DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents Ed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

A BIANNUAL PUBLICATION FROM COUGHLIN PORTER LUNDEEN REVIEWING ALL THINGS AEC AND PACIFIC NORTHWEST TABLE OF CONTENTS ED. NO. 5 | SUMMER 2019 2 5 7 7 FEATURED FEATURED ARTICLE ESTELITA’S KIOSK: A TINY CULTURAL FROM THE FIELD: EXTRAORDINARY ON THE CALENDAR SPACE DREAMED, DESIGNED AND BUILT BY RESEARCH SPACES A snapshot of upcoming industry events, AEC Highlights from projects that showcase creative conferences, and PNW happenings. THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST’S STUDENTS Local non-profit Sawhorse Revolution helps programming for research facilities. Featuring LATEST CODE UPDATES foster confident, community-oriented youth UW Life Sciences Building, WSU Troy Hall and We breakdown some of the through the power of making. the VA Mental Health and Research Facility. region’s most important code changes, summarizing the new requirements, providing insights into how these changes will affect the industry, and recommending how our AEC partners can be prepared. 8 Each edition, we dive into some of AEC’s most compelling topics, PIKE PLACE PICKS featuring content that reveals Back by popular demand, we’ve assembled our what’s inspiring us, exciting us, resident foodies’ favorite establishments in Pike and keeping us on our toes. Place Market. FEATURED ARTICLE / THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST’S LATEST CODE UPDATES SEISMIC CODE CHANGES THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST’S 1 BRYAN ZAGERS LATEST CODE UPDATES Contributing Authors: Zach Whitman & Carson Baker Bryan is one of the firm’s foremost experts in seismic retrofits, In the last 30 years, seismic codes have been trending toward higher Codes affect all that we do as engineers. Designed providing flexible, creative, and visionary designs for facilities requirements, evolving by tiny percentages at a time. But next summer that exceed life-safety standards. He contributes to seismic (July 2020) the building code for new construction will change to regulate methods, materials and processes, code development as chair of the SEAW State Existing Buildings Committee. He brings a collaborative approach to design that drastically, increasing seismic requirements by 30 to 100 percent. It’s an code is essential to keeping communities safe and consistently delivers thoughtful structural solutions that address unprecedented jump that goes far beyond the standard changes (that an owner’s goals, budget, and schedule requirements. only us code nerds find fascinating). The updates are significant and will ensuring practical, well-counseled industry growth. [email protected] be felt industry-wide, especially here in the Pacific Northwest. While essential, code can also be confusing, especially as it’s nuanced and constantly changing. 1. What’s driving these changes? Why varies by jurisdiction, so it’s the Puget Sound. Previously, only 5. What can teams do to prepare for However, significant code changes are on the such a great jump in requirements? important for the project team to buildings on liquefiable soils required the July 2020 code change? Engage And why now? These are national discuss. This means something such analysis. This may mean working your structural engineer early! We’ll horizon in the Pacific Northwest, and all need to changes driven one hundred percent different for each stakeholder. with the geotechnical engineer earlier help determine if/how your project pay attention. Projected changes will influence the by geology and ground motion. Owners should be prepared for in the design process. will be impacted by the local geologic Because of our geology and location, increased building costs. Architects research and national code changes. way we build in the region, particularly in three the new requirements have a huge should expect impacts on lateral 4. What’s happening behind the categories: seismic, unreinforced masonry (URM) impact here. Not only does our region system layouts. Some previously scenes on seismic code committees? You can also schedule a presentation have some of the most unique seismic acceptable offset core layouts may What are the challenges you with us! The presentation we created and wood. geology in the country (Its proximity need to be supplemented with anticipate? Recent local research, like to prepare our internal team for to the Cascadia Fault off the additional perimeter elements or UW’s M9 project, has given seismic the coming code changes has been Washington coast, as well as the deep replaced with a centered system. As committees like SEAW’s Earthquake adapted so it’s a fit for your project In the following Q+A, our in-house experts glacial deposits of the Seattle Basin structural engineers, we’re preparing Engineering Committee, new data team. We’d be happy to host you or which amplify seismic waves from for increased structure cost by to evaluate and contend with. As the coordinate an office visit. help break down some of the most important Tacoma to Everett), but new research exploring solutions that we believe national and local code cycles merge code