Boeing Bust to the End of Grunge
Social and environmental concerns redefined Seattle in the 1970s. Through community activism, legislative changes took place and Seattle took on a stewardship approach to planning. The 1980s brought back economic stability, but at a price. Poor planning led to poor urban design and sprawl. The 1990s would find a balance between economic creation and environmental sustainability. Moving into the new millennium, Seattle would become a model city for environmental ingenuity.
Land Use
Two pieces of legislation changed planning in Seattle: 1971’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and 1972’s Shoreline management act. SEPA
was conceived after the1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which came into legislation due to nationwide concerns over ecological and environmental damage due to pollution and misuse of land. SEPA became the focus of all future planning[i].
The Shoreline Management Act brought stronger, uniform land use policies to the shorelines. Washington State wanted to get away from industrial
infrastructures built along the shoreline, polluting the waterways, and move towards infrastructures that were environmental sustainable and to create
recreational spaces for people.
The redevelopment of Seattle’s central waterfront showcases the Shoreline Management Act’s intentions. The central waterfront was once main the shipping and fishing port. A larger port down the shore was transformed into the shipping hub of the region in the late 1960s. To utilize the abandoned piers and fishing sheds, the waterfront was transformed into a place filled with shops and restaurants, to attract locals and tourists[ii]. To increase mobility for locals and tourists, in 1982 street car rails were installed, linking the waterfront to downtown neighborhoods.
In 1977 Seattle created policies to accommodate future growth of the city. Individual neighborhood Comprehensive Plans were created to propose
plans on land use, housing, urban design and transportation. The land use policies of the late 1970s primarily focused on single family housing. In 1978
the City Council agreed to replace the Comprehensive plan with a policy catalogue to help guide zoning and land use policies[iii]. The catalogues set policies for each planning category, such as single family, multifamily, commercial, industrial, downtown and transportation[iv]. These Plans would lay the foundation for new land use and zoning policies.[iii]
Land Use
Two pieces of legislation changed planning in Seattle: 1971’s State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and 1972’s Shoreline management act. SEPA
was conceived after the1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which came into legislation due to nationwide concerns over ecological and environmental damage due to pollution and misuse of land. SEPA became the focus of all future planning[i].
The Shoreline Management Act brought stronger, uniform land use policies to the shorelines. Washington State wanted to get away from industrial
infrastructures built along the shoreline, polluting the waterways, and move towards infrastructures that were environmental sustainable and to create
recreational spaces for people.
The redevelopment of Seattle’s central waterfront showcases the Shoreline Management Act’s intentions. The central waterfront was once main the shipping and fishing port. A larger port down the shore was transformed into the shipping hub of the region in the late 1960s. To utilize the abandoned piers and fishing sheds, the waterfront was transformed into a place filled with shops and restaurants, to attract locals and tourists[ii]. To increase mobility for locals and tourists, in 1982 street car rails were installed, linking the waterfront to downtown neighborhoods.
In 1977 Seattle created policies to accommodate future growth of the city. Individual neighborhood Comprehensive Plans were created to propose
plans on land use, housing, urban design and transportation. The land use policies of the late 1970s primarily focused on single family housing. In 1978
the City Council agreed to replace the Comprehensive plan with a policy catalogue to help guide zoning and land use policies[iii]. The catalogues set policies for each planning category, such as single family, multifamily, commercial, industrial, downtown and transportation[iv]. These Plans would lay the foundation for new land use and zoning policies.[iii]
The 1980s were characterized by new zoning ordinances to encourage economical productivity. Downtown began to look off scale with high-rises and commercial buildings popping up. Current zoning ordinances, at the time, did not allow for creativity in design. This caused an outcry from the public, planners and architects, who wanted to reduce density and height of downtown buildings[iii]. In 1982 Seattle City Council approved Land Use Codes Title 23. Title 23 created stronger zoning ordinances, promoted open space, preserved historical buildings and districts, and minimized congestion by creating a pedestrian scale downtown. Title 23 zoned 60% of Land Use for single family homes. It also encouraged mixed use buildings and multifamily homes. High density was preferred, but at a residential, low impact form[iii].
Seattle started to get serious about growth management in 1985. Planners acknowledged the need to meet the economic needs of the city, while promoting affordable housing. The Growth Management Plan allowed for the majority of new growth to occur in urban areas and a small portion of low density housing in rural areas. The main focus of the Growth Management Plan was to conserve land use for single family homes and attempted limit development in agricultural and rural areas[vi].
