DOCSLIB.ORG

Leschi / Madison Park Area: 014 Residential Revalue for 2015 Assessment Roll

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Leschi / Madison Park Area: 014 Residential Revalue for 2015 Assessment Roll Leschi / Madison Park Area: 014 Residential Revalue for 2015 Assessment Roll Area 14 / Madison Park / Leschi is located east of the Seattle Central Business District and lies along the west shore of Lake Washington. It was among the first areas developed in Seattle. Approximately 96% of the parcels in this area are improved with single family dwellings and a majority portion of the remaining undeveloped land would be considered unbuildable. New construction typically follows a teardown of an existing improvement. The typical grade of homes in the area is 8 or 9 on a scale of 1-13. Approximately 36% of the parcels have some degree of view, most often of Lake Washington and Mount Rainier. High quality homes are scattered throughout the entire area but are most prevalent in the Washington Park and Denny Blaine neighborhoods. Broadmoor, a private, gated community which includes a golf course is in the northern portion of Area 14. Further South is Madrona Park and Leschi which extends south of I-90, and finally, in the Southern portion of Area 14 is the Mt. Baker neighborhood. A number of the homes in the area were early mansions which typically enjoy excellent views of Lake Washington, Mount Rainier and the Cascade Mountains. Many high quality luxury homes have been and continue to be built in this area. Waterfront properties run along Lake Washington along with a number of public parks and beaches. The Seattle Tennis Club also stands along the shores of Lake Washington in Area 14. It is a desirable area in which to live because of its proximity to downtown Seattle and its many parks and recreational opportunities . Department of Assessments Setting values, serving the community, and pursuing excellence 500 Fourth Avenue, ADM-AS 0708 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 OFFICE (206) 296-7300 FAX (206) 296-0595 Email: [email protected] http://www.kingcounty.gov/assessor/ Department of Assessments Accounting Division Lloyd Hara 500 Fourth Avenue, ADM-AS-0740 Seattle, WA 98104-2384 Assessor (206) 205-0444 FAX (206) 296-0106 Email: [email protected] http://www.kingcounty.gov/assessor/ Dear Property Owners: Property assessments for the 2015 assessment year are being completed by my staff throughout the year and change of value notices are being mailed as neighborhoods are completed. We value property at fee simple, reflecting property at its highest and best use and following the requirement of RCW 84.40.030 to appraise property at true and fair value. We have worked hard to implement your suggestions to place more information in an e-Environment to meet your needs for timely and accurate information. The following report summarizes the results of the 2015 assessment for this area. (See map within report). It is meant to provide you with helpful background information about the process used and basis for property assessments in your area. Fair and uniform assessments set the foundation for effective government and I am pleased that we are able to make continuous and ongoing improvements to serve you. Please feel welcome to call my staff if you have questions about the property assessment process and how it relates to your property. Sincerely, Lloyd Hara Assessor Table of Contents Contents Area 014 Map .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Area 014 / Madison Park Housing Profile ............................................................................................................................... 6 Glossary for Improved Sales ................................................................................................................................................... 8 Condition: Relative to Age and Grade ................................................................................................................................. 8 Residential Building Grades ................................................................................................................................................ 8 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Sales Sample Representation of Population Year Built or Renovated .................................................................................. 10 Sales Sample Representation of Population Above Grade Living Area ................................................................................ 11 Sales Sample Representation of Population Building Grade ................................................................................................ 12 Physical Inspection Process................................................................................................................................................... 13 Appraisal Team Members and Participation .................................................................................................................... 13 Sales Screening for Improved Parcel Analysis ................................................................................................................... 13 Highest and Best Use Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Standards and Measurement of Data Accuracy ............................................................................................................... 13 Special Assumptions and Limiting Conditions .................................................................................................................. 