(skip this header)

Thursday, August 28, 2014

seattlepi.com Businesses

« Back to Article

Another way to save the viaduct: Give it landmark status

It might be ugly, but it's still history
LARRY LANG, Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Updated 10:00 pm, Sunday, June 4, 2006


  • The 53-year-old Alaskan Way Viaduct "helped make Seattle," preservationist Art Skolnik says. This view, from March 4, 1952, shows the southbound lower deck near Lenora Street. Photo: / Seattle Post-Intelligencer


Larger | Smaller
Email This
Page 1 of 1

If no one makes the effort to repair Seattle's earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct and leave it standing, preservationists might try to save it by having it declared a landmark.

Sound a bit weird?

Conventional wisdom might say that.

But wait: The 53-year-old viaduct, it seems, could qualify as either a national historic site or a city landmark. A 2002 review of state bridges identified the viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel as candidates for the National Register of Historic Places. Two years later, a draft environmental study agreed the viaduct was eligible for such status.

And that's something Art Skolnik plans to capitalize on.

Skolnik -- a preservationist who oversaw restoration of buildings in Pioneer Square and once ran the foundation that tried to restore the Kalakala ferry -- says landmark status could help keep the elevated highway open and maintain its access to downtown Seattle. Some in his camp agree.

"We believe it's the right thing to do," Skolnik said, adding that he thinks like-minded citizens will join the preservation push if the state doesn't agree to repair the viaduct. The viaduct "helped make Seattle," he said.

State and city officials so far have leaned toward tearing down the 2.2-mile elevated highway and replacing it with a tunnel under the Elliott Bay waterfront. Assumptions about a replacement have focused most heavily on the tunnel option or construction of a new elevated highway, with either of those alternatives designed to keep more than 100,000 vehicles passing through the corridor every day.

The studies deeming the viaduct worthy of landmark status based their assessments on the fact that the viaduct is a long bridge, a double-decker and an early example of a span built of reinforced concrete, said Craig Holstine, cultural resources specialist for the state Department of Transportation. Also, it was designed jointly by state and Seattle city engineers.

At the time the viaduct was built, "we didn't have anything like that," Holstine said.

The 2004 environmental study said the span "dramatically altered the character of the waterfront and the western edge of downtown, turning the city's back on what had once been its gateway." Its opening "symbolized the final transition of the postwar world from water and rail transportation to automobiles and trucks."

As the first viaduct segment opened in April 1953, then-Mayor Allan Pomeroy promised that once it was completed, "you will be able to drive from Spokane Street to the north end of Green Lake without stopping for a single traffic light."

When the 2002 review suggested designating the viaduct and Battery Street tunnel as national historic structures, Seattle officials objected, saying neither was old enough then at less than 50 years, a key qualifier.

Things have evolved since then as the subject of replacing the viaduct has become a hotter topic. The state and city so far have rejected the idea of leaving the vintage viaduct in place and repairing it, saying the cost would approach that of a new structure. Mayor Greg Nickels has spent most of two years on a campaign to finance the tunnel replacement, which could cost $1 billion more than a new elevated structure and provide a new waterfront sea wall the city wants.

But trying to tear it down could provide more openings for preservationists.

Before a demolition permit can be issued, the state must formally nominate it as a city landmark to meet state environmental protection act requirements, said Karen Gordon, the city's historic preservation officer.

Even if the city Landmarks Preservation Board declares the viaduct a historic landmark, that might not save it. The city could require "mitigation" to reduce the impact of tearing it down, but that could amount to simply providing for some historical record that it existed once it's removed -- for example, a photo exhibit in a museum.

But that modest requirement could trigger a fight with preservationists and "an argument to put before the City Council," said Skolnik, a land-use consultant and former city historic preservation officer who oversaw restoration of buildings in Pioneer Square. "This viaduct is definitely stronger than any building we're talking about."

The process wouldn't start until at least late next year, after the final environmental-impact study is published.

It's not clear that the landmarks board would approve historic status for the viaduct. It may be a long shot, since the city and state have said they want the viaduct taken out and replaced.

If it's nominated as a landmark, "most likely in this case we're doing it to satisfy state law and federal law for documenting or preserving historic resources, said Ron Paananen, the state's viaduct project manager. "In this case it won't change our decision on the project alternative."

In short, it wouldn't stop the state and city from tearing it down, landmark or not, if the final decision calls for demolition.

Not everyone in Skolnik's camp thinks historic designation is appropriate. Jack Christiansen, an engineer in the pro-retrofit Viaduct Preservation Group, said historic designation could lead to restrictions against reinforcement measures, such as the structural bracing his group has suggested.

"I'd rather we save it for very practical reasons, so we can save $2 billion," Christiansen said. Victor Gray, another retrofit supporter, said the historic designation makes sense but he isn't supporting it because it would "divert attention away from the retrofit."

Others, such as preservation group member Harold Roe, said landmark status might get support "if it's the only means of getting the viaduct reinforced and not replaced by a tunnel or replacement."

The group says retrofitting and reinforcing the viaduct could give it another 30 years of life, though the state thinks a replacement would be a better buy.

"If the structure is preserved," said preservation group member Tom Kane, "something has to be done out there in the way of strengthening it."

Part of the cost of the tunnel option would come from the federal government, and the law requires that federal authorities take into account the effects of the project on a historic structure. Skolnik thinks this might give the viaduct a reprieve.

Others say it would simply mean the state would have to preserve viaduct history when it's torn down.

The federal law "is not the equivalent of the Endangered Species Act. It's not a law that requires an outcome," said Allyson Brooks, director of the state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. She agreed the viaduct is a historic structure. She said even listing it on the National Register of Historic Places, as was done for parts of Pioneer Square, wouldn't necessarily save the span.

"It's an honor," she said of the historic designation. "There's no regulatory teeth behind it. ... There will be lots of history ... so it's important that we preserve that history for future generations."