changes in the region, summarizing the has yielded findings that weren’t can mitigate negative impact through this year, the greatest challenge is considered in previous code cycles. creative layouts and advanced timing. Committees must make sure new requirements, providing insights into how Additionally, the current code cycle is analytical techniques. Additionally, research is correctly represented both these changes will affect the industry, and especially unique as it coincides with we’ll use new approaches with time- locally and nationally. the major seismic code evaluation tested technologies like seismic recommending how our AEC partners can be that occurs every five to ten years. It’s dampers – shock absorbers for We’re looking forward, working on prepared. a double whammy of sorts. earthquakes. proposals which refine the seismic code and doing our best to infer 2. With the code dropping next 3. What’s an example of a new where ongoing research will lead us. summer (July 2020), what should requirement? A site-specific PART 1 - SEISMIC CODE CHANGES owners, architects and AEC geotechnical analysis will now be PART 2 - URM CODE CHANGES professionals expect? First, it’s required for most buildings on softer PART 3 - WOOD DESIGN CODE CHANGES important to understand the timeline soils which are common place in for projects starting now that may be permitted under new code. Vesting THE REDLINE | 2 FEATURED ARTICLE / THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST’S LATEST CODE UPDATES 2 URM CODE CHANGES REBECCA HIX COLLINS Contributing Author: Tyler Weinbrecht 1. For those who may be unfamiliar, owner decides to alter a building, not triggered, so building owners 5. What do you consider the biggest As a firm, Coughlin Porter Lundeen has an extensive URM why are URM buildings so that alteration “triggers” a series of will face increased costs (financing misunderstanding when it comes to resume and has evaluated and retrofitted countless Pacific Northwest buildings. Leading many of these programs is dangerous? URM buildings are seismic upgrades intended to bring a retrofit and construction) as well Seattle’s URM buildings? Rebecca Hix Collins, a Senior Structural Project Manager. Her dangerous as a class because the the building up to current standards. as potential loss of revenue as We often hear that a building resume includes retrofits of the King County Courthouse, brick is brittle in an earthquake. It’s There are five different triggers, called they relocate tenants. The city is must be fine because it has been Palladian Hotel, and State Hotel, and alongside Terry also heavy, so all of its mass is prone the Substantial Alterations Provisions. challenged with supporting so many through earthquakes before — Lundeen, she’s been involved in writing national provisions for evaluation and retrofitting. to move and fall. Not only are the The city’s interpretation is always different owners, and accommodating this is not the case. Past Pacific [email protected] brick, load-bearing walls a recipe for evolving so it’s best to partner with a Seattle’s many historic buildings. For Northwest earthquakes have been full collapse, but often these walls firm who understands both the city this reason, this ordinance has been smaller, deeper underground, and aren’t attached to the floors, leading and the provisions very well. slow, even stalled, for some time. farther away than the potential big Seattle is considering a mandatory ordinance demanding to wall-to-floor separation. earthquakes that can hit the Seattle the retrofitting of all unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. 3. What are the biggest challenges 4. What advice can you provide to region. California adopted a similar mandate a decade ago, and 2. You talk to clients and partners presented by this ordinance? owners and architects? Portland followed a few years later. In a way, Seattle is behind about this topic all the time. What As structural engineers, we know Most importantly, hire a contractor You can learn more about Seattle’s the times compared to other major West Coast cities. But the is the URM item you find yourself URM buildings are dangerous; experienced in URM retrofits — it will upcoming URM changes here: implications of such a rule are widespread, as a study identified explaining most often? I do have we know what the issues are, we save you money and time in the long more than 1100 Seattle-area buildings requiring retrofits. a URM conversation about once know how to fix them. But we also run. It’s also important to evaluate seattle.gov/sdci/codes/changes- Balancing safe buildings with manageable requirements for a week! Currently, in Seattle, all understand the complexities of this buildings early, allowing time to to-code/unreinforced-masonry- building owners is a challenge that will take the efforts of the seismic upgrade requirements are brand of ordinance. The ordinance will identify issues, plan as a full project buildings entire community. triggered. This means if a building make building upgrades mandatory, team, and find creative solutions.
Recommended publications
  • Seattle Parks and Recreation: Off-Leash Areas

