNALLy L))ATED EAsr oF rue Lrctst¡rtvr Buttorrlc is situated atop a bluff overlooking and construction (1927 -l 93 1) periods, the city of Olympia, Capitol Lake, as well as the architectural work of and Puget Sound with the Olympic Wilder and White from 1911 to 1927. The Olmsted Brothers Firm Mountains in the distance. The vision established by the rederick Law Olmsted, Sr. (1822- Tn 1903. the Olmsted Brothers firm Capitol grounds provide a critical link Th" Olmsted Brothers during 1903), the father of landscape lb.gun iork in the Pacific Northwest, of open space within an interconnected I architecture, launched a 1O0-year preparing plans for park systems in network of public trails, rights-oÊway, the Capitol's historic period of significance provides an underlying legacy when he and Calvert Vaux Portland and Seattle. John C. Olmsted, and city and county parks. The site framework for the future care prepared the "Greensward" plan for from 1903 until his death in 1920, and at the south end of Puget Sound was of this site. The New York Cify's Central Park in James F. Dawson, from 1904 to 1941, frequented by Native Americans nationally significant state now has a Historic Landscape 1858. Twenty years later John Charles were the principal because of its wealth of resources and Preservation Master Plan with a Olmsted (1852-f920) landscape architects who the area continues to be a nexus for Vegetation Management Plan to j oined his step-father, worked on commissions commerce and transportation. becoming a full partner in the Pacific Northwest. guide the care ofthe landscape ofthe in 1884. After Olmsted, They were aided by ¡{ bout 50 acres of the historic West Campus over time. Developed Sr. retired in 1895, designers, conceptual l-Lwest Campus, including the in2009, the plan seeks to honor Frederick Law Olmsted, Jrves artists, draftsmen, historic Capitol Group of buildings, the design intent of the Olmsted Jr. (1870-1957)joined FReoeRrcr and architects at their were listed as a National Register Brothers, to recognize the continuum D¡wso¡r the firm. In 1898 he and Jo¡¡¡ CHnRrrs main office, known as Historic District in 1974. The period ofinfluences that have shaped the John Charles formed Ol¡¡sreo Fairsted, in Brookline, Massachusetts, of historic significance from 1911 campus over the last one hundred the Olmsted Brothers, which would now a National Historic Site, and at to193l included design and construction years, and to respond to contemporary continue as the firm's name until 1961. their Califomia offlce. of the Temple of Justice and the needs and constraints. Olmsted's Vision Planning the Capitol Grounds "The result of this plan wíll be that all visitors comìng to " ...there is no reqson why the Leoeruo Olympia...will have afine symmetrical view the of Capitol Washington State Capitol grounds A CAMPUS MAP and its group of buìldings. We believe this idea be qs will should not be rtne ìf not B TIVOLI FOUNTAIN worth all it will cost." n- , rz, rt\- r-n thefinest in the United States." C V TNAMVETERANS \,-/.Ap¿__e@&_-Dá- /-.,------\\^ MEMORIAL I I J. F. DAWSON, OLMSTED BROTHERS -1934 -___.- OLMSTED TO GOVERNOB HAY. JANUARY 19.1912 D MEDALOFHONOR AND POW MIA John C. Olmsted stopped in Olympia in April 1911 to meet with the Capitol MEMORIALS J Commission. They asked him to submit a proposal to prepare a master plan E WINGED VICTORY for the then 2O-acre Capitol grounds. Meanwhile, the Commission had asked MONUMENT Charles Bebb, Seattle's most prominent architect, to put together a "Program F INSURANCE BUILDING for the Competition for aproposed General Architectural Plan," which included G CHERRY I.ANE a statement that: "The best view is looking due north from the center of the proposed Capitol Building, which gives way to Puget Sound. " Olmsted must H FIAG CIRCLE have agreed, because he argued against placing the Temple of Justice in this I LEGISI-ATIVE view. The architects who won the contract, Wilder and White of New York, held BUILDING J TERRITORIAL firm on their proposed northem placement of the Temple of Justice ¡11, much to SUNDIAL Olmsted's dismay. Unfortunately, during the early part of 1912 Olmsted fell ill K GOVERNOR'S and was unable to return to the Northwest to argue his case. The firm had to wait MANSION until after the buildings were constructed to be invited back again to work WSA-495 L TEMPLE OF JUSTICE on the landscape design. Aennr oF rHE Cnpror Cnvpus - c. 1930-34 M LAW ENFORCEMENT lmsted had recommended establishing a strong and direct MEMORIAL connection between the new capitol grounds and James Frederick Dawson, no\M a full partner in the Olmsted VIEWPOINT Brothers assumed downtown Olympia. Early plans showed a diagonal J flrm, responsibility for designing the N HERITAGE PARK capitol grounds when the firm was again contacted 1927 . avenue from the Old Capitol Building in in O CAPITOL I.AKE In the design, he applied the Olmsted firms'century-long Sylvester Park, providing a view southwest to P SUNKEN GARDEN practice of subordinating individual design elements to the the new Capitol dome. This avenue was not Q CHIEFSHELTON composition of a place as a whole. built, but two diagonals roadways, in the STORY POLE 1928 Olmsted Brothers landscape plan, I t the Capitol Campus, the Olmsted Brothers considered R WORLD WAR II now provide MEMOBIAL welcoming views into the fLthe buildings and the grounds as a unified composition, campus from - CHAMPION Olympia's Capitol Way. Oro C¡prrol Burrot¡ro rN DowNTowN Orwpln cl lgo+ mutually supportive of the overarching objective of making S ENGLISH OAK democratic space. They enlisted numerous design tools within T GEORGE a landscape architect's palette pathways and 1912 Orrr¡srgo Pur.r - -vegetation, WASHINGTON ELM roR Lnruo e¡ro WnreR drives, topography, lighting, materials, and the careful siting of U PARKING AppRoRcHEs ro rHE Cnprol structures and features. With these tools they defined spaces, V VISITOR oENTER reinforced axes, A DIAGONAL AVENUE CONNECTED framed views, demarcated thresholds, and FROM SLWESTER PARK IN established and knitted edges. DOWNTOWN OLYMPIA, PARK WRr-xlrue Toun LAND BETWEEN THE HARBOB -l-h" resulting design reflects the democratic process. .... ROUTE AND A PROPOSED SALT WATER I Visitors would experience a progression through POND oF cAptroL LAKE ls/rE [O] r o o. EXTENSION IN 1951 WITH HERITAGE PARK [N] increasingly formal spaces moving toward the Flag Circle [H], lN 1998) PROVTDED A the gathering place at the heart of the campus, located between a VTEWPO|NTS ALONG SYMMETRICAL VISTA OF THE the Temple of Justice and the Legislative Building. This CAPITOL LOOKING SOUTHWARD DESIGN AXES ALONG THE CAPITOL'S NORTH- journey is a metaphor for the process whereby diffuse citizen SOUTH AXIS NPS-FLONHS 5350-16 priorities coalesce into formal laws. Olympia: The Most Stunning Setting
"...people...will want to toke advantage of the splendid view ...we think that it is worth while in order to uphold the dignity . and scale of the design around such important building.r..."
J. F. DAWSON TO C. V SAVIDGE - NOVEMBER 17,1927
he olmsted Brothers design for the capitol campus grew out of a reverence for the setting and an appreciation of its unique, defining qualities. The design takes full advantage of the quintessentially Northwest character of the site. Here one experiences the drama of sheltering lowland forest giving way to views of surrounding hills, water, and open sky, with the mountains of two national parks in the distance: Mount Rainier and the Olympic Mountains. Eew capitol grounds command equal advantages of setting. Rather than I designing the capitol grounds apart from its surroundings, the Olmsteds expressed the inherent genius of place. They worked to incorporate the site's natural setting and undulating bluff-top topography into their design and they used the natural advantages ofexisting richly layered native vegetation along with new plantings to frame the seasonally changing views to and from the campus.
p otn the Olmsteds and Wilder and White understood the dual advantage of a WEST CAPITOL CAMPUS WALKING TOUR r-l site elevated above Puget sound. The wooded bluffwould provide a place OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON of prospect and refuge with restorative natural vistas, framed and protected by the lowland forest. seen from the Sound, surrounding hills and the city below, BROCHURE PREPARED BY ANNE KNIGHT & JEFFY ARBES WITH TEXT AND GRAPHIC CONTRIBUTIONS FFOIV this landscape would provide the setting for powerful and inspiring the LIZADAVIDSON,MARYGFACEJENNINGS,SUELEAN,&SUSANOLÍVSTED views of O2OIOFBIENDSOFSEATTLE'SOLI\iSTEDPARKS state's magnifi cent classical Capitol buildings. The Architecture of the Capitol and the "The location...on its elevated point above Puget Sound ís most unique and thìs distinction will be Washington State Capitol quite lost unless advantage is taken of the location." WILDER AND WHITE. ARCHITECTS JANUAHY 25,1921 "...the pløntíng...should, if possible, be of the finest quølity . . . confined to dígntrt"d møss es... and not in any way be scattered or smøll ìn effect. ...the buildings are very large and of a splendid chøracter, And...the plunting ought to correspond..."
JAMES FREDERICK DAWSON - APRIL 25, 1927 The Landscape of the Capitol
Th" State of Washington decided to use a group of buildings for its Capitol I instead of one large building. The selected architects, Wilder and White, took the challenge and worked to group the buildings so that "their design so related to each other thatfrom any point without they appear to be a single structure," and thus exhibit "greater magnificence than in a single building."
pRo¡r c Vrew or CRpmol CRtupus HeRrnor Pnnx ¡trl1 The V/ashington State Capitol is a master work of the Olmsted Brothers firm. I the landscape design celebrates the Pacific Northwest's natural bounty of forest, the Deschutes River, Puget Sound and stunning mountain views. It also expresses the democratic process with its progression through increasingly formal landscape "rooms" enclosed by trees and understory plantings. While many of the layers of vegetation intended to create gateways and define spaces are missing three-quarters of a century later, these can be reinstated over time. Enough remains of the overall landscape to observe the Olmsted plan's essential landscape patterns and characteristics across the campus from wild to pastoral to controlled formaliW. ' I 'Il9 WUIIStCU lJrOtlrgrs rlltr()uuçgu rour gcrrçrar ranusçapc gnafacrcrs r() nçrp I structure the campus and provide a sequence of visual experiences as one moves through the landscape.
Street Edge: The street edge was intended to connect the Capitol with the surrounding community, welcoming and drawing people into the campus through a rhythm and canopy ofstreet hees. Though the intent of this landscape character is under-realized, some existing street trees continue to illustrate this effect. HrsroRrc Vrrw ¡lo¡¡c Nonrn DlRcol¡nl
Greensward: The greensward was intended to provide a semi-open, park-like foreground for the Capitol Group of buildings. It  incorporated layered vegetation and lawns punctuated by specimen trees allowed to reach their full height and spread. Much of the layered vegetation was never planted due to a lack of funds during the Great Depression; though some areas within the campus portray this parklike character. J Hrnrurruoez Formal Landscape: The formal landscape was intended to be the most structured, to complement the formal symmetry of the Capitol Group of buildings and to inspire an air of decorum within the engaged citizenry of a democratic society. Comprised of balanced, symmetrical arrangements of trees, shrubs, flowering perennials and groundcovers, examples are found in tree allées [o], foundation plantings ¡r-1 and the Sunken Garden ¡e¡. Native Edge: The native forest along the west, north, and south, provides a natural WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL GROUNDI OLYMPIA.WÁSHI N6TON frame for the Capitol that is uniquely Northwest. GENERAL PLAN sCÂLE OF FEEl The forest, though needing tú o r@ :oo s0 . aoo Iro rejuvenation, gives a OLMSIED BROÍI{ERS LÂNOSCAPE ^RCHIfECTS powerful context to the. D B¡lowu.l WILO¡R Â{Þ WPITE AÂCH¡IECÎS Capitol setting. WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL COMHITÎEE Vrew rRorr¡ Suxxeru Gnnoeru GOYERNOR ROLAl{D H HA¡ILEY- CXAIFHAN c w cLAUsEr{ - sl^lE auorfoR, CV SAVIDGE.COI{HISSIONER OF PUELIC tANDS - SÊCRETARY The 2009 Master Plan and Vegetation Management Plan provide a 5O-year vision for landscape restoration, coupled with a framework for accomplishing it. The plans will guide efforts to preserve and honor the characteristics and features of Cnp¡rol C the historic olmsted Brothers design, while addressing contemporary conditions. O2O1O FFIENDS OF SEATTLE'S OLI\¡STED PARKS Trees: The George Washington Elm Monuments and Memorials The grandAmerican elm has become a symbol of pahiotism.lnl932,the The Capitol Campus is home to a I Sacajawea Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution planted a I number of memorials and monuments. memorial American elm ¡¡ at the northeast corner of the West Campus of the On the West Campus several of these Capitol, to honor the 200th anniversary of the birth of George Washington. A relate to important focal points of second generation scion from the original George Washington Elm in Cambridge, the Olmsted landscape plan. The Massachusetts, it honors the Olmsted intent to include elms in the landscape. memorial for World War I, refened to as the Winged Victory Th. first generation scion of the Cambridge elm was planted by 1902 at the ¡e¡, I University of Washington by Edmond Meany. That tree also provided a scion to replace the original elm in Cambridge when it died. Subsequently, offspring replaced the University of Washington elm and another was planted THe Geonce in reserve on the Wesult¡oto¡¡ Capitol campus. Elnr ¡¡ rs A scroN (oesceruomr) or rHe Auenlcmr euit tru Ceuenrocr, MA, UNDER WHICH, LEGEND SAYS, FOUNDING is the focal point of the two diagonal entry drives into campus. To the south of FATHER, GeoRoe the Legislative Building, the Territorial Sundial ¡.11, which depicts the early history WnsHtrvororu, roor of the region, occupies a gathering point intended to provide a dramatic vantage COMMAND OF HIS point toward the south face of the Legislative Building with its Capitol dome. rRooPS oru JuLv 3, 1775, ounr¡¡o rHe A¡¡eRrcRN Revdluro¡¡.
¡/-\ther significant trees growing on the \Jcapiti grounds inchide a cñampion English oak 1s¡, the largest in the country. WnsHrrtcroru Srnre Lnw Eru¡oRceuerur Mett¡oRlnL Vlewpolrur Five large Tulip trees frame Flag Circle 1H1, The Washington State Law Enforcement Memorial ¡v¡, north of the Temple of Kwanzan cherries line Cherry Lane ¡G¡, Justice ¡t-1, is a terrace viewpoint which takes "advantage of the splendid view" and Yoshino cherries frame the south face Dawson described in 1927.It was a gift to the people of Washington in 2006. of the Legislative Building Treasured ¡t1. The serenity of the view across the lake and the sound to the mountains beyond is by the Olmsted Brothers, Douglas firs an integral component of this memorial. provide a powerful native backdrop. Over time aging trees will need replacement to fhese and other memorials tRl lcl IDI found on the West Campus, as well as maintain the important framework of the I ones on the East Campus, recognize the ultimate sacrifices made over the campus landscape. years to restore peace in the world and keep the citizens ofWashington safe. Legacy for the Citizens of Washington "In s republic like the United States, the richest State's seat of government is ideally situated at the \[ /ashington threshold between the citizens must not be øIlowed YY community and the natural environment. The early designers took advantage of the majesty of the surrounding landscape by drawing it into the campus and making lt a part to monopolize the most of the experience. They used the native landscape and vistas of water and mouñtainsio beaatiful sress Íor lheir own firmly.root the Capitol campus within its magnificent setting and to inspire a constant enjoyment. Such ureas must commitrnent to the public good and participation of ordinary citizens in a úealthy democracy. be reservedfor rfhe the public... " ü(Ð ach FRE D E R lc K LAW oLMSJS"?r f ä iit-: ?S; unders hnds ntains ¿Q - to the state's most significant civic space. One of the most evident ways that both the \q'¿5 '.â, Olmsted firm and Wilder and White responded to the campus setting wás through a north,/ ,Ð south axial relationship. The Olmsted firm then developed the elegant landscapé plan i¿ áif to connect this to the community to the east and provide a dramatic welcome to an tfre citizens of the state and its many visitors.
any of the character-defining features of the Olmsteds'brilliant design still exist. However, incremental changes to the campus can obscure the historic vision. The number of existinþ trees is one-fhird of those originally intended for the campus, leaving much of the Olmsted design unrealized. Future nting will provide an opporfunity for alignment with istoric intent. The Olmsted vision of a richly layered , prelude to entering the state's center of govemance then can be fully rcalized and citizens can proudly enjoy the dual legacy ofan architectural heritage of democracy, drawn from ancient Greece, artfully embraced in a landscape setting that showcases Washington State and lts extraòrdinary resources.
