Seattle: Urban Renewal and Suburbanization

Seattle

Departing from previous snapshots, the Seattle snapshot will focus on its competitive rivalry with Portland. Seattle and Portland, founded at approximately the same time (1851, 1849), initially developed in the more or less traditional pattern of establishing economic dominance over their respective hinterlands—becoming regional centers in the process. But even early on Seattle was able to carve out a larger hinterland, Alaska, than Portland was able to forge. “Boosterism, luck and previous trading connections made Seattle the entrepot of the Far North … publicist Erastus Brainerd and the Seattle Chamber of Commerce identified Seattle with Alaska in the public mind”.[1] Seattle garnered the benefits from the 1897 Klondike Gold Rush. To this day, Alaska Airlines is headquartered in Seattle.

 

Each city, through their port authorities competed for success in shipbuilding and Pacific trade. In this competition, Portland, thanks to its homebred Henry Kaiser established its dominance over shipbuilding, but not Pacific trade. In 1940 Seattle’s population of close to 350,000 compared to Portland’s 305,000; the 1940’s, however, saw Seattle open up its lead over Portland: 467,000 to Portland’s 373,000. The principal reason for this stepped up growth was Boeing. In 1970, the end of the period covered by this section, Seattle (despite a nearly 5% decline) had 531,000 residents, Portland 383,000—these were Seattle’s best years—because for the most part, Boeing was doing quite well.

 

The breakaway competitive dynamic rested on whether one or both cities could become a gateway (external trade) economy rather than rely principally on its regional hinterland. Boeing (founded as a lumber company in 1910 by Bill Boeing) added an export “gazelle” dimension to Seattle—a gazelle that, however mature, remains important in 2015. During the war and Cold War Boeing produced B-47’s and B-52’s; during the fifties, Boeing produced Boeing launched its crushingly successful 707 (1958), followed in succeeding years by the 727, 737, and 747. By 1957 about 50% of King County’s manufacturing workers labored for Boeing. There were booms and busts in the decades to follow (1969-1971 Boeing’s Seattle-resident employment fell from 105,000 to 38,000), but Boeing established Seattle as a world-wide export gateway—making it an attractive location for other firms in finance, logistics, and foreign trade. This advantage was cemented by a then-risky massive investment made during the 1960’s by the Port of Seattle. Over that decade over a hundred million dollars, two-thirds of the total investment made in the port since 1911 up to that time, modernized the port to accommodate containers[2]. Japanese shipping firms in 1970 made Seattle the chief port of entry to the USA as a result. Portland’s containerization occurred principally over the following decade with a more muted investment commitment.

 

In 1958 under new leadership, the University of Washington began its metamorphosis from a regional institution into a major research university. Enrollment doubled in the sixties, and in 1965 Battelle opened its Pacific Northwest Research Laboratory (Department of Energy). “By 1977 Seattle stood eighth among all metropolitan areas in federal research and development dollars to universities and sixth in total federal research and development funds.[3] To balance out the picture, Seattle even developed a “positive” reputation for its counterculture in the generation following World War II. Despite a boom or bust economy (which between 1960 and 1980 witnessed a loss of 65,000 residents due largely to Boeing), Seattle just kept on moving early into sectors and economic development strategies that characterized the rise of the Sunbelt. Microsoft, founded in Albuquerque in 1975, did not move to Bellevue Washington, Seattle’s largest suburb, until January 1979. Microsoft’s rise as an employment generator did not commence until it developed MS-Dos almost two years (November, 1980) later. Yet, when it was said and done, Seattle did not leave Portland in the dust. Seattle until 1970 kept the upper hand, but after that Portland closed the gap.