Washington state residents were becoming frustrated over accelerated development happening in urban and nonurban areas. Legislators felt
the pressure and passed the Growth Management Act in 1990. The Act was to defend against unplanned growth, reserve resources and protect open space by directing growth to urban areas. The Growth Management Act led to Seattle’s 1994 Comprehensive Plan. The 1994 Plan is considered the city’s first Plan that affectively dealt with future growth and guided land use planning.
The 1994 Comprehensive Plan shows the difference in planning concerns in comparison to the 1956 Comprehensive Plan. The 1956 Plan showcases
the trends of midcentury planning. The expansion of highway infrastructure and the creation of artery roads to connect multifamily housing that was pushed to the peripheral were the transportation plans for the era. The focus was on development of single family housing because mixed use developments were looked down upon. The 1956 Plan thought to improve the central business district by the removal of historical buildings and districts and replaced with parking garages and new buildings. No thoughts were given to implementation of growth management or regulation to land use.
The Comprehensive Plan of 1994 went away from the automobile focused city and wanted to create alternative transportation options. A focus
was still placed on preserving single family neighborhoods, but mixed use and multifamily developments were encouraged. The reuse of old infrastructure
is preferred over new developments, to help reduce the impact on natural resources. The 1994 Plan called for the continuance of historical and cultural preservation to keep Seattle a city with many unique neighborhoods[vii].
Seattle started to get serious about growth management in 1985. Planners acknowledged the need to meet the economic needs of the city, while promoting affordable housing. The Growth Management Plan allowed for the majority of new growth to occur in urban areas and a small portion of low density housing in rural areas. The main focus of the Growth Management Plan was to conserve land use for single family homes and attempted limit development in agricultural and rural areas[vi].
Washington state residents were becoming frustrated over accelerated development happening in urban and nonurban areas. Legislators felt
the pressure and passed the Growth Management Act in 1990. The Act was to defend against unplanned growth, reserve resources and protect open space by directing growth to urban areas. The Growth Management Act led to Seattle’s 1994 Comprehensive Plan. The 1994 Plan is considered the city’s first Plan that affectively dealt with future growth and guided land use planning.
The 1994 Comprehensive Plan shows the difference in planning concerns in comparison to the 1956 Comprehensive Plan. The 1956 Plan showcases
the trends of midcentury planning. The expansion of highway infrastructure and the creation of artery roads to connect multifamily housing that was pushed to the peripheral were the transportation plans for the era. The focus was on development of single family housing because mixed use developments were looked down upon. The 1956 Plan thought to improve the central business district by the removal of historical buildings and districts and replaced with parking garages and new buildings. No thoughts were given to implementation of growth management or regulation to land use.
The Comprehensive Plan of 1994 went away from the automobile focused city and wanted to create alternative transportation options. A focus
was still placed on preserving single family neighborhoods, but mixed use and multifamily developments were encouraged. The reuse of old infrastructure
is preferred over new developments, to help reduce the impact on natural resources. The 1994 Plan called for the continuance of historical and cultural preservation to keep Seattle a city with many unique neighborhoods[vii].
Urban Design and Sustainability
Urban renewal projects of the 1960s destroyed many of downtown Seattle’s historical landmarks. Due to community organization, in 1973 the City Council established the Landmark Preservation Ordinance. This ordinance gave the local government the power to protect and preserve historical infrastructure and spaces. Since the 1973s Seattle has designated 7 districts and 450 land mark sites as historical.
Pioneer Square became the first historical district in Seattle. Pioneer Square was once a premier place for housing and entertainment was threatened for redevelopment for the unmaintained conditions of the district.
Developers wanted to replace the aging buildings with commercial buildings and parking structures. Architects Ralph Anderson and Victor Steinbueck (pictured on the left) took notice of the Richardsonian Romanesque design of many of the district’s buildings. With help from community organizations, Anderson and Steinbueck preserved one of Seattle’s unique, historic district [VII].
In the late 1980s it was apparent that the congestion of Seattle’s downtown was affecting pedestrian mobility. Most of the spaces created were for private use and lacked open space. In 1985 the City Of Seattle started the Green Street program to create pedestrian friendly spaces in downtown neighborhoods. Some of the projects Green Street encouraged were expansion of open spaces, landscaping, and widening of sidewalk and other pedestrian pathways[vIIi].
