Tacoma Historic Preservation and Old City Hall
The situation at Tacoma’s Old City Hall has become as stagnant as the water rotting its wallboard (in case you missed the story, here’s everything you need to know). Aside from a conversation at yesterday’s City Council study session and reports of Tacoma Public Utility workers entering the building today, we seem no closer to comforting answers.
Two things are perfectly clear: 1. Money is probably not going to fall out of the sky, and 2. the City’s efforts to revise its approach to historic preservation – underway since the fall of the Luzon building – will be completed too far in the future to address the current neglect of Old City Hall.
At Exit133, we were curious about the changes being discussed for Tacoma’s Historic Preservation program. So, with a little digging through council commission report records, we uncovered some answers. On November 17th, the Planning Commission met to discuss public feedback on the proposed Historic Preservation Plan, which they had reviewed in conjunction with the Landmarks Preservation Commission in September. The meeting summary can be found here.. These changes will be applied to the 2006 Culture and History Element of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The changes are intended to go into force in 2011.
For your convenience, we have posted below excerpts of the recommended code changes and the public comment.
The item to watch will be “prevention of demolition by neglect.” It is obvious – especially now – that prospective building owners have a broad choice of structures when considering purchases in Tacoma. Not all of those buildings are historic. When purchasing an historic property, it is understood that the site is a public resource as it relates to cultural value. It ought to be the responsibility of the owner, not only to comply with specialized modification and design review processes, but to actively engage in the preservation of the structure. We hope that the City makes significant headway toward defining how it will partner with building owners to guarantee adequate preservation.
A couple more thoughts on city/private partnership for preservation… Inspection and assessment of damage and potential sources of structural compromise must be key to genuine preservation efforts. One is left wondering what blocks the City from being able to inspect and assess Old City Hall when it is common knowledge that the structure is currently a fire hazard in imminent danger of severe water damage.
• The plan should focus on increasing advocacy and outreach.
• There should be some consideration of design standards that reflect site-specific history, not just surrounding architectural characteristics (for example, if a building is demolished, are there future opportunities to acknowledge the visual character of the former building?)
• There should be more emphasis on the importance and potential of heritage tourism.
• Policies relating to conservation districts should maintain some connection with history and historic character.
• Improving the Conservation District tool should be a high priority.
• Support for creating Neighborhood Conservation Districts coupled with tailored design standards
• There should be a strong emphasis on the prevention of demolition by neglect. [emphasis added]
…
TMC 2.01 Minimum Buildings and Structures Code
Cross reference Landmarks Preservation Commission process with Minimum Buildings Code, including:
• Coordinated process for enforcement actions that involve City Landmarks
Coordination of the Landmarks Preservation Commission and Historic Preservation Program with Code Enforcement is a high priority. The City is currently developing procedures to assist in the identification of and Streamlining of terminology regarding historic districts, buildings and City Landmarks
• Consideration of a prevention of demolition by neglect section
intervention for declining historic buildings; ensuring that the codes of these two areas are compatible is necessary. In addition, there are additional tools that could be utilitized to address “demolition by neglect” that are not currently in place.
TMC 2.02 Building Code
• Tailor City energy efficiency regulations to fit historic resources (See Action HP-5A)
…
Strengthen Landmarks compliance provisions (See Action HP-15A)
• Enhance public awareness by creating a requirement that applicants post approvals on property conspicuously with other permit information.
This is part of a broader effort to streamline the City’s permit process into the Permit Intake Center, to increase efficiency and customer service, while more closely coordinating staff activities and removing administrative redundancy.
Certain “sustainable” or energy retrofitting projects should be approved through design review administratively or “by right.”
Conspicuous posting of Landmarks approvals will serve a public information purpose by informing neighbors as well as building inspectors of a landmarks approval.
TMC 13.06 Zoning
• Revise zoning code to provide additional incentives for preservation, including removal of parking requirements for historic buildings.
Additional recommendations that may be beyond the scope of this amendment cycle include:
• Develop Additional Tools for Neighborhood Conservation (other types of zoning overlays and conservation districts, form-based codes, etc.
• Explore additional regulatory relief based incentives for historic preservation projects.
