DOCSLIB.ORG

Cowen Park Historic Bridge 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cowen Park Historic Bridge 2 1 of 8 Funding Application Competition Regional TAP Application Type Historic Resource Status submitted Submitted: September 20th, 2017 11:35 AM Project Information 1. Project Title Cowen Park Historic Bridge 2. Transportation 2040 ID N/A 3. Sponsoring Agency Seattle 4. Cosponsors N/A 5. Does the sponsoring agency have "Certification Acceptance" status from WSDOT? Yes 6. If not, which agency will serve as your CA sponsor? N/A Contact Information 1. Contact name Jim Storment 2. Contact phone 206-684-5013 3. Contact email [email protected] Project Description 1. Project Scope The City of Seattle will retrofit the historic Cowen Park Bridge to meet current seismic standards. Based on preliminary design work, these upgrades are expected to include jacketing columns, bolstering crossbeams, and adding transverse restrainers at expansion piers. 2. Project Justification, Need, or Purpose The Cowen Park Bridge is a concrete arch bridge, built in 1936 and identified in the 1980s as a historically significant structure. It is locally designated as a city landmark, and also nationally recognized as a significant historical asset by the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP). The bridge’s architectural style is an "open spandrel" arch bridge designed to be an integral part of its wooded environment. It features a single, expansive concrete arch spanning most of its 358-foot length, as well as artistically sculpted concrete pillars under the bridge deck. Art deco-style light standards, cast in iron and mounted on fluted concrete posts, line the top of the deck. The bridge is placed in a very attractive, forested setting, spanning a steep ravine within a public park. This setting greatly enhances its public visibility and attractiveness, both for enthusiasts of historic structures and for a wide variety of casual viewers. for enthusiasts of historic structures and for a wide variety of casual viewers. 2 of 8 Cowen Park Bridge is also one of the few historic bridges that still has a significant workload in modern times. The bridge supports 15th Ave NE, a minor arterial roadway carrying approximately 12,000 vehicles per day. 15th Ave NE is one of the primary connections between the locally-designated Roosevelt Urban Village and the regionally-designated University Community Regional Growth Center. The Cowen Park Bridge is 1 of 2 bridges across the Ravenna Park ravine. Its “twin bridge,” along 20th Avenue NE, was built in 1913 and is no longer open to vehicular traffic. Retrofitting the Cowen Park Bridge now is expected to preserve the structure for many decades. In its current condition, the bridge does not meet design standards for a “100-year earthquake” – the most severe quake that geologists would normally expect every 100 years. After seismic retrofit, the bridge would be rated to withstand not only a 100-year quake, but also a 1,000-year quake. The City of Seattle has a bridge inventory of approximately 150 bridges, many of them built in the early 1900s when the city itself was young. Structural engineers recognize that dozens of these bridges must be either replaced or closed within the next several decades. No revenue stream has been put in place to keep up with this backlog. The first bridges to be replaced or closed will be those that create a life safety hazard. When Cowen Park Bridge reaches this condition, due to its seismic vulnerability, it is not a realistic candidate for closure due to its significance in the transportation network. It would need to be replaced, regardless of its historical significance and its value to the community. Of course, if a seismic event occurs soon, the City could anticipate an immediate and necessary closure. However, with seismic retrofit, the only limitation on the life of the bridge would be its load- bearing capacity. Experience with similar structures indicate that the bridge could have an extensive lifespan still ahead. It could easily continue to add functional and historic value to the community for at least 40 to 60 more years. Project Location 1. Project Location 15th Ave NE 2. Please identify the county(ies) in which the project is located. King 3. Crossroad/landmark nearest the beginning of the project Ravenna Blvd NE 4. Crossroad/landmark nearest the end of the project NE 65th St 5. Map and project graphics CowenBridge.pdf Plan Consistency 1. Is the project specifically identified in a local comprehensive plan? No 2. If yes, please indicate the (1) plan name, (2) relevant section(s), and (3) page number where it can be found. N/A 3. If no, please describe how the project is consistent with the applicable local comprehensive plan, including specific local policies and provisions the project supports. Seattle's Comprehensive Plan identifies maintenance and preservation as a core responsibility of the City and a top priority for its Department of Transportation. Transportation assets that serve identified centers are prioritized as having special significance. The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan begins with a preservation-related goal: Goal T 1.1 states that the City will "provide safe and reliable transportation facilities and services to promote and accommodate the growth this Plan