Final Minutes

STATE CAPITOL COMMITTEE Remote Access Meeting Olympia, Washington 98504

March 18, 2021 10 a.m.

Final Minutes

MEMBERS PARTICIPATING: Denny Heck, Lieutenant Governor & Chair Mark Neary (for Kim Wyman, Secretary of State) Katy Taylor (for Hilary Franz, Commissioner of Public Lands) Kelly Wicker, Governor’s Designee

OTHERS PARTICIPATING: Andrew Beagle, City of Olympia Ann Larson, Department of Enterprise Services Dick Binns, Citizen Sue Lean, Citizen Sharon Case, South Capitol Neighborhood Assn. Annette Meyer, Department of Enterprise Services Sarah Dettmer, Department of Enterprise Services Jennifer Mortenson, WA Trust for Historic Preservation Eliza Davidson, National Assn. for Olmsted Parks Susan Olmsted, Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks Kevin Dragon, Department of Enterprise Services Paul Parker Citizen Bill Frare, Department of Enterprise Services Anne Petri, National Association for Olmsted Parks Valerie Gow, Puget Sound Meeting Services Walter Schacht, Mithun Architects Greg Griffith, Olympia Historical Society Randy Wesselman, City of Olympia Majid Jamali, Department of Enterprise Services Eugenia Woo, DOCOMOMO WEWA

Welcome and Introductions & Approval of Agenda - Action Lieutenant Governor and Chair Denny Heck called the regular State Capitol Committee (SCC) virtual meeting to order at 10:02 a.m.

A meeting quorum was attained. Lieutenant Governor Heck reviewed the agenda consisting of public comments, approval of the January 28, 2021 meeting minutes, consideration of the proposed Legislative Campus Modernization Project, and a briefing on a proposed compact roundabout proposed at the intersection of Deschutes Parkway and Lakeridge Drive. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 2 of 13

No recommended modifications of the agenda were offered.

Mark Neary moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the agenda as published. Motion carried unanimously.

Approval of January 28, 2021 Meeting Minutes – Action Mark Neary moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the January 28, 2021 minutes as published. Motion carried unanimously.

Public Comment Period - Informational Lieutenant Governor Heck outlined the format for offering public comment. He invited comments from the public.

Susan Olmsted said she is an architect and landscape architect and has been involved in the planning and design of Capitol Campus in various capacities for nearly a decade. She served as the lead planner and primary author of the 2009 West Capitol Campus Historic Landscape Preservation and Vegetation Management Plan. She subsequently served as a member of the design team for landscaping, drainage, and utilities improvements along Sid Snyder Avenue. She was an unsighted team resource for the 2017 Development Study by Schacht Aslani and Mithun. She also guided walking tours of the campus and was a former member of the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee (CCDAC). She is speaking on behalf of and as a member of Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks. The organization’s mission is educating the broader community about the history of legacy of the parks, boulevards, and other landscapes throughout the Pacific Northwest designed or influenced by the Olmsted Brothers Landscape Architecture firm. One of the most well-known and important site is the state’s capitol grounds.

Ms. Olmsted expressed concerns about the Legislative Campus Modernization (LCM) project surrounding both the design direction of the project and the expedited approval process currently in progress. Foundational aspects preceding all studies for enhancement of campus gateways, views, edges, arrivals, circulation, and visitor experience concluded the south edge of the historic West Capitol Campus located south of Sid Snyder Avenue between Capitol Way and Water Street SW was an ideal development site to help frame the great lawn and reinforce the gateway to the campus and the capitol group of buildings. Conversely, the preferred alternative in the LCM project depicts a preponderance of surface parking on the prime development site rather than a careful composition of enduring buildings to help frame the capitol and the historic Olmsted Brothers landscape. The Olmsted Brothers’ historic correspondence provides clear direction on the subordination of parking so as not to dominate the campus or building entries. She acknowledged the important studies on parking and urged the committee to consider the proposal carefully, as the intent is to return the most civic aspects of the state to people rather than cars while improving safety and security. The proposed LCM directly contradicts this intent with a large field of surface parking as a prominent foreground, a frame, and a gateway to the some of the most important historic resources in the state. While she understands the need for convenient access to the capitol for legislators and staff, the perpetuation of the prioritization of single occupancy vehicles sets a low standard for 21st century development and moves the campus backwards in terms of sustainability. It amounts to an important missed opportunity to strengthen the overall campus character.

The LCM project currently under review offers a single design solution for addressing current needs. Although the 2017 study that preceded the LCM included several possible options along with a clear need for new space, only the single design alternative currently under review is being offered for consideration. Members of the Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks are distressed to see a major capital improvement to an historic, publicly held property of such paramount significance to the citizens of the state would be considered with limited or nearly no public input. Design proposals for publicly held land should be shaped SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 3 of 13

to benefit everyone. Frederick Law Olmsted, father of landscape architecture and designer of the U.S. Capitol Grounds embraced the then burgeoning idea of democratic space for all to use and enjoy. As he wrote in 1865, “In a republic like the United States, the richest citizens must not be allowed to monopolize the most beautiful areas for their own enjoyment. Such areas must be reserved for the public.” His son’s firm, the Olmsted Brothers, employed the same thinking more commonly understood as America’s best idea in their design of the Washington Capitol Grounds. To practice this important civic principle and to avoid monopolizing design direction regarding improvements on the West Capitol Campus, the Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks encourage the SCC and DES to take a step back in this process to explore with the public several design solutions. During the process, she urged serious consideration of what use and physical presence is to be located on the West Campus and southeast corner, which currently deserves better definition. The SCC is also urged to consider treatment along the campus periphery; particularly where it abuts residential neighborhoods that are more inviting with intentionally designed connections. Most important, DES is encouraged to make the process open and inclusive, a process befitting the dignity and the ideals embodied by the capital grounds. She asked to work together to ensure the Capitol Campus and its continuing legacy inspire a sense of democracy and civic pride symbolized by careful stewardship of the historic state capitol.

Eliza Davidson reported on her long association with the Capitol Campus as a landscape professional, advocate, and advisor to both the National Association for Olmsted Parks and Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks. She co-authored with the Mithun firm the Historic Landscape Preservation Master Plan contributing in particular to the Vegetation Management Plan. She completed follow-up on the campus landscape as a consulting arborist in a number of ongoing contracts. During the time of her work on the project, she was confident the Olmsted landscape heritage would be secure and reinforced not undermined because it was an adopted part of the Campus Master Plan. It is deeply distressing and disappointing to find out the proposed LCM under consideration was created seemingly without reference to or respect for the historic context or the overall master plan. She re-emphasized that Washington’s capitol grounds are second only to the national capitol grounds in importance as part of the work the Olmsted firm completed for 10 or more capital campuses around the country. The campus is a jewel and was created with great intentionality by our forebearers who chose this magnificent location to create a truly civic, beautiful, and befitting place to conduct the business of the people. Putting a parking lot as an expanse in the 21st century in the critical southeast corner of the campus is a travesty and is disconnected from the present in terms of a green future. It is extremely counterproductive to the completion of this campus landscape in the manner the acreage deserves. She echoed the comments of Ms. Olmsted on behalf of the Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and believes the national association would also speak strongly to the same points.

Eugenia Woo, Boardmember of DOCOMOMO WEWA (International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement), reported the non-profit organization is focused on raising awareness and appreciation of modern design in Western Washington. Written comments were previously submitted by the organization. The previous speakers spoke eloquently about the importance of landscape design on the Capitol Campus. The organization is focused primarily on the Pritchard Building and whether the building is preserved and adaptively reused following the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, which is required under the RCW. The organization strongly supports a robust public engagement process and efforts by the committee for considering a public process. The 2002 Historic Structures Report, which the state commissioned for the Pritchard Building, is a helpful resource and guiding document to help inform future planning and design. Members also support a third party historic preservation specialist to conduct a preservation study of the potential preservation and expansion of the building. The study should be preservation-oriented with no predetermined outcome that might support demolition. The current proposal supports demolition of the Pritchard Building, which would be SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 4 of 13 detrimental to the entire Capitol Campus. The building is one of the most important modern buildings in the entire state.

Jennifer Mortenson, Outreach Director, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, described the organization as a non-profit dedicated to preservation. She thanked the committee for its response to public concerns and the plan for a more robust public engagement campaign. She is concerned about the Pritchard Building and its preservation and adaptive reuse as an event center or a visitor center. Several of the proposals do not meet the Secretary of Interior Standards. She emphasized the importance of adherence to the standards, as it is required by the RCW. The organization and others would be willing to participate in an advisory or working group capacity along with the consultant who would complete the preservation study. She is appreciative of the committee’s response. She expressed appreciation of the previous comments pertaining to the importance of landscaping on the campus.

Dick Binns spoke to the Pritchard Building as a citizen of the City of Olympia. In the mid-1960s, he and his family traveled from the Olympic Peninsula to the Pritchard Library for an award ceremony involving his father. At that time, he was 13 years old and never paid attention to buildings or architecture; however, he remembers walking into a type of pavilion with glass doors in front and was wowed by the building. He had never been aware of the impact a building could have on a person. Ever since, he became more interested in architecture and buildings. The Pritchard Building served as a reference for what true modernist architecture could represent in its best form. Much later in 2013 when he moved to Olympia as a retiree, he visited Capitol Campus and was disappointed to see the building had been closed and used as a storage area. He voiced concerns about tearing down the modernist jewel box complete with jewels inside such as the Callahan and Tobey murals because it would be a mistake. When he thinks of modernist buildings in the world, the Pritchard Building is one of the finest ones that he has seen, and it honors a great legislator in Joel Pritchard, which could be a model for what could occur today. He voiced concerns about tearing down the beautiful building, as it would be a mistake.

Paul Parker commented about his attraction to the modernization plan because he agrees the Pritchard Building is a jewel and it would be shame to see it demolished in order to meet the truly legitimate need for additional space for Senate and House members and staff. He remembers when he began working as part of Senate staff in 1986 when the Commissioner of Public Lands office was located two floors below his office in the Cherberg Building. Today, the Commissioner of Public Lands is housed in a new building located on the East Campus. He comments speak to his experience as a long-term staff member in terms of determining solutions and ways to solve the problem that the Senate and House are currently experiencing with the Newhouse Building. He suggested the committee should consider both short-term and long-term options to address the problem. The Newhouse Building likely needs to be addressed quickly. Space opportunities exist within the Insurance Building and in the Legislative Building to solve some of the challenges. It might be possible to move the Insurance Commissioner from the Insurance Building as a short-term solution for housing Senators and staff. The Legislative Building currently houses the State Treasurer on the first floor, which could help ameliorate some of the needs for additional space for House members, meeting space, and staff. Considering a short-term solution would provide the time and focus for true public engagement to consider the challenges other speakers have addressed, as well as evaluating needs. The work completed to date should be refocused in light of what has been learned in the last year because of COVID-19 and teleworking, and it should be evaluated in terms of safety of the legislative campus, buildings, and public access. It should also be looked at more strongly in terms of carbon reduction. The entire campus should be examined in terms of future changes in work patterns incorporating more teleworking, as a significant amount of parking would become available in the parking garage, which could help to solve some of the parking needs. A short-term solution affords time for determining a long-term evaluation of the real needs and solutions. He is hopeful it would include an evaluation of reusing the Pritchard Building as originally intended. The building could be SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 5 of 13 utilized as a public space as it is highly utilized today. For research, the building could feature the return of the Washington Room serving as a library and as research space. Some educational opportunities could be considered in terms of ways to utilize the stacks, such as exhibits from the Washington State Historical Society and other exhibits related to the campus and the political process. Mr. Parker added that he also submitted written comments.

Anne Petri, President, National Association for Olmsted Parks, said the organization is the only national association dedicated to protecting and preserving the life, legacy, and work of Frederick Law Olmsted and the Olmsted firms. The association supports a distinguished network of Olmsted parks and landscape conservatories across the country, including Central Park, Prospect Park, Louisville Park, Buffalo Park, and Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks. Membership is coast to coast with a substantial group based in Washington because of the extraordinary Olmsted heritage in the state, especially in Olympia. The organization owes a great debt to the state for a grant the state provided to expand the online portal, Olmsted Online, to provide a rich array of historic records relating to the Olmsted firm in Washington to the broader American public. The National Association for Olmsted Parks is profoundly concerned by and opposes the plans and the process that bring us here today. The statehouse and surrounding property are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic district’s importance has been rightly acknowledged by the 2009 Landscape Master Plan, which was created to protect this property from ill-advised development plans. With all due respect, the Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign is just that. It ignores the underlying principles of the master plan. Its proposed expansion and intrusive parking lots would destroy the integrity of this landscape and reduce it to a mediocre, disconnected collection of buildings and pavement lacking the structure of the original design by John Charles Olmsted in 1911 and later by James Frederick Dawson of the Olmsted firm from 1927 to 1931. These changes would occur as attested to by other speakers with minimal public input and virtually no serious exploration of alternatives and the larger design. They would significantly undermine a cohesive historic district and landscape at the heart of Washington’s capital city. Capital grounds are not just mere streets and parking lots; they are the vibrant civic square that bring people together from all places as a democratic nation. That is especially true here in Olympia where the capitol is distinctively cited on a forested bluff above the town with unique Northwestern views of the Sound and the Olympic Mountains. The capitol grounds represent an intentional designed complex of buildings set with sweeping lawns, major and minor axial drives, and outdoor rooms framed by layered vegetation. The bones of the original Olmsted Brothers design remain remarkably intact. It would be sad indeed to destroy such an iconic space by a rushed process that pays little attention to historic grandeur and coherent beauty of the capitol grounds. She respectfully requested the committee postpone a decision until further review can occur.

Sharon Case said she is representing the South Capitol Neighborhood Association, which also submitted a letter with more details. She conveyed appreciation for the responsiveness the committee provided to speakers at the last meeting. It was gratifying to hear the committee’s comments regarding the need to strengthen the process for campus development. As a result of that meeting, the association believes its obligation was to raise concerns as well as collaborating to determine a solution. One way was through the presentation of a draft budget proposal to the local legislative delegation for consideration. The association remains hopeful that the upcoming capital budget will include language that focuses on the need for a comprehensive planning process for campus development with emphasis on the fundamental role of both the SCC and the CCDAC. The planning process is envisioned to serve as an overarching template that is applied to the development of any new buildings to be located on the campus. This tool is focused on the broad view of the campus and the conductivity of its buildings to inform a more narrow view of an individual building project. It is this overarching view that prevents a myopic piecemeal approach that could be so detrimental to the beauty and the lasting legacy of the campus. Further, the association emphasizes that it views the committee’s stewardship and leadership authority to be fundamental to SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 6 of 13 achieving the goals. By embracing the principles of the previous campus master plan and addressing the issues as outlined in the letter and in the proviso language, the association is confident of success moving forward. The issues are capitol access, traffic, public transportation, parking and pedestrian use, security and safety measures, west campus workforce projections, complementary building and landscape design, and a public engagement plan. The Association believes the well-conceived DES stakeholder and involvement plan used for the Capital Lake project is a great model. As an example of the issues that have been raised, Principle 5 in the master plan addresses the design and edges of the campus, which is of paramount of importance to the neighborhood. Without robust stakeholder participation and inherence to this principle, the nexus to the neighborhood could end up being a wall of buildings with a parking lot and landscaping buffer the size of a narrow parking strip. This is just a narrow example. Other issues could include addressing the building height of Newhouse without considering the height of the Pritchard and the GA Buildings, or failing to consider the gateway to the campus that is adjacent to the Newhouse footprint. Those are examples of monumental decisions that are part of the system that defines the campus. It points to the critical need for a comprehensive approach for planning development on the campus. Members are confident that it would result in a lasting legacy for the campus and urges the committee to support the neighborhood’s advocacy efforts to accomplish the goals.

Greg Griffith said he is representing the Olympia Historical Society Bigelow House Museum. The organization previously submitted comments to the committee and to the CCDAC in December 2020. He echoed comments from previous speakers who have spoken well to the important issues under consideration by the committee for the LCM project. The previous speakers spoke to the Pritchard Building, importance of the landscape, parking space needs, Newhouse Building, and the edging of the campus with the South Capitol Neighborhood. Another aspect of the LCM project pertains to the Press Houses that would be affected by the LCM project. The plan calls for the removal of the Press Houses; however, there has been some discussion about offering the houses for sale and removal and placement in another location for preservation and rehabilitation. Mr. Griffith supported the option of preserving the two buildings as the two buildings have a local context and architecture that are worthy of preservation. Additionally, sustainability is enhanced by preserving and recycling buildings rather than demolishing and adding material to the landfill. Should the option prevail for moving the two buildings, the state and DES should be proactive in supporting the process because the process could be complex and lengthy requiring diligence by the recipient. He would like the option considered as part of the record to ensure the option is not overlooked.

Sue Lean reported she is an historical exhibit designer and has completed exhibits in the Temple of Justice and the Legislative Buildings. She supports the endeavors to protect the Olmsted design landscape. She applauded the comments from previous speakers.

DES Program Manager Kevin Dragon provided a summary of the eight public comments received by DES prior to the deadline of 4 p.m. March 17, 2021:

• Importance of considering the Wilder and White and Olmsted Brothers plans for the West Campus specifically how the Pritchard Building enhances planning efforts. • The GA Building is not reflective of the historical campus plan. • Consider options for accommodating legislative space needs within the current space of the Insurance, Legislative, and Pritchard Buildings, and the replacement of the GA Building. • A need for an independent study of the Pritchard Building, as well as the historical and cultural aspects or mitigation of the loss of the Press Houses as part of the Newhouse Building project. • Importance of the SCC Workgroup and the need for preservation professionals. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 7 of 13

• Other comments spoke to the need for comprehensive planning across the campus and the need of benchmarking for access, traffic, security, safety, workforce projections, preservation, and landscaping. • A series of comments spoke to public engagement for the LCM process. Several citizens expressed concerns about the need for more public engagement while others thanked the SCC for additional engagement.

All committee members received a copy of all written comments submitted to DES.

Legislative Campus Modernization (formerly Newhouse) Predesign) (2nd Read) – Action Lt. Governor Heck recognized Bill Frare, Assistant Director, Facility Professional Services, DES, to provide the briefing.

Assistant Director Frare reported DES considered public comments and the wishes of the SCC very seriously since the last meeting. Since the last meeting, DES staff worked with the Project Executive Team, the governance team tasked to oversee the Legislative Campus Modernization project. Funding was approved by DES to complete a Pritchard Building Preservation Study that includes an independent historic conservationist and technical evaluations of geotechnical, architectural, seismic/structural, and a robust public process. The process is scheduled to begin in April with completion anticipated in a year, if not sooner. DES understands from the comments how important it is to improve public engagement throughout the process. Enhanced public engagement for the Newhouse Building design includes more investigation and analysis on the comprehensive impacts that might affect traffic, access to the South Capitol Neighborhood, security, parking, landscaping, visual buffers along the south edge of the campus, viewscapes, gateways into the campus, and improved public engagement.

In response to the comments regarding the Carlyon and Ayer Press Houses, staff drafted a contract and advertisement to place both buildings for sale and relocation. Staff worked with the Project Executive Team. The team authorized DES to move forward. The first step is some tenant improvements within the Legislative Building to relocate the press corps from the two buildings followed by the release of the advertisement for the sale and relocation of both buildings.

Assistant Director Frare introduced Walter Schacht, principal architect for the predesign. The predesign identified a number of alternatives for addressing space needs for the House and Senate and concerns with respect to the buildings and building systems that would need to be updated. The predesign study was based on previously completed studies. Mr. Schacht has been involved in the planning process for several years.

Mr. Schacht reported Mithun has been involved in the planning for the Capitol Campus for over a decade. Mithun completed the Landscape Preservation Master Plan and was engaged in numerous site development projects on the campus. He became involved in 2016 with the State Capitol Development Study and has worked on predesigns for Newhouse, Pritchard, and the GA Buildings. The firm is invested and involved in the project as well as other projects over the course of many years. The company is committed to preservation and the Olmsted legacy. As a child growing up in New York City, he watched the preservation activities of Grand Central Station. He shares the same values and thoughts that were conveyed by many of the speakers but may have a different perspective as to how to achieve some of the project’s goals.

Mr. Schacht reviewed the historical context of planning on the campus. A substantial amount of study of the Capitol Campus has been completed since 2006 and architects have explored options for the Pritchard Building and the Newhouse sites since the 1970s resulting in significant consideration of the sites and how they might be redeveloped. To date, no one has achieved any resolution for moving forward. The question SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 8 of 13

before the committee, community, and stakeholders based on research and studies completed to date by different architects and landscape architects, is how to use that foundation of information to inform decision-making moving forward. Since 2006 when the current Master Plan was completed, one of the many completed studies was the 2017 State Capitol Development Study, which was adopted by the SCC as an addendum to the State Capitol Master Plan.

The 2006 State Capitol Master Plan was intended as a values-oriented plan focused on principles and policies as opposed to specific design solutions assuming future generations would determine design solutions in alignment with the policies. Currently, two definitions of the West Campus exist. One is defined by the National Register Historic District in alignment with the area planned by the Olmsteds. The boundary excludes the Pritchard, Newhouse, and Press Buildings. Opportunity Sites 5 and 6 i.e., Newhouse & Pritchard sites, respectively, were not planned by the Olmsteds but were eventually included as part of the ongoing evolution of the south campus area. The transformation of a single-family residential neighborhood within the State Capitol Campus speaks too many of the same issues under discussion today. The two blocks under consideration were recognized near the end of that evolution as they represent part of the campus while also representing remnants of the historic neighborhood. The current question pertinent to the LCM project is considering ways to integrate those areas within the campus that were originally not included in the planned landscape by the Olmsteds.

The design team is considering the first two principles from the Capitol Campus Master Plan of Public Use and Access and Delivery of Public Services. Principle 2 of the Master Plan recognizes that it is appropriate to place new functions critical to Legislative Building activities on the south edge of the campus, as well as identifying the highest and best use of Opportunity Sites 5 & 6. The team understands the importance of Principle 4, Historic Preservation, and applicability of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. Principle 5, Design, places the focus on the original capitol group as the central element and that development on the north and south edges would be secondary. New buildings should blend with established style of the west campus and be representative of their own era.

Mr. Schacht identified west campus buildings listed on the National Register. Newhouse and the Conservatory are eligible for listing but are not included on the National Register. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for historic rehabilitation provide guidelines that should be respected moving forward. The application for the National Register Historic District defined the boundary of the Historic District as the area planned by the Olmsteds. The sites under consideration are transitional as they transition between the neighborhood and the Historic District. The design team is considering organizational space on the campus relative to building setbacks and information contained in the 2006 Capitol Campus Master Plan, as well as the 2009 West Capitol Campus Historic Landscape Preservation and Vegetation Management Plan. Within the zone of development for the LCM project, no specific landscape plan other than additional trees included in the 2009 plan guide future development. The 2009 plan focuses on the area planned by the Olmsteds, which excludes Newhouse, Press Houses, Visitor Center, and all associated parking. Mr. Schacht suggested the committee and others involved should develop a vision for the area as the 2009 plan lacks a vision for the area.

Mr. Schacht reported the team also explored all issues involving view corridors, definition of gateways, and relationships with the South Capitol Neighborhood, which should be revisited as part of the public engagement process to ensure all options developed are still appropriate for the project.

In 2017, the Legislature directed a more detailed evaluation of specific sites of the historic West Capitol Campus with information specific to the use of the Pritchard Building and ProArts site, renovation or replacement of the GA Building, replacement of the Newhouse Building, and identification of potential SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 9 of 13

tenants, project costs, and schedules. Mr. Schacht said his professional involvement began with that evaluation.

Mr. Schacht shared an illustration of Opportunity Site 5, Pritchard Building and the parking lot and Opportunity Site 6, Newhouse Building and the current site of the Visitor Center and parking lot. At the onset of the predesign study, the team recognized planning for the sites had been ongoing for the last 40 years. Prior to beginning the process, the team catalogued all plans developed over time. The encyclopedia of information on the sites is informative to anyone engaged in a dialogue about redevelopment of Opportunity Sites 5 and 6. In 2004, a plan was completed to redevelop the Pritchard Building for House offices. In 2006, another plan was completed to expand the Pritchard Building for House offices. Over time, multiple plans were developed for Opportunity Site 6 including the Executive Office Building in 1974 designed by a well-known Pacific Northwest architect.

Mr. Schacht identified the multiple studies for redevelopment of Opportunity Site 6. Additionally, numerous parking studies were completed in addition to a recent parking study as part of the LCM project with the understanding the study was preliminary and additional parking analysis would be required in the next phase of development. In addition to previous planning for the sites prior to the 2017 study, the design team started from scratch and evaluated multiple options for redevelopment of the Pritchard Building site as a conference/event center or visitor services center. The team studied retaining the form of the building, adding to the building, exploring constraints of using the stack area for redevelopment given the small footprint, and considered the limited floor-to-floor height and limited assembly occupancy for events that would require restrooms, elevators, and stairs leaving a limited amount of usable space. The team documented the maximum development capacity of Opportunity Site 5. A similar analysis was completed for different development options for Opportunity 6. Some of those options included a single building replacing the Newhouse Building, colocating the House and Senate offices in a large building, or building out the entire site. The 2006 Master Plan and the 2017 Master Plan underpin what has transpired with the LCM project.

The initial request by the Legislature was to explore three different scenarios of separate House and Senate office buildings, colocating Senate and House offices in one building, and a building for the Senate offices only. The evaluation of the options included a response to the following identified needs:

• New space for offices that are currently housed in the Newhouse Building. • House offices (currently located in the O’Brien Building) are small and many employee workspaces are located outside of offices impeding communication with legislators. Other issues pertain to privacy and security of important correspondence. During the legislative session, advocacy activities crowd the narrow hallways creating a compromise to public safety and egress. The House has requested office space that are right-sized similar to Senate houses with legislative aides located within the office suite similar to the Senate configuration. • Remodeling the O’Brien Building would be necessary to expand office spaces and relocate House office spaces to another building. • Legislative agencies that support legislative functions are appropriately located at the south edge of the campus but in spaces not built for those purposes. Recognizing the importance of the Pritchard Building as an architectural historic landmark, the Pritchard Building is compromised in terms of the environment it provides for occupants and needs to be rehabilitated.

The team developed an initial functional program that included a discussion on the possibility of colocating the House and Senate on Opportunity Sites 6 or 5. However, following conversations with the Legislature and legislative agencies about the importance of adjacencies and relationships between House offices, O’Brien and Legislative Buildings, and Senate offices located in the Cherberg and Legislative Buildings, SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 10 of 13

the team recognized the importance of effective functioning for all the stakeholders, particularly during the legislative session when the Legislature often works overtime to complete work. Consequently, the logic for the proposal was driven by the legislative process.

Both the Newhouse and Pritchard Buildings have significant physical issues. The team considered three alternatives of a separate House and Senate office space, colocated office space on the Pritchard site, a stand-alone Senate building, and re-examination of an option to renovate the Newhouse Building (later proved impractical). The options were presented to the Legislature, which considered them for a year. Following a review of the options, the Legislature provided direction for separate House and Senate office buildings, replacement of the Newhouse Building, consideration for the renovation, expansion, or replacement of the Pritchard Building, and consideration for renovating the O’Brien Building, as well as several other provisional requirements. The program was expanded because part of the analysis reflected value in locating production and design on the campus to improve the flow of work during the legislative session. The scale of the new Newhouse Building should match the scale of the Insurance and Cherberg Buildings. The result would be a four-story building to house legislative agency functions to improve efficiency. A more detailed analysis was completed for parking and security in consultation with a security consultant and traffic consultant. The analysis identified the appropriate security setbacks for cars, roads, and buildings. A program goal designated a provision of secured parking within the campus perimeter. Because of recent national events and events on the campus, the provision for security within the campus was reinforced. Current parking exists on Opportunity Sites 5 and 6. The intent of the design is to utilize landscaping and buffers to create an orderly organization of parking and reduce the number of vehicles as part of an incremental evolution of buildings framing the Great Law with replacement of Newhouse as a first step. Framing campus buildings is an incremental process with the goal of the project to reorganize the space and refocus development over time.

The team studied multiple alternatives of an addition to the Pritchard Building, three and four story building options for the Newhouse replacement, and a Newhouse replacement. The Prichard Building analysis resulted in questions that could not be resolved. The proposed capital budget proviso presents an opportunity to address resolution of the issues. The Pritchard site presents significant hillside issues. Regardless of a setback from the hillside of either 25 feet or 100 feet, stability of the hillside remains an issue and determining the appropriate method for shoring the hillside to preserve Pritchard is an important consideration. The team plans to explore options during the next round of development of the project.

Today, the team has overlaid the proposed LCM predesign over the 2009 West Capitol Campus Historic Landscape Preservation and Vegetation Management Plan (with the understanding that the development of the Pritchard site would be considered). The proposal is not a design but rather a planning document to accommodate dialogue and conversations about the specifics of design; however, in terms of overall intent, landscaping is reflected at the entry of the campus along Sid Snyder, a buffer is included between the neighborhood and Newhouse parking, and there would be less parking on the site by 60 cars. The proposal will be considered in more detail as the team considers the problem statement with the focus on the principles in the 2006 Capitol Campus Master Plan and the 2009 West Capitol Campus Historic Landscape Preservation and Vegetation Management Plan.

Next steps including moving forward on the selection of a design and construction team for the Newhouse replacement. As emphasized earlier, the predesign is not reflective of the design of the buildings, but rather defines the scope of the project and aligns the project with the budget to provide a foundation for the design. An evaluation is planned for the Pritchard Building to examine the possibility of rehabilitating and/or expanding the building rather than replacing the building. Once, the issue is resolved, the design can move forward. Following completion of the Pritchard project, renovation of O’Brien Building will be scheduled to expand House spaces. SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 11 of 13

Lieutenant Governor Heck reviewed the proposed proviso language and recommended any action on the LCM project should be contingent upon the proposed budget proviso language as presented. He described his ongoing conversations with stakeholders resulting in the development of a highly iterative process on how committee could positively affect the project moving forward. At first, he believed the project would never move forward because of the inability to agree on proviso language. His frustration centered on some of the discussions but he never stated or implied that he was authorized to negotiate on behalf of the committee. In fact, the open public meetings law inhabited his ability to engage in discussions with the committee. Within the last 72 hours, he was sure the proposal would not move forward. He conveyed appreciation to Senators Frockt, Honeyford, and Representative Tharinger for their participation in many conversations over the last 48 hours. The proposed language will not make everyone happy, but it is much further along than two months ago. Furthermore, it is important to consider that the Legislature previously proceeded in proposing and building the Helen Sommers Building without SCC approval. That option, according to the Legislature, is available despite the collection of statues reserving SCC’s approval authority for design. It continues to be an open question for the Legislature despite the process for examining the SCC process and what it should entail moving forward. Regardless of the outcome of oversight by either the SCC or another entity, it is important that an entity is responsible with jurisdictional authority to provide stewardship oversight of the campus. At this time, however, the Legislature could still proceed without any budget proviso language or additional input from the SCC.

Assistant Director Frare previously commented on several elements of the proposal language. The language provides that the SCC in consultation with the CCDAC, can review the architectural design proposals for continuity with the 2006 and 2009 plans, provides for a SCC review of design criteria and standards, require an analysis of the comprehensive impacts to the campus and the surrounding neighborhood, and require an evaluation of future workforce projections, traffic impacts, parking needs, visual buffers, campus aesthetics, and a public engagement process. The proposed language requires a preservation study of the Pritchard Building, which much include an analysis of seismic, geotechnical, building codes, constructability, and costs associated with renovation and expansion of the Pritchard Building to accommodate needs. The department shall contract with a third party historic preservation specialist to ensure the study complies with the Secretary of Interior and any applicable standards for historic rehabilitation. The study must include a public engagement process. The study is subject to review and approval by the SCC.

Lieutenant Governor Heck added that his intent is transparency within the process while admitting that he has some inherent biases, such as removal of Newhouse Building as soon as possible, the lack of emphasis on public engagement, and a rush to judgment with respect to the Pritchard Building and its disposition in the process to date. He also is biased in terms of the stewardship of the Capitol Campus, which to some degree resides with the SCC and should be considered seriously by everyone. He also is biased that should the committee move forward with the unprecedented action and act upon the LCM project contingent upon adoption of the proposed budget proviso language, the result will be a much better outcome. Lieutenant Governor Heck invited questions and comments from the committee.

Ms. Wicker advised that she recently received the proposal and wants to ensure she understands the details. However, based on the Chair’s explanation and description, she has no other questions.

Ms. Taylor said she has no questions and thanked Lieutenant Governor Heck for developing the proposal.

Mr. Neary reported he reviewed the proposal with Secretary Wyman prior to the meeting. The first section of the proposal reflects Secretary Wyman’s wishes as she supports more public engagement and additional analysis of the Pritchard Building. She understands the current impacts to buildings and the likelihood that they are not safe at this time. Some of the public comments referred to the Press Houses. He assumes that relocation of the houses would need to occur prior to any other development proceeding. He asked about SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 12 of 13

any additional public comments or concerns other members might have received regarding the Press Houses. Both he and Secretary Wyman appreciate the efforts by Lieutenant Governor Heck. Secretary Wyman is supportive of the proposal.

Lieutenant Governor Heck requested consideration of a motion to approve the LCM project contingent upon the adoption of the budget proviso language.

Kelly Wicker moved, seconded by Katy Taylor, to approve the Legislative Campus Modernization Predesign contingent upon adoption of the proposed budget proviso language. Motion carried unanimously.

Proposed Compact Roundabout for Deschutes Parkway/Lakeridge Drive Intersection (1st Read) – Informational Lieutenant Governor Heck recognized Assistant Director Frare.

Assistant Director Frare introduced Randy Wesselman, Project Manager, and Andrew Beagle, Transportation Engineering Supervisor with the City of Olympia.

Prior to the briefing, Manager Dragon advised that DES received a proposal from the City of Olympia for a roundabout at the intersection of Deschutes Parkway and Lakeridge Drive. DES reviewed the proposal and is working with City staff on a series of technical comments. Several public questions were submitted from the prior presentation. The comments have been retained as part of the record.

Mr. Wesselman thanked the committee for the opportunity to present the proposal for the Lakeridge Drive protected bike lane and compact roundabout at the intersection of Lakeridge Drive and Deschutes Parkway.

Deschutes Parkway is owned and operated by the state of Washington. Lakeridge Drive is under the jurisdiction of the City of Olympia. The project supports the City’s Transportation Master Plan by increasing bicycle connectivity between east and west Olympia. Currently, the City has two primary connections between east and west Olympia. The project would create a low stress bicycle network for all ages and abilities for transportation, as well as creating a low-cost multimodal option for low-income individuals, veterans, minorities, seniors, and the disabled who live in many of the areas surrounding Lakeridge Drive and Evergreen Park Drive. The project supports connectivity for people bicycling eastbound and westbound on Deschutes Parkway.

Mr. Beagle briefed members on some of the design features of the proposed project. The purpose of the compact roundabout is to create space by enabling the removal of auxiliary turn lanes on Lakeridge Drive and converting that space within the existing roadway to a protected bike lane traveling up the hill. Additionally, secondary benefits of the project include speed reduction at the intersection, improved traffic management, and multimodal safety enhancements. The sidewalk modification at the north corner of the intersection enables transition of bicyclists from Deschutes Parkway to the protected bike lane off Lakeridge Drive and it improves the pedestrian crossing on Deschutes Parkway by minimizing the length of the crossing and exposure of pedestrians to traffic. The primary trade-off is the loss of parking along Deschutes Parkway on the lakeside edge of the road.

Design features include a raised area within the center of the roundabout to accommodate larger vehicles and turning movements.] Restriping, tubular markers, symbols, and advisory speed signs will guide drivers on the approach and through the compact roundabout while providing delineation for bicyclists SCC MEETING MINUTES- FINAL March 18, 2021 Page 13 of 13

along the lake edge of the street traveling north around the roundabout. Typical traffic control will be applied during construction.

The City of Olympia currently has two compact roundabouts within its transportation system located on Henderson Boulevard, an arterial roadway and one of the City’s primary truck routes. A wide range of features and styles can be used to design the roundabouts, which is typically at a lower cost than a light- controlled intersection. The use of roundabouts assist the City in addressing more locations, user needs, and they increase safety and access to destinations for community members.

Mr. Beagle directed the committee to a conceptual visualization of the roundabout design.

Mr. Wesselman advised that much of the improvement would reuse existing pavement with the central island of the roundabout featuring a raised concrete feature with the remaining features consisting of striping, signage, markers, and a slight modification to the sidewalk curb within the northwest quadrant. The City anticipates construction to begin in late summer 2021. The proposal is at 60% design. Construction will occur over a two-month period. The construction budget is estimated at $402,000 with the City of Olympia assuming all costs for the improvements. Mr. Wesselman invited questions from the committee.

