https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4894-8496
![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The City of Seattle created the Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District in 2009 to preserve the character of the Pike/Pine Corridor (neighbourhood) while simultaneously accommodating substantial growth in the number of residents and the size of buildings. Pike/Pine is known for its adaptively reused collection of early twentieth century ‘Auto Row’ buildings and for the diversity of its population. Since the year 2000, proximity to downtown has made this area attractive for development, and the city has designated Pike/Pine as a growth centre in its comprehensive plan. The city’s implementation of the Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District (one of the first uses of a conservation district in a commercial/mixed-use neighbourhood in the United States) seeks to address the conflict inherent in accommodating growth while simultaneously trying to protect older architecture, small-scale local businesses, and a diverse mix of housing. This article analyses the elements and impacts of this unusual district, considering its application of façade retention for townscape conservation as well as analysing its broad approach within the framework of integrated conservation. This article argues that the Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District offers a useful case study for other cities looking to support growth while also retaining elements of the past.
Acknowledgements
We wish to acknowledge Dennis C. Meier, Office of Planning and Community Development, City of Seattle, Daniel B. Abramson, Associate Professor, Department of Urban Design & Planning, University of Washington, Jim Graham, architect (whose office is in the Pike-Pine Corridor), and Mimi Sheridan, independent preservation consultant, who provided valuable information, carefully considered feedback, and useful suggestions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Chalana, “Balancing History and Development,” 182.
2 Lund Consulting, “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Conservation Study,” 14.
3 City of Seattle, “Pike Pine Conservation Overlay District.”
4 Glaeser, Triumph of the City, 150–1, 260–4.
5 Kelly and Goodman, “Conservation Districts,” 6–14.
6 Rose, “Preservation and Community,” 504–12.
7 Kelly and Goodman, “Conservation Districts,” 6–14; Miller, Protecting Older Neighborhoods.
8 Lovelady, “Broadened Notions of Historic Preservation,” 147–83.
9 Max, “Neighborhood Conservation Districts,” 14.
10 Gunn, “Protecting Seattle’s Auto Row,” 30–5, 40–2.
11 Kelly and Goodman, “Conservation Districts.”
12 Lubens and Miller, “Protecting Older Neighborhoods.” Also see: Miller, Protecting Older Neighborhoods.
13 Yeston, “Neighborhood Conservation Districts”; Allen, “Philadelphia Neighborhood Conservation.”
14 Chalana, “Balancing History and Development,” 182–4.
15 Woo, “What Price Facadism?”
16 Piona, “Protecting Neighborhood Character,” 62.
17 Johnson, “Case Study,” 36–73.
18 Liu, “Promote Neighborhood Character.”
19 Preservation Green Lab, “Older, Smaller, Better.”
20 Kreisman, Made to Last.
21 City of Seattle, “Pike/Pine Development Activity,” 1–20. Most projects in this document responded to the Pike/Pine Conservation District requirements, although a few originated before the implementation of the district so were exempt.
22 “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Design Guidelines”; of the five case study buildings in this paper, only the AVA Capitol Hill is not illustrated as an example.
23 Abraham, “Evolution of Seattle’s Automobile Showrooms,” 111–23.
24 Lund Consulting, “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Conservation Study,” 1, 3.
25 Sheridan, “Historic Property Survey Report,” 23–4.
26 Lund Consulting, “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Conservation Study,” 3.
27 Chalana, “Balancing History and Development,” 182–4.
28 Pike/Pine Urban Neighborhood Coalition, “Final Neighborhood Plan,” 5–6.
29 City of Seattle, “Proposed Amendments,” 12–14.
30 Ibid., 2–5.
31 Laschever, “Washington’s Growth Management Act.”
32 City of Seattle, “Comprehensive Plan,” 10.
33 Overstreet and Kirchheim. “ Quest for the Best Test to Vest.”
34 Siriani, “Neighborhood Planning.”
35 City of Seattle, “Pike/Pine Matrix,” 13–14.
36 Kreisman, Made to Last, 84–95; Shorett and Morgan, Pike Place Market, 136–48; Lee, “Conflicting Elites and Changing Values.”
