A Sense of Time and Place: The Past, Present, and Future of the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Ordinance
By Julie L. Wilchins
INTRODUCTION
State and municipal historic preservation ordinances vary greatly in the tactics they employ, the properties they cover, and the protection they afford historic buildings. Nevertheless, these ordinances form the bulwark protecting American architectural history. Courts have traditionally recognized states as having the authority to regulate land use as part of their police power to protect public health and safety. Consequently local governments, unsure of whether historic preservation purposes fell within their police power, carefully crafted early ordinances to underscore their bases in the protection of public health and safety. Over the last forty years, however, numerous state and federal court decisions have legitimized land-use regulation for reasons of aesthetics and historic preservation alone.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (“NHPA”) signified a continuing recognition of state and local governments' traditional domination of historic preservation. NHPA establishes a framework for preservation of buildings and areas under federal control. It also delegates a great deal of power to the states, giving them authority to establish their own historic preservation programs to be administered by each state's State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”). The SHPOs are responsible for preparing and implementing statewide historic preservation plans, and advising local governments on the development of local historic preservation programs.
The structure established under NHPA envisions state and local governments maintaining control over the extent and means of historic preservation. Thus, local historic preservation statutes and ordinances, rather than federal statutes, continue to have the greatest impact on private property owners. This division of authority permits local governments to rely on their familiarity with a region and respond to the preferences of their voters in crafting a plan best suited to local needs. This tremendous local authority also affords states and cities opportunities for engaging in the creative decisionmaking Justice Brandeis described as one of the benefits of the federal system: the possibility of “a single courageous State . . . [serving] as a laboratory . . . [in which to] try novel social and economic experiments.” The localization of preservation appears to offer the most hope for serious, intelligently planned preservation of our historic and aesthetic heritage; alternatively, the failure of local ordinances threatens to decimate this heritage.
The Northwest's willingness to innovate in land use and urban conservation makes an examination of its local historic preservation solutions worthwhile. Examples of the Northwest states' innovation in these realms include Oregon's rigorous land-use planning act, passed in 1973 in response to the sprawl overtaking California and Oregon. Oregon's land-use program established nineteen goals, backed with the force of law, which sought to concentrate development in urban centers and to preserve diminishing wilderness and farms. Local governments must work toward these state goals when implementing their own comprehensive plans and zoning laws.
Likewise, impending sprawl and traffic spurred Washington to enact its own Growth Management Act in 1990. When passed, the Act required the state's twenty-nine fastest-growing counties to draw lines of containment around areas available for urban development, so-called “Urban Growth Areas.” City and county governments are granted the autonomy to delineate the borders of their development, and to design plans regarding the auxiliary concerns of development, such as transportation. While historic preservation is one of the Act's goals, municipalities may choose whether to address historic preservation in their comprehensive plans.
Another salient example of Northwestern innovation in historic preservation is Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (“Ordinance”). Seattle's great concern for historic preservation issues was engendered by strong citizen interest, as well as by the destruction of various historic properties. This Note will focus on Seattle's Ordinance. Part II examines the history of historic preservation in Seattle, and the popular movements which culminated in the enactment of the Ordinance in 1973. Part III discusses the numerous disputes that have arisen in both the political and judicial arenas regarding the Ordinance's purposes and implementation. Part IV reflects on the future of Seattle's Ordinance in light of past challenges and potential future legal and political outcomes. It concludes that the Ordinance's safeguards and flexible solutions continue to offer considerable protection to Seattle's architectural and cultural heritage. Moreover, the history of judicial and civic support appears to assure further the preservation of Seattle's eclectic cityscape.
State and municipal historic preservation ordinances vary greatly in the tactics they employ, the properties they cover, and the protection they afford historic buildings. Nevertheless, these ordinances form the bulwark protecting American architectural history. Courts have traditionally recognized states as having the authority to regulate land use as part of their police power to protect public health and safety. Consequently local governments, unsure of whether historic preservation purposes fell within their police power, carefully crafted early ordinances to underscore their bases in the protection of public health and safety. Over the last forty years, however, numerous state and federal court decisions have legitimized land-use regulation for reasons of aesthetics and historic preservation alone.
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (“NHPA”) signified a continuing recognition of state and local governments' traditional domination of historic preservation. NHPA establishes a framework for preservation of buildings and areas under federal control. It also delegates a great deal of power to the states, giving them authority to establish their own historic preservation programs to be administered by each state's State Historic Preservation Officer (“SHPO”). The SHPOs are responsible for preparing and implementing statewide historic preservation plans, and advising local governments on the development of local historic preservation programs.
The structure established under NHPA envisions state and local governments maintaining control over the extent and means of historic preservation. Thus, local historic preservation statutes and ordinances, rather than federal statutes, continue to have the greatest impact on private property owners. This division of authority permits local governments to rely on their familiarity with a region and respond to the preferences of their voters in crafting a plan best suited to local needs. This tremendous local authority also affords states and cities opportunities for engaging in the creative decisionmaking Justice Brandeis described as one of the benefits of the federal system: the possibility of “a single courageous State . . . [serving] as a laboratory . . . [in which to] try novel social and economic experiments.” The localization of preservation appears to offer the most hope for serious, intelligently planned preservation of our historic and aesthetic heritage; alternatively, the failure of local ordinances threatens to decimate this heritage.
The Northwest's willingness to innovate in land use and urban conservation makes an examination of its local historic preservation solutions worthwhile. Examples of the Northwest states' innovation in these realms include Oregon's rigorous land-use planning act, passed in 1973 in response to the sprawl overtaking California and Oregon. Oregon's land-use program established nineteen goals, backed with the force of law, which sought to concentrate development in urban centers and to preserve diminishing wilderness and farms. Local governments must work toward these state goals when implementing their own comprehensive plans and zoning laws.
Likewise, impending sprawl and traffic spurred Washington to enact its own Growth Management Act in 1990. When passed, the Act required the state's twenty-nine fastest-growing counties to draw lines of containment around areas available for urban development, so-called “Urban Growth Areas.” City and county governments are granted the autonomy to delineate the borders of their development, and to design plans regarding the auxiliary concerns of development, such as transportation. While historic preservation is one of the Act's goals, municipalities may choose whether to address historic preservation in their comprehensive plans.
Another salient example of Northwestern innovation in historic preservation is Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Ordinance (“Ordinance”). Seattle's great concern for historic preservation issues was engendered by strong citizen interest, as well as by the destruction of various historic properties. This Note will focus on Seattle's Ordinance. Part II examines the history of historic preservation in Seattle, and the popular movements which culminated in the enactment of the Ordinance in 1973. Part III discusses the numerous disputes that have arisen in both the political and judicial arenas regarding the Ordinance's purposes and implementation. Part IV reflects on the future of Seattle's Ordinance in light of past challenges and potential future legal and political outcomes. It concludes that the Ordinance's safeguards and flexible solutions continue to offer considerable protection to Seattle's architectural and cultural heritage. Moreover, the history of judicial and civic support appears to assure further the preservation of Seattle's eclectic cityscape.
