Issues and Ideas: Pioneer Square by PlaceEconomics (Donovan Rypkema)

ISSUES AND IDEAS

PIONEER SQUARE 2019

PREPARED BY PlaceEconomics

PREPARED FOR Alliance for Pioneer Square

INTRODUCTION

As Seattle’s first urban neighborhood, Pioneer Square serves as an anchor to the past and beacon for the future. The area is not large; the district is comprised of roughly 200 properties located just south of downtown, adjacent to the waterfront, International District, and Stadium-industrial areas.

The plethora of older buildings and layers of Seattle’s built heritage in the Pioneer Square district provide a unique character unmatched by any other city neighborhood. Despite the rich built assets, issues of long-term vacancy, unstable soil composition, unreinforced masonry buildings, public safety, rising real estate and construction costs, and new market pressures plague the district.

In the last 20 years PlaceEconomics has been engaged several times to assess, listen, and offer solutions to redevelopment challenges and issues in the Pioneer Square District. Over the years,

Photo credit: X-Weinzar, CC-BY-SA-2.5

Pioneer Square has made significant progress towards its goals. A quick walk around the neighborhoods shows many buildings are renovated, new construction added to vacant lots, residential units added, and activation of public spaces. Yet, some issues stubbornly remain. In particularly, a few key buildings remain vacant, the market forces favor office development over residential, and the added protection layer of the Pioneer Square Historic Preservation Overlay is perceived as a barrier.

1

The following observations were heard from local stakeholders:

“People want to sidestep the historic preservation rules.”

“The Pioneer Square preservation is as strict as we’ve seen. They’re very careful, you can’t slip something by them. But they are willing to think outside the box if it’s done with quality.”

“The changes to Occidental Square are nothing short of amazing.”

“This neighborhood is living in layers, people want the authenticity.”

“Pioneer Square has been a tough nut to crack and we have a lot of expertise. Its not one thing, it’s a big box of issues.”

“The uncertainty of the historic preservation board affects the process.”

“It’s really the only neighborhood that has character but it has fallen behind.”

“They [the city] have to get a little closer to the as-of-right, have an early conversation.”

“You’re not subsidizing the developer, you’re subsidizing the neighborhood.”

“The energy performance standards run smack into the aesthetic issues.”

“Often times the city will expect the property owners to pay the tab, but they [the owners] struggle with that.”

“A lot of companies would not have moved here 5-10 years ago. It is not as much the case now.

Safety is less of an issue.”

“The investment in Occidental Square made a huge difference, we took the park back for everybody. Brilliant move.”

“What will the preservation board let us do instead of doing nothing.”

“Our investors are making less rate of return today than 10 years ago in Seattle. Labor costs are high, livable wages, its costs more than double to build today than it used to.”

“Permitting in Seattle takes forever. It used to be 8-10 months, now its 22 months.”

2

Observations

POSITIVE CHANGES Observations by PlaceEconomics and local stakeholders point to five recent major positive changes in the neighborhood:

1.

Activation of Occidental Square – provided amenities for the daytime population of the neighborhood and increased safety.

2.

Facelift and lighting to the alleys – Increased safety and provided new public spaces previously ignored.

3.

Weyerhaeuser Presence – in 2017, Weyerhaeuser moved their office from Federal Way to a newly constructed building built on a parking lot along Occidental Square.

4.

5.

Leadership of the Pioneer Square Alliance – implementation of the 2020 neighborhood plan and positive marketing of the neighborhood impact businesses and residents positively.

North Lot Redevelopment – the large redevelopment added commerce and new confidence to the real estate market.

3

Photo credit: Seattle.gov

Photo credit: axispioneersquare.com/events/events-weddings/

Photo Credit: mithun.com/project/weyerhaeuser-headquarters-at-200-occidental/

Photo credit: www.seattletimes.com/photo-video/photography/eb5-real-estate/

6

DataÂ

JOB GROWTH NUMBERS While growing the number of residential units has been a goal of the neighborhood, market forces in the last few years have brought more office development and subsequently job growth to Pioneer Square.

Overall, Pioneer Square makes up a tiny portion of the City of Seattle, .2%, but the area represents 2.9% of all jobs in Seattle and between 2010-2015, 6.4% of all job growth. This data shows companies are adding employees and choosing Pioneer Square at a higher rate than other neighborhoods in a booming Seattle.

PIONEER SQUARE AND JOBS

7

Contrary to popular belief, Seattle’s robust economy is topped by the health care industry. Yet, the tech industry comes in second place for the number of jobs. The number of professional, scientific, and technical services jobs are the top industry in Pioneer Square. These are highly educated workers and well-paying jobs.

The magnetic pull of Pioneer Square is further illustrated by growth in key industries:

JOB GROWTH BY CATEGORY -- PSQ & SEATTLE (2010-2015)

8

STUBBORN ISSUES Despite the leaps made in perception of Pioneer Square and the job growth, there are several persistent issues in Pioneer Square.