Lieutenant Governor Heck mentioned that he lives near one of the City’s compact roundabouts and was nearly hit as a motorist increased speed after entering the roundabout because the center of the roundabout was not of sufficient height to inhibit speeding.

Manager Dragon advised that DES did not receive any additional public comments. The public can submit comments by referring to information on how to submit email comments.

Lieutenant Governor Heck thanked the City of Olympia and DES for providing the briefing.

Future Announcements and Adjournment of Meeting – Action The next meeting is scheduled on Thursday, May 2021 followed by a June 17, 2021 meeting. The meetings will be remote meetings DES posts meetings agendas and packets on the DES website prior to each meeting.

With there being no further business, Lieutenant Governor Heck adjourned the meeting at 11:50 a.m.

Prepared by Valerie L. Gow, Recording Secretary/President Puget Sound Meeting Services, [email protected]

Approved by SCC at the June 17, 2021 Meeting without modifications.

State Capitol Campus Committee Lieutenant Governor Denny Heck (Chair), Secretary of State Kim Wyman (Vice Chair), Governor Inslee’s Designee Kelly Wicker, and Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz

MARCH 18, 2021 (REMOTE ACCESS MEETING)

Public Comments Received

The attached public comments were received by 4:00 PM on March 17, 2021.

Enterprise Services staff provided a summary or acknowledgment of the public comments received during the dedicated Public Comment Period on the agenda.

One summary response may have addressed multiple comments. From: Allen T. Miller To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:39:47 PM

External Email

SCC and CCDAC members,

Architectural historian Professor Henry-Russell Hitchcock and historian William Seale stated in their seminal work, Temples of Democracy: The State Capitols of the USA (1976):

“It was at Olympia, Washington, that the American Renaissance in state capitol building reached its climax. . . . Such a collection of Classical buildings on a plateau surmounting a green hill 117 feet above sea level proved an irresistible vision. It would be a spectacular monument , with Mt. Rainier in one direction, the Olympic Range in another, and lush forest between them all mirrored in the blue water below. The City Beautiful, a concept of perfection evolved for dense urban scenes, seemed destined now to achieve its finest expression in the natural landscape of the Pacific Northwest. . . .Unknowingly, in crowning the Olympia hill with temples, Wilder & White had realized Jefferson’s dream of an American Capitoline.”

These words should resonate with all of you as you consider the predesign for the West Campus. A planning effort that takes into account the Wilder & White and Olmsted Brothers plans for the West Campus is essential. As an amateur architectural historian living in Eastern Washington it is important for the SCC and CCDAC to recognize the importance of the State Capitol Campus to all Washingtonians and to give the public the opportunity to participate in the predesign process.

It may be easy to see that the Nationally Registered Paul Thiry-designed State Library Building (1953) enhances the Wilder & White design, whereas the General Administration Building (1956) does not. American Renaissance principles must be applied in considering major changes to the most beautiful State Capitol Campus in the nation. A comprehensive predesign approach is a necessity.

Thank you for your service. Please contact me with any questions.

Allen “AT” Miller Of Counsel Lukins & Annis, PS 717 W. Sprague Ave, Ste 1600 Spokane, WA 99201-0466 [email protected] www.lukins.com

509-455-9555 (office) 509-363-5212 (fax) 360-402-3376 (cell)

Disclaimer

This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Lukins & Annis, P.S.

NOTICE: This email may contain confidential or privileged material, and is intended solely for use by the above referenced recipient. Any review, copying, printing, disclosure, distribution, or any other use, is strictly prohibited.

If you are not the recipient, and believe that you have received this in error, please notify the sender and delete the copy you received.

Thank You! From: Marygrace Goddu To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: March 17 2021 SCC Public Comments Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:54:43 AM

External Email

Dear State Capitol Committee Members:

Thank you for your ongoing commitment to stewardship of Washington’s magnificent Capitol Campus.

You have before you now and in meetings to come, a set of significant decisions that will permanently alter our historic Capitol Campus. I appreciate this opportunity to offer public comment.

Design of a Newhouse replacement should not preclude the option for an adjoining building to accommodate other Legislative space needs, including those of the House. That option remains the most practical in terms of costs, sustainability, land conservation, and impact to the campus. Proximity concerns can be problem-solved and mitigated and should not drive the entire bus, given all that is at stake. Every effort must be made to work with what we already have, by pushing services that are not essential to lawmaking outward, and utilizing space in the Insurance, Legislative, and Pritchard Buildings, and a replacement to the GA Building.

It is essential that the Pritchard Building study be both thorough and independent, commissioned and directed by the State Capitol Committee rather than simply “presented for review” to the SCC. I urge that scope of the study consider a full range of use options, including those that retain its original program of serving the public. This building and this site at the center of the democratic process were intended to serve the public. The facility needs of the public should not fall perennially last (literally), at the very bottom of the DES 10-year capital plan.

There should be a considered process for examining mitigation options for loss of the historic Ayer and Carlyon Houses. The apparent lack of any public engagement in developing the current, late-breaking auction proposal is typical of the planning approach the State has pursued throughout this development initiative. Following the example of SEPA, Governor’s Executive Order 05-05, and federal historic preservation standards, there is typically a community conversation to help develop options and determine appropriate mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts on communities. An attempt to relocate the buildings at private expense is but one (fairly meager and improbable) idea. The committee that is being formed to review SCC statutes and authorities should include members of the public and historic preservation professionals and its scope should be broad, with a goal of developing modernized, agile, and balanced governance for the Capitol Campus. As a deeply interested participant, the Department of Enterprise Services should not be tasked with facilitating that discussion. Rather, an independent consultant could shepherd the process to conclusions and allow DES to act as a full participant or as subject matter expert to the process.

Again, thank you for consideration and for all you do to serve the public and our remarkable, precious, finite, and historic Capitol Campus.

Yours,

Marygrace Goddu Citizen of Olympia From: Douglas A. Luetjen To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Dede Petri; Wyman, Kim (SOS); [email protected]; DNR RE CPL; Wicker, Kelly (GOV); Dragon, Kevin (DES); [email protected] Subject: Legislative Campus Modernization Project Comment Letter--Friends of Seattle"s Olmsted Parks Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:45:22 AM Attachments: FSOP-Ltr_to_State_Capitol_Committee_-_Olympia.pdf FSOP State Capitol Brochure.pdf

External Email

Attached is the comment letter and supporting materials submitted to the State Capitol Committee concerning the Legislative Campus Modernization Project. Thank you.

Douglas Luetjen, President Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks

Please consider the environment before printing this email IMPORTANT/CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail message (and any attachments accompanying it) may contain confidential information, including information protected by attorney-client privilege. The information is intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). Delivery of this message to anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not intended to waive any privilege or otherwise detract from the confidentiality of the message. If you are not the intended recipient, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, do not read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate or otherwise use this transmission, rather, please promptly notify the sender by reply e-mail, and then destroy all copies of the message and its attachments, if any. Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks P.O. BOX 9884, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98109-0884 SEATTLEOLMSTED.ORG [email protected]

Board of Directors March 16, 2021

Douglas Luetjen State Capitol Committee President Washington Dept. of Enterprise Services Jenifer Rees Immediate Past President PO Box 41401 Olympia, WA 98504-1401 Donald Harris Vice President

Annie Vasquez Treasurer Re: Washington Capitol Grounds Legislative Campus Modernization Project Sarah Whitney Secretary Dear Members of the State Capitol Committee:

Bob Baines We are writing to you on behalf of the Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks. Our

Kyle Capizzi organization’s mission includes the charge to educate the broader community about the history and legacy of the parks, boulevards and other landscapes throughout the Pacific Northwest Jennifer Cargal designed or otherwise influenced by the Olmsted Brothers landscape architecture firm and to Douglas Jackson advocate for the protection of the historic design intent, maintenance and improvement of these sites. One of the most well-known and important of these sites is the State of Andy Mitton Washington Capitol Grounds. We write today to express our concerns about the Legislative Sue Nicol Campus Modernization Project. We are concerned about both the design direction this project is taking and the expedited approval process currently underway. Laura Marie Rivera Design Direction: Mark Sindell

Shauna Wilson To begin, we think it important to review the existing records regarding the Washington Capitol Grounds. The 2009 Landscape Preservation Master Plan for the West Campus paints a clear and compelling picture of how the West Campus currently lacks much of the spatial SPR Liaison definition originally intended, and it makes detailed recommendations for how to improve this Kevin Bergsrud condition. Greater spatial definition along the street edges and within the greensward were recommended to orient and direct visitors as well as engage them with the site. Edge conditions for the West Campus are important for creating a clear and distinct arrival point Board of Advisors when traveling along Jerry Arbes Capitol Way. John Barber Unfortunately, the Eliza Davidson newest proposal under David Dougherty Ann Hunt consideration, to Anne Knight include one-and-a-half Brooks Kolb blocks of surface Kate Krafft parking located along Penny Kriese Susan Olmsted the south edge of the Jennifer Ott West Campus, would Carla Rickerson further erode an Larry Sinnott already poorly Virginia Wilcox delineated edge and would create a vacuous presence right where entry to the West Campus should be celebrated and highlighted. Please note the accompanying photo, illustrating how vacuous and deadening these lots can be. (Source: Mithun, 2008.) It would also further exacerbate unwelcoming conditions between the West Campus and the South Olympia neighborhood immediately adjacent.

#1979426 v1 / 99988-503 March 16, 2021 Page 2

The Olmsted Brothers firm, original designers of the West Campus, advised that parking be located and treated so as not to dominate the campus or building entries. Reported one member of the firm in 1927, “The parking area immediately south east of the insurance building was to be eliminated and arranged amongst the trees south of the Capitol Building. Finally when those two buildings were built, the basements should be used for car storage.” (Source: Library of Congress.) (Emphasis added). State Capitol Committee Secretary Savidge wrote in May 1928 that “I agree with you absolutely in the matter of automobile parking around the new Capitol Group after the landscaping is done. I think that all citizens should be willing to cooperate in the matter of keeping automobiles away from prominent portions of the grounds.” (Source: Library of Congress.) Consistent with these earlier observations and recommendations, the 2009 Master Plan recognized the need for additional parking to serve the Capitol and advised that new parking be added in structures and that surface parking be removed incrementally from the most prominent locations within the historic core. Review and Approval Process:

The Legislative Campus Modernization project currently under review offers a single design solution for addressing current needs. Although several possible options were described in a 2017 study, only the single design alternative currently under review was selected and is now being moved forward without any public engagement or input. We are distressed to see that a major capital improvement to an historic, publicly-held property of such paramount significance to the citizens of the State would be considered with nearly no public input. Design proposals for publicly-held land should be shaped to benefit everyone. Frederick Law Olmsted, “father of landscape architecture” and designer of the US Capitol Campus, embraced the then burgeoning idea of democratic space for all to use and enjoy. As he wrote in 1865, “In a republic like the United States, the richest citizens must not be allowed to monopolize the most beautiful areas for their own enjoyment. Such areas must be reserved for the public . . . .” His sons’ firm, the Olmsted Brothers, employed this same thinking in their design of the Washington Capitol Grounds. To practice this important civic principle, and to avoid monopolizing design direction regarding improvements at our Capitol’s West Campus, we encourage the DES to take a step back in this process to explore with the public several design solution alternatives. In this process we urge serious consideration of what use and physical presence is to be located at the West Campus’ southeast corner, which currently desires better definition. We also urge that treatment along the campus periphery, particularly where it abuts residential neighborhoods, be made more inviting with intentionally designed connections. Most importantly, we encourage DES to make the process open and inclusive, something that everyone certainly expects for major changes to the State’s Capitol Grounds. Finally, we note that 2022 will mark the 200th anniversary of Frederick Law Olmsted’s birth. This bicentennial will be widely celebrated across the country, with particular focus on our public parks and other public grounds. There will be a national focus on the major Olmsted projects. We anticipate that many Washingtonians as well as out-of-state visitors will be exploring our most important public grounds designed by the Olmsted firm. This attention will of course include the Washington Capitol Campus as a premier example of their legacy. Let us work together to ensure that our Capitol campus and its

#1979426 v1 / 99988-503 March 16, 2021 Page 3 continuing legacy inspire a sense of democracy and civic pride symbolized by careful stewardship of our historic State Capitol. Sincerely,

FRIENDS OF SEATTLE’S OLMSTED PARKS

Jenifer Rees, Past-President Douglas A. Luetjen

Douglas A. Luetjen, President

cc: National Association for Olmsted Parks Kim Wyman, Secretary of State: [email protected] Denny Heck, Lieutenant Governor: [email protected] Hilary Franz, Commissioner of Public Lands: [email protected] Kelly Wicker, Governor's Representative to the Committee: [email protected] Kevin Dragon, DES: [email protected] Chris Moore, Washington Trust for Historic Preservation: [email protected]

#1979426 v1 / 99988-503

The Architecture of the Capitol Trees: The George Washington Elm Monuments and Memorials “The location…on its elevated point above he grand American elm has become a symbol of patriotism. In 1932, the he Capitol Campus is home to a and the TSacajawea Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution planted a Tnumber of memorials and monuments. Puget Sound is most unique and this distinction will be memorial American elm [T] at the northeast corner of the West Campus of the On the West Campus several of these quite lost unless advantage is taken of the location.” Capitol, to honor the 200th anniversary of the birth of George Washington. A relate to important focal points of Washington State Capitol second generation scion from the original George Washington Elm in Cambridge, the Olmsted landscape plan. The WILDER AND WHITE, ARCHITECTS Massachusetts, it honors the Olmsted intent to include elms in the landscape. JANUARY 25,1921 memorial for World War I, referred to as the Winged Victory [E], “…the planting…should, if possible, be of the he fi rst generation scion of the Cambridge elm was planted by 1902 at the fi nest quality…confi ned to dignifi ed masses...and TUniversity of Washington by Edmond Meany. That tree also provided a scion to replace the original elm in Cambridge when it died. Subsequently, offspring not in any way be scattered or small in effect. …the replaced the University of Washington elm and another was planted buildings are very large and of a splendid character, THE GEORGE in reserve on the and…the planting ought to correspond…” WASHINGTON Capitol campus. ELM [T] IS A SCION (DESCENDANT) OF THE AMERICAN ELM IN CAMBRIDGE, MA, JAMES FREDERICK DAWSON - APRIL 25, 1927 UNDER WHICH, WINGED VICTORY MONUMENT WITH THE TEMPLE OF JUSTICE BEYOND LEGEND SAYS, FOUNDING is the focal point of the two diagonal entry drives into campus. To the south of the Legislative Building, the Territorial Sundial [J], which depicts the early history The Landscape of the Capitol WASHINGTON STATE CAPITOL DOME TOWERS OVER THE CAMPUS FATHER, GEORGE AT 287 FEET, JUST ONE FOOT SHORTER THAN THE U.S. CAPITOL BUILDING. WASHINGTON, TOOK 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. he State of Washington decided to use a group of buildings for its Capitol TROOPS ON JULY 3, Tinstead of one large building. The selected architects, Wilder and White, took 1775, DURING the challenge and worked to group the buildings so that “their design so related THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. to each other that from any point without they appear to be a single structure,” and thus exhibit “greater magnifi cence than in a single building.” OCTOBER 2009

ther signifi cant trees growing on the S OLMSTED VIEW OF CAPITOL CAMPUS FROM HERITAGE PARK [N] OCapitol grounds include a champion he Washington State Capitol is a master work of the Olmsted Brothers fi rm. English oak [S], the largest in the country. WASHINGTON STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL VIEWPOINT Five large Tulip trees frame Flag Circle [H], TThe landscape design celebrates the Pacifi c Northwest’s natural bounty of The Washington State Law Enforcement Memorial [M], north of the Temple of Kwanzan cherries line Cherry Lane [G], forest, the Deschutes River, Puget Sound and stunning mountain views. It also Justice [L], is a terrace viewpoint which takes “advantage of the splendid view” and Yoshino cherries frame the south face expresses the democratic process with its progression through increasingly Dawson described in 1927. It was a gift to the people of Washington in 2006. formal landscape “rooms” enclosed by trees and understory plantings. While of the Legislative Building [I]. Treasured The serenity of the view across the lake and the sound to the mountains beyond is many of the layers of vegetation intended to create gateways and defi ne spaces by the Olmsted Brothers, Douglas fi rs an integral component of this memorial. are missing three-quarters of a century later, these can be reinstated over time. provide a powerful native backdrop. Over Enough remains of the overall landscape to observe the Olmsted plan’s essential time aging trees will need replacement to hese and other memorials [R] [C] [D] found on the West Campus, as well as landscape patterns and characteristics across the campus from wild to pastoral to maintain the important framework of the Tones on the East Campus, recognize the ultimate sacrifi ces made over the controlled formality. campus landscape. years to restore peace in the world and keep the citizens of Washington safe.

he Olmsted Brothers introduced four general landscape characters to help “In a republic like the Tstructure the campus and provide a sequence of visual experiences as one Legacy for the Citizens of Washington moves through the landscape. United States, the richest ashington State’s seat of government is ideally situated at the threshold between the citizens must not be allowed Street Edge: The street edge was Wcommunity and the natural environment. The early designers took advantage of the intended to connect the Capitol majesty of the surrounding landscape by drawing it into the campus and making it a part to monopolize the most with the surrounding community, of the experience. They used the native landscape and vistas of water and mountains to beautiful areas for their own welcoming and drawing people fi rmly root the Capitol campus within its magnifi cent setting and to inspire a constant enjoyment. Such areas must into the campus through a rhythm commitment to the public good and participation of ordinary citizens in a healthy democracy. be reserved for the public... ” and canopy of street trees. Though the intent of this landscape he state Capitol Campus demonstrates the importance of a comprehensive approach FREDERICK LAW OLMSTED, SR. character is under-realized, some Tin integrating the grounds within the larger setting. The Olmsted Brothers fi rm AUGUST 1865 existing street trees continue to understood the importance of the surrounding landscape - the forest, water, and mountains illustrate this effect. - to the state’s most signifi cant civic space. One of the most evident ways that both the HISTORIC VIEW ALONG NORTH DIAGONAL Olmsted fi rm and Wilder and White responded to the campus setting was through a north/ Greensward: The greensward was intended to provide a semi-open, south axial relationship. The Olmsted fi rm then developed the elegant landscape plan park-like foreground for the Capitol Group of buildings. It to connect this to the community to the east and provide a dramatic welcome to all the incorporated layered vegetation and lawns citizens of the state and its many visitors. punctuated by specimen trees allowed any of the character-defi ning features of the Olmsteds’ brilliant design still exist. to reach their full height and MHowever, incremental changes to the campus can obscure the historic vision. spread. Much of the layered The number of existing trees is one-third of those originally intended for the vegetation was never planted campus, leaving much of the Olmsted design unrealized. Future due to a lack of funds during planting will provide an opportunity for alignment with the Great Depression; though historic intent. The Olmsted vision of a richly layered some areas within the campus prelude to entering the state’s center of governance portray this park-like character. then can be fully realized and citizens can proudly J HERNANDEZ enjoy the dual legacy of an architectural heritage Formal Landscape: The formal landscape was intended to be the most of democracy, drawn from ancient Greece, artfully structured, to complement the formal symmetry of the Capitol embraced in a landscape setting that showcases Group of buildings and to inspire an air of decorum within Washington State and its extraordinary resources. the engaged citizenry of a democratic society. Comprised of balanced, symmetrical arrangements of trees, shrubs, 2009 WEST CAPITOL CAMPUS fl owering perennials and groundcovers, examples are FUTURE VIEWS ACROSS THE FLAG CIRCLE (ABOVE) AND THE GREENSWARD FROM CAPITOL WAY (BELOW) LANDSCAPE PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN found in tree allées [G], foundation plantings [L] and the Sunken Garden [P]. Native Edge: The native forest along the west, north, and south, provides a natural frame for the Capitol that is uniquely Northwest. The forest, though needing rejuvenation, gives a

powerful context to the D BALDWIN Capitol setting. VIEW FROM SUNKEN GARDEN

The 2009 Master Plan and Vegetation Management Plan provide a 50-year vision SUSAN OLMSTED, 2009 for landscape restoration, coupled with a framework for accomplishing it. The SHOWN WITH HISTORICALLY-INTENDED LAYERS OF VEGETATION, THE GREENSWARD HAS A BALANCED ARRANGEMENT OF ELM TREES LEADING THE EYE TO THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE plans will guide efforts to preserve and honor the characteristics and features of CAPITOL COMMISSION RECORDS, WASHINGTON STATE ARCHIVES CAPITOL G ROUP ALONG THE MAJOR EAST/WEST AXIS. THIS IS REINFORCED BY THE 1953 REPLICA OF THE T IVOLI F OUNTAIN [B]. WALKWAYS INVITE PEDESTRIANS TO MEANDER THROUGH the historic Olmsted Brothers design, while addressing contemporary conditions. ©2010 FRIENDS OF SEATTLE’S OLMSTED PARKS OTHER LANDSCAPE ‘ ROOMS’. LAYERS OF GROUND COVERS, LOW SHRUBS, AND UNDERSTORY AND CANOPY TREES DEFINE THE EDGES, WHILE ACCOMMODATING A RANGE OF ACTIVITIES. From: Rob To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: West Campus Construction Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 2:46:35 PM

External Email We hope the legislature requires DES to go through a larger public process before making any major changes to the Capitol Campus. We live on Maple Park Ave SE across from the Employment Security Building. The Day Care center was a total surprise to us. THe Capitol Campus is of course a large part of our neighborhood and we would like more input about future designs. Thanks, Rob Kirkwood and Valerie Hammett Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Jennifer Mortensen Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:08 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Subject: SCC 3/18 Comments - Campus Modernization Attachments: HSR_WashingtonStateLibrary.pdf

External Email

Dear State Capitol Committee Members:

I would like to first thank you for your response to the public concerns about the modernization plan for the Capitol Campus. This is such an iconic and important public resource and it is critical that major planning decisions have public input. We very much appreciate the decision to include a robust public process as the SCC collaborates with the CCDAC to include consideration of campus master planning efforts. The Washington Trust very much looks forward to participating in that process.

We also strongly agree with DES’s decision to conduct a preservation study of the Pritchard Building that includes compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The Washington Trust would welcome the opportunity to consult on the scope of this study, and the 2002 historic structures report by Artifacts Consulting, attached, will also be a helpful tool for that assessment.

The Washington Trust respectfully requests that the preservation study as well as any additional design, seismic, and/or geotechnical studies be completed by parties independent to the process thus far, so that a full range of information and perspectives can be considered. We feel there are many alternative uses—such as a conference/event space or a visitor services center as presented in the meeting packet—that would be better suited to the Prichard Building than conversion to office space.

Finally, the Washington Trust would welcome the opportunity to serve on any advisory committee or working group formed to assist in the campus modernization process as it moves forward.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I will be attending tomorrow’s meeting and would like to also state my comments verbally, if permitted.

Sincerely,

Jennifer (Jay) Mortensen | Outreach Director she / her / hers

Washington Trust for Historic Preservation 1204 Minor Avenue | Seattle, WA 98101 206-462-2999 (d) | 206-624-9449 (o) preservewa.org

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance in the research and writing of this document. American Association of Univeristy Women: Ruth Furman, Nancyhelen Fischer Artech Inc. Barbara Johns Barten Attaberry Bud Schorr Del-Teet Furniture Company: Polly Teeter DoCoMoMoWeWa Greg Bell Mary Grace Jennings Meredith L. Clausen, Ph.D. National Trust for Historic Preservation Paul Thiry Jr. Ralph Munro Rita Hupy Seattle Public Library Tacoma Art Museum Tacoma Public Library Northwest Room Thomas E. Evans University of Washington Special Collections: Nicolette Bromberg University of Washington Tacoma Washington State Archives Washinton State Department of General Administration’s drawing archives: Cipriano Araiza Washington State Historical Society/State Capital Museum Washington State Library: Shirley Lewis Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Washington Trust for Historic Preservation

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR TABLE OF CONTENTS

Administrative Data 1

Executive Summary 3

Historic Background 9 1.1 Significance Statement 11 1.2 History of Washington State Library 12 1.3 Campus Planning 23 1.4 Paul Thiry 25

Chronology of Development 31 2.1 Building Technology 33 2.2 Architectural Description 35 2.3 Physical Modifications 51 2.4 Art 54 2.5 Furnishings Selection 65

Condition Assessment 69 3.1 Exterior 71 3.2 Interior 75 3.3 Art 78 3.4 Decision Making Matrix 79 3.5 Analysis of Significance 83

Conclusions 95 4.1 Summary 97

Appendices 99 5.1 Profiles 101 5.2 Modernism 110 5.3 Library Planning 112 5.4 Contractor List 114 5.5 GA Drawing Index 115 5.6 Colored Transparencies List 117 5.7 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 119

Resource List 123 Bibliography 125

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is being written at a point in time when the original library function and program for the building have been relocated and an analysis is under way to reuse the historic structure for offices and public he Washington State Library was the last monumental building to be T spaces. This dramatic transition in pur pose creates an immediate added to the Historic Capitol Campus. In time and history it is separated secondary function for this document as a resource and reference in from the Neo Classical Legislative Building, Temple of Justice and planning interior and exterior modifications to the building. As with any attendant structures by the Second World War and the mid point of the specialized use building, adaptations away from the original designed 20 th Century. In appearance and design, it differs in architectural purpose require a balanced understanding of both the building’s sensibilities with a decidedly expressed idea about modernity and form. inherent physical characteristics and the versatility of the proposed The graceful structure that creates the southern margin of the use program. architectural group is, however, an inseparable part of the architectural composition and a fitting last phrase in the 40 year process of building What is an Historic Structures Repor t? Washington State’s Capitol campus.

An Historic Structures Report (HSR) is a written and illustrated reference The Library Building was designed and constructed just thirty years document that provides a thorough historic and architectural evaluation after the pivotal domed Legislative Building; yet in construction and of a building or site. It identifies significant original and subsequently design the two monumental structures seem ages apart. While the added features and spaces,existing appearance and condition, and central Legislative Building referenced Greek and Roman Classical historic events associated with the structure. The purpose of this architecture and stone masonry building methods, the State Library evaluation is to provide a basis which will be used to make decisions introduced highly modern design pr inciples and innovative new relating to maintenance, restoration or rehabilitation of the building. materials and engineering. In many ways, the buildings are counterpoints to one another, reflecting a symbolic appreciation of the An HSR is usually prepared for buildings, objects or sites that are on the past and a sense of promise about the future. National Register of Historic Places prior to planning any alterations, additions, rehabilitation, or restoration of an historic structure. The report In recognizing that the State Library Building has achieved significance is used to guide contemporary modifications, reuse or restoration of as an historic structure, there is a coalescing of thought and perception the property. The National Park Service, under the guidance of the U.S. about the group of monumental buildings that comprise the historic Department of the Interior, establishes specific guidelines and contents Capitol Campus. The intention of this document is to consolidate for the creation of Historic Structures Reports, and provides advice on historical and physical information about the Library Building and create when they should be done. These reports are required when work is a platform for further planning, improvements and preservation within performed on Federally-owned historic buildings and are recommended a comprehensive idea of the historic Capitol Campus. for other buildings that have considerable historic significance.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

are provided later). A list of significant features in each room, as well as Purpose of This Repor t items that were not original, was developed. This comprehensive record of the building comprised the working reference files for subsequent Although this Historic Structures Report is primarily intended to be an physical analysis and architectural assessments. extensive repository of information concerning the historic and architectural significance of the Washington State Library Building, the As this document is employed in future planning and research related to document is also prepared to provide basic information for reuse of the the State Library Building, its content will guide decisions about building in concert with legislative and governmental office and public maintenance, modification and conservation on a very detailed level. space needs. In addition to describing in narrative the history and The information incorporates an understanding of historic preservation significance of the Library, this Historic Structures Report is intended design guidelines such as the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for to identify the architecturally significant spaces to be incorporated into Rehabilitation, and accepted practices in regard to architectural the planning and development of an approach for the future treatment conservation methods. The content organization is designed to facilitate of the Library Building. that use and present a clear and accurate understanding of the building as an historic structure. This report is anchored on a detailed room-by-room survey and inventory of architecturally significant features and spaces both outside and inside Summary of Repor t the structure. The purpose of this survey was to investigate the historic character of the building and identify original, intact elements of the In compliance with conventions for content of an Historic Structures mid-century architecture. This will allow for the protection and Report, this document includes an expanded exploration of the following preservation of the historic fabric of the building and provide standards subjects and chapters: for new construction. Significance of Property: An extensive background statement on the The survey was performed during the spring and summer of 2002. At building is provided in the form of historical narratives, photographic that time, the Washington State Library had recently vacated the building and graphic illustrations and primary source materials. The materials and temporary modifications were being constructed to house the are prepared to address the criteria for designation of historic sites and Washington State Senate Chambers and offices, as well as related landmarks as applied by the National Park Service and the National functions such as the Bill Room. Each room and volume within the Library Register of Historic Places. Building was visited, photographed and catalogued, as were the entire exterior and related landscape areas. Each room was examined, checked against original architectural plans and noted as to its present use and condition. Then each room was categorized by public accessibility and historic significance (descriptions of these categories

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Historic Persons or Events: The historic narratives and background materials explore key personalities and individuals associated with the Setting and Developing Post WWII Context on Capitol Campus: Th e building’s planning, construction and use. This subject matter is a central State Library marked the beginning of post war construction on the criterion in evaluating the significance of historic properties and sites Capitol Campus and presaged the development of the West Campus. that may not display dramatic architectural or physical characteristics. Sections of the HSR address the completion of the Capitol Campus, the Library’s relation to and importance within the Capitol Group as an Architectural Description: The report includes a detailed written institution (Library of Congress model), and the changing physical needs description of the building with a systematic discussion of interior and of State Government. exterior features and spaces, modifications, and assessment of current condition. Relationship to National, Regional, and Local History: The institutional development of a State Library was interwoven with a larger regional Public/Private Recommendations: Maps and coded drawings are and national movement toward education and learning. Triggered in the included in the report indicating relative historic importance of interior minds of some by the Russian Sputnik in space and a sense of America’s spaces and rooms, exterior facades and overall massing and trailing scientific and educational development, this social reaction fenestration. Typically there is a correlation between historic/ helped build the Library. Sections of the HSR discuss statewide library architectural significance and public access. support and involvement, planning drawn from libraries across the nation, and the underlying social purpose of the institution and building. Architectural/Engineering: As an historic property from the recent past, there are several physical elements of the building that are Interior Design Elements, Views, and Orientation: When completed, markedly dissimiliar from the other monumental structures in the Capitol the State Library was a catalog of mid-century design ideas both in group. These distinct characteristics merit a thorough discussion within public libraries and buildings and in architecture at large. Sections of this HSR and are addressed in the following sections: Modernism and both the historical narratives and the physical descriptions address the its regional variations (Appendix, 5.2), Waffle Slab construction integration of contemporary library planning principles--in-depth (Chronology of Development, 2.1), and the work of architect Paul Thiry evaluation by library staff leading to specific choices of furnishings (Historic Background, 1.4). (approved by architect for aesthetic compatibility) and site and orientational concepts that affected its location and juxtaposition on Spatial Assessment: The building was designed around an innovative the Capitol Campus. approach to the State Library’s distinct needs in serving the legislature and government, other modern libraries and public library users around the state. The HSR assesses the significance of the spaces with an eye toward potential new uses and a reconfigured program for the interior. Spaces of high historic and architectural significance that do not lend themselves to physical modification are identified and discussed.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Aesthetic Development, Artwork and Craftsmanship: A distinctive materials, as well as the high degree of maintenance that has been element of the State Library is the wardrobe of original furnishings and provided over the decades, leaves a building of exceptional merit and important artworks that were commissioned for the building. The HSR historic value. It is the most intact historic building on the Capitol provides sections that describe the integration of works by significant Campus. In the years to come, its ascension to full appreciation as an local artists and craftsmen on both interior and exterior, and the design historic landmark is inevitable. Policies and standards for treatment of and compatibility of the furniture line with the aesthetics of the building. the building should match those for the Legislative Building and the other historic structures in the Capitol group. Portfolio: The Historic Structures Report includes a portfolio volume that presents a photographic documentation of the building currently, Historic Significance: The State Library Building is among the region’s historic photographs showing its original and historic appearance, and most important mid-century works of public architecture. Architect Paul original architectural drawings and site plans. Thiry was at the height of his intellectual and professional career when he designed the building and it represents a masterpiece among his Summary of HSR Findings and Conclusions works. As the final monumental public building added to the Historic Capitol Campus, the State Library Building is a critical element in the The general conclusions that arise out of this report are organized under architectural group and deserves preservation treatments equal to the the captions below and may be individually studied in more detail within other historic buildings. the appropriate sections of the main report. It must be noted that current (2002) modifications and installations to accommodate the State Senate Architectural Context: The Library Building brings both architectural are recognized as temporary and planned for removal. Therefore, with compatibility and diversity to the historic Capitol Campus. In its basic the exception of some new building system components such as kitchen form and scale, it effectively references the Legislative Building and facilities, they are largely disregarded in the report and conclusions. the attendant structures without being overly assertive in presence. The use of Wilkeson Sandstone on the exterior and well placed public The conclusions address the specific historic preservation findings, interior spaces addressing the Legislative Building create a satisfying conditions and issues that exist currently and should shape plans and southern boundary for the architectural group. policies for stewardship and maintenance of the structure. They should also be integrated into planning for the adaptive reuse of the Library Condition Assessment: The condition of the Library Building is generally Building and the design of any physical modifications or additions to excellent and reflects high maintenance standards and thoughtful the historic building. modifications. The historic integrity of the building’s original design has not been significantly compromised by wear or the minor alterations As a preamble to any conclusions about the building, it should be noted that have been made. There are minor indications of deterioration, that the State Library Building is in a remarkable state of architectural particularly in public areas, that can be corrected within the scope of integrity and original condition. The inherent quality of its design and work for the planned reuse of the building for offices.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

slab coffered ceilings in the stacks area exhibit a unique engineering Treatment Recommendations/Exterior: The simple geometric form and design feature of the building and should be left visible if possible. of the building and overall modest scale presents a visual character The spacious open volume of the main floor with its overlooking that does not lend itself to massive modification or addition. Architect mezzanine is architecturally important and central to the overall design Paul Thiry developed ideas and drawings for a rear addition to the and proportions of the building. Subdivisioning and partitioning should structure, so there is an historic precedent for additional massing on be undertaken with sensitivity to the high visibility of this area through the east and west walls of the stacks section. Banded glazing that repeats the main facade glazing and to the role it plays in giving the Library a the main front facade of the building should be used if windows are monumental character. In assessing the spacial options for interior added on the sides and rear of the stacks. The front north elevation of volumes and areas, priority should be given to retaining area uses, such the stack section is highly visible and architecturally important. Added as public uses in the main floor reading area and the Washington Room, fenestration on the wall should be approached cautiously. The exterior and offices in the east side of the main floor and the lower level. courtyard and enclosure wall on the east and open view to the Legislative Building from the porch are integral to the original design of Design Integrity/Future Modifications: The State Library Building was the building and site. The main entry, porch and roof should be designed with the idea that it would be expanded through additions in considered integral to the building and treated with the same importance massing and volume. Drawings, plans and sketches for additions to the as primary interior spaces. Should additions be made to the building, building by the original architect exist and Paul Thiry’s conceptual they should be subordinated to the visual integrity of the primary facade approach to the design for the Library is documented and can be when viewed from the Legislative Building (north). extrapolated from his writings and other works. These sources should be employed in developing plans for additions and modifications to the The mid 1990s modifications to divide the massive glazing panels on structure and site. The design integrity of the State Library Building is the primary facade of the building should be reversed. The open view anchored by its orientation and compositional reference to the form of from the interior as well as the undivided translucent curtain wall effect the central Legislative Building. from the exterior are central design features of the building and distinguishing characteristics that have been lost. Furnishings & Artwork: The historic and aesthetic merits of the original furnishings and site specific artworks for the State Library Building Treatment Recommendations/Interior: The original design intent at have been largely overlooked and undervalued. An effort should be the State Library involved clearly defined interior public areas that launched to inventory the remaining original furnishings commissioned displayed many of the most significant architectural and aesthetic for the building. Conservation methods should be adopted and elements in the building. The Washington Room, lower gallery and implemented in regard to the artworks. The three primary interior site reading room area of the main floor should be given priority specific artworks by Kenneth Callahan, Mark Tobey and James consideration for public access and use in any future plans. The waffle FitzGerald deserve particular attention as they must be considered among the most important public artworks at the Capitol.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 7 ADMINISTRATIVE DATA

Structure Historic Name: Washington State Library (WSL) Current Name: Joel M. Pritchard Building

Address 415 15th Avenue Southwest Olympia, Washington 98504 Thurston County

Proposed Treatment

Related Studies • Site Evaluation Study, Dames & Moore (July 9, 1956) • Preliminary Proposed State Capitol Grounds Expansion, Paul Thiry (June 10, 1958) • West Capitol Campus and Sylvester Park Landscape History and Regeneration Study, Artifacts Consulting, Inc. and Susan Black and Associates (October 15, 2001) • Dynamics of Change: A History of the Washington State Library, Maryan Reynolds: Washington State University Press. (2001)

Cultural Resource Data Period of Significance: • Date of Construction 1957 - 1959

Commissioning of Historic Structures Report Washington State Department of General Administration (GA)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 1 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.1 SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 8 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.1 SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Historic Background

1.1 Significance Statement 1.2 History of Washington State Library 1.3 Campus Planning 1.4 Paul Thiry

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 9 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.1 SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 10 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.1 SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

At the time of this writing in 2002, only 46 years have passed since Paul Thiry imagined the design of the State Library Building, and only 44 years have passed since it was constructed. This relatively recent time frame and the still-fresh architectural appearance of the structure eclipses the perception of the Library as an historic building. The contrast of style and form between the Library and other monumental buildings in the Capitol group also makes it difficult to understand the building as an elder landmark.