anticipates in urban centers, urban villages, and manufacturing/industrial centers." The Comprehensive Plan later dedicates a full section to the topic of "Operating and Maintaining the Transportation System," with the following introduction: "Thoughtful operation and maintenance of the transportation system promotes safety, efficiency, infrastructure preservation, and a high-quality environment. Spending money on maintaining and preserving the system today can prevent spending more dollars on replacing parts of the system later. This is particularly true for the more expensive and vital transportation assets, such as This is particularly true for the more expensive and vital transportation assets, such as 3 of 8 pavement, sidewalks, parking pay stations, intelligent transportation system devices, traffic- signal infrastructure, and bridges." Within this dedicated section of the Comprehensive Plan, several goals and sub-goals speak directly to the importance of preserving and managing assets: - TG 8 Maintain and renew existing transportation assets to ensure the long-term viability of investments, reduce ongoing costs, and promote safe conditions. - T 8.1 Maintain the transportation system to keep it operating and to maximize its useful life. - T 8.4 Repair transportation facilities before replacement is necessary; replace failed facilities when replacement is more cost-effective than continuing to repair. Federal Functional Classification 1. Functional class name 16 Urban Minor Arterial Support for Centers 1. Describe the relationship of the project to the center(s) it is intended to support. For example, is it located within a designated regional, countywide or local center, or is it located along a corridor connecting to one of these areas? The Cowen Park Bridge is located on the border of a locally designated growth center. Its northern footings are within the Roosevelt Urban Village, while the bridge span and southern footings are on the perimeter of the designated center. The bridge spans a ravine within a park, and the edge of the ravine is also the boundary of the urban growth center. The roadway on the bridge deck - 15th Ave NE - passes through the Roosevelt Urban Village and provides direct access to a series of locally and regionally designated growth centers. It extends approximately 9 miles through north Seattle and Shoreline. In addition to the adjacent Roosevelt Center, other centers along the corridor include the University Community Regional Growth Center (0.7 miles south) and the Northgate Regional Growth Center (2.5 miles north). Each of these growing and thriving centers depends on 15th Ave NE to provide access to homes, jobs, and schools within the centers. Roosevelt Urban Village: The Roosevelt Urban Village is one of Seattle’s historic residential neighborhoods, with a large stock of older craftsman-style homes – but the neighborhood is experiencing very rapid growth with the introduction of light rail. The neighborhood’s growth rate since 2015 has been over 20%, making it one of the City's fastest-growing urban villages. Only the South Lake Union Regional Growth Center, home of Amazon.com, has grown at a faster rate in recent years (over 29%). University Community Regional Growth Center: The “U District” contains approximately 24,000 residents and 33,000 jobs, making it one of the largest and densest urban centers in the region. Jobs are focused within the University of Washington campus, with relatively affordable housing surrounding the campus. Transportation demand is very high in this center, with approximately 50,000 students from around the region attending classes at the UW campus (in addition to the usual trip generators, homes and jobs within the center). Football games and other special events on campus can draw over 70,000 visitors at punctuated periods. Traffic congestion and delays are consistently high in this center. Northgate Regional Growth Center: This growth center contains approximately 8,000 residents and 12,000 jobs, and it is anticipating rapid growth with the expansion of light rail. The center’s major attractions include the Northgate Mall and Northwest Hospital, one of the city’s few hospital complexes outside of central Seattle. Single-family residential neighborhoods surround the commercial core. It has historically been one of Seattle’s more affordable neighborhoods, and the jobs within the center are very heavily oriented toward retail and services (approximately 90% of all jobs). North Seattle College is just outside the center’s boundary. The combination of a local college, relatively lower wage jobs, and a stock of affordable housing make Northgate a primary area of emphasis for lower-income communities and other populations protected by the President’s Order for Environmental Justice. These same land uses – major colleges, shopping centers, and medical centers – also ensure that the center is a major draw for visitors from throughout the region.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Discover the Possibilities Seattle Children’S Livable Streets Initiative