VACANCY

The cost of vacant buildings to the neighborhood and city are considerable and impact more than just the current owner. How various parties are adversely affected is summarized below:

Nearby Property and Business Owners

Owner • Income loss • Loss of tenants (current or potential) • Negative impact on financial statement • Ongoing operating costs • Maintenance • Legal liability • Financial liability • Reputation • Peer pressure

• Negative impact on property values • Negative impact on rents • Reduced pedestrian movement • Increased vacancy • Sense of failure • “Broken window” syndrome • Image of nearby businesses

City

Current and Prospective Tenants

• Reduced property tax revenues • Loss of potential sales tax revenues • Underutilization of infrastructure • Public liability • Complaints from public & other property owners • Image of the City • Eyesore

• Negative impact on business because of building condition • Potential liability • Potential impact on inventory • Image of the business

9

Photo credit: PlaceEconomics

Properties that get rented are properties that are ready to be occupied.

Revitalization Efforts

The Historic Building • Structural Damage • Unawareness of problems • Higher risk of loss to weather, catastrophe, vandalism, arson, illegal occupancy, other criminal activity • Catastrophic loss risk exacerbated because of soil conditions MUCH higher ultimate rehabilitation cost

• More difficult to recruit good tenants to nearby buildings • Increased public criticism • Negative overall impact on business district • Image • Ongoing sense of failure

Therefore with vacancy, waiting for the ideal instead of accepting the good has serious negative implications for the ultimate life of the building and impacts the neighborhood.

10

VARIETY OF DEVELOPER TYPES All developers are not the same. Among the types of developers that are often in the Seattle market are:

1.

Out of Towners – invested in Seattle due to its reputation as a booming city without a nuanced understanding of peculiarities of local market

2.

Entitlement Investors – looking to build to largest extant possible allowed by zoning envelope, looking only at “by-right” regulations

3.

Short Tern Return Investors – driven by quick return and rapid disposition of property

4.

Local Presence Plus – committed to the District, return calculations include nonfinancial factors, investors take a long-term perspective, willing to accept lower returns

The realities of the Pioneer Square sub-market mean that it is the last group who should be targeted and recruited for investment. The good news is that there are such developers currently in Seattle.

DRIVERS OF HIGH LAND VALUES High (many would argue unrealistically high) land values in Pioneer Square work adversely to rational investment in the rehabilitation of particularly small-scale buildings.

Among the drivers of high land values are:

1.

2.

3.

Unrealistic owner expectations in a thriving market where owners look at neighboring rehabbed buildings and believe their un-rehabbed building is worth that nearly price Upzoning of the district caused rapid rise in land values Booming Seattle market overall

4.

Viaduct removal and eventual waterfront redevelopment

5.

The District was recently designated as a federal Opportunity Zoning, which could bring more investment to the area

11

COST OF REHABILITATION

While preservation regulations are frequently cited as the cause of high rehabilitation costs, that is not the primary high cost driver:

1.

Just being “old, deteriorating building” frequently with years of deferred maintenance is responsible for most of the cost.

2.

Historic preservation requirements add only marginally to overall costs BUT Uncertainty as to both time and approvals add significantly to risk calculations

MARKET FORCES SPUR OFFICE NOT HOUSING

On the priority list of the Alliance for Pioneer Square and other stakeholders has been the encouragement of the development in rehabilitated buildings of more market rate housing. The reason that a project often ends up as offices instead of apartments in the Seattle market is illustrated in the three graphs below. While the gross rents per square foot for housing are 20 percent higher for residential than for office, many of the costs that can be shifted to office tenants cannot, realistically, be shifted to residential tenants. Therefore, the net rents can be 20 to 25 percent lower for residential projects. This is exacerbated by the fact that because of building codes and use requirements (kitchens, more bathrooms, etc.) construction costs for residential can be 20 percent higher than for offices. This the lower net rents against higher construction costs push developers toward office development unless there are offsetting factors such as incentives and/or lower capitalization rates.

GROSS RENTS/SQUARE FOOT

example rents

12

NET RENTS/SQUARE FOOT

example rents

CONSTRUCTION COSTS/SQUARE FOOT

example costs

Due to the gap in market rents and construction costs, office development simply makes more economic sense in the current market conditions without incentives or other impacts.

13

Photo credit: www.ridetheducksofseattle.com/blog-seattle-neighborhood-spotlights-pioneer-square/

Photo credit: redtri.com/seattle/what-to-see-and-do-in-pioneer-square/

Photo credit: www.scenicwa.com/poi/pioneer-square

REGULATORY PROCESSES

Many property owners and developers, particularly the out-of-towners, are not aware of the public processes in Seattle or in Seattle historic districts. Therefore, the design review process, SEPA compliance, and other processes are seen as a burden.

REGULATORY ASSESSMENTS AND CONSEQUENCES

The City of Seattle has passed measures in recent years to further its sustainability, affordable housing, and seismic preparation goals. These costs of implementing these measures are placed on the property owner or developer and many owners struggle to afford or meet the requirements.

14

IDEAS

The following are a series of ideas that may be useful in responding to the issues identified above.

Because of the “quick take” nature of this assignment, these ideas do not reach the level of being “recommendations” but are seen as a concept or starting point around which additional discussion can be had among Seattle in general and Pioneer Square in particular stakeholders.

15

Illustrated, PSQ Specific Design Guidelines The City of Seattle has a robust historic preservation program with high levels of civic engagement. Each historic preservation district has its own quasi-judicial preservation board tasked with managing the design review process for its district. The Pioneer Square Historic Preservation Board relies on the Secretary of Interior Standards for its design guidelines, however the current regulations are only in prose and not illustrated. Â Possible models: New Orleans, Cincinnati, and Los Angeles utilize illustrated design guidelines to make the process easier for the public to understand. In fact, Los Angeles like Seattle has a volunteer historic preservation board per district and has distinct guidelines and preservation plans for each district.