 

Seattle Urban Renewal

Seattle’s debut onto the world stage required an introduction, an image, a celebration and that was its 1962 World’s Fair with “Century 21” as its theme. The policy entrepreneur for Seattle’s second world’s fair (first being in 1911) was Al Robinson, a Seattle councilman. In 1955 Robinson, the Chamber, and the editor of the Seattle Times jump-started the initiative by forming the World’s Fair Commission. In 1956 a $5 million bond was approved in a referendum supported 3-1 by voters. That initiative was linked to a $7.5 million bond to upgrade the Seattle Civic Center and preparations began. In that same year Russia launched Sputnik and World’s Fair planners leaped on the theme of science, the future—the new age. That was hoped to be the image Seattle carried across the globe. The monorail and the Space Needle provided the experience and image. Over the six months of the Fair, an estimated ten million visitors dropped in—cementing tourism as a prominent element in the city’s economy. Swirling alongside the World’s Fair rather impressive infrastructure and commercial redevelopment was Seattle’s urban renewal program.

 

Seattle had established its Housing Authority in 1939. The Housing Authority quickly started its first slum clearance initiative, with 700 units of public housing in the Profanity Hill neighborhood.[4] The state of Washington authorized urban renewal in 1957. Seattle responded in the next year by adopting an ordinance declaring that “blighted areas existed in Seattle as defined by state law” and the Mayor appointed an Urban Renewal Coordinator (Talbot Wegg). Seattle, unlike virtually every major city in America, did not set up a municipal-level “urban renewal authority”. In its place, the City initially employed its Housing Authority for its initial housing/neighborhood urban renewal program[5]. Cherry Hill, “Conservation Project No. 1” was Seattle’s first urban renewal project; a series of projects commenced in 1959 and continued through 1976. SURE was active in these predominately housing-neighborhood redevelopment projects.[6]

 

In its attempt to venture into commercial/CBD renewal projects, the City dealt with a very polarized business and professional community. The bottom line was Seattle never seemed to have anything close to a private or public sector consensus on what a commercial urban renewal project looked like. From the private side, a group of approximately 400 businessmen formed the Central Association of Seattle, “dedicated to the development and maintenance of a strong, vigorous central Seattle”. In particular, they pressed for urban renewal redevelopment for “blighted downtown areas” such as the Market, central waterfront, and Pioneer Square. “The promised a revitalized city—a modern blend of new office buildings, restored historic structures, pedestrian plazas, parking garages, and colorful restaurants—that would appeal to free-spending tourists and suburbanites”.[7] The residents of the affected areas were chiefly African-Americans, and a variety of lower income ethnics.

 

The City (the Mayor) was onboard with Central Association-like CBD urban renewal, initial proposals and the Downtown Plan called for the demolition of both the Market and Pioneer Square. Both immediately ran afoul of professional, historic preservation-minded businesspeople. Working with the major property owners, those in opposition founded a group, “the Friends of the Market” which successfully stalled the project and contested the City’s Downtown Plan until 1969-1970 when the City Council established a forty block Pioneer Square Historic District. In 1971, a referendum, opposed by the Mayor, Central Association and the newspaper, was overwhelmingly approved to establish the seven acre Pike Place Market Historic District. In effect, urban renewal had generated a historic preservation movement in Seattle and that movement took advantage of the Great Society 1966 National Historic Preservation Act to use historic preservation to effectively counter the City’s/Central Association’s signature downtown urban renewal redevelopment.

 

A historic preservation district, however, was an inadequate vehicle with which to conduct an urban redevelopment program. So in 1973 the City introduced a fairly unique structure (the Public Development Authority), the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority to plan, design, preserve and carry forward both commercial and residential rehabilitation and redevelopment of the historic district. Lacking powers of eminent domain[8], the Pikes Place PDA did have the other powers held by conventional redevelopment agencies—but they were governed by a widely diverse set of board directors some of which were elected, others chosen by the board itself, and still others appointed by the mayor[9]. Following this creation, the area was upgraded with public improvements and infrastructure, and in 1976 the Kingdome/opened.

 

Keeping in mind this is 1973, it is evident that the traditional urban renewal redevelopment agency after twenty years in operation, was fundamentally reconfigured by the Seattle PDA which was limited in geography and powers, but entrusted with a considerably broader mission and very democratic governance. The City embraced the PDA concept and over the next twenty years eight other PDAs were created—many of which to conduct housing/neighborhood housing-dominated urban renewal style programs (for instance the Central Area Public Development Authority (1973). In 1975, to provide some coherence, the City established the Historic Seattle Preservation and Development Authority, which was city-wide (the only PDA to be so) whose mission was to restore historic structures, development of residential housing, enhancement of cultural activities, and encourage citizen involvement.