    Livable Streets Workshop Discover the Possibilities Seattle Children’s Livable Streets Initiative For more information: Thank you to our Community Co-Sponsors http://construction.seattlechildrens.org/livablestreets/ Bicycle Alliance of Washington Cascade Bicycle Club Paulo Nunes-Ueno Feet First Director | Transportation Hawthorne Hills Community Council Seattle Children’s ITE UW Student Chapter 206-987-5908 Laurelhurst Community Club [email protected] Laurelhurst Elementary PTA Laurelhurst Elementary Safe Routes to School Public Health Seattle & King County Seattle Community Council Federation Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle Parks Foundation Sierra Club - Cascade Chapter Streets for All Seattle Sustainable Northeast Seattle Transportation Choices Coalition Transportation Northwest Undriving.org View Ridge Community Council Wedgwood Community Council 2 Table of Contents Seattle Children’s Livable Streets Initiative Safe crossings of major arterials What is Seattle Children’s Livable Streets Initiative?.....……4 Theme map: Safe crossings of major arterials ..………..…19 Public Involvement …..…….………..………………………...6 Project 7: NE 52nd St & Sand Point Way NE: Potential Projects themes and map …..…....…….………….7 Pedestrian crossing signal …………………......………...20 Project 8: 40th Ave NE & Sand Point Way NE: New signal and redesigned intersection…...……………21 Neighborhood Green Streets connecting Project 9: NE 45th St from 40th Ave NE to 47th Ave NE: parks, schools, and trails Crosswalks and curb bulbs.………...…………………….22 Project
    [Show full text]
  • The Artists' View of Seattle
    WHERE DOES SEATTLE’S CREATIVE COMMUNITY GO FOR INSPIRATION? Allow us to introduce some of our city’s resident artists, who share with you, in their own words, some of their favorite places and why they choose to make Seattle their home. Known as one of the nation’s cultural centers, Seattle has more arts-related businesses and organizations per capita than any other metropolitan area in the United States, according to a recent study by Americans for the Arts. Our city pulses with the creative energies of thousands of artists who call this their home. In this guide, twenty-four painters, sculptors, writers, poets, dancers, photographers, glass artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors and more tell you about their favorite places and experiences. James Turrell’s Light Reign, Henry Art Gallery ©Lara Swimmer 2 3 BYRON AU YONG Composer WOULD YOU SHARE SOME SPECIAL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO SEATTLE? GROWING UP IN SEATTLE? I moved into my particular building because it’s across the street from Uptown I performed in musical theater as a kid at a venue in the Seattle Center. I was Espresso. One of the real draws of Seattle for me was the quality of the coffee, I nine years old, and I got paid! I did all kinds of shows, and I also performed with must say. the Civic Light Opera. I was also in the Northwest Boy Choir and we sang this Northwest Medley, and there was a song to Ivar’s restaurant in it. When I was HOW DOES BEING A NON-DRIVER IMPACT YOUR VIEW OF THE CITY? growing up, Ivar’s had spokespeople who were dressed up in clam costumes with My favorite part about walking is that you come across things that you would pass black leggings.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and Boulevards (1903–68) B. Associated Historic Contexts None C. Form Prepared by: name/title: Chrisanne Beckner, MS, and Natalie K. Perrin, MS organization: Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) street & number: 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240 city/state/zip: Seattle, WA 98101 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] telephone: (503) 247-1319 date: December 15, 2016 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ ______________________ _________________________ Signature of certifying official Title Date _____________________________________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • Cowen Park Bridge Project SEPA Checklist.Pdf
    Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project Seattle, Washington SEPA Checklist December 6, 2018 Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project SEPA Checklist Page 2 of 22 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project 2. Name of applicant: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Vanessa Bacurin, Project Manager Seattle Department of Transportation Capital Projects and Roadway Structures Division 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3900 P.O. Box 34996 Seattle, WA 98124 206-684-5167 4. Date checklist prepared: December 6, 2018 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2019 with a construction duration of approximately six months pending approvals and permits. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. There are no future additions, expansions or further activity related to the project. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. The following environmental information has been prepared for this project: • HWA Geosciences Inc. 2018. Final Geotechnical Report - Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project. September. • WSP. 2018a. Wetland, Stream and Wildlife Habitat Impact Assessment for the Proposed Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project. December. Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project SEPA Checklist Page 3 of 22 • WSP. 2018b. Confidential Cultural Resources Report for the Proposed Cowen Park Bridge Retrofit Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Property Survey Report: Seattle's Neighborhood Commercial
    HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY REPORT: SEATTLE’S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS Prepared by: Mimi Sheridan Cultural Resource Specialist Prepared for: City of Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Historic Preservation Program 700 Third Avenue, Seattle WA 98104 November 2002 PROJECT SUMMARY In 2000 the City of Seattle began a multi-year effort to update its inventory of historic resources throughout the city. Existing information, primarily from the 1970s, was out of date and inadequate to meet the challenges of growth management and the threats to the city’s traditional character posed by increasing demand for housing and commercial space. Two building categories and one neighborhood were selected for the initial round of surveys: neighborhood commercial districts, buildings constructed before 1905, and the University District. This report focuses on the methodology and findings of the survey and inventory of Seattle’s neighborhood commercial districts. The project began in the spring of 2001, with development of a work plan, which identified the survey criteria and boundaries. A context statement was then prepared, giving an overview of commercial development patterns throughout the city. Following this, a reconnaissance survey was done, looking at every building in the identified commercial districts. This survey recorded more than 1000 buildings that met the basic criteria of age (built prior to 1962) and architectural integrity. Two hundred of these structures were identified for further research and inclusion in the final inventory. Development patterns and physical characteristics of each neighborhood and of these 200 buildings are summarized here. In addition to this report, the Neighborhood Commercial District inventory includes 200 Historic Property Inventory forms in an electronic database format that will be available to the general public as well as to other city departments.
    [Show full text]
  • Titles of Plats
    % JUL \ J!.\!,.,,'! '«»„«' Si TITLES OF PLATS IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON A Corrected and Compared List of Titles to All Plats filed in King County, Washington, as they appear of record on the Plat Books of said County Compiled, compared and certified by N. H. MOORE PUBLISHED BY E. Y. JEFFERY 531 Burke Building - - Seattle & o eye... o IN examining instruments intending to con- * vey property, we frequently find the name or title of Additions inaccurately stated. The following carefully prepared list of titles to all plats as they actually appear on record, has proven of such practical value in our office that we decided to put it in book form, feeling assured it will be appreciated by every one interested in conveying platted property in King County. E. Y. JEFFERY, 531 Burke Building 24.ti65& Flats ,. .. •«a, ^ w i « M location Aabling's First Addition to the City riled Vol. Page of Seattle 24 Nov. 08 17 40 47th. S. W. & Genesee St. Aberfeldy Estate Addition to Seat- j tie "Washington 5 Apr. 90 5 45 Occidental & Henderson. A map showing a tract of land belonging to Robert Abernethy & John R. Kinnear Se­ attle. W. T 17 May 88 2 139 Tide Flats. Abington Addition to the City of Seattle 10 June 90 6 17 32nd Ave. S. & Juneau St. (Vacated) Abrahams First Addition to Auburn 13 Mar. 12 20 67 Evans St-First St. Abrams' Add. to South Seattle . 4 Jan. 04 11 30 13th. S. & Holden St. Plat of Day's Acre Gardens 26 Feb. 89 3 66 8th.-N.
    [Show full text]
  • CSOV 120 Spring 2021 Languages of Our Ancestors
    University of Washington - 2021 Urban Forest Symposium CHESHIAHUD TALKS: Historical Union Bay Forests A Family Generational View on Being Connected & Responsibility Prepared By: Jeffrey Thomas (Muckleshoot Tribal Elder; UW B.S. Zoology, M.Sc. Marine Affairs) Director: Timber, Fish & Wildlife Program/Puyallup Tribe of Indians (253) 405-7478 [email protected] ** Disclaimer – All of the photographic and timeline information assembled herein was collected from currently available digital internet sources - and thus may be inaccurate - depending upon the veracity of the sources. CHIEF DESCENDANTS Pre-1850s: Treaty Maps • 1820 – Lake John Cheshiahud born on southern Union Bay village – this was a vital passage from the coast into the lakes and river system all the way up to Issaquah and beyond. ➢ Duwamish people traveling by canoe had access to waterway connections unavailable to larger Euro-American vessels. ➢ Lake John reported to have “…a cabin on Lake Union across from the University grounds…Lake John used to take pelts to the trading station at Steilacoom before Seattle was thought of.” 1850s: Union Bay Map 1856 & Chief Cheshiahud Village Site • 1851 – Denny Party arrives to begin claiming Duwamish homelands – including Lake Union. • 1853: Washington Territory established. • 1854 – Seattle’s 1st school opens as a private/tuition school (on 1st and Madison) – then moves but continues to operate until 1861…when students were sent to classes in the new building of the Territorial University. The first year of the Territorial University, there were 37 students, of which 36 were below college level. • 1854 – Washington Territorial Legislature outlaws Non- Native men marrying Native women (but legalizes it again in 1868).