Many neighborhoods seek historic district status because it is the only available tool to address neighborhood character concerns (See Action HP-8A). In addition, there are inadvertent barriers to preservation in the zoning code that should be addressed…
…
Update and Clarify Designation Criteria for the Tacoma Register of Historic Places, including:
• Identifying priorities for different levels of designation
• Update criteria for designating individual landmarks
• For potential historic districts, include consideration of historic significance, intent/purpose of designation, consideration of other community planning objectives, and alternative tools to achieve conservation goals for the proposed district
• Clarify the role and level of protection for conservation districts, including procedures for establishing new conservation districts including their intent
…
• Adding objectives of the design review process (maintaining historic integrity, preserving character-defining features, etc.)
• Develop “green guidelines” to incorporate sustainability as a consideration into design guidelines…
…
• Develop criteria for relocating a threatened resource…
• Include economic hardship criteria for design review and demolition…
• Clarify how property owner votes are counted for an appeal of a historic district denial.…
Filed under: Downtown Tacoma, Neighborhoods, Tacoma Landmarks, Old City Hall, Historic Preservation
41 comments
R RR Anderson December 1, 2010
Can’t somebody wipe the cobwebs off our city attorney?
N notme December 1, 2010
I am curious RR as to exactly what it is you believe the City is empowered to do. Seizing private property because we covet it is actually not permitted in Washington. Even condemning the property requires a damn good reason and fair market value. Perhaps if the City Council hadn’t just reduced its own revenues chasing the fantasy that the B&O tax is what is holding Tacoma back there would have been money to offer on OCH. The City could try to find a willing buyer and bring the owner, the banker and a buyer together. But even that will probably result in the City being asked to pay for parking or something else as part of a deal.
T Tacomamama December 2, 2010
The city’s got no problem coming in to turn off utilities, pretty much guaranteeing that buildings will end up vacant. You can turn off the utilities but you can’t do any immediate (which is much cheaper than after a week or two of damage) clean up and bill for it later? Particularly since at the time of the initial call you have a valid justification for being on the premises.
Even if you never succeed in recovering payment, at least we wouldn’t end up with a vacant, rotting historic building in our downtown core. I’m going to ask again because apparently nobody is hearing me but WHAT IS A BUILDING OWNER’S REMEDY FOR FIXING A PROBLEM IN HIS BUILDING? Other than not paying the bill. Let’s pretend this is the bar exam, and you have to actually spell out all of the possible scenarios. Explain to me how it would be worse than this situation that we have now?
When a pipe burst at Mt Tahoma last winter, fire fighters were on the scene immediately, sweeping out the water. Granted this is a more complicated building with a private owner, but if the newspaper reports are accurate there was a tenant in the building at the time who reported the leak.
Now that the tenants have moved out, it is a bit more complicated. But I don’t see a good reason why we had to get to this point.
T Tacomamama December 2, 2010
…and another thing: why do we still not know the insurance status of the building? If the building is insured why has no one tipped off the insurance company, which will surely be in a worse position than they would be had the situation been mitigated immediately?
If the building is not insured… how is that possible? You have to show proof of a one million dollar policy in order to march in the Junior Daffodil Parade but you can own a multistory historic property in the middle of downtown without one? Is nobody talking to the insurance company? Is nobody doing anything but explaining why we can’t do anything?
T Tacomamama December 2, 2010
2 snaps up and a high five, Erik.
R RR Anderson December 2, 2010
If wikileaks proves anything it is that ‘rule of law’ is for suckers and the only thing that matters is might makes right. That is why I propose a solution of CIVIL INSURRECTION as old as the hills…
FIRSTLY I propose a group of free-thinking Tacomans descend upon Old City Hall, enough people to form a human linked chain around the entire structure.
NEXT all people in the human chain will be asked to focus their mental energies upon the building… enough focused thought should levitate the structure off the ground.
NEXT if we all are focused enough (maybe 3-4 fourlokos) we can send the Old City Hall off these corrupt shores to the UNDYING LANDS where it cannot be harmed by any craft known to man.
R RR Anderson December 2, 2010
Does holding hands/chanting levitate buildings? Maybe I’m thinking of drum circles.
at any rate my method will be about as effective in saving OCH as the Eric Anderson+35K/Liz Pauli power combo
D Daniel December 2, 2010
here’s a funny joke:
Maybe the City should consider this water situation as an unauthorized remodelling project out of character with the heritage of the building. That would justify stepping in and busting some noggins. If Webb intends to create a waterpark in OCH, surely that doesn’t fit with even the current preservation guidelines.
For God’s sake. I’m tired of reserving judgment on this situation.
R RR Anderson December 2, 2010
I like your fighting spirit Mr. Rahe
R RR Anderson December 2, 2010
FROM MY FRIEND KEVIN F.
