Residents of Seattle are voicing strong opposition to a proposed housing project above the historic Doyle Building near Pike Place Market. The proposal aims to create 12 new stories of residential space on top of the landmarked four-story structure, which was built in 1920. Both the city’s landmarks preservation board and nearby condominium owners are key players in the debate as they raise concerns about transparency and historical preservation.
The Clark/Barnes architects are working on the project, which also aligns with recently approved state and city policies designed to ease housing development. These policies are seen as crucial given the high vacancy rates in downtown offices.
The proposal includes the preservation of the Doyle Building’s existing facade while adding a mass timber structure above. This construction method would allow for a lighter foundation, thus minimizing the structural impact on the historic building below.
If the project moves forward, it would exemplify a significant convergence of housing reforms and policies aimed at addressing housing needs in Seattle. The site, being downtown, is exempt from design review requirements and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). By transitioning the building’s use from office to residential, it could also benefit from the city’s new sales and use tax exemptions.
Moreover, the project stands to utilize House Bill 1183, which prevents cities from demanding upper-level setbacks for mass timber construction, thereby maximizing potential unit numbers.
However, before any changes are implemented, the city’s landmarks preservation board must approve the alterations to the Doyle Building. An initial meeting revealed some board members were receptive to the project, but they requested additional details on its implementation.
Opposition primarily arose from local residents, particularly condominium owners from the adjacent 1521 Second Avenue, who submitted letters expressing their concerns. Timothy and Joanie Kosnoff were among those opposing the proposal, arguing that it exhibits bad faith and a lack of transparency in preserving the building’s historical integrity.
Critics argue that approving this project could set a precedent that undermines Seattle’s preservation laws, compromising the architectural character of landmarks in the city. Ruth Danner, President of Savethemarketentrance.org, also voiced skepticism, asserting that Seattle doesn’t need more market-rate housing.
Danner warned that the project would initiate an ‘economic chain reaction’ resulting from overbuilding in the downtown area, which could negatively impact the neighborhood’s ability to absorb such changes.
On a more positive note, converting the Doyle Building into residential space would generate nearly $2 million for the city’s subsidized affordable housing initiative, under the Mandatory Housing Affordability program. Proponents argue that having more residences downtown could enhance safety and foot traffic while also alleviating pressures on the existing housing market, benefiting the broader community.
Historic Seattle, a notable preservation advocacy group, also opposed the proposal, arguing that the addition would have an adverse impact on the landmark, primarily due to its height and out-of-scale design relative to the original structure.
Eugenia Woo, director of Historic Seattle, emphasized that while the developers plan to repair and restore the facades, a 12-story addition would disrupt the landmark’s proportion, treating the historic building merely as a base for the new construction.
Seattle has a history of allowing landmark buildings to be supplemented with new structures, as evidenced by a recent addition to the Federal Reserve Bank building. However, the challenge remains whether the proposed 12-story addition complements or overwhelms the Doyle Building, particularly since none of its interior spaces are landmarked.
During discussions, landmarks board members highlighted their concerns regarding the scale of the proposed addition compared to the existing building. Member Matt Inpanbutr noted the possibility that the new structure might overpower the landmark below it.
Similarly, board member Katie Randall echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for the addition to maintain a balance so as not to appear top-heavy. Ian Macleod, the board chair, expressed interest in the structural interaction between the new construction and the historic property but also conveyed discomfort with large towers being attached to historic buildings.
The architects maintained that the constraints of using mass timber leave limited options for altering the project’s structure. Scott Clark of Clark/Barnes stated that if forced to modify the design significantly, the project would become financially unviable and might not proceed at all.
In conclusion, the Doyle Building housing project presents a complex interplay between the necessity for increased downtown housing and the preservation of Seattle’s architectural integrity. With significant public opposition and skepticism regarding the project’s implications for historical preservation, the upcoming discussions at the landmarks preservation board will play a pivotal role in determining the future of both the building and the surrounding community.
image source from：theurbanist