    [Show full text]
  • Montlake Walk III: University of Washington and Ravenna Park
    Montlake Walk III: University of Washington and Ravenna Park The University of Washington campus was the site of Seattle’s first World’s Fair in 1909. John Olmsted of Olmsted Brothers designed the fairgrounds for the ALASKA- YUKON-PACIFIC EXPOSITION. Although most of the buildings were temporary, some of them have remained on campus since 1909. Turn left from Fuel down Lynn, and take another left on 25th. Continue until 25th ends, turn left and then right to arrive at Lake Washington Boulevard. Turn left and walk to Montlake Boulevard. Cross Lake Washington Boulevard at the light. Walk across the bridge over Highway 520 and the Montlake Bridge. Continue to walk to the new bike/pedestrian bridge over Montlake Boulevard. Walk on the bridge until you arrive at Rainier Vista, designed by the Olmsteds as part of the A-Y-P Exposition. Continue to Drumheller Fountain, and walk up a set of stairs to Red Square. Suzzallo Library is located on the right. Restrooms are located here. Exit and angle right between Kane Hall and the library until you find yourself in the Liberal Arts Quadrangle (The Quad). Exit the Quad on the left, just before Raitt Hall. The building in front of you is Denny Hall. It was built in 1895 and is the oldest building on campus. Turn left and angle around Denny Hall until you reach Memorial Way. It is lined with 58 sycamore trees to represent the 58 UW students and faculty who lost their lives in World War I. Turn right on Memorial Way. Cross NE 45th St., and walk along 17th Avenue.
    [Show full text]
  • As a Di‘Erent Route Through Downtown Buses Continuing INTERBAY Swedish S
    N 152 St to Shoreline CC Snohomish County– to Aurora toAuroraVill toMtlk to Richmond NE 150 St toWoodinvilleviaBothell 373 5 SHORELINE 355 Village Beach Downtown Seattle toNSt Terr to Shoreline CC toUWBothell 308 512 402 405 410 412 347 348 77 330 309 toHorizonView 312 413 415 416 417 421 NE 145 St 373 308 NE 145 St ­toKenmoreP&R N 145 St 304 316 Transit in Seattle 422 425 435 510 511 65 308 toUWBothell 513 Roosevelt Wy N Frequencies shown are for daytime period. See Service Guide N 143 St 28 Snohomish County– 346 512 301 303 73 522 for a complete summary of frequencies and days of operation. 5 64 University District 5 E 304 308 For service between 1:30–4:30 am see Night Owl map. 512 810 821 855 860 E N 871 880 y 3 Av NW 3 Av Jackson Park CEDAR W Frequent Service N 135 St Golf Course OLYMPIC y Linden Av N Linden Av PARK t Bitter i Every 15 minutes or better, until 7 pm, Monday to Friday. C HILLS weekdays Lake e 372 Most lines oer frequent service later into the night and on NW 132 St Ingraham k a Ashworth Av N Av Ashworth N Meridian Av NE 1 Av NE 15 Av NE 30 Av L weekends. Service is less frequent during other times. (express) 373 77 N 130 St Roosevelt Wy NE 372 weekends 28 345 41 Link Light Rail rapid transit North- every 10 minutes BITTER LAKE acres 8 Av NW 8 Av Park 5 NW 125 St N 125 St Haller NE 125 St E RapidRide limited stop bus for a faster ride 345 Lake NE 125 St every 10–12 minutes 346 PINEHURST 8 Frequent Bus every 10–12 minutes BROADVIEW 99 347 348 continues as LAKE CITY 75 Frequent Bus every 15 minutes 41 345 NE 120 St Northwest
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area
    APPENDIX G Parks and Recreation Facilities in the Plan Area June 2014 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists and illustrates the parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area based on available geographic information systems (GIS) data. GIS data sources were as follows: • Snohomish County • King County • Pierce County • City of Everett • City of Mountlake Terrace • City of Lake Forest Park This information was not verified in the field and parks and recreation facility representatives were not contacted to determine ownership or the recreational uses associated with these resources. Over 1,300 parks and recreation facilities were listed in the available GIS database including a wide variety of open space areas, sports fields, trails, and water- oriented facilities. The park or recreation facility ID numbers in Table G-1 correspond to