Eric Anderson updated me via email:
“The owners are doing the infrared inspection to assess the damage, and should complete their assessment and repair plan by early next week. Then they get the repair permits and get going. They don’t want to put heat into the building to dry it out because that can cause mold growth.”N NSHDscott December 2, 2010
Maybe it would be a good thing if all the drywall in OCH got ruined. Then it would all have to be torn out, which is a great opportunity to inspect the wiring and plumbing behind the walls, and make fixes or updates as necessary. Then the walls could be reconfigured to create a better floorplan for its future use.
The biggest problem, as I see it, is that we don’t have a clue what its future use could be. OCH needs a plan desperately! In a perfect world, I think making it the hotel for the McMenamin’s Elks project would be the best use. It’s definitely a more interesting site than above a new parking garage structure next door. Who knows if that’s feasible, although it has been reported that OCH was the first target of McM’s and the Elks was their fallback plan.
I’d love to see a separate thread here on Exit133 just for throwing out ideas.
J j feste December 2, 2010
Thirty years ago, Tacoma business leaders, frustrated by the empty shell of the former Sears store at S. 13th and Broadway, asked Weyerhaeuser Company executive George Weyerhaeuser, Sr. whether his firm might have any ideas for how to reutilize the structure. Weyerhaeuser Company had at that time a Seattle-based subsidiary, Cornerstone Development Company. When Cornerstone’s head man, Paul Schell came to Tacoma and saw behind the cheap facade on the old Sears the beautiful hidden architectural details, he ramped up plans for the larger Tacoma Center project, which included the restoration of the Cornerstone Building. Restoration of Old City Hall will take similar vision, with perhaps additional investors coming from Seattle, as is the case with the Elks Temple renovation of them coming from Portland. Old City Hall is a rare icon of design in the West, on par with Union Station in uniqueness and quality of materials. It’s preservation will require civic commitment by Tacoma boosters to accept nothing less than success-to find all business-oriented solutions to prevent its further decay. Mr. Schell saw value in Tacoma—surely that same quality from the old Sears store is still evident in the classic architecture of Old City Hall. Hold off on the wrecking balls.
D dolly varden December 2, 2010
Great ideas @5 and @13.
T tom waits December 2, 2010
@14. Funny you should mention Cornerstone and Paul Schell…
D David Boe December 2, 2010
@ 16 Tom Waits – thought the same thing exactly…
R RR Anderson December 2, 2010
What! is something good happening!?
O offbroadway December 2, 2010
@14, 16, & 17
Uh-huh.
R RR Anderson December 3, 2010
Yes we can!
L low bar December 3, 2010
fuk banks. they do nothing but take from the community. put in a school you filthy cretins
R Rick Jones December 3, 2010
low bar, why didn’t you name yourself high bar?’
J j feste December 3, 2010
Maybe John Oppenheimer and Paul Schell, the backers of Seattle’s Columbia Hospitality Group, should examine hotel development opportunities at Old City Hall. Oppenheimer is a University of Puget Sound graduate who has put together a small chain of boutique hotels. As for preservation, look back to the 1930s when historic St. Luke’s Church built in 1883 at S. 7th and Broadway was slated for demolition until those sentimental for the past removed its elegant presence stone-by-stone to N. 38th and Gove. Even then, the City of Destiny’s boomtown past mattered. There have got to be solutions to the Old City Hall crisis—too much public money has been invested in downtown Tacoma to make private-sector work on Old City Hall seem like an exercise in futility. City Hall is going to have to involve the private sector in the preservation efforts and make the bureaucratic rules function to support common sense (private sector-oriented) positive business climate solutions to the preservation cause. Success in the only option.
As for Union Bank of California, it’s original root institution in Tacoma, the London and San Francisco Banking Company, opened its first Puget Sound office in Tacoma in the 1880s and, ironically for a time, operated at the late great “Make No Little Plans” Luzon Building. Bank of Calfornia bought L & SF in 1905. The firm has deep historical ties to Tacoma. It is part of the solution.
E Erik B. December 3, 2010
OCH is not going to be destroyed.
It seems unfathomable that Tacoma would lose Old City Hall.
However, the fact remains that the building continues to head toward it’s demise on it’s current trajectory. There remains a massive amount of water in the building which is destroying it and the City has so far taken no action.
R RR Anderson December 3, 2010
how much can $700K + $75K in free money get us for OLD CITY HALL ? we could blow it all and still send a bill to ol’deadbeat Webb!