37 Kreisman, Made to Last, 100–12.
38 City of Seattle, “Proposed Amendments,” 1.
39 Nelson, “Architectural Character.”
40 Woo, “What Price Facadism?”
41 City of Seattle, “Pike/Pine Urban Conservation Strategy,” 1.
42 Punter, Design Guidelines in American Cities, 31–65.
43 City of Seattle, “Design Review Program,” 2–4.
44 City of Seattle, “Director’s Rule 3-2012,” 4–6.
45 The 2011 amendments also provide additional protection using Transfer of Development Potential (TDP; in other cities this is sometimes called ‘Transfer of Development Rights’), but this has had very limited effect to date. TDP is only allowed inside the Pike/Pine District (that is, both sending and the receiving sites must be within the district), and if TDP is used, the benefit to the receiving site is no greater than the benefit for retaining the façades of the character structures. However, with the greater protections provided in the ‘conservation core’, TDP may become more attractive in the future, especially if the city allows receiving sites to be outside the district.
46 “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Design Guidelines.”
47 Highfield, Construction, 1.
48 Ibid.
49 Richards, Facadism, 7–22; Alcock, “Book Review.”
50 Richards, Facadism, 23–119.
51 In Seattle, most new mixed-use structures take advantage of a building code provision that allows up to five floors of wood frame construction (for residential use) over a one- or two-story ‘podium’ of concrete (for retail and commercial use); parking is typically located in the basement. The incentives in the Pike/Pine District ordinance typically permit an additional wood frame residential floor without requiring more complex construction.
52 These standards are classified as ‘departable’ because an applicant can argue for a departure through the design review process; for example, an applicant might request a setback of less than 15 feet (4.6 metres) along one portion of the facade in exchange for a setback greater than 15 feet (4.6 metres) along another.
53 Kandel, The Age of Insight, 264–8. As Kandel explains, a dark colour is a monocular cue that makes an object appear closer and larger than it actually is.
54 Richards, Facadism, 26.
55 Tiller, “Obey the Imperatives,” 6–13; Semes, “‘Differentiated’ and ‘Compatible’,” 14–20. The “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Design Guidelines” illustrates both Seattle Electric and Dunn Motors indicating that both completely “differentiated” and fully “compatible” approaches are acceptable under design review.
56 Richards, Facadism, 55–69.
57 City of Seattle, “Staff Report – June 20, 2013,” 6, 12. To limit the visual impact of the added bulk, amendments adopted in 2014 require that increased floor size must be placed in a single location.
58 European Charter of the Architectural Heritage.
59 Papageorgiu-Venetas, “New Orientations.”
60 Kreisman, Made to Last, 96–9; Shorett and Morgan, Pike Place Market, 145–53.
61 Lund Consulting, “Pike/Pine Neighborhood Conservation Study,” 23.
62 Ibid., 26–8.
63 City of Seattle, “Staff Report – June 20, 2013,” 1.
64 City of Seattle, “Proposed Amendments,” 16, 22–23.
65 City of Seattle, “Pike Pine Conservation Overlay District,” 19.
66 City of Seattle, “Staff Report – June 20, 2013,” 3, 11.
67 In addition, the requirement for small businesses is a ‘departable standard’ – that is the DRB may allow a larger street-level business if it judges this will improve the mix of retail activities in the district.
68 Johnson, “Case Study,” 36–73.
69 Ibid., 70.
70 Piona, “Protecting Neighborhood Character,” 62.
71 Powe et al., “Jane Jacobs,” 167–80.
72 City of Seattle, “Arts and Cultural Districts.” (This programme is not regulatory and added no new provisions to Seattle’s Land Use Code.)
73 Chalana, “Balancing History and Development,” 182.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Naoko Kuriyama
Naoko Kuriyama is an associate professor in the Department of Architecture at Kobe University, Japan. She holds a doctoral degree of engineering in architecture from Kobe University. Her research focuses on the urban planning and design methods and policies that can protect townscapes making use of local resources, townscape management and the design review by citizen participation. She was a 2011 and 2016 visiting scholar at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Jeffrey Karl Ochsner
Jeffrey Karl Ochsner is a professor in the Department of Architecture at the University of Washington in Seattle. He holds adjunct appointments in the departments of Landscape Architecture and Urban Design & Planning and previously served as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the College of Built Environments. His most recent edited and co-authored book is Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects, Second Edition (2014).