    Seattle Parks and Recreation: Off-Leash Areas

    Seattle Parks and Recreation: Off-Leash Areas SEARCH: Seattle.gov This Department Parks Centers & Pools Activities Reservations & Permits Projects & Planning A - Z Index Parks A-Z Park List Search for a Park General Parks Information: (206)684-4075 | Contact Us Search Parks by Feature Animal Control Fields & Athletic Animal Control officers are Facilities charged with providing a safe, healthy and caring environment Gardens where animals and people can Children's Play Areas co-exist. To carry out their mission, Animal Control staff help Trails to educate dog owners and Off-Leash Areas actively enforce Seattle's leash, scoop and license laws. Officers Park History patrol in Seattle parks to ensure the safe and appropriate use of both the off-leash and on-leash areas. Fines for off-leash, license and scooping violations range from $50 to $150, and can be $500 at a beach. Please obey the law! Dogs are not allowed at organized athletic fields, beaches, or children's play areas in Seattle parks, per the Seattle Municipal Code. Seattle Parks and Recreation welcomes you to explore and enjoy most parks (on a leash), and we offer 11 exciting exceptions! At these designated off-leash areas, you are free to run, roll over, meet new friends, work out, play with your owners and socialize with your canine friends. » Off-Leash Area Rules Dr. Jose Rizal Park 1008 12th Ave. S (Map It) Genesee Park and Playfield 4316 S Genesee St. (Map It) Golden Gardens Park 8498 Seaview Pl. NW (Map It) I-5 Colonnade Beneath I-5, south of E Howe St.
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form

    National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form

    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and Boulevards (1903–68) B. Associated Historic Contexts None C. Form Prepared by: name/title: Chrisanne Beckner, MS, and Natalie K. Perrin, MS organization: Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) street & number: 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240 city/state/zip: Seattle, WA 98101 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] telephone: (503) 247-1319 date: December 15, 2016 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ ______________________ _________________________ Signature of certifying official Title Date _____________________________________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.