 

It may be the simultaneous redevelopment associated with the World’s Fair obviated the need for a “conventional” CBD-focused urban renewal program. But even so, the Seattle “urban renewal” program, from a structural or programmatic perspective, was from its start in the early 60’s, principally housing and neighborhood-focused, and its CBD initiatives blazed a historic preservation trail, which emphasized rehabilitation–not demolition—restoration—and private, decentralized governance under close supervision and accountability by the City government. In important ways, 1970’s Seattle-style urban renewal was 1950 Pittsburgh-style urban renewal turned upside down.

[1] Carl Abbott, the Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West (Tucson, the University of Arizona Press, 1998), p. 53; The Chamber established in 1897 a Bureau of Information in August 1897 and launched a blitz of news, public relations and god know what across the nation. Motivated by its retail community that wanted to provide clothes and equipment to prospective gold miners. The Bureau hired as its Secretary and Executive Erastus Brainerd, a Harvard educated publicist, what today we might call a free lance writer, and a former curator of the Boston Museum of Art. Brainerd imposed a tax on Seattle merchants to pay for his campaign. He purchased full page ads and copy in the major Eastern publications. Seattle, in part due to the Great Northern Railway’s direct access monopoly to Seattle, established itself as the gateway to the Yukon. In one advertisement he sent 212,000 copies to be inserted into various media—supposedly the largest printing west of Chicago. Purchasing $275 worth of gold, Brainerd constructed an exhibit which he sent across the East Coast claiming that the gold was worth $6,000. The overall campaign lasted six months and at its end, Brainerd resigned and took a job with the Chamber as lobbyist in Washington D.C. Brainerd made the campaign the success it was—a complete success commercially and image-wise. Moreover, it appears once Alaska was captured in the minds of Seattle citizens as Seattle’s hinterland, it stayed there, although the Governor and citizens of Alaska may not be of the same opinion.

[2] http://portseattle100.org/map-and-timeline/1960-1969. See also Carl Abbott, Carl Abbott, the Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West, op. cit., p. 54.

[3] Carl Abbott, the Metropolitan Frontier: Cities in the Modern American West, op. cit., pp. 55-56.

[4] John Hoole, Public Housing in Southeast Seattle (2011) www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/southeastseattle/pdf/SE%20Essay%20-20Public%20Housing.pdf

[5]Also in 1958, the first Citizens Advisory Committee was created and began its deliberations. By August the Citizens Advisory Committee was organized and incorporated as Seattle Urban Renewal Enterprise (SURE) whose goal in 1958 was to raise funds and increase awareness of housing deterioration, rehabilitation, and conservation. SURE was a private EDO. It hired its first Executive Director (Ray Baker) in 1959. Because of an inability to raise sufficient revenues to cover expenses, SURE in 1962 replaced Baker with a staff member of the City Office of Urban Renewal as Executive Director. From that point on SURE relocated its offices and co-located in the City’s Office of Urban Renewal. SURE became a contractor for the City. Needless, to say, the two EDOs worked closely together. SURE coordinated between the City and residents, and promoted the use of urban renewal funds[5].

[6] https://www.mrsc.org/artdocmisc/leaguepda.pdf

[7] http://seattletimes.com/special/centennial/october/saving.html

[8] In Washington state eminent domain powers are retained by the general purpose units of government and cannot be delegated to other entities than the Housing Authority and its own powers. A PDA is unique; it has the power to issue bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the City—but legally a PDA is considered legally separate from the City—and so that the City is not perceived as violating the “corporate veil” of the PDA, the City is wary of intruding into the operation and governance of the PDA. The Mayor is the supervising authority, the City can create and dissolve the PDA, financially a PDA reports to the City Comptroller, and the City Council must approve mayoral appointees and authorize PDA bond issuance.

[9] Public Development Authorities in Seattle, published by the League of Women Voters of Seattle, May, 1989.

Click to access leaguepda.pdf