From the perspective and growing distance of a different century, however, stewards of mid-century buildings and architectural historians are beginning to focus on landmarks of the recent past and are defining the post-war era as a new field of historic study. The Washington State Library Building not only fits into this field but is among the most important regional archetypes of mid-century architectural design and thought. The social history surrounding the Library and the prominence of designer Paul Thiry during the period anchor the building and its history firmly in Pacific Northwest post-war development. By adding the layers of significance that come with associations to political and artistic figures, the Washington State Library becomes a textbook on how Washingtonians looked at the future in the 1950’s and how public buildings reflected that vision.

This section presents the case for evaluating the State Library Building as an historic structure and provides a summary of the documentation that supports that status. It addresses the criteria conventionally used by Federal, State and local historic preservation agencies in evaluating potential historic places. The historic narrative also provides an understanding of original design decisions and physical construction methods. Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 11 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

Territorial Gover nor Isaac I. Stevens made the first purchase for the Washington State Library during his trips back and forth between the east coast and the Pacific Northwest. In providing for his directive to create a new territory, the federal government gave him the same n a literal sense, the origins of the Washington State Library can be I amount of money to buy books as they did to build a Capitol building. traced back to an eclectic shelf of books and two parchment covered He initially expended the allotted $5,000 mainly on law and history books orbs acquired by the Territory’s first Governor, Isaac Stevens. The titles intended to assist the territorial legislature he was to convene. His other reflected his interest in the law, history, and geography and an interests as railroad surveyor and treaty maker intruded on his concept enlightened curiosity about earth sciences and the distant questions of of a library, however. Between 1853 and 1856, he bought books, astronomy and stargazing. Most of the books and the two celestial gazetteers, maps and celestial and terrestrial globes, which he had globes, one of the earth and one of the heavens, remain in the State shipped around Cape Horn to Puget Sound. Library’s collection, where they have launched its trajectory of ideas and reflected its beginnings for more than a century and a half. The books sat on a variety of shelves during the Indian wars of the mid 1850’s, the civil war (which took Stevens’ life) and the territorial period. In a more formative mandate, the Organic Act of the Territory of The State Library as a recognizable agency was initially located in the Washington, passed by the Congress of the United States on March 2, first wood frame Capitol building, and 1853, provided for a library as an integral step in creating a new territory. then relocated to the McKenny Predating statehood by more than 35 years, the State Library became building in downtown Olympia. By Washington State's oldest executive agency. The State Library was 1906, it had moved into the conceived as a readily accessible repository of records and documents Romanesque “Old Capitol,” built as for use by the State Legislature, a role identical to that of the relation the Thurston County Courthouse, between the Library of Congress (created in 1800) and the Congress of where it shared space with the Office the United States. For its first 100 years, the State Library operated in of the Superintendent of Public "visual isolation," unseen by most citizens and visitors to the State Instruction. In 1917, it moved again, Capitol as it occupied a variety of impermanent locations. Not until the this time into the basement of the completion of the present Washington State Library building (currently recently constructed Temple of the Joel M. Pritchard Building) in January 1959, did the State Library Justice, where it was to remain for the have dedicated quarters whose siting and architectural composition next 40 years. The Temple of Justice expressed the significance of the Library's supportive role within the was the first of the formal buildings State government. that would comprise the Capitol Group as envisioned in the master plan by Fig. 1.2.11.2.1 View of conditions in basement of the Temple of Justice Building prior to construction Wilder & White. The masterpiece of the new Library building. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 12 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

Legislative Building by the two architects would not be completed for another decade, and in the meantime and subsequent years, the Library The SLC focused from the beginning on the need for a building. They would outgrow its subterranean home. Amidst cramped conditions with proposed a joint Education and Library building during Governor Arthur books stacked on steam pipes, rare volumes piled in a vault, micro-film B. Langlie's first term, continued to push the plan during Governor Mon equipment sharing closets with the heating system, and the bindery, C. Wallgren's service, and again under Governor Langlie in 1948. By mending, mimeographing, receiving and mailing departments 1951, they enjoyed some success in getting budgetary consideration "crammed" into 17 square feet of space, it became evident that a true for the project, largely through the efforts of State Librarian Carma library building should be built. During the 1954 legislative session, Zimmerman, and Inez Lewis, the Governor’s secretary and a friend of 555,000 copies of bills were mailed to libraries across the state and the Zimmerman. The State Library was to be included in a new building Library received approximately 10,000 federal documents. Post war that would also house the Public Printer, as well as several other prosperity and population growth was reflected in the size and departments that were leasing space in private buildings. complexity of State government, and the State Library became a barometer of the changing climate. (Reynolds, 2001; 53-55, and Seattle Central to the development of upcoming events was the hiring of Times, December 5, 1954) Maryan E. Reynolds in 1951 as the State Librarian to replace Carma Zimmerman, who resigned to accept a position as California's State Earnest conversations and planning for a more accommodating and Librarian. Over the course of the next six years of struggle for permanent location for the Library had been ongoing from 1913 through permanent library quarters, Reynolds relied on the sound advice of the early 1950s. Wilder & White originally included the State Library in Superintendent of Public Instruction Pearl Wanamaker (Chairperson of the program for the Legislative Building. However, by the time that the SLC) and Alta Grim, who had been acting State Librarian three building was completed in 1928, the Automobile-License Department times in her career. In a climate of frequent political storminess, the "had expanded to such an extent that it needed the space." Meanwhile, three women navigated the building project forward with determination the Old Capitol was once again considered, but it proved too far from and astuteness. It was not to come without disappointments, however. legislators who needed access to the Library's records and research tools. (Reynolds, 2001: 53-55 and Seattle Times, December 5, 1954) As architectural plans developed for the new building intended to contain the Library, Public Printer and other departments, the SLC The first substantial progress towards obtaining a permanent dedicated recognized that there was little in the way of specialized spatial building for the Washington State Library began with the formation of requirements of a library. Conceived primarily as an office building, the the State Library Commission (SLC) in 1941. The Commission consisted design made only limited provisions for future expansion of the library of five members, four appointed by the Governor for a term of four space and had such functional flaws as "three doors opening directly to years (one appointed annually) and the fifth, the State Superintendent a public hallway." The column spacing was such that it would have of Public Instruction who acted as ex-officio chairperson. (Reynolds, required expensive custom shelving, and a vast 3000 square feet were 2001: 55-56)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 13 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY devoted entirely to a lobby. Furthermore, the adjacent interior area Van Eaton advised the SLC that they would need the Labor and north of the wing they were to occupy (allocated as five to ten years Industries Building for office space and that it would be better for the worth of expansion area) was closed off entirely to library use. Flexibility State Library to construct a new building. They suggested a site due was further limited by the floor to ceiling height in the library stack east of the Labor and Industries Building. space that was unusable for other purposes. (Reynolds, 2001: 56-57) This stalling and relegation of Library construction to a secondary status The SLC met with Governor Langlie and asked for removal of the Library behind office space appropriations continued as the Finance Committee from the 1953 bill authorizing the joint use building. They further took issue with the updated language in the bill regarding the sale of requested that the Governor "authorize a building of its own” for the bonds to finance the library. They cautioned that unless corrections State Library. Despite Langlie's expressed agreement to this change were made to the bill language there was no way to procedurally sell (passed in March of 1953), no further progress was made on a separate the bonds, effectively forcing the Library to start all over again with the building. By 1954, the Department of Labor and Industries was budget process. In one of many resourceful moves, Reynolds had proposing to move the State Library into its old two-story building already spoken with the attorney general,legislators and staff between Fourteenth and Fifteenth Avenues on Water Street after L&I responsible for the changes, and was able to characterize the issue as moved into the new office building then under construction (completion obfuscation. In subdued triumph she informed the Finance Committee anticipated for 1955). This would have required the addition of two that no changes were necessary to make the bonds saleable and moved wings and a new front entrance to the former Department of Labor and deliberately to take advantage of the opening. Industries building. Following the meeting, Reynolds contacted John Robinson, the Assistant Meanwhile, popular support for the Library was growing across the Attorney General assigned to the State Library, to discuss the Library's state, particularly in the Washington Federation of Women's Clubs, the final issues concerning site choice and financing. Robinson, concerned American Association of University Women, and the Parent-Teacher that this stalemate would continue, proceeded to draft a bill for action Association. (Reynolds, 2001: 55-56) The tenor of political support for a that would resolve the final issues and authorize construction of a new State Library was decidedly divided along gender lines, with the male Washington State Library. Reynolds then met with Senator Rosellini to dominated legislature largely indifferent, and a growing base of ask for his support if he were elected Governor. Rosellini responded “if grassroots support developing among statewide female-led activist I do make it to Governor, you call and we’ll set up an appointment with groups. the Library Commission to discuss the State Library problems.” (Taped interview with Reynolds, September 23, 1988) In 1954, the Thurston County Superior Court ruled that all State Agency headquarters had to be in Olympia. This required a substantial addition In March of 1955, the legislature authorized the construction of both a of office space to accommodate the hundreds of employees moving to new state office building and a new State Library. At the last minute, Olympia. Senator Carlton Sears and Public Institutions Director Harold however, Newman Clark, a library opponent, added an amendment to

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 14 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY the authorization confusing the buildings referenced in the bill. In dire emergency"), "no capitol building funds other than payments addition, the Capitol Committee's indecision on how to finance the authorized in section four of this act shall be expended until the State Library and a dispute over its location stalled construction until Library building is under construction." Governor Rosellini expedited membership of the Capitol Committee, which was responsible for the its passage through both Chambers without a dissenting vote, and expenditure of Capitol Funds, changed in 1957 to include Governor approved it on March 11, 1957. It was the first official act of the newly Albert D. Rosellini, Commissioner of Public Lands Bert Cole, and Auditor appointed State Capitol Committee. Cliff Yelle. [See essays in this section on Architect (1.2.1)and Site Choice (1.2.3)]. 1.2.1 Architect As a senator, Rosellini had told Reynolds he would support a new building Virtually the only substantive progress the Capitol Committee made on for the Library as either Majority Leader in the Senate or, if elected in the Library project after the 1955 legislative authorization was the the November 1956 election, as Governor. Following his election, selection of an architect. Given the thick atmosphere of indifference Governor Rosellini met with the entire SLC and members of the toward the project in many quarters of state government, it came as no Washington Library Association (WLA) Executive Board in his Seattle surprise that difficulties emerged. law office to discuss the full WLA legislative program, particularly the language of the Library building bill using the draft prepared by John The circuitous path that led to the choice of a designer for the State Robinson. ("Some very powerful state senators later tried to get Library Building began with an unconnected and not altogether pleasant Robinson fired for this, but Attorney General John J. O'Connell refused." meeting between Governor Langlie and an Alaska-born, Seattle (Reynolds, 2001: 227) architect named Paul Thiry. While serving as president of the Washington Chapter of the AIA, Thiry represented the organization on behalf of one The outcome of the meeting was of its members, Gordon Lumm, a Tacoma architect involved in planning unequivocal. The resulting House Bill a state building. Governor Langlie had contested the standard 9% AIA 50 put to rest all of the outstanding schedule fee, agreeing to only 6% in public statements that included issues concerning the financing, fairly confrontational language. A face-to-face meeting with the AIA location and building of a State Library president was unavoidable, and in the end, Governor Langlie did not building. The divisive question of move from the 6%. However, as part of this process, State Auditor and location was addressed in a new Capitol Committee member Cliff Yelle met Thiry and was impressed. section added in Chapter 62 that Even in losing, Thiry displayed a certain integrity and confidence in his retained the word "contiguous" in Fig. 1.2.2 Photograph of Governor Albert D. arguments that Yelle admired, and he "seemed to like" Thiry both as an describing how close the building Rosellini signing House Bill 50 into law. Photograph architect and a person. Governor Langlie, on the other hand, remained would be to the Legislative Building courtesy of the Washington State Library. "mad at [Thiry] because [he] sided with Lumm." (Taped interview with and Capitol Group. The Chapter also specified that "this shall be a Thiry, December 1, 1989: 1-4) priority project" and that with exceptions (including "catastrophe or

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 15 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

In what could have been a misstep, Yelle and the Capitol Committee bypassed Maryan Reynolds, the WLA and the SLC, and introduced the Of the three submitted, the SLC endorsed Thiry. The Capitol Committee notion of Thiry as the architect for the new Library. Langlie opposed the then voted (two to one) to make the choice of Thiry final on December selection, and the Committee decided to bolster their choice by seeking 13, 1955. At the meeting, Harold Van Eaton's objection that it was his recommendations from the library boards and Maryan Reynolds. In the responsibility to appoint an architect according to the Attorney General meantime, Thiry met with Reynolds to discuss and explain his interest in was ignored. Otto Case, the Land Commissioner, who was very old at the project. (Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989: 3-4) the time, nearly voted no before his staff "grabbed his The president of the WLA asked for all librarians involved within the arm and said 'vote yes.'" last five years in a building program to prepare and discuss their Governor Langlie, concerned recommendations at a special meeting. After "considerable discussion," with not having a definite the WLA selected the following six candidates to present to the State proposal for funding the Library Commission: building, was in opposition. Decker and Christenson (Taped interview with Thiry, Naramore, Bain, Brady & Johanson December 1, 1989: 1-2 and Fig. 1.2.3 State Library building proposal by Wohleb and Paul Thiry Wohleb. Image courtesy of Washington State Library. John W. Maloney paper prepared for the SLC by Jones and Bindon Reynolds prior to 1957 session Wohleb and Wohleb & Associates of the Legislature)

The WLA then submitted these choices on September 6, 1955, to the Thiry's contract followed debate over whether a "Clerk of the Works" SLC for their approval. Some architects, including Maloney, also was needed for daily supervision of the site (as Governor Langlie felt submitted letters directly to the State asking for consideration. was necessary), and was approved at the April 17, 1956, Capitol Committee meeting by a vote of two to one. The SLC debated whether to submit the list as presented or to narrow it down. They decided to submit a list of three firms according to comments from other librarians on their finished buildings, along with a 1.2.2 Financing list of buildings designed by each architect. The favorable design of Capitol Building Funds financed the Library, utilizing no taxpayer money. the Northeast Branch Library and his enjoyment of working with Normally the Secretary of the State Finance Committee, then Ernest librarians and libraries were important factors in Thiry’s selection for Minor, issued bonds at no additional cost to the State. However, under the list. On September 15, 1955, the SLC recommended the following to pressure from the State Librarian to begin work and with the fortuitous the Capitol Committee: voluntary offer by the private financial firm of McLean & Co. of Tacoma Decker and Christenson Paul Thiry (Sid Yelle, brother of State Auditor Cliff Yelle, was the firm's local Wohleb and Wohleb & Associates

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 16 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY representative), the Capitol Committee determined the firm's fee After Thiry's appointment as architect in 1955, he met with the SLC to reasonable for the work involved. The original proposal called for discuss ideas and then began investigating possible locations. He payment of 62-1/2 cents for each hundred-dollar par value of the bonds. presented his preliminary ideas to the SLC on February 2, 1956. Then Proceeds from the sale of Capitol Grant timber holdings (which consisted on April 17, 1956, Thiry presented his recommendations to the Capitol of 132,000 acres of timberland received from the Federal Government Committee. His concept was that the Library Building should complete as a statehood gift, November 11, 1889) repaid the bonds. Annual the Wilder & White master plan as well as the subsequent Olmsted revenue from these timber sales at that time averaged around one million Brothers’ landscape plans for the Capitol Group. As the southern edge dollars, which was sufficient, with "appropriations from some additional to the Capitol ensemble, Thiry imagined a freshly interpreted allocations the following year," to cover construction costs. (Seattle monumental building that reflected the Classical form of the central Times, April 2, 1957) domed Legislative Building and took its place as an equal among the other attendant structures. Thiry’s site planning ideas amounted to an updating of the Wilder & White master plan for the Capitol Campus, 1.2.3 Site Choice and it spurred the first original thinking about where government Group was completed. In The debate over site choice began with the 1955 Legislature authorizing buildings might be located once the Capitol the construction of a new State Library building. Once the focus shifted part due to Thiry’s broad approach to site planning, the Capitol from renovating existing buildings or moving into an already planned Committee conceded to a request by Olympia's Planning Commission office building, the question of whether the State Library should be to hire a consultant to conduct a study of the Capitol grounds for "contiguous" or "adjacent" to the Capitol grounds became a expansion and State Library location. controversial matter. Within this continuing During the 1955 legislative session, Leo Dawley, who was from Olympia debate over site and chairman of the State Republican Party, owned property adjacent choice, the SLC to the Capitol grounds that he wanted to sell “whether or not it was proposed three suitable” as a library site. He pressured Reynolds with an ultimatum important that if "adjacent" were not written into the building bill, he would make considerations for site sure the State Library did not receive a budget. Dawley believed the location: close term “contiguous” used in the bill to describe the location of the new proximity to the library disqualified his property from consideration. With support from Legislative Building; Senator Sears, the language was not changed, a fact kept quiet until convenient location the building bill was signed, and Dawley's site was indeed eliminated, for government agencies; and along with widespread unease on both sides of the political aisle. Fig. 1.2.4 The circle indicates the site Paul Thiry proposed for the inclusion of space for (Reynolds, 2001: 58) Washington State Library prior to its construction. Photograph courtesy future expansion. of the W ashington State Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 17 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

made no consultation with the State Librarian or any staff, and only one On May 21, 1956, the Capitol Committee authorized Thiry to have his short, no doubt awkward interview with Paul Thiry. Internal delays were preferred site (current building location) evaluated for soil stability and becoming compounded and people were asking why construction was excavation above the bluff. On July 9, 1956, soil mechanics engineers not underway. Dames & Moore submitted their repor t stating that with the proper precautions taken, the site was favorable. On September 25, 1956, John L. Nordmark of Puget Planners presented the firm’s findings to Olympia's Planning Commission. According to The Capitol Committee arranged a meeting, for July 16, 1956, Reynolds, Thiry's site choice in the Capitol Group was rejected in the supposedly to finalize the approval of Thiry's preferred site. However, report for five reasons: Thiry's approach to the Library location question was a comprehensive 1. The Highway Department had planned the new highway to take one that not only justified the new building as the final piece of the advantage of the 'view' (Puget Planners’ word) of the Capitol building. Capitol Group, but also advanced a concept for grouping future 2. The Highway Department had planned a similar perimeter road buildings on the east side of Capitol Way. In his view, the Library was of and a bridge from the rear of the Transportation building over to the consummate importance and a fitting final act in the architectural drama point. of the State Capitol. He held that the State Library was “entitled to one 3. The Highway Department had planned a garage in the location south of the Transportation and Social Security buildings for the of the primary sites on the campus because it was one of the functions department's use and Motor Pool. of Capitol Government and it was also the starting point in references 4. The Highway Department had assured Puget Planners that they [i.e. legislative statements and laws] for the Legislature.” All others had the money ready and were waiting to build the perimeter could follow on a new campus canvas well to the east of the Classical road, the bridge, etc. 5. There was money available for the garage to be built constellation of buildings that surrounded the Capitol dome. Langlie's immediately. (Reynolds, 2001: 62-63) reply was that he "had not been retained" to prepare a Capitol Plan. (Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989: 4) In her inimitable way, Reynolds quickly scheduled a meeting with William Bugge, Director of the Highway Department. According to her written Amid the increasingly fractious atmosphere swirling around the Library’s account, he "flatly rejected all five of the points" saying, "none of them location, and against Yelle's objections on Thiry’s behalf, the Capitol had any validity whatsoever." Nordmark hastily withdrew the findings Committee surprisingly decided to partner with Olympia's Planning against the Thiry site and shifted emphasis to building orientation. He Commission in hiring the firm of Puget Planners to prepare an recommended that the building should face west instead of north, an independent plan for Capitol grounds expansion and determine a site orientation opposed both by Thiry and the Washington State Library for the State Library. The project may have been largely symbolic since staff. (Reynolds, 2001: 63) Puget Planners was given only 30 days to produce a final product. They

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 18 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

On October 1, 1956, the Capitol Committee met yet again to decide the existing Wilder and White plan needed only one to two buildings to be question of the Library's location. Mr. Nordmark of Puget Planners complete, which left the gap between the Transportation and Public began an "extensive presentation" in which he recommended viewing Lands-Social Security Buildings as the obvious location. (Oral history the "library as [a] hinge between [the] present legislative group and interview with Thiry, September 15, 16, 1983) [the] expanding administrative group" east of Capitol Way. (State Capitol Committee, Minutes, October 1, 1956: 7) In Thiry’s view, the "previous Library [in the basement of the Temple of Justice, was] under isolation visually." Thiry wanted an important site, Puget Planners advocated a "re-design" of the Capitol grounds based not only because "he was doing the building," but because the State on three principal problems that they determined would affect the siting Library "was an important function of government and should stand on of the library. These were: its own right with the House and other office buildings and Capitol as 1.Vista: Development of a road along the Capitol grounds part of the existing Capitol Group, which were the agencies the Library (including possible expansion area), whereby they foresaw the was serving." Comparatively, the Temple of Justice occupied a “place Library would be visible from the freeway (then under construction). They objected to Thiry’s site on the grounds it would obstruct the of importance” on the north side of the Legislative Building, and Thiry view; determined the Library “should have equal importance.” His logic was 2. Parking concerns for current employees, legislators, and that the State Library should balance with the Temple of Justice on the visitors: They intended to resolve this with a two to three story north-south axis. parking garage below the Library; 3. Orientation of the Library in relation to its present and future needs: They considered Thiry’s site did not allow for this, and they Thiry felt that other than the “imaginary vista” proposed by Puget wanted the building to be the first of a new Administrative group in Planners, the building "would not interfere with any future planning, the Capitol grounds expansion. specifically campus expansion." Thiry also allowed for future expansion of the Library by enlarging the stack area, rather than by increasing the According to the State Capitol Committee Minutes, Thiry was unmoved building’s overall height. One of the prime considerations was that the by the Puget Planners findings and remained in favor of the site building blend in with adjacent buildings, and not interfere with the immediately south of the Legislative Building, between the view from the south of the Capitol dome. Transportation and Public Lands-Social Security Buildings (current Library location). His studied preference was based on the juxtaposition In response to questions of function and orientation, Thiry acknowledged of existing buildings within the Wilder & White plan, proximity to the that the site was narrow, but that he had "a functional plan that [would] Capitol Group, and the accommodation of specific library functions. work in this location." Thiry’s design called for a relatively small building Thiry looked at various other Capitol plans, including Washington D.C., compared to others in the Capitol Group. However, locating the building to understand how the relationship between primary (Legislative on the rise of ground provided the stature needed, while permitting an Building) and secondary buildings (such as Transportation and operationally efficient one story plan for the main area. The stacks Insurance Buildings, and the anticipated State Library) was developed in both architectural and functional terms. According to Thiry, the

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 19 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY carried out the concept of a dome dominating the building, tying it into 1.2.4 Construction the original architectural plan, while its modern form would provide a By May 14, 1957, f ollowing detailed stylistic transition between the Capitol Group and any new architectural consultation meetings with the Capitol developments. Committee, SLC and State Librarian, Thiry's construction plans were Both Thiry and the SLC were against turning the building to the west accepted and authorized. He had a into the sun and prevailing weather on the grounds it would have “placed model prepared by July of that year a handicap on [the] building that would complicate matters” as well as and construction documents were increase construction and operation costs. Thiry’s orientation provided finalized and distributed. Bids from FigFig. 1.2.6 Photograph of the November 4, 1957 highly desirable north light for the main reading area and most of the groundbreaking ceremony. Governor Albert D. construction contractors were opened Rosellini is holding the shovel with Maryan offices. on October 22, 1957. Thiry’s Reynolds standing to his left. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. economical design and clear The case for the Thiry site was summed up as “an available site owned specifications contributed in no small way to very favorable offers well by state, would be elevated, permit expansion and design of a functional below pre-bid estimates. Construction commenced on November 4, library, effectively serve its purpose, and would fit in with the rest of the 1957, and the groundbreaking ceremony was held on November 5, 1957, Capitol layout." (State Capitol Committee, Minutes, January 22, 1957 - with Governor Albert D. Rosellini, Lloyd J. Andrews (State Superintendent December 1966: 1-2, 7, 15 and Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, of Public Instruction and chairman of the SLC), and Maryan E. Reynolds 1989: 4-5) (State Librarian) in attendance. Just days over a year later on November 15, 1958, the building was ready for occupancy. A full ten days were A decision on the site choice was lingering business for the Capitol required to move the Library’s Committee until the 1957 legislative session when Governor Rosellini collection from the basement signed the State Library Building Bill in the Temple of Justice into into law. The deliberations around the the new building. Following all State Library Building launched the of the delays in planning, the first substantive master planning for entire building was completed the modern Washington State Capitol in just 12 months. Campus and introduced the general concept of the East Campus. On April 21, 1959, the Capitol Committee approved funding of $15,000 to develop the Fig. 1.2.5 Ca 1957 photograph showing the model Fig. 1.2.7 Ca 1957 photograph of the Library construction, of the State Library. Photograph courtesy of the landscaping. looking southeast at the excavated site. Photograph courtesy of Washington State Archives. the Washington State Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 20 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

the SLC. Tours of the building were 1.2.5 Dedication provided with Washington State Ultimately, the total cost of the authors in the Washington Room building was $1.3 million, a welcoming guests. Everett G. DuPen, well-managed $350,000 less James FitzGerald, Mark Tobey, than the appropriated amount. Kenneth Callahan, and Paul Thiry all Of the total, $900,910.42 was witnessed the ceremonies. (Tacoma for general construction, News Tribune, May 31, 1959)

$141,036.46 for mechanical, Fig. 1.2.8 Ca 1958 photograph taken during construction of An open house to “meet the artists $70,144.27 for electrical, the Library, looking south. Photograph courtesy of the Fig. 1.2.10 Ca 1958 photograph showing the Washington State Archives. and authors” was held on June 7, 1959 moving in and arranging of furnishings in the $71,921.37 for furnishings, Washington room. Photograph courtesy of the $34,297.61 for art and embellishments (including miscellaneous following the final installations of Washington State Library. equipment and supplies) and $70,083.65 for the architect’s fee (less artwork. Organized principally by than 6%). The contingency fund was set aside at 10% of the building Mrs. Robert Finley, and Mrs. Charles cost. Donworth, the event was partly in response to controversy surrounding On January 23, 1959, a formal building dedication was held. For many the artistic merits of the Tobey of those present there was a triumphant sense of satisfaction that had painting, as well as a desire to been hard earned. Lloyd J. Andres, Chairman of the SLC, provided increase the public’s awareness of introductory remarks, followed by a and appreciation for the building. victoriously toned address from Over two thousand guests arrived from large Governor Albert D. Rosellini and and small communities across Washington friendly remarks by Bert Cole, and, again, the dependable advocates for the Secretary of the Capitol Committee. building within state government were In a moment of rewarding personal present. Hosting the event were Mrs. Albert meaning as well as symbolism, State Cliff Yelle, Mrs. Bert Auditor Cliff Yelle presented the keys D. Rosellini, Mr. and Mrs. Cole, and six of the nine Supreme Court to Maryan Reynolds, and the Fig. 1.2.11 Ca 1958 photograph FigFig. 1.2.9 Ca 1958 photograph taken of the State Justices and their wives (Chief Justice Frank showing the moving in and Washington State Library finally had Library interior, looking east at the entry and main P. Weaver, Robert C. Finley, Charles T. arranging of furnishings on the first a monumental home of its own. Also desk area with the mosaic done by James floor (looking north). Photograph FitzGerald in the background. Photograph Mallery, Robert T. Hunter, in attendance were Supreme Court Donworth, Joseph A. courtesy of the Washington State courtesy of the Washington State Library. oster). Kenneth Library. justices, their wives, and members of and Harry Ellsworth F

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 21 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.2 HISTORY OF WASHINGTON STATE LIBRARY

Callahan, Everett DuPen, James years of struggle marked their emergence onto the Capitol Grounds in FitzGerald, Chao-Chen Yang, John W. a carefully placed and designed building that spoke both to the function Elliott, and Paul Thiry, as well as Mrs. of the Library within the state government and the value of their services. Thiry, Mrs. DuPen, Mrs. FitzGerald, As the last monumental building to be added, the State Library Building Mrs. Yang, and Mrs. Elliott, were brought to a close the building of the historic Washington State Capitol present to discuss and answer Campus and sparked the beginnings of East Campus planning. (Seattle questions about the building and the Times, February 8, 1959: 19) artwork. Fig. 1.2.12 1959 photograph taken during the building dedication of Governor Albert D. Rosellini In the Washington Room amidst the addressing those in attendance. Photograph Library’s collection of Pacific courtesy of the Washington State Library. Northwest materials and Callahan’s mural, authors (including poet Theodore Roethke, historian Lucile McDonald, Elizabeth Rider Montgomery, Zoa Sherburne, Grace Dixon, Dorothy Fae Gould, Inez McLaughlin, Agnes Maaga, and Geraldine Brain Siks) were present to discuss Washington’s cultural and historic heritage. Representing the SLC were George Norman Campbell from Kalama, Miss Dorothy Dakin, and, of course, Miss Maryan E. Reynolds. (News release prepared June 9, 1959 and Reynolds, 2001: 72) In the bookshelves that lined the room sat several leather bound volumes that had once come around the Horn in a case addressed to Territorial Governor Isaac Stevens, and nearby sat two antique globes, one showing a map of the world changed by 150 years of history and another showing the placement of the stars unchanged.

At the time, the combination of art and architectural features set the building apart as one of the country’s premier examples of library construction. For his design of the building, Thiry received the Award of Merit in the 1963 Library Buildings Award Program sponsored by the American Institute of Architects, the American Library Association, and the National Book Committee. To the Library staff, this culmination of

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 22 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.3 CAMPUS P LANNING

The question of where to locate the library spawned a greater issue concerning the physical growth of the Capitol and basically divided thinking into two camps. Paul Thiry imagined the new east campus for he original Wilder & White master plan (1912) for the Washington T State government developing between 14th and 18th Avenues with State Capitol directed government building for more than 45 years, property reserved to the north for Federal, County and City government altered only by refinements in the Olmsted Brothers’ landscape plan development. In this plan, the State Library would have completed the (1928). With the completion of the two southern office buildings, the existing Beaux-Arts Composition of the existing Capitol Buildings. Social Security-Public Lands Buildings in 1937 and the Transportation Building in 1940, the original master plan was essentially fulfilled. The Alternatively, the option suggested by Puget Planners during planning addition of a new monumental building for the State Library in the 1950’s for the library was to modify the existing form and expand to the south introduced the need for expanded thinking about where future and east with the State Library government buildings should be placed and how the campus would functioning as a hinge between grow beyond the formal Capitol Group the two parts. This plan would have located the Library Building P near its eventual location but oriented it toward a cluster of

9 office buildings that would have A P replaced a section of the adjacent 1 P residential neigh-borhood. (State Capitol Com-mittee, Minutes,

P 6 October 1, 1956) B 5 2 3 C During the course of choosing a 7 4 site for the State Library, Paul P 8 Thiry was retained to prepare a master plan for the Capitol Fig. 1.3.2 View of the Puget Planners Proposed Campus Exapnsion. Numbers indicate proposed buildings: 11. Grounds. Thiry began first with Executive, to house many offices now in the Legislative the original Wilder and White Building; 22. State Library; 33. Education; 44. Labor and Plan (1928), advocating that it be Industries; 55. Public Lands and Resources; 66. Highway Department; 77. Institutions; 88. Licenses; and 99. Governor’s Fig. 1.3.1 Image of the Capitol Campus Expansion Plan proposed by Paul Thiry. Thiry retained the original “retained, kept in force, with only Mansion. Areas labeled A, B, C are proposed composition of the Wilder & White Plan (1928) and expanded to the east. Image courtesy of the Washington State minor modifications." underground-parking areas. Those labeled P are surface- Archives. parking lots. Image courtesy of the Washington State

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 23 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.3 CAMPUS P LANNING

Within this expansion of the Capitol Grounds, Thiry envisioned that the The existing campus would consist of Judicial, Executive and Legislative county would develop the central section, providing a “centralized functions, while the East Campus would contain new buildings designed government center.” (Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989: 4) with compatible appearance and use for administrative functions. In addition, Thiry advocated the purchase of land along the north and south In the same taped interview, Thiry remembered presenting this plan for boundary lines. The east expansion was from Capitol Way east to the expansion to Governor Rosellini, who “thought it was great.” He then freeway, between 14th and 16th Avenues. made a presentation to the Capitol Committee and it was incorporated into Olympia’s comprehensive plan as the plan for the Capitol Grounds. According to the Preliminary Proposed State Capitol Grounds Expansion (June 10, 1958), Thiry gave the following reasons for retaining the existing plan: • Campus [is] already well developed and landscaped; • Classic design of buildings presents a uniform and related composition of structure; • Departures in design or occupancy will not add to quality or functioning of area; • Departures will detract from whole, [and] create new problems.

Moving across Capitol Way to the East Campus, Thiry anticipated that due to the number of new facilities that would be needed, a large amount of space would be required. Therefore the East Campus location “seemed ideal” because it was on the “crown of [the] hill and led directly to [the] freeway.” (Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989: 9) Thiry gave the following reasons in support of the East Campus location in the Preliminary Proposed State Capitol Grounds Expansion (June 10, 1958): • Adjacent to present campus, and readily accessible; • Sufficiently detached from present campus to allow functional variety and architectural freedom; • Openness [allows] maximum efficiency of building placement; • Buildings could be multistoried without detracting from Capitol.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 24 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.4 PAUL THIRY

have a significant “impact on the development of his own temperament.” He continued his studies at the University of Washington. Knowing he wanted to pursue a professional education, he at first conceded to his mother’s wishes and took pre-med courses. Thiry soon realized, merican architect Paul Thiry (1904-1993) contributed to the A however, that his interests were not in medicine but in his talent for architectural development of the Pacific Northwest over a long, drawing. During this period, he often neglected his studies in favor of productive and imaginative career that was distinguished by his seminal engaging in extracurricular activities, which led to a summons to the introduction in the mid-1930s of the “architecture of the European Dean’s office. In the course of being asked to choose a direction, he modernists.” Internationally, Thiry is recognized for his regionalized “noticed a drawing of the Villa Medici on the wall ... and mentioned his design of modern residences, advances in building technology interest in drawing.” The dean recommended architecture, which Thiry (particularly reinforced concrete), design of churches, capitol campus began in the fall of 1923 at the University of Washington’s School of planning, and his participation with the Army Corps of Engineers on Architecture. (Clausen, 1984: 129) the design and planning of Libby Dam in Montana. (Clausen, 1990: 110 and Clausen, 1984: 128) The University of Washington, like other American architecture schools at the time, structured its curriculum according to the academic tradition Thiry was born in Nome, Alaska on September 11, 1904 to French of the École des Beaux-Arts, Paris. Emphasizing the fine art aspects of parents. Thiry’s father, Hippolyte Thiry, was a mining engineer working architecture, including the development of a sense for design, principles for a Belgian mining syndicate in Alaska at the time. His mother, Louise of formal composition, and architectural history, education often favored Schwaebel Thiry, was proud of her French heritage and drew on this traditional structural and functional practices over advances in building background to design and sell fashionable women’s attire, first in Nome technology. Thiry’s early introduction in preparatory school to and then Seattle. After a brief move to San Francisco when the mining regimented discipline provided a solid foundation for the Beaux-Arts began showing signs of failure, the family settled in Seattle. Frequent program of architectural education. Thiry’s predilection for solving trips to Paris (including an extended trip in 1909 - 1910) as well as the problems was apparent in his 1926 receipt of the “school’s prize for the family’s more refined domestic setting provided Thiry with tastes and most outstanding solution to a given architectural problem.” As a an upbringing distinctly different from the typical Pacific Northwest student, Thiry worked in the offices of Seattle architects John Graham youth. When World War I erupted, Thiry’s father, an officer in the French and Henry Bittman. (Clausen, 1984: 129-130) army, returned to France. Thiry and his mother remained in Seattle where Mme. Thiry continued working as a couturier. (Clausen, 1984: During the summer of 1927, Thiry studied at the American School of 129) Fine Arts in Fontainebleau, France, for which he received a diplôme from the French government. Jacques Carlu, then director of the program Thiry’s formal education began at St. Martin’s Preparatory School, a and a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, had a Benedictine school in Lacey, north of Olympia. He graduated in 1920, significant influence on Thiry’s architectural philosophy and having gained a lasting sense of discipline and stability. This proved to

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 25 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.4 PAUL THIRY

“appreciation for simplicity.” Carlu’s method of design combined a to his consideration of long-range city planning and zoning problems thorough knowledge of architectural history with the reasoned approach following his return to Seattle late in 1933. However, by 1934, Thiry had to design of French rationalism that depended on a thorough grasp of received an offer from Takahashi Matsumoto, a former University of the building’s program, materials employed, and precise thinking rather Washington classmate, to work in Japan. The economy had not improved, than opting for a proscribed traditional format. (Clausen, 1984: 130) and Thiry closed his office in May of 1934 and departed for Tokyo.