Cincinnati

New Orleans

Mandatory Seismic Upgrading WITH TDRs as Recommended by URM Task Force As part of the 2030 Sustainability efforts for Seattle a working group of citizens recently completed a recommendation document with a Mandatory Seismic Upgrade program, incentivized by Transferrable Development Rights. These recommendations deserve very serious consideration by decision makers.

16

Monetizing Preservation Easement Donations Across the nation, property owners may donate an easement giving up their as-of rights in exchange for a federal tax deduction. In recent years creative private sector firms have created transactions that convert that tax deduction into a capital infusion into a historic rehabilitation project.

Possible models: Cincinnati, Columbus, Ohio, Asheville, North Carolina.

Early Decision on Preservation Components SEPA The state of Washington’s robust SEPA checklist is extensive for the development process yet the historic preservation components only represent a tiny portion of the entire checklist. However, the current regulations require that the Pioneer Square Historic Preservation Board not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness until the entire SEPA process is complete. This could be altered so the preservation components of SEPA are given priority and completed as soon as possible allowing the Preservation Board to make a decision earlier in the process, without having to wait for the entire SEPA review to be completed.

Penalties for Long-Term Vacancy Several buildings in Pioneer Square have been vacant for 10 + years. The impacts on nearby properties weigh heavily on the neighborhood. In other cities, vacant building registration programs or differential tax treatment for vacant buildings encourage owners to move the building forward through new ownership or development. Fines and penalties are hefty to encourage compliance.

Possible models: San Antonio, TX (for vacant building registry), Raleigh, NC (for demolition by neglect), Savannah, GA (for blight tax).

17

In Pioneer Square other disincentives for long term vacancy might be:

-

Increasing assessment for each year of long term vacancy Classify and tax long-term vacant properties for the LID (Local Improvement District) assessment as if all of the space were rehabilitated and fully occupied· A fully funded “demolition by neglect” ordinance that would make repairs to buildings whose condition is endangering the ongoing survivability of the building with the monies spent constituting a lien on the property

Effective Receiving Zone for TDRs and City-Made Market for trades Currently the Transferrable Development Right program for Pioneer Square only allows sending and receiving zones to be within the district. This significantly hampers the ready exchange of those rights due, in part, to the height limit resulting from the historic preservation overlay. The receiving zones should be adjusted so that density is moved to other neighborhoods. The receiving zones may need to be down-zoned to create a market for the incentive.

Of the more than 250 TDR programs in the country, 23 are specifically designed for the protection of historic buildings. Based on PlaceEconomics analysis of those 23 cities, very few of the existing historic preservation-oriented TDR programs work effectively.

Those that do work effectively seem to share common characteristics: • A strong real estate market with significant development pressures.

• “Receiving zones” that are not limited to properties abutting or even in the same neighborhood as the sending property.

• Existing zoning that creates a supply of space that is less than demand, thereby creating a market for additional development rights.

The majority of programs that have not been particularly successful are usually characterized by one or more of the following: • Ample amounts of “by-right” development capacity.

• Other incentive programs easier, faster, and/or cheaper to use reducing the value (and subsequent use) of the TDR program.

• Low market demand.

• Lack of understanding in the market place.

Possible models: San Francisco, Los Angeles, King County

18

Discounted Tax Abatement for Lump Sum Payment There is currently a special valuation procedure available for historic buildings. In a slightly oversimplified explanation this means that when a significant rehabilitation of a historic building takes place, the additional assessment of the property won’t occur for ten years.

Seattle has an effective property tax rate of around 1%. This means that a property with a valuation of $1 million has an annual property tax assessment of around $10,000 ($1,000,000 x 1%). If, then, that $1 million were invested in the rehabilitation of a historic building, rather than immediately having to pay an additional $10,000 in property taxes on the improvements, the owner would only have to pay the taxes owing on the pre-rehabilitation value of the property for the following 10 years. This can be an effective tool, but one that might be made even more effective.

Often the financial needs of an owner or developer are greater when the rehabilitation occurs rather than in subsequent years when rents are being generated. So it might be of use to some owners to receive the net benefit of the 10 year tax abatement as a lump sum in the first year. There is a time-value of money, and the longer one has to wait for a financial benefit the less valuable that benefit is. So a $10,000 a year tax savings for ten years is worth significantly less than $100,000.

Conversely, taxing entities (city, county, school district) may be better off making an initial payment rather than having 10 years of lower tax receipts. As long as the rate of discounting the ten years of reduced tax receipts is greater than the rate at which the government entities can borrow money, making the lump sum payment may make sense.

For example purposes, assume the interest rate on a 10 year municipal bond is 2.5% and that some property owners would rather take a discounted lump sum payment rather than a reduced property tax liability for the next ten years and that a discount rate of 5% were acceptable. Discounted at 5%, ten years of $10,000 less in property taxes is worth just over $68,000. So the owner decides (I’d rather have $68,000 today than a property tax reduction of $10,000 per year for the next 10 years. On the side of the taxing entities the payments on the $68,000 used to pay the property owner would only amount to around $7800 a year, which would be more than fully covered by the $10,000 in taxes that would now be received.

None of the above should be construed as a specific policy recommendation or prediction of acceptable discount rates, but rather an illustration of how “up-fronting” a 10 year property tax benefit might be useful to all parties.