  • Lake Washington Marine Patrol Jurisdiction

    H 101ST S H I 189TH 53RD N T 1 H 188TH 70TH 188TH 9 189TH 2 1 8 4 T 43RD O 188TH 187TH M 187TH 1 4 30TH 187TH 105TH 40TH 5 82ND E R 61ST 186TH H 5 63RD 66TH 185TH S 185TH T 89TH L O 185TH 37TH E T 6 184TH H 36TH L 64TH 186TH L 72ND 185TH 104TH H T 46TH 185TH ROSS C T P H S RE1 EK 186TH H 142ND A BURKE 33RD T 185TH 4 Lake 8TH WashingtonE Marine Patrol Jurisdiction 1 184TH 8 4 185TH 2 183RD 11TH R D V 5 1 H 184TH R 132ND O 68TH 2ND T C 185T 3RD H 183RD 183RD 183RD K T 0 S AM H U 9TH 183RD 24TH 182ND 184 182ND 185TH A H 6 T 66TH 0 183RD 62ND E 182ND 88TH K I 35TH 15TH D 96TH N P 130TH N T 94TH 183RD A B T - Y 183RD U 29TH B 4 57TH 183RD S 181ST 25TH S 33RD 8 183RD S E 7TH 1 A 182ND N S - SUNNYSIDE LL DAWSON E H 182ND E L STONE 182ND H 181ST 181ST IN VALLEY VIEW 14TH I A R 180TH 180TH T 80TH M L 180TH 92ND N 0 181ST L H 126TH I 12TH 8 181ST T 181ST 73RD G 1 83RD MIDVALE 179TH 40TH ORMBREK WOO L 181ST 179TH 179TH 179TH E 180TH I V 6 1 89TH D 4 1ST 178TH 8 179TH 180TH V 2 0 R 180TH N 1 180TH IN I 3RD 5 H H 91ST 178TH T 28TH T TH N 11TH T 134TH N 177TH H 8 T 175TH V C 180 I N D 147TH 177TH RPE T E 1 H 7 47TH 8 175TH 102ND IR DE SE IN N 7 1 7 BOTHELL D I D R 179TH I 1 L CL O E T 8 177TH LL E T O A N 22ND R L WALLINGFORD 177TH 88TH E 176TH E Tracy Owen A ID S G P 176TH T 89TH RS E WO 178TH O O TH 92ND E O 1 E R 3 176TH H V DI W 178 S BROOKSIDE 8 I 20T N 3 175TH 18TH H 37TH 176TH R E 1 H V W 33RD Station Park W ILL INV IL 1 174TH 3 EASON O D 174TH 44TH 175TH O L 20TH 102ND 1 145TH 0 175TH E 9TH 7 RONALD 174TH 6100 140TH 172ND T BEACH 174TH 95TH
  • Impacts of Habitat Restorationand the Status of Avian Communities

    Impacts of Habitat Restorationand the Status of Avian Communities

    Impacts of Habitat Restoration and the Status of Avian Communities in Seattle City Parks CJ Battey • Toby Ross © TOM SANDERS © DOUG SCHURMAN © TIM BOYER Anna’s Hummingbird Lesser Scaup © DOUG SCHURMAN © DOUG SCHURMAN Yellow Warbler Yellow Heermann’s Gull Bottom left: A volunteer engaged in the Neighborhood Bird Project at Magnuson Park counts gulls and waterfowl on a platform in Lake Washington. BACKGROUND The Neighborhood Bird Project (NBP) is a citizen science initiative that began in 1994, conceived, developed and managed by the Seattle Audubon Society. The NBP has two main goals; the first to monitor trends in avian abundance in Seattle City parks and green spaces. The second aims to empower citizens in becoming advocates for birds and wildlife habitat in their neighborhoods and communities. Monthly surveys are conducted by teams of volunteer bird watchers who conduct surveys at eight King County parks and green spaces – Carkeek Park, Golden Gardens Park, Discovery Park, Seward Park, Genesee Park, Washington Park Arboretum, Magnuson Park and Lake Forest Park. The data from these surveys provide an insight into the avian diversity and abundance in urban areas and affords an appreciation of the diversity that can be found in cities given appropriate quality habitat. Introduction City parks present a unique opportunity for public communities, the Seattle Audubon Society started the engagement with nature, as well as providing habitat Neighborhood Bird Project (NBP) in 1994, with a series of for wildlife and ecosystem services for millions of urban volunteer-led surveys in Carkeek Park. Surveys have since residents. Within the urban core of Seattle, city parks have expanded to seven other sites, and today are conducted been the focus of many habitat restoration projects to once a month, year-round, at each of over 200 survey points improve habitat quality and restore degraded lands – efforts distributed in natural or restored habitats in the Seattle area.
  • APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area