2009 Wesr Ceprol Cnupus 'eJ' Furune vlEws AcRoss rue FlRc Crncle (naove) AND THE GneeruswRno rRov Cnp¡rol Wnv (aelow) Lnruoscnpe PnesgRveloru MnsreR Pm¡¡ ^.¿:'- Þ :fi { $ ,g
l._" 'o... Sus¡ru Orr.¡sreo, 2009 @ L l Sxow¡¡ wlrH HtsroRtcALLY-tNTENDED LAvERS oF vEGETATToN, THE GREENSWAFD HAS A BALANCED ARRANGEMENT oF ELM TREE. r FADTNG THF EyE To rHE 6ENTRAL coRE oF THE sror.: BecoRos, W¡sulrucroru Sr¡re ARcHrves Cnplrol Gnoup ALONG THE MAJon enst/westnxts. THls ls nelruroncED BYTHE 1953 FEpLtcAoFT¡reTlvou Foutlrnrr [B]. WnlrwAys tNVtrE pEDEsrBtANsro MEANDERTHBoucH orHER L^NDScApe 'Rootr¡s'. LeyeRs op onouND covEns, Low sHRUBS, AND uNDERSToRY AND ÇANopy rBEES DEFTNE THE EDGES, wHrLE AccoMMoDATrNc A RANGE oF ActvrrEs. W WVV. ATMLAW OFFICE. COM LAW OFFICES OF ALLEN T. MILLER,ru-c November 3,2010 D re.ì,8il Vr fil NS\/ ,l 5 Ztrtû y'.4'i'JåL; fi 3 SiïÌi ! F, ^
Olympia Planning Commission City of Olympia PO Box 1967 Olympia, V/A 98501
Re: City of Olympia Shoreline Master Program Update File No. 09-0094
Dear Chair and Commission Members:
We represent former Governor and United States Senator, Daniel J. Evans, former Governor Albert D. Rosellini, former Governor Booth Gardner, former Secretary of State Ralph Munro, the Capitol Campus Architectural Historian, University.of Washington Professor Emeritus, Norman J. Johnston, Michael S. Hamm, Principal Landscape Architect at the Portico Group, the designers of the North Capitol Campus Heritage Park and Law Enforcement Memorial, Former Chair of the Washington State Shorelines Hearings Board, Robert V. Jensen, President of the Olympia Isthmus Park Association and former Chair of the Olympia Planning Commission, Gerald Reilly, the National Association of Olmsted Parks, the Friends of Seattle's Olmsted Parks, Friends of the Waterfront, and the Black Hills Audubon Society. I will be unable to attend the November 15, 2010 public hearing, so please consider this testimony on behalf of our clients regarding the above-referenced SMP update.
As a land use attomey, as former chair and member of the Olympia Planning Commission, and as former chair of the Thurston County Chamber of Commerce and downtown business owner, our clients and want to ensure that the SMP View Protection Section 5.10 at pp. 48-50 and Figure 5.1, Key View Corridors at p. 51 accurately reflects and the historic design principles of the State Capitol Campus by Capitol Campus Architects, Wilder and White and the Olmsted Brothers. The SMP View Protection Section and Figure 5.1 should also refer to the holding of Sato v. Olympia, SHB No. 8l-47, which recognized and protected the public view corridor of the Puget Sound and the Olympics to and from the State Capitol Campus under RCW 90.58.020. See Exhibit 1.
OFFICE (360) 7s4-9756 ' FAX (360) 754-9472 ' CELL (360) 402-3376 . EMAIL: [email protected]
1801 WEST BAY DRIVE NW - SUITE 205 - OLYMPIA, WA 98502 Our clients want to ensure that the SMP View Protection Section and Figure 5.1 reflect the ninety-nine years of state law and policy for the State Capitol Campus. As you know, Wilder and White and the Olmsted Brothers incorporated five design principles into their plans for the State Capitol Campus. These principles include: (1) the City Beautiful Movernent, (2) the Capitol Group of buildings, a revolutionary design of legislative, executive, and judicial buildings to look like a singular Capitol building when viewed from Budd Inlet, the Isthmus, and the Fourth Avenue (Olympia Yashiro Friendship) Bridge, (3) the borrowed landscape of the Olympic Mountains and Budd Inlet to frame the design, (a) the northem orientation of the Capitol Group and Campus to Budd Inlet and the Olympics and (5) a body of water to reflect the buildings on the bluff, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. See Exhibit 2.
The SMP View Protection Section and Figure 5.1 need to reflect the view corridors from the Temple of Justice and the Law Enforcement Memorial out to Budd Inlet and Olympics which is protected by the public trust. All the citizens of Olympia hold the public view corridor in trust for the people of the State of Washington and have a fiduciary duty to see that the Wilder and White and Olmsted Brothers design is preserved. The Washington State Capitol Campus is a historic designed landscape as defined by the National Parks Service. See Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.
As a member and former chair of the Olympia Planning Commission from 1986-1992,we recognized that the city was bound by the,S¿ro decision and we kept the building heights in the Isthmus to 35 feet in order to protect the City Beautiful design principles of the Capitol Campus. The City needs to protect the view corridor in the SMP update consistent with the 1982 Sato decision because the City, State, and private donors have invested millions of dollars for the North Capitol Campus Heritage Park, the North Campus Trail, the Washington State Law Enforcement Memorial, the Heritage Park Fountain, and Percival Landing. See Exhibit 6.
Please see the attached DVD made by the six living former governors, the first ladies, and former secretary of state and Mrs. Munro which illustrates the statewide impact of the view corridor. The video can be found on the enclosed DVD and on this website link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v:VOJAiodGpKM&feature=elated. See Exhibit 7.
The SMP needs to protect the Capitol Campus view corridor just like the City of Seattle protects the view corridor of Olmsted's Rainier Vista in Seattle on the University of Washington Campus and the City of Washington, D.C. protects the view corridor from the United States Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall in Washington D.C. Both Rainier Vista and the National Mall are City Beautiful designs. See Exhibit 8.
As a former chair of the Chamber of Commerce, I suggest that we need to preserve the view corridor as part of the design of the State Capitol Campus in order to promote our greatest tourist attraction and to increase the millions of dollars generated by our visitor economy. As a land use attorney I can assure you that downtown Olympia has over 500 acres of land east of Water Street in which to allow as much high rise development as the market will bear without interfering with the design principles of the Campus and the public view which we all hold in trust for the people of the State of Washington. Please ensure that the SMP update recognizes and incorporates this historic view corridor in section 5.10.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Allen T. Miller EXITIBIT 1 V/estiaw Page I 1982 WL 20387 6 (Wash.Shore.Hrg.Bd.)
T982 WL 2038'76 (hlash"Shore.Hrg.Bd" ) ShoreÌlnes Hearings Board State of Washington
PER¡4IT IN THE MATTER OF A SHORELTNES SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMTT AND A VARIANCE DEN]ED BY THE CTTY OF OLYI,IPTÀ TO gÀTo CORPORATION sÀTo CORPORATION, APPELLANT , v, cITY OF OLYMPIA, AND STATE OF h/ASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT oF ECOLOGY, RESPONDENTS
SHB No" 81-41
June 17 o l'982
FÎNAL FIND]NGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER This matter, the request for review of the clenia.l-s of applicatlons lor a shoreline substantial developmeut permit ancì variance permit, came before the Shorelines Hearings Board, Davicì Akana (presiding), Gayle Rothrocl ETNDINGS OE FACT I Appellant Sato Gorporation ancl Lhe -tand ownero Stormans, apPlied for a shoreline @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/[Vest. No Claim to Orrg US Gov. Worlcs. Prgc2 1982 WL 203t76 (Wash. Shorc.Hrg Jd.) substantial development permit to construct a six story, seventy foot high buitd- ing for offices, shops and a restaurant in downtown Olympia. II the Dechutes waterway -+tre--+it+-and-Pr-e- e-in restaurant, a 27r[1-L SF grocery and drug store and some paved parking sPaces' The site originally was filled and leveled. It presents subsurface conditions which requÍre more expensive foundation support ior structures than would ordinar- ily be necessary. The westerly 20 to 30 feet of the site drops approximately 12 feet to the Des- chutes ltlaterway. The shoreline is stabilÍzed by rocks. III The site is located within an automobile-oriented connercial area. It is surroun- ded by the Deschutes tfaterway on the west, the Olympía Yacht CIub on the north' and mixed co¡nmercial and parking areas on the east and south. IV pro- The proposed development would be constructed on about 2 actes of tand' The po""ã Uuitaing woutd be located in the northeast corner of the lot. The building y1?percentofthesite.OnehundredtwentytwoparkingsPaces åa roi building occupant purposes along 4th Avenue flest and between ilding and the-shoreline. A 15rOOO SF public recreational area, City's Planning Departrnent and acquiesãed to by appellant, would be provided along the shoreline. about 8?r000 SF of cornmercial floor space The proposed buÍIding would contain pro- whicir aþpellant believes is financially necessary for this project' It is posed tñät tt¡e first floor be reserved for water oriented commercial and restaur- ant uses. The other five floors would be leased for office space. The exterior of the building would consist of light go1d, Vari-Tran 91ass panels having a re- flective factor of 28 percent. v At the time when the application was received by the City, the site was in the central retail (CR) zoning district of the City. In sucir-district, office build- 100 whichever was the lesser, were pennÍtted' ings of up to 8 stories or feet, the The ordinance pennitted 100 percent lot coverage and exempts the district from zoníng parkÍng reguirements. 121312008 https:llweb2.tryestlaw.co mlpnnt/pnntstream.aspxfutid:1&sr,-Split&prid=ia744c85600000"' PageS 19 82 WL 203t7 6 (Wastt. Shorc.Hrg.Bd.) Although the proposed development was consistent with Èhe provisions of the zoning code without parking, the City Planning Department an t appéttant ascertained that parking on the site was needed. VI To mí¡¡míze fron-ttrc- street to the-the-InpãctfõE-õror{di.n!-Ehe-stre-eE-ãnc[-of-\r[êF-bfõek-ãEë shorelÍne, the City Þtanning Departlnent and appellant consÍdered placing the buitding at various locations on the site. Sucir-inpacÈs were minim- by situating the building on the northeast corner of the site' As a resultr ized the abouÈ 40 of tne IZZ parking spac"" were located beÈween the buítding and shoreline to the east. place- Locating the proposed building at other places on the site could avoid the ment of parking lpaces between the building and the shoreline but would have a greater i¡isuat impact from the street. The elimination of parking between the building and the shoreline woutd noÈ preclude the use of thã site as proposed' VII the location of the six story building on the site, as proposed, would minimize view blockage and crowding from a perJpective on the stieel. It would have its maximum vÍsual impact on southern upland capitol campus. The visual effect upon verse. ïlater area views of Budd Inlet w aÈively narrow isthmus separaÈing Budd I scale. The view impairmenÈ would be add pre-S!{A Capitol Center Building. fÍhile the existing view loss asso- story, tn[lj high rise ciated wíth the Capitol Center Building may be seen as precedent -for structures on the narrow isthmus, it also serves as an äxampte of adverse visual effects which should be limited. VIII The Regional Urban Design Assistance Te a part of the city's comprehensive plan. and structures at the site by knowledgea with each other. The city staff report of natural materials and contaj-ning nore and a larger public landscaped area to be nore comPatible with the. RUDAT recom- mendations. Such an alternãtive was not acceptable to appellant, however' X plan' After the RUDAT study was adopted as a part of the city's comprehensive -but j.nstant permit applicaiion, the city amended its subseguent to the filing of the site zoníng ordinance. The relevant zoning provisions would now allow a maximum 12/312008 https:llweb2.westlaw.com/prinVprintstream.aspx?utid=l&sv='Split&prid:ia744c85600000"' Pagc 4 19 t2 WL 203t76 (IVash.Shorc.Hrg.Bd.) for buildings over thirty-five feet and up Èo sixty-five buildings eíceeding thirly-five feet in height nust meet the Cential $laterfront District' to en- to the intent of loss' ic access to open spaces, to offset any upland view and to ti¡nit maximum heights to sixty-five feet of The City,s Shoreline Master prograrn (SMP) has been approved by the Department Ecology. tlAC 173-19'4203. XI Policy No. 1 (page 10) of the SMP provides: be permitted only in a manner which preserves Pubtic access to shorefines shaiL the es- or enhances the characteristics of thã shoreline *ñi"n existed prior to tablíshment of public access. propos- As a general propositlon, public access is encouraged under.the.Sl4A' This detrimental to the charac- ition has its limits, however. Ífhere public is in teristics of the shoretine environment, such acces""..""õ t"y be li¡nited or deleted order to Preserve,the status quo. the provision for publíc access in the instant development is not inconsistent with this policy. The present condition of the site itself would be enhanced proposed development' The guality of rather than be degraded as a result of the to public access be improved over the existing parking 1ot now available grocery shoPPers."oríd XII Policy No. 7 (page 11) of the SMP provid Shorelines of this Region which are n toric or ecological qualities should velopment which would degrade such sh fnapproPriate shoreline uses and poor eliminated. l^Iater over the site from the state cap- Excqpt for, perhaps, visual access to the or itol campus, tne lite itself is not notable for any aesthetic,. scenic' historic ecological qualities. It follows that the proposeå develoPment would not degrade such qualities on this obviously non-naturaf shoreline' The SMP designates the site in an urban mercial development is allowed when in c uses (page 6{' SMP infra). The present with uses now alLowed under the SMP. the use of an urban shoreline area. The gual 12/312008 https:llweb2.westlaw.co mlpint/pnrústream.aspx?utid:l&sv==Split&prid=ia7Mc85600000"' Pagc 5 19 t2 WL 203t 76 (IVæh. Shon.Ilrg.Bd.) would be markedly irnproved if the substantial devetopnent and its public access were provided. XIII Policy No. 3 (page 20) of the SMP for commercial development provides: np aftttTe'-Tttlr=È+re=r.ea- which they are to be placed. Visual access to the water shall be considered 1n the location of structures. The proposed six story, reflective glass exterior building is not aesthetically corpätiUfe with the structures and Àhoreline environment in the surrounding area' Most striking is the generous use of gla would be to introduce a notable incongru the isthmus. Also striking and related the proposed building. ft would tower a and in bulk, save only for the Capitol C access to Budd Inlet from vierçoints on thetic perspectÍve, the proposed buildin cube on a shoreline, whi.ch is dissimilar tended. the proposed development is inc development "should" be aesthetically c the water !Ías "considered" by the city aesthetics. lÍe cannot say that this àeter¡ninatlon vras !{Ìong. !{e can say that the foregoing policy is not, by its terms, mandatory. xrv Commercj.al Developnent Poticies 2(a), (b) and (c) (page 64) allow the followíng uses: (a) hlater-dependent uses including marinas, marine fuellng facilities, and ferry and boaÈ terminals. (b) ffater-oriented uses including seafood stores, boating/fishing suPPlies, import shops, eating/drinking establishments with water access, waterfront parks and recreatÍon areas, and boatels. fcl Uses allowing substantial nu¡nbers of people to enjoy the shoreline ínclud- ing motels, hotefs, restaurants, offices and apartmentã ãUove first floor, and other uses designed for maximum public usage by permitting pedestrian water- front use. The proposed development contains elements of permitted uses: waterfront parks and recreation areas and uses allowing substanlial nunbers of people to enjoy the shorelinet ê.e,t restaurants, offices above the first floor, and pedestrian water- fronÈ use. The description of the proposed developrnent demonstrates consistency with the above Policles. xv h¡ps:llweb2.westlaw.com/prinlprintstream.aspx?utid:l&srrsplit&prid:ia744c85600000... 121312008 1982 WL 203t76 (tVash.Shore.I{rg.Bd.) Pagc 6 Conmercial Development Policy 3(b) (page 65) provides: Parking areas Jerving individual buildings or facilities are pernítted as fol- 10w*s: Nortn parkingn¡¡t i¡¡ betweenlra+r^raan the+ha buildinghrrit¿{ina and¡nâ the}ha waterw¡}ar (orln¡ in waterfront sgtbacksetb¿ Ît"il parkins in side yards located within d0 feet of the ordinary high water mark. (Page 69' SMP. ) xvr The SMP provides for variances from the regulations (SectÍon VII. 9, pages 85, 86), if it is determined: (1) That special conditions and circumstances exist which are Peculiar to the land, such as size, shape, topography or location and that lÍteral interPreta- tion of the provisions of this Program would deprÍve the proPertY owner of rights commonJ.y enjoyed by other propertÍes under the sa¡nè environmental desig- nation. (2') That special conditions and circumstances resuLt from the requirements of the Master Program and not from the actions of the applicant. (3) That the reasons set forth in the application iuãtify the granting of ll': variance, and that the variance is the ¡nininum variãnce that will make possible the reasonable use of the land. (4) That the variance wilL be in harmony with the general purposes, goals and intent of the Master Program, and the Shoreline Management Act. The Department of Ecology rules, I{AC 1?3-14-150, are sirnilar Ín effect. tFN2l Appellant did not show that there exÍsts any special conditions and circumstances pããu:.iar to the land that would deprive it óf iignt" commonly enjoyed by other ,rr¡"n properties. The need for tnã variance arises from locating the proposed building on the northest corner of the property and from providíng for parking spaces are not reguired by the suÞ oi zoÃing ordinaãce. Strictly speaking, tfiis need"¡ricf, does not arise from conditíons peculiar to the land, but from voluntary reguirements relaÈed to the partícular project proposal. Parking is not a re- quiirement of the city, and the additional 40 parking spaces desired would exceed minimum necessary to provide a reasonable use of the land. Additionally, tïe struc- there was no showing that parking could not be provided in an appropriate . ture farther away from the shoreline rather than by the proposed paved parking lot' XVIT https:llweb2.westlalv.co mlpint/pnntstream.aspx?utid=1&s\Fsplit&pri d=ia744c85600000... 