Urban renewal projects of the 1960s destroyed many of downtown Seattle’s historical landmarks. Due to community organization, in 1973 the City Council established the Landmark Preservation Ordinance. This ordinance gave the local government the power to protect and preserve historical infrastructure and spaces. Since the 1973s Seattle has designated 7 districts and 450 land mark sites as historical.
Pioneer Square became the first historical district in Seattle. Pioneer Square was once a premier place for housing and entertainment was threatened for redevelopment for the unmaintained conditions of the district.
Developers wanted to replace the aging buildings with commercial buildings and parking structures. Architects Ralph Anderson and Victor Steinbueck (pictured on the left) took notice of the Richardsonian Romanesque design of many of the district’s buildings. With help from community organizations, Anderson and Steinbueck preserved one of Seattle’s unique, historic district [VII].
In the late 1980s it was apparent that the congestion of Seattle’s downtown was affecting pedestrian mobility. Most of the spaces created were for private use and lacked open space. In 1985 the City Of Seattle started the Green Street program to create pedestrian friendly spaces in downtown neighborhoods. Some of the projects Green Street encouraged were expansion of open spaces, landscaping, and widening of sidewalk and other pedestrian pathways[vIIi].
By the late 1990s, planners wanted to reinvent Pioneer Square and the International Districts by bring in more residents and employment options into these downtown areas. Due to community interest in future development, in 2005 the Livable South Downtown Project was developed. Through land use and economic development the Project aims at enticing more residents and businesses into the downtown area. The goals of The Livable South Downtown Project include an emphasis on mixed use buildings, neighborhood interaction and to create balanced neighborhoods through housing and employment options[ix].
By the early 1990s citizens, architects and planners were concerned with the out of scale infrastructure that was built downtown during the 1980s. In 1994 Seattle’s City Council created the Design Review Board. The Board is made up of 5 members for each of the city’s 7 districts. The Design Review Board ensures that designs and plans would aide to the individual character of each of the City’s neighborhoods and keep open communication between developers and the community. To further communication between designers and planners, City Design was created in 1999. City Design works closely with the Planning Commission to provide the city with best urban design. Together they hope to make Seattle pedestrian friendly. The mass of parking structures and commercial buildings that were erected in the 1980s were now being rethought. Through landscape and other innovative ideas, these infrastructures are now being screened to beautify the city. In 2004 City Design was absorbed into the Planning Commission[x].
To continue the environmental stewardship that Seattle is known for, the City Council developed the Environmental Management Plan in 1997. This
plan was to ensure the continuity of conservation of natural resources and that environmental standards are weaved into the Comprehensive Plan. In 2000 the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) was created and absorbed the Environmental Management Plan in their policies. The City Council felt that by giving OSE its own department it would only further the city’s environmental standards by making it easier to work with other planning and developing departments[xi].
In 2000 Seattle became the first US city to adopt a Sustainable Building Policy. This would become the largest improvement initiative for the
city since the Great Fire of 1888. All new and redevelopment projects would need to reduce the use of natural resources used for construction. Conservation of natural resources after construction is completed would be continued through the implementation of energy, water and landfill reducing
technologies.
The Sustainable Building Policy led to creation of the Green Building program that same year. All developments will have less of a negative
impact on the community and environment. A Green Building task force was created to work alongside the community and planning departments, ensuring the highest standards for the community. All new and redevelopment projects over 5000 square feet in size must meet gold LEED
standards. By the year 2050 Seattle hopes to reduce emissions by 80%[xii].
By the early 1990s citizens, architects and planners were concerned with the out of scale infrastructure that was built downtown during the 1980s. In 1994 Seattle’s City Council created the Design Review Board. The Board is made up of 5 members for each of the city’s 7 districts. The Design Review Board ensures that designs and plans would aide to the individual character of each of the City’s neighborhoods and keep open communication between developers and the community. To further communication between designers and planners, City Design was created in 1999. City Design works closely with the Planning Commission to provide the city with best urban design. Together they hope to make Seattle pedestrian friendly. The mass of parking structures and commercial buildings that were erected in the 1980s were now being rethought. Through landscape and other innovative ideas, these infrastructures are now being screened to beautify the city. In 2004 City Design was absorbed into the Planning Commission[x].
To continue the environmental stewardship that Seattle is known for, the City Council developed the Environmental Management Plan in 1997. This
plan was to ensure the continuity of conservation of natural resources and that environmental standards are weaved into the Comprehensive Plan. In 2000 the Office of Sustainability and Environment (OSE) was created and absorbed the Environmental Management Plan in their policies. The City Council felt that by giving OSE its own department it would only further the city’s environmental standards by making it easier to work with other planning and developing departments[xi].