19

Regular and reliable updating of vacancy numbers If both ground floor and upper floor vacancy is a problem in Pioneer Square, and there is every indication that it is, then it is necessary to have regular surveys of exactly how much vacancy there is, whether it is ground or upper floor, and which buildings have vacancy. This regular and reliable updating is essential for public officials, property owners, and other stakeholders are going to craft effective responses to the vacancy issue.

Credit Embodied Energy in calculations for Energy Requirements Seattle to its credit is among the leaders in the nation on adopting policies to mitigate climate change and addressing other environmental consequences of the built environment. However, these policies are having an adverse impact on historic buildings. Part of that negative impact is the occasional conflict between some forms of sustainability solutions and the appropriate treatment of historic buildings. But there is an additional issue. There is significant environmental value in simply continuing to use an existing building, reflected most quantitatively in “embodied energy�. This existing environmental contribution of historic buildings should receive credit in meeting overall environmental standards.

Adopt State Historic Tax Credit 34 States have enacted a state historic tax credit. In nearly every case the state credit can be layered with the federal credit. While programs from state to state differ, recent PlaceEconomics research indicates that the existence of an effective state credit will increase the use of the federal credit by 40 to 60%. In the past two arguments have been made against the state of Washington enacting a state credit: 1) the constitutional prohibition against municipal governments giving money or property or lending or using its credit to assist an individual; and 2) with no income tax, a historic tax credit would not be effective. Without presuming legal expertise, there seem to have been both programs and legal decisions under which the constitutional prohibition might not apply. Further, in recent years states without personal income tax have crafted state historic tax credits that have been used effectively. Delaware and Texas are good examples.

Adding a 20 or 25% transferable credit to be used in conjunction with the federal historic tax credit could make significant difference in the viability of many historic preservation projects in Pioneer Square.

20

Sales Tax on Labor Waiver In many states there is no sales tax on construction activities. In those that do have construction sales taxes, it is most commonly only applied to building materials. In Washington there is both state and (in Seattle) local sales tax that applies to both labor and materials. The additional cost adds to an already rapidly increasing cost of construction. Further having to pay sales tax on labor has an additional adverse impact on historic rehabilitation projects that tend to be 20 to 30% more labor intensive than new construction. A waiver of state and local sales tax on the labor portion of historic preservation projects would not have a statistically significant impact on overall sales tax collections, but could make a measurable positive impact on the financial feasibility of many individual historic rehabilitations.

Meaningful Illegal Demolition Penalties Seattle has a prohibition against demolition of buildings without the required permits.

But in at least one recent example, the fine for violation was so modest as not to serve as an effective deterrent to illegal activity. If illegal demolition is to be deterred, then the cost of violating the law should be sufficiently large so that the action is unlikely to occur.

Possible model: Los Angeles has a 5 year no build rule for illegal demolitions.

Economics Advisory Panel Not infrequently the Preservation Commission is presented with information on the economic viability of a project. Sometimes this is done in conjunction with a claim of economic hardship other times it is to make the case for allowing greater height, a waiver of certain requirements or in other contexts regarding a request for demolition or for a certificate of appropriateness. These often complex financial arguments are not usually within the expertise of the commission upon which to pass judgment.

Therefore, it may be useful to establish an Economics Advisory Panel to which the economic arguments/evidence could be presented. The role of this body would advisory to the commission as to the validity of the arguments being made. This advisory panel would be made up of real estate and financial experts such as developers, appraisers, bankers, financial analysts, etc. They would be expected to be knowledgeable about costs of development, revenue and return expectations, incentives for preservation, etc. After review of the information presented by the applicant this panel would report to the commission their opinion of the strength of the arguments and whether or not decisions should be altered based on this information.

21

Establish Mitigation Fund Mitigation fees differ from impact fees in their focus on the environment, including the historic built environment. While impact fees assume a general effect as a result of new development, Mitigation Funds are a way to compensate the community for the negative impact that a particular development activity may have on the environment or character of the community.

For example, an addition to the standard fee for demolition permits and tipping fees for the disposal of the materials from demolition, an additional fee is levied when the property being demolished is in a local historic district, is within a National Register historic district, or is individually listed on the National Register of Historic Places. These fees could be placed in a Historic Preservation Fund that could then be spent on a variety of historic preservation activities. Fines from illegal demolition, the incrementally higher taxes for long term vacancies, and other revenue sources could supplement the mitigation funds. These might include stabilizing historic buildings at risk, small grants to property owners, low interest loans, surveying potentially historic neighborhoods, or other activities that could balance the adverse impact of the loss of historic resources. Â Possible Model: Under the National Historic Preservation Act, if federal monies are being spent (or more broadly, a federal undertaking) that has an adverse impact on historic properties, paying a mitigation fee is often the solution. The mitigation funds are usually spent in the same general area (i.e. same city or immediate region) on preservation activities that partially compensate for the adverse impact of the federal undertaking.

Shift routine preservation approvals to staff It is common in many large cities that the majority of approvals required because of being located in a local preservation district are handled at the staff level. Even in regulatory-heavy New York City, around 85% of all approvals are granted at the staff level without needing a hearing before the entire preservation board. Moving approvals for more routine issues from the board to the staff shortens the agenda of board meetings, reduces the level of frustration from applicants, and in general speeds up the overall approval rates. Â Possible models: Los Angeles, New York, Raleigh.