121312008 1982 WL 203876 (lVash.Shore.Hrg.Bd.) Page? Any Conclusion of Law which should be deemed a Findingr of Fact is herebY adoPted as such. From these Findings the Board enters these CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I The Board's function in this matter is to determine whether the proposed substan- tial development Ís consistent with the approved shoreline rnaster program and-the provision" ãt tn" Shorelines Managernent AcL. RCI{ 90.58.140(2) (b). The specific i"",r"" subrnitted have been identified in the prehearing order entered on February IL, 7982. I1 fn a review of the deniaL of an application for a permit, the person requesting the review has the burden of proof. RCrü 90.58.140(7). rII The proposed development is consÍstent with Policy No. 1 (page 10), Policy No' 7 (page 11), and Cornmercial Development Policy 2 (page 64l' of the SMP for reasons stated in the Findings. IV The proposed development is inconsisÈent with Commercial Development Policy 3 (b) (pagã esl as related in the Findings. Appellant has noÈ shown that the criteria fãr-granting a variance from the foregoing provision has been met. Specifically, Section VII.g. (1 and 3) of the SMP and WAC 173-14-150 2 (a, b and d) have not been demonstrated. If parking was to be open to also serve a recreational use, however, Ít appears that no variance would be reguired. But that is not the pro- posal submitted for determination as we understand it. V 3 (page The -fot-"or*.rcialproposed devel-opment is inconsistent with the non-mandatory Policy No. 2O't ãevelopment for reasons stated in the FÍndings. fnconsisÈency with a non-mandatory poliêy is not afone dispositive of the proposal, as submit- ted, however. VI The policy stated in RC!{ 90.58.020: contemplates protecting against adverse effects to the public health, the land waters of the and their aquatic and its vegetation and wildLife, and the "t.t. https:llweb2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid:l&sv:Split&pricFia744c85600000." 121312008 Page I 1982 WL 203876 (tVash.Shore.Hrg.Bd.) life, white protecting generally public rights of navigation and corollary rights incidental thereto. The means by which this policy is put ínto effect is providing for the management of shorelines by planning for and fostering all reasonable agd appropriate uses' enjoy. the RCW 90.58.020. fn such management scheme, "the public's opportuãity to physicat and aesthetíc qualitÍes of.natural shorãlines shall be preserved to the grgaEesE- oxEenE -rGãS'IDIE¡ . v ¡:: -tÞrlllJ¡¡é:t¿.¡t cqsEq.', fl, not a "natural, " í.ù, uníntruded, shOreline, alteratiOns of even the natUral Con- dition of the shorelines are allowed in uses Íncluding, shoreLine recreational u ciLitating public access to the shorelin províde an opportuniÈy for substantiaf n ^An office building is not such an inhere the contenplation of RCII 90.58.020. But either. Consequently, the tocal planning as evidenced in the SMP is a particu' larly important factor for thÍs project. Finally, whether a particular shoreline is natural or not, a1l develoPments must comply wÍth a certain statutory standard: uses in Èhe shorelines of the state shall be designed and conducted PermÍtted eco- in a manner to minimize, insofar as practical, any resultant danage to the logy and environment of Èhe shorelÍne area and any interference with the Pub- Licrs use of the water. RCll 90.58.020. The proposed office and the urban environment (SMP, page 64) as However, it is not designed in a manner environment of the shorelÍne area. The building on the narro¡{ isth¡nus between d avoided by changing the exterior apPeara shoreline view would stilt be inpaired. priate structure would be lower in heigh 9le must therefore conclude that the prop ent with the foregoing portion of RCI{ 90 ing this and sinitar proposals on the isthnus would irreversibly damage the aes- thetic views remaining. IFN3] VII has The proposed substantial development as disapproved by the City Commissioners not been shown to be consistent wiÈh the Olymiia Strorállne Master Program and-the provisions of RCt{ 90.58.020. Therefore, thé àecision of the city should be af- firmed. VIII Any Finding of Fact which shouLd be deened a Conclusion of Law is hereby adopted 1213/2008 https:llweb2.westlaw.co mlpnnt/pnntstream.aspx?utid=l&sv=Split&prid=i a744c85600000"' Page 9 1982 WL 203E7 6 (Wæh.Shore.Hrg.Bd.) as such. From these Conclusions the Board enters this ORDER he-€,i+y--=------==t- - of Olynrpia are affirmed. DONE this 17th day of June, 7982. David Akana Lawyer Member Nat V'l. lrlashington Chairman Gayle Rothrock Vice Chairnan Rodney M. KersLake Mem.ber John Griffiths Member FN1. rrSMA" refers to the Shorel-ine Management Act of 791I" FN2. See Appendix A use regula- FN3. There appears some need for the city to further refine its land tions on the isthmus to address height ll-mitations from an aesthetic perspective' APPENDIX A WAC 173-74-150 Provides in Part: The purpose of a variance permit is st cific buJ-k, dimensional- or performance rnaster program where there are extraor to the property such that the strict i impose unnecessary hardships on the ap in RCfi 90 .58 ,020. the (1) Variance permits shou]-d be granted in a circumstance where denial of in RCW 90'58'020' permit woufd result in a thwartiág of the policy enumerated in- In all instances extraordinary ciicumstances be shown and the public "no,liãeffect' terest shafl- suffer no substantial detrimental or- (2) Variance permits for development that wilf be located landward of the except within dinary high water mark (oHWM) , u" d"fi.,ed in RCW 90.58.030 (2t þ'), l2/3n0A8 h:¡ps:llweb2.westlaw.com/príntlprintstream.aspx?utirFl&sv:Split &'pncl:ia744c85ó00000"" PEgc l0 I 982 IVL 20387 6 (1Væh.Shorc.Ihg,Bd.) those areas designated by the department as narshes, bogs, or swanPs Pursuant to chapter 773-22 WAC, may be authorized provided tire applicant can demonstrate of the following: all nd- ards set forth in the applicable master program precludes or signific?ltly ::- terferes with a reasonable use of the property not otherwÍse préniUitea by the ¡naster Prc¡gramt - (b) That the hardship described in ÍtAC 173-14-150 (21 Gl above ís specifically related to the ptop"rly, and is the result of unÍque conditions such as irregu- ]ar fot shape, ãirã, ói naturat features and the application of the_master pro- g:.aßt, and nót, for example, fron deed restrictions or the applicantrs own ac- tions. (c) that the design of the project will be cornpatible with other permitted activities in the area and wilJ. not cause adverse effects to adjacent proper- ties or the shoreline environ¡nent designatíon. (d) That the variance authorized does not constitute a grant or sPecial PrÍv- properties the area, will be the minimum ilege not enjoyed by the other in "ãa necessary to afford relief. (4'l fn aLl grantj-ng of all variance the cumulative i.mpact of additíonal r example if variances were granted to ilar circunstances exist the total of ent with the policies of RCW 90.58.02 verse effects to the shoreline environment. 1982 WL 203876 (Wash.Shore.Hrg.Bd. ) END OF DOCUMENT https://web2.westlaw.com/print/printsfream.aspx?utid:l&sv==Split&prid:i a744c85600000." 121312008 EXHIBIT 2 l0l ? H6¡ry4 ç¡,¡* ¿ !ryh tù A'g Capitol Campus view corridor from Eastetn trlashington Butte to Fountain l t!¿ or. ¡i.p* 14. t' ...v I - , I l*-i :t- \, r -'' ( .. È- .rj tf N I L,,,r¡ttai, ' -, ,r.: ,1 ç + # ¡¿-.trr4¡¡¡¡' ¡ l,J,'.,i .è E¡(IIIBIT 3 Capitol Campus View Corridor r"1 ,s:-¡ q"¡ 'rf ." ù-¡ :41 EXHIBIT 3 Washington's Audacious State Cupitol and Its Builders NORMAN I. IOHNSTON Washington's Audacious State Capitol and lts Builders NORMAN I. IOHNSTON (/út/tffi!/L university of washington Press seøttle andLondon Ì I Introduction Þte capiùols'and sþbcrapers have bEeti rèè;fiZea as America;s t üniqué contribution to the world's monumental architecture,l and " theWashington State Capitol group in Olympia provides an added , dimension. For instead of construction of a single building to reflect suitably the needs and aspirations of state govemment, a plan was chosen for a group olbutldings. In its time, this century hardly a decade old, it was an unprecedented idea in ou¡ national experience, especially audacious for a state with scarcely over 800,000 inhabitants.* *lnlgTl,Washingtonhadapoputationof f .he P¡esentday splendor of Olympia is the result of events that took plac ¿ 800,L32, ranking twenty-sixth among the over a long périod but were all played out in the same theater, a site on :t then lorty-síx states of the union. heights looking north over the most southerþ ärm of Puget Sound.çIt was in Otympia that the first tenitorial legislature met in 1.854, thereby acknowledging the recently founded village's status as port of entry for Puget Sound and the area's relatively large population in the territory (996 residents, exceeded only by Clark County's 7,734).2 Olympia had captured a prjze when it attracted the territorial legislature. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, speculators in new towns in the developing western regions placed high value on such institutions as capitols, county courthouses, colleges, and penitentiaries, as signs ofpublic commitment to the town's stability and future prosperity. Although Olympia was intermittently forced through the years to defend its status as capital- '¡en as late as 1958-it has remained the capital, first of the territory, now - the state, ¡The founder of Olympia, Bdmund Sylvester, offered twelve acres of land ,3s a site for the Capitol, Although rather remote from the center of town, its: timbered heights offered views opening north to Olympia, Puget Sound (Budd Inlet), and the distant Olympics. Below the bluffs on two sides were ' tidelands, handsome enough when the tide was in, less so when it was out. The acceptance of the Sylvester offer by the legislahrre in 1855 was an important victory for those who late¡ sought to secure Olympia's status as state capital. ' The earliest sessions of the legslature had been held in rented quarters downtown, but in 1856 the legislafure moved to its own modest two-story wood-f¡ame building for which Congress had appropriated 95,0ü). It was located on the Sylvester site in about the same place as today's Legislative Building. Although conceived as a temporary arrangement until more permanent construction could be managed, it served the capital needs of first the territory and then the state until 1903. The permanence of impermanent construction is remarkably common in institutional history. Ci¡cumstances encouraging more monumental ambitions came with statehood. congress had passed enabling legislation which in 1889 admitted Washington to the Union as the forty-second state. But the federal government had also taken another crucial step, in effect making a gift to the state of its capitol campus construction. In his proclamation of congressional approval of the state's new constitution, president Harrison announced the donation of132,000 acres ofland, to be chosen from any 13 il. The Competition of Lgll y the time washington returned to effo¡ts toward housing its legislaturd in a manner befitting state aspirations and ambitions, a considerable change had been worked in the American experience and the envi¡onmental devices for expressing it. The public client and its architects had embraced new design goars, in rarge part infruenced by the example set by the columbian Exposition held in Chicago in 1g93, the year of the first Washington competition. The Exposition,s,Great White Cityi, an ' architectural evocation of Imperial Rome, had had the addeá impact of coordinating the various elements composing the environment into a unified whole. For the American observer it was an unprecedented experience in unity and coordinationof architecture, building heights, spatial relationshipg and landscape. rhe scale was big, the details rich, and the sense of national wealth and power pervasive. The Exposition had also appeared at a time of emerging professional prominence of American architects trained in the French École des Beaux Arts methods of architecturar design and planning or familiar with the work of its chief practitioners such as Richard Morris Hunt, George B. post, cass Gilbert, Carrère and Hastings, and, most particularly, the firm of McKim, Mead and white. The ecrecticism of their architectural taste, the skill with which they worked in large monumental scale, the increasing ease with which they translated classical Roman models for contemporary purposes, and the application of lessons leamed, not onry broughì unpreìedented design standards and cohesiveness to American architecfural practice but also served to establish new goals fo¡ the design of cities as well. These developments came, too, at a time in Ame¡ican history when the country was beginning to see itself in different ways. The swiit victory in the spanish Ame¡ican war, our sudden acquisition of ån overseas empire, and the enormous economic power that the nation had assembred encouraged a View of Columbian Exposition, Chicago 1g93 ilisplacement of any lingering national reticence by self-assertiveness at home a¡rd abroad. We had the means and now the will splendidly matched by the "ion (if not the reality) of great white cities that evoked-and might even pass-ancient Rome itself. This was the era of the imperially scaled Rnnsylvania Station and Metropolitan Museum of Art, Columbia The Pennsyloania Station, New YorkCity, University's Low Library and campus plan, the McMllan Plan for McKim, Meød andWhite, architects Washington, D.C., and lordly palaces on New York City's Fifth Avenue and at Newport. This was the era of the American Renaissance and the City Beautiful. And it was during this time that the second competition for a state T-he McMilIøn PIøn fqr the MnI! of the capitol, the ideal environmental expression of that era, was announced from National Cøpital, 1901 -1.902. Courtesy Olympia, a competition not for a single capitol building this time but for a of theNational Capital Plønning capitol group. Commission, Washington, D.C. zîl-l' Æu þ's :T þ,,.% ii,FrE[ TÞlE l.ll,I-t- 1l'\1il,1 \\ l,f \\ Ei, TI #i-l: tl I'lr ('ompetitionof 1.971 ThebenefitsofGovemorRogers,spurchaseofthecourthouseforthestate -- the bulldil^qfad c' .l had proved to be transilory; in only four years At its 1909 session br .r," ,o .or,g"rted as to th" legislature to action' ^o"" to the Flagg plan and to move it authorized the state to proceed withã retum and the issue appeared toward its completion. Nå was appropriated' ^ott"y the process in motion' The to be in limbo. The act, however, had set authorizing legislation was rng it i911, the state "t, "urtyi., to its caPitol camPus and Pl Hay, chaimøn; 'Its membe¡s were Goaernot State CaPitol Commission E Frost A new C. W. Clausen , the state audito¡ ; I' ' ' plan' The experience with the courthouse as a autom"ticaily to tñe Fhgg the stqte tax commissione¡; E' W' Ross' the agencies was recent enough to cause the singl" hifait g housingãistate commissioner of public lønils ; M' Hanis' to reoPen the whole subject of commission at its fitst meeting in igtt mayor of Olympia; A. S. Tøylor of Euerett; ) appropriate planning poliry' Flagg, ønd A. Polson of Hoquiam' cãmmission as a consultant, had in group plans for both the U'S' ana the Fomfret School fSOS¡ d ,o oí¡"r,and the commission approach to capitol planning for a sta sed single-building practice conventional, - 78, l9l1, "to provide for a g-roup of in a letter to Governor H"y t:., ¡"r,,tu ry foundations' iotfai"gt, the principal one ttol be placed upon the existing accåmmodations for the legislature and the n ir-U"ifai"g wouliafford - goup could be ;il;;l officers' ' ' ' The other buildings of the äaa"a ft"*"*äti* time to time as they were needed"' and moved to reject the single- The commission agreed with the rationale bu Þyd mandate: like 16 o state that these plans were prepared something prepared by antiquated and are not such plans as would be :::ïlÏ:ffiï:i::':ÏïÏ removed,andtharitb"pd"lk:."ili"ï:ilfi and future ,tte Commission would be better adapted to the Present i"ãS "f needs "*of the state.2 end of the 1911 session by The legislature acted favorably before the authorizing the commission competition for a grouP solu construction costs of its first The commission also met with a de American Institute of Architects who architect,beconsideredfinished,andthattheCommissionselectdesignsat of architects, five ;;á competition be limited to six architects or firms ñ; washington and one from outside of whom should be residents of the state of the' state."3 tt^tt"tto'IlT"r, ff," uno*"y general, brought in to clarify this self-servi"t tect ¡ 22 Washington's Audacious State Cøpitol The commission's approach to administration and judging this time was considerably more orderþ and cautious than it had been in 1893. It nediately sought professional assistance in developing the competition r Jgramas well as for its subsequent judging. For its adviser it enlisted the services of an emerging eminance among Seattle architects (and one of the *He earlier competitors), Charles H. Bebb.* Born in England and educated in was to be paid one thousand ilollars Switzerland with later training and experience as a construction enginee4, plus traoeling expenses, according to the Bebb had been in this country since the earþ 1880s. His first visit to Seattle, commissionb minutes of Ayil 78, 1917. shortly after that city's fire, was in connection with work of the firm of Adler and Sullivan who were doing some planning for a downtown site. I¿ter he returned, with a reputation for fireproof conskuction and designed the first fireproof building in Seattle (the Hoge Building); there he remained for yeats of active practice.