After the summer in Fontainebleau, Thiry remained and traveled through Thiry’s stay in Japan lasted only a few months as he quickly realized Europe before returning to Seattle early in 1928 to complete his studies. long-term employment in Japan would require a new language, working He graduated the same year at the end of summer quarter with a degree for others, and a new architectural system of measurement. However, in architecture and a student medal of excellence from the American this brief but significant exposure brought Thiry into contact with not Institute of Architects. In 1929, Thiry opened his own office in the Skinner only the simplicity and elegance, but the “sparsely furnished... and Building, designing pr imarily churches and traditionally styled flexible plans” that allowed for changing uses and “light-filled interiors” residences near Seattle. of Japanese architecture. During his stay, he rented a room in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Imperial Hotel (1916 - 1922), where he experienced first According to Meredith Clausen, Thiry’s early residential designs, while hand application of Wright’s structural rationalism, “low horizontal remaining traditional in style, exhibited changes indicative of how his proportions, ...and graduated lighting.” Thiry was also exposed to the rational approach to design would affect the more rigid exterior forms non-traditional, direct and simple approach to design of Antonin of traditional styles prevalent at that time in the Pacific Northwest. The Raymond. (Clausen, 1984: 131-132) “sensitive” siting and orientation of buildings evident in the George F. Kacklein house (1933; Broadmoor), brought internal functions more in Raymond was a Czechoslovakian born, European trained, American tune with surroundings, while forms were simplified and trim reduced. architect who had come to Japan in 1919 to work on the Imperial Hotel Over the course of his career, Thiry would refine his application of these with Wright. He stayed in Tokyo, opening his own architectural and traits. (Clausen, 1984: 131) engineering firm. George Nakashima, a University of Washington graduate, introduced Thiry to Raymond and his designer wife, Naomi. As the Depression set in, Thiry took the opportunity to attend the Century The importance of Raymond’s influence on Thiry’s own design philosophy of Progress Exposition held in Chicago in 1933. Termed the “antithesis” was in Raymond’s rational approach to design, technical perfection of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, it was intended specifically (everything worked), and pursuit of the simplest, most economical as a forum for progressive ideas in building technology, prefabrication, means for solving an architectural problem in unison with construction methods, standardized parts, and new materials that experimentation with new materials and techniques. (Clausen, 1984: integrated then prevailing financial and material shortages. For Thiry, 132-133) the ideas it generated represented to him “his coming of age.” This led

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 26 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.4 PAUL THIRY

These principles not only cor responded with those of European The design process enabled Thiry to sort through his ideas and bring Modernism, but set this approach apart by drawing on the “sense of them into form on paper. This was the precursor to the next several purity,” elegance and flexibility of Japanese architecture. Many of these years of primarily residential design, marked by Thiry’s design of his traits also applied to the climatic and site conditions of the Pacific own residence in 1936, followed by stark modernist and “softer” regional Northwest. Of particular importance for Thiry’s own design philosophy variations. was that the integration of European Modernism and Japanese Architecture could produce a simple, functional, economical, well- Thiry’s work, recognized for its careful siting, consideration (and crafted design, the role of which was that of a “discreet background for minimizing) of cost in the design process, simple forms, flat roofs, and human activities.” Thiry would later integrate these elements into the rationalized structure was a change motivated by specific reasons. Thiry design of the Washington State Library, particularly his choice of questioned the reasoning behind the traditional design of buildings, subdued colors to accent the human element and the books. (Clausen, particularly the ability to adapt to changing modern spatial 1984: 132-133) requirements. He was also anxious to experiment with concrete and prefabricated units. However, concrete, due to its previously limited After leaving Japan, Thiry undertook a year long tour around the world application, was cost prohibitive and the machinery necessary for that included stops in Shanghai, India, Egypt, and Europe with a brief maneuvering large pre-fabricated parts did not exist. (Clausen, 1984: visit with Le Corbusier (Charles Édouard Jeanneret) at his studio. This 131-138 and WC, 15) period of travel provided both additional exposure and time to digest the ideas of the European Modernists, while refining his own design World War II brought to the construction industry widespread material philosophy. Late in the spring of 1935, Thiry returned to Seattle and restrictions and changes in building needs. During the war, Thiry worked entered into partnership with Alban Shay, which lasted until 1940 (Thiry on several large housing developments and military projects (Jones, & Shay). Thiry & Ahlson in 1942 and Jones, Bouillon, Thiry & Sylliaasen from 1943 - 1944). (Ochsner, 1994: 247) The war also saw technological Although Shay was open to Thiry’s experimentation, there were f ew developments, particularly in the use of reinforced concrete, plywood, opportunities to do so until John L. Scott, a real estate manager of Puget and the machinery necessary for manipulating large pre-fabricated Mill who was interested in Modernism, asked Thiry to design a model building sections. house for a development project. While marketability concerns forced a modification of the design, the original was steel framed, cubical, It was following World War II that the scope of Thiry’s work expanded with unornamented walls, windows flush with the surface, a flat terraced widely to include designs for educational facilities, museums, libraries, roof, a flexible plan, and stilts that lifted the building... (Clausen, 1984: and commercial buildings. He continued to develop his design of 133) churches and residences, writing Churches and Temples with R. Bennett and H. Kamphoefner (New York: Reinhold, 1953), as well as articles on architecture. Thiry became involved in urban planning as a member of

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 27 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.4 PAUL THIRY the Seattle Planning Commission from 1952 until he resigned in 1961 in opposition to the construction of Interstate “5” through Seattle. He was This work, which involved the site choice for the library building and also a member of the Puget Sound Regional Planning Council’s executive consequently the preparation of a proposal for the Capitol Campus committee (1954 - 1957) and advisor to the Washington State Joint expansion (1958), also led to Thiry’s involvement in complex campus Committee on urban area government. planning. This was followed by his involvement in campus expansion planning for Washington State University (1958) and the University of Thiry was active in the design of buildings in Seattle, including the Washington Campus (1962), and as principal architect for the Century Museum of History and Industry (1950; altered) which had a low, 21 Exposition (1962), and his appointment (in 1963) to the AIA horizontal volume adapted to the sloping site with a combination glass Committee on the National Capitol Building in Washington D.C. and solid principal facade, and St. George Church (1953). In 1956, he designed the Northeast Seattle Branch Library comprised of an open Advances in building technology during World War II also caught up plan with an overhanging gabled roof, exposed metal beams, and with Thiry’s ideas. By the late 1950s through the 1960s, his use of waffle extensive use of glass along the exterior walls above the bookcases. slab construction in the Washington State Library (1957-1959), pre- The exterior walls were pre-cast terrazzo. He received an honorable cast and pre-stressed concrete in the Mercer Island Presbyterian Church, mention for the design in the 59th National Gold Medal Exhibition of the Mercer Island (1960-1961), and the Seattle Center Coliseum (1958- Architectural League of New York, as well as an award from the 1962; Seattle), as well as plywood paneling and standardized building Washington Chapter of the American Institute of Architects. The components, placed Thiry on the leading edge of technological advances functional success from the standpoint of the librarians, and the in the Pacific Northwest. favorable public reception of the Northeast Branch Library were instrumental in the State Library Commission’s selection of Thiry as the In the Seattle Center Coliseum, Thiry employed a framework of concrete architect for the Washington State Library. beams from which the roof was suspended. His design of churches featured highly articulated roofs (a folded plate roof “floating above For the design of the State Library, Thiry drew on contemporary the sanctuary space” in the Mercer Island Presbyterian Church) and advances in library planning, reinforced concrete technology, and the concrete vaulting in Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Seattle building programs prepared by the Washington State Library staff to (1964-68), as well as innovative interior arrangements. (Ochsner, 1994: provide a low maintenance, operationally efficient building. Due to his 250) Beaux-Arts training and his modernist approach to design, Thiry was able to choose an appropriate site and develop the appropriate detailing In 1962, Thiry was employed as a consultant to the U.S. Army Corps of and massing necessary to integrate the State Library building into the Engineers for the Libby Dam in Montana, for which he visited numerous existing Beaux-Arts campus in harmony with adjacent, classically dams across the country to study their relations with their sites. He designed buildings. The original drawings for the building, when completed, were partially drawn (initialed) by seventeen different people.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 28 1.0 HISTORIC BACKGROUND 1.4 PAUL THIRY prepared a master plan for the complex as well as design guidelines for the powerhouse, visitor’s center, and other associated structures. Thiry’s involvement continued until 1984. (Ochsner, 1994: 249-251)

Paul Thiry considered architecture to be an all-inclusive art, one in which statements were basic, referring directly to people. He envisioned the architect as a leader, not only the author of the design of the building or structure, but also as the unifier of participants in its construction. The architect should be able to point out to the engineer the direction to be taken in looking for a solution appropriate to the design concept. The architect should orchastrate the role of craftsmen and artisians in the details and embellishments of a building. The architect should preserve order in the building process and balance man made and natural elements to create structures that are compatible with their environment and context. Thiry incorporated his “sense of equanimity, economy of lines and materials, high sense of order, and unusual appreciation for contours of land,” into his attitude about environmental design in the Pacific Northwest by fitting buildings to the irregular terrain, his consciousness of orientation, and inclusion of panoramic views. Dignity and economy were one in his mind and there is no better expression of his ideas than the Washington State Library. (McCoy, 1965: 15)

Thiry was very sensitive to the Beaux-Arts hierarchy of buildings within a composition. He understood that the importance of a particular building is often derived from its relationship to the buildings and context around it. In his opinion, if a work of architecture was well imagined and placed, it should be left in its place and responded to with new construction that organically adds to the composition. All in all, Thiry derived his primary pleasure in architecture from solving problems of context and composition, as is adeptly illustrated in the Washington State Library and its relationship to the greater Capitol campus. (Oral History transcript, 1983)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 29 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 30 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Chronology of Development

2.1 Building Technology 2.2 Architectural Description 2.3 Physical Modifications 2.4 Art 2.5 Furnishings Selection

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 31 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 32 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

over the entire slab panel, they rely on the reinforcing steel to pick up minor concentrated loads. Heavy concentrated loads necessitate true supporting beams. Hollow terra-cotta tiles or concrete boxes are placed to form the hollow recesses which are then covered, producing a 2.1.1 Waffle Slab variation of the waffle slab that appears uniform throughout. (Park, A key innovation employed in the 1980: 2) construction of the Washington State Library Building was the use of Waffle slab construction, relatively new to the Pacific Northwest in the reinforced concrete waffle slabs in the late 1950s, functioned well for the Library’s operations. The clear spans stacks section. A variation of the solid enabled flexible arrangements of stacks. The repetitive, efficient slab, the waffle slab is a two-way floor construction methods used to create the slabs kept costs low for panel, best imagined as a web of concrete work and shortened the construction time. The cost savings Fig. 2.1.1 Contemporary drawing illustrating crossing joists set at small spacings waffle slab construction. associated with the waffle slabs contributed in part to the overall savings relative to span (a dimensional ratio in the construction budget and the Library’s ability to purchase quality of length to width less than 2'). These are supported on all four sides furnishings, artwork and amenities. The single drawback, which Thiry and carry a thin top slab. Voids in the slab, cast using removable or mentioned in a December 1, 1989 interview, was the low ceiling height expendable forms, enable a large effective depth while reducing the in the stacks due to the depth of the beams. dead load of solid-slab construction. Metal pans with wood framing between were used as forms for the concrete casting in the Washington The current waffle configuration of two-way slabs developed from the State Library. The pans were hammered clean after each use, much to beam and girder system. However, in contrast with flat-slab Thiry’s dislike due to the impact on the shape and integrity of the pans. construction, two-way slabs came into consideration as a feasible (Conversation with Paul Thiry Jr., June 2002) structural system only after development of a suitable analysis. One of the earlier, documented two-way slabs was built and tested in St. Omitting these voids around the column-slab joint provides additional Louis in 1911, with ongoing testing through the 1910s and 1920s. ACI strength (resist moments and shears) to those areas. This is evident in code requirements were developed from design methods proposed by the Washington State Library around the columns. The stiffness of these Westergaard and Slater (1926) and Di Stasio and van Buren (1936). columns was important for redistributing moments. When parallel lines (Park, 1980:7) of recesses are omitted, the slab is a flat slab and supported at only two opposite sides, functioning basically like a beam. At first, design methods factored beams in as non-deflecting. Consequently the beams were designed for the "reaction the slab Waffle slabs are often used in situations necessitating spans larger than applied to the rigid supports." This resulted in either very deep and 30’ because of the slabs’ large effective depth and ability to provide a stiff beams or heavy compression and tension reinforcement. Not until stiff structure. Generally developed for a uniform distribution of loads introduction of the 1971 ACI Code was rational design of a waffle slab

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 33 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.1 BUILDING TECHNOLOGY supported on shallow beams allowed. Thiry’s use of waffle slab construction preceded this by fourteen years. (Park, 1980: 7-8)

Design considerations in choosing between two-way and beamless- slabs focused mainly on cost of labor versus cost of material. While the beamless-slab required simpler formwork and less labor, the large effective depth of two-way slabs offered substantial material savings, particularly in reinforcing steel. Flat-plate slabs did provide height savings, significant if the structure was to incorporate a large number of floors. However, the two-way slab afforded greater lateral stiffness due to the beams and higher efficiency of beam-column connections. Two-way slabs were more capable of resisting substantial horizontal loads by frame action rather than needing additional lateral bracing. With the addition of pre-stressing forces ("compression directly opposing tensile stresses caused by dead and live loads") "nearly crack free slabs" were possible at service loads. (Park, 1980: 7-9)

The waffle slabs in the rear stacks section of the building are a significant architectural feature of the building and represent a distinguishing historical characteristic. In their original configuration, they impart a unique understanding of mid-century construction methods and technology.

Fig. 2.1.2 1957 Reflected ceiling plan prepared by Paul Thiry illustrating the waffle slab construction in the Washington State Library. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 34 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

Buildings, specifically the Legislative Building. Then he incorporated the basic form of these elements into the n recalling the early stages of planning for the State Library, Thiry I Library, specifically the matter-of-factly stated in a December 1, 1989, interview that the Library portico (accented by DuPen’s staff had prepared a “good” program and description of departmental fountain), monumental requirements for the new building. The basic function of the Library stairway (placed to either was imagined primarily as a research center with a gracious, more side), colonnaded principal conventional public library area fronting on the Capitol ensemble. Using facade (achieved in the this massing concept as a point of departure, Thiry decided to keep the Fig. 2.2.2 Ca 1959 looking south from the Legislative Building window mullions and portico), stacks efficiently grouped together in a windowless block that met light at the Library’s primary facade. Photograph courtesy of the traditional rectangular plan, Washington State Library. sensitive document conservation standards. The nature of the site, dominating central dome of sloping steeply off the west, and the way the Transportation (John L. the Legislative Building and O’Brien) and Public Lands-Social Security (John A. Cherberg) Buildings central vertical element of the angled inward to frame the location, combined with the grouping of the Temple of Justice (articulated stacks, prompted Thiry to design the library “out in front of the stacks.” with the stacks and penthouse). From the outset, the SLC wanted the The Washington State Library, building to blend in located in the West Campus of with the adjacent the Washington State Capitol Capitol buildings Grounds between Fifteenth rather than stand and Sixteenth Avenues apart. (January 23, Southwest, completed the 1956 letter) Thiry also south end of the original wanted the building to Fig. 2.2.1 Ca 1957 rendering of the State Library. Image courtesy of the Wilder & White Capitol harmonize with any Washington State Library. Grounds Plan (1928). future development, a Centered on the north-south contextual consideration that evolved out of his fresh ideas about axis that passed through the Fig. 2.2.3 Ca 1959 photograph looing northwest from behind expanding the Wilder & White master plan and the subsequent Olmsted center of the Legislative the Library. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Brothers’ landscape enhancements. He identified the more pronounced Library. Building to the Temple of visual characteristics of the adjacent outwardly Classical Capitol

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 35 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

Justice on the north, the nearly symmetrical Library, on its elevated The building featured plantings along the principle facade and northeast site, assumed juxtaposed balance with the Temple of Justice. Situated corner in two large planters elevated above the terrazzo walkway on immediately south of the Legislative Building, framed between the either side of the portico (forming a pedestal for the portico). A third Transportation (John L. O'Brien) and Public Lands-Social Security (John elevated planter stood off the building’s northeast corner. Shrubs and A. Cherberg) Buildings, the Library’s contiguous location to the Capitol a small tree in the northeast planter were indicated as existing in the grounds afforded visual affirmation of the supportive services rendered landscape plan prepared by Otto J. Holmdahl and Associates. by the Library to the prominent functions of the Legislative Building. Holmdahl, Landscape Architect (L. J. Janzen and V. L. Nichols worked in the office at the time), in collaboration with Mr. Hart, the Division of 2.2.1 Site and Landscape Design Building and Grounds gardener, designed a formal walkway bordered During the design process, an existing stone retaining wall and stairs by annuals. They designated the principal walkway to be along the were removed. It was debated as to whether they were historic or if north-south axis, with smaller, east-west walkways leading towards the they could be torn down. Ultimately it was decided that they were not Library stairs. Centered between the Transportation and Public Lands- integral to the Wilder & White master plan and did not fit into the new Social Security Buildings and the Library was John Elliot’s sundial [see composition.

The elevated site on which the Library was located sloped gradually downward from the southeast to the north. This allowed the Library both a prominent position despite its small stature, matching the scale of adjacent buildings, as Fig. 2.2.4 Ca 1959 photograph taken from the upper portion well as a focal point site for the of the Legislative Building looking southeast at the Library. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. graduated ascent from the Legislative building across the flat intermediary terrace occupied by the Transportation and Public Lands-Social Security Buildings to the base of the Library. The west and southwest sides of the site dropped off sharply into the Deschutes Basin, affording a view out over Capitol Lake. Service and employee parking were located off the building's Fig. 2.2.5 1959 Landscape plan prepared by Otto E. Holmdahl and Associates. Drawing courtesy of the Washington southeast corner. State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 36 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

Art essay (2.4.1)] set on a terrazzo base with bronze dividers. It was framed by boxwood hedges on the diagonals. This arrangement 2.2.2 Exterior provided a central focus for the four surrounding buildings. In its responsive overall scale and form, its deferential orientation to the Legislative Building and its use of Wilkeson sandstone as an exterior Stretching east from the building's principal facade along the road across cladding, the State Library Building was deigned to assume a sense of the site's north end were loosely grouped deciduous trees and shrubs. shared purpose and belonging in the Capitol Group. The overall form of Existing conifers retained off the site’s southeast corner along the outer the Library building was that of a "T" (200' across by 100' deep) in edge of the parking area provided added context. Shrubs along the response to the site conditions and the two primary operational needs, building's east side, southwest corner, and across the center of the archival and people. Archival needs necessitated an enclosed block stack's south wall softened the transition between grade and building. form, and people needs required a flexible, open plan [see Library Planning essay (Appendix 5.3)]. Combining these two elements, Thiry An enclosure wall clad in Wilkeson sandstone along the site’s rear designed a low, open volume, two storied structure with one floor below southeast corner separated a courtyard for receiving deliveries and grade, having a horizontally extended principle façade, which formed parking for library staff from public view. An aluminum gate between the top of the "T." The seven-storied block of stacks rose from behind the north end of this enclosure wall and the southeast corner of the the low open frontal volume. The total combined floor space of the two building’s low frontal volume further inhibited public access to this volumes was 61,000 square feet. courtyard.

Along the site's steep west slope and south end, a staggered series of deciduous trees planted in a diagonal line (north to south) stabilized the slope which was comprised largely of fill deposited since 1922. (West Capitol Campus and Sylvester Park Landscape History and Regeneration Study, October 15, 2001) Boards were also used to hold low shrubs to the west slope, while two groupings of trees planted further down the slope softened the visual impact of the upper wall of trees.

Overall, the landscaping served to both soften and call attention to spatial and landscape building transitions. The screen wall off of the southeast corner discretely separated utilitarian library operations from public view and access.

Fig. 2.2.6 1957 Detail of the North Elevation prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the W ashington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 37 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

order to match the earlier Capitol buildings, as well as for the stone's Thiry designed the building's careful proportions and simple massing durability, good quality, and because it was a Washington product. to reflect the form and facades of the classically designed Legislative Numerous lesser details, specifically the building’s base, rhythmic Building and Capitol Group. This contributed to the informal, open regular spacing of window bays, and recessed panels below the composition of the main volume, providing a dignified repose befitting windows, evoked the classical idiom of adjacent Capitol buildings a monumental government building, while harmonizing with the other without directly using their detailing. Textures employed on the exterior supportive Capitol buildings to collectively provide a base for the walls were very plain, comprised of the grainy texture of the Wilkeson prominence of the Legislative Building. This unity of form and function sandstone contrasting with the glass surfaces of the broad windows. in turn served to reclaim the essential meaning of the State Library’s role within the State Government. Patterns were subtle within the ashlar coursing of the stone veneer. Their The foundation indicated in the original drawings consisted of reinforced variations, combined with the concrete footings with a reinforced concrete slab on grade for the alignment and proportions of the basement floor. According to the original drawings, the substructure building's elementary shapes, featured a repetitive skeletal construction in which the walls were tied emphasized the proportional to the floors above and below with lap joints. The top floor walls of the relationships of the building's stack area used a dovetail anchor slot to tie into the reinforced concrete massing. Thiry used large 48”x26-1/ roof slab. 2” panels across the base from grade up to the first floor, with the joints Exterior walls fea- centered below the portico columns tured a veneer of and every other window column. warm, off-white Larger (61”x51”—west, 61”x35”— Wilkeson sandstone east; height difference due to slope of over the reinforced site) panels on the elevated planters concrete substruc- enhanced their physical projection ture. Thiry chose from this base while drawing attention Fig. 2.2.8 Ca 1959 photograph of the Library’s northwest corner. Photograph courtesy of the Wilkeson sandstone to their visual function as a pedestal Washington State Library. instead of Indiana for the portico. The alignment of joints limestone, although it and column centers provided an implied visual sense of the building's was then three times Fig. 2.2.7 Ca 1959 photograph of the Library’s northeast corner. Photograph structure, which tied the facade’s elements together. Slender 10” wide more expensive, in courtesy of the Washington State Library. columns featuring a veneer of Wilkeson sandstone rose from the first

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 38 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION floor to carry the thin flat roof, for shelving on the interior wall in the providing an open volume reading room below the windows. The punctuated by broad window three windows into the east wall on the bays. The same ashlar first floor of the stacks were str ictly coursing was employed on the utilitarian (3’6”x3’10”), providing stacks and penthouse; daylight to the workspaces on the however, the use of slightly interior. All of the windows featured smaller 48”x26” panels aluminum frames. reduced the visual prominence of the stacks’ The roof and drainage system massive enclosed volume Fig. 2.2.9 Ca 1959 photograph of the Library’s primary facade. consisted of a thin roof over the two- Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. while adding prominence to story portion of the building, sloped the low horizontal form of the principal facade. Wider panels across slightly towards drains along the Fig. 2.2.10 Ca 1959 photograph looking west the north face of the penthouse (51”x23-1/2”) spread its volume roof's perimeter while maintaining a through the portico from the northeast planter. horizontally. Panels were reduced on the back to 48”23-1/2” to maintain flat profile. The slope stopped Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. the pattern between the two doors. approximately 4’ back from the outer edge of the roof. The flat roofline was The massive window bays, repeating in rhythmic procession on 10’ characteristic of this and other centers across the principal facade's main floor (twenty bays), existing Capitol buildings. continued across either side (five bays each) to wrap across the south sides (four bays each). The windows were designed to provide The roof over the low main functional transparency, at the time a significant development in library portion and the portico design meant to encourage library use, and a panoramic view out over overhung 4' on all sides. Over Deschutes Basin. The sensitivity for and inclusion of views was an the stacks, the roof was sloped important regional variant within Modernism in the Pacific Northwest. towards two drains that ran down through the stacks on Each 16’1” tall bay across the principal east and west facades was the north side of the south composed of two 3’ tall Wilkeson sandstone panels set on a stone sill columns (east and west ends) with two narrow 1’4-1/2” tall lights (the west light on each bay opened with a low concrete parapet inward for ventilation) between the stone panels below and the single around the roof's perimeter. A 11’6” tall glass light above. The stone panels below the windows on the similarly sloped roof and Fig. 2.2.11 Ca 1959 photograph looking southeast at the Library’s west stairway. Photograph courtesy of the Washington south sides were 4’2” taller than those described above. This allowed drain were used on the State Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 39 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION penthouse. The roofline of the A second stair led up (4:16 pitch) from penthouse (approximately 62’ a landing that projected east, across above the north grade) was the front of the elevated northeast slightly above the roofline of planter, out from the east stair's the Transportation and Public landing. This concrete stair with low, Lands-Social Security stone capped flanking cheek wall led Buildings. to the service parking lot.

The principal entry was a The elevated portico featured a complex formal composition terrazzo floor with a colonnade of of stairs, elevated planters, Fig. 2.2.12 Ca 1959 photograph of Paul Thiry in front of the Wilkeson sandstone-veneered Library. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. pool, portico, and vestibule columns spaced on 20’ centers along that balanced the informal open volume to harmonize library function its outer north edge. The columns at Fig. 2.2.13 Ca 1959 photograph looking east with the existing Capitol buildings. Two broad quarter-turn stairs (4:16 either end of the portico aligned with through the portico at the entry vestibule. pitch) were set at either end of the principal facade with metal nosing the outer edge of the stack, Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. and terrazzo surfacing. Low, Wilkeson sandstone- clad cheek walls maintaining a visible structure and that led up from the sidewalk to the colonnaded portico flanked the providing continuity between the stacks and the low, broad front portion. stairs. A stone railing identical to the railing across the portico enclosed Continuing between the columns were the low Wilkeson sandstone the landing on the west stair. Between the monumental stairs were coping slabs corresponding with the copings from the cheek walls along elevated (50'x20'5") Wilkeson sandstone clad planters set on a base of the stairs. Running along this base between the columns was the fine-grained terrazzo, spanning the width of five window bays. rectilinear Wilkeson sandstone railing designed to follow the joint lines between the stone panels in the window bays. The open nature of the Recessed between these was a bronze sculpture by Everett DuPen on a portico further reinforced the transparency and connection of the bench cantilevered over an illuminated (60'x14'8") polished terrazzo- building's interior with its surroundings. lined pool also set on a base of fine-grained terrazzo. The fish in the fountain aligned with the portico columns. [See Art essay (2.4.2)]. The Set within the portico was the public entry vestibule, comprised of two curved lines of the sculpture, and light reflected from the pool on the sets of double doors with aluminum frames that opened outwards, slab’s tapered underside accented the straight, primarily horizontal leading into the first floor. The walls of the vestibule were composed of and vertical lines of the portico and entire building. The patina of the three Wilkeson sandstone slabs, one on either side and a third across bronze blended with the warm tones in the Wilkeson sandstone. the top, all pinned together with metal dowels.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 40 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

The entire unit, offset by one and a half bays to the west of the central north-south axis that aligned the centers of the Legislative Building and the Library, also projected 5'4" onto the portico in order to maximize interior space. By shifting the small entry (an appropriate size for library operation) off center, Thiry reinforced the visual unity between the stacks, the low open frontal volume, and the entry composition (portico, planters, pool and stairs) without the small doorway conflicting with this visual mass.

Service entries were located on the first floor of the stacks in the north corner of the east wall to provide staff and shipping access, and on the south side of the penthouse for roof and mechanical systems access (two doors).

Throughout the building’s composition, Thiry was careful to maintain alignment of the various elements from top to bottom. The blend with Fig. 2.2.15 1957 Sections of the Washington State Library prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the existing buildings and visual and compositional unity was appropriate Washington State Department of General Administration Archives. for a monumental government building. that time.” Throughout the process, Paul Thiry 2.2.3 Interior Features and Maryan Reynolds According to Reynolds, the reason for worked closely the SLC's interest in Thiry was the together (Reynolds functional efficiency of the "basic often called Thiry plan" he developed and his interest in three to four times a working on libraries and with their day with ideas and staffs. (Taped interview with questions) in deciding Reynolds, September 23, 1988) on embellishments, particularly the historical content they Paul Thiry regarded the design of the were to convey, Washington State Library not as a Fig. 2.2.14 Image of a mockup of the State Librarian’s office showing furnishing arrangmenet interior arrangement “futuristic program but one that and color scheme. Image courtesy of the Fig. 2.2.16 Ca 1959 photograph looking east through the low frontal and furnishing volume of the Library. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. looked to the future as regarded at Washington State Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 41 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

choices. (Conversation with Paul Thiry Jr., July 2002) Thiry also met frequently with the Library staff, who prepared and adjusted mock-ups of the floors, and “recommended [that the] interior walls be omitted” to permit an open, flexible plan. Fig. 2.2.18 Ca 1959 photograph of the first floor looking south into the stacks. The staff area is to the Thiry described his conception of the left, with the reading area to the right. Photograph design as taking what he and the courtesy of the Washington State Library. Library staff knew regarding their present and future requirements and developing the Library accordingly in a manner consistent with the practices of library design appropriate at that time. Consequently, the interior of the Washington State Library consisted of two distinct sections according to the building’s operational needs. One, the low, horizontally extended two-story Fig. 2.2.19 Ca 1959 photograph of the main desk portion along the north side of the looking southeast from the entry vestibule. building was designed for public and Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. staff use with one floor below grade. This section consisted of a main floor and basement; each was double the height of the stack floors. Second, the enclosed, seven-story vertical mass of the stacks (with two floors below grade) was designed as a stack area without windows for the Library’s Fig. 2.2.20 Ca 1959 photograph looking east at collection. The building was designed James FitzGerald’s mosiac. The Wilkeson sandstone bench is on the left and the main desk to the right. Photograph courtesy of the Washington Fig. 2.2.17 1957 First floor plan prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department State Library. of General Administration Archives. Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 42 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION for approxi-mately twelve people. entry area providing a linking space (Taped interview with Thiry, between these two principal uses. December 1, 1989: 18-19) Placing the entry off center removed the main desk from the direct path of 2.2.3.1 First Floor the public entering the building. The pathway between the entry and the Designed to have a flexible, open stacks then functioned as a division plan, the first floor was one open Fig. 2.2.21 Ca 1959 photograph looking southwest across the reading area from the entry between public space on the west and Fig. 2.2.24 Ca 1959 photograph looking down volume, readily accessible from the area. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State from the first floor mezzanine to the east across the library administration space to the exterior, with reinforced concrete Library. entry area into the staff area. Photograph courtesy east. Spaces on the first floor of the Washington State Library. beams spanning north-south. The consisted of the entry, reading, and south wall between the first floor and administrative areas. stacks was left open to provide access to catalogues and indexes. These were The entry was the central circulation placed on the first floor adjacent to point for access to the public, staff, the stacks in order to maximize and stack areas. From the main desk, storage space. Broad expanses of Fig. 2.2.22 Ca 1959 photograph looking down one person could monitor the entry windows permitted exterior vistas of from the first floor mezzanine to the northwest and reading room. This approximately Fig. 2.2.25 Ca 1959 photograph looking down the Legislative Building to the north across the reading area. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. 40’x40’ space was split into 20’ wide from the first floor mezzanine to the east across the and over Deschutes Basin to the west. entry area into the staff area. Photograph courtesy east and west halves. The east half of the Washington State Library. consisted of the main desk, providing The interior color scheme was derived direct contact between the staff and public. In front from the mural created by FitzGerald. of the desk was an approximately 10’ wide pathway [See Art essay (2.4.3)]. The library that led east to the administrative area and public staff objected initially; however, Thiry stairway to the basement, separated from the room assured them that this was intended by a low planter. Dominating this space was to emphasize books and people as FitzGerald’s mosaic. The west half contained a part of the design. (Taped interview pathway (north-south) leading from the entry to the with Reynolds [September 23, 1988]: stack area with the central catalog files along the main 36) Fig. 2.2.26 Ca 1959 desk on the east side. photograph looking east down the corridor. Functionally, the first floor was split Fig. 2.2.23 Ca 1959 photograph of the first floor Photograph courtesy of between public use on the west side reading area looking north. Photograph courtesy the Washington State and staff use on the east side, with the of the Washington State Library. Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 43 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

To the west of this north-south the corridor was a desk (north side) and gate (south side) to control pathway, the room opened into the access to the office and work spaces that opened to either side of the reading room. This approximately corridor. Tobey’s painting hung at the east end of the corridor, and the 40’x70’ public space contained view down the corridor from the main desk provided a telescoping effect. anchored tables along the north wall, moveable tables and open space in the The configuration of the office spaces was determined by Thiry’s southwest corner, periodical displays preference that “people that work directly with you should be next to along the south wall, and an index you.” (Taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989, p19) As a result, table and shelving in the southeast Fig. 2.2.27 Ca 1959 photograph of the State the office and work spaces on either side of the corridor consisted of Librarian’s office looking east. Photograph corner. Thiry had the tables along the courtesy of the Washington State Library. an administration office (16’x30’ approximately) on the north, entered north wall anchored to the floor so they via a broad entryway with access to the supply room (16’x10’ would not be arbitrarily shifted around. Reynolds objected to this on approximately) between this office space and the public stair to the the grounds it limited flexibility. In the end it was decided that it would basement. There were windows along the north wall. Opposite this not be difficult to remove the anchors in the event of a change in area was the technical process room (16’x55’ approximately), also arrangement. The other half of the main reading room contained accessed from the assistant librarian’s office on the east, the main desk comfortable davenports, chairs by Del-Teet Furniture and Herman Miller area on the west, and the mendery—stack area—on the south. and low aluminum frame reading tables with mosaic tops by James Continuing down the corridor was the field librarian’s office (16’x20’ FitzGerald. The color scheme of reds, yellows and creams for the approximately) on the south, with closet space and access to the upholstered davenports and chairs complemented the subtle tones of technical process room, and windows on the south wall. FitzGerald’s mosaic. (Taped interview with Reynolds, September 23, 1988: 34) On the east end was the “L” shaped State Librarian’s office (20’x20’) in the northeast corner with a slight bump-in for the toilet. This featured The private administrative area windows on the north and east sides and access to the toilet and consisted of offices and work spaces conference room. An “L” shaped conference room (20’x20’) was in the grouped in the 40’x80’ east portion of southeast corner with a slight bump-in for closet space and access to the first floor. A corridor (7’2”wide the State Librarian’s office. The State Librarian’s office was as large as by 60’ long) led from the entry area it was due to Thiry. Dorothy Cutler suggested Thiry move the partition down the middle of the east portion to over to provide more space for the others. Thiry, according to Maryan a small vestibule at the east end. A Reynolds, “tore into her,” defending his decision on the basis that if the staff toilet (5’x5’) was located on the State Librarian’s “office wasn’t considerably bigger than anyone else’s east side of the vestibule, with access Fig. 2.2.28 Ca 1959 photograph looking office, it wouldn’t give [her] the stature.” (Taped interview with Reynolds, from the State Librarian’s office and northeast in the conference room. Photograph September 23, 1988: 34) the conference room. Part way down courtesy of the Washington State Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 44 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

Vinyl tile was used for floor covering throughout the first floor. Acoustical tile was used for the ceiling.

