A RECOMMENDATION BY THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS R/UDAT TEAM FOR DOWNTOWN LIVING IN SEATTLE-1981 NA9127 UfDR .S47A43 BOWI - TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 The Charge to the Team 2 History 4 Background Trends 5 Liveability and Downtown 6 EXISTING CONDITIONS 7 Regional Setting 7 Social Forces 7 Market Context 10 Development Setting 14 Government Process 14 DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND PROPOSALS 17 Central Business District 18 Pike Place Market 18 Central Waterfront 19 Pioneer Square 19 International District 21 Denny Regrade 22 Downtown Building Envelope 2 5 IMPLEMENTATION 30 Development Atmosphere and Agencies 30 The Regulatory Process 32 Finance 33 Programs for Action 35 THE MAGNIFICENT OPPORTUNITY 36 PEOPLE 37 Biographies 37 Other Participants 37 TOOLS AND RESOURCES 45 Recommended Reading 45 Community Organization 46 INTRODUCTION In March of this year, an evaluation of as height restrictions of new buildings. downtown Seattle was conducted by Ben Cunningham, FAIA, of the Urban Planning All recommendations were adopted by the and Design Committee of the American city, and are now in various stages of Institute of Architects, to see whether development. Plus, the city of Olympia particular problems of the area could has now formed its own R/UDAT corporation. benefit from the visit of a Regional/ Urban Design Assistance Team (R/UDAT). The ensuing pages explaining the Seattle The major issue was the utilization of R/UDAT mission in detail. The report downtown Seattle as a residential com­ outlines the present downtown situation munity. and how it came to pass; it highlights the major areas to be developed; it The evaluation concluded that like many makes proposals for change; and it tells cities .of comparable age and size how those changes may be made. Seattle is rediscovering the prospects of downtown living. It was thus determined This report is designed for everyone— that Seattle could, indeed, benefit from politicians, professionals, developers, a visit from R/UDAT. and the interested citizen. Seattle belongs to all of them; thus, it is The Urban Planning and Design Committee important that everyone be able to pick of the American Institute of Architects up this report and understand precisely has been sending Urban Design Assistance what is being recommended. Teams to various American cities since 1967'. Members are not compensated for Through this report, they will become their service, and agree not to accept more familiar with the issues and may commissions for work which might result then offer their own input into the from their recommendations. ' development of their city. Nationally, Seattle became the 69th city to receive R/UDAT attention. Previously, three Washington cities had received such treatment—Tacoma, Olympia and Redmond. THE CHARGE TO THE TEAM The Seattle R/UDAT was comprised of seven professionals experienced in particular The charge for the R/UDAT team was to problems facing downtown Seattle—two explore the opportunities, constraints, architect-urban designers, a housing and implications of downtown living in architect, an urban planner, a sociolo­ Seattle. What will it take to make down­ gist, an attorney, and a housing econo­ town a good place to live? What type and mist. They approached the project in a quality of development is desirable? How comprehensive manner, acquainting them­ can this residential development fit more selves with the area through intensive comfortably into our existing fabric? sessions with community leaders, con­ cerned citizens, and resource groups The charge deals with downtown. Ways over a four-day period. They toured the are to be sought to pull together a city by bus, foot, and air. sequence of piecemeal plans. Criteria for good downtown living will be devel­ The intent is not to offer the final oped. Relationships to existing office word on what should be done in the area. and retail activities will be explored. But, given the expertise of the various City- and county-related considerations— team members in their respective fields, primarily transportation and broad- the feeling was that their recommenda­ scaled energy conservation—will be taken tions would be professionally reasonable into account. as well as politically and economically feasible, and publicly understandable. The charge deals with housing. New construction and adaptive re-use oppor­ R/UDAT recommendations have a solid track tunities will be explored. Single-use record in other locales. The Olympia and mixed-use implications will be visit in 1979, for example, recommended examined. Accommodation of the needs of a beautification project for downtown various social and income groups will be Olympia; it suggested locating a pro­ studied. Alternatives for form as well posed Performing Arts Center in the down­ as geographic capacities will be examined. town area instead of the outskirks of the City; it advised re-zoning the waterfront The charge deals with process. What are district, and other zoning changes such the procedural