{ The commission added considerable stature to its effort by its choice of professional adviser. A statement by the state's architects suSgests some of the difficulties but also the optimism surrounding these developments: Under Mr. Bebb's guidance. . . good fo¡tune should attend the results in Washington. He has placed himself in a delicate position before the architects of the country for their entrance in the competition will be largely through their confidence in him and any advantage taken by the Commission through the legal situation which causes the defect in the program, would reflect upon him as well as threaten the state with a repetition of the Harrisburg affairt which has made the tThere had been a storm of controuersy state as well as the participants notorious. There has never been a failure in design in Pennsylaania in the late 1.890s ooer the or scandal in construction of a public building that was awarded through a regularly handling ol a similar competition for selection formulated program.s of an architect, wíth seuen of the competitors suing the commission for unfair practices (Henry-Russell Hitchcock and William Seale, Bebb in the meantime had reversed the stand he had taken earlier with his Temples of Dernocracy: The State ' 'low architects in the mattet of closed competition by gracefully affirming Capitols of the U.S. A., p.238). support for an open one. He also presumed a similar realignment of intcrests by his professional colleagues: lf'he importance of the itate capitol buildings cannot be too greatly emphasized. i¡ . They ì and ¡ this ,¡tntc. . i The architects of Washington are satisfied with this condition, howeve¡, Ilr they desired to have the very best obtainable, and if there a¡e bette¡ ideas outside tl¡t, state than within they are willing to have the award go to an outside a¡chitect.6 'l'lrc program which the commission and Bebb developed was a two-Part ,,r lrt.me, as the legislature had agreed: I lr, trrmpetition is unusual in view of the fact that it contains two elements. One is llx,¡iloup plan for all the buildings of the future. This is the unit system of building rvith tlrc foundations of the present capitol as the nucleus about which will be be first ¡1r urr pcd the necessary additional buildings. The Temple of Justice will the uI tlrr t¡ nits and in the course of years othe¡s will follow all being in harmony with tlrlrr. in place and part of the general landscape scheme to be decided upon at this r r rttt¡rt'IiIig¡.7 t I I'ltt Qmpetition of 1911 Competitors could hope to be awarded both parts of the competition or only one of them. ,,program On April 29, 1911, the commission approved its for a Competition for a Proposed General Architectural Plan for a Series of Buildings to be erected in Capitol Place and for the proposed remple of Justice for the state of Washington at Olympia and Further for the Selection of an Architect.,,B The first prize was to be the commission for the design and construction supervision of the Temple of Justice. The other four prizes were cash awards of $1,00Q $750, 9699, and 9500. However, should the winner of the first prize not also receive the award for the group plan, then the second prize would ,,full go to the architect of the preferred group plan as payment therefore and he shall make no further claim upon the Commission or the State of Washingtoní General programmatic requirements then followed for the Temple of Justice. Presentations would consist of a plan for each floo4, two elevations, and cross and longitudinal sections. The requirements for presenting proposals for the group plan were defined more broadly but with some important design determinants included. The program asked only for "a carefully studied general scheme,, centered about the existing Flagg foundations, which were to be incorporated into the new capitol building. l,rlorth-south was to be the principal axis of the group, with lhe capitol building facing north and,major approaches from the north and gast. The competitors were asked to provide drawings showing a generalized arrangement (buildings but no intemal divisions), one elevation ,,taken from any standpointi' and one section, all at sixty-four feet to the inch. No mention was made of perspective drawings for either the Temple of fustice or the group plan. The competitive designs will be examined by the professional advise¡ in the preparation of this program and two other architects appointed by the commission, *Kirkland as the Commission may determine.* The adviser or the jury, as the case may be, K. Cutter of Spoknne and William will examine the drawings submitted and make a repo¡t to the Commission F. Faaitle of San Frøncisco were adiled as designating the ten (10) most me¡itorious designs: yofessional members of the jury. (a) For the Proposed Grouping Plans; @) For the Proposed Temple of fustice. The recommendations of the adviser or jury shall constitute their report to the commission. The commission will then, after ca¡eful consideration of the aforesaid report and afte¡ examination of all the designs, select that group plan and that design for the Temple of Justice which may in its opinion be best. The Commission will also select from the remaining plans those which in its judgment, are entitled to the 2nd, 3¡d, 4th, and Sth prizes.e The competition was now ready for announcement to the architectural community. fudging by the thirty entries subsequently submitted, interest in this second competition, fo¡ whatever reason, was much reduced from that of 1893, which had attracted 188 entries. The competition's failure to attrâct more of the day's professional stars is especially puzzkng. One would have thought that, if nothing else, the unusually ambitious and unprecedented goals of the group plan would have been especially challenging. There were three New York entries of some national reputation: Ernest Flagg hoped to repeat his earlier triumph, and he was joined by Henry Hombostel and 24 Washington's Audacíous State Cøpitol Howells* and Stokes. Yet the major architects of the era, some of whom were +lohn Mead Howells, in partnership with or had recently been working in other states on similar projects, were Raymond M. Hood, won the 7922 Chicago issing: Cass Gilbe¡t (Mnnesota Capitol), McKim, Mead and White (Rhode Tribune Competition with an entry t'or a steel- tower in hench Gothíc sheathing. ^sland Capitol), George Post (Wisconsin Capitol), and Arthur Brown, fr. (San t'rame Francisco City Hall). One thinks also of other missing practitioners of the American Renaissance, such as John M. Carrère and Thomas Hastings, John Russell Pope, Daniel Burnham, and Arnold W. Brunner. All were doing work on a scale comparable to that represented by the 1911 competition and might have been expected to be attracted to it. As things tumed out, the L91.1 competition was a somewhat local affair. Eighteen entries-over half-were from firms listing Washington addresses; thirteen of those were from Seattle. (In some cases, submittals involved collaborative arrangements, temporary associations by which an out-of-state firm shared the benefits of both out-of-state and in-state identity; in such cases addresses are credited to both states involved, thus accounting for a total greater than thirty.) Other areas were represented by two entries f¡om Oregon, four from California, five from New York, and one each from Duluth, St. Louis, and Denver.lo On |uly 31 the jury of three architects, Bebb Cuttef, and Faville, met to begin the judging process. The thirty submittals were opened before them and stamped with a number which was to be their only identification until afte¡ the winning entry had been selected. The judging occupied the following three days. On August 3 the jury reached its conclusions and tThe runnerc-up were Stokes, gave its report to the assembled State Capitol Commission: Hou:ells ønd Neu¡ York, second gize; Daaid J. Myers, Seattle, third prize; Wilcox and Sayutard, The decision of the jury was unanimous and wãs concurred in unanimously by, Seattle, prize; and Ernest Fløgg, New å full meeting of the State Capitol Commission. When the envelope having the fourth York, yize. Honorable mentíons were number noted on the drawings was opened by the Governor in presence of thé fifth Gílbert Lounsburgh, San kancisco; Mílton lges of the Suprerne Couit, the State Capitol Commission and the Jury of Lichtenstein, San Francisco ; W. Mnrbury -rchitects it was found that Mess¡s, Wilder and White, Architects of New York Someruelle, Seattle W illiam Mncomber, City had won the competition.ll ; Seattle; and I. A. Longe and Lawrence Ewald, St. Louis. The Olmsted b¡olhers of Brookline, Not only had this firm won the Temple of fustice competition but the group Møssachasetts, unre anployedby the , plan award was theirs as well, Two relatively young architects (both in thei¡ òommissíon as lanilscope architects (The mid-thirties) out of distant New York City, with only a modest local practice American Architect, ool. C, no. 1.86 the¡e and no known reputation in Washington, had swept the field.f [September 13, 1911], p.108). .ttt 'l'ltt C.onryetition of 1911 II' The Wilder and White Entry Wå"äåîr:îffii"tr; Walter Robb Wilder, the older of the and arclutecture at Comell' He education: Phillips Academy, Andover' eamedhisBachelorofscienceinArchitectureinlsg6and'degreeinhand' young architects at *", ftl*¿ in April 1897bythe premier ttiliq office for and White' Except for two years of the turn of the century, ftitfi"t" Mead with the fi¡m until ;;;*" havel and t*¿y i" fgOO-tgOZ' he continued of its professional isOó.'Ì"f"rc^, Mead and í'Vhite was at tl manner in which its designs *Its alumni included such fgwes øs Cass Hastings' aspirations of its clients' Gilbert, þhn M' Canèrø Thomas Henry d the firm's American Witliam E' Whilden, A' D' E Hømlín' Sawyø, and Egerton Swattuoul coast to coast'* Bacon, PhíIip The American 'Young draftsman' just graduated (T he BrooklYn Mus eum, Renaissance, lE76-1917' P' 7 9 )' Institute of Tãchnology's Department of in 1899 from the Massachusetts year' Tlvo had been with the firm since August of that Ár.ii who to the Stanford White ol his ""*r", tNo relation years younger than Wilder' employers'frm. iiving in New York CitY' Th for a numbet of Years hand re-scale residential projects and or ,fiö;;;;À;; ä thrown int oting death f change' for first Stanford White, and perhaps this pre the firm' and Wilder in February 1906 anã then Whi the practice of architecture' i"g",f,* ,ft"y form"¿ tfteir own Partnershþ lor although neither ni"y *-rcá out of an office in åowntown New York' andhis wife lived to the north in man would be living in the city' Wilder more drawn southwest to Plainfield' Bronxville, and White *"'^ot" and In due course he married into one Ñ"* l"rr"y, where his sister was teaching' (its mayols) and Plainfield became his of the town's substantial families home fo¡ the ¡est of his life' Thetwomenmaintainedastableprofessionalrel.ationship,thoughtheir domestic arrangements physically separated nd may have been more of the designe¡' Wilder ns decisions were made in p;;;J; role. But ¿L^.,-,.o close one^ over^.. - the years ^rof theirthpir between them; their association was a in this white may Both did contact work in search of ctients; ñ;:;;hrp of their larger commissions were have been the more successful, as many area'l for schools and institutions in the Plainfield offered their clients were The architectural solutions the partners unpretentiouslY loplties and the offered them oP earþ years of the partnership or later Capitol grouP. i Walter RobbWildet 26 The State Capitol Commission's announcement of its competition had been issued to the architectural community in lvfay 191L and Wilder and White 'cided to enter. They were primed for the effort, having recently entered -nother such competition for an important New York public building; although they failed to place in it, the experience had whetted their skills. The Washington competition was therefore timely. Work on their competition solution and presentation drawings had all the last-minute tensions associated with traditional Beaux Arts methods of working. In an undated letter (mailed July 24, 1911, but written earlier) White reported to his fiancée, Miss Elizabeth Fitz Randolph, on the partners'flurry of activity: Your letter came yesterday moming when we were on the last lap of the competition. We had thought we could call it done but we found that that was not possible and as long as the Express Co were open to receiving packages until six that we might as well take the extra time for a few finishing touches. As it was, it was but three minutes of six when the drawings were laid on the counte¡ and we were entitled to rest, a shave and hair cut some of which I've had and the ¡est of which I'm getting gradually. I stayed in New York Thursday and Friday nights and by working until one we were able to finish without undue strain. I think it was our best effort so far and consequently am pleased with the result. The drawings all looked well and I feel that we had a most logical solution. Those who saw our scheme, other than ourselves, shared this opinion. But it is a long chance with 60 others. Hørry KeithWhite *Neithr W ililer and Whiteb ikawings Asthecompetitionrequired,theirpresentationwasintwopartgatotalof nor those of the other competitors ¡emain' g'ottp pl"tt dealt with the total campus site' rheets of á¡awings.* ihe Houetn¡,The American Architect/or ,"ã on it e"st by Water Street and on the south " Fifteenth Street. The other perimeters were the ofBudd Inlet. The Flagg foundations, ofcourse' A north-south axis determined the location of the lægislative Building' running centrally through the campus wa1ryr.ked t:.t",tt".,tll{-1. buildingsat a1gles^-- semiciñuhr memorial pí¡za between two flanking office placed Temple lystiS .li to the north(rough the symmetrically gf ""a stairs and successive landings laid across it and on down b-road mónumental boulevard' In the angle of the to a roundabout and connecting shoreline bluffsbetweenthesestairsandWaterstreet,thearchitectsindicatedan as called for for assemblies on great public occasions' in ;;d".- amphitheater lost. When the f rm zns dissokted in 1930' intersecìion of the north-south axis and the in the competition program. The the iliaision of its recorils thóse associated with W ililet' axisextenáinaeast-westthrough*-tff,;11å;i',tr#ÏåilJgË:îi' the frmb wo* in Olympia went to Whatbecame ol them ofter his death is east approach to the also marked the unknown ; they were Tesumably destrcyed ndPoint it tumed northwest' closed sP o sit íon ol his b elon gíngs' Governo/s Mansion' Balancing the alone make uP thebulk of ngs on either side of the Legislatiw dence ol the Partners' Otympia designs anil their iletselopment' Building. hr the competition, the most accessible are those included i¿ The American Architect also includeil lor September 73, 7917, which ptitrts of the seconil Tize ilesign' ' the These losses, and the loss of recotils from partners' New York office, haue complicateil the task of tracing the etntution of the designs group ptan anil its units' Almost any 'interptetationfor the of infuences, models, etc'' must b e substant iallY inler ential' ,4ccepted grouP PIøn design, W ild er ønd W hite, ar chit e cts 28 Washingtonb Audacious Støte Capitol The elevation reaffi¡med the balanced order of the group plan. AII buildings ^,rbsidiarf to the Legislative Building had the same controlled cornice line d height. The Legislative Building's roof profile moved slightþ above them and toward the central dome, reinforcing the building's dominance. Ground lines, terraces, stairs, and ramps were similarþ manipulated to indicate their supporting roles. The handling of the dome and its relationship to the balance of the scheme called for some deftness. This was the essence of the design problem: to create a domed legislative building in harmony with the other campus structures and yet sufficientþ scaled to be the central Presence of the group Accepted designs, group plan and as a whole. This problem was to return later and require a major adjustment Temple of lustice eleaations, Wililer in the plan. andWhite, architects 'ffi'ffi þF 'i EN tU Lll , ; F I' ,t..t 'l'hc Wilder ønd White Entry their lægislative Building. St. Peter's Basilica, Rome restraint authority of the Legislative Building. The only challenges to this the north were thé use of the Corinthian order along the full length of both and south elevations and some sculptural emphasis at the main entrance. balance The interior plan mirrored the exterior symmetry with almost total of spaces on either side of the transverse axis' fi Washingtonb Auilacious State Cøpitol Second Prize design, Howells ønd Stokes, architects It is interesting to compare the Wilder and White entry with that of Howells ¡rnd Stokes of New York, the winners of the second prize. The latter,s vocabulary is much riche¡, heavier-and more costly. The principal departure I'rom the Wilder and White scheme was the location of the Temple of Justice, ¡rlirccd south of the Le6slative Building instead of north. This had the ntlvantage of emphasizing the lægislative Building as the major building on lhc axial approach from the north. But it would have withd¡awn almost half ¡rf thc site's buildable area from use, creating a ¡athe¡ tight grouping of l¡uildings on the southern portion of the site and requiring mo¡e state land ntr¡uisition in an already developed residential area for the location of the ( iovcrnor's Mansion, while leaving portions of the existing site to the north rlrirmatically open but extravagantþ empt'¿ tl'l'ltr Wilder and White Entry A similar extravagance is evident in the architectural handling. The overall Second Prize design, Howells impression is one of might: massive forms, heavy lights and shadows, the and Stokes, architects rich play of details, and a powerful porticoed entrance to the Legislative Building superimposed by a great square base with supporting tourelles and a rather horizontal dome that spectacularly dominates the group. It is a dome similar to wilder and white's but much more squat in proportions. There is an undeniable power in this proposal, but somehow it seems overblown and out of scale with the ambitions and circumstances of the state. Perhaps the jury thought so, too. In sum, Wilder and White had developed a scheme that suggested an incremental and orderþ plan of development, worked well as ensemble in the architectural language ofits day, and reflected a realistic appraisal of the promising but conservative economic goals of the clients. One can still appreciate why the jury and commissioners would be attracted to this entry and give it their unanimous approval. Yet, though accepting the jury's choice, one cannot avoid wondering about its flaws. First, there are the difficult topographic realities of the site.'Loftily located to maximum visual advantage above Puget Sound and the city with an unintemrpted axial orientation due north, nevertheless its bluffs made access f¡om that di¡ection both complex and eno¡mously expensive. 