A master plan for London’s Battersea Power Station reads like a utopian post-industrialist fantasy and a developer’s dream: a power plant reborn as dense community center by 2020.

It’s a non-local story of adaptive reuse that should result in an interesting addition to London’s skyline.

Beyond Pink Floyd

The power plant itself (you may know it from Pink Floyd’s Animals album cover) will serve as more than art deco centerpiece, with a new biofuel-powered co-generation plant in its basement sending water vapor through the 1933 plant’s chimneys. Other buildings of the plant will be converted to offices.

A transparent solar canopy will cover some of its buildings and plazas and, combined with an “eco-chimney,” will reduce the need for air conditioning.

The master plan, conceived by Rafael Vinoly Architects and Real Estate Opportunities Ltd., also features luxury apartments, a waterpark and connections to the tube. (Rendering shown above is by Rafael Vinoly Architects)

The relics of industry can tell a very important story about a city’s past glory and gloom.

Seattle’s Gasworks Park was landmarked, letting us marvel at its grotesque beauty without condos or a waterpark ever competing for our interest (though free concerts there by local legends like Pearljam have offered some distraction).

It’s interesting to look at the different tools cities employ to keep these industrial beasts alive.

The Southwest Design Review Board will check in tonight on a strangely familiar West Seattle development.

As built in 1927

The project is at 3811 California Ave. W. The developer initially proposed tearing down the Charleston Court building to build an entirely new project. Then, partway through design review, Charleston Court was nominated for landmark status. The project went on hold for a year.

The landmark board voted in April against landmarking the 1927 building, designed by William Whiteley, clearing the way for demolition. (Original building shown above.)

But the developer is back with new plans that will give the neighbors deja vu.

What the developer wants

The new design (seen at left) proposes retaining the wings of the original building and the building’s courtyard.

The rear portion of the old building would be torn down, but the developer wants to use that brick to create a new building front between the wings.

Steven Butler and Paul Cesmat bought the building in 2007. Project architect is Nicholson Kovalchick.

Crosscut’s Knute Berger wrote an interesting column today about the animosity between historic preservationists and green building proponents.

Too often, he says, green building techniques and density goals are used as justification for tearing down Seattle’s usable buildings and squandering their embodied energy and inherent greenness.

Meanwhile, historic preservationists get sidetracked by the historic and architectural significance of the buildings they are trying to protect. They don’t put that same effort into making a sustainability case for keeping those buildings.

Adaptive reuse in Portland's Pearl District

If Seattle really wants to be sustainable, Berger says, the two groups need to form an alliance. Both need to embrace the environmental value of the existing building and build from there.

I think things get complicated when density concerns are added into the mix.

But some cities, like Portland, have done a great job of encouraging adaptive reuse of historic building stock. These aren’t the landmarked buildings that allow only minimal changes, but the buildings that serve as mainstay to new floors of condos or offices above or around.

The federal government even offers a 10 percent tax credit for adaptive reuse of certain historic buildings. There are a few caveats, like making sure the addition can be removed and the historic building is left largely intact.

It could be painful for preservation purists to see some buildings getting such a drastic face-lift. It will likely be even harder for those greenies who like to start from scratch and leave their fingerprints.

No, this has nothing to do with that boarded up building with the unique swooping roofline that you won’t see much longer at the corner of 15th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Market Street.

Landmarking a living thing?

Still reading? The Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board also voted Wednesday to designate the Washington Park Arboretum’s Japanese Garden a Seattle landmark.

Exactly how to preserve a landmark comprised mainly of living plants could get complicated.

Landmark board members said the garden is an obvious landmark candidate because of its historical, cultural and architectural significance.

But they were concerned that the designation be worded in a way that means arboretum staff won’t need their approval every time a rotting tree is removed or new bulbs are planted. Landmark staff said they will work to come up with something.

The 3.5 acre garden is mainly the work of Juki Iida, a Japanese landscape architect who came over and worked with Seattle’s William Yorozu, a Japanese-American general contractor.

It was the first large-scale post WW-II Japanese Garden completed in the U.S.

On the garden’s opening day in 1959, everyone who wore a kimono got in free.

Key Seattle landmark staff are advising the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board against preserving the former Denny’s on the corner of 15th Avenue Northwest and Northwest Market Street.

The recently boarded-up landmark

The board voted in February that the building’s prominence for the Ballard neighborhood makes it a historic landmark worth protecting. But what that actually means for the building and plans to build a multi-use development on the site has been up in the air.