14 Area Information ................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Name or Designation ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 Boundaries ........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Maps.................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Area Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 Neighborhood Overview Map .............................................................................................................................................. 16 Neighborhood 10 & 40 Map ................................................................................................................................................. 17 Neighborhood 20 & 30 Map ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Neighborhood 60 Map .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Neighborhood 50 & 70 Map ................................................................................................................................................. 20 Neighborhood 80 & 90 Map ................................................................................................................................................. 21 Land Valuation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Land Model ........................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Land Value Model Calibration ............................................................................................................................................... 26 Improved Parcel Valuation .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Improved Parcel Total Value Model Calibration ................................................................................................................... 30 Area 014 3 2015 Physical Inspection Department of Assessments Multiplicative Model ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Supplemental Models and Exceptions .................................................................................................................................. 32 Area 014 Market Value Changes Over Time ......................................................................................................................... 33 Results ................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Physical Inspection Ratio Study Report (Before) – 2014 Assessments ................................................................................. 36 Physical Inspection Ratio Study Report (After) – 2015 Assessments ..................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report
    City of Madison, Wisconsin Underrepresented Communities Historic Resource Survey Report By Jennifer L. Lehrke, AIA, NCARB, Rowan Davidson, Associate AIA and Robert Short, Associate AIA Legacy Architecture, Inc. 605 Erie Avenue, Suite 101 Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53081 and Jason Tish Archetype Historic Property Consultants 2714 Lafollette Avenue Madison, Wisconsin 53704 Project Sponsoring Agency City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development 215 Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard Madison, Wisconsin 53703 2017-2020 Acknowledgments The activity that is the subject of this survey report has been financed with local funds from the City of Madison Department of Planning and Community and Economic Development. The contents and opinions contained in this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the city, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the City of Madison. The authors would like to thank the following persons or organizations for their assistance in completing this project: City of Madison Richard B. Arnesen Satya Rhodes-Conway, Mayor Patrick W. Heck, Alder Heather Stouder, Planning Division Director Joy W. Huntington Bill Fruhling, AICP, Principal Planner Jason N. Ilstrup Heather Bailey, Preservation Planner Eli B. Judge Amy L. Scanlon, Former Preservation Planner Arvina Martin, Alder Oscar Mireles Marsha A. Rummel, Alder (former member) City of Madison Muriel Simms Landmarks Commission Christina Slattery Anna Andrzejewski, Chair May Choua Thao Richard B. Arnesen Sheri Carter, Alder (former member) Elizabeth Banks Sergio Gonzalez (former member) Katie Kaliszewski Ledell Zellers, Alder (former member) Arvina Martin, Alder David W.J. McLean Maurice D. Taylor Others Lon Hill (former member) Tanika Apaloo Stuart Levitan (former member) Andrea Arenas Marsha A.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to Be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents
    DOWNTOWN ACCESS STRATEGY PHASE 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years Table of Contents I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 II. Review of Existing Plans, Projects, and Programs ......................................... 2 III. Potential Construction Concerns and Opportunities .................................. 3 A. Existing Construction Planning Tools 3 B. SDOT’s Construction Hub Coordination Program 4 C. Construction Mitigation Strategies Used by Other Cities 7 D. Potential Construction Conflicts and Opportunities 10 IV. Future Transportation Network Opportunities ......................................... 12 A. North Downtown 12 B. Denny Triangle / Westlake Hub 14 C. Pioneer Square / Chinatown-ID 15 D. Downtown Core and Waterfront 16 V. Future Phases of Downtown Access Strategy ............................................. 