In 2000 Seattle became the first US city to adopt a Sustainable Building Policy. This would become the largest improvement initiative for the
city since the Great Fire of 1888. All new and redevelopment projects would need to reduce the use of natural resources used for construction. Conservation of natural resources after construction is completed would be continued through the implementation of energy, water and landfill reducing
technologies.
The Sustainable Building Policy led to creation of the Green Building program that same year. All developments will have less of a negative
impact on the community and environment. A Green Building task force was created to work alongside the community and planning departments, ensuring the highest standards for the community. All new and redevelopment projects over 5000 square feet in size must meet gold LEED
standards. By the year 2050 Seattle hopes to reduce emissions by 80%[xii].
Housing
In the 1970s Seattle was losing families to the suburbs, creating a decline of families in urban areas. The decay of public housing was caused by the economic recession and the loss of tax dollars caused by white flight into the suburbs. In 1974, through federal funding, Section 8 was created. Section 8 gave low income families monetary rental help in the private market in hopes of diversifying and creating equality in housing for income families. To continue the diversity, Scattered Sites housing was created in 1978. The program created public housing, on a small scale throughout the city, spreading equality and diversity into all neighborhoods. In 1981 voters approved a near 50 million dollar bond for affordable housing for seniors. The City of Seattle built low rise buildings throughout the city to house residents 62 and older[xiii].
By the 1990s, midcentury public housing was being rethought. The substandard construction and lack of property maintenance caused high vacancy
rates, showing that public housing was another housing policy failure. Seattle and other cities looked towards a federal grant program HOPE VI to reinvent public housing. HOPE VI took aspects of the urban design model New Urbanism to recreate the densely packed, isolated high-rises that lacked open space and economical means.
HOPE VI reinvented public housing by creating low rise, mixed use buildings in spaces that integrated low income residents in outside
communities. Dense spaces are still created, but developments are scaled to a pedestrian level with plenty of open, shared spaces. Many new developments were mixed with market priced housing to ensure equality between economic classes[xiv].
Seattle’s Holly Park is a prime example of what HOPE VI grants can do to change the community. Holly Park was built in 1941 as housing for
defense workers during WWII. The homes were one to two storied and housed 1400 residents. The Lanham Act of the 1950s allowed the allocation of funds to develop and maintain public housing. Holly Park was transformed into low income housing in the mid-1950s. Years of miss management and neglect took its toll on Holly Park.
Through HOPE VI grants the once depressed Holly Park was transformed into NewHolly’s Neighborhood in 1995. NewHolly is a mixed market
housing community developed with parks and plenty of open space. The streets were redesigned to a pedestrian scale, keeping traffic to a minimum. Porches are included to all homes for residents to socialize and experience a deeper sense of community. Community services, such as preschools, libraries and employment programs were also added to further enrich the community.
In the 1970s Seattle was losing families to the suburbs, creating a decline of families in urban areas. The decay of public housing was caused by the economic recession and the loss of tax dollars caused by white flight into the suburbs. In 1974, through federal funding, Section 8 was created. Section 8 gave low income families monetary rental help in the private market in hopes of diversifying and creating equality in housing for income families. To continue the diversity, Scattered Sites housing was created in 1978. The program created public housing, on a small scale throughout the city, spreading equality and diversity into all neighborhoods. In 1981 voters approved a near 50 million dollar bond for affordable housing for seniors. The City of Seattle built low rise buildings throughout the city to house residents 62 and older[xiii].
By the 1990s, midcentury public housing was being rethought. The substandard construction and lack of property maintenance caused high vacancy
rates, showing that public housing was another housing policy failure. Seattle and other cities looked towards a federal grant program HOPE VI to reinvent public housing. HOPE VI took aspects of the urban design model New Urbanism to recreate the densely packed, isolated high-rises that lacked open space and economical means.
HOPE VI reinvented public housing by creating low rise, mixed use buildings in spaces that integrated low income residents in outside
communities. Dense spaces are still created, but developments are scaled to a pedestrian level with plenty of open, shared spaces. Many new developments were mixed with market priced housing to ensure equality between economic classes[xiv].