L low bar December 3, 2010
@25 idk, why not change yours to rick james? ..since you are ok with a bank putting it’s boots on the OCH’s couch right now. no but you are right, tacoma’s culture could use another human centipede maker on the corner of 7th and pacific. but if getting a bank in there saves the place for now..getrdone.
A artifacts December 3, 2010
I’m thinking the PDA idea needs serious investigation. It came up during the Luzon debacle and got dropped in the chaos. If there is a project to do and you don’t have a tool to do it with you can either walk away and use the excuse that you don’t have the right tool or you can make the tool. I feel like we are being led away from the project as a community by a tool less City government.
R RR Anderson December 3, 2010
the Baarsma speaks! you see.. they just don’t want to be sued. The Lawyers don’t want the extra work. APATHY!!! CONSPIRACY!!! BUY NOW INVEST!!
R Rick Jones December 3, 2010
@29 low bar. Thanks. It’s better thsn letting OCH go down. I don’t change to Rick James because…it’s not my name.
W why me? December 3, 2010
I think I just saw some city engineers looking at the foundation.
Earlier in the week I saw code enforcement in the building. And of course utilties / fire and police swarming around the day it broke.
I want to know how many tax dollars are being spent on a privatly owned property and will we recover it?
Also does anybody know how much really leaked ( I heard an early guess and nobody has verified the number) and how much needs to be cleaned up still? I saw some pouring out of the first floor and with evaporation and other remediation there may only be a handful gallons left.
I say take a mop and bucket and a couple of hours. I’ll charge few hundred dollars and we are good. Better than paying the swarm of city inspectors or city laborers. I’m sure the city would pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to do a job a man and a bucket can do.
W why me? December 3, 2010
And can someone show me where in the state constition is says the city can’t just take it awya from an irresponsible property owner and give it some one with development expirance. I know the MLKHDA never built thier project. Although the exe director misspent thousands the development assocation still exists and still has couple of million to spend on development. Let’s have the City seize the property and give it to them because they have the money, have demonstrated vision and ability to aquire funding that may be required.
Just as long as felix is not involved.
R RR Anderson December 3, 2010
today I observed a broken window on the third floor. vandalism has begun!
P Point.Dexter December 4, 2010
Mob.Rule.in.Tacoma!
N notme December 5, 2010
To Why me? @35: Not the constitution. Try RCW 8.12 and 8.25. The city may have the authority, but as these two sections and lots of case law make demonstrate it isn’t easy and it isn’t free.
And to j feste @14: Cornerstone lost its shirt on the Sears/Court C/Financial Center project. It was an altruistic undertaking for George’s hometown. Any business leaders like him still around?
P Point.Dexter December 5, 2010
Photo@39:Tacoma.Private.Property.Owners.Reconcilation.Park.
F Franklin Stove December 5, 2010
I believe anyone can nominate a building to be historically registered… even if they’re not the owner. Someone should apply for historic status for OCH and, if accepted, then the owners might have to comply with historic standards. Landmark Preservation (city funded department) should be all over this.
P Point.Dexter December 5, 2010
Comrades!
Life,Liberty,and.the.Pursuit.of.Happiness.is.an.unproved.theory!
Personal.design,Will,and.Intent.is.a.myth!
R Rick Jones December 5, 2010
low bar @ 34 – have we met before? On a recent weekend?
S Sweet Jean December 5, 2010
@ 42
That should be done for the houses MultiCare is hoping will rot away in the Wedge District, then, too…
P Point.Dexter December 5, 2010
…and.Old.City.Hall.as.an.historic.preservation.swimming.hole.
L low bar December 6, 2010
throw.some.trout.fry.in.that.bitch
T Tim Smith December 11, 2010
We need to add an Embeded Energy Credit for preserving historic building to the current Property Tax off-set in the Historic Preservation plan. This will allow non-taxable entities (non-profits, churches) to receive and incentive for preservation.
S Sharon Winters December 14, 2010
OCH is already on the Register, but we haven’t been able to find a city in the state that takes a proactive approach when Register-listed properties fall into substandard condition. Tacoma may be the first to do so later this winter. The key is in being proactive, rather than reactive which is what we’re all doing right now.
Preservationists are often chasing ambulances… Albers Mill, Murray Morgan Bridge, the Luzon and now OCH.
I believe that the best longterm solution is establishing a PDA, similar to Historic Seattle’s. They’ve been in existence for 30 years, were given the Good Shepherd Center and some cash by the City of Seattle and, with good management, have been self-funding since