22

This report was prepared and written by Donovan Rypkema and Briana Grosick. Rypkema is principal of PlaceEconomics, a Washington D.C.-based real estate and economic development consulting firm. Grosicki is Director of Research at PlaceEconomics. The jobs data for this report was collected from the Longitudinal Employer–Household Dynamics (LEHD) of the U.S. Census Bureau,Â

Cover photo credit: Tech Office Space.com. www.techofficespaces.com/pioneer-square-space-available-at-theolympics-reprographics-building/

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD D EC EMBE R 2 0 1 9

INTRODUCTION

“Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings.

New Ideas must use old buildings.”

–Jane Jacobs (Death and Life of Great American Cities. Pub 1961)

In 2019, the Alliance for Pioneer Square commissioned PlaceEconomics to examine the economic challenges of redevelopment of historic buildings in the Pioneer Square Historic Preservation District. The intent was to identify barriers and explore possible strategies to spur progress. This supplemental report provides a snapshot in time of key historic buildings standing derelict, exacerbating redevelopment and economic opportunities for the entire district.

The future of Pioneer Square’s historic buildings is vital to the future of our economy and community.

Funded by the 2019 Office of Economic Development’s Only In Seattle Initiative Report created in December 2019 by ATELIER DROME architecture + interior design Property information text from the City of Seattle, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods, edited for brevity and clarity

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

2

LIST OF PROPERTIES

1. 164 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET BARNEY’S LOAN BUILDING 2. 213 SOUTH MAIN STREET CANNERY BUILDING 3. 201 1ST AVENUE SOUTH J&M HOTEL 4. 111 YESLER WAY KORN BUILDING 5. 107 OCCIDENTAL AVE SOUTH WALKER BUILDING 6. 423 2ND AVE EXT SOUTH METROPOLE 7. 114 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH PRUDENTIAL BUILDING

YESLER WAY

4 5

1

XT

E VE DA S

S MAIN ST

3RD AVE S

OCCIDENTAL SQUARE

2ND AVE S

1ST AVE S

3

S WASHINGTON ST

2N

7

6

2

S JACKSON ST

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

3

164 SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET PARCEL DATA Property Name: Retail Building (Barney’s Loan Building) Lot sq ft: 9,720 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800575 Zoning: PSM-100/100-120 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1890 Net sq ft: 20,880 sf (9,720 sf – 1st floor) Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Low Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

This building is rectangular in plan, with exterior brick walls. In fact, it is a property originally built as a joint block. It has two one-story primary façades, an east façade on Second Avenue Extension South and a south façade on South Washington Street.

This building was constructed in 1890 as a joint block for Captain James Nugent and John Considine.

A former alley elevation now faces a parking lot to the west. The Second Avenue Extension façade is symmetrically composed around a central arch, which is now closed off with a makeshift wooden door. To each side of it are two bays framed by brick piers with corbel capitals and a decorative corbel band about three and a half feet down from the current top of the wall, which runs the length of this elevation. Within each of the side bays is storefront in various configurations, with transom lights.

Corbelled ornamentation representing capitals is also used to emphasize the central archway. The Washington Street elevation has seven bays. At the ground level, the first four, (counting from the east), are similar to the standard bay on Second Avenue Extension, combining red brick and storefront, but have been reclad in concrete at the second level. Three bays to the west have detailing similar to the standard bays on Second Avenue Extension. The west elevation consists of a variety of segmental arched openings.

The design and detailing – the gridded Victorian composition and the use of brick corbelling as the only ornament typical of buildings erected in the “burnt district” right after the Fire of 1889. The Second Avenue Extension façade has a surprising amount of architectural detailing, despite the loss of its original upper two floors that once had segmental arched openings arranged in groups of three on Second Avenue and groups of two on Washington Street.

Captain Nugent leased the property from Robert Abrams for a fifteen-year period, during which he constructed his portion of the building. At the end of the lease in 1904, the building ownership reverted to Abrams, who did not compensate Nugent for the construction of the building. Considine also leased from Abrams to construct his portion of the building.

Beginning with John Considine, this building, over time, has been associated with some of the more risqué aspects of the history of the Pioneer Square Historic District. In the basement below the current Double Header Bar, from 1890 to 1904, John Considine ran his People’s Theater, known for the “box houses,” which provided both “theatrical” entertainment such as magic acts, singing, dancing, minstrel shows, as well as sexual services. The Double Header itself was founded in 1934 and operated as a gay bar, famous for drag shows on the main level.

Below it, in the location of John Considine’s People’s Theater, was an afterhours venue known officially as the Casino, and unofficially as “Madame Peabody’s Dancing Academy for Young Ladies.”

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

4

213 SOUTH MAIN STREET PARCEL DATA Property Name: The Old Cannery Workers ILWU Local 37 Union Building Lot sq ft: 5,760 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800880 Zoning: PSM-100 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1900 Net sq ft: 5,760 sf Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Low Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

This is a one-story building with two primary faรงades, one on Main Street and the other facing Second Avenue Extension. It has a trapezoidal plan, with the Main Street elevation at 77 feet, the Second Avenue elevation at 70 feet, the south wall at 120 feet and the west alley wall at 60 feet. The Main Street elevation consists of five bays defined by brick piers with rusticated cast stone bases and painted capitals. In between the piers are the multi-pane transoms of storefronts, now covered over by plywood. Each transom is divided into two sections by a mullion and there are twenty lights in each section. The Second Avenue Extension primary faรงade differs markedly from the Main Street one. Its exterior cladding is brick, in a variety of colors. It is divided into three bays. The central bay has a wide segmental arch in cast stone or very weathered terra cotta with a transom below it divided into five sections with multiple panes.