those ID numbers in Figure G-1 and Figure G-2. Table G-1. Parks and recreation facilities in the Plan area, by county Facility ID Facility ID number Facility name number Facility name Snohomish County 104 Unnamed park or recreation facility 3 Unnamed park or recreation facility 105 Unnamed park or recreation facility 5 Unnamed park or recreation facility 106 Unnamed park or recreation facility 6 Unnamed park or recreation facility 107 Unnamed park or recreation facility 7 Unnamed park or recreation facility 108 Unnamed park or recreation facility 9 Unnamed park or recreation facility 109 Unnamed park or recreation facility 19 Unnamed park or recreation facility 110 Unnamed
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX H NRHP-Listed Architectural Historic Properties and Districts in the Plan Area
    APPENDIX H NRHP-listed Architectural Historic Properties and Districts in the Plan Area November 2014 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement This appendix lists the architectural historic properties and districts in the Plan area that are National Historic Landmarks or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The list is based on data from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP 2014). The Figure ID numbers in Table H-1 correspond to those ID numbers on Figure H-1 through Figure H-3 while the Figure ID numbers in Table H-2 correspond to those ID numbers on Figure H-4 and Figure H-5. DAHP also maintains records of previously recorded archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. However, site-specific information about these properties is exempt from public disclosure under state law (RCW 42.56.300) to prevent looting and vandalism. Table H-1. NRHP-listed architectural historic properties in the Plan area Figure ID DAHP ID Property name Historic designation 1 KI00231 12th Avenue South Bridge NRHP 2 KI00599 1411 Fourth Avenue Building NRHP 3 KI00259 14th Avenue South Bridge NRHP 4 KI01140 1600 East John Street Apartments NRHP 5 KI00773 A. L. Palmer Building NRHP 6 PI00599 Adjutant General's Residence NRHP 7 KI01127 Admiral's House, 13th Naval District NRHP 8 KI00632 Agen Warehouse NRHP 9 KI00243 Alaska Trade Building NRHP 10 PI00696 Albers Brothers Mill NRHP 11 PI00638 Alderton School NRHP 12 PI00705 Annobee Apartments NRHP 13 KI00226 Arboretum Sewer Trestle
    [Show full text]
  • Growing Green
    Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardening in Seattle, Washington Prepared by Megan Horst University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning July 1, 2008 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington “DON [Department of Neighborhoods] is requested to work with Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle City Light and other relevant departments and universities to conduct an inventory of public lands in Seattle appropriate for urban agriculture uses.” - Local Food Action Initiative Resolution, passed by the Seattle City Council April 2008 ““The biggest crisis in our food system is the lack of access to good, healthy, fresh food, for people living in cities, particularly in low-income communities…Urban agriculture work is one of the most powerful solutions, because it brings food directly into the communities.” -Anna Lappé, co-founder with Frances Moore Lappé of the Small Planet Institute 1 1 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington Special thanks to: Laura Raymond, City of Seattle, Department of Neighborhoods Branden Born, University of Washington, Department of Architecture and Urban Planning Dennis Ryan, University of Washington, College of Architecture and Urban Planning Joaquin Herranz, University of Washington, Evans School of Public Affairs 2 1 Growing Green: An Inventory of Public Lands Suitable for Community Gardens in Seattle, Washington Table of Contents Introduction ………………………………………………………….……………….. pp. 4-5 Background Food Systems Planning and Urban Agriculture………………….pp. 6-11 The Need for an Inventory of Potential Community Garden Sites in Seattle………………...........pp. 12-16 Methodology ………………………………………………………………………….pp. 17-21 Results Vacant, Unused and Excess Parcels…………..……………………pp.
    [Show full text]