32 Wøshingtonb Audacious State Cøpitol It was the competition Program, howevex, which raised the issue, not the architects. The program states: 'An axis developed through the center of the 'lding north and south shall be the main or principal axis in the g;rouping ,:n." Further on it adds that the "Capitol Building faces the northi' and "It is presumed that the main approaches to the Capitol Building and groups "fl-he view is will be from the north and east," finally observing that l.est l.Ooking due,gqr.tþ ftom the center of the proposed Capitol Building, which gives on Puget Sound."2 The reality of the matte¡, though, is that any functional "main entrance'' from the north would be likely to fail' Not only was the topography forbidding and soil conditions unstable but the area was occupied by one of Olympia's rail¡oad stations and its yards; all these factors were calculated to complicate any effort to create an access to the campus by stairs and roadwaYs. Nevertheless, all the contestants of whom we have any record made gestures toward accommodating the commissioners'wishes for a north axial arrangement, doing so with various combinations ol plazas, terraces, stairs, and ramps. With a single exception theybffered variations of buildings grouped in U-shaped configurations whose arms opened without interruption to the northward vista. It was Wilder and White who chose to block that vista by their location of the Temple of fustice across its axis. We know howevet that even after the award had been made there were questions remaining in the minds of the commissioners and others about this aspect of the program which they had imposed on the competition. The State Archives has a typewritten "Report of Group Plan" addressed to the commission, dated August29, l9l1', and signed by Wilder and White, in irnswer to a query from the commission as to the architects' attitudes toward this requirement, now that the award was in hand and they could presumably rt spond more openly. Vildeç who was in Olympia to accept the award, remained supportive of an approach from the north. His rationale, howeve{, was more subjective than objective, the designer rather than the functionalist at work. The ¡tternative had been suggested that the primary access to the campus might Irt. westward from Main Street (now Capitol Way). In the architects'report, Wilder labeled this a route of only 'ãccidental importance. . . starting rrowhere and ending indefiniteþ'The route would be only two blocks Ìong, ,rrrd its prolongation east of Main Street "would have no reasonable further noted that to face the group plan east would be to r"lurn.¡rrstificationl'T{e its back upon one of the most beautiful sections of the city"-West : ( )lympia, across Budd Inlet from the site. ' livcn mo¡e unforfunate, confinued Wilder, would be the dissociation of the .ril(, fr(!m its water views, which would be entirely cut off. finally, he felt city ¡qrowth should be encouraged westward rather than south or east; to focus llrr, sitc plan in those latter directions would simply encourage the least I'rrrrr¡ising areas for Olympia's future development' Irrslcad, concluded Wildeç the city should move toward providing ,r ltru, lroulcvard. . connecting the three distinctive ridges contained in the city llrrrllr, ,r¡rtl giving access to the coast towns. On the axis of the capitol a fine ,r¡r¡rro.rt'h from this boulevard to the foot of the steps would be made with a carriage ,rl'l'ro¡t('h on either side, and a boulevard to Tumwater along the water's edge there with the proposed Pacific Highway' . . A tide lock at the Boulevard ' ' 'rr.'('l¡rrg ' be visible from lake was deueloped in this way, but not I tr r I lrr, we stf would form a lake* aód the whole effect would most 'A until the early L950s' llrrr l¡ of llrc city as well as from the sound. I I I h" Ut'l iltltr and White Entry . liis boulevard would also "facilitate the natural travel through the city and diréct it past the most beautiful portionsi' bypassing the city's south end while providing the fullest opportunity for visually exploiting the Capitol's ì i site. Most of Olympia's subsequent history and urban growth were to prove him mistaken. In spite of the scorn in which he held Main Street and the south end, it was on that route and in this section that the city growth and its better addresses predominated, at least until the advent of suburbanization after the Second World Wal when development became multidirectional. The northem approach boulevard was thwarted by more dispassionate heads and the formidability of the site; even as a concept it would eventually disappea¡, thereby preserving for all time a group plan oriented north but approached from the east, a dichotomy never to be resolved, either then or in subsequent efforts by others. t The commissioners also had second thoughts about the advisability of retaining the Flagg foundationÐ and here Wilder was more circumspect. For the time being he simply observed in this same report to the commission that letting "the final result be marred by parsimony at this time would be most unfortunate. A proPer answer. . . can only be made after a detail[ed] stu$yí ,Åccepting, then, Wildels enthusiasm for a northem orientation for the group plan, further questions remain: Why, unlike other contestants, did Wilder and White choose to confuse the Legislative Building's access to that northern vista with the transverse alignment of the Temple of fustice? And why do so when at the same time the axis to the south was being architecturally framed-but into an area which wilder himself claimed had no distinctive visual amenities and which was composed of substantial privately owned residences? Why were the relationships of the accessory buildings of the group not reversed, closing the south axis with the Temple of |ustice and dramatizing the axis to the north by framing its uninterrupted thrust with the pair of angled buildings? Were the partners questioned on this decision? Was it discussed by the jury or with the commissioners? The official records provide no enlightenment. However, information recently discovered in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division (discussed in Chapter 4) suggests that these questions had indeed been forced upon the commissioners' and architects' attention-but from a once-removed source. But in 1911 the emphasis was on technicalities and timing' Although there were calls for further thought to protect site-planning principles and to prevent what they considered a violation of visual rules, the momentum of events swept them aside. The consequences can be seen in Olympia today' It is a pity that White's letter to Miss Fitz Randolph, announcing the firm's triumph, has not survived. We know from those letters that do that he *Whitewasbusy continued working on other projects in the office* while Wilder was in fnishingupptesentatíons Olympia accepting the awari and answering the questions of the State t'ot the Ptainfield Libtary competition, which a weeks at'ter their Olympia Capitål Commissiãn. Ànd so began what was to be an eighteen-year the firm won t'ew triumph contractual association between Wilder and White and the State of Washington. 34 Washington's Audacious State Capitol IV. The Interim Years: 1%.1,-L920 he competition for the Washington State Capitol may have been settled in 1917, but it was another eleven years before the Legislative Building, the centerpiece of the Wilder and White group plan, began to rise. The interim years saw successive restudies (especially of the dome and its role in the group plan), a critical period that brought the state to the brink of theBlan's abandonment, and initial construction of peripheral buildings. When the state announced the results of the competition on August 3, 191L the commission also wired Olmsted Brothers of Brookline, ' lvfassachusetts-then the foremost landscape firm in the country-inquiring as to whether they could "prepare plans for Capitol Building grounds." No newcomers to the Pacific Northwest, the firm had been employed in Seattle slnce 1903 on major projects: the Seattle Park Plan, a plan for the University of Washington campus, the plan for the 1909 Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition (whose framework still dominates the universit¡/s campus), plans for Woodland Park and Volunteer Park, and a generous scattering of other public and private work. fust after the commission's formation, there had been a rccommendation+ that the firm be employed as landscape consultants, and by invitation of Governor Hay the senior partner, Iohn C. Olmsted, had made l preliminary visit to the Olympia site on April 13, 19U. Thus, when in August the Olmsteds were formally invited to become the commission's ,"rnsultants, they quickly accepted. Thereaftet f. F. Dawson, an associate mber of Olmsted Brothers, met with the commission in Olympia. On l)ccember I Dawson reported to his firm that at the meeting no mention was made of the Wilder and White group plan, and that the commission's top priority was "just the location of the temple of Justice so the architects rrruld proceed with the plan and locate it properly'' It is clear that the ( llrnsteds expected to play a central role in the development of the final ,lr'sign for the site, since there was still considerable flexibility. 'l'hcre followed some weeks of restudy, resulting in their alternative dated 18, 1912. The location of the Legislative Building on f 'rolrosal, fanuary llrt, lrlagg foundations remained, now with an axial avenue stretching from llrr, lruilding's north facade (in a direct diagonal six blocks northeasterþ to rrruìcct with the downtown business district at Main Street) and an existing Olmstetl Brothers sitepløn, 1912 ¡rirrk block facing the old Capitol Building. A subsidiary approach was added A Legislatiae Building I r onr Main Street due west to a monumental plaza before the south front of B Temple of lustice llrr, l,t gislative Building. Opposite the lattef, closing the plaza to the south, C Oldcapitolbuilding r{,¡ilr rt rclocated Temple of }ustice. Olmsted letters, to the commission and D City park L r Wiklcr and White, explained these plans at various stages of their E Railroad station rh'vr,lopment. But despite the apparent persuasiveness of their rationale for llrr'.rr, rcvisions (especially with regard to the location for the Temple of lu'rlh'r.), the brothers failed to move either the commission or the architects, írrrl tlre issue soon led to their dismissal. Willr hindsight, it is possible to explain this deadlock. At the time of Wlltk,rh visit to Olympia to meet with the commission and see the site, he r\,rr!¡ ¡rnk(¡cl that final drawings for the group plan be prepared and submitted *Through the et't'orts of Chørles W Saunders, a r l¡ llrr, t'txrrmission in six months, so that the location of the Temple of Justice Seattle architect. Saunders's letters of March 31, .rrhl l¡, scttled and work proceed on this first building of the new group. 1111, to lohn C. Olmsted implies that he took ilrh,r was also asked to suggest possible revisions for the group plan as a this initiatiae at Olmsted's request (Olmsted rvlrr rL,, irtklressing questions raised concerning site orientation. Brothers papers), t,r Until recentþ little evidence has been available to clarify what the tone and content of those reconsiderations might have been. The commission minutes did not record them, and Wilde¡ and White's end of the dialogue was lost along with their files on the Olympia work. Howeve¡, new research among the Olmsted Brothers papers substantially clarifies what the commission and Wilde¡ and White had in mind in their approach to the group plan. When the announcement of the award of prizes for the 1911 competition was made, there had been the additional note that the Olmsteds were being hired in an advisory role to the commission. Iohn C. Olmsted from the first had been troubled by what he saw. His detailed notes of his April visit, along with letters and telegrams both sent and received, shed light not only on his own concerns, but also on the rationale of the commission and the architects fo¡ what in due course was decided for the site. Out of Olmsted's efforts through the rest of 1911 came a plan which he sent to the commission, correcting what he saw as the major weaknesses of the Wilder and White plan. In his letter of transmittal, dated fanuary 18, t972, he expained that We are sending you under separate cover by mail prints of our alternative plans for the improvement of the Capitol grounds, based on the assumption that the Temple of fustice will be located south of the Capitol. . we request that your Commission give earnest and full consideration to the fundamental question whether it is advisable to hide or "blanket" the future Capitol building in various views from the City by locating the Temple of Justice north of the Capitol. We believe it would be a great mistake to do so. . . . It will inevitably produce the impression in the minds of most obse¡vers that the Temple of Justice is the important monumental building and that the Capitol is merely an incidental building or side show. . . . We desire to call particular attention to our suggestion that a diagonal avenue be , laid out extending from the west Part of the public square between Main Street and J th" t"^po.ury Capitol building to the front of the new Capitol building, centering on the dome. We believe such an avenue would be of immense value, not only for the desirable esthetic effect of connectng the Capitol directly with the business and park center of the Ciry hotels, railroad station, etc., but also as an obvious and sensible direct approach to the Capitol. Such an avenue will, of course, take more or less private property, which will be expensive, but we believe it will be worth all it will cost. Olmsted's belief was not shared by the commission, however, and although it had reopened the matter, it was not willing to reconsider the location of the TÞmple of Justice. A letter f¡om the commission to Olmsted, dated January 27, 1972, reveals not only a number of factors which served as the basis for its decisions, but also the biases behind the group plan award to Wilder and White: the commission was still committed to the reuse of the Flagg foundations. The space between those foundations and the site's southe¡n boundary line was thought insufficient to permit a generous plaza and site for the second most important building in the group plan, the Temple of fustice, without crowding the adjoining private properties. Furthermore, the commission did not have the legal authority (nor did it wish to go to the legislature to get it) for further land acquisition in that area, which was already under Private development' But one suspects that, in addition, the commissioners and their chosen alchitects we¡e set on the original award-winning group plan, Having that already in hand, and being pressed for time to complete drawings and bidding and to begin construction of the Temple before appropriation . authorizations ran out, the commission viewed the Olmsted initiative ) as disruptive and gratuitous. Thus, with some asperity, the commission % Washington's Auilncíous State Cøpitol concluded its response to the Olmsted firm by asking for a billing for its sowices and severing relations with it. Sq for the time being, the case was ed, and on February 27, ln\ the commission, again by unanimous consent, approved a revised Wilder and White plan and adopted it as the "Group System of Buildings for the StateÍ1 This was not, howeve¡, to be the fìnal version of the group plan or of the Legislative Building which was to dominate if one sees the sequence in a publication ¡ecord at four different stages in its evolution. The first-stage plan was the one presented at the time of the competition in 1911 and published in the September 73, 7977, issue of The American Architect. This was followed by the 1912 plan, described in an article w¡itten by the architects and publishedinThe American Architect in 1915.2 Next are drawings ol1920, when the partners began final studies for the Legislative Building but continued to adhere to the Flagg foundations. And finally, there is the series of construction drawings of the early 1920s on which Legislative Building construction was specifically based. By following the changes shown in these plans through those years, inferences can be made as to the evolutionary process leading to the building and group plan as they eist today. Ihe group plan for 1912 shows no sþificant departure from the plan of 1911. It reaffirmed the location of the Temple of Justice and the other buildings of the group and thei¡ relationship to the Flagg foundationÐ on which the Legislative Building was to rise. There were some alterations to the shoreline configuration to permit a mo¡e dramatic and extended approach to the site from the north, along a landscaped esplanade closed by a triumphal arch* ccntered in another roundpoint and leading to a double-ramped ascent to the terraces above. The monumental staircase of 1911 disappeared, the likely rcsult of Wildels having personally observed the seve¡e topographic reality 'fhe site. Also gone was the outdoor amphitheate¡, dropped from the 3gram. Otherwise, the original group plan relationship of the seven buildings (induding the Govemols Mansion) was retained. Reaised Wikler and White site pløn, 1912 A kgislatiaeBuilding B Templeoflustice C Administrattue buildings D Governor's Mansion E OId capitolbuilding F Railroadstation G City pørk rHowell and Stokes hail incluileil an arch in theír competition drawings, in the same Iocation. The reaised group plan, 1,912 Important changes are to be found, however, in a revised elevation and especially in perspective studies that were the result of the six additional months given the architects for refinement of their competition presentation. The focus shows that the partners were preoccupied with a single element: the dome. This is reminiscent of Ware's evaluation of designs submitted for the 1893 competition, when he observed in his report to the commission that the domes.were often the weakest element of the entries and a clue to the competence of their designers. When Wilder and White came to work on their own dome, American