Partitions along the north and east walls of the administrative area aligned with the window mullions. Partitions featuring solid expanses of glass in their upper portions were used for the State Librarian’s office (south and west walls), the conference room (north and west walls), and the supply room (south and east walls). These, and the partitions around the toilet between the State Librarian’s office and the conference room were the only partitions extending to the ceiling. This left the entire first floor open and visible from the first floor mezzanine, which enabled maximum operational Fig. 2.2.30 Ca 1959 photograph looking east across the map flexibility with a minimum of room. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. staff to monitor activities.

Lighting was evenly spaced across the entire ceiling length in two rows spaced 5’ in from the north and south walls on 10’ centers. Each 4’x8’ light consisted of a waffle type covering with a piano type hinge on one side and fastening tabs on the opposite side. Those at the end were set 2’ in from the wall. Lighting was designed to provide 50 candles at reading level.

White “snowflake” vinyl impregnated asbestos vertical blinds were used to control the sun exposure.

Fig. 2.2.29 1957 Basement floor plan prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 45 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

2.2.3.2 Basement Secondary spaces off the corridor’s north side consisted of public and Designed primarily for library staff toilets, a dark room, staff lounge with kitchenette, a public phone operations, the basement inset into the wall, a storage room, as well as work and mechanical consisted of a principal east- equipment rooms (mostly below the portico). west corridor with primary volumes at either end and on The map and newspaper room (20’x100’) on the corridor’s south side, the corridor’s south side. consisted of a single volume open on the south to the stacks that Secondary spaces were to the extended to the east and west parallel to the corridor. Doors on either north and below the portico. end provided access to the Washington and microfilm rooms, with a central door on the north side to the corridor. This entire space was Functionally, the basement’s Fig. 2.2.31 Ca 1959 photograph looking west in the visible from the basement mezzanine balcony. All other spaces in the Washington room. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State basement had furred ceilings and were consequently not visible. The primary volumes were split Library. between public (central and ceiling featured exposed waffle slab. The room contained map tables west portions) and private (east portion) with the public corridor and cabinets spaced along the room’s east-west axis. providing circulation between these spaces. Access to the basement for the public was provided through the stairway leading down from the The Washington Room (40’x50’), first floor north off the main desk, with private access via the central located at the west end of the corridor stair and elevator core. below the first floor reading room, consisted of a single open volume Public spaces, in addition to accessed from two doors on the east the corridor, consisted of the wall opening from the corridor and map room (central portion) map room. Above the 6’10” high and the Washington Room wood shelving with glass doors along (west end). The the room’s perimeter was Callahan’s approximately 7’ wide and mural, furred out to be flush with the 100’ long corridor featured outer face of the shelving. [See Art large illuminated color essay (2.4.5)]. The shelving transparencies of displayed books from the Library’s collection of Pacific Northwest Fig. 2.2.33 Ca 1959 photograph of stacks looking Washington’s resources and along east-west corridor along south side of the materials, including volumes industries mounted in display elevator core. Photograph courtesy of the Fig. 2.2.32 Ca 1959 photograph of the Washington room purchased in 1853-1855 by Territorial Washington State Library. cases along the south wall. looking southwest. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State [See Art essay (2.4.6)]. Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 46 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

Governor Isaac Stevens. Rare documents were kept within a security Rubber tile, recommended in correspondence with other state libraries area in the stacks. The room also featured a moveable table, exhibit as superior to asphalt flooring, was used for floor covering throughout case, 3’ high standing shelves, files and a card catalog. the basement. Acoustical tile was used for the ceilings of the Washington and microfilm rooms. Partitions between the rooms, except The room, staffed by a mechanical and storage, were metal stud to provide flexibility. specialist in Northwest History, functioned as Lighting in the volumes at either end consisted of east-west strips of a depository for 2’x8’ lights set on 10’ centers, 2’ from the walls (3’ in the microfilm materials pertaining room). The ends of these strips were set back 3’ from the walls in the to the Pacific Washington Room and 4’ in the microfilm room. The closer proximity of Northwest and was lighting to the walls of the Washington Room illuminated the mural and anticipated to be one books in the shelves below. Lighting in the map room consisted of of the “main drawing luminaries identical to those used on the first floor, spaced cards in the new Fig. 2.2.34 Ca 1959 photograph looking east along the first floor mezzanine approximately 10’ o.c. on either side of the waffle slab ribbing. Those building.” According level. Photograph courtesy of the W ashington State Library. to Maryan Reynolds, State Librarian, greater effort “in terms of furnishing and design” had been placed on the Washington Room “than any other room in the building.”

Private space consisted of the microfilm room (50’x40’) on the east end of the central east-west corridor. The room contained non-freestanding shelves in the south half with microfilm cabinets as well as collating and splicing tables in the north half. Two doors on the west wall provided entry from the corridor and the map room. The room was designed primarily as work space to accommodate the microfilming of newspapers and other documents. This required separate work areas for collating, filming, processing, editing and splicing, carried out by one to two staff members.

Fig. 2.2.35 1957 Typical stack floor plan prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 47 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION on either end were people having to move between floors. (Taped interview with Reynolds, half the width and September 23, 1988: 34) Materials contained in each floor were: recessed into the Basement: newspaper stack room, bill stacks (along east wall), ceiling. The corridor janitor storage (north of core); Basement mezzanine: periodical stacks, Washington documents featured individual (along east wall separate from stacks [50’x20’ space]), reference (in lights along its length. northwest corner, separate from stacks [15’x10’] , storage; First floor: stack room, standard reference shelving (along north end of west wall, also 15’x20’ open space in this corner with 2.2.3.3 Stacks moveable table). On first floor stack area, east side was used for Designed to have Fig. 2.2.36 Ca 1970 rendering of the addition proposed by Paul Thiry. shipping [20’x28’10”appr.] and mendery [15’x20’] (on either side of Image courtesy of the Washington State Library. open interiors free of a hallway [6’x20’] having doors opening to exterior and from walkway on the south side of the elevator core). The mendery was large beams, the open to the technical process area and hallway between mendery seven storied stacks were intended specifically for the storage of the and shipping room, with a doorway opening into the room from the Library’s collection. Stacks were placed along the ribbing of the waffle stack area, and a window in the east wall. Shipping was also open to slab ceiling. The waffle slab construction eliminated the need for heavy the hallway, but not to the stack area, with two windows in east wall; beams, which would have conflicted with the flexible arrangement of stacks. [See Building Technology essay (Chronology of Development 2.1)].

Functionally,the stacks were private space, open on the north, with access from the exterior on the east wall.

The waffle floors consisted of 3” slabs with 10” deep beams, which reduced the ceiling height to 7’6” without lights. In plan view, each floor was essentially identical, consisting of a stair, dumb waiter and elevator core (11’1”x28’11” in the basement and 10’11”x22’ above) in the center of the north portion. The remaining space was devoted to stack use. These were spaced on 5’ centers with approximately 4’8” walkways along the south end, south side of the elevator core, and on the west side and the space between the north side of the stacks and the main portion. Thiry included the dumbwaiter in order to minimize

Fig. 2.2.37 1970 drawing of the proposed addition to the Library prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 48 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION

First floor mezzanine: book stack, document librarian On first floor mezzanine, space for document librarian to east of core [15’x20’] area open to stacks with catalog unit on west side; Second floor: federal and state document room; Third and fourth floors: stacks; Penthouse: mechanical equipment, storage.

In anticipation of future expansion, Thiry designed concrete block knockout walls on the south end of the stacks. Located along the mid point of the stack’s south wall, these walls were placed on each floor, stacked by floor in a vertical line.

Lighting for the stacks consisted of long narrow strip type lights the width of the beams. These were placed lengthwise every second beam along a north-south axis to either side of and to the south of the core.

2.2.4 Thiry’s Plans for Addition As the Library’s collection continued to grow, so did its role during the 1960s and 1970s, expanding to become a “nerve center” for Washington’s public libraries, promoting and developing improved library services and facilities, and a loan center. In addition, the State Library began to draw more academic researchers and general public use. As a result, additional space, particularly administrative, was needed within only a few years of opening. In 1969, chapter 187 of Senate Bill 488, $562,113 was appropriated to “construct and equip [an] addition to [the] State Library.” Due to the 1970 aerospace recession and ensuing collapse of the state budget, Governor Evans decided the funds were insufficient to cover the total cost of the addition. Consequently, only the drawings were prepared.

The proposed addition called for more stacks off the south end of the building, with an extension of the low frontal volume back along the Fig. 2.2.38 1970 drawing of the proposed addition to the Library prepared by Paul Thiry. Drawing courtesy of the Washington State Department of General Administration Archives.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 49 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.2 ARCHITECTURAL D ESCRIPTION east and west sides of the stacks. The height of these extensions was to match the existing height of the front portion (two stories, with one below grade). The colonnade of window bays was continued along the east and west sides, with additional windows in the south end on the first floor into the new technical services area. (Note: elevations and sections were not located).

Proposed additions to the first floor: Reader service area south of the main reading room; Technical services in the southwest corner and across the south end of the addition Library development offices (cubicles around perimeter of room) south of east side of main portion (existing office area); Shipping and receiving moved to the southeast corner, with mendery and shipping rooms converted to stack space.

Proposed additions to the basement: Extension of Washington Room to south (doubled existing size); Provision of a secure area in the southwest corner; Audiovisual area in the east-central area (same size as existing microfilm room) and along south end behind original stacks; Film storage in southeast corner.

Knockout walls in the stacks (indicated in the original drawings) would have been removed to provide access between the existing stacks and the addition.

Of particular interest on the M-1 sheet of Thiry’s addition drawings (dated July 16, 1970) were double dashed lines beyond the lines of the proposed addition. These lines expanded out to the east from behind the main front portion, in a northeast diagonal, moving forward until roughly even with the east-west line of the existing portico. This then wrapped along the east and south sides of the proposed addition, with a recess in the southeast corner for service access and parking. These lines appear to indicate a possible third expansion beyond that of the proposed addition.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 50 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.3 PHYSICAL M ODIFICATIONS

2.3.2 Building rom the State Library’s construction in 1959 until 2001, the building F 65-467: New Movable Partitions: GA: In response to changes in spatial has had the same occupant and the same use. Consequently, alterations needs, movable, 7’ high partitions were added in the northwest corner over time were minimal and done primarily in response to space needs, of the map room, creating three new office spaces (two 10’x10’, the technological upgrades, changes in interior decoration, collection third 10’x20’). These partitions, while maintaining the open volume of growth, and increases in staff. Cumulatively, these modifications altered, the map room, were an early effort to meet the rapidly expanding need in a relatively minor sense, the original visual character of the building’s for administrative space within the building, and would change spaces principal facade and interior finishes. However, the original overall throughout the building as areas were subdivided to accommodate staff landscaping, massing, exterior materials and finishes, interior spatial increases. volumes and relations were retained.

76-329: Interior Decoration: Richard D. Roselle Industrial Marine and The following brief summar ies of modifications are presented in Interior Design Consultant: This project redid the interior decoration chronological order and, with the exception of 2.3.1 Site, are organized throughout the building. These changes consisted of new wall coverings, using the General Administration project number, title and author, carpet, paint, and murals in the staff lounge, map and microfilm rooms, followed by a paragraph summarizing the scope and effects of the general office area, and north stair. No specific reasons were located modification. These physical modifications represent a chronology over for these changes, and they altered original finishes and materials. time of the building’s evolution and reflect only those with a substantial impact on significant elements, spatial relations and volumes, finishes, 76-329 G: Color Designation: GA: The Library's interior was repainted and materials. with a color scheme of whites, off whites, gold and light browns, with additional blues and yellows in the stair core and elevator interior (see drawings for specific color specification). No specific reasons were 2.3.1 Site located for these changes, and they further altered original finishes The trees off the southeast corner and along the south side of the stacks and materials. adjacent to the building were removed. A gravel walk was added along the south and west sides of the building. Specific remarks concerning 79-579: New Concrete Stairs: The Dudley Company Architects and the intent of the landscaping were not located. According to the Engineers: This project added concrete stairs on the exterior northeast landscape plan prepared by Otto E. Holmdahl and Associates (1959) and northwest corners of the stacks, connecting the basement, and Thiry's drawings (1957), the only modification with adverse effect basement mezzanine and first floor. This addition altered the interior was the removal of the trees off the southeast corner of the parking layout and the exterior corners of the stacks visually; however, this area area. is not visible from the public frontage.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 51 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.3 PHYSICAL M ODIFICATIONS

93-032: Floor Covering Replacement: Anderson & Boone Architects: The original finish flooring was replaced throughout the first floor and basement with carpet of a uniform color (except in Head and Deputy Librarians’ offices).

In the stacks, rubber floor tiles replaced existing loose laid rubber floor tiles in the shipping area. The main portion of the first floor stack area received carpet matching the color of the first floor carpet. In the basement, the east half of the stacks received carpet matching the color of the first floor carpet, with a different color carpet in the northwest corner of the basement mezzanine.

Fig. 2.3.1 1996 drawing of the Library window replacement. Top drawing indicates the before state of the north No changes were made to the bathrooms or mechanical/storage areas. facade, with the bottom drawing showing the after state of the same facade. Drawing courtesy of the Washington On both stairs, rubber treads and risers, with rubber floor tiles on the State Department of General Administration Archives. landings replaced existing finishes. No specific reasons were located for these changes, and they further altered original finishes and Electrical, HVAC, f ire protection, and emergency light upgrades and materials. additions: These took place in three principal time periods. The first was during the mid to late 1970s, which consisted of heating and 96-066-2-1: Window Replacement: Masini Sanford Gabr ielse & ventilation upgrades (72-000), emergency light and floor receptacle Schoenfeldt Architects: Existing original windows were removed in additions (72-727 and 72-138), and electrical changes to the basement stages that began prior to 1996. This began with the changing of and first floor (76-671). The second was during the mid to late 1980s, windows in the southeast and southwest corners and southwest side by with fire protection and HVAC improvements (81-304 and 83-187). The D. K. Boose Glass Inc., followed by replacement of the frontal portion by third was during the late 1990s, consisting of electrical and air quality Kell-Chuck Glass. The new windows consisted of the current six light improvements (92-192, 94-304, 1996, and 96-066G). (three vertical, side by side) windows. This change completely altered the original design intent of broad expanses of glass, with small, 2002-2003: Building Modifications: Thomas Cook Reed Reinvald PLLC operable windows below for ventilation, effectively detracting from the Architects: This on-going project is a temporary phase within long term visual of window mullions as slender colums and the curtain wall effect plans for change in use of the building from Library to office and of the solid glass expanse. cafeteria space. Prior to and in 1977 and in the 1980s, the conversion of

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 52 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.3 PHYSICAL M ODIFICATIONS

the Library into executive office space was proposed. Components of these temporary changes having the greatest potential for impacting original fabric and interpretive goals are: First Floor • addition of an enclosed reception area directly opposite the main entry • addition of large-scale, exposed HVAC duct work • partitions for the kitchen’s serving area projecting out from the stack area into the first floor • removal of the interior set of doors on the main entry • division of the first floor into two portions through a partition wall off the wall holding the FitzGerald mosaic

Basement • addition of firewalls, partitions, and HVAC duct work in the map room • office space in the Washington Room

Stacks • panels in waffle slab cut out to accomodate vents for kitchen stove • addition of kitchen on the first floor

Roof • new roof vent over the first floor

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 53 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

Committee approved embellishments for up to 2-1/2% of the total construction costs, and gave Paul Thiry and Maryan Reynolds full authority to choose the artists and the type of art. In turn, Thiry seamlessly blended the most important works into the design of the n 1958, the major contemporary artworks featured in the State Library I building, giving Kenneth Callahan a dramatic set of wall panels in the were considered an integral part of the architectural design, intended Washington Room and the sometimes-cantankerous James FitzGerald to enhance the building and accent the human element. Their inclusion a forceful partition wall washed in northern light. Both artists responded was the result of several fortunate occurrences. Commissioned admirably with works that enhanced the building both architecturally specifically for individual locations within the Library building, all of and intellectually. the site-specific works inside the building were emblematic of mid- century regional modern aesthetics and were executed by major figures Thiry selected John Elliott and Kenneth Callahan, recommended in the American art world working at the peaks of their careers. They FitzGerald, and according to Reynolds, “said the state’s next outstanding represented significant associations with the Pacific Northwest and artist next to Callahan was [Mark] Tobey and we [the Library] should Washington State, and several of the works referenced historic themes have a Tobey.” (Taped interview with Reynolds, September 23, 1988: and representations. The exterior artwork was generally of lesser 34) The untitled Mark Toby painting ended up being 8’ by 9’ in size and importance but integral to the overall building and its context. was a major departure from the work he was otherwise producing. From the day he hung the mural, notching out the corners of the stretcher to Maryan Reynolds advanced the notion that the “State Library was the fit the wall, it was controversial, challenging and atypical. first building in the Capitol Group to incorporate art as part of the structure.” She was probably defining artwork somewhat narrowly and Maryan Reynolds and Bert Cole, the State Land Commissioner, also in contemporary terms that did not recognize the highly crafted stone discussed a photographic transparency project for the basement carving, Tiffany Company casting and glasswork, historic paintings and corridor with Jim Hughes, Public Information Officer, who suggested other design elements in the Classical Capitol Group buildings. Since Bob and Ira Spring. construction of the State Library, other buildings have incorporated artwork, and since the adoption of the percent for the arts program, During the design process, Reynolds was involved in coordinating the virtually all-state buildings include artwork. (Reynolds, 2001: 228) compilation of an historic outline of significant events in Washington’s history, which was sent to Callahan, Thiry, and Elliott, along with This extensive inclusion of artwork was possible largely due to the appropriate themes and imagery. Reynolds also met personally with economical design of the building and the savings that became available Callahan and Elliott and they, in turn, blended planning and artistic for enhancements. According to Paul Thiry, when the bids came back, ideas with architect Paul Thiry. they were “lower than the budget and so [he] thought that embellishing the building was in order.” Maryan Reynolds agreed. The Capitol

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 54 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

Artwork original to the building: S. 19 gauge copper, mitered and reinforced on the back with braces (exterior) and lugs, with a gnomon made of 1/4" sheet copper extending from the Bronze sundial, (by John W. Elliott) sundial's outer edge to a point about two-thirds of the way to the center. Bronze sculpture, (by Everett DuPen) The specifications called for decorative bas-relief or repoussé designs on the face, and for installation within the circular court directly north of (first floor) the Library. Marble wall mosaic, (by James FitzGerald)

Untitled mural on canvas, (by Mark Tobey) During the design process, Elliott worked with Paul Thiry and he drew Marble side and coffee tables, (by James FitzGerald) from a compilation of “historical highlights” and a list of symbols Paintings given from AAUW, (by various artists) “suitable for sundials” given to him by Maryan Reynolds. (Letter dated Paintings from Public Works of Art Project, (by various artists) March 18, 1958) The list of symbols included forts, tepees, covered (basement) wagons, ships (sail), fur traders, pioneers, missionaries, Territorial Capitol Building, Indians, canoes, oxen, train, sawmills, and gristmills. Washington Room murals, (by Kenneth Callahan) These were intended to cover one hundred years of Washington’s history Color transparencies (by various artists) from 1853 to 1953.

The art work commissions were $6,716.66 for the mosaic by FitzGerald, According to Maryan Reynolds, she was the one who wanted a quote to $8,266.67 for the large painting by Mark Tobey, $9,816.67 for the accompany the images on the sundial. However, it took a while to find Washington Room mural by Kenneth Callahan, $1,550 for John Elliott’s an appropriate quote. On the back of one of Elliott’s cards was a quote sundial, and $2,986.33 for the color transparencies. likely suggested by him: “No minute gone ever comes back again take heed and see ye nothing do in vain.” This was changed during a meeting In 1967, the Washington State Library received an ivory and ebony on July 10, 1958, to a quote from Marcus Aurelius suggested by Reynolds: trophy from the State Arts Commission for its "quality of public arts" "Time is a sort of river of passing events, and strong is its current." and "enrichment of government (Taped interview with Reynolds, September 23, 1988: 36) through the written word." (Tacoma News Tribune, February 3, 1967) Installed prior to the 1959 building dedication, the sundial was centered between the identical Highways and Social Security-Public Lands Buildings on an 18' base of bronze-divided unpolished terrazzo 2.4.1 Bronze Sundial (matching the steps of the Library), bordered by a circular walk. The According to the original building sundial served as a "focal point for viewing the Washington State specifications, John W. Elliott was Library." Four 18"x18"x1'-9" Wilkeson sandstone piers carried the Fig. 2.4.1 Ca 1959 photograph of John Elliott’s 7'x7'x6" slab of Wilkeson sandstone on which the plane-type, hand- commissioned to provide a 6' diameter sundial. Photograph courtesy of the Washington sundial, made from two pieces of B. & State Library. hammered sundial rested. The face featured bas-relief Roman numerals

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 55 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART and Zodiac signs around scenes from Washington's history. The gnomon cantilevered from the Library's principal facade. A sheet of water fell consisted of 1"x1/2" pounded bronze rods. The letter "N" indicated from the basin into a green terrazzo pool below. The central grouping of true North. The quote from Marcus Aurelius preluded the historical four seagulls measured approximately 12’ from wing tip to wing tip, themes of the seven inner panels. (Building Dedication, 1959: 4) with approximately 5' individual wingspans. Three water jets along the front delivered water to the fore of the central group, with two additional Historical scenes: water jets (one to each side below the fish) delivering water over the 1. Captain George Vancouver's discoveries, 1792; seagulls. Lights, on the top and bottom sides of the cantilevered slab, 2. Establishment of Fort Okanogan near the mouth of the Okanogan illuminated the sculpture (above) and pool (below). (Building Dedication, 1959: 5) river, 1811, and erection of Fort Vancouver by the Hudson's Bay Company, 1825; According to Mildred K. Sherwood, Art Librarian at the University of 3. Cowlitz Convention urging creation of a new territory, 1851; Washington Library, the bronze, high in copper alloy content, was 4. Crossing of Nachez Pass, 1853; "selected to contrast well with the architecture, [...] to weather well 5. First water-powered sawmill in Washington, built by Michael T. and to increase in beauty as the richness of the patina increases with Simmons, 1828; age." She indicated the entire assembly was cast in several sections. 6. First railroad to Puget Sound, 1883; Using a Jelio-Arc welding process (combined gas and electric welding 7. Medicine Creek Treaty between U.S. and Puget Sound Native using helium, which eliminated warping due to heating and expanding bronze), the individual sections were assembled and welded together. Americans, drawn up by Governor Stevens, 1854. Also indicated was the sharpening of leading edges of the forms to "catch the light, airiness and movement increased by linear effect of the highlights on the wings, 2.4.2 Bronze Fountain while the coving under the Everett G. DuPen's bronze wings was designed to catch fountain, installed in time for the reflections of light thrown the 1959 building dedication, by the water in an enclosure was composed of four of space." "The fountain was seagulls soaring over waves, designed to be viewed from flanked by two leaping many angles (from the steps salmon, with water jets in the of the Capitol 300' away, from foreground and below the below as one ascends salmon. The fountain stairway, from eye level, from Fig. 2.4.2 Ca 1959 photograph of Everett DuPen’s bronze Fig. 2.4.3 Ca 1959 photograph of Everett DuPen’s bronze (approximately 900lbs) was fountain looking west. Photograph courtesy of the Washington the side and from above." fountain looking south. Photograph courtesy of the Washington mounted on a basin State Library. (Building Dedication, 1959: 5) State Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 56 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

In a letter to Maryan Reynolds (dated July 1961), FitzGerald described The fountain anchored the building’s architectural center point and the assembly and mounting process of mosaic. A steel frame wall was provided an elevated step that introduced the entry-level porch. The prepared to allow installation of the panels so that each one was self- visual effect of lifting the ground floor was the same as the stairs that supporting. This was then covered with reinforced wood panels, surfaced climbed to the entries on the other Classical buildings in the Capitol with a water proofing membrane. A “thin metal grid” was then attached Group, but by employing a water element rather than stairs, the building to the wood panels. The letter did not describe if the fasteners for the had a lighter, more floating character. The cast bronze seagulls in flight, grid punctured the membrane. Then “a special elastic mortar was … leaping salmon and moving water all enhanced the illusion of lift and used to grout into the metal the individual marble tesserae.” elevated plane for the overtly horizontal building mass. The 20'x16' mosaic, comprised of several separate panels, featured "individually positioned [marble tesserae] … tipped to reflect light from 2.4.3 Marble Wall Mosaic different angles," with 3/16" brass edging on each panel to control James Herbert FitzGerald was variations in thermal expansion. Over twenty different varieties of commissioned, according to marble were employed, including some from Mexico (green), Norway the original building (rose), several from Italy and Tennessee, as well as other places. The specifications, to provide a forms, according to the 1959 Building Dedication are suggestive of mosaic wall designed for Washington's native forests (verticals), "linear and textural patterns of installation on column line water, fields, and foliage." nine, stair "B," comprised of a series of reinforced panels Fig. 2.4.4 Ca 1959 photograph of James FitzGerald’s mosiac. (galvanized wire lath stapled Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. 2.4.4 Untitled Mural on Canvas to plywood) with mosaic According to the building specifications, Mark Tobey was commissioned tesserae set in a mix of ground marble, cement and latex, with each to provide a "painting (7'-10"x9') in a permanent medium of his choice finished panel edged with brass bar stock. on canvas or other appropriate base for installation on the wall at column line three over the opening between corridor 112 and vestibule 117. James FitzGerald's mosaic, totaling approximately 320 square feet, was installed in time for the 1959 building dedication. The subtle colors According to Paul Thiry, Tobey visited Thiry’s office where he was shown used provided a point of departure for interior material and furnishing the location selected for his painting and what size painting was desired. colors for the purpose of focusing attention on books and the activity of They then set the price and Tobey departed for Paris. Thiry then received people. FitzGerald was also responsible for mosaics on several coffee a letter from Tobey, in which Tobey informed him that “the deal was off and side tables. and he wasn’t well and he didn’t want to paint it.” So Thiry “told him [that they] would sue him.” Meanwhile Tobey did the painting and sent

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 57 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART a letter (dated January 15, a letter (dated January 15, 1959) to Maryan Reynolds, Tobey analyzed 1959) to Maryan Reynolds his painting as follows: informing her that the painting My painting is what would rather loosely be called abstract but was done, and all that really not. The forms are large--rather startling I feel but made remained was for it to dry. On I hope to fit the architecture and the very unusual height. I have his way to Olympia, Tobey worked a circular design and movement and built the inner life called Thiry to inform him that on an X. The blacks are dominant but the eye rests at last on he was on his way to Olympia to hang the painting. (Taped the diagonal moving left and upward to the white bird form from interview with Thiry the contemplating form in deep brown at lower right hand [December 1, 1989]: 14,15) corner. The forms float…

The painting arrived at the Following the installation, a controversy erupted as people expressed Library on March 1, 1959, and widely varying views over the mural's content. This prompted the State was installed by Seattle artists Library Commission to have an open house on June 7, 1959 for public Paul Horiuchi and George Fig. 2.4.5 Ca 1959 photograph of Mark Tobey’s untitled viewing of the building to which "more than 2000 people came." As of painting. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. Tsutakawa. According to 2001, the mural was the "only work by the state's most celebrated artist Thiry, the painting was not on public view in Olympia." (Reynolds, 2001: 72) what he had expected, nor similar to what Tobey had done previously or afterwards. (Taped interview with Thiry 2.4.5 Washington Room Murals [December 1, 1989]: 16) Kenneth Callahan was commissioned to "Its precise figures represent[ed] a marked prepare a 3’8” high by departure in the artist's style but the colors— 170’ long mural subdued blues and browns, off-white and specifically for the spots of brilliant blue—[were] Tobey trade Washington Room. marks." (Seattle Times, March 1, 1959: 23) In This was to be Fig. 2.4.6 Ca 1959 photograph of Mark Tobey’s untitled painting. mounted on furring Photograph courtesy of the strips on the wall Washington State Library. above the bookcases. Fig. 2.4.7 Ca 1959 photograph of a small section from Kenneth Callahan’s Initially he said no, mural. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 58 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART given the amount of work involved. Callahan had worked on WPA murals during the Depression and fully understood that the project was not By November 21, 1958, the murals were complete. Callahan arranged something that could casually be done. Previously, in 1948, he had also with Maryan Reynolds to install them on December 13 and 14, 1958, started to paint several murals for the Legislative Building, for which he which he personally supervised. Maryan Reynolds, in a taped interview prepared ten sketches, was paid $350 and went no further. On the on September 23, 1988, related how during the installation process, State Library project, Callahan finally acquiesced to Paul Thiry’s which she attended, Callahan noticed her concern about how he had enticements and produced one of the most notable works of this period chosen to represent the story of Washington's history and the way this in his active career. (Northwest Oral History Project, interview with would be received by "history buffs" (her words). Callahan said to her, Callahan, and taped interview with Thiry, December 1, 1989) "Don't worry, Maryan, I know what we have to have here; it will be okay." (Taped interview with Reynolds, September 23, 1988: 35) Before beginning on the design, Callahan worked with In a February 8, 1959, article in the Seattle Times, Callahan described Ronald Todd, who was the the work as "20th century primitive." Reference Librarian at the University of Washington. Ronald Todd, Reference Librarian at the University of Washington, Todd prepared a detailed provided for the 1959 building dedication a very detailed narrative of outline of significant events in the mural's contents. He described how the murals' contents drew on Washington's history. Maryan Callahan's own "conception of history as a broad stream in which the Reynolds also sent this same lives of men and the events of history intermingle in mutual ebb and list to Paul Thiry and John flow." This "dual struggle of man against nature and man against man" Elliott. Callahan read this was a frequently occurring theme in Callahan's paintings. In these Fig. 2.4.8 Ca 1959 photograph of Kenneth Callahan’s mural. material and sensitively Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. murals, there was a greater balance between humanity and the natural incorporated it into his design. environment.

According to Maryan Reynolds, Callahan then painted his design (to Throughout each of the murals, the mountains, Pacific Northwest scenery, scale) on small rectangular panels, each cut to scale to correspond and earthen colors formed a constant background tying together the with the location of the panel within the Washington Room. He submitted four murals. Callahan's "semi-abstract technique" and use of light and these to Paul Thiry for his critique. The only element Thiry asked Callahan shadow provided an "overall spaciousness and depth" to the murals. not to keep was a totem pole "that destroys the whole composition," with which Callahan agreed and removed it. Callahan then proceeded to paint the murals—oil on canvas—in a large rented room in Seattle, using the small panels as guides.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 59 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

White, spread throughout, facilitated a high degree of transparency. A depicted covered wagon represented the massive overland influx of Objects not only stood out and merged with the background, but the immigration to Washington. The dates 1836 and 1853, respectively, viewer was able to look through them, "in one unbroken line," at a represented the arrival of Dr. Marcus Whitman (missionary) and passage succession of other objects. (Building Dedication, 1959: 7) over the Naches Pass by the Longmire party. (Building Dedication, 1959: 9) The four murals were: 1. Primitive Life (facing the entry to the room) The panel's "focal point" was comprised of a hand holding a pen 2. Historical Period (to the right—north—of the entry to the room) (symbolic of the preceding Congressional acts and the Presidential 3. Rise of Industry (above the entry to the room) signature) representing Washington's admission to the Union as a Territory (1853) and as a State (1889). Immediately to the right were 4. Twentieth Century (to the left—south—of the entry to the room). depicted trees, logs, the tools of pioneer loggers, and a circular saw (dated with the founding of McLoughlin's sawmill at Fort Vancouver in Primitive Life 1827 and Yesler's in Seattle in 1853) symbolizing the rise of Washington's The simpler plan and minimal detail set this mural apart from the other lumber industry. The date 1885, founding of the Camas Paper Mill, three. A merging of elements of Pacific Northwest and "life-like suggested "the importance of Washington's pulp and paper industry." characters" in their struggle for existence depicted the wilderness prior (Building Dedication, 1959: 9) to the arrival of Europeans. (Building Dedication, 1959: 8)

Moving right along the panel, the arrangement of "congressional and Historical Period executive treaty documents" and war clubs, arrows and rifles signified This panel depicted a series of events in symbolic representation that the Indian Wars that resulted from the treaties made by Governor Isaac were significant in Washington State's history. The panel read in Stevens and resulting efforts to relocate resident Native Americans onto chronological order of events from left to right with a central focal point. designated reservations. The dated open books implied a series of "firsts" -- establishment of the Washington State Library (1853), first Beginning at the far left were depicted the members of the Lewis and newspaper, the Columbian, published in Olympia (1852), and first Clark Expedition at the mouth of the Columbia River with the Pacific established printing press at Lapwai (1839). A dated sign board and Ocean in sight. They were standing amidst scenery suggestive of tall cans of salmon flanked by swimming sockeye salmon represented Washington's marshy coastal areas. Moving to the right, adjacent to the beginnings of the fishing and fish canning industry with the the Beaver (steamer whose arrival at the mouth of the Columbia River establishment of the MacGowan cannery (1854, on the Columbia River), in 1836 signified the beginning of coastal shipping in the Northwest), the Hume cannery (1866, at Eagle Cliff), and the cannery at Mukilteo in was the outpost of the Northwest Company and the Spokane house. As 1877. (Building Dedication, 1959: 9) part of a group of approximately a dozen buildings, the post "served for about fifteen years as a center for the fur trade of the Pacific Northwest." (Building Dedication, 1959: 9)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 60 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

A waterfall united the previous section with symbolism of the The far right of the panel then shifted to focus on the development and transcontinental union of the United States. This was represented by a variety of modern industrial and commercial enterprises depicted by curved railroad track around a crossed pick and shovel signifying the factories, buildings and ships. However, the panel's terminal point was Northern Pacific Railroad (1873) and depiction of the Stampede Tunnel's the cattle and dairy industries, depicted by grazing cows. (Building entrance (on the far right) that opened in 1888. (Building Dedication, Dedication, 1959: 10) 1959: 9) The Twentieth Century The Rise of Industry The central focal point of this panel was a large, revolving world. Flowing This panel provided specific representation of Washington's industries from this globe were streams of broad ribbons of different languages' and their growth, reading from left to right. alphabets using words such as life, truth, spirit, democracy, poetry and science to accent the associated ideas, signifying the flow of The far left portion of the panel introduced eastern Washington's fruit communication that unites nations and facilitates the sharing of and agriculture industry with, respectively, apples, pears and other fruit, knowledge. These streams branched out to various twentieth century as well as modern machinery harvesting wheat with bags of grain manifestations significant for the Pacific Northwest's connection and nearby. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10) role within the world. People dominated both sides of the panel, which read from the center out to either side. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10- Moving to the right were depicted the developmental stages of the 11) state's lumber industry, then the more recent growth of the aviation industry accented by depiction of both civilian and military planes. A To the right of the central globe were depicted advances in chemistry, loaded railroad freight train "across the center of the canvas" separated physics, mathematics and nuclear science, which were represented by the two. Washington's mineral resources were represented by a "chain models of rockets, missiles, beakers, test tubes and burners, gradually of ore cars moving into the entrance of a mine." (Building Dedication, shifting to blueprints, steel girders, and a variety of structures, as well 1959: 10) as power lines and towers. These represented the roles of both architecture and modern hydroelectric developments in society's Further right were representations of Washington's poultry industry growth. Tying them in with nature were seed forms and seedbeds also (flock of chickens), gardening industry (humans working with plants), featured in this same section. These symbolized nature's growth and and fishing and seafood industries (fisherman straining at nets of fish). conservation, processes integral in humanity's existence. (Building Adjacent to these symbols was a representation of the Grand Coulee Dedication, 1959: 10-11) Dam, indicating the significance of modern hydroelectric power in the region. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10) Terminating this panel, in symbolic representation of humanity’s search for identity and meaning in existence, was a solitary figure on horseback. (Building Dedication, 1959: 7)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 61 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

Starting again from the central globe, developments in fine arts, music, 2.4.6 Color Transparencies literature, culture, and religion spread out to the left. Symbolizing these In addition to Paul Thiry's and intertwined points were the "brushes and palette of the painter; the Maryan Reynolds’ wood, stone and tools of the sculptor; and the music manuscripts of the involvements, the design and composer." Representing literature's contribution to culture were books, inclusion of the twenty-eight newspapers and periodicals, while churches and steeples suggested color transparencies was religion. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10-11) coordinated by Bert L. Cole, who, along with being a Progressing left along the panel, these cultural events merged with member of the Capitol engineering and architectural planning before making the shift to the Committee, was also the State modern machine era. The technological developments of the modern Land Commissioner. These era served to reinforce the associated industry and its importance in transparencies were intended Fig. 2.4.9 Ca 1959 photograph of the color transparencies in Washington. The airplane represented the aircraft industry, to illustrate Washington's the basement gallery. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. broadcasting towers indicated the advances in communication by radio natural resources, agriculture and television, ships at anchor drew attention to the maritime industry, and industry. Bert Cole and Maryan Reynolds also discussed the project while scientific advances in agriculture and land reclamation were with Jim Hughes, Public Information Officer with the Department of depicted by irrigation pipes. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10-11) Natural Resources. Hughes recommended Bob and Ira Spring as photographers for the project. (Letter from Jim Hughes to Bob and Ira Balancing the male figure on the far right was a woman seated on the Spring, July 9, 1958) far left with her child. Their combined presence implied a continuation of life. Reinforcing this were representations of the fires that occurred The SLC also mailed letters to various organizations (including Boeing in Seattle and Spokane in 1889, from which the rebirth of each city and Public Libraries in Washington) asking for pictures, preferably ones "foreshadowed the cultural and economic developments of the twentieth that indicated use of natural resources. century." As terminal points of the panel, the people bore witness to the flow of history, the cycle of life, and their past and present involvement. Washington photographers, Bob and Ira Spring, provided most of the (Building Dedication, 1959: 10-11) photographs. After an "extensive investigation," the SLC decided on Chao-Chen Yang, a Seattle color-photographer, to develop the With due regard to the location of mural, the proliferation of books photographs into transparencies. Maryan then recommended that Yang throughout this panel drew attention to the significance and enduring value of books as repositories of knowledge. (Building Dedication, 1959: 10-11)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 62 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART and Thiry meet to "discuss lighting and the design of the boxes." Work 2.4.7 American Association of University Women was underway as of December 12, 1958. (Letter from Reynolds to Thiry, Five paintings were presented to the Washington State Library as a gift December 1, 1958) from the American Association of University Women (AAUW), Washington State Division. From 1951 to 1957, an AAUW arts committee The result was a series of four panel-display cases, each with five had selected one painting a year. (The dedication also indicated Mrs. sections, installed along the south wall of the basement corridor leading Emilie MacIntyre as the winner in 1949). Each painting had to be created to the Washington Room, displaying color transparencies of Washington by a Washington woman artist. (Building Dedication, 1959: 13-14) The scenes. These included industries, products, flora, libraries, sports, paintings (in chronological order of award) were: and natural resources. The intent was to add beauty, color and 1. "108 Naches," by Marie Labes Johnson, watercolor, 26"x34"; atmosphere, as well as to educate patrons about Washington State. 2. "Richmond Beach," by Katherine Westphal, University of Washington faculty member, tempera interpretation of a beach Specifically designed for the transparencies, the display cases provided illumination from the back, and allowed for independent changing of scene; transparencies. The 4"x5" pictures provided by Bob and Ira Spring were 3. "Laus Deo," by Mrs. Emilie MacIntyre, Seattle, tempera, religious made by Chao-Chen Yang into interstage color negatives using Ektacolor painting presented as an abstract pattern; film. The final 30"x24" transparencies were developed on Ektacolor 4. "White River," by May Marshall, Seattle, tempera, depicts white film print from the interstage negatives. Reportedly, this "development birch trees arched over a swiftly moving stream. process is very technical, involving control of temperature, agitation, 5. "Morning Mists," by Grace Nichols, Spokane, transparent and relative humidity." (Building Dedication, 1959: 12) watercolor.

