How much of Seattle do you want to save for historic purposes?

With the proverbial, and literal, cranes continually hanging over of the city of Seattle, Tom Tangney has a question: How much of your town do you want to save for historic purposes?

The question comes in the face of Belltown’s seemingly last undeveloped street (2nd Avenue) potentially being bulldozed for a large new construction complex. King 5 reports that opponents of the construction asked the city to give one of the buildings, the more than a century-old Wayne Apartments, landmark status. The Landmark Preservation Board ultimately approved the single building as a landmark, but that doesn’t ensure the safety of the rest of the block.

Curley, an outspoken proponent of progress and building, said this is all a necessary part of being a popular, growing city – people need apartments and condos, but there’s no room for them. Thus, new construction happens.

“If you want to have a tax base, you’ve got to have people living here,” he said. “Where are they gonna sleep, eat? So, that’s what happens. You put them somewhere and you build buildings and you let them sleep. That’s the deal.”

Tom countered that progress doesn’t need to be blind. For example, Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market were supposed to be redeveloped until Victor Steinbrueck led a charge to save the area in the 1960s. They were strategically saved.

“Seattle, in retrospect, is really glad,” Tom said. “That’s an economic boom having the Pioneer Square area and having saved Pikes Place Market. It’s great for the tourist interest. So what we have to do in every society, in every town, (is decide) what do we want to save from the past as a historic marker, and see if we cash in on that, and how much do we want to plow under and redevelop? And it’s a balance.”

A New York Times story titled, “Seattle, in Midst of Tech Boom, Tries to Keep Its Soul” dissects how city officials are balancing the need to expand through tech growth, while not transforming into San Francisco 2.0.

The Times story mentions how the hordes of wealthy 20-somethings have helped build an enviable economy, but, as people in the Northwest know, inflated the rent to worrisome proportions. It also looks at how the changes have prompted city officials in Seattle and San Francisco to address ways to maintain economic diversity and the “souls of their cities as their tech economies reshape them.” Seattle leaders now view the Bay Area’s model as a “cautionary tale.” The Times quotes Knute Berger, editor-at-large of Seattle Magazine Seattle, as saying, “Seattle has wanted to be San Francisco for so long. Now it’s figuring out maybe that it isn’t what we want to be.”

Tom said it’s time that the public decides what should stay and what should go.

“It’s not like there’s a dearth of redevelopment going on, there are construction sites every other block,” he said. “The question is, do we want to save any of Old Seattle and if we do, what part of Old Seattle do we want to save? And a lot of people can relate to that.”