Below the transom, the storefront is boarded up.

To each side of the central bay, are post & lintel openings also with multi-pane transoms and with the lower portion corresponding to the storefront also boarded up. There are decorative cast stone or weathered terra cotta panels above the three openings. For instance, the central spandrel includes a decorative shield with Imperial crown and symmetrically placed floral motifs with stylized ewer shapes with more floral motifs to each side.

The back-alley wall has segmental openings, most of which have been filled in. Also of note, is a vestige of several stories of a higher portion of the building, adjoining the Mottman building to the south.

The original building was designed by E. W. Houghton in 1900. In fact, the original building was three stories high with a basement. The builder was Spurr and Silber and the original owner, the Cascade Laundry. The Cascade Laundry occupied the building until at least 1909 and a laundry was still the main occupant of the building, according to a 1912 Baist map of Seattle. By 1928-1929, the Second Avenue Extension sliced the site on this building in such a way as to destroy its original east facing faรงade, which explains the great difference between the two primary facades. The building also lost its upper floors, sometime between 1949 to 1951, after being damaged by the 1949 Earthquake, with only a vestige of its three-story eastern wall remaining. Despite these various destructive forces, the building retains important architectural elements which contribute to the district as a whole. The Main Street faรงade was designed by E. W. Houghton, an important Seattle architect who contributed to the rebuilding of Seattle right after the Fire of 1889 as one of the partners of the firm Saunders and Houghton.

This building is significant as a work of E. W. Houghton, but also directly reflects the Second Avenue Extension of 192829, which had a far-reaching effect on an important portion of what became the Pioneer Square-Skid Road National Historic District. In this case, the effect is dramatically shown in the difference between two architecturally interesting faรงades, markedly different from each other. In addition, the building also reflects the effects of the 1949 Earthquake. Subsequently the building was occupied by the Cannery Workers of ILWU Local 37. On June 1, 1981, Silme Domingo and Gene Viernes of Local 37, who were trying to reform the conditions for cannery workers and also had actively opposed President Marcos of the Philippines, were gunned down in this building.

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

5

201 FIRST AVENUE SOUTH PARCEL DATA Property Name: J&M Hotel Building Lot sq ft: 6,660 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 524780-0130 Zoning: PSM-100 BUILDING INFO Year Built:1900 Net sq ft: 25,450 sf (6,362 sf – 1st floor) Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Average Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

This is a three-story brick clad building with a small amount of stone trim. It is located on the southwest corner of First Avenue South and Washington Street. The plan of the building is rectangular. Its roof is not visible and it has a parapet, enhanced by a thin projecting cornice.

The main elevation on First Avenue has a storefront with stained glass windows in the clerestory. On the second floor, the First Avenue façade consists of six single double-hung windows topped by segmental arches. The arches are further emphasized by ornamental keystone shapes in stone and small stone rectangular trim pieces on each side of the window opening. Thin raised bands link these rectangles visually and also follow the upper contours of the segmental shapes of the windows.

The lower two floors of the J & M Café, also known as the J & M Hotel Building, were originally built in 1889 for Captain J. H. Marshall. The King County Assessor’s Records also indicate that there was an alteration in 1900, which may correspond to the third level of the building. Another report gives the date for the third floor addition as 1903. The original J. H. Marshall Building was designed for a wholesale business by Comstock and Troetsche.

Above the second floor is a band of arched corbelled forms, topped by a series of slightly projecting bands. This was probably the original cornice of the 1889 portion of the building.

Surmounting this, is a third level with six paired double-hung windows, surmounted by flatter segmental arches. The Washington Street elevation has similar window configuration and detailing in its eastern bay, but then has mainly paired windows with flat segmental arches on the second and third levels. The composition of this elevation is less regular. The ground level has several irregularly placed arched openings and two large trabeated openings toward the west. The interior of the café is known for its period metal ceiling.

Charles Frye and his associate Charles Bruhn, who in 1891 created the Frye and Bruhn Meat Packing Company, owned the building in 1895. Not long after, by the time of the Klondike Gold Rush, this building was occupied by a business on the ground floor and a hotel on the top levels. The building is typical of the buildings that were erected in 1889, right after the Great Fire of June 6, 1889. The shape and detailing of its second-floor window openings have a Victorian quality, characteristic of many buildings of this period in Seattle (and its environs). Its ground floor business, at some point abbreviated to “J & M,” has been a bar and card room (when the Seattle was a “wide-open” city and allowed card playing), since the Gold Rush. During the “wideopen” times, from 1906 to 1916, it was known simply as the “J & M Saloon.” Several versions of what “J & M” stands for are documented: “Jamieson & Moffett,” “Jamieson and McFarland” (around 1901) and then “Joe and Mary McConagin.” In any case, the “J & M” name appears to have been associated with the building for some time. Located on a block which included several hotels, in particular 213, 211 and 209 First Avenue, popular during the Gold Rush, its hotel, housed in the upper stories, also served the same sort of clientele. By 1921, the J & M Café sold “soft drinks” and meals. From 1936 to 1970, the hotel was officially known as the J & M Hotel.