Over the past several weeks, board staff and site owner the Benaroya Co. have been negotiating over controls and incentives for the building. That will establish what the owners and developers can and can’t do with the site.

The board meets at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday in the Seattle Municipal Tower in Room 4060 at 700 Fifth Ave. to go public with their decision.

As first reported on Crosscut, Historic Preservation Officer Karen Gordon and Landmarks Coordinator Beth Chave say in the memo that they can envision no scenario that preserves the building’s “character defining features” while allowing the developer “to realize a reasonable return on their investment.”

The Seattle Monorail Project bought the one-acre site for $7.5 million in 2005, before voters rejected the monorail plan. Benaroya paid $12.5 million for the site in 2006 and said the price reflects the high-density development planned there.

Just six months ago, Denny’s was still operating in the building. But Benaroya said in February that the building is not up to code and Denny’s does not pay enough rent to justify using the space as a restaurant. Denny’s paid $5,295 a month for rent in 2007 and covered the site’s $26,485 property tax bill.

The building was designed by San Francisco Architect Clarence Mayhew in 1964 for the Manning brothers in the flamboyant roadside “googie” style. The original oversized sign and glazing are gone. Denny’s remodeled the interior to add modern mechanical equipment when it took up the lease in 1984.

Board members said in February that the building still conveys its architectural significance through its unique roofline, and is a visual marker for Ballard.

Grace Architects' vision for adaptive reuse of the building

Some still argue the building can be kept without depriving the developer.

Above is a rendering Grace Architects submitted to the landmarks board that envisions denser development while keeping the 1964 building on the site.

“The only way that a reasonable financial return can be realized at this site is by embracing a creative
approach to the site, allowing additional density on the remaining site area to compensate for the
lower retained height at the landmarked structure,” writes Ralph Allen of Grace Architects in a May 19 letter to the board.

The Seattle Times had an interesting story today about artsy Seattleites being priced out of the city core and into edge neighborhoods like South Park.

It describes a progression taken from Belltown and Capitol Hill, once the meccas of alternative culture, to Georgetown and then to South Park.

Would Gertrude still live here?

They can’t go any further, so the fear and reality is they’ll move to the effortlessly affordable and funky Portland.

Portland, of course, has its own saga: The once edgy, industrial Pearl District is now home to hordes of Seattle refugees and its former residents are already getting priced out of the Alberta Arts District in Northeast Portland. Of course, “priced out” in Portland is when you can no longer buy for $300,000. Seattleites have it a little steeper.

Getting priced out is a tragedy that is almost taken for granted here, and one that sometimes distresses and other times annoys me. I’m concerned about the edgy people moving to the edges or away because I am concerned about losing Seattle’s essential weirdness. That’s a cultural concern and an economic concern. I think both are very valid and I wish more people did.

But I also see some exciting changes in the city. There’s gentrification but then there’s neighborhood building. There are invested homeowners, diverse neighborhoods and thriving small businesses selling quirky, local stuff in the corners of our city. Many people actually choose to live in the “edge neighborhoods” and don’t ever wish they could live in Belltown instead.

The Times article paints a picture of being priced out as a painful progression. But at the story’s end, it’s revealed that its protagonist is not only able to afford to live in South Park, he owns his home, AND the home next door, which he rents out to make money.

It’s a thought-provoking piece that gives nuance to the “priced-out” tale.

Donovan Rypkema, the historic preservation and economic development expert, was here this week from Washington, D.C. for a lecture sponsored by Historic Seattle.

I went to his lecture Thursday and spoke to him Friday morning. He had been out with his camera, wandering First Hill and downtown and snapping photos of older blocks and newer developments. He said Seattle has really changed in the 20 years he’s been watching it.

“I’ve loved (Seattle) because of its grittiness and that’s rapidly disappearing,” he said.

He said he was also surprised we don’t have more historic districts in our great, historic town. Rypkema believes historic preservation is key to economic development but has a special affinity for historic districts. Unlike one historic building, where preservation can be seen as an economic burden on a building owner, he said, a district sees all its values rise.

He said rehabbing a historic building is the greenest construction there is and said there is no function in today’s world that couldn’t happily be housed in yesterday’s building. He said churches, universities and hospitals are the worst at claiming they need to raze historic buildings to suit their modern needs.

“Developers are often painted as the villains in neighborhoods but the biggest villains in neighborhoods are churches hospitals and universities,” he said Friday. “They screw up more neighborhoods than anyone else in the country.”