18 A. Framework for Phase 2 (2014 through 2016) 18 B. Framework for Phase 3 (Beyond 2016) 19 - i - September 25, 2013 Downtown Access Strategy Phase 1 Context Setting: Projects to be Constructed in the Next 10 Years I. INTRODUCTION Many important and long planned transportation and development projects are scheduled for con- struction in Downtown Seattle in the coming years. While these investments are essential to support economic development and job growth and to enhance Downtown’s stature as the region’s premier location to live, work, shop and play, in the short-term they present complicated challenges for con- venient and reliable access to and through Downtown. The Downtown Seattle Association (DSA) and its partners, Historic South Downtown (HSD) and the Seat- tle Department of Transportation (SDOT), seek to ensure that Downtown Seattle survives and prospers during the extraordinarily high level of construction activity that will occur in the coming years.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy of Censusdata
    P. 30 Means of Transportation to Work for workers 16 years and over [16] City State Total: Bicycle % who bicycle Mackinac Island city Michigan 217 132 60.83% Stanford CDP California 5,711 2,381 41.69% Tangier town Virginia 250 66 26.40% Mason village Wisconsin 21 5 23.81% Ocean Beach village New York 64 14 21.88% Sand City city California 132 28 21.21% Isla Vista CDP California 8,360 1,642 19.64% Unity Village village Missouri 153 29 18.95% Hunter city Kansas 31 5 16.13% Crested Butte town Colorado 1,096 176 16.06% Davis city California 31,165 4,493 14.42% Rocky Ridge town Utah 160 23 14.38% Pelican city Alaska 77 11 14.29% Key West city Florida 14,611 1,856 12.70% Saltaire village New York 24 3 12.50% Keenes village Illinois 41 5 12.20% Longville city Minnesota 42 5 11.90% Stock Island CDP Florida 2,152 250 11.62% Goodland CDP Florida 74 8 10.81% Agenda city Kansas 28 3 10.71% Volant borough Pennsylvania 56 6 10.71% Tenakee Springs city Alaska 39 4 10.26% Tumacacori-Carmen C Arizona 199 20 10.05% Bearcreek town Montana 52 5 9.62% Briny Breezes town Florida 84 8 9.52% Barada village Nebraska 21 2 9.52% Layton city Florida 117 11 9.40% Evansville CDP Alaska 22 2 9.09% Nimrod city Minnesota 22 2 9.09% Nimrod city Minnesota 22 2 9.09% San Geronimo CDP California 245 22 8.98% Smith Island CDP Maryland 148 13 8.78% Laie CDP Hawaii 2,103 176 8.37% Hickam Housing CDP Hawaii 2,386 196 8.21% Slickville CDP Pennsylvania 112 9 8.04% Laughlin AFB CDP Texas 1,150 91 7.91% Minidoka city Idaho 38 3 7.89% Sykeston city North Dakota 51 4 7.84% Shipshewana town Indiana 310 24 7.74% Playita comunidad (Sa Puerto Rico 145 11 7.59% Dillard city Georgia 94 7 7.45% Putnam town Oklahoma 27 2 7.41% Fire Island CDP New York 191 14 7.33% Shorewood Hills village Wisconsin 779 57 7.32% Grenora city North Dakota 97 7 7.22% Buffalo Gap town South Dakota 56 4 7.14% Corvallis city Oregon 23,475 1,669 7.11% Boulder city Colorado 53,828 3,708 6.89% Gunnison city Colorado 2,825 189 6.69% Chistochina CDP Alaska 30 2 6.67% Grand Canyon Village Arizona 1,059 70 6.61% P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Artists' View of Seattle
    WHERE DOES SEATTLE’S CREATIVE COMMUNITY GO FOR INSPIRATION? Allow us to introduce some of our city’s resident artists, who share with you, in their own words, some of their favorite places and why they choose to make Seattle their home. Known as one of the nation’s cultural centers, Seattle has more arts-related businesses and organizations per capita than any other metropolitan area in the United States, according to a recent study by Americans for the Arts. Our city pulses with the creative energies of thousands of artists who call this their home. In this guide, twenty-four painters, sculptors, writers, poets, dancers, photographers, glass artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors and more tell you about their favorite places and experiences. James Turrell’s Light Reign, Henry Art Gallery ©Lara Swimmer 2 3 BYRON AU YONG Composer WOULD YOU SHARE SOME SPECIAL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO SEATTLE? GROWING UP IN SEATTLE? I moved into my particular building because it’s across the street from Uptown I performed in musical theater as a kid at a venue in the Seattle Center. I was Espresso. One of the real draws of Seattle for me was the quality of the coffee, I nine years old, and I got paid! I did all kinds of shows, and I also performed with must say. the Civic Light Opera. I was also in the Northwest Boy Choir and we sang this Northwest Medley, and there was a song to Ivar’s restaurant in it. When I was HOW DOES BEING A NON-DRIVER IMPACT YOUR VIEW OF THE CITY? growing up, Ivar’s had spokespeople who were dressed up in clam costumes with My favorite part about walking is that you come across things that you would pass black leggings.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Leschi/Judkins Park