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

6

111 YESLER WAY PARCEL DATA Property Name: Korn Building Lot sq ft: 4,860 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800545 Zoning: PSM 100/100-120 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1889 Net sq ft: 10,980 sf (3,660 sf – 1st floor) Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Average Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

The three-story brick clad building is partially missing a parapet on the north elevation. Other materials are stone trim and wood. The two other main street elevations occur to the north on Yesler Way and to the east on Occidental Avenue South.

The Yesler Way façade is divided into four bays with the two central bays wider than the side bays. The ground level has trabeated storefront openings of varying heights. The storefronts are not original. At the second level the fenestration of the side bays consists of a series of two elongated rectangular, double-hung windows. These flank the two central bays which each consist of similar windows set in groups of three. Each bay is continued at the third level by arched window openings, with a stone molding outlining the arch of each opening.

The spandrels between the second and third floor windows are of wood with panels inset with square and rectangular shapes. An angled elevation between Yesler Way and Occidental Avenue S. is one bay, with a stuccoed ground floor and rectilinear openings (later insertion) and a similar vertical bay with a rectilinear opening at the second level and an arched opening at the third level.

The Korn Building was designed by Elmer Fisher in 1889 for Moses Korn to replace an earlier building that had been destroyed during the great Fire of 1889. The new building was originally planned as a two-story building which later became three. The tendency to grid the elevations shows vestiges of the Victorian tendency in Fisher’s work; but the relatively paired down ornamentation and the repetitive arches suggest an awareness of the increasingly popular American version of Romanesque Revival popularized in the work of H.H. Richardson and others.

The second and third levels have two wider central bays with the distinctive wood window frames and are divided into three generous window openings at each level. These are flanked by the thinner bay configuration, also seen on the Yesler Way elevation, although the top window of the north bay is rectangular. The openings of the first level of the building have clearly been subjected to recent alterations.

The new building Ordinance No.1147 also encouraged less ornamentation: It mainly required stone and brick and noncombustible exterior materials, which did not lend themselves to the fussier wood ornamentation of some of the pre-fire wood buildings; for instance, most post-fire buildings would not have the wooden spandrels between the second and third floors that the Korn Building has.

While the Korn Building is simpler and now makes a very different impression, it resembles a less solid version of the New England Hotel, also designed by Fisher in 1889-1890, in the grid like divisions of the elevation, the repeated use of arches, the treatment of the corner elevation and the raised parapet which used to rise above it. The New England Hotel also stands on the northwest corner of Main and First Avenue South. Moses Korn, who ran Korn Druggists, was an important entrepreneur before and after the Fire of 1889. He was also caught up in the controversy over the widening and raising of the streets shortly after the Fire of 1889.

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

7

423 2ND EXT SOUTH PARCEL DATA Property Name: Metropole Building Lot sq ft: 6,960 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800595 Zoning: PSM 100/100-120 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1890 Net sq ft: 20,880 sf Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Low Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

The Metropole Building at 423 2nd Avenue Extension South is trapezoidal in plan. It is a three story building with parapet. It has two street facing façade, both clad in rusticated sandstone.

The longer elevation faces Second Avenue South and a much shorter one Yesler Way. The Second Avenue elevation is distinguished by its regular and symmetrical composition and is divided into five bays. It has a main portal with a semi-circular arch located at the center of the façade, flanked by long trabeated storefronts with clerestory levels.

Emphasizing the entry portal on the second floor are a pair of rectangular window openings. First floor portal and second floor central windows are further accentuated by a frame created by smooth stone bands. In general, openings on the second level are rectangular and organized in pairs. On the third level, two small rectangular windows continue the vertical bay about the central portal.

To each side of these smaller windows are three pairs of arched windows. Interest is created by changes in texture and pattern in the rusticated stone: for instance, the belt course above the first level, the detailing of the flat arches over the second floor windows, the voussoirs of the arched second floor window openings and the decorative stone bands that mimic the curves of these openings. The Yesler Way elevation is only one bay and has two rectangular flat arched window openings, surmounted by two arched ones. There is also an entryway to a business at the ground level.

The Metropole, previously known as the H.K. Owens Building, was owned by Henry Yesler, who had also commissioned the more well-known Pioneer Building down the street. It is thought to have been built between 1892 and 1893. While Emil De Neuf was the architect, Jeffrey Ochsner and Dennis Andersen suggest that the design architect may have been Elmer Fisher. It has one the better designed and well proportioned exteriors from the early period of the “burnt district”’s reconstruction.

The building is a simple, but pleasing rendition of the commercial Richardsonian Romanesque style. The building itself was the original location of the G. O. Guy Pharmacy, that later produced a chain of Seattle pharmacies. This G. O. Guy Pharmacy, until not long ago located on the northern portion of the building, is also famous as the site of the 1901 gun battle between Chief of Police William Meredith and John Considine.

Considine was the owner of the People’s Theater, known as a “box house,” which provided both “theatrical” entertainment such as magic acts, singing, dancing, minstrel shows, as well as sexual services. In 1901, the Seattle City Council was waging a war against “vice.”

As a result of this conflict, Chief of Police Meredith, carrying a sawed off shotgun, pursued John Considine and his brother Tom into the G. O. Guy Pharmacy. Meredith fired at John Considine, eventually grazing him slightly and nearly hitting G. O. Guy, the owner. In self-defense, John Considine clubbed Meredith with the shotgun, which he had managed to wrestle away from him and then shot him. Although the anti-vice forces wanted John Considine hanged for Meredith’s death, at the end of a dramatic trial, he was acquitted.