Color control enabled high color fidelity, enhancing or correcting specific colors as necessary. The transparencies were then mounted between two sheets of glass, the back sheet being white flash glass and the front, single strength clear glass. The entire thickness, including transparency and both sheets of glass, was not to exceed 3/8". Photocolor fluorescent tubes specified by Chao-Chen Yang illuminated the transparency from behind. (Letter from Chao-Chen Yang to Reynolds, December 12, 1958)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 63 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.4 ART

2.4.8 Public Works of Art Project In the mid-1930s, instructors from the Public Works of Art Project presented two oil paintings to the Washington State Library. These paintings, "highly prized as the work of two outstanding Washington artists," transferred with the rest of the Library's collection to the Washington State Library building in 1959. The two paintings were: 1. "American Indian Basketry and Utensils," by Mrs. Myra A. Wiggins (1870--1956), Seattle, Dean of Pacific Northwest women painters, a "magenta blanket with black, geometric designs forms the background for the native reed and bark baskets, twig receptacle, and bone spoon and bowl. Strings of lapis lazuli and turquoise beads add color interest to the arrangement." (Building Dedication, 1959: 14) 2. "Old Ships or, Lake Union," by Edgar Forkner (1867-1945), Seattle, 25"x28" oil painting, reportedly "a familiar sight to those who knew that part of Seattle prior to World War II. A typical late afternoon Puget Sound sky [...] reflected in the quiet water at the south end of the lake where the obsolete "Liberty" ships of World War I lay at anchor." (Building Dedication, 1959: 14)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 64 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.5 FURNISHINGS SELECTION

tops in pre-built aluminum frames on small reading and end tables for the reading room and Washington Room. These employed the same marble FitzGerald used on the mosaic, however the tabletops were polished to a glossy finish. Utilitarian furnishings consisted of a birch he process of selecting furnishings for the Washington State Library T atlas stand, dictionary stand, and newspaper racks, as well as numerous began with information gathered by the Library staff from other libraries catalogues and index files provided by Remington Rand and Kardex, and their specific internal operational and long-term budget and special equipment for each library department (such as an enlarger, requirements. During this process, Maryan Reynolds and Chris splicer, press, and collator). Stevenson (State Library Commission member) worked closely with Paul Thiry. The process of choosing suitable According to Maryan Reynolds, particular attention was given by the formal furnishings Library staff to the inclusion of aesthetics as a significant component of consisted of two planning “the building as a whole unit, in which the furnishings become stages. First the State part of the actual product.” They regarded “it [as] extremely important Librarian and two of that considerable care be given to this problem as there [was] a stripped- her staff visited down, clean-line building to furnish” while making “sure to retain and wholesale and retail Fig. 2.5.1 Ca 1959 photograph of the first floor reading area looking achieve the dignity and beauty … expected of a building in the Capitol furniture displays in northeast. Photograph courtesy of the Washington State Library. Group.” (Undated essay, Washington State Library: Furnishings, New Portland, Seattle, and Building) Tacoma, and consulted numerous catalogues on the basis of interchangeability and flexibility of use, noise, and manufacture. They Furnishings selected for the State Library consisted of three primary visited other recently constructed libraries to determine the type of types: the more decorative and comfortable informal furnishings; furniture there and to secure recommendations. utilitarian furnishings such as dictionary stands; and the more formal chairs and desks intended primarily for library staff and research use. “Flexible use” meant any piece of furniture could be employed in either a public or private space if shifts were made in the layout. The intent of Del-Teet Furniture and Herman Miller provided the majority of the this requirement was to make furnishings compatible with the flexible informal furnishings. Del-Teet supplyied mostly upholstered chairs, design of the Library, rather than a limiting factor. The noise a particular davenports, and reading table chairs, and Herman Miller provided piece of furniture (chairs, desks and work units) produced through conference and stack chairs. These furnishings were used throughout normal use needed to be at a minimum to avoid unnecessary distractions the building. Paul Thiry worked closely with Del-Teet Furniture to design to patrons and staff. With regard to manufacture, the library staff furniture tailored to the design of his buildings (as with the Northeast considered if the product was readily available or would have to be Branch Library). In addition, James FitzGerald provided the mosaic custom made, as well as its overall durability.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 65 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.5 FURNISHINGS SELECTION

The “staff then requested to design work units” on the basis of what The Steelcase furniture proved to have they knew of their present and anticipated needs (over next 10 years). a less pronounced “metallic feeling” These programs were then evaluated by the “State Librarian and heads than other metal furniture lines. In of departments both as to necessity and type of furniture which best addition, tables and desks in this line fulfilled the requirements throughout the building.” (Undated essay, featured patented textolite tops, Washington State Library: Furnishings, New Building) manufactured by General Electric exclusively for Steelcase. This had a Once the Library staff had narrowed their selection of furniture lines particular pattern intended to reduce according to these criteria, they submitted their list to Paul Thiry for his eyestrain, and a paint that afforded Fig. 2.5.2 Ca 1959 photograph looking down from the first floor mezzanine into the staff area. recommendations as to which line would most suit the Library in terms “an appearance of warmth and Photograph courtesy of the Washington State of aesthetics. Furniture lines considered by the State Librarian and two depth,” both of which mitigated the Library. of her staff members: “cafeteria or restaurant effect of [eye Art-Metal strain caused by patterns typical] on laminated plastic tops or linoleum.” Shaw-Walker In addition Steelcase was the only metal furniture line to pass all of the General Fireproofing Y and E noise tests. However, aesthetics and flexibility were the main reasons Remington Rand for choosing Steelcase furniture, as well as wide selection of work units Globe-Wernicke that fulfilled specific needs of the Library’s work program. The Librarian Steelcase and office manager directly supervised the final arrangement of desks Steel and furniture.

Thiry then visited each of the furniture lines. He chose Steelcase, a line For the State Librarian’s office, the “Sabre Desk” in the Flight Line of of steel furniture that he felt would suit the building’s design, and he Steelcase was chosen on the basis of its unique and patented shape, asked the library staff whether steel furniture “would meet their working and that it had two needs, as he felt that the one line of steel which the library staff had half-height drawers designated as satisfactory would meet his requirements architecturally.” not found in other Although Maryan Reynolds was not in favor of any type of metal furniture, lines. In conjunction she withdrew her personal objections after considering the other with using Steelcase furniture lines and realizing that Steelcase met the Library’s throughout the requirements “in appearance, in structure, and in flexibility.” Library, the State Fig. 2.5.3 Ca 1959 photograph of the State Librarian’s desk. Photograph Librarian’s office courtesy of the Washington State Library. Steelcase was also used in the Washington State College Library could be completely (Pullman); the University of Idaho Library (Moscow); the University of Oregon Library (Eugene); and Stanford University Library (Stanford).

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 66 2.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DEVELOPMENT 2.5 FURNISHINGS SELECTION reorganized and pieces interchanged with other pieces in the Library without any loss of equipment or function. Two other lines offered a Additional • Telephones—installation type patented, permitted reversing of desk similar desk shape; however, they were not considered because of their “without any major shifting of the telephones” or new holes in desks lesser “quality and no flexibility.” (telephone “installed on plywood board fitted in the hinged desk back panel,” which eliminated need for holes drilled in desk, and Additional matters of manufacture that were considered by the Library could be installed before desk is placed, “back panels break line of desk;” staff according to the undated essay, Washington State Library: • Reference slides—standardized with punches for Plexiglas covers Furnishings, New Building, were: • Dictating unit—pulls out, with “slides for dictating supplies and Desks correspondence” • Steel binding edge on top of desks and convertible units—stronger desktop, wear resistant, no denting or black rub off associated with Steelcase also provided an unconditional replacement guarantee for all aluminum; of their furniture, with no time limit “if the customer does not feel it has • Clean lines—no seam pedestal construction; • Method of leg attachment—even weight distribution, fastened in received adequate service for the material and quality purchased.” pairs and recessed; • Perforated back panels—lighter and improved appearance; • No metal-to-metal contact on back panels (felt used between panel and pedestal)—reduces noise, provides finished appearance; • Metallic finish—warmth and depth, not simulated wood or like an automobile finish; • Interchangeability—two box drawers replaced with one file drawer (in same space) without mechanical adjustment or tools; • Drawer construction—no rough edges or sharp ends, double metal wall thickness for added strength, method of installing dividers and their tight fit eliminated usual noise associated with dividers, hoods on the back portion of the drawers reduced paper loss and crumpling as drawers were opened and closed, special, more efficient nylon rollers, and locked only with key (unlocked all at same time)

Chairs • Complete line—colors and upholstery matching desks; • Steel, not aluminum, for heavy use; • Patented hooded caster to protect shoes

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 67 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 68 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Condition Assessment

3.1 Exterior 3.2 Interior 3.3 Art 3.4 Decision Making Matrix 3.5 Analysis of Significance

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 69 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 70 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Site Comparison of original drawings from 1957 and 1958 and drawings for the proposed addition from 1970, both prepared by Paul Thiry, with the The following findings represent conditions documented during the current site indicates a significant loss of ground material and foliage preparation of this Historic Structures Report, which started in late May from the west slope. The west slope, including the portion along the 2002. At the time the Historic Structures Report was initiated, temporary Transportation Building, was modifications to the library building were being completed to house comprised largely of pre-1922 fill cut the State Senate chambers and offices while the Legislative Building from other areas on the Capitol was undergoing rehabilitation. The temporary modifications to the grounds. During the initial building are designed for a 36-month life and do not significantly effect construction, concerns were raised or alter the historic fabric of the structure. In assessing the current about the proximity of the building condition of the building, an effort was made to see through the (particularly the stacks) to this slope. Fig. 3.1.1 2002 photograph of the sundial. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. temporary modifications and describe alterations, wear and A retaining wall was intended along deterioration that have occurred during the building’s use since this slope, however it was not built due completion in 1959. to delays in construction and rain.

On the south facade there is an approximately 4” in diameter tree growing adjacent to the foundation. Another tree off the east end rubs 3.1 Exterior against the building. Shrubs are growing against the building on the The main issue identified on the building exterior, planters and exterior south and east facades. screen wall are the combined effects of moisture accumulation and previous surface treatments and repointing methods on the sandstone There is substantial cracking in the terrazzo walk in front of the east veneer. Widespread blistering, vegetative growth, and loss of pointing planter. material from joints suggests previous repairs are not responding well to the thermal expansion and contraction of the sandstone veneer or The circular concrete walk and terrazzo base around the sundial exhibits adequately facilitating the release of moisture through the joints or stone some cracking. The cementitious base beneath the sundial exhibits by surface evaporation. This condition is particularly important to deterioration, moisture accumulation and some plant growth. address in order to mitigate deterioration of the veneer’s metal anchors.

Foundation A letter dated August 4, 1960, reported excavation off the west side to correct water leakage into the Washington Room. According to reports by the janitorial staff, leakage was evident through the ceiling and along

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 71 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR the lower portion of the south wall. On the stone window sills, light yellow During the excavation, it was noted deposits in a splatter pattern are that water easily moved around the concentrated at the corners and shallow footing carrying the stone against the columns. These deposits veneer. No subsequent reports of are also on the aluminum window leakage into the Washington Room frames. were located. South Facade: Caulking between the Fig. 3.1.4 2002 photograph of plant growth along Exterior Walls stone veneer joints over the mortar is the joints on the west facade of the stacks. deteriorated (particularly across the Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. North Facade: Correspondence upper portions due to sun exposure). regarding the construction of the In some areas, it is coming out of the building indicated the contractor joints. recommended a sealant for the stone veneer. Currently there is a difference Fig. 3.1.2 2002 photograph of the north facade below the windows showing discoloration along The stone is patched in areas in color along the edges of the joints the joints. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. (cementitious type patching), between the stone panels, indicative primarily along the joints. Blisters in of a sealant application to these areas. Joints in the veneer were ground the stone (layer is 1/32” to 1/16” out with a grinder. During this process, the joints were over shot, cutting thick) continue to occur along the Fig. 3.1.5 2002 photograph of repairs on the into the panels above and below the joint. This occurred frequently. west facade of the stacks. Photograph by Artifacts joints. Consulting, Inc. Caulking used between the stone Green growth is evident on the lower veneer joints over mortar is failing. In west end near the tree, with plant some areas it is coming out of the growth from the joints above the joints. There is caulk smeared on the second and fifth louver on the west surface of the veneer at the west end. side. There is some stone spalling on the ledge above the terrazzo floor, as well East Facade: Caulking between the as spatters on the stone (west end) of stone veneer joints over the mortar is the cementitious binder used for the Fig. 3.1.3 2002 photograph of the south facade. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. deteriorated. In some areas, it is terrazzo work on the stairs. coming out of the joints.

Fig. 3.1.6 2002 photograph of west facade. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 72 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Windows The stone is patched in areas (cementitious type patching), primarily There are deposits on the exterior stone sills. The windows were replaced along the joints. Some of these repairs are failing. There is back splash in the mid 1990s. along the base. Extensive efflorescence is evident along the partition wall on the outer east side of the service area/parking lot. Roof and Drainage Frontal Portion: Where its roof joins West Facade: Caulking between the stone veneer joints over the mortar the roof over the portico, the east and is brittle and deteriorated. In some areas, it is coming out of the joints. west corners exhibit cracking and There is black mastic on the concrete foundation. deterioration of the concrete. On the west end, there is a crack extending There is some spalling of the veneer corners on the stacks. Numerous south from the joint between the two light areas are evident on the veneer. These areas occur mainly along roofs, and another crack (12” plus the joints, suggesting a sealant was used when the joints were caulked. north along the portico) extending Small cementitious patches are evident on the veneer (primarily along east. Deterioration and rusting are Fig. 3.1.8 2002 photograph of the portico, low the joints). Above the louver on the stack, there is moisture leakage frontal volume and stack roofs. Photograph by most evident at this crack. A similar through a joint. Below the vent on the main portion, the stone below the Artifacts Consulting, Inc. crack, extending west, is on the east weep holes is corroded. There is backsplash along the base of the side with similar deterioration and rusting. There are spot patches along building. the underside of the roof overhang. Spider webs and debris are present under the roof overhang. In the upper portion of the southwest corner of the stacks, the limbs from the adjacent trees are in contact with the stone. There is an overall Drains from the portico into the east planter are filled with concrete. dark discoloration to this area. Plant growth (primarily between joints) occurs in a few areas on the stacks. The Stacks: There is minimal roof slope exhibited. There are concrete blocks Enclosure wall: Joints between the left on the roof, which were the base stone veneer are deteriorated in for a satellite dish, since removed. areas. Low shrubbery adjacent to the wall rubs against the stone. There is The Penthouse: This area was not some backsplash against the base of accessible for inspection. the wall.

Fig. 3.1.7 2002 photograph of window sill on Fig. 3.1.9 2002 photograph of the stack roof. north facade. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc. Inc.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 73 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.1 EXTERIOR

Entries adjacent stones. A portion of the stone veneer along the west stair was Stairs: When the stairs were power reattached (mortar around perimeter). washed, the power washing lapped up on the stone copings of the stairs. Plant growth is present between joints on the east planter, as well as Where the pressure was highly lichen growth on both planters. Some efflorescence is evident through concentrated, the stone is abraded. a crack along the bronze divider in the base of the west planter’s northeast corner. Caulking between the joints on the The Portico: The terrazzo floor coping and cheek walls is failing. Fig. 3.1.10 2002 photograph of the northwest exhibits some deterioration of the planter and stairs. Photograph by Artifacts bronze dividers and separation of the Cracking is evident on the west stair Consulting, Inc. along its west side (central). The terrazzo from the metal (1/16” in landing of the east stair has a diagonal crack extending southeast off places). the southeast corner of the planter. On the northeast stair, there is a diagonal crack running northwest to southeast across the landing’s The stone coping exhibits some northeast corner, as well as a crack off the northeast side of the northeast deposits adjacent to the columns, particularly below the Pritchard sign, Fig. 3.1.12 2002 photograph of the terrazzo floor planter across the landing. A concrete retaining wall was added along in the portico. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, similar to those found below the the east side of these stairs. Glass is also loose on the north landing Inc. windows. The column at the west end light. exhibits delamination of the stone at its base up to a height of 5” plus. The delamination is similar to the blistering on the south facade. The Planters: Power washing of the terrazzo walk overlapped on the stone delaminating piece is a 1/16” piece of flexible and intact stone (sealant veneer of planters. Where concentrated, the pressure abraded the acting as a binder), having a white and granulated surface on the stone stone. There is extensive mortar loss from both planters on the inner below. The outer west corner veneer is cracked. This same column, on faces below the stone copings (to a the outer north face, exhibits discoloration (windblown runoff). depth of 1” plus). Below the mortar in these joints is a black plastic lining, Pool: The screens at the suction pump may not be functioning properly lapped up from within the planters. as the water jets are plugged. The water jets should not be allowed to On the outer face of the west planter, spray onto the portico. two of the large stone panels are out- of-winde, pulling the caulk from the

Fig. 3.1.11 2002 photograph of the northwest planter. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 74 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.2 INTERIOR

Alterations within interior spaces during this ten-year period focused on changes to accommodate administrative needs, entailing such changes as adding partitions, subdividing office spaces, and filling open public areas with catalogues and stacks. The following integrates an assessment of planned physical changes made to the building interior since its completion in 1959 with an Aesthetic changes followed during the mid and late 1970s—when the assessment of its current condition. The purpose is to illustrate the possibility of funding an expansion was remote—and again in the 1990s. intent and extent of planned physical changes to the building interior These changes primarily involved alterations of finishes, materials, and to clarify which elements have been altered and the overall impact of furnishings within interior spaces. these changes on the architectural significance of the space. It is important to recognize that the building’s fabric is relatively young in Building system and life safety upgrades ongoing throughout the terms of historic strucutures, that it has had only one occupant and use Library’s use of the State Library building also resulted in changes and since its construction until 2001, and by nature of its design the finish additions within interior spaces. materials and surfaces are minimal and generally very understated (as compared to the Legislative Building for example). Consequently the In summary, the addition of library staff resulting from the expansion in few modifications that did occur (described below) quickly changed library function, coupled with the ongoing addition of documents to the the original fabric leaving very few original materials or finishes. library’s collection, required manipulation of components within what was designed as an open, flexible floor plan. During this initial change, During the initial ten years (1960s) following completion of the the defining volumes, materials, finishes, furnishings, and spatial Washington State Library building, the Library as an institution relations remained largely intact. However the building was soon filled underwent an operational change, expanding to serve an administrative to capacity. The impact of building system and life safety upgrades, role for public libraries across Washington State. This new function, while also contributing to interior alterations, tended to be both minimal necessitating an increase in existing office space, competed with the and reversible, focusing on basic and secondary spaces, with only continual and anticipated growth of the Library’s collections. Requests narrow, concentrated effects on primary spaces. Their impact did not (during the 1960s) and plans (dated July 16, 1970) for expanding the dramatically conflict with the ability to read the original design intent building were both made and prepared. However an overall reduction and distinguish upgrades from original fabric. in available monies and consequent reduction in government expenditures, prompted in part by the crash of the aerospace industry, The most extensive, adverse changes occurred during an aesthetic negated expansion plans. overhaul of the finishes, materials, and furnishings in primary and secondary spaces during the mid and late 1970s and 1990s, leaving a minimum of original finish materials and elements. However, the defining spatial volumes, their relations and functions, as well as the artwork

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 75 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.2 INTERIOR and light fixtures remained During this survey, a crack was noted in the base of the column for the intact. Many of the initial northwest corner window. Holes had been drilled in the aluminum alterations have since been windowsills at the corners and middle. removed to accommodate the current temporary Staff area modifications. During the 1960s as the need for administrative and storage space increased, the large work areas in the east portion of the staff area were subdivided into smaller cubicles (with the exception of the State 3.2.1 First Floor Fig. 3.2.1 Ca 1960 photograph looking down from the first Librarian’s office and conference room) using removable partition walls Entry floor mezzanine into the entry and staff areas. Photograph to increase the total office space. These had minimal physical impact courtesy of the Washington State Library. During the 1960s as the need on the building. During the 1970s, the walls and ceiling were repainted for administrative and storage space increased, the entry area (between in a different color scheme and cubicle walls were decorated. In 1993, the Wilkeson sandstone bench and desk) was converted into catalogue the original rubber tile flooring was replaced with carpet. space. At the same time, the main desk’s orientation rotated counterclockwise 90 degrees to face west (the reading area). The 3.2.2 Basement Wilkeson sandstone bench was removed, and several freestanding North and south stairs, elevator, and Gallery catalogues moved into the space directly west of the James FitzGerald During the 1970s the walls, ceiling, and elevator were repainted in a mosaic. During the 1970s, the walls and ceiling were repainted in a different color scheme. As building system and life safety upgrades iginal rubber tile flooring was different color scheme. In 1993, the or were made, original door frames and doors were modified and replaced pet. replaced with car (with the exception of doors into public and staff toilets, particularly the hardware on the doors to the staff toilets). Project drawings do not Reading area indicate major changes in widths of doorways. The east and west ends During the 1960s as the need for administrative and storage space of the gallery were continued through the east increased, the reading area was used partly for storage, although and west ends of the map room to access remaining primarily for indexes, catalogues and reading space use. stairways added on the east and west sides Later changes included the removal of built-in shelving along the north of the stacks (just behind the frontal volume). and west walls below the windows and the replacement of the built-in In 1993, the original rubber tile flooring was periodical shelves below the south windows with acoustical panels. replaced. During the 1970s, the walls and ceiling were repainted in a different color scheme. In 1993, the original rubber tile flooring was replaced During this survey, the bathroom wall covering Fig. 3.2.2 2002 photograph of the with carpet. was noted to be detaching from the lighting in the Washington room. subsurface. Photograph by Artifacts Consulting, Inc.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 76 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.2 INTERIOR

During the 1960s as the need for administrative and storage space Washington Room increased, the supply room in the lower east portion of the first floor Lighting was added around the ceiling perimeter to illuminate the mural. was altered. Small reference and office spaces were also interspersed The doors and doorframes were changed out (originally wood framed along the perimeter of the mezzanine levels. In 1993, the original rubber with glass light). The glass doors were removed from some of the built- tile flooring was replaced. in shelving. In 1993, the original rubber tile flooring was replaced with carpet.

Map room During the 1960s as the need for administrative and storage space increased, the map room was gradually subdivided into office space using removable partitions, beginning with the northwest corner. Partitions were added and doors and door frames were changed. During the 1970s, the walls and ceiling were repainted in a different color scheme. In 1993, the original rubber tile flooring was replaced with carpet.

Microfilm room As the need for administrative and storage space increased, the microfilm room was subdivided into office space. Partitions were added and doors and door frames were changed. During the mid 1970s, the walls and ceiling were repainted in a different color scheme. In 1993, the original rubber tile flooring was replaced with carpet.

Utility areas Maintaining their original functions, these areas were upgraded as building system and life safety requirements necessitated.

3.2.3 Stacks

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 77 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.3 ART

A comprehensive conservator’s report should be prepared for the interior and exterior artwork, particularly the Kenneth Callahan mural, Mark Tobey painting, and James FitzGerald mosaic. This report should address initial design considerations regarding the works, followed by an assessment of the current condition, and development of curatorial and maintenance guidelines and practices.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 78 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.4 DECISION M AKING M ATRIX

the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon he following decision-making matrix merges the elements of T the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features architectural significance, public access and condition along a pathway rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior that results in a recommended approach to the future treatment of additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited features, spaces and the overall appearance of the building. In and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing addition, the matrix can guide the organization of a future building use systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is program to best match existing spaces with future uses on the basis of appropriate within a preservation project. corresponding levels of architectural significance and public accessibility. Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Restoration is defined by the The final element in the decision making matrix is the treatment Secretar y of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic approach or level of rehabilitation. As a general guide to the approachs Properties (1995) as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, and levels of treatment recommended in this HSR, we have utilized the features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular tools and terminology developed by the Federal departments engaged period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in in historic preservation policy and implementation. its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, The historic preservation community in the United States broadly follows and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties design guidelines established by the Secretary of the Interior and functional is appropriate within a restoration project. interpreted by the National Park Services for treating historic properties. These guidelines delineate four different approaches that are generally Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to an historic accepted as standards for treating architectural spaces and elements. property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the They are preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction or property's historic character. Rehabilitation is defined by the Secretary replication. These four standards can be applied to the development of of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) a building program and a plan for new projects on the State Library as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property Building. through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. Reconstruction or Replication re-creates vanished or non-surviving (Protection and Stabilization are consolidated under this treatment.) portions of a property for interpretive purposes. Reconstruction is Preservation is defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 79 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.4 DECISION M AKING M ATRIX of Historic Properties (1995) as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.

The following pages contain descriptions of the categories of Public Visibility, Architectural and Historic Significance, Condition of Feature/ Space and Recommended Approach as they are used in the Decision Making Matrix.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 80 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.4 DECISION M AKING M ATRIX

Architectural and Historic Public Visibility Condition of Recommended Significance Feature/Space Approach

PRIMARY PUBLIC NO WORK NO WORK Original to building Any visitor to the State Library Material is intact and requires no No work is required. Repair or Not modified by subsequent may enter a space with no work. modify as needed to meet user alterations restrictions placed on ability to needs and maintain functions. Designed by Architect as move through or occupy the room. INTACT integral for the specific Consequently, the functions and Material still exists, but may NEW operation of the State Library the design of their features, require cleaning/resurfacing. Add new material as needed to Convey elements of Modernism finishes, sizes, and proportions accomplish task. (and regional variations) as well considered the human element as DAMAGED as advances in library planning. an integral part of the design Material is damaged, RECONSTRUCT process. deteriorated, altered/modified. Replicate the original form, SECONDARY features and details of missing Minor alterations to features/ PRIVATE MISSING spaces, features/materials with spaces For staff use. Visitors will have Original features/spaces no new materials and/or new Not original, but early historical access to these rooms only when longer exist. construction. additions conducting business with a Designed to support primary specific staff person. These RESTORE spaces spaces reflect the operational Return the features/spaces to Removal or alteration would demands of the Library, and, original condition at a particular debase primary spaces. particularly within the first floor period of time. office space, the hierarchy within BASIC the staff. REHABILITATE Major changes to features/ Repair, alter/add materials, spaces features/spaces to make the item Not original to building, but useful, while retaining its historic compatible with design character. Designed as service and utilitarian spaces, they PRESERVE contribute to the operation of the Apply measures necessary to building as a system. sustain existing form, integrity and materials to protect and MINIMAL stabilize the features/spaces. Not original to building Obliteration of historic features/ spaces Non-contributing Not compatible to original design Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 81 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.4 DECISION M AKING M ATRIX

This matrix was developed in order to determine the appropriate Public access is an important consideration in determining how future approach to the spaces and features of the Washington State Library and projects may impact a space because visitors to the Library building help match these spaces with compatible future uses. Using the public’s should have free access to most public spaces. ability to see or visit a space or feature, its architectural and historic significance, and current condition, this matrix shows which approaches Current condition is determined by the amount of original material left in are most likely to retain the history and usefulness of the building. the space and the care that has been taken to maintain it. Missing materials may need replacement. Damaged mater ials may require repair. Intact The interior and exterior of the building have levels of architectural details should be retained. design and details. These may be the result of the form and use of the space, the type of building materials, and/or the complexity or simplicity Taking these criteria into consideration leads to suggested appropriate of the design. Primary spaces and features should be protected from future treatments, which in turn will aid in guiding the formulation of a damage or removal in future work. new building program once the current temporary alterations have been removed.

Public Visibility Architectural Condition of Recommended Public Visibility Architectural Condition of Recommended and Historic Feature/ Approach and Historic Feature/ Approach Significance Space Significance Space

PUBLIC PRIMARY Missing Reconstruct PRIVATE PRIMARY Missing Rehabilitate Damaged Restore Damaged Rehabilitate Intact Restore/Preserve Intact Preserve/Rehabilitate No Work Preserve No Work Preserve/Rehabilitate

SECONDARY Missing Reconstruct SECONDARY Missing Rehabilitate Damaged Restore/Rehabilitate Damaged Rehabilitate Intact Restore/Preserve Intact Rehabilitate No Work Preserve No Work Rehabilitate

BASIC Missing Rehabilitate BASIC Missing Rehabilitate/New Damaged Preserve/Rehabilitate Damaged Rehabilitate/New Intact Preserve/Rehabilitate Intact Rehabilitate/New No Work Preserve/Rehabilitate No Work Rehabilitate/New

MINIMAL Missing Rehabilitate/New MINIMAL Missing No Work/New Damaged Preserve/Rehabilitate/New Damaged Rehabilitate/New Intact Preserve/Rehabilitate Intact Rehabilitate/New No Work No Work/New No Work No Work/New Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 82 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

This section prioritizes significant spaces and features by both architectural significance and public accessibility. The information is presented in a written form followed by color coded maps of the building A masterful effort was made to design the State Library Building with that present the information graphically. important public spaces and aesthetic elements and to create a sense of compatibility and functionality within the historic Capitol Campus. Architectural significance is the primary factor in evaluating the As the structure takes on new uses and spatial needs, it is both possible building’s physical features, spaces and overall appearance. Although and optimal to retain the key elements of its strong monumental the State Library has a well defined, almost monolithic composition, it character. The building was designed with accommodations for can be divided into areas and elements of relative character-defining expansion, addition and adaptation, and these physical provisions were importance. The relative significance of these character defining intended not to interfere with the primary character-defining features elements are assessed by categories from “primary” being the most of the structure. The relative architectural and historic significance of significant to “minimal” being the least. The intent is not to fragment the spaces and elements inside and outside the building create a practical building into divisible parts that can individually be preserved , modified pathway for thinking about future treatment and programming for the or discarded in future planning. Rather, the intent is provide some building. direction in steering necessary treatments or alterations toward solutions that will not erode or diminish the Library building’s architectural The more important and significant the space and the more citizens integrity and character. have access to it, the more careful attention should be paid to its preservation and enhancement. Spaces that are both character defining The second factor in evaluating the building’s component parts is public and public should be preserved in their existing conditions or restored access and visibility from public areas outside the building. The issues to their original appearances in order to retain their importance. Rooms concerning public access to the State Library Building are common to with less important architectural elements and less public access may the other monumental historic buildings on the Capitol Campus. As a be amenable to rehabilitation, in which modifications to spaces or new factor in planning for preservation, public access is a key consideration additions to them will have less impact on the historic significance of for the following reasons. the building and make the spaces more functional for occupants.

Public access complements the architectural significance category by It is possible to have an overall rehabilitation approach to the future identifying which spaces and features within each level of architectural treatment of the building, while treating individual spaces or elements significance were originally accessible to the public. Those public differently, depending on their architectural significances. By primary and secondary spaces or features are particularly important establishing the level of architectural significance, public accessibility and deserve special attention due to their role in Paul Thiry’s design of and existing condition of the feature, a specific approach to its treatment can be developed.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 83 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE conveying to the public the function and role of the Library as an institution and its relation to the Capitol Group. Secondary: Areas that while exhibiting characteristics identical to those of primary areas, are not in prominent public view or visual relation with In addition, the public accessibility factor identifies spaces originally adjacent Capitol Buildings. Secondary areas: intended as public or private to facilitate matching planned public and • Upper (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east and west private uses with the appropriate corresponding spaces. Matching stack facades spaces originally intended as public or private with similar new functions • East and west facades of penthouse preserves the interpretive value of the original function of the building • Rear southeast courtyard and enclosure wall (not shown in graphics) as the State Library.

Basic: Areas providing a utilitarian function, supportive of primary and The following material conveys the overlap of the architectural significance and public accessibility categories, and graphic secondary areas. These areas, while accessible, are not in the public illustrations are provided at the end of this section. view shed. Basic areas: • Lower (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east and west

3.5.1 Exterior stack facades • South facade of stacks and penthouse Architectural Significance • Lower (below sill of panels beneath windows) portions of south Exterior building features are analyzed for their overall contributions to facades of low frontal volume the building's architectural character, and to aid in decision making through their identification, retention and preservation. Minimal: Non-historic, noncontributing areas: • Stair additions on east and west facades of stacks The analysis designates broad areas as primary, secondary, basic and • ADA ramp across east side of north facade minimal according to the level of contribution each makes to defining • Added vents the building’s architectural character.