At the Thursday lecture at Wallingford’s lovely Good Shepherd Center, Rypkema said historic districts also: have stabler prices and are better equipped to ride out economic downturns, and draw better tourists and do a better job overall at supporting the local economy than new construction (because more money goes to workers than materials, and then the workers spend that cash locally).

Seattle has seven historic districts: Ballard Avenue, Columbia City, Fort Lawton, Harvard-Belmont, the International District, Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square. For comparison, Portland has 13 historic districts and seven conservation districts.

Read the entire text of Rypkema’s lecture for yourself, and read his own blog about his recent trips to Seattle and Portland.

My grandmother tells me that the streetcars that criss-crossed Seattle when she was young had wicker seats and cost a nickel. They were everywhere, they were fast and they were used by everyone.

Times have certainly changed. Say what you will about the vices and virtues of streetcars, the reality is they’re not cheap.

SDOTs pricy rail plans

SDOT presented a $595 million four-line streetcar network plan to Seattle City Council members Tuesday. The four lines they propose would connect a dozen central and northern neighborhoods for about $40 million a mile.

Some council members questioned the mode of transit. Buses are cheaper, more maneuverable and we’ve been investing in them for forty years, said council member Tom Rasmussen. There’s also the more affordable electric trolleys (pretty much buses) as an option, Rasmussen said.

Others questioned the duplication between the lines and existing and proposed Metro routes.

SDOT said the streetcars will make some of those bus routes obsolete, like the No. 70 in the U District, and will also fill some service gaps, like between downtown Ballard and downtown Fremont. (I guess the No. 28 bus doesn’t count because it doesn’t go deep into Ballard?)

Another benefit: Streetcar money stays in Seattle, unlike Metro dollars and service, which are distributed throughout the county.

Also, people are more likely to ride the streetcar than the bus, they say. They certainly used to, and they have taken it up in most cities that put one in (or put one back in, sigh).

I thought tons of people were riding the bus until I got a reality check a few weeks ago. The Dalai Lama was here and my bus was full to the gills still 30 minutes from downtown. It passed hundreds of riders on the way into town, people who live on the bus line and just don’t take it for whatever reason most days.

My grandmother remembers when it was assumed you would take the streetcar everywhere in Seattle. I wish we were debating how to update those old lines and not trying to figure out whether to pay for these new ones.

When I heard the news about octogenarian Seattle company Safeco being bought by Boston’s Liberty Mutual Group, I immediately thought of baseball.

Hit it here

I’ve already spent some serious time in Safeco Field biting my nails over pitching changes and yelling my heart out when the M’s are doing well. I also dropped a lot of peanut shells in the Kingdome, so it took me a while to get used to the new space and its new name.

We adapt, of course. I hardly ever expect to see Jay Buhner at a game anymore, and I no longer cheer when I hear an announcer say “A-Rod.”

The Times reported today that Safeco Field will keep its name for the foreseeable future.

Buhner

Even if Liberty keeps the name Safeco here, I wonder what it will mean to have our relatively new stadium named after a bygone local company. Will it not even matter? Could it sting?

Stadium names take on a life of their own, and though those names are increasingly corporate, they start to channel the city’s character.

Wrigley Field does not make me think of bubble gum, it brings me to the edge of Lake Michigan and the smell of hot dogs. (Read about Wrigley’s own woes here.)

When I hear the words Safeco Field, I hear a long train whistle. I see Ichiro’s signature stance, the bike taxis lined up outside the stadium and the great view of our great city you can only get walking along Occidental at 10:45 p.m. after a Mariners game.

I feel the odd surge of pride I get when out-of-towners muse aloud about whose mascot that silly moose could be.

I hope those feelings stay the same.

Gray's Seattle

Architecture writer and editor Relta Gray was born in Mount Vernon and moved to Seattle in 1934 to attend UW.

She remembers taking the ferry from Madison Park to Kirkland for her first reporting job, and said the streetcars that criss-crossed the city cost a nickel each. Bellevue was a meadow, she said, while Kirkland was a vibrant little town.

Gray worked for Architecture West for about 20 years and led Relta Gray Associates for nearly 30 years. She also founded Environmental Design West and edited Northwest Architect.

I spoke to Relta about how today’s Seattle compares with that town of old and about her memories of earlier Seattle architects. Here’s a selection from our conversation.

Relta Gray

Q. How has downtown changed?
A. To me, it seems like when I go downtown I begin to feel like I’m in New York or Chicago. I do like the energy of going downtown and feeling people around, but if feels like we’re taking away the whole character of the Northwest with the way they’re putting all these high-rises up and crowding it all together and taking down some of the little stores and things you always enjoyed.

(more…)