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

8

114 ALASKAN WAY SOUTH PARCEL DATA Property Name: Prudential Building Lot sq ft: 8,802 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800025 Zoning: PSM 100/100-120 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1902 Net sq ft: 44,010 sf Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Low/Average Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

This six-story warehouse and manufacturing building occupies a long narrow lot and has an angled façade which echoes the northwesterly line of Elliott Bay. Its main west façade is oriented toward Alaskan Way. The other elevations are not visible from the street. The exterior walls are masonry while the interior structural system is heavy timber. It includes timber columns and flooring.

The building appears to have been built in 1902 but other records suggest between 1904-05. The building is, in many ways, typical of the type of warehouse and manufacturing building, erected at the time of the economic and industrial boom, after the Klondike Gold Rush of 1897-98. While it is a simple building, the design of its façade resembles many of the Chicago School influenced warehouse buildings built in this period in the Pioneer Square area. Several floors of recessed double-hung windows and spandrels surmount a strong base.

Based on the Part II for the mid-80s rehabilitation by Ralph Anderson Koch and Duarte, the original parapet was higher and was probably lowered to meet code; so that the building would originally have followed the typical Chicago School mode, where the façade would have had a strong base, middle and top.

Drawings included in records at the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation also indicate that Tonkin Koch Architects were responsible for a renovation of the storefront fenestration in 1986, which was badly damaged. The building was owned by the Prudential Bond Investment Company from 1904 to 1923 and then by William Grimshaw, vice-president of the Prudential Company, primarily a real estate firm, from 1923 to 1946.

The west elevation – painted brick consists at the lower level of a double height storefront, divided into two bays, which are surmounted by a flat belt-course emphasized by a dentil band beneath it. The upper part of the façade consists of two recessed bays. Here, each bay opening contains four wood sash double-hung windows, set side by side. The four level bays are each emphasized by a simple band of raised brick which creates a rectangular enclosure around each bay. The top of the façade is topped by a sign that says “Prudential,” originally made of sandstone.

A rehabilitation in the mid- 1980s added a penthouse, which is barely visible from the street and only from certain angles.

At least from the 1920s until the late 1960s, the Prudential Building housed industrial businesses. In the 1920s and 1930s, it was the home of Acme Steel and Valco Chemical Companies, while the upper floors served a variety of uses: warehouse, office and residential space. In 1946, the neighboring Lowman and Hanford Printing Company acquired the building and used it as a warehouse. In 1969, the Fred Cole Company bought the building. In the original Pioneer Square National Register Nomination, the building was listed as the “Fred Cole Factory.”

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

9

107 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE SOUTH PARCEL DATA Property Name: Walker Block/Walker Building Lot sq ft: 9,990 sf Plat Name: Maynards D S Plat Parcel #: 5247800535 Zoning: PSM 100/100-120 BUILDING INFO Year Built: 1891 Net sq ft: 9,990 sf Construction Class: Masonry Building Quality: Average Historic, Contributing

APPEARANCE

SIGNIFICANCE

This is a one story building. It has one façade on Occidental Avenue South. Exterior walls are primarily of brick, but the façade is mainly taken up by storefront and has rusticated stone cladding and what appears to be cast stone cladding above the lintel.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer of September 8, 1891 wrote: “The piledriving for Cyrus Walker’s four-story brick immediately south of the Korn Block on Second Street is about to be completed.

The building will complete the block of buildings on South Second Street between Yesler avenue and Washington street [sic].” Second Street, of course, is now Occidental South.

Jeffrey Ochsner and Dennis Andersen in Distant Corner: Seattle Architects and the Legacy of H. H. Richardson, in reference to the same building, mention that the architects were Boone and Willcox. Also noted is that the building, although planned as a four-story building, was never built past the first floor.

The façade is divided into three parts by original bracket-like ornaments at the top of the façade.

The ends of the façade are rusticated blocks topped by the same kind of ornament. Storefronts are newer and utilitarian, but there are also vestiges of original ornamental metal storefront: thin engaged round tube-like columns with capitals which show a leaf pattern. These vestiges of metal pier (probably cast all in one piece) occur at the center of the second bay at each side of the doorway and at the third bay, at each side of a doorway.

Despite the changes to the storefront, it retains enough detailing, a mix of Victorian and classical ornament, to give a sense that it is part of the first wave of building, right after the Fire of 1889.

It is also intriguing that it is another building commissioned by Cyrus Walker. This is by no means the best example of Boone and Willcox work, partly because it was never really completed.

It still represents an early commercial building erected soon after the Fire of 1889.

From 1894 to 1899, Charles Bruhn occupied the building and from 1903 to circa 1906, the Seattle Market, owned by the Frye-Bruhn Company. From 1906 to 1930, its successor, the Frye Company, owned by Charles Frye, occupied the building.

Charles Frye founded Cudahy Bar-S Brand Meats and is also associated with the Charles and Emma Frye art collection and the Frye Art Museum in Seattle. The building was known for a long time, at least until the late 1960s, as the “Frye Market.”

BUILDINGS IN NEED OF HISTORIC RENOVATION PIONEER SQUARE NEIGHBORHOOD

10