    LESCHI/JUDKINS PARK DEVELOPMENT SITE SEATTLE SBD CAPITOL HILL PIONEER SQUARE JUDKINS PARK CENTRAL DISTRICT LESCHI KIRKLAND REDMOND UNIVERSITY DISTRICT FREMONT WALLINGFORD MADISON VALLEY QUEEN ANNE CAPITOL SLU MADISON HILL PARK MADRONA SEATTLE CBD CENTRAL BELLEVUE DISTRICT LESCHI LESCHI/JUDKINS PARK DEVELOPMENT SITE FUTURE JUDKINS PARK LIGHT RAIL STATION (2023) MT. BAKER BEACON HILL MERCER ISLAND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT OFFERING Amazing Leschi/Judkins Park Opportunity! How often do you find a perfect project that literally bridges Seattle & Eastside Employment Hubs & is smartly sited in a charming neighborhood w/ coveted amenities & parks? It’s rare. This sizeable, partially permitted 20 townhouse project w/ an unbeatable location is a mere .5 mi to upcoming Eastlink Light Rail station, which will seamlessly connect Seattle & Eastside employment options. Your end-user pool just doubled. Look to the post-COVID urban lifestyle demand this project offers. 3 tax parcels- 25,451 sq ft in total, zoned LR2. If Light Rail & local mixed-use redevelopment hubs don’t excite you, perhaps the short 15 min drive to all Major employment centers of DT Seattle, SLU & Bellevue will. Seller is pursuing permits for a 20-unit townhouse project currently in the entitlement process, past Design Review with the City of Seattle. NAME Leschi/Judkins Park Development Site 800 28th Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144 ADDRESS 811 29th Ave S, Seattle, WA 98144 2801 S Dearborn St, Seattle, WA 98144 PARCEL NUMBERS 636290-0265, 056700-0612, 056700-0614 LOT SQUARE FEET 9,779 + 7,946 + 7,726 = 25,451 Square Feet ZONING LR2 (M) PRICE $6,300,000 PRICE PER LOT FOOT $246 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 20 Townhouses TERMS Cash Out This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable, but we make no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information.
    [Show full text]
  • ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement
    ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT REPLACEMENT PROJECT Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX L Economics Discipline Report Submitted by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF Prepared by: PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF J U L Y 2 0 1 1 Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project Final EIS Economics Discipline Report The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint effort between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. To conduct this project, WSDOT contracted with: Parsons Brinckerhoff 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98104 In association with: Coughlin Porter Lundeen, Inc. EnviroIssues, Inc. GHD, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. Magnusson Klemencic Associates, Inc. Mimi Sheridan, AICP Parametrix, Inc. Power Engineers, Inc. Shannon & Wilson, Inc. William P. Ott Construction Consultants SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project July 2011 Economics Discipline Report Final EIS This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction and Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Build Alternatives Overview ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Overview of Bored Tunnel Alternative (Preferred) ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • This City of Ours
    THIS CITY OF OURS By J. WILLIS SAYRE For the illustrations used in this book the author expresses grateful acknowledgment to Mrs. Vivian M. Carkeek, Charles A. Thorndike and R. M. Kinnear. Copyright, 1936 by J. W. SAYRE rot &?+ *$$&&*? *• I^JJMJWW' 1 - *- \£*- ; * M: . * *>. f* j*^* */ ^ *** - • CHIEF SEATTLE Leader of his people both in peace and war, always a friend to the whites; as an orator, the Daniel Webster of his race. Note this excerpt, seldom surpassed in beauty of thought and diction, from his address to Governor Stevens: Why should I mourn at the untimely fate of my people? Tribe follows tribe, and nation follows nation, like the waves of the sea. It is the order of nature and regret is useless. Your time of decay may be distant — but it will surely come, for even the White Man whose God walked and talked with him as friend with friend cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all. Let the White Man be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not powerless. Dead — I say? There is no death. Only a change of worlds. CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. BELIEVE IT OR NOT! 1 2. THE ROMANCE OF THE WATERFRONT . 5 3. HOW OUR RAILROADS GREW 11 4. FROM HORSE CARS TO MOTOR BUSES . 16 5. HOW SEATTLE USED TO SEE—AND KEEP WARM 21 6. INDOOR ENTERTAINMENTS 26 7. PLAYING FOOTBALL IN PIONEER PLACE . 29 8. STRANGE "IFS" IN SEATTLE'S HISTORY . 34 9. HISTORICAL POINTS IN FIRST AVENUE . 41 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Classification, 2003. 577 Pp. Pdf Icon[PDF – 7.1
    Instruction Manual Part 8 Vital Records, Geographic Classification, 2003 Vital Statistics Data Preparation U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics Hyattsville, Maryland October, 2002 VITAL RECORDS GEOGRAPHIC CLASSIFICATION, 2003 This manual contains geographic codes used by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) in processing information from birth, death, and fetal death records. Included are (1) incorporated places identified by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in the 2000 Census of Population and Housing; (2) census designated places, formerly called unincorporated places, identified by the U.S. Bureau of the Census; (3) certain towns and townships; and (4) military installations identified by the Department of Defense and the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The geographic place of occurrence of the vital event is coded to the state and county or county equivalent level; the geographic place of residence is coded to at least the county level. Incorporated places of residence of 10,000 or more population and certain towns or townships defined as urban under special rules also have separate identifying codes. Specific geographic areas are represented by five-digit codes. The first two digits (1-54) identify the state, District of Columbia, or U.S. Possession. The last three digits refer to the county (701-999) or specified urban place (001-699). Information in this manual is presented in two sections for each state. Section I is to be used for classifying occurrence and residence when the reporting of the geographic location is complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Property Survey Report: Seattle's Neighborhood Commercial
    HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT: SEATTLE’S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Prepared by: Mimi Sheridan Cultural Resource Specialist Prepared for: City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program 700 Third Avenue, Seattle WA 98104 November 2002 PROJECT SUMMARY In 2000 the City of Seattle began a multi-year effort to update its inventory of historic resources throughout the city. Existing information, primarily from the 1970s, was out of date and inadequate to meet the challenges of growth management and the threats to the city’s traditional character posed by increasing demand for housing and commercial space. Two building categories and one neighborhood were selected for the initial round of surveys: neighborhood commercial districts, buildings constructed before 1905, and the University District. This report focuses on the methodology and findings of the survey and inventory of Seattle’s neighborhood commercial districts. The project began in the spring of 2001, with development of a work plan, which identified the survey criteria and boundaries. A context statement was then prepared, giving an overview of commercial development patterns throughout the city. Following this, a reconnaissance survey was done, looking at every building in the identified commercial districts. This survey recorded more than 1000 buildings that met the basic criteria of age (built prior to 1962) and architectural integrity. Two hundred of these structures were identified for further research and inclusion in the final inventory. Development patterns and physical characteristics of each neighborhood and of these 200 buildings are summarized here. In addition to this report, the Neighborhood Commercial District inventory includes 200 Historic Property Inventory forms in an electronic database format that will be available to the general public as well as to other city departments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Washington Way
    THE WASHINGTON WAY WASHINGTON HUSKIES 2007 FOOTBALL MEDIA GUIDE THE WASHINGTON WAY Husky Football A to Z Here’s a look at some of the more interesting AMERICAN IDOL: The highest-rated television aspects of the University of Washington, its athletic show in the nation, “American Idol” featured former history and the Huskies’ proud football tradition. Husky offensive guard Matt Rogers during the 2004 season. The Fox network program, which was in GENERAL INFO. AIR HUSKY: A familiar sight around Husky Stadium its third season, featured a talent search for the are the low-flying float planes that use Lake Wash- nation’s next pop superstar. Rogers was one of ington and Lake Union as their staging areas. One more than 40,000 contestants to audition around company, Kenmore Air Harbor of Kenmore, Wash., the country. He wowed the panel of celebrity judges offers UW fans a chance to fly in the one-of-a-kind (including pop star Paula Abdul) and the voting Husky Air Force. One plane in its fleet, a 10-pas- public with his singing and stage presence. Through senger deHavilland Turbine Otter, has been detailed a series of elimination stages and telephonic voting OUTLOOK with the Husky color scheme and logos. by the public, Rogers advanced to the round of live televised performances and placed 11th overall. The ALMA MATER: Here are the lyrics to Washington’s former offensive guard has toured with the other alma mater: finalists, and recorded a rendition of “Dock of the To her we sing who keeps the ward Bay.” Rogers’ single was featured on the “American O’er all her sons from sea to sea; Idol Season 3: Greatest Soul Classics” album Our Alma Mater, Washington, released in 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Arts in Seattle
    ARTS IN SEATTLE ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN ................................................................................................................................2 EXPERIENCE MUSIC PROJECT..........................................................................................................................................2 SEATTLE PUBLIC LIBRARY , CENTRAL..............................................................................................................................4 SMITH TOWER ......................................................................................................................................................................5 CHAPEL OF ST. IGNATIUS ..................................................................................................................................................7 OLYMPIC SCULPTURE PARK ..............................................................................................................................................9 SEATTLE ART MUSEUM....................................................................................................................................................11 GAS WORKS PARK ............................................................................................................................................................12 SPACE NEEDLE..................................................................................................................................................................13 SEATTLE ARCHITECTURE FOUNDATION,
    [Show full text]