Public Accessibility Primary: Prominent areas are those designed by the architect not only The analysis of exterior spaces and features determines which were to define the building's functional and stylistic identity, but also to both accessible to and within public view and which were private. convey a consciousness of setting and harmony with existing, adjacent Distinguishing between these spatial functions on the building’s exterior Capitol Buildings. Primary areas: identifies which spaces and features should receive increased attention • North, east and west facades of low frontal volume to their preservation and interpretation due to their public nature. • North facade of stacks and penthouse • Upper (from sill beneath panels under windows) portions of south facades of low frontal volume Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 84 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Public Areas • North, south, east and west facades of low frontal volume Primary: Designed as integral for the specific operation of the State • North facade of stacks and penthouse Library, they clearly convey elements of Modernism (and regional variations) as well as advances in library planning. Their functions, • Upper (from sill beneath panels under windows) portions of south features, finishes, sizes, and proportions define these spaces. Primary facades of low frontal volume (due to visibility from interior) spaces: • Upper (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east stack facade • First Floor (entry, staff, reading areas) • East facade of penthouse • Washington Room • Rear southeast courtyard (not shown in graphics) • Basement gallery • Stacks (including mezzanine space) Private Areas • West stack and penthouse facades Secondary: Designed to support primary spaces, they exhibit detailing, • Lower (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east facade finishes, and features that contribute to the prominence of the primary • South facade of stacks and penthouse spaces. Their removal or alteration would debase primary spaces. Their • Lower (below sill of panels beneath windows) portions of south functions, features, finishes, sizes, and proportions define these spaces. facades of low frontal volume Secondary spaces: • North stair 3.5.2 Interior • Microfilm room Interior spaces are analyzed for the degree to which they contribute to • Map room defining the architectural character of the building and the level of • Staff lounge public accessibility they afford. The purpose of analyzing the building • South stair interior according to these criter ia is to identify and aid in the preservation of those spaces that are architecturally significant in order Basic: Designed as service and utilitarian spaces, they contribute to to retain the building interior’s character. the operation of the building as a system. Basic spaces: • Toilets (staff and public) Architectural Significance • Mechanical room Four types of spaces are identified within this category: primary, • Storage secondary, basic, and minimal. Individually, each spatial type fulfills a specific function or set of functions within the total building system. • Elevator core

Minimal: None

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 85 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Public Accessibility The analysis of interior spaces and features determines which were 3.5.3 List of Spaces by Access and Significance both accessible to and within public view and which were private. A summary of survey information is provided here, catalogued by public Distinguishing between these spatial functions on the building’s interior accessibility and architectural significance. identifies which spaces and features should receive increased attention to their preservation and interpretation due to their public nature, and Exterior facilitates preservation of the building interior’s interpretive value by matching original public and private spaces with similar new public Public Areas and private functions. Primary: • North, east and west facades of low frontal volume Public: Intended to be accessible to the public with no restrictions on • North facade of stacks and penthouse the public’s ability to move throughout the space. Consequently, their Secondary: functions and the design of their features, finishes, sizes, and proportions • Upper (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east stack considered the human element as an integral part of the design process. facade Public spaces: • East facade of penthouse • Entry Basic: • Reading room in west portion of first floor None • Basement gallery Minimal: •Washington Room • ADA ramp across east side of north facade • Public toilets

Private Areas Private: Intended for staff access only. These spaces reflect the operational demands of the Library, and, particularly within the first Primary: floor office space, the hierarchy within the staff. Private spaces: • Upper (from sill beneath panels under windows) portions of • Main desk south facades of low frontal volume • Office space in east portion of first floor Secondary: • Stacks • Upper (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of west stack • Microfilm room facade • Staff toilets •West facade of penthouse • Staff lounge • Mechanical and storage spaces

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 86 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Basic: Secondary: • Lower (from roofline of frontal volume) portions of east and west • Microfilm room stack facades • Staff lounge • South facade of stacks and penthouse • South stair • Lower (below sill of panels beneath windows) portions of south Basic: facades of low frontal volume • Toilets (staff) Minimal: • Mechanical room • Stair additions on east and west facades of stacks • Storage • Added vents • Elevator core Minimal: Interior None Public Areas Primary: • First Floor (entry, reading areas) • Washington Room • Basement gallery Secondary: • North stair • Map room Basic: • Toilets (public) Minimal: None

Private Areas Primary: • First Floor (staff areas) • Stacks (including mezzanine space)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 87 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE

3.5.4 Character-Defining Features • Mosaic, north stair and planter composition The Washington State Library’s character-defining features are those • Open entry area that collectively articulate Paul Thiry’s original design intent, the role of • Reading area on west side, office area in east side, with entry the building within the Capitol Group and the Wilder & White plan as a area between State Library, the classical design elements in what was at the time a • Open relation to stacks and mezzanine cutting edge modern idiom, and the application of Modern design to • Lighting and ceiling tiles library operation. These features should be preserved and retained in • Color scheme based on mosaic (subdued, human element and order to maintain the Library as a valuable cultural resource. books) Exterior • Aluminum railing on north and south stairs • Entry vestibule Basement • Portico, planters, pool, stairs • Elevated ceiling of map room and open volume of space • Bronze sculpture •Washington Room with mural and wall shelving with glass doors • Wilkeson sandstone veneer • Open relation between mezzanine and map room • Stack volume and low open frontal volume • Hardware on staff toilet • Window insets • Rear southeast courtyard and enclosure wall Stacks • Railing (Wilkeson sandstone composition and form) • Waffle slab, exposed • Terrazzo floor (portico and stairs) with finer terrazzo on base of • Mezzanines opening onto basement and first floor planters and pool and metal nosing on steps • Flat roof profile • Regular repetition of broad window bays divided by columns with sandstone panels below

First Floor • Open volume • Large full windows in aluminum frames with aluminum sills having two smaller windows below

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 88 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Secondary Minimal Primary Basic North and South Facades: Architectural Significance Architectural South Facades: North and South Facade South Facade North Facade North Facade South Facade North Facade South Facade South Facade North Facade North Facade

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 89 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Secondary Minimal Primary Basic East and West Facades: Architectural Significance Architectural Facades: and West East West Facade West Facade East Facade East Facade West Facade East Facade West Facade West Facade East Facade East Facade

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 90 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Private Public North and South Facades: Public Accessibility South Facades: North and South Facade South Facade North Facade North Facade South Facade North Facade South Facade South Facade North Facade North Facade

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 91 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Private Public East and West Facades: Public Accessibility Public Facades: and West East West Facade West Facade East Facade East Facade West Facade East Facade West Facade West Facade East Facade East Facade

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 92 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Secondary Minimal Primary Basic ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan First Floor, Basement and Stacks: Architectural Significance Stacks: Architectural Basement and First Floor, Basement Basement First Floor First Floor T T Basement First Floor T Basement Basement First Floor First Floor T T

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 93 3.0 CONDITION ASSESSMENT 3.5 ANALYSIS OF SIGNIFICANCE Private Public ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan ypical Stack Plan First Floor, Basement and Stacks: Public Stacks: and Basement Accessibility Floor, First Basement Basement First Floor First Floor T T Basement First Floor T Basement Basement First Floor First Floor T T

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 94 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 SUMMARY

Conclusions

4.1 Summary

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 95 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 SUMMARY

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 96 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 SUMMARY

career when he designed the building and it represents a masterpiece among his works. As the final monumental public building added to the Historic Capitol Campus, the State Library Building is a critical element in the architectural group and deserves preservation treatments equal he State Library Building is among the region’s most important mid- T to the other historic buildings. As with the other historic buildings the century works of public architecture. The building should be considered Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration an historic property and a central contributing structure on the Capitol should be applied to work on the structure. Campus. It should be extended the same procedures, protections and planning standards as the other landmark buildings in the Capitol group. Architectural Context: The Library Building brings both architectural The building retains a very high degree of original design and material compatibility and diversity to the historic Capitol Campus. In its basic integrity due in large part to the to its continued use as the Library. form and scale, it effectively references the Legislative Building and the attendant structures without being overly assertive in presence. The historic and physical information collected in this report regarding The use of Wilkeson Sandstone on the exterior and well placed public the Washington State Library Building has led to a set of conclusions interior spaces addressing the Legislative Building creates a satisfying that will assist in future planning and stewardship. The general southern boundary for the architectural group. conclusions that arise out of this report are organized under captions below and may be individually studied in more detail within the Condition Assessment: The condition of the Library Building is appropriate sections of the main report. It must be noted that current generally excellent and reflects high maintenance standards and (2002) modifications and installations to accommodate the State Senate thoughtful modifications. The historic integrity of the building’s original are recognized as temporary and planned for removal. Therefore, with design has not been significantly compromised by wear or the minor the exception of some new building system components such as kitchen alterations that have been made. There are minor indications of facilities, they are largely disregarded in the report and conclusions. deterioration, particularly in public areas, that can be corrected within the scope of work for the planned reuse of the building for offices. The following conclusions address the specific historic preservation findings, conditions and issues that exist currently and that should shape Treatment Recommendations/Exterior: The simple geometric form plans and policies for stewardship and maintenance of the structure. of the building and overall modest scale present a visual character that They should also be integrated into planning for the adaptive reuse of does not lend itself to massive modification or addition. Architect Paul the Library Building and the design of any physical modifications or Thiry developed ideas and drawings for a rear addition to the structure, additions to the historic building. so there is an historic precedent for additional massing on the east and west walls of the stacks section. Banded glazing that repeats the main Historic Significance: The State Library Building is the most important front facade of the building should be used if windows are added on the mid-century work of public architecture on the State Capitol grounds. sides and rear of the stacks. The front north elevation of the stack section Architect Paul Thiry was at the height of his intellectual and professional is highly visible and architecturally important. Added fenestration on

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 97 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 SUMMARY the wall should be approached cautiously. The exterior courtyard and enclosure wall on the east and open view to the Legislative Building Design Integrity/Future Modifications: The State Library Building from the porch are integral to the original design of the building and was designed with the idea that it would be expanded through additions site. The main entry, porch and roof should be considered integral to the in massing and volume. Drawings, plans and sketches for additions to building and treated with the same importance as primary interior the building by the original architect exist, and Paul Thiry’s conceptual spaces. If additions are made to the building, they should be approach to the design for the Library is documented and can be subordinated to the visual integrity of the primary facade when viewed extrapolated from his writings and other works. These sources should from the Legislative Building (north). be employed in developing plans for additions and modifications to the structure and site. The design integrity of the State Library Building is The mid 1990s modifications to the massive glazing panels on the anchored by its orientation and compositional reference to the form of primary facade of the building should be reversed. The open view from the central Legislative Building. the interior as well as the undivided translucent curtain wall effect from the exterior is a central design feature of the building and a Furnishings & Artwork: The historic and aesthetic merits of the original distinguishing characteristic that has been lost. furnishings and site specific artworks for the State Library Building have been largely overlooked and undervalued. An effort should be Treatment Recommendations/Interior: The original design intent at launched to inventory the remaining original furnishings commissioned the State Library involved clearly defined interior public areas that for the building. Conservation methods should be adopted and displayed many of the most signif icant architectural and aesthetic implemented in regard to the artworks. The three primary interior site elements in the building. The Washington Room, lower gallery and specific artworks by Kenneth Callahan, Mark Tobey and James reading room area of the main floor should be given priority FitzGerald deserve particular attention, as they must be considered consideration for public access and use in any future plans. The waffle among the most important public artworks at the Capitol. slab coffered ceilings in the stacks area exhibit a unique engineering and design feature of the building and should be left visible if possible. The spacious open volume of the main floor with its overlooking mezzanine is architecturally important and central to the overall design and proportions of the building. Subdivisioning and partitioning should be undertaken with sensitivity to the high visibility of this area through the main facade glazing and to the role the facade plays in giving the Library a monumental character. In assessing the spatial options for interior volumes and areas, priority should be given to retaining area uses such as the public uses in the main floor reading area and the Washington Room, and private uses in the offices in the east side of the main floor and the lower level.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 98 5.0 APPENDICES 5.4 CONTRACTOR LIST

Appendices

5.1 Profiles 5.2 Modernism 5.3 Library Planning 5.4 Contractor List 5.5 GA Drawing Index 5.6 Colored Transparencies List 5.7 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 99 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 100 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

Joel Pritchard’s active involvement in local politics began in 1948, when he returned to Seattle. During the 1950s, he and his brother were involved with several political campaigns. Largely as a result 5.1.1 Joel Pritchard of their work, they were recognized as "organizational marvels." Joel Pritchard’s credo was "It's remarkable what you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit." Although not always the By 1958, Joel Pritchard was in a position to successfully run for prime sponsor on bills, Joel Prichard was instrumental in building state representative for the Thirty-Sixth District. He entered the bi-partisan coalitions in order to achieve some significant Legislature as a Republican minority member and was legislation. His name during his terms in Congress was subsequently involved with Dan Evans, Slade Gorton, Charles “synonymous with political integrity, intelligence, and courage.” Moriarty, and others. This provided the political base for election A particularly good example of his commitment to an ideal and of Dan Evans as governor in 1964, with Joel as one of his lieutenants. public service was his lasting support for the Metro Transit System in King County. (Daniel J. Evans, former Gover nor and U.S. Senator; As State senator, Joel Prichard held a critical role in the Kilgannon, 2000: Forward) liberalization of the state's abor tion law, support of civil rights, environmental legislation, and anti-gambling measures. In 1970, Born in Seattle on May 5, 1925, Joel McFee Pritchard was the second he made a close but unsuccessful bid for Congress. Two years son of Frank and Jean Pritchard. He and his older brother, Frank, later he ran successfully for representative for the First attended Queen Anne area schools and were members of the local Congressional District, a position he held until 1984. During this YMCA. Joel Pritchard regularly attended Camp Orkila on Orcas time, he participated in the Neighborhood Commission, was twice Island, first as a camper then as a counselor, which deeply impacted involved in stopping Congress from taking over the Library of his approach to life. Congress for office space, and was opposed to expanding the Capitol Building for office space. He was also involved with During World War II, he served in the American Division in the conservation, foreign affairs, humanitarian issues, and stopping Philippines, at Bougainville, and in the occupation forces in Japan. subsidies to Tobacco companies. Upon returning to the United States, he attended Marietta College in Ohio. He then married Joan Sutton, leaving college in 1948 to In 1985, he was employed with Bogle and Gates as a government return to Seattle and start a family and career. relations person and was a United States representative to the Panama Canal Consultative Commission. From 1986 to 1987, Joel The following twenty-five years he worked for North Pacific Bank Pritchard worked for KIRO TV as a news and affairs commentator Note Company, first as a salesperson, then with their affiliate on location. However, he returned to Washington in order to fulfill company, Griffin Envelope, retiring as president. He and his wife had four children.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 101 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES a long held desire to work as lieutenant governor, which position Schwagerl, during the years after 1908) and people who combined he gained in 1989 and held until his retirement in 1997. During nursery ownership and design with that of landscape architecture this time, while undergoing cancer treatment, he was a member as a "professional design discipline." on several state boards, chaired the Senate Rules Committee, and presided over the Senate. He also began a comprehensive project In 1959, Holmdahl was retained to prepare landscaping for the to research the past office locations of former members of Washington State Library. Additional persons listed on the drawing Congress. Joel Prichard died on October 9, 1997, at the age of 72. were Linley J. Janzen and V. L. Nichols. He also worked with Paul Thiry on the World's Fair (1962, Seattle) and the Aberdeen The Washington State Library Building was dedicated the “Joel M. Community Hospital (1959, Aberdeen). (Ochsner, 1994: 345) Pritchard Building” in his honor on Friday June 13, 1997. The decision to make the dedication stemmed from Pritchard’s Holmdahl was responsible for the design of parks in Bremerton, successful efforts as a representative for the First Congressional Ellensburg and Aberdeen, as well as others in Washington and District to prevent conversion of the Library of Congress into office Oregon. Many of the landscaped garden settings for residences space. Pritchard’s active participation in preserving the designed by Arthur L. Loveless were also the work of Holmdahl, as fundamental relation between the Library of Congress and was design work at the University of Washington Arboretum (ca Congress is a fitting tribute to the Washington State Library, which 1960). Otto J. Holmdahl died on March 2, 1967. (Ochsner, 1994: 345) was similarly intended to provide precisely the same support for the Washington State Legislators that the Library of Congress For a description of his work for the Washington State Library, see provides for Congress. (Interview with Ralph Munro, August 27, 2.2 Architectural Description. 2002)

5.1.3 Peter H. Hostmark, Structural Engineer Born in Molde, Norway, Peter H. Hostmark graduated from the 5.1.2 Otto J. Holmdahl, Landscape Architect Norwegian Institute of Technology in 1927, after which he moved Born in Sweden, Otto J. Holmdahl arrived in Seattle in 1919, opening to Seattle. a professional landscape design office that same year. According to Ochsner in Shaping Seattle Architecture (1994), the establishment Hostmark was the structural engineer for the Washington State of his office, coupled with the opening of offices by Butler Library. In addition, he was responsible for the steel design of the Sturtevant (1928) and Noble Hoggson (1932), was a significant Seattle Center Coliseum, Town House, Panorama House, St. transition point from the former practice of landscape architecture. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, and Mercer Island The new practice consisted of city employees (such as E. O.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 102 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

Presbyterian Church. Several of these were buildings designed where he selected furniture to sell in Seattle. According to Hope by Paul Thiry. In 1964, Hostmark's firm jacked up the eight story Foote, retired head of the University of Washington School of Art's Hill Building in Anchorage that had been tilted by the Good Friday Interior-Design faculty, Teeter held significant responsibility for earthquake. Seattle being viewed across the country as “the new renaissance." The company also helped "popularize" such furniture designers His involvement with the Washington State Library would likely as Charles Eames, Harry Bertoia, and Eero Saarinen. (Seattle Times, have been important for his structural calculations on the waffle December 31, 1976 and company history, www.delteet.com) slabs, particularly for determining column spacing and beam depth, as the formula was not established until 1974. Del-Teet Furniture supplied furnishings for the Washington State Library, as well as the Northeast Branch Library (1954, Seattle). In 1962, the Consulting Engineers Association of Washington named Del-Teet Furniture was used by Paul Thiry not only for aesthetic Hostmark Engineer of the Year. He went on to become president compatibility, but also because he could work with them on the of the same organization in 1964. He received first place for his design and they could produce custom pieces in their own shop. steel design of the Seattle Center Coliseum from the American Iron & Steel Institute. In 1968, he was awarded the Housing and Urban Bill Teeter trained his daughter, Polly, to take over his business, Development award for suburban-renewal design. which she continues to run. William (Bill) Teeter died in December 1976, at the age of 52 on a trip to California. Peter Hostmark died of an apparent heart attack at age 65 in June of 1969. 5.1.5 Artists The commissioning of prominent Northwest artists for pieces 5.1.4 William (Bill) Teeter, Furniture Designer intended for public buildings (specifically the Washington State A mid 1940s graduate of the University of Washington, Bill Teeter Library and the Seattle Public Library) was, in Kenneth Callahan’s began managing his father's furniture store, Del Teet Furniture, view, "perhaps the most significant development in the arts in 1958 after graduation. Del-Teet Furniture began in 1929, as a in this area." The precedent set by these commissions had the partnership between Mr. Delaney and Mr. Teeter (Bill's father). The potential to open possibilities for continued development along company started out selling "modestly priced traditional furniture." these lines and for cultural growth of the Pacific Northwest. (Seattle Times, December 28, 1958) By the 1950s, Del-Teet Furniture had become one of the largest contemporary furniture stores on the West Coast, and one of the Artists featured in the Washington State Library included: Kenneth first Seattle furniture stores handling "modern" furniture. Bill Callahan, Mark Tobey, James FitzGerald, Everett DuPen, John Elliott, Teeter began making buying trips to Scandinavia in the late 1950s,

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 103 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

Robert (Bob) Walton Spring and Ira Lou Spring, Chao-Chen Yang, D.C. home of Vice President Walter Mondale. In 1973, 1979 and and also included several donations by the American Association 1985, the Henry Art Gallery, Seattle Art Museum and Tacoma Art of University Women. Museum, respectively, organized major exhibitions. (Conkelton, 1999: 39)

5.1.5.1 Kenneth Callahan Callahan was born in Spokane, Washington on October 30, 1905. Kenneth Callahan (1905-1986), a native of Washington, is a He worked during his early years on ships sailing out of San nationally and internationally recognized artist. He was one of Francisco, visiting areas important to art. He went on to study art at the University of Washington, as well as in London, Paris, the four artists comprising the nucleus of the acclaimed "Northwest School"—including Mark Tobey, Guy Anderson, and Morris Graves. Florence, and Mexico. He traveled extensively in Europe and Asia. According to art historian Martha Kingsbur y, Callahan's works express a "basic concern for the landscape and the human figure." Callahan’s principal artistic influences were the Spanish painter They are permeated by the dual, underlying struggles of humanity El Greco, the "Blue Four" of the German modernists (Klee, against nature and humanity against itself. (Kingsbury, 1978: 12, Kandinsky, Feininger, Jawlensky) and the Englishman William Blake. 40) He often drew on the Pacific Nor thwest environment for its "form, movement, design and inspiration" in his pursuit of unifying the Callahan received his first solo show at the Schwabacher-Frey "whole range of existence"—inanimate, animate and spiritual. Gallery (San Francisco) in 1926. By 1933, he was included in the (Kingsbury, 1978: 18 and Seattle Times, January 14, 1968) first Whitney Biennial, followed by his first major solo show in 1939 (organized by the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art). From Actively involved in promoting awareness for art and local artists, 1946 to 1965, Callahan exhibited frequently in New York, including Callahan begin writing art columns for a Seattle weekly newspaper, his first solo exhibition at the American British Art Center (1946), “The Town Crier,” in 1929. Then in 1933, he began writing for The and shows at the Maynard Walker Gallery (alternate years from Seattle Times as an art reviewer, as well as for national publications, 1947-1965). Callahan's f irst European show was in 1948 at the including ARTnews. (Conkelton, 1999: 39) Galerie Georges in Brussels. From 1957 to 1958, Callahan was one of four Seattle painters (along with Anderson, Graves and Tobey) During a six-month trip to Mexico in 1930, Callahan experienced and four New York sculptors in an exhibition, “Eight American first hand the "stylized 'realism' of the Mexican muralists" and the Artists,” that was sponsored by the United States Information "Mexican vision of humanity's grandeur and destiny." (Kingsbury, Agency and traveled through Europe and Asia. Then from 1961 to 1978: 42) 1964, Callahan's works from the collection of Emily Winthrop Miles toured the United States—a collection subsequently donated to While painting and writing, Callahan also began working at the museums nationwide. His work was also shown in the Washington Seattle Art Museum soon after it opened in 1933 as an assistant to its founding director, Dr. Richard E. Fuller. By 1934, he became

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 104 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES assistant director, a position he held for another three years, after For a discussion of his commission for the Washington State Library, which he worked as curator until 1953. see Art essay (2.4.5).

By the 1940s, as the United States entered World War II, a small 5.1.5.2 Mark Tobey group of artists had drawn together. They included Callahan, Mark Tobey (1890 - 1976) is a nationally and internationally Tobey, Graves, and Anderson. The underlying unity of this group recognized artist, known particularly for his “white writing” style. was the "concern for the transcendental," and a high value placed Tobey is considered "among the top rank of mid-20th Century on "intuitive and deeply personal knowledge," traits that are painters." The event that solidified his worldwide acclaim and apparent in Callahan’s mural for the Washington State Library. brought increased attention to Northwest artists was Tobey's receipt Martha Kingsbury describes Callahan's "direct and pragmatic in 1958 of the Venice Biennale's Painting Prize, making him the first approach to the world" as providing partly a "bridge between day American painter to receive the award since James Abbot Whistler to day reality and nearly hermetic struggles that sometimes (1834-1903) in 1895. This international competition featured 294 engaged the others." (Kingsbury, 1978: 16, 42) painters from 37 countries competing for the prestigious award and a $2,400 prize. During the 1940s, Callahan’s paintings depicted human and animal figures, which receded in scale, disappearing into expansive Tobey is also considered the most complex of the "Northwest landscapes. These represented a synthesis of "landscape and the Tradition's" group of four (Tobey, Kenneth Callahan, Morris Graves, human figure" into "a holistic vision of cosmic unity." His paintings Guy Anderson). Of the four, he produced the greatest diversity of progressed into more abstract landscape forms during the 1950s, works over the longest period. Tobey’s paintings were generally with a focus on insects, that in comparison with the “immeasurable abstract, small in scale, rendered in tempera or watercolor in reaches of space” of his landscapes, was polar opposite in scale. unassertive colors, and subtly structured. However, during the late (Kingsbury, 1978: 40) 1950s through the 1970s, following his commission for the Washington State Library, he effectively translated his ideas to both By 1959, Callahan, with his wife Margaret and their son, had a a larger scale and an oil paint medium. (Kingsbury, 1978: 47,49, residence in Seattle, a studio in the University District (Seattle), Dahl, 1984: 13, Mark Tobey: A Retrospective Exhibition from and a summer home in Granite Falls, Washington. After Margaret’s Northwest Collections) death in 1961, he married Beth Gotfredsen. They moved shortly afterward to Long Beach, Washington, where he continued to paint In 1935, Tobey had his first major museum show at the Seattle Art actively until the end of his life. Kenneth Callahan died in 1986 in Museum. After World War II, Tobey had a series of nine one-man Seattle. exhibitions in New York, including the Willard Gallery (1953). From 1957 to 1958 Tobey was one of four Seattle painters (along with Anderson, Graves and Callahan) and four New York sculptors in

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 105 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES an exhibition, “Eight American Artists,” that was sponsored by the brief and unhappy marriage in 1922, and due to "growing social United States Information Agency and traveled through Europe and demands," he decided to move from New York. He caught a train Asia. In 1961, Tobey became the first American to exhibit at the with a friend of his who was returning to Seattle. Musée des Arts Décoratifs (Palais du Louvre, Paris). This was followed with other retrospectives including those at the Museum He accepted a teaching position at the Cornish School in Seattle, of Modern Art (New York, 1962), Dallas Museum of Art (1968), then a new and progressive school attracting national and Seattle Art Museum (1970), Smithsonian Institution’s National international faculty and visiting artists. He taught at Cornish until Collection of Fine Arts (1974), National Gallery of Art in 1931. During this time, Tobey experienced his own "personal Washington, D.C. (1994), and the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte discovery of Cubism," which led to the "moving focus and linear Reina Sofía (Madrid, Spain, 1997). (Conkelton, 1999: 43) trajectory" of his later white writing. In 1923, he met Teng Kuei, a Chinese artist studying at the University of Washington. They Tobey was born in Centerville, Wisconsin, in 1890 and grew up in became good friends. It was from Teng that Tobey "learned both the Midwest. When his family moved near Chicago, he began [the] technique and philosophy of Chinese calligraphy." attending Saturday watercolor and oils classes at the Art Institute of Chicago. In his youth, Tobey held a succession of different jobs, In 1925, Tobey left for Europe, spending several months in Paris including work as a blueprint boy in a steel mill and eventually as before accompanying friends in 1926 to Spain, Greece, Turkey and an errand boy for a fashion studio. Tobey's early artistic influences Lebanon. At this time, he also made his first visit to Bahá'í Shrines were from the commercial illustrations of Harrison Fisher, Howard and World Centre at Haifa. Over the course of the following three Chandler Christy, and Charles Dana Gibson. He did not complete years, Tobey spent his time "teaching, experimenting, and painting" a formal education. In 1911, Tobey moved to New York’s Greenwich in Seattle, New York, and Chicago. Village in order to pursue a career as a fashion illustrator. During this time, he also did portraits, which were shown at a New York In 1931, he was offered a six-month appointment at Dartington Hall gallery and garnered his first critical recognition. (Devonshire, England), which turned into an eight-year stay. During this time, he traveled again to Europe and the Bahá'í World In 1918, Tobey converted to the Bahá'í World Faith, a universalist Centre in 1932. In 1934 he accompanied Bernard Leach, a belief system. For the rest of his life, his thinking and work were renowned British ceramist, to Hong Kong where they spent a week supported and infused by its philosophy, which is based upon three before separating. Tobey went to Shanghai to spend time with premises of unity, “progressive revelation,” and humanity. (Dahl, Teng before continuing on to Japan, where he spent a month in a 1984: 15) monastery. It was following this trip, and due to the influence of his interest in cities--their energy, people, and light--that his mature By the early 1920s, Tobey was recognized for his "caricatures of style began to emerge, as seen in Broadway Norm, Broadway (1936), theatrical people," (some published in New York Times) and and Welcome Hero. In 1938, he returned to Seattle working at first drawings of vaudeville and burlesque personalities. Following a on a New Deal art project and teaching. (Dahl, 1984: 2-9)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 106 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

For a discussion of his commission for the Washington State Library During the 1940s, Tobey produced many of his characteristic “white see Art essay (2.4.4). writing” paintings. He considered them ultimately "light writing," a "vision of energies and rhythms disembodied from material 5.1.5.3 James FitzGerald confines and permeating both the space of objects and the space James FitzGerald (1910-1973), a native of Washington, is a nationally between." According to art historian Martha Kingsbury, the circular recognized artist, known for his works in bronze, mosaic, ceramics, organization of these rounded, hovering lines indicative of an glass, enamel on copper, marble and cast concrete sculpture, and "organic complexity"—without a rigid center or boundary— painting in egg tempera and oil. During the 1950s and 1960s, his and simplicity." The "vertical "evoked an emblematic centrality works were frequently elements of architect-designed buildings, and a transcendent realm," with organization [implied] earthly on which he often worked collaboratively with Paul Thiry. (Johns, these multiple dimensions in simultaneous existence. (Kingsbury, 1990: 22) 1978: 18-20, 50-53)

James FitzGerald was born in Seattle, Washington on August 19, During some periods, notably the 1930s, the late 1940s and again 1910. As a young adult, FitzGerald studied at the University of in the early 1950s, the themes of his work shifted to include Bahá'í Washington, graduating with a Bachelor of Architecture in 1934. themes and titles. During the late 1950s (specifically 1957, while From 1936 to 1938, he studied painting and drawing with the also working on the commission for the Washington State Library), renowned Thomas Hart Benton at the Kansas City Art Institute. Tobey, at age 66, produced his Sumi paintings, which were in his During the last year he also studied painting at the Colorado judgment "among his most significant contributions." By the 1960s Springs Fine Arts Center under Boardman Robinson (1937 to 1938) (just prior to his 1961 exhibit in the Louvre), Tobey began and was involved on Works Progress Administration (WPA) murals. experimentation with monotypes, which continued for more than a decade. (Dahl, 1984: 7-8) In 1938, FitzGerald received a Carnegie Graduate Fellowship to study at Yale University (1938 - 1939). From 1941 to 1942 he was Throughout, the small scale of his works was indicative of his the director of the Federal Art Center in Spokane. Then, during concern for the microcosm as a universe and a focus on the energy World War II, he was Head of Production. At the end of the war, he of this microcosm. Much in the same respect as Tobey's desire to and his wife and fellow ar tist Margaret Tomkins bought land on be a global citizen, his focus on the transcendental—similar to the Lopez in the San Juan Islands, where they eventually built a studio. other members of the Northwest's group of four—may be seen as (Catherine Viviano Gallery, Conkelton, 1999: 40) a move away from a collective conditioning to a state of consciousness "giving access to the world state." Mark Tobey died Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, FitzGerald’s work was in 1976 in Basel, Switzerland. exhibited frequently in regional and national exhibitions. He and Tomkins were among the artists whose paintings were most often

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 107 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES seen when art from the Northwest was featured nationally. Both to New York City, working in the studios of various sculptors, and initially painters, they began working in ceramics, mosaics, and assisting in the designing of some sculpture for the New York other materials, a direction FitzGerald would pursue. Excellent World's Fair (1939). craftsmanship was a quality he valued in any medium. Following a disastrous fire at his Seattle studio in 1959 (the year of the From 1939 to 1942, DuPen was a teaching assistant in sculpture at Washington State Library commission), FitzGerald turned solely the Carnegie Institute of Technology School of Art. Later he taught to sculpture and enduring materials. He became especially known at the Washington University School of Art in St. Louis. During for his bronze fountains. (Johns, 1990: 22, Conkelton, 1999: 40) World War II, he served as a marine draughtsman in San Francisco. In 1945, DuPen began teaching drawing, sculpture, and art history In 1961, he traveled to Europe, returning to prepare a commission at the University of Washington, becoming an Associate Professor for the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. FitzGerald established his own of Art. state of the art bronze foundry in 1964. An expert caster, he worked in both French sand and lost-wax investment casting. His His commission for the Washington State Library was one among commissions included sculptures for the Washington Building in several commissions for public buildings. For a discussion of this Seattle (1960), U.S. Courthouse and Federal Office Building in commission see Art essay (2.4.2). Ogden, Utah (1965), Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University (1966), and the Civic 5.1.5.5 John Elliot Center Waterfront Park, Kirkland WA (1970). (Conkelton, 1999: 40) John Elliot's commissions for publicly owned buildings included sixteen bas relief heads on the Law Building at the University of For a discussion of his commission for the Washington State Library Washington, thirty six repoussé panels for the City Light Building see Art essay (2.4.3). in Seattle, as well as his work for the Washington State Library.

5.1.5.4 Everett DuPen For a discussion of his commission for the Washington State Library Born in San Francisco, on June 12, 1912, of English and French see Art essay (2.4.1). parents, Everett DuPen studied both architecture and fine arts at the University of Souther n California in Los Angeles with Merril 5.1.5.6 Robert (Bob) Walton Spring and Ira Lou Spring Gage. He received a Louis Comfort Tiffany Fellowship during the According to a brief biography published in the Washington State summers of 1935 and 1936 and studied at Chouinard Art Instutute, Library Dedication (1959) booklet, Robert (Bob) Walton Spring and Yale University School of Fine Arts (B.F.A.) and with Lukens, Sample, Ira Lou Spring were twin brothers. They were born on December Snowden, Fulop, Eberhard, and Archipenko. DuPen later moved 24, 1918, in Jamestown, New York. From 1927 to 1946, they lived in Shelton, Washington.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 108 5.0 APPENDICES 5.1 PROFILES

They were freelance photographers, specializing in mountain climbing photography. However, their photographs covered a wide For a discussion of his commission for the Washington State Library, range of mainly outdoor activity subject matter. Their work has see Art essay (2.4.6). been featured in National Geographic, Saturday Evening Post, Colliers American Magazine, Time, Fortune, Coronet, Esquire, True, 5.1.5.8 American Association of University Women Holiday, Argosy, Ford Times, Seattle Times, and additional "national Donation of five paintings by Washington women. See Art essay and international periodicals," as well as in calendars. (Building (2.4.7). Dedication, 1959: 13)

For a discussion of their commission for the Washington State Library, see Art essay (2.4.6).

5.1.5.7 Chao-Chen Yang According to a br ief biography published in the Washington State Library Dedication (1959) booklet, Mr. Chao-Chen Yang was born in Hanchow, China and studied art in Shanghai. He was Art Director of the Gover nment Institute of Nanking.

A resident in the United States since 1934, he worked at the Winona, Indiana School of Photography, which was sponsored by the Professional Photographers' Association of America. In 1939 he moved to Seattle.

From 1947 to 1951, Chao-Chen Yang was director of the Northwest Institute of Photography in Seattle. In addition, he lectured and participated as a judge in several photograph conventions and exhibitions throughout the United States and Canada. Chao-Chen Yang also received a Fellowship from the Photographic Society of America and the degree of Master of Photography by the Professional Studio on Third Avenue in Seattle where his specialty was professional color advertising and illustrative work. (Building Dedication, 1959: 13)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 109 5.0 APPENDICES 5.2 MODERNISM

The Modernist method was to approach buildings and their designs as a rational science. The principles and defining characteristics of this were a progressive nature, open plan, elementary forms, Modernism strict principles, and use of new materials and building techniques. “Progressive” implied overturning traditional ideas to design not The Washington State Library Building reflects the dramatic change from a preconceived formal ideal but rather from the perspective in architectural design that gained momentum after the Second of structure and function. These traits were significant components World War. Although the roots of Modernism in architecture date of Paul Thiry's approach to design and were evident in his from the 1930’s and before, American Modernism and its offspring, residential and church designs and the Washington State Library. “New Formalism,” came into real focus during the construction The designs were motivated by a delight in solving problems by boom of the late 1940’s and 1950’s and continued well into the looking to the operational needs of a building to determine the 1970’s. These influences are clearly woven into Paul Thiry’s design type of structure and building form needed. (Clausen, 1984: 129) for the State Library, but he also expresses an individual originality of thought that reflects Asian and historic themes. The building The open plan, signifying a unity of form and function, led to the also displays an array of character elements that are suggested by design of independent skeletal structures, such as the clear span its natural setting, regional environment and sense of place within of the waffle slab construction and the open frontal volume of the the company of the Neo Classical Legislative Building and attendant Washington State Library. These facilitated an anticipated use as structures in the Capitol group. well as being adaptable to changing operational demands.

Walter Gropius described Modernism as "the inevitable logical The need for a new vocabulary of shapes, joints, materials, textures, product of the intellectual and technical conditions of our age." etc.—avoiding traditional ornament and motifs—combined with the (The New Architecture and the Bauhaus, W. Gropius, 1935: 21, 32 in retrieval of essential meanings, fueled a preference for elementary Norberg-Schulz, 1980: 186) Prior to World War I, individual forms. However, as seen in the Washington State Library, this did architects (such as Adolf Loos, Otto Wagner, Van de Velde, Peter not result in a mechanical juxtaposition of reduced or isolated Behrens, and Frank Lloyd Wright) were experimenting with new functions. Rather, the result was spatial continuity and functional technology and engineering advances, as well as new forms and transparency sensitive to the site and adjacent buildings. (Norberg- expressions. The most rapid advances were in the U.S., where Frank Schulz, 1980: 187-188, 192, 200) Lloyd Wright's aesthetic experimentation with "architectural design in terms of planes existing freely in three dimensions rather than Increasingly, the formal principles of Modernism softened as a in terms of enclosed blocks," and stark individuality were more organic, pluralistic approach developed. Regional variations over turning traditions and opening vast design possibilities. emerged, incorporating specific local characteristics such as geography, climate, and historic and cultural ways of living into

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 110 5.0 APPENDICES 5.2 MODERNISM the designs. This produced individualized forms, carefully Overall in the Pacific Northwest, the principles of Moder nism were constructed to meet the specific conditions of their sites. Paul gradually incorporated into architectural design in a very Thiry, recognized as "one of the first [architects] to introduce the pluralistic manner, integrating local and regional elements to seminal architecture of the European modernists in the Pacific produce a synthetic mix progressing well beyond a superficial Northwest," applied these principles to his design of the application of the movement's principles. Within this process, the Washington State Library in his choice of Wilkeson sandstone, siting Washington State Library was most remarkable not for any single and orientation of the building. (Norberg-Schulz, 1980: 204, innovation, but rather the combination of numerous design aspects. Clausen, 1984: 128) Modernistic design principles, innovations in library planning, and one of the earlier applications of waffle slab construction in the Japanese architecture (particularly on the West Coast) with its many Pacific Northwest resulted in a form that was not only below budget, parallels to Modernism's basic principles, as well as reinforced carefully adapted to the site, and f eatured the work of regional concrete (particularly its structural and plastic potential) were also artists and materials, but precisely completed the classical Beaux- gaining in influence during the early and mid 1900s. However, Arts composition of the Capitol Group planned by Wilder and White across the United States, the widespread approach to Modernism (1928). was often only a superficial application of its principles. This was mainly due to the high cost of new techniques and materials, an often-incomplete understanding of Modernism, and the tradition of French rationalism and Beaux-Arts architectural training maintained by American universities until World War II. (Clausen, 1984: 128-129, Norberg-Schulz, 1980: 203, 211-213)

Although design and construction immediately following World War II focused mainly on residential buildings, libraries were undergoing changes in their planning and design at that same time. Libraries recognized the applicability of the basic principles of Modernism and its regional variations to library design. The Washington State Library employed this approach to convey its status as a function of "fundamental importance" in the State Government and as a building within the Capitol Group. (Norberg- Schulz, 1980: 220)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 111 5.0 APPENDICES 5.3 LIBRARY PLANNING

library designs. These changes also allowed for service and planning upgrades. (Mohrhardt, 1952: 149, 157)

The following were influential factors motivating these design Library Design changes, according to an article in Architectural Record, "Public Libraries," by Charles Mohrhardt and Ralph Ulveling (1952): From the 1900s through the 1960s, library planning and design in • rising construction costs; the United States evolved in response to changing societal • necessity for improved efficiency and economy of operation and maintenance; preferences and needs, technological advances in library • rapid growth in collection sizes; operation, and in terms of the librarians, the desire to establish "a • increased expectation of quality of accommodations for archival just place for the institution they represent."(Kroll, IV, 1960: 248- purposes (such as climate control) and patron use (such as 250) lighting, temperature, individual and semiprivate accommodations) • changing physical requirements resulting from technological Prior to 1900, card catalogues, on a small scale, were only just advances in library operation (such as computers); coming into use. Amenities facilitating multiple floors and • realization that site bears a significant influence on library design concentrated, compact storage (such as electric and hydraulic and use (prominent versus remote, northern versus southern exposure); elevators, metal shelving, air conditioning and electric lighting) • increasing cooperation between library staff and architects, often were not available. Planning for telephones, copy machines, with a library consultant between, to outline objectives, services computers, and micro reproduction systems was not a general (and their interrelationships), physical requirements, operational consideration through much of the early 1900s. However, as library procedures, and identification of clientele. use and collection sizes increased, more than operational changes While the Washington State Library by nature was more a research became necessary to keep pace. By the late 1940s and 1950s, center for legislators, it nevertheless drew heavily on these libraries were also changing their visual characters in response contemporary principles in library design to increase its to a fundamental shift in their roles within society, changes often operational efficiency and its capacity to better serve legislators difficult to integrate into existing, relatively rigid, library designs. and researchers. (Metcalf, 1965: 9)

From 1951 to 1955, the State Library Commission and the This change in visual and operational character involved the Washington State Library staff (particularly Maryan Reynolds, State transition from civic monuments to community and research Librarian) actively engaged in soliciting plans, specifications, as resources. Simplicity of form, openness, and a flexible, functional layout—all elements of Modernism—were the principal characteristics of what librarians came to regard as improved

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 112 5.0 APPENDICES 5.3 LIBRARY PLANNING well as critiques and recommendations from other State Libraries Interiors were "no longer divided into boxlike rooms.” Instead, as (specifically Illinois, Ohio, Oregon, Michigan, New Jersey, and New seen in the State Library, freestanding partitions and files provided York)and higher education f acilities (including the University of flexible and adaptable division of interior spaces. Level floors Idaho Library and the University of Oregon Library). minimized the need for stairs, while light floor colors improved light reflection on lower shelves, as well as appear ing cleaner Evaluation of the information received from these institutions, in longer. Elimination of closets and built-in features, and limitation conjunction with a systematic space analysis conducted by the State of fixed service core areas reduced building costs and improved Library in which specific functions, equipment, and timetables for flexibility. Even distribution of ceiling lighting, as opposed to desk each department were listed, led to the development of a building and floor lamps, allowed free positioning of reading desks without program used by Paul Thiry for the design process. the "clutter, contrasts, or numerous outlets." Advances in climate control technology improved storage capabilities, staff and patron A prevailing consideration in library planning during the 1950s comfort, and enabled lower ceilings. Standard sizes, such as ceiling was the need for a prominent and accessible site—ideally a place heights and column spacing, minimized expensive custom of natural human convergence, not a remote location. This suited furnishings and shelving, enabling purchase of standard furnishing the function of the State Library and its relation to the Capitol sizes. Comfortable, simple chairs, sofas and light tables replaced Buildings, as did the preference for north and east exposures due long rows of tables and chairs. Reductions in table sizes in to improved light, reduced glare, and sheltered approach afforded reference areas to accommodate four people improved their patrons— significant elements in the siting of the Washington State frequency and the concentration of use. (Mohrhardt, 1952: 152-154, Library. Metcalf, 1965: 15 -28)

Library buildings also began featuring long frontages with broad, Within the dramatic nationwide increase in public library inviting glass expanses, street level entrances and attractive construction following World War II through the 1960s, the planting beds. The design of the State Library incorporated these Washington State Library was one of many new libraries providing elements, with the exception of the elevated entrance necessary a forum for these new design changes. The most remarkable aspect for it to maintain an appropriate stature and scale with relation to of the Washington State Library is the manner in which Paul Thiry adjacent Capitol Buildings. Reductions in entrance and lobby sizes, not only incorporated these elements into his design, but also evident in the State Library, increased functional interior advantageously employed them to convey the Library's vital role space, while the anticipation of future additions to accommodate in a modern form capable of articulating a "sustained dynamism growing collections became increasingly relevant in planning and in the fulfillment of [its]...role," effectively asserting the library's design—another important consideration in the decision on the presence within the Capitol Group. (Kroll, IV, 1960: 248-250) site and orientation for the Washington State Library. (Mohrhardt, 1952: 152, Metcalf, 1965: 15 -28)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 113 5.0 APPENDICES 5.4 CONTRACTOR LIST

• Jack L. Smith, Plastering subcontractor • Seattle Bronze Co., Inc.

Furnishings • Assoc. Asbestos Inc., fabric louvers Contractors • Bank & Office Equipment, Group III spec. tables To reduce costs, most of the work for the Library was contracted • Boardman Company, Auto-Page drive up book return • Can-Pro Corp., mailbag carts directly to minimize work for the general contractor and reduce • Del-Teet Furniture Co., Group II occasional furniture overhead costs. • Grainger's, Group I furniture • Herman Miller, chairs • Lloyd Johnson-Morrison-Knudsen Co., General Contractor. • Lowman & Hanford, Group V office machinery Retained as the general contractor for the Washington State • Recordak Corp., recordak equipment Library, the partnership was dissolved during the construction. • Remington Rand, computer and electric erasers Lloyd Johnson, a partner, and Morrison-Knudsen Co. completed • Wm Dierickx Co., collator the project as a joint venture (3-7-58 Minutes, Capitol • W.O. Hickok Mfg. Co., press Committee) • Peter H. Hostmark, Structural Engineer (See essay) • William (Bill) Teeter, Interior Designer (See essay) • Otto E. Holmdahl and Associates (L.J. Janzen and V.L. Nichols), Landscape Architects (See essay). The Capitol Committee approved funds on April 21, 1959 for up to $15,000 to develop the landscape plan. Holmdahl was to work with Mr. Hart, a gardener for the Division of Building and Grounds

Building Systems • Beverly A. Travis & Associates, Electrical Engineer • Carl T. Madsen, Inc. (Tacoma, WA), Electrical contractor • James Notkin, Mechanical Engineer • McKee Supply, steam valve

Finish Work

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 114 5.0 APPENDICES 5.5 GA DRAWING I NDEX

O.E. Holmdahl and Associates, L.J. Janzen, 75 (rev. 8, 9-88) The Dudley Company Archictecture & V.L. Nichols, Landscape Architects GA Engineering GA Drawing Index Landscape plan New concrete stairs structural 10-13-76 (Rev. 10-28-76) calculations Undated 12-7-65 Richard D. Roselle, Industrial Marine & Wohleb and Wohleb and Associates GA Interior Design Consultant 6-25-80 Proposed State Library, plan flow New movable partitions, Map Room Main level wall panels in General office The Dudley Company Archictecture & diagram, schematic flow diagram, basement areas, Sheets A-I; East, Center rooms, Engineering basement, first, second floor plans Plan, elevation lower upper levels, staff Code compliance (stairs) Sheets 1-6 14-8-69 lounge, north stairway, head librarians 12-26-57 Bracy and Thomas, Land Surveyors office, board room 5-1-81 Paul Thiry Topographic Survey The Dudley Company Archictecture & Details for type A, B, C windows 11-76 Engineering 7-16-70 GA Letter, completion of work 9-20-57 Paul Thiry Basement, main floor electrical Paul Thiry Additions and alterations M-1 through M- 3-16-82 WSL: P1-2; A1-23; S1-12; M1-7; E1-6 [1set 9 7-76 Sparling & Associates, Inc. Electrical paper, 1 set velum] GA Engineering 7-21-72 Supply room, revisions, cabinet shelving, Capitol Campus Fire Alarm systems set 1-3-58 GA room plan and details no. 23 E1-35 Paul Thiry Heating and ventilation units, basement, Details for sidelights, center post at main first floor 5-14-77 4-85 entrance, details of door GA Bracy & Thomas 3-28-72 Color designation, painting, interior Capitol Campus Accessibility Phase II, 1-8-58 GA land survey, SE corner of building Paul Thiry Emergency lights, light addition, floor 6-4-80 Details of Aluminum show cases receptacles 12-11-85

Undated

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 115 5.0 APPENDICES 5.5 GA DRAWING INDEX

Halvorson, Beach & Bower, Inc. Masini Sanford Gabrielse & Shoenfeldt Fire protection improvements, HVAC Architects impr. Phase Consulting Engineers I Window replacement, T1; A2.1; A3.1-.2; A1-3; ME1-3; M1-5; E1-2 A4.1; A5.1, [1 set paper, 1 set velum]

7-19-85 7-5-96 GA Drawn: R.L. Elcon Associates, Inc. Basement jamb detail and door type Electrical improvements T-1; E0.1-3; E1.0-7; E2.1; S1-2 Undated Elcon Associates, Inc. 6-30-97 Electrical improvements, T1, E1-8; Proj. Richmond Engineering no. 92-192 Campus utilities, site plan, Newardk, basement mechanical room, chilled 8-10-92 water piping, trench sections M1-5 Drawn: Cipriano Araiza, Office Services Termite treatment 12-10-01 Thomas Cook Reed Reinvald PLLC 1-5-93 Architects Anderson & Boone Architects Pritchard Building Modifications Temp. Floor covering replacement (Existing Facilities Doc. Set no. 70: G1.01; G2.01- and new) A1-2 .02; D2.01-.04; A1.01; A2.01-.08; A4.01- .03; A5.01-.02; A6.01-.02; A8.01-.02; 1-24-95 HA1.0-6; K1.01-.02; SO.01-.02; S1.01-.05; Richmond Engineering S2.01-.02; MD1.00-.02; M1.01-.06; P0.01; Indoor air quality improvements P1.01-.04; P2.01-.03; FP1.01-.05; E0.01; E1.01-.03; E2.01-.03; E3.01-.04; E4.01- 9-96 .02; E5.00-.02; E6.00-.01

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 116 5.0 APPENDICES 5.6 COLORED TRANSPARENCIES LIST

25.Ice Caves, Mount Rainier 26.Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Forest 27.Kalaloch Beach, Olympic Loop Highway 28.Sunset over Mount Rainier, over downtown Seattle

Colored Transparencies-WSL Second Undated List Two seperate lists documenting the contents of the transparency boxes in the basement gallery were located. Neither of the lists Box 1 indicated who had compiled them. Both are in the Washington State Dairy and herd: near Mt. Baker Stream and woods: cracked in one corner of one side Archives. Grain: shocked Apple packing plant: two views of which this is one First Undated List apple packing plant: second view Beets, sugar (field): #36 Curtis 1. Wildflowers and mountain stream Alfalfa,(?) field and farm: #37 Curtis 2. Mount Baker and the San Juana (Bellingham in distance) 3. Avalanche Lilies on Mount Rainier Box 2 4. Sail boating in the San Juan Islands Lumber being loaded 5. Forest fire - Cultus Mountain Dry Falls (before) tourist shelter was built or Palouse Canyon 6. Grand Coulee Clam (Razor) digging 7. Rhododendrons Logging scene with cat and loader: cracked on both sides in one 8. Chelan - apple blossoms corner 9. Cutting Christmas trees Shelton College (?) building 10.Log tow - Deception Pass 11.Boeing 707 Mount Adams in distance Box 3 12.Tulip farm Skagit County Mining plant: Holden 13.Fishing at Westport Dam: Bonnevile (?) 14.North East Branch, Seattle Public Library Rosario Beach (?) San Juan vacation 15.Manito Branch, Spokane Public Library Cheney (Eastern WashingtonCollege Of Education) 16.Tacoma Public Library Story Hour Lumber loading 17.Yakima Valley Regional Library headquarters building College of Education which? Administration building, probably 18.Rural library service via bookmobile - Snohomish County Whitman 19.Mountain climbing, Hurricane Ridge Farm Home, duplicate in #5: cracked on both sides 20.Skiing - Mount Rainier Spokane 21.Artist Pool, Mount Baker, reflecting Mt. Skukson 22.Hunting, Methow Valley 23.Boating - Puget Sound 24.Tumwater Canhon, Leavenworth (fall colors on leaves)

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 117 5.0 APPENDICES 5.6 COLORED TRANSPARENCIES LIST

Lincoln highway #10: cracked on both sides in one corner Chicken farm: white leghorns Tacoma and mountain

Box 5 Farm home, barn, team of horses, flowers: #62183 Curtis Plant - might be Longview Diablo, Dam - duplicate of one in case #6: cracked on one corner, both sides Corn field (man with ear of corn Ducks (mallard?) on Lake (?): crack in corner Girl with sheaf of grain in field: cracked on one side

Box 6 Diablo Dam (Skagit River) University of Washington and aerial view of North Seattle Sheep on a farm: #56103 Curtis Seine fishing on Puget Sound: one side cracked Government locks (Ballard) (ship. etc.)

Unboxed Highway along Columbia tunnel in background - Evergreen Highway Vancouver to Maryhill PBY (?) over sound University of Washington see duplicate in Box 6 Camas (aerial) ? College of Washington: #63418, cracked in one corner Fish hatchery (Issaquah): cracked on one corner Peace Arch at Blaine Lake Quinault Lodge 1936-1937 (?) Boeing Airplane Plant: cracked both sides Grain shocks - farm scene: see Box 1 - #62181 Curtis, cracked corner Dry Coulee beyond Vantage Perry: damaged print unframed 2 pieces of glass 1 box of new glass

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 118 5.0 APPENDICES 5.7 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS

physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES (1995) property will be preserved. 6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has the old in composition, design, color, and texture. evolved over time. (Protection and Stabilization are consolidated 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be under this treatment.) Preservation is defined in the Secretary of undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in (1995) as the act or process of applying measures necessar y to place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic will be undertaken. property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing Restoration depicts a proper ty at a particular period of time in maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather its history, while removing evidence of other periods. Restoration than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior is defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) as the act or process of limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property plumbing systems and other code-required work to make as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. 1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a removal of features from other periods in its history and new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if plumbing systems and other code-required work to make necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial new use which reflects the property's restoration period. relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the conserve existing historic materials and features will be period will not be undertaken.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 119 5.0 APPENDICES 5.7 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its additions while preserving those portions or features which convey time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and its historical, cultural, or architectural values. conserve materials and features from the restoration period will 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, inspection, and properly documented for future research. features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of removal. features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction property will be avoided. techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its restoration period will be preserved. time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be historical development, such as adding conjectural features or repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, in their own right will be retained and preserved. materials. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A property will be preserved. false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than features, features from other properties, or by combining features replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires that never existed together historically. replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match 8. chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by cause damage to historic materials will not be used. documentary and physical evidence. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 10.Designs that were never executed historically will not be 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in constructed. place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work property's historic character. Rehabilitation is defined by the will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic massing to protect the integrity of the property and its Properties (1995) as the act or process of making possible a environment. compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 120 5.0 APPENDICES 5.7 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS

10.New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes. Reconstruction is defined by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (1995) as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. 1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non- surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. 5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. 6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 121 RESOURCE LIST

surrounding architect, site choice, design and programming; invoices and correspondence during construction between Paul Thiry and contractors detailing stop orders, additional requests, and specifications; extensive oral history interviews with associated Collections persons; photographs taken of a building model and during the • Washington State Archives • General Administration, Capitol Facilities, Construction Archives building’s dedication; exhaustive collection of newspaper clippings • Washington State Library relating to the Library; as well as product catalogues from furnishings • Tacoma Public Library, Northwest Room and mechanical systems. • Seattle Public Library • University of Washington, Architecture and Urban Planning and Engineering Libraries General Administration (GA), Capitol Facilities, Constr uction • University of Washington, Special Collections Archives • Washington State Capital Museum The Archives contain original and proposed addition drawings, • Dynamics of Change: A History of the Washington State Library drawings from subsequent maintenance and alterations in flat files, as (2001). Maryan E. Reynolds with Joel Davis (Washington State University Press: Seattle) well as the original bound specifications, maintenance program and operational guidelines, and reports from subsequent maintenance and The following general discussion of materials found in each of the above alterations. mentioned collections is intended to aid in narrowing a search for specific information to the most likely collection. Some collections are Washington State Library very broad in the range of materials contained (often a variety of The Library maintains an extensive photograph collection (both interior information is grouped in one particular file), while others are very and exterior), information on the Association of American Univeristy specific with bits of information scattered throughout the collection. Women (AAUW) paintings, as well as the original watercolor rendering of the library building and the rendering of the proposed addition. Most of the materials are in public collections. Tacoma Public Library, Northwest Room Washington State Archives The Northwest Room maintains a clipping file on the State Library The Archives contain a substantial amount of primary information, building, including a booklet prepared for the building dedication. including archived boxes containing most, if not all materials gathered by Maryan E. Reynolds in writing Dynamics of Change: A History of the Seattle Public Library (Central Library) Washington State Library (2001). This includes but is not limited to: The Library contains an extensive Northwest Index, Biographical Index, minutes and correspondence of the Capitol Commission—responsible architects’ and artists’ scrapbooks, oral histor ies, and vertical files for major decisions regarding funding, architect and site choice; minutes providing background information primarily on persons associated with and correspondence of the Washington State Library Commission— the Library. recommended architects for Capitol Commission consideration, issues

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 122 RESOURCE LIST

University of Washington, Architecture and Urban Planning, and Engineering Libraries These libraries contain information primarily on the building’s architectural style, building technology, library design, and background information on Paul Thiry.

University of Washington, Special Collections The Special Collections contain oral histories, architect’s reference file, and architectural photograph collections, yielding background information primarily on Paul Thiry and associated persons.

Washington State Capital Museum The museum maintains the AAUW paintings.

Dynamics of Change: A History of the Washington State Librar y (2001). Maryan E. Reynolds with Joel Davis (Washington State University Press: Seattle). Maryan Reynolds was the State Librarian during funding appropriation and the construction process and was extensively involved in the interior design and layout. The book provides a detailed account of the State Library's history prior to the construction of the State Library building (1957-1959), its construction and surrounding events, and subsequent developments in the Library's history.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collins, Alf. Seattle Times. "Bill Teeter Helped Change Seattle's Taste." (December 31, 1976): A16.

"Architect for State Library Appointed." Seattle Times (December 14, Conkelton, Sheryl. What it Meant to be Modern: Seattle Art at Mid- 1955): 4. Century. (October 15, 1999-January 23, 2000). Henry Art Gallery, University of Washington. Art of the Pacific Northwest: From the 1930s to the Present. (1974). Smithsonian Institution Press Publication Number 5060. "Contemporary Form in a Classic Setting." Western Architect and Engineer 128 (September 1959): 26-30. Burt, Lyle. Seattle Times. "Plan to Move State Library to College is Questioned." (December 21, 1977): E9. Dahl, Arthur L. et al. Mark Tobey: Art and Belief. (1984). George Ronald: Oxford. Callahan, Kenneth. Seattle Times. "1958 Brought Local Artists Increased Recognition." (December 28, 1958): 22. Emanuel, Muriel, editor. Contemporary Architects 3 ed. (1994). St. James Press: New Jersey. 954-956. Callahan, Kenneth: Exhibition of Paintings, Drawings, and Reliefs (November 18 - December 9, 1966). Boston University Art FitzGerald, Edmond James: Exhibition of Bronze Sculptures (January Gallery, MA 7 - February 1, 1969). Cather ine Viviano Gallery: New York, "Callahan, Kenneth" Archives of American Art: Northwest Oral NY. History Project. University of Washington Special Collections. _____: Selected Works from the Estate of E. J. FitzGerald (October Box 1, accession no. 3620. 30 - December 2, 1990). Exhibition Presented by Kollar & Davidson: Seattle. Clausen, Meredith L. Pacific Northwest Quarterly 74-75 "Paul Thiry: The Emergence of Modernism in Northwest Architecture." Gropius, W. The New Architecture and the Bauhaus. (1935). London.: (July 1984): 128-139. 21, 32. _____. Archives of American Art: Northwest Oral History Project. "Paul Thiry" (September 15 & 16, 1983). University of Guzzo, Louis R. Seattle Times. "Kenneth Callahan Wins Double Honors Washington Special Collections. Box 2, accession no. 3620. in Mural Competition." (July 6, 1955): B4. _____. "Thiry, Paul," Encyclopedia of Architecture, Design, Engineering and Construction 5. (1990) John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 124 BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Harmony without Imitation." Architectural Forum 113, no. 1 (July _____. "Washington's New State Library." Seattle Times (February 8, 1960): 104-107. 1959): 19-20.

Johns, Barbara. Modern Art from the Pacific Northwest: in the Metcalf, Keyes D. Planning Academic and Research Library Collection of the Seattle Art Museum. (1990). Seattle Art Buildings. (1965). McGraw-Hill Book Co. NY. Museum. Mohrhardt, Charles M. and Ralph A. Ulveling. Architectural Record Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 10 no. 4 (Winter 112 "Public Libraries." (December 1952): 149-172. 1993): 274-282. "Mural for Library." Seattle Times (March 1, 1959): 23. Kilgannon, Anne, interviewer. Joel M. Pritchard: An Oral History. (2000). Washington State Oral History Program: Olympia. Nawy, Dr. Edward G., P.E. Reinf orced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach. (2000). Prentice Hall, Inc.: Upper Saddle River, NJ. Kingsbury, Martha. Northwest Traditions. (June 19-December 10, 430-440. 1978). Seattle Art Museum. Nilson, Arthur H., and George Winter. Design of Concrete Structures, Kroll, Morton, editor. Libraries and Librarians of the Pacific 11 ed. (1991). McGraw-Hill, Inc.: New York. Northwest, I and IV. (1960). University of Washington Press: Seattle. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl, editor. Shaping Seattle Architecture (1994). University of Washington Press: Seattle. Mark Tobey. (1997). Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia: Àmbit Servicios Editorales, S.A. Opitz, Glenn B., editor. Dictionary of American Sculptors: 18th Century to Present. (1984). Appollo: Poughkeepsie, NY. Maynard, Michael. Landscape Architecture 87 "A Capitol Idea: Olmsted's Olympia Campus to be Reunified." no. 3 (March Park, R. and W. L. Gamble. Reinforced Concrete Slabs. (1980). John 1997): 30. Wiley & Sons: New York: pp. 2-18.

McCoy, Esther. Arts and Architecture 82 "West Coast Architects IV/ "Paul Thiry: Shaper of Northwest Environment." Seattle Times Paul Thiry." (January 1965): 12-17. Pictorial Section (January 14, 1962): 12-13. _____. Paul Thiry. (1974). Holly Press, Seattle. "Peter H. Hostmark, 65, Engineer, Dies." Seattle Times (June 20, 1969): McDonald, Lucile. Seattle Times. "A Home at Last for Washington B4. State's Library?" Seattle Times (December 5, 1954): 8.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 125 BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Stevens, James Floyd Papers" University of Washington Special "Private Firm to Handle Bond Issue for State Library." Seattle Times Collections. Boxes 1-9, 2-23: Accession no. 2008. (April 2, 1957): 18. "State Library Nears Completion." Seattle Times (December 7, 1958): Progressive Architecture, Northwest Architecture. (June 1953): 71- 23. 104. "State Library Plans Approved." Seattle Times (May 15, 1957). "Retiring Librarian Urges Modern View." TNT (February 9, 1945). "State Library Shift Studied." Seattle Post Intelligencer (December Reynolds, Maryan E. with Joel Davis. Dynamics of Change: A History 18, 1977): A5. of the Washington State Library, the. (2001). Washington State University Press: Seattle. Stockley, Tom. Seattle Times. "Wind, Sand and Sea—An Artist's Environment." (January 14, 1968): 22-23. Rinearson, Peter. Seattle Times. "Legislator's Brush with Artists Hardly an Original Scene." (March 11, 1982): C2. Tacoma Public Library (TPL), Northwest Room, "Washington State Library Clippings File." Seattle Central Public Library (SPL), Architectural Scrapbook #9 T - Z "Paul Thiry." "Thiry Receives National Honor for Library." Seattle Times (March _____. Vertical File "Paul Thiry." 18, 1956): 44.

Smith, Kidder G. E. Architecture of the United States, the, 3 (1981). "Tobey Mural Touches Off Controversy." Seattle Times (April 22, 1959): Anchor Press, Doubleday, NY. L3.

State Capitol Committee. Minutes. January 22, 1957 - December 1966. "Twenty Northwest Architects" Exhibition Sponsored by the Friends Washington State Archives and Records Center, Olympia. of the Museum, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. (November 6 through December 2, 1962). Took place a few State Capitol Committee. State Library Archive Boxes 22, 51, 60. days after closing of Century 21 Exposition in Seattle, WA, Washington State Archives and Records Center, Olympia. with architects from Eugene, Portland, Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma. State Capitol Committee. Women's Club's Correspondence. Archive Box 39. Washington State Archives and Records Center, Olympia.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY

University of Washington, Special Collections. Architects' Reference File "Paul Thiry," "William S. Teeter."

Washington State Library Building Dedication. (January 23, 1959). Tacoma Public Library Washington State Library Clippings File.

Wilder and White, Architects. "Capitol Group at Olympia for State of Washington." American Architect, the 108, no. 2083 (November 24, 1915): 337-344.

Wilkes, Joseph A. FAIA, editor-in-chief. Encyclopedia of Architecture, Design, Engineering and Construction 1, 5. "Library" & "Thiry, Paul." (1990) John Wiley & Sons: New York.

Woodbridge, Sally B. A Guide to Architecture in Washington State (1980). University of Washington Press: Seattle.

Washington State Department of General Administration Washington State Library HSR 127 Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:29 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: mgoddu Subject: Comments on Legislative Campus Modernization Attachments: Comments to State Capitol Committee 31821.docx

External Email

I can be contacted at 360‐480‐6885.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Virus-free. www.avast.com

1 Comments to State Capitol Committee

March 18, 2021

Lieutenant Governor Heck and Members of the State Capitol Committee:

I am concerned with both the plans and the process for the Legislative Campus Modernization. As someone who has spent nearly my entire career working on and around the Capitol Campus, I appreciate the need for additional office space for Senate and House members and staff that is safe, efficient, and proximate to existing legislative activity centers. I also strongly believe that demolition of the Pritchard Building and the historic artwork it contains need not and should not be a predicate to meeting the needs for additional office space for the Senate and House.

After reviewing today’s meeting materials and the November 16, 2020 Pre-Design Report from the Department of Enterprise Services (DES), it is imperative that the space needs should be reassessed and better addressed in the context of (a) the entire Capitol Campus; (b) changes in work space needs post-COVID; and (c) the state’s interest in sustainable communities and in reducing our carbon footprint. Given the urgent need to replace the Newhouse Building, I also suggest that short-term space solutions can be put in place to provide the opportunity for a more deliberate and publicly-engaged look at needs and solutions.

Consider the entire Capitol Campus when looking at short-term and long-term solutions for additional space for legislative needs. The Legislative Building and the Insurance Building both include space that could be repurposed for use Senate and House members. An entire floor of the Insurance Building occupied by the Office of the Insurance Commissioner could be reconfigured for Senators and staff currently housed in the Newhouse Building. In similar fashion, the offices of the State Treasurer occupying one-fourth of the first floor of the Legislative Building could accommodate offices for several House members and additional meeting space, providing immediate relief for crowded offices.

The work world has changed during the pandemic; that change must be reflected in the Legislative Campus Modernization. Although DES recognizes that COVID-19 has impacted work life, more complete analysis and reflection on these changes should be incorporated before long-term plans are funded and ground is turned. The changes necessitated by COVID-19 not only prove out the ability to work from home, we also have learned that public input and testimony need not require travel to Olympia. Needs for office space for legislators and staff, as well as meeting space for campus visitors should be reevaluated in light of what we have experienced in the last year.

Emphasize walkability and reduce parking. With more employees telecommuting, less need to travel to Olympia to testify on legislation, and increasing commitment by the state and by individuals to reduce our carbon footprint, both short-term and long-term plans for Legislative Campus Modernization should, at a minimum, reduce parking requirements and improve walkability on the Capitol Campus. Increased telework not only will reduce parking demand on the Capitol Campus, but should also increase parking capacity in the East Campus parking garages. Rethinking the Legislative Campus should include improving safe access to and from the East Campus parking garages to the Capitol Campus.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that the Pritchard Building serves an important need today as a meeting place for the public and for legislative advocates. I would like to see a comprehensive Capitol Campus Plan include a concerted effort to better utilize the Pritchard Building, including exhibit space for historic collections and returning the Washington Room to library and research purposes.

Thank you,

Paul Parker

Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Larson, Ann (DES) Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:33 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Frare, Bill (DES); Dragon, Kevin (DES) Subject: FW: SCNA Letter to SCC Attachments: SCNA Letter to SCC March 18 Meeting.docx

From: Sharon Case Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:23 PM To: Larson, Ann (DES) Cc: Frare, Bill (DES) ; Dragon, Kevin (DES) Subject: SCNA Letter to SCC

External Email

Hi All Attached is a letter from SCNA for the State Capitol Committee’s 3/18 meeting packets. Thanks for your help and hard work.

1 March 17, 2021

TO: Members, State Capitol Committee

FROM: South Capitol Neighborhood Association (SCNA)

The South Capitol Neighborhood Association (SCNA) greatly appreciates the time and attention that has been given to the concerns we raised at your January 28th meeting on the Legislative Campus Modernization pre-design proposals. Since then we worked in good faith to propose a draft Capital Budget Proviso to strengthen the development process moving forward.

The outline of a Capital Budget Proviso Under Consideration by DES appears to be an attempt to capture the construct we proposed, but the process does not seem very different from current practice—other than highlighting a “robust public engagement process.”

As you know, this is a magnificent opportunity to enhance the beauty and historic significance of our Capitol Campus and we must get it right. We urge you to commit to the Principles contained in the Master Plans for our State’s Capitol and surrounding campus and we are hopeful the Legislature will adopt a Capital Budget Proviso to address the following concerns and goals necessary for a successful outcome:

• Comprehensive Planning. We re-emphasize the necessity for a Comprehensive Planning Process that addresses the Capitol Campus as a whole and serves as an over-arching template to be applied to any new building project on the Campus. This template must reference the Principles of the Campus Master Plans and address the Campus issues listed in our proposed Proviso (also addressed below). Further, this template is a tool to guide the more robust review process envisioned for the State Capitol Committee and the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee.

• Benchmarks for Evaluation. The 2006 Master Plan and 2009 Landscape Preservation Plan provide essential foundational benchmarks for the development of complementary building and landscape design and historic preservation. In addition, analysis of current data must be used to address (1) Capitol Campus access issues including traffic impacts to the surrounding community, transportation (buses, shuttles, bicycles), parking and pedestrian access and use; (2) Security and Safety measures; (3) West Campus Workforce projections; and (4) Complementary building & landscape design and historic preservation.

• Public Engagement. A Public Engagement Plan should be presented to the SCC for approval on a date certain. This plan should include (1) a list of identified stakeholders; and (2) points in the process where public engagement will be sought and considered. The well-conceived stakeholder involvement process for the Capitol Lake project is an effective model and should be used for the Legislative Capitol Modernization.

The roles of the State Capitol Committee and the Capitol Campus Design Advisory Committee are an integral part of the pre-design/design process and must be strengthened. This should include on-going utilization of CCDAC’s architectural expertise as well as professional support in the area of historic preservation, possibly from the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation. In addition, a review of the statutory composition of CCDAC, including areas of expertise, is needed. Possibly this could be addressed by SCC’s statutory review workgroup later this year.

We offer these comments in the continued spirit of collaboration and urge you to use your statutory leadership authority to support a State Capital Budget Proviso that achieves a Comprehensive Planning Process for Campus Modernization (Newhouse and Pritchard) and future plans for the GA Building and a parking facility at the Pro-Arts/Centennial Park site. With your careful stewardship we can be confident that the beauty of the Capitol Campus, its buildings and landscape, will continue to elicit a sense of awe and appreciation for years to come.

Thank you for your consideration and investment in this important process. We are counting on your leadership.

Contacts: Rachel Newmann (360-870-7097; [email protected]) Sharon Case (360-451-7686; [email protected]) Kris Tucker (360-951-9715; [email protected])

Dragon, Kevin (DES)

From: Docomomo WEWA Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:56 PM To: DES SCC-CCDAC Public Comments Cc: Docomomo WEWA Subject: Comments on Pritchard Building

External Email

Dear Members of the State Capitol Committee:

I am writing on behalf of Docomomo US/WEWA (Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement, Western Washington). We previously submitted written comments to the SCC on January 26, 2021 and to the CCDAC on February 17, 2021 regarding the National Register-listed Pritchard building.

We thank the SCC, CCDAC, and DES for considering the many public comments in support of historic preservation on the Capitol Campus.

Our focus is on the preservation and adaptive reuse of the Pritchard building. We offer the following comments:

-We support SCC/CCDAC review of design proposals for continuity with past plans for the Capitol Campus. The 2002 Historic Structures Report for the Pritchard building is a useful resource and guiding document that can help inform planning and design.

-We are most appreciative that there now plans for a “robust” public engagement process. We’d like to learn more and definitely wish to be involved in such a process.

-We strongly support a preservation study for renovation and possible expansion of the Pritchard building. We’d like to comment on the scope of the study and offer our expertise in the preservation and reuse of modern buildings to this effort.

-We support a third party historic preservation specialist to advise on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (“Standards”). Any options or alternatives proposed for renovation and possible expansion must comply with the Standards, per RCW 79.24.710 and RCW 79.24.720. In the RCW, the Pritchard building is specifically called out as one of the buildings on the Capitol Campus to which the law applies.

If the March 18 SCC meeting allows verbal public comments, I’d like the opportunity to speak on behalf of Docomomo US/WEWA.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Eugenia Woo

Co-founder and Board Treasurer

1 Docomomo US/WEWA www.docomomo-wewa.org