architects had been developing a repertoire of experience in handling this supreme element in the architectural vocabulary considerably beyond the more tentative record of the 1890s. By the beginning of the First World War there had been completed some splendid precedents. Thus, the parhrers were able to draw from such well-publicized state capitol domes as those of Minnesota (Cass Gilbert), Rhode Island (McKim, Mead and White), Mississippi (Theodore C. Link), Kentucky (Frank Andrews), Pennsylvania floseph Huston), Wisconsin (George B. Iìost and Son), Utah (Richard Kletting), and Missou¡i (Tracy and Swartwout), as well as the San Francisco City Hall (Arthur Brown, ]r.). All were completed before the design for the Olympia dome was fìnally settled. The partners'dome in their competition drawings had been conventionally handled, with clea¡ visual ties to the domes of Mnnesota and Rnnsylvania. ln the six-month restudy, however, Wilder and White must have felt some The 1.912 reaised group plan, urge to give the dome increased dominance and more individualized design. eleaation from north 38 Washington's Auilacious State Cøpitol 'l'hcir 1912 drawings offer both. The dome's overall height was increased, The L972 reaised group plan perspectiae It,aving no question about where the design balance was to lie: l¡r its mass it is apparent the Group Plan responds primarily to the necessity of so ,rl|irnging a collection of small units that they may combine to give the effect of a nlrr¡ilc structure when viewed from a distance and from all directions. Hence, the Lr'¡lislative Building, slightly larger than the others and surmounted by a lofty dome, lrtupies the center of the group. The TÞmple ofJustice is directly no¡th across the ('orrrl of Honor and the four Commission Buildings are grouped on either side and ll llrc south. The simple colonnaded treatment of these surrounding buildings çv l l l I rom a distance tend to make them appear as a single broad base to the central rlililt(,.1 Morc apparent, howeveç are the changes introduced in the design of the rll¡nt, itself. The circular plan was discarded, replaced by a two-part scheme. l lrr, krwer level was a modified and colonnaded octagon with greater width ¡tvt,rr lo the cardinal elevations. This, in turn, was superimposed by the dome llst'll, ¿ìn octagon whose transition at the drum was eased by large volutes at r',tr'lr r'orncr. The design is not without precedent. Did White's love of Italy ,rrrrl lris travel there remind him of Brunelleschi's octaSonal dome in Florence? A ¡lrrrillr idea had been proposed at one stage in the development of the N+'w Yrrk Capitol in the 1870s, but there was no precedent in this country to ],rr urrirl;c its use in Olympia. Second thoughts would come, but for now the ¡rrr lrilr,t'ls were preoccupied with the design and construction of accessory f-rihllrr¡is on the campus. Further study of the Legislative Building would lí,tv+'lo w¡tit. 1ll I lr lttlrrim Years At one point in the development of the Wilder and White plans for the capitol group history almost repeated itself-shades of Govemor Rogers and the Flagg building at the tum of the century A change of administration brought a new govemor to the chair of the commission: Ernest Lister, who in 1913 succeeded Govemor Hay. The only Democrat in an otherwise entirely Republican administration, Lister had been elected on a platform of economy and businesslike management for state affairs; his attention was soon drawn to the ambitious and conspicuous project of the state capitol. iConvinced of the extravagance of the 7912 group plan, he was particularþ 'ifistu¡¡e¿ by its north-south orientation,'preferring instead an aPProach from due east. For the rest of the decade-while planning and construction of the TÞmple of Justice proceeded-the commission, the legislature, the state's architects, and the press grappled off and on with the issue. The commission supported the governols altemative plan; the legislature vacillated, at one time denying the commission the authority for such drastic rethinking but later granting it; and the architectt led by Charles Bebb, weie úpited in their opposition to this abandonment of the 'lision, ideals, and ' i¡æ¡V'@ebb's words) of the Wilder and White group plan. The architects were supported by both t}lre Seattle Post-Intelligencer and lhre Seattle Star. But before any construction obligated the commission to make a permanent commitment to the Lister plan, a shifting of priorities and rising costs due to the dislocation of World War I caused a postponement of building activity on the site. The end of the wa{, the death of Lister (in 1919), a new SovemoÌ and chairman (Louis F. Hart, a Republican), and more rethinking of the issue by the commissicin finally resulted in a ¡enewed commitment to the partners' gioup plan. Thus the question of the capitol's site plan disappeared from the commission's agendas. In the meantime both the commission and the architects had been occupied with activity whose progress had not been interrupted by the background disturbances of the continuing group plan debate. The commission at its February 17, 1912, meeting had turned its attention to the matte¡ of construction of the first unit of the plan, the Temple of fustice, whose design had also been awarded to Wilder and White. Until1925, when the legislature The Lister group plan,1915 HERITAGE PARK \YAsHtNGToN STATE cAPIToL o LYM P ¡.r, ìü¡.s H r NcTON Pno¡Ecr Go¡l s Capirol C'ampus on of rhe cftyandwith dre the hill. antecedents of r C-onsider the historic dæþ cemPus' dre CaPitol GrouP and deve'loped: Second:ry goals were also ofpride and ovmer- r Cteete a stilewide serue ship" lØashlngton's . Create a living monum¿ff tÛ nanr-ra! ead oirural heritage' andis r âce Û¡¡tc¿leb äccesible to åmi- lies and groups' $¡ithin rhe ¡ Provide architecru¡al h:rmony rhe phpical needs ofvisitors' " Accommodate park and ,***r, and dæ caPital comrntmiry' and -¡ Offcr inc øcPeriencrs n f*v. recreadonal oPPonuniries' Pagt l'8 HËRIT¡tGË p/rRt( WAsH¡NGTON STÂTE CAPITOT IJ OLYMP¡A, V,{SHINGTON I H Couc¿usroNs wiú some in-warer fifliry" Since it is rmpor- t¿nt to nú¡¡tnizn werland dimubance, all Qppgrtunities crisr m ti¡þ¡t{_rçq,, ri predaþ opnions shallcau^ænonerúerge ro r úeviÈn¡s to. the sourh of rhe Lqislarive Bufd- ;I" *lrdrgïrk" uabybalnangú. r*ã,rru rngend rhe Temple ofJusrice and alsò, dCw! io¡*r*¿"eløA¡"Crpfrf U[r. Co_p*- ttonü.e-P¡+inlþ+&Buddiolcr.-dúr tsarorywedand-idgli"ibycreatingin_vLær ,Oþiiic Moinali*, Oppomniric also exist x habirar is essenriet ai¿ o¡l U" rynsidercd in all and !9 qh* manage the existing PaciÊc concepnral dæþopdons" Non:hwesr native plants æ an intqral W o HeritrycParkandtoreinforcerlerTâgegfúe Í Consuaints rc Heriage park improremcnts "dusrer Capitol Group es a in the foresn" include $abiüzing dre"erisdng OpiU fnf below thc C"cnerâl ádrninistnrjon Building. Constrainrc ofdre adstiry site indude the need Slope remediadon is a key consider¿don i¡ 2fl T to rdubiliare úe Capirol f^ake shofine edge opüon l plans as *oÅ ro climinate slopc due to æisting shoreline esosisn problems" " Re- A¡fur. *¿ provide ufe acccss for pedæuians ând sabilizing the eastem edgc fnû$¡dng of abng a aail irom the Capirol Groui ro Capitol I Capinl lalc will bcner accommoda* ryð"g L¡ke"and rhe surrotrnding civic opar spacc. and proposal program uses and suppon facili- ties" Hov¡¿ves, re-configuration qrill harrc e Fxhibi¿ [V-€ illusurates rh,e cu nt plannirg t ryry*lþ "t ry rypno duc ro disn*bance and u¡ban design considerations" ofaciningu,€dands aloag the eastem l"L".dæ T t I I I I I Page IV-25 HERIT¡TGE PARK V'ASHINGTON STATE CiIPITOL OLYMP¡A,,w'ÄsH¡NGToN .Ans rHnuc .A.NÂLYS rs (VrEws) th¡:re ane e rariæy of dnmatic sæni¡ vistes projeotll inm no"åÇo¡irs, those of ùc witin and around fu pe* siæ.,Thc mo . f egisl¿tiræ Buildingard it6 ref,mion ín Gpi- prima¡¡virn'points l)6omúÉrcpofrhc þl¡4kc, andthoçof P¡rçtSo andthc Nu6nonh of the Tenrple of wtich: Olympic Mount¿ins.:tbc bluff p pmvidci peao vicqß of Capiool Lalc, uniçrcranøppoinæ to Puget Sound and the . Budd Inl¡t, diccityofOþpia¡¡d, on a QtympicMorrnairu. ¡tlæe vicn¡s should be darthcOlympic r¡nainsand2)Êomrhe proteoed and eohrne¿ Dcrrlopment ofad- bkshoæ,spccitcalþúrcnon[ anduæstshores, didonal vicq¡s strould bcconsidcrod and obser- ba&m¡ard úc Gpitol Gmpus" The unique- ration poina along úc blufr dcvdopcd to ness of thc siæ is arhibitcd in drc mcmo¡ablc marimizc vieqn. Vian¡s Êom thc Gpitol Lake via,r' of thc l¡gdeti* Building æflecting in shore to ú'c Câpfuol Buildings should bc ptc- Gpitol l¡la bdow. ln addition ¡6 fi6 l¡l¡¿ scnËd as should viam Êom Gpirol Lakc and Capitol viars, M¿ Rainicr is visible to the touard the Mid and South Bæirs Êom dre east Êom r¿ntâgc points on the c¡uJt sidc of vrstsidcofCapid fd Pngr IV44 I H¡n¡trc¡ Pr,n,r VASHINCToN ST^TE CAPIToL OLYMPI^, VAsH¡NGToN ] I I Puc¡t Sou¡¡o I j I ':. Eø Ynt prbl, at ûtula I :;I t I t t t ttl I t 0 500 Fr 1000 FT ll2 MILE fi*o"'" I I Exnr¡n IV-13 Exstlr.¡c Vrnvs I , I Pqe IV15 I HET¡T/TCE P^¡,K \F^SHINGToN STATE CAPTToI OLYMPI^, VASHINcToN PUcET SoUND l l -n;ãLñ; = Nl,*ùþn túeTch æntffin, /ñ 0 t00 Dr 1000 rr ll2 MILE lJ Nonrx E:rnnn IV-18 Suuu¡,ny oF ExrsrrNc CoNDrrroNs PtçIV-V EXlllBl'|. 4 WEST CAPITOL CAMPIJS OLMSTED BROTHERS' MASTER PLANNING & LANDSCAPING WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS . ',.8F' ARTIFACTS EBE All of these elements apply in some part to the campus grounds, not just the buildings. The fifth principle, Campus Open Space and Design, most directly addresses the qualities of the campus: 'the itld fnaio? rtletucorridats of.thg çøvtpus; as well as views ínto the cømpas-(es). -,r':tt ,. tr'.t:¡.¡ì The 2006 Master Plan directed that historic documentation be reviewed, the landscape goals of the Master Plan be expanded and refined, a character-defining features statement be developed, problems assessed, and objectives, ac- tions, and priorities be developed. FU¡,U¡S TEls & S_!rut6 i tbùF ;.¡¡{ {-: nrmq*o E ürftdhEto I .eÀk rtÉtry l a i;È:Ytrij{n gf irr.rr t'ièaT::i- F #1ffi!?q+ôlr*-&¡*c :{!'i i¿rl Prûposed Trccs & Shrubs Id+ Hrs I rrrq ra¡ a I scat q t& - 't: 1tra:¿I.r!r'.. iitrlirt..'+'ê', Plans prepared by Susan Black & Associates, landscape architects, as part of regeneration studies under- taken for the West Capitol Campus. \A¿ASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTMTION Con¡ Oltvtsrro BnorHERs DrslGN VALUES The profound Olmsted influence on the Washington State Capitol Campus arrived in two phases; first, their com- mission in I 9 I l, which preceded and continued with the concepting and planning of the Wilder & White design for the construction of the Capitol Group of buildings; and, second, the development of the refined landscape plan in 1927 that defines the capitol grounds today. [-.he early involvement of the Olmsted Brothers' firm followed closely their planning of the L909 Alaska Yukon , Pacific Expositíon on the site of the University of Washington in Seattle. Since the elder Frederick Law Olmsted's pivotal role in master planning the 1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, the Olmsted firm pushed the definition of landscape design well into the realms of city planning and public place making, In helping to shape Washington State's Capitol, their experience and prestige was sought in 1911 to initally set the foundation for the architectural competition and then to compliment the competition victors, Wilder & White. The collaboration and tension be- tween the two firms set the tone for the fundamental decisions about how the State Capitol buildings and grounds , would be shaped. This earl¡ foundation phase of Olmsted involvement lasted only twelve months but immersed the firm in the in- tensely constructive deliberations about building locations and composition, Iand and property limits and bound- aries, site orientation and views, and the landscape character ofthe future capitol grounds. ' The Olmsted firm, led at the time by Iohn Charles Olmsted and fames Frederick Dawson, lost their most critical debate with architects Wilder & White and the Capitol Commission over the placement of the first capitol group building to be constructed, the Temple of fustice. Their position, that the domed Legislative Building should be un- obstructed on the north, was overridden by Wilder & Whitet concept of ringing the central building with attendant lower structures. The architects clearly over-scaled the dome of the Legislative Building to better relate it to the buildings; but, in l9l l, none of the buildings had not been built, pd the Olm- . ¡Their al importance of the views to and from the Capitol site. emphasis was on the site and the opportunity that existed in fronting the primary Capitol building onto an open landscape that, in turn, opened visually to the inlet and the northward view, as well as extending northeast along the bluff to connect directly with Sylvester Park in downtown Olympia. As landscape architects the Olmsted Brothers understood soil conditions and how to manage steep and complex terrain, thus they took advantage of the steep bluff by staying along its crest to maximize views and visibility. The tension between architectural considerations and broader landscape and environmental aesthetics continues to this day at the Washington State Capitol, and the courtly debate in 1911 continues to inform decision-making. By March of 1912, several critical decisions were made about how the Capitol would look: a group of monumental stone buildings would be clustered around a central domed giant housing the chambers of government; a north- south axis would be adopted for site organization and relative building location; the edges of the capitol grounds would relate and blend into the surrounding city; and, the grounds and landscaping would balance civic formality with a sense of natural continuity and the Pacific Northwest environment. Also in March 1912, the Olmsted firm . was dismissed by the Capitol Commission. Fifteen years would pass before they would begin again on a much more ambitious phase of work. In the spring of 1927, as work was being completed on the construction of the Legislative Building, the Olm- sted Brothers firm was retained by the State of Washington in order to develop a landscape plan for the Capitol Grounds. Three stone governmental structures-the Legislative Building, the Temple of fustice and the Insurance Building made up the capitol group at the center of the site, with the Governor's Mansion tucked into the south- western corner and the old territorial capitol building on the northeast along with an assortment of random frame houses, The native terrain still carpeted most of the grounds; the periphery was largely defined by natural hillside WASHTNGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION IDEAS & CoNSIDERATIoNS The following outlines considerations for future work related to the historic capitol campus landscape. These stem from the new information collectedin200T and 2008, as well as the 2001 study. Topography: As part of any site drainage, lawn, and planting regeneration efforts, existingtopography should be compared with intended contours in order to identify any needed adjustments to return to the originally intended form. Create new pedestrian circulation and way-finding program related to defined gateways and functional uses. Spatíal Composítion: Implementation of the Olmsted master plan would restore spaces ønd sequences within the overall composition, as weII as define and reinforce gateways, edges, and seams per the Olmsted Brothers' intent. See also Tree and Shrub regeneration below. Tree Regeneratìon: Continue ffirts following Olmsted master plan, utilizing new data to identifi any previ- ously unknown species. These efforts should focus upon reestablishing the originally intended vertical layer (three-dimensional element) within the overall landscape composition. This layer was integral in creating spaces and spatiøI sequences within the campus, as well as directing and shaping view corridors. Enhance "seams" at perimeter of historic landscape by installing street tree program consistent with Olmsted Plan where no conflicts exist or are anticipated. Shrub R neratìon: Continue ffirts following Olmsted master plan, utilizing new data to identify any previ- ously unknown species. These ffirts should focus upon reestablishing the originally intended intermediate lay- ers within the overall landscape composition. This layer was integral in creating spaces and spatial sequences within the cømpus. Perennìal R neratíon: continue efforts following Olmsted master plan, utilizing new data to identìfu any previously unknown species. These ffirts should focus upon reestablishing the originally intended base plant- ings at buildings and monuments and guide future plantings. National Herl es Program: Begin this program for the Capitol Campus. Víew Conldors: Acknowledge and capture views of significance ofJ-site elements. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OT GENERAL ADMINf STRATION he design and implementation of Washington State's Capitol Campus landscape, by the internationally renowned landscape architects, the Olmsted Brothers, is an intriguing look into state politics and the com- plications of managing a project from long-distance. The state's internal political frays, coupled with the ongoing influences of architects, Wilder & White (Walter Robb Wilder and Harry Keith White), exerted a strong influence on the ultimate shape of the plan and the degree of its actual implementation. (Note: all drawings illus- trating this section reproduced in large scale with annotations at the end of this report.) The Olmsted Brothers came to the project fresh from various planning and landscape architecture successes, iricluding such local examples as components of the 1893 Columbian Exposition, Seattle's Park System, the 1909 Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, and the Seattle Golf and Country Club, including the Highlands, a residential district. Cities across the nation sought prestige through a reshaping and re-planning oftheir landscape, and the Olmsted B¡others stood at the pinnacle of acclaimed design. Architects Wilder & White had, in l9 I I , just won the national competition to design Washington Statek Capitol Group. They were embarking upon the creation of their vision for the Capitol and, by assumption, the organization and grounds on which these buildings were to stand. The third in this trio of egos was the Capitol Commission, which, through legislative changes, distilled down to three members, each with his/her own vision. The story unfolds in two phases: the first from 191 I to 1972, and the second from 1927 to 7934. The cast of characters centers on the activities of the Capitol Commission (later knswn as the Capitol Committee), the Olmsted Brothers landscape architecture firm, and architects Wilder & White. The main Olmsted Brothers participants during the first phase were John Charles Olmsted and James Frederick Dawson. By the second phase, Dawson took the lead role with Hammond Sadler. Also essential to this phase were Frederick Law Olmsted, fr., George Gibbs Perc¡ and the larger office staff implementing the studies and prepar- ing the drawings at the Brookline and Palos Verdes Estates offices. Throughout the process, the close friendships among prominent Seattle architect and state Representative Charles Saunders, fohn Charles Olmsted (before his death in 1920), and fames Freder- ick Dawson served a central and defining role. These friendships brought the Olmsted Brothers into the work, as well as sustained and guided their participation throughout the process. New York architects Wilder & White had assumed a primary role in the first phase and continued to remain involved during the -l"- second phase. Their expertise led to a blending of the landscape I . ,. r rr\.1 0l tt \t \tr with the buildings as the archi- .;' ,ì¡ 'Í! ('\l¡l'l.l)1, lrl,.\( li tects pushed their vision of the I t (ilì ril,r \ \r \rrr\r.1 rr\ I grounds. A myriad of lesser play- Ir ers, including nursery man, J. I. ! Bonnell, and state highway engi- I neers, Porak and Dunham, added T to the collective drama over the ...t_ twenty-plus years that transpired r!- during the life of the project, Plan no 5350-1-tcl a contour map ofcapitol place dated lgll and provided to the Olmsted Brothers for reference This drawing illustrátes existing conditions at the time of the Olmsted Brothers first involvemenl and preliminary discussions regarding master planning the capitol grounds. Drawing courtesy of the Na- tional Association for Olmsted Parks, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, National Park Service. WASHINCTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 1.1 MNSTAN PLANNING THE CNPITOL GNOUNDS The story starts with a March, l91l meeting of the Capitol Commission (Committee) where architect Charles Saunders, at the request of Governor Marion E. Hay (1909-1913), urged the Commission to employ the services of a landscape architect to master plan the then twenty acres of capitol grounds in Olympia. The state had just resolved'to develop a national competition program to solicit concepts for the capitol group buildings in order to house the executive, legislative, and judicial functions of the state government; plans for the Temple of fustice were to be the first of the group developed. Saunders thought the campus program could be simplified for the competi- tion if the approaches and overall organization were identified. This would also facilitate planning by the Commis- sion for future land acquisitions to expand the capitol grounds. Saunders recommended the Olmsted Brothers for this work because, at the time, they were working on the mas- ter planning for Northern State Hospital, and they had recently completed the planning for the highly successful Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition (1909), On April 13, 1911, fohn Charles Olmsted, at the urgent summons of Saunders and without any contract in place, made the office's first visit to Capitol Campus for a meeting with the governor and the Commission, and a chance to tour the grounds. The Commission consisted of: Governor Marion E. Hay, State Auditor Charles W. Clausen, Tax Commissioner f. E. Frost, Assistant Secretar¡ W.H. Hosler and Mitchel Harris of Olympia. Commission members not present at the meeting were: Secretar¡ E. W Ross, A. B. Taylor of Everett and Alex Polson of Hoquiam. fohn Charles Olmsted toured the grounds with Olympia surveyor W. R. White. |ohn Charles Olmsted and WR. White discussed current property boundaries, which included the steep bluff to the north, Northern Pacific Railroad roundhouse, yard, and tracks, as well as the Olympia Brewery down along the water at the base of the bluff. A land speculator had lain out lots south of the capitol grounds. Also included on the Capital grounds were the wood-framed Territo- rial Capitol (former residence of Governor Isaac L Stevens), the Governort Mansion built for the 1909 Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition, a hospital, and a large public school west of Capitol Way (then Main Street). Olmsted was surprised to learn the state had just sold the land along the har- bor, as the back sides ofindus- trial buildings did not make for a pleasing vista. Olmsted thought the overall site to be suited to the Commission's plans, but encour- aged strongly the acquisition of additional land, particularly to the south in order to provide street frontage along the edges of the campus. AI{Tt FAC] 15 OLMSTED LANDSCAPE: WASHINCTON STATE CAPITOL GROUNDS Olmsted suggested that a more naturalistic treatment of the steep north bluff (rather than the massive stairway pro- posed by architect Ernest Flagg) could afford the desired aesthetics at a reasonable cost. The industrial buildings along the harbor below could be screened from view with low well-pruned trees along the edge of the blufl while allowing vistas over the tops of the trees of the harbor and mountains. Olmsted advocated the important theme throughout the project of establishing a connection between the capitol grounds and downtown Olympia. This rec- ommended connection comprised a diagonal avenue (running northeast) along the edge of the bluff down to the Sylvester Park and the Old Capitol Building (former Thurston County Courthouse, then serving as the temporary Capitol building). This avenue would provide an impressive, practical approach for the daily traffic between the city and campus. Olmsted also advocated placing the Temple of |ustice facing Fourteenth Street instead of setting it behind (north of) the Legislative Building, as proposed by Ernest Flagg, and moving the Governort Mansion to a separate parcel. Following Olmsted's visit, the Commission hired architect Charles H. Bebb to develop the competition program, approved by the Commission on April 29,l9ll. This program loosely folded the landscape into the overall con- cept, eliminating the need for the hiring of landscape architects. This same program also set the basic premise that a north/south axis should be the defining alignment of the group, which would bring lasting complications. The state issued the competition in May of lgl l and selected Wilder & White on August 3, l9l l. The day Wilder & White were selected, Governor Hay sent a telegram to the Olmsted Brothers in- quiring if the¡ on short notice, would advise the state on preparing a landscape plan for the cam- pus. The architects that had won the competition, Wilder & White, were delayed in preparing their plans due to Wilder's sickness. Consequentl¡ the Commission was eager to show progress to the public and turned to the Olmsted Brothers. The Olmsted's submitted a fee proposal for $3,000 to include their time, travel, and other ex- penses for preparing a preliminary plan. Because they had seen the site, all they would need was a topographical map of the site to use as a base. Meanwhile, Saunders continued to work in the background, cultivating contacts and influence for the Olmsted Brothers through meetings and letters with Commission members and Alonzo Taylor. On December 5, l9ll, fames Frederick Dawson, with the Olmsted Brothers, met with the Com- Plan no 5350-12 titled Preliminary Plan Scheme A. Dated fanuary 18, l9l2 and mission to discuss employment of the firm to approved by fohn Charles Olmsted. This drawing, coupled with scheme B, illustrate provide a preliminary plan showing the Temple tìl'o alternâtive concepts for master planning the capitol grounds worked out in discussions Scheme presents the buildings in an east/west offustice location in relation to the Legislative with Wilder & White. A orientation with the thought that the state would eventually purchase additional lands Building and the three other proposed office east of Capitoì Way to allow a more expansive setting, though the plan would work buildings, as well as the Governor's Mansion. witb the existing site. Both scheme A and B retain the core Olmsted Brothers recom- mendations ofa diagonal avenue and placement ofthe Insurance Building south of These plans would include the general layout of the Legislative Building. The Olmsted Brothers sent these two schemes to Wilder & walkways, roads, and approaches. Some Com- White, howeve¡ once the Commission severed the contract with the Olmsted Broth- mission members thought the price for this ers, Wilder & White returned, unopened, these two schemes Drawing courtesy of the National Association for Olmsted Parks, Frederick Law Olmsted National Flistoric plan was To preliminary too high. this Dawson Site, National Park Service. WASHINCTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CENERAL ADMINISTRATION replied that, in order to properly locate the building, a full study of the site needed to be done. At this meeting, the Commission resolved unanimously to hire the Olmsted Brothers for a period of two years at the aforementioned proposed rate. Because the Commission reopened this debate about the location for the Temple of fustice, the Olmsted Brothers and Wilder & White had an opportunity to adjust the plans. Over the next several weeks, they traded communica- tions on their perspectives for the Capitol group and associated organization; they also established their vision for Capitol Campus. Wilder served as the principle contact with lohn Charles Olmsted during discussions of the vari- ous visions for the campus. Wilder proposed a rectangular park, running from the capitol grounds down the bluff, to connect with a 20b-foot wide eastiwest boulevard across the north end of the harbor. Wilder envisioned this boulevard to be part of what would become Highway 101, passing through Olympia in route to the Pacific Coast. Mr. Flavelle, and other members of the architectural jury reviewing the competition entries for the Capitol Group, advised Wilder to run the axis of the Capitol Group east/west to link directly with Capitol Way (then Main Street). In accord with the competition program, Wilder thought that the axis should run north/south and connect with the harbor and the sound. He felt this would create a more imposing presence rather than a small, local character (with nothing to relate to further east). Wilder utilized the streets abut- ting the capitol grounds to control the layout and organization of the campus, and he placed the Temple of Justice north of the proposed Legisla- tive Building location. At a December 15, l9l I meeting between Wilder and fohn Charles Olmsted, at Wilder & White's New York office, Wilder showed Olmsted two new pencil sketches they had completed. These sketches illustrated alternate concepts for plac- ing the Temple of Justice both west (as suggested to them previously by the Olmsted Brothers) and south of the existing Flagg foundation. After looking at the sketches, Wilder thought Olmst- ed's proposed south location for the Temple of fustice would work as long as the main entrance faced north looking into the future Legislative Building. However, the west location, in his opin- i ion, would not work. Wilder did have some res- j ervations about this new south location. Wilder's concerns were that the front colonnade would be the shadows, and that the end doors were not in Plan no. 5350-13, titled Preliminary Plan Scheme B Dated fanuary 18, 1912anð' in the center of the design so as to permit future approved by John Charles Olmsted This drawing, in coniunction with scheme A, il- wing expansions. Wilder & White had to decide lustrates two alternative concepts for master planning the capitol grounds worked out in discussions with Wilder & White Scheme B orients the Legislative Building and as quickly upon their layout, the construction Temple ofJustice along this same east/tvest axis as scheme A, but rotated the othe¡ drawings had to be in Olympia by fanuary l, four buildings to align with a north/south axis, thus opening a courtyard sPace to the l9l2 with bid opening in February of 1912. north and presenting a rnore imposing comPosition Scheme B however necessitated additional land purchases to the south of the existing site Both scherne A and B retain the core Olmsted Brothers recomnendations of a diagonal avenue and placement of Brothers decided that the best loca- The Olmsted the Insurance Building south ofthe Legislative Building. The Olmsted Brothers sent tion for the Temple of fustice would be south of these two schemes to Wilder & White, however once the Commission severed the the Legislative Building. On December 28,7911, contract with the Olmsted Brothers, Wilder & White returned, unopened, these two schemes. Drawing courtesy ofthe National Association for Olmsted Parks, Frederick recom- the Olmsted Brothers transmitted their Law Olmsted National Historic Site, National Park Service OLMSTED LANDSCAPE: WASH INGTON S-IATE CAPITOL GROUNDS mendation to Wilder & White. They knew that including the location in their plans, would allow the contractors to bid on excavation work. John Charles Olmsted recommended placement of the Temple of fustice south of the pro- posed Legislative Building site at a location just north of Fifteenth Street, thus allowing for a pathway around the southwest corner of the building. Ideall¡ the site would have been on the centerline of Fifteenth Street; however, the steep bluff along the site's west edge precluded this location. Following direction of the architects, the Olmsted Brothers aligned the Temple of |ustice to the north/south axis through the future Legislative Building, rather than placing the building to the west. The south loca- tion allowed the front of the Temple of fustice to face the front of the Legislative Building; addi- tionally, this location allowed the full Legislative Building (not just the dome) to be viewed from the harbor and city. The Olmsted Brothers antici- pated a formal courtyard between the buildings, with future office buildings flanking the east and west sides of this courtyard. However" as Olmsted foresaw, the new residential development south ofthe capitol grounds did constrain the breadth of this proposed courtyard. fanuary of 1912 proved a tumultuous month for the capitol grounds Iandscape design. On fanu- ary 4, Wilder & White revised their views on the placement of the Temple of fustice. The archi- tects decided that the south location cramped the overall composition, particularly the courtyard enclosed by these buildings. The architects also argued that the location north of the Legislative Building allowed the two most important build- ings, in their opinion, to be visibl€, even though the visible portions of both the Temple of fustice and Legislative Building were their back facades. On fanuary I l, the Olmsted Brothers transmit- ted two sketches showing alternate arrangement for, and approaches to, the Capitol buildings. The Olmsted Brothers wanted comments from the architects prior to submitting plans to the Capitol Plan no. 5350-16 for Land and Water Approaches to the Capitol Dated fanuary Commission before fanuary 25, when the Gover- 18, lgl2, approved by fohn Charles Olmsted, See also plan nos. 5350-12 and 13 for nor expected visitors and wanted to display the precursors to this drawing. This drawing illustrates lwo key concepts advocated by the Olmsted Brothers during their initial involvement: a diagonal avenue linking the plans. Ifthe architects favored one ofthe plans, capitol grounds with Sylvester Park and the Old Capitol Building; and placement of they would send only that plan. the Insurance Building south of the proposed Legislative Building site The east/west connection between the capitol group and Capitol Way exhibits some awkwardness One scheme (plan A) presented the buildings in without the typical gradual approach characteristic ofthe Olmsted Brothers designs. Suggesting this element may have been a deference to the architects stemming from orientation the thought that the an east/west with conversations leading up to this plan. The diagonal avenue in contrastparallels state would eventually purchase additional lands Capitol Lake and illustrates a more naturalistic response to the site challenges as ii east of Capitol Way in order to allow a more ex- sets well back from the bluff edge, and ties in with a larger park scheme proposed for the north edge of the basin that v/ould connect out to Budd Inlet, This drawing was pansive setting, though the plan would work with prepared just prior to the Olmsted Brothers receipt of the letter from Commission the existing site. The other (plan B) oriented the secretary Ross severing the contract and stating the Commission's decision to place site in accord with Legislative Building and Temple of fustice along the Insurance Building north ofthe proposed Legislative Building Wilder & White's capitol group plan. Drawing courtesy of the National Association this same east/west axis, but rotated the other for Olmsted Parks, Frederick Law Olmsted National Histo¡ic Site, National four buildings to align with a north/south axis, Park Service WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CENERAL ADMINISTRATION of quantities and costs for completing the work. With grading underway, the Olmsted Brothers _.