Seattle’s Holly Park is a prime example of what HOPE VI grants can do to change the community. Holly Park was built in 1941 as housing for
defense workers during WWII. The homes were one to two storied and housed 1400 residents. The Lanham Act of the 1950s allowed the allocation of funds to develop and maintain public housing. Holly Park was transformed into low income housing in the mid-1950s. Years of miss management and neglect took its toll on Holly Park.
Through HOPE VI grants the once depressed Holly Park was transformed into NewHolly’s Neighborhood in 1995. NewHolly is a mixed market
housing community developed with parks and plenty of open space. The streets were redesigned to a pedestrian scale, keeping traffic to a minimum. Porches are included to all homes for residents to socialize and experience a deeper sense of community. Community services, such as preschools, libraries and employment programs were also added to further enrich the community.
Seattle started homeWorks in 2005 to continue renovations on low income public housing. The five year program set out to renovate 22 of the city’s neglected, low income high-rises. The program worked alongside residents to ensure the needs of the community were being met. Completed in 2009, the
homeWorks repairs included new roofing and waterlines, improved ventilation fans and elevator maintenance. Beautification inside the housing units, like painting and updating appliances was also included[xiii].
Another creative way Seattle tackled housing and social problems was through the Eastlake Homeless Housing program. Created in 2005, Eastlake
began as a 3 year study that provided housing and support for homeless addicts. The study theorized that by giving homeless addicts housing and around the clock support by councilors and nurses, tax payer money would be saved that would otherwise be spent on emergency care and policing. The objective was to reduce dependency by creating stable home environments with positive reinforcement to lead addicts into entering treatment centers. Alcohol is not prohibited, but is monitored and any rule breaking will lead to eviction. In 2008 the study concluded that nearly 4 million dollars in taxes were saved through the program[xv].
homeWorks repairs included new roofing and waterlines, improved ventilation fans and elevator maintenance. Beautification inside the housing units, like painting and updating appliances was also included[xiii].
Another creative way Seattle tackled housing and social problems was through the Eastlake Homeless Housing program. Created in 2005, Eastlake
began as a 3 year study that provided housing and support for homeless addicts. The study theorized that by giving homeless addicts housing and around the clock support by councilors and nurses, tax payer money would be saved that would otherwise be spent on emergency care and policing. The objective was to reduce dependency by creating stable home environments with positive reinforcement to lead addicts into entering treatment centers. Alcohol is not prohibited, but is monitored and any rule breaking will lead to eviction. In 2008 the study concluded that nearly 4 million dollars in taxes were saved through the program[xv].
Transportation
Most of Seattle’s transportation funding and planning was done by the community. In 1970 voters approved for Seattle Transit System to become a city department. In 1972 voters approved a sales tax increase to fund the expansion of city bus lines[xvi]. Through community activism, in 1972 voters approved a referendum that scrapped plans for the R.H. Thomson Expressway and Bay Freeway connector. The plans for linking these freeways were first approved by voters in the early 1960s. As the community experienced destruction of homes and businesses for roadway construction, activism to halt the freeway expansion grew in the late 1960s[xvii]. In 1973 Seattle Transit System would be renamed Seattle Metro. The public support for financing transit projects was not there in the 1980s. In 1981 voters rejected a sales tax increase that fund expansion of transit routes. In 1982 a second and scaled back bond request from Metro was barely approved from voters[xvi].
Most of Seattle’s transportation funding and planning was done by the community. In 1970 voters approved for Seattle Transit System to become a city department. In 1972 voters approved a sales tax increase to fund the expansion of city bus lines[xvi]. Through community activism, in 1972 voters approved a referendum that scrapped plans for the R.H. Thomson Expressway and Bay Freeway connector. The plans for linking these freeways were first approved by voters in the early 1960s. As the community experienced destruction of homes and businesses for roadway construction, activism to halt the freeway expansion grew in the late 1960s[xvii]. In 1973 Seattle Transit System would be renamed Seattle Metro. The public support for financing transit projects was not there in the 1980s. In 1981 voters rejected a sales tax increase that fund expansion of transit routes. In 1982 a second and scaled back bond request from Metro was barely approved from voters[xvi].
To comply with the State’s Growth Management Act of the 1990s the High Capacity Transit Act was enacted to create a single entity to plan, construct and enforce the transit system on a regional level. This was the first Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the city. In 1993 the entity became the Regional Transit Authority (RTA). The focus of RTA was to review alternative mass transit options to better meet the needs of Seattle and the outlying region. In 1996 voters approved a near 4 million dollar tax increase to increase regional bus, commuter