issues? What are the 2 3 responsibilities of government leader­ innovative direction. ship? What are the needs for development predictability? What are the roles and Through decades of change, much of the responsibilities and how do the lines uniqueness of Seattle is defined by its function between them? natural setting. Seattle is a city built on hills surrounded by water, with And finally, the charge deals with imple­ view of spectacular mountains. It rains mentation. How can the development in Seattle. A rain that challenges the' atmosphere be made more attractive? How spirit, while it establishes the color can development tasks and responsibili­ and qualities of light of the city. The ties be clarified? And what are the vegetation of Seattle has a lushness that financial and structural tools that will urbanization cannot suppress, and it enable achievement of these goals? lends a greenness to the city that re­ minds you that the wilderness is not far removed. HISTORY Downtown Seattle was not an easy place to build. It took courage and energy to respond to the tasks of carving a metro­ politan center out of wilderness. In doing so, the founders of Seattle estab­ lished a tradition of response to adversity. Adversity stimulated Seattle into a city of dynamic change. The roughly constructed wood-frame and clap­ board buildings of the original pioneer settlement gave way to the brick and masonry structures of a commercial center. These in turn made room for a pioneer generation of skyscrapers faced with brick and terra cotta that signified the city's emerging cosmopolitan nature. Today's giant buildings of steel, concrete, and glass signify the growing importance of Seattle as a national center of commerce and trade. The image of the city is continuous, dynamic change. Seattle was founded on a demand for lumber in San Francisco, and it has been growing ever since. It outfitted the Alaska gold rush. It grew up in the Boeing era, and today it is busy opening up the Far East to trade. Part of what makes Seattle a unique place is the boom-town spirit. Boom towns attract residents from many backgrounds and varied interests who energetically transform wilderness outposts into cities of importance. They love adversity and faster change. No project is too awesome for this indomitable spirit. Seattle's history shows us that hills can be moved, harbor lands created, and a city built many times over, but a certain laissez-faire mentality can be taken towards the development of the city. Seattle's history of planning efforts were usually responses to problems rather than 4 Seattle's history is a combination of Despite these tr ends, downtown deterior- boom spirit in a special natural setting, ation is not as severe as in many other with a flair for overcoming adversity. cities. Streets are relatively safe, Early on, Seattle excelled in turning racial tension i s low. Several neighbor- disaster into challenge. When the great hoods - Pioneer Square and Pike Place - fire of 18-89 transformed downtown into have indicated s trength in attracting smouldering rubble, the city capitalized people to return to the city. An office on stories of the fire, combined with and hotel boom i s increasing employment reports of the rebuilding of the city, and activity. and made them into an attraction to new settlers. Through decades of adversi­ ties, the city has been shaped. A Growing Metropolitan Area Unlike many urban areas across the nation, the Seattle area has been exper­ iencing continued growth throughout the 1970's. The attractions of a beautiful, natural environment and a growing employ­ BACKGROUND TRENDS ment base give the Seattle metropolitan Single Family Neighborhoods With area opportunities to direct and shape Smaller Families the development pattern of the future. Estimates of the Puget Sound Council of While Seattle's population has not Governments indicated that the Seattle grown, the number of households has. Region grew from 1.9 million people in This apparent contradiction is caused by 1970 to 2.2 million in 1980.* a precipitous drop in household size, from 2.1 people-per-household in 1970 to Many other older metropolitan areas do 1.2 in 1980. The consequence of this not have such opportunities because of drastic change, a trend that is being a net outmigration of jobs and popula­ felt across the nation, has not been tion. Such trends characterize much of fully grasped. Over 60% of Seattle's the Midwest and Northeast and have se­ population is in single family homes, verely affected the options open to such the predominant housing type of the city cities as St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, and the distinguishing characteristic Newark, and others. of its neighborhoods. Yet the tradi­ tional family no longer lives in those homes. As hard as it is to believe, A Stable City of Manageable Size the 1980 census data indicates that the prototype family - father, mother and The City of Seattle has remained basic­ two children - now represents only 7% ally stable in population at a level of of the American population.