    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area

    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists and illustrates the parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area based on available geographic information systems (GIS) data. GIS data sources were as follows: • Snohomish County • King County • Pierce County • City of Everett • City of Mountlake Terrace • City of Lake Forest Park This information was not verified in the field and parks and recreation facility representatives were not contacted to determine ownership or the recreational uses associated with these resources. Over 1,300 parks and recreation facilities were listed in the available GIS database including a wide variety of open space areas, sports fields, trails, and water- oriented facilities. The park or recreation facility ID numbers in Table G-1 correspond to those ID numbers in Figure G-1 and Figure G-2. Table G-1. Parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area, by county Facility ID Facility ID number Facility name number Facility name Snohomish County 104 Unnamed park or recreation facility 3 Unnamed park or recreation facility 105 Unnamed park or recreation facility 5 Unnamed park or recreation facility 106 Unnamed park or recreation facility 6 Unnamed park or recreation facility 107 Unnamed park or recreation facility 7 Unnamed park or recreation facility 108 Unnamed park or recreation facility 9 Unnamed park or recreation facility 109 Unnamed park or recreation facility 19 Unnamed park or recreation facility 110 Unnamed
  • High School Attendance Areas MAP ID #001

    High School Attendance Areas MAP ID #001

    ADOPTED 20091118 High School Attendance Areas MAP ID #001 J N U E E A N V N I A T N 145TH ST NE E A N 145T H S V T 8 D A A 8 I R S T E IM H D H O I N N T N NE 145T H ST D E E R A 5 S Y R 1 N V E D A N E M E E W V N Y A E JACKSON PARK GOLF COURSE T I E NE 141ST ST H C T N E 4 E E 8 N E K V N A E A N 1 3 L 0TH ST NE 130T H S V T E H A V T 9 0 H A 0 0 T T H 1 NORTHACRES PARK 8 H T 0 E NE 1 125T H S 0 T NE 125T H S A N T 3 V E Ingraham NE 132ND ST E V NE 132ND ST N A E T S S N N E 1 A E E N N E N N V V D E N 115TH ST E H A A L V O V P P L A N A A O M Puget R T T O I E S N S H Nathan Hale N D NE S 124T H CARKEEK PARK T O R ST NE 1 A T 2 1 23 4T H ST E T I 1 Y 5 R P E N N A D W O U I NE 110TH ST I D A Y A N Sound R A Y T E E D N E M W N N 10 R N 5TH ST E T N L E L MEADOWBROOK PLAYFIELD E P V W E R NE H A V 103RD D N ST T N A NE 116TH ST E R NW 10 6 T H 0TH ST W 7 I E S D N NE 100T H ST AN T 8 D V U N O R J 9 O A O E IT NW 96TH ST AN N R M D 5 R NE 112TH ST T L O O H O NE 95TH ST W N 92ND ST NE N 92ND ST E MATTHEWS BEACH PARK E N 90TH ST R NE 106T H ST T G S GOLDEN GARDENS PARK NW 85TH ST T N 85TH ST NE 85TH ST E K W NE 85TH ST R N MAPLE LEAF PLAYGROUND A 18TH A E VE NW 80TH ST M V E N 80TH ST E SAND POINT COUNTRY CLUB A NE E N 80TH ST T N AVE W N TH W S 15 E W E N A E E V D V I V E A V A R V E A V 3 T A NE 7 H R A 5TH ST S N H E T L 1 T Y H S NE 5 E 73RD S T M 0 3 T W T V 2 8 A S A A R E WARREN G.
  • Growing Green

    Growing Green

    Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardening in Seattle, Washington Prepared by Megan Horst University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning July 1, 2008 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington “DON [Department of Neighborhoods] is requested to work with Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light and other relevant departments and universities to conduct an inventory of public lands in Seattle appropriate for urban agriculture uses.” - Local Food Action Initiative Resolution, passed by the Seattle City Council April 2008 ““The biggest crisis in our food system is the lack of access to good, healthy, fresh food, for people living in cities, particularly in low-income communities…Urban agriculture work is one of the most powerful solutions, because it brings food directly into the communities.” -Anna Lappé, co-founder with Frances Moore Lappé of the Small Planet Institute 1 1 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington Special thanks to: Laura Raymond, City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods Branden Born, University of Washington, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning Dennis Ryan, University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning Joaquin Herranz, University of Washington, Evans School of Public Affairs 2 1 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………….……………….. pp. 4-5 Background Food Systems Planning and Urban Agriculture………………….pp. 6-11 The Need for an Inventory of Potential Community Garden Sites in Seattle………………...........pp. 12-16 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………….pp. 17-21 Results Vacant, Unused and Excess Parcels…………..……………………pp.
  • Comprehensive List of Seattle Parks Bonus Feature for Discovering Seattle Parks: a Local’S Guide by Linnea Westerlind