-- -1 \ would commence on the planting plan. While walking around the site, Dawson had already picked out some notable large specimens of Hol- lies, Lawson Cypress, and Irish Yew that could be protected and relocated for use within the land- scape at minimal cost to the State. Many of these were on the recently acquired property between Thirteenth and Fourteenth Streets east ofthe In- surance Building, where the state was removing former residences. In May, the Commission completed the con- tract and mailed it to the Olmsted Brothers for their signature and return, after which work could commence. However, it would not be until |uly 5, 1927 that the final contract was in place. The delay was in part due to the State's require- ment that the Olmsted Brothers be bonded even though they were not doing any construction work; it was also due in part to the Olmsted Brothers' concern over the lack ofa clause stating Plan no 5350-35 titled Preliminary Plan, Scheme A and dated August 10, 1927 By the Commission would be the sole body approv- May of 1927 tbe Olmsted Brothers completed four preliminary studies (,{, B, C, D) for ing the work. In a divided political environment, diagonal approaches to the capitol grounds These two schemes submitted in August waiting for approval could go on indefinitely. The represented both the refined version (scheme A) of studies A and D that did not require additional land purchase (B and C started the north diagonal at Capitol Way commenced Commission sending topographical and Union Street) and an alternate (scheme B) more in tune with Wilder & Whitet surveys and city maps to the Olmsted Brothers. concept wifh a direct route offCapitol Way into the capitol group By this time the Temple of fustice and Insurance Building are complete and the Legislative Building By May 19, the Olmsted Brothers completed nearly so. With Wilder & White's group plan locked in and little to no possibility for additional land purchases to achieve the diagonal avenue recommended in 1912 the four preliminary studies (A,, B, C, D) for the ap- Ólmsted Brothe¡s looked to two options for creating a public gathering space between proaches to the capitol grounds. Studies A and Capitol Way and the capitol group, and a view point at the top of the bluff to reclaim D started the north diagonal approach from the the vista loSt through placemenl of the Temple of lustice. Wilder & White asserted the only logical approach to the câpitol group was from Thirteenth Street off Capitol Way intersection of Capitol Way and Eleventh Street, with the land between the Insurance Building and Capitol Way planted heavily and whereas studies B and C started the diagonal divided formally on a grid system organized by the streets to the east to eliminâte any approach from the corner of Capitol Way and large open spaces that might detract from the effect ofspace immediatelyborder- ing the capitol group. These plans were submitted to the Commission for review and Union Street. Plans B and C woulcl require approval in order to move on to the grading plans By the end ofAugust Clausen, per additional land purchase. The south diagonal influence from Wilder & White, was still holding up lhe plan review and approval of approach in all four studies commenced midway the Olmsted Brothers concept. Despite this delay the Olmsted Brothers kept work- ing ahead on the drawings to keep up with a schedule that would see grading in the between Fourteenth and Sixteenth Streets. spring. The Olmsted Brothers explored various options for grading, plazas, relocating the Governor's Mansion east of existing location and placing it parallel with the capi- By the end of ltne, 1927, Dawson had started tol group buildings; and movingthe former Territorial Capitol close¡ to the northeast working on the plans for the general layout of the campus entrance for use as a gate lodge or parallel to and approximately fifty-feet north ofthe northeast diagonal and flanked by a group offirs. Scheme A utilized a capitol grounds. The Commission hired fames smaller scale concept ofthe original diagonal avenue providing to diagonal avenues Allen, a former Highway Department Engineer, offCapitol Way. These directed the flow oftraffic into aplaza before the Insurance recently fired by the Governor, to complete a top- Building which led into the plaza between the Temple of lustice and Legislative Build- ing. Further internal office study by lones, Sadler, and Gibbs produced additional ographic survey ofthe entire grounds and show recommendations for Dawson's consideration. These are included at the baclt of this elevations of buildings, entrance ways, basement report with the drawing annotations. Drawing courtesy ofthe National Association windows, terraces, steps, and, in particular, the for Olmsted Parks, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, National Park Service. center of the dome in reference to the base of the WASHINCTON STATE DEPARTMENT OT GENERAL ADMINISTMTION groups of trees. This open area also provided an important buffer between the noise and traffic along Capitol Way and the offices in the Capitol buildings. On Novemb er 23, 7927, after meeting with Wilder in New York, the Olmsted Brothers submitted their revised drawings for the capitol grounds. The overall scheme remained the same with the following changes: . Adjusted the north diøgonal slightly south to align with the cross axis of the Insurance Building while still remaining aligned with the dome. . Reduce the plaza dimensions in front of the Insurønce Building . Added embellishments to the roød intersections north of the Insurance Building ønd south of the Temple of Iustice. . Enlarged the overlook terrace north oÍ the Temple of lustice. ' . Set the widths of the diagonals at thirty-feet with the width of the road between the plazas in front of the In- surance and Legislative buildings and the Temple of lustice at forty-feet. By 1928, the Olmsted Brothers, with an approved general plan now in place, moved ahead with developing the details for the layout and grading of the site while continuing to urge the State to purchase the land parcels between Fourteenth and Fifteenth Streets and Capitol Way. During this period, Dawson corresponded with Alonzo Lewis, preparing the site for the Winged Victory sculpture north of the Insurance Building. The Olmsted Brothers drew upon their prior work in Washington D. C. for the light standard style, with the change of a lantern luminaire in- stead of a globe. In March, the firm sent the Commission proposed locations for lights along Capitol Way with the commentary that the placement in conjunction with the trees reflected the intent to minimize the apparent number of vertical lines along the road. The plans for the capitol grounds featured 125 light standards that were to be paint- ed using a verde antique bronze effect as the Olmsted Brothers had done in Palos Verdes. Originally the Olmsted Brothers thought to use several light standard types, but then recognized the practicality ofone type about fourteen feet in height, By May the Olmsted Brothers sent the completed grading plans, specifications, and estimates to the Commission for their review. The Olmsted Brothers cited the Utah State Capitol practices as a method for manas- ing parking, where they simply did not allow parking in front of the buildings. As summer transitioned to fall, the Capitol Commission remained at a standstill for hiring a Chief Engineer to supervise the work. Governor Hartley had launched into an abusive attack on the Commission members, calling Savidge a liar and a thief, when he learned Jesse fackson lived out of State; he further demanded the State's highway engineers do the work, The other Commission members harbored serious reservations on this, as the State engi- neers would be more expensive and were not experienced in the horticulture aspects of landscape design implementation. Ultimatel¡ highway engineer, H. G. Po¡ak, was appointed as Chief Engineer on the project with Fred C. Dunham, also a highway department enginee¡ providing in-field support. Budget decreases prompted removal of the 400- foot long retaining wall along the bluff north of the Temple of fustice and the central 60-foot wide by 250-fool plaza between the Temple of fustice and the Legislative Building. The Olmsted Brothers also hoped the city would move some of the unsightly telephone wires along Capitol Way when the city widened the street. The project also needed to move the former Territorial Capitol building, an associated boulder, and an interpretive plaque. In December, Porak also prepared revisions for the north diagonal connection with the Capitol Way to provide a safer intersection. By fanuary of 1929, the Olmsted Brothers completed revisions to the grading plan. These ¡evisions showed existing trees to be saved and relocated within the grounds, adjustments per Porak's suggestions to the northeast entrance, and a new location for the former Territorial Capitol building on axis with the garden at the northeast entrance. The Olmsted Brothers recommended large rotary sprinklers for the open lawn spaces with smaller lawn sprinklers at other locations. E': ARTIFACTS OLMSTED LANDSCAPE: WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL CROUNDS 25 the slopes rough behind the Legislative Building and Temple of fustice in order to direct funds and work on the prominent areas between Eleventh and Fourteenth Streets and Capitol Way, By |une of 1930, the planting still had not been completed, prompting Dawson to request another year extension at $2400. Dawson thought that the majority of the planning work was completed. Therefore, he believed the reduced rate was appropriate. Unfortunatel¡ the Commission informed him that, until the Legislature made another appro- priation, there were no funds available. The State was well into feeling the effects of the Great Depression, making landscaping a difficult priority. In fuly of 1930, Dawson forwarded Saunders, at his request, in an attempt to move along work, a sketch for a foun- tain in the public area between the Temple of |ustice and Legislative Building that had not been completed. In August of 1930, George Gibbs traveled to Olympia to conduct a site-visit for the Olmsted Brothers to bring their contract to a close. At the time, the Commission had asked the Attorney General to intervene to reach a settlement for $6250 in claims against C. L. Creelman for delayed work on the campus landscaping and damages to concrete paving. In October, the Olmsted Brothers submitted their final invoice to the Commission to cover Gibb's site-visit. From l93l to 1934, Saunders continued to urge for the continuation of the Olmsted Brothers'involvement and completion of their plans. Saunders' greatest concern was that the plan would end up in the hands of a gardener and produce an end product unrecognizable from the original intent. This period marked the last phases in imple- mentation of the plan, with decreased involve- ment on the part of the Olmsted Brothers and re- peated attempts by Governor Hartley to sabotage the plans. In May of 1931, Governor Hartley attempted to have the existing sidewalks and roads torn out, replacing them with new, straight sidewalks and roads. Fortunatel¡ Savidge and Clausen voted against this proposal and resolved to carry through with the lighting and sprinkler plans. By this time, organized labor unions began urging the state to move on finishing the landscape as part of an unemployment relief work project. In fune of 1931, Martin Hardware Company of Olympia was awarded the lighting system con- tract for 514,560.27 . Viking Automatic Sprinkler Company of Seattle won the sprinkler system contract for $ I 1,439.77, As this work com- menced, Governor Hartley again intervened, trying to have the Winged Victory monument moved to a new location. Again, this failed. Plan no. 5350-66 titled General Plan and dated May 1928, This plan illustrates the formal presentation ofthe Olmsted Brother's vision for the capitol grounds. This is the most commonly known drawing reproduced for the public to demonstrate the proposed work on the campus. Drawing courtesy of the National Association for Olmsted Parks, Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, National Park Service WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTMTION fC Wurt iogton State Capitol Campus is a historic designed landscape as defìned in the National Park Seivice Preseivation Brief,No, 36 as: . landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, a ect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recog- nized style or tradition. The landscøpe møy be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event in landscape architecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of land- scape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include p-ørks, campuses, ønd estates..," The Olmsted Brothers'involvement in the master planning and landscape design started in 1911 and reached its culmination in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The original drawings prepared by the Olmsted Brothers coupled with historic photographs provide a basis for exploring todayk landscape to discover what is different, missing or new. This is true relative to more macro-planning considerations such as view corridors and views into the cam- pus-described as vulnerable in the 2006 Master Plan-and also to the finer texture of proposed versus existing trees, shrubs, ground cover, herbaceous borders, features, infrastructure and circulation organization, The follow- ing chapter identifies those character-defining features of the Olmsted Brothers landscape extant today and pro- vides an illustrated guide to the original Olmsted Brothers'planting selection. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2.1.8 Spnrnr HrEnRRcHy The majority of the spatial hierarchy established by the Olmsted Brothers within the campus remains intact today. The Olmsted Brothers, in their planning and design efforts, prioritized the spaces in order of importance. Defini- tion is given to each layer of the sequence from the perimeter of the site to its heart at the Legislative Building and Temple of fustice fore court. The original Olmsted master plan exhibits a series of carefully designed and propor- tioned spaces and spatial sequences. These transition the public from Capitol Way into the heart of the Capitol Group. They also provide a range of experiences in the outdoor environment ranging from wide open and sweep- ing lawns to "rooms" of various size, offering opportunities for privacy or conversely gatherings of different sizes, Each "Room" possesses many of the qualities of the overall scheme, including view corridors to offsite and onsite elements, solar access, shade, canopy and planting texture and color in the "walls" of the site. Four orders can be described for the layering of experience of the Campus: Perimeter: defined in a typical Olmstedian style: a roadway/street is the edge of the site, and no other pri- vate property resides on the land or occupies a perimeter location. This permits a defined and consistent edge condition that is the beginning ofthe spatial sequencing toward the center. The edge is colonnaded by trunks of canoPy trees on regulør spacing. Shape and Enclosure Space is defined in the plan by function; pedestrian or vehiculqr circulation, gøthering or Iingering. For both circuløtion types, low, flowery attractive'iorridors" are provided for pedestrians and vehi- cles to circuløte around the buildings ønd around the site. Areas for gøthering, or lingering, are open expanses of regular or irregulaþ shaped lawns and grounds that features textural and colorful edges. Openings/Closings Views: arranged on the site and from offsite according to a logical and orgønized assem- blage of trees (vertical elements) and buildings. These are seen through the perimeter edge, and eilcourage walking or driving toward the object in order to keep the view. Passing by the site will thus give "glimpseí' of the architecturql elements within. Approaching those elements would prolong the view. Ceremonial Orderìng: hierarchy of space Puts more importønt functions at the center, ønd gøthering, meet- ing and passive activities further awøy. Nodes or intersections are ceremoniøI as well, reminiscent of pøIøces in Europe, where procession was an important element of ceremony. Ordering of the landscape in such ø way is to notify government "applicønts" of øppropriate solemnity, gravity and decorum in the application to it. OLMSTED LANDSCAPE: WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL CROUNDS EXHIBIT 5 -l (*) ,ftis, -,- ;r"' ,!,ì _r;:ai' ,-., - :'i ' COI{TRIBUTING STAFFS AT{D AGENCIES I,IIIIID PLANI{ERS Planners, Inc Puget niïãåo;l:"iä:"Ï?ïff:cror i:i:";.^*"Ïäilll;, of p,annlng Harry L. Cunnlngs, Deslgn Janes E. Wãf"ft,-RésearcÉ and Rellef t[odel TAI{DSCAPE DESIGN - BeardsleY and Brauner, Seattle EIGHWAT AND FOUI{DATION CONST'I.,TANTS Carey and Kramer, deattle DEPARTUENTAL SURVEY - Departnental heads anÇ Mr' Paul Eltts, olynpla COMPREflENSIVE PLAN CRITIQUÉ Senator Carlton Sears I ) &t 'ç, : .;,. tÌ. !z ¡l I Ì'r, ,Ìt 11' .;s..: - i:-'' ,.* . ., Ì : T ¡ The heavy lndustrial distrlct could be best served by converslon of State åvenue to a two-r,ay lndustrlat street. this would pernùt heavy traffic to enter the freeway along state Avenue and Þrun street wrthout havlng to enter the downtown buelness dlstrlct. It is further proposed that ln conpletlng the east-west üov€ nt through town that 4th åvenue onê-wey trefflc be reversed to flov wost, Flfth Avenue ehould be one-way flowlag eaet, Jolnlng with 4th åvenue ln the vlclnlty of Eastslde âvenue. å euünary of propoeed traff!.c flov and clrculetton ln the ceutral buel¡ees dlstrlet ls showu on the uap followlng. Iü is suggeeted thaü Boulovard Road be connected to Souttr Bay Ðrlve along a nes route east of llt. Tebor Cenetery. Thts would rult north-south trafflc on the outer frlngc wtthot¡t encountering the pr€t€nt probler ån crosslng Publlc ñtate Hfghway No f. Other maJor ¡rterfal.ß e:r€ lndleated, the aost of thea s€rv- lng as bouadarles for the aelghborhoods" \ I TISTRIåL sr$sT åR ô[PTå BUSTilESS DISTNICT IT{DUSTRIÂL RO E TO PERCTVAL cå¡fyo¡Í Central Clrculatlon FLa¡¡ Fage ?weaÈY s€ver¡ E:XIIIBIT b ft trt ¡tttttttt¡tt ttt tttttt atttla ttartta¡t¡tt tt¡ tt¡tt¡ r¡r l¡l ¡tttltlttttr ttltrrr¡¡ trrtttttatttttt !llttr ¡trttr ð ttt ttt ttt tl¡ att tta ttt tt! tl¡ rrt tt¡ ¡¡t tt¡ ttt lttrtr ttr tt, . ttlaaa¡lr¡l[ att tttttt ¡atttt f¡ a ._Éi -t t. tl l¡t rtJat¡ $-_.r-.'*>-læ Larida Passage from the Law Enforcement Memorial F ;.F -- -. j *- F,î: ¡. s.l-:: Larida Passage from the North Campus Trail Current view from the Law Enforcement Memorial View from Law Enforcement Memorial without CaPital Center Building View of Larida Passage from Budd * .*?r. i+ rï È*¿ Proposed View from Percival /.- Current View from Percival Landing I I vernoî5 EXhiBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 ]*: -fir..' #" t i-¡¡. t lsthmus Prooerties Heritage Park Extension Concepi Design June 29 2010 Oiympia Capitol Park Foundation The Portico Groun i;rr tr I q I t. : ,i ì î- ,