    Comprehensive List of Seattle Parks Bonus Feature for Discovering Seattle Parks: a Local’S Guide by Linnea Westerlind

    COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF SEATTLE PARKS BONUS FEATURE FOR DISCOVERING SEATTLE PARKS: A LOCAL’S GUIDE BY LINNEA WESTERLIND Over the course of writing Discovering Seattle Parks, I visited every park in Seattle. While my guidebook describes the best 100 or so parks in the city (in bold below), this bonus feature lists all the parks in the city that are publicly owned, accessible, and worth a visit. Each park listing includes its address and top features. I skipped parks that are inaccessible (some of the city’s greenspaces have no paths or access points) and ones that are simply not worth a visit (just a square of grass in a median). This compilation also includes the best of the 149 waterfront street ends managed by the Seattle Department of Transportation that have been developed into mini parks. I did not include the more than 80 community P-Patches that are managed by the Department of Neighbor- hoods, although many are worth a visit to check out interesting garden art and peek at (but don’t touch) the garden beds bursting with veggies, herbs, and flowers. For more details, links to maps, and photos of all these parks, visit www.yearofseattleparks.com. Have fun exploring! DOWNTOWN SEATTLE & THE Kobe Terrace. 650 S. Main St. Paths, Seattle Center. 305 Harrison St. INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT city views, benches. Lawns, water feature, cultural institutions. Bell Street Park. Bell St. and 1st Ave. Lake Union Park. 860 Terry Ave. N. to Bell St. and 5th Ave. Pedestrian Waterfront, spray park, water views, Tilikum Place. 2701 5th Ave.
  • An Update to the 1993 Parks Complan

    An Update to the 1993 Parks Complan

    plan 2000seattle’s parks & recreation An Update to the 1993 Parks complan revised draftmay 2000 may 2000 may revised revised draft draft revised draft revised revised draft draft Kenneth R. Bounds Superintendent Kevin B. Stoops Manager, Major Projects and Planning Cheryl Eastberg Capital Improvement Planner Kate Kaehny Neighborhood Assistance Planner Alix Ogden Neighborhood Assistance Planner 2 Seattle’s Parks & Recreation introduction vision statement Mission Statement ................................................................... 3 revised revised draft draft revised draft Seattle’s Parks & Recreation— revised revised draft draft Into the Twenty-First Century ................................................... 4 policy statement may 2000 may Introduction ............................................................................... 7 figure 1 The Seattle Parks & Recreation System ......................... 9 figure 2 Seattle Neighborhood Sectors ....................................... 10 Fundamental Responsibilities ................................................. 11 Policy Statement—Partner for Recreation Development of Park & Recreation Facilities ...... 13 Management & Maintenance of Parks Facilities ................................................. 17 Recreation Programs ............................................ 20 Policy Statement—Steward of Park Resources Acquisitions & Development ............................... 24 Park Management & Environmental Stewardship ................................. 29 Environmental Education....................................
  • Housing Choice Voucher Program

    Housing Choice Voucher Program

    Housing Choice Voucher Program Seattle Neighborhood Guide 190 Queen Anne Ave N Seattle, WA 98109 206.239.1728 1.800.833.6388 (TDD) www.seattlehousing.org Table of Contents Introduction Introduction ..……………………………………………………. 1 Seattle is made up of many neighborhoods that offer a variety Icon Key & Walk, Bike and Transit Score Key .……. 1 of features and characteristics. The Housing Choice Voucher Crime Rating ……………………………………………………… 1 Program’s goal is to offer you and your family the choice to Seattle Map ………………………………………………………. 2 move into a neighborhood that will provide opportunities for Broadview/Bitter Lake/Northgate/Lake City …….. 3 stability and self-sufficiency. This voucher can open the door Ballard/Greenwood ………………………………………….. 5 for you to move into a neighborhood that you may not have Fremont/Wallingford/Green Lake …………………….. 6 been able to afford before. Ravenna/University District ………………………………. 7 Magnolia/Interbay/Queen Anne ………………………. 9 The Seattle Neighborhood Guide provides information and South Lake Union/Eastlake/Montlake …………….… 10 guidance to families that are interested in moving to a Capitol Hill/First Hill ………………………………………….. 11 neighborhood that may offer a broader selection of schools Central District/Yesler Terrace/Int’l District ………. 12 and more opportunities for employment. Within the Madison Valley/Madrona/Leschi ……………………... 13 Neighborhood Guide, you will find information about schools, Belltown/Downtown/Pioneer Square ………………. 14 parks, libraries, transportation and community services. Mount Baker/Columbia City/Seward Park ………… 15 While the guide provides great information, it is not Industrial District/Georgetown/Beacon Hill ……… 16 exhaustive. Learn more about your potential neighborhood Rainier Beach/Rainier Valley …………………………….. 17 by visiting the area and researching online. Delridge/South Park/West Seattle .…………………… 19 Community Resources ……………….…………………….
  • Seattle Parks Superintendent's Subject Files, 1936-1993

    Seattle Parks Superintendent's Subject Files, 1936-1993

    Seattle Parks Superintendent's Subject Files, 1936-1993 Overview of the Collection Creator Seattle (Wash.). Dept. of Parks and Recreation Title Seattle Parks Superintendent's Subject Files Dates 1936-1993 (inclusive) 19361993 Quantity 55.8 cubic feet, (140 boxes) Collection Number 5802-01 Summary Records related to the administration of the parks system and recreation programs. Repository Seattle Municipal Archives Seattle Municipal Archives Office of the City Clerk City of Seattle PO Box 94728 98124-4728 Seattle, WA Telephone: 206-233-7807 Fax: 206-386-9025 [email protected] Access Restrictions Records are open to the public. Languages English Historical Note The Department of Parks and Recreation maintains the City's parks, shorelines, and boulevards; and administers community centers, public golf courses, and other athletic and cultural facilities. Seattle's first park was established in 1884 after David Denny donated land to the City for that purpose. At that time, a three-member park committee, with limited authority, was created to manage the nascent park system. A Board of Parks Commissioners was established in 1890 with control over all public parks and authority to appoint a Parks Superintendent. In 1896, the City Charter created the position of Superintendent of Streets, Sewers and Parks. The Parks Department became a separate entity in 1904. In 1926, a City Charter amendment abolished the position of Superintendent, distributing its responsibilities between the Head Gardener and the Landscape Architect. A 1948 City Charter amendment required the Board of Park Commissioners to appoint a park superintendent to administer the department. In 1967, another City Charter Amendment reconstituted the Board as an advisory body to the Mayor and City Council, changed the agency name to Department of Parks and Recreation, and placed fiscal and operational administration under the superintendent.
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    NPS Form 10-900 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional certification comments, entries, and narrative items on continuation sheets if needed (NPS Form 10-900a). 1. Name of Property historic name Lake Washington Boulevard other names/site number Washington Blvd; Washington Park Blvd; University Blvd; Blaine Blvd; Frink Blvd; Lake Washington Blvd E; Lake Washington Blvd S 2. Location street & number Connecting Montlake Boulevard to Seward Park through the Washington Park D not for Arboretum and land publication city or town _S_e_att_l_e______ ______________________ D vicinity state Washington code WA county King code 033 zip code 98112; 98122; 98144; 98118 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this __2L_ nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property _x_ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant at the following level(s) of significance: national statewide .JLlocal Applicable National Register Criteria __x_A B _!_C D Date WASHINGTON SHPO State or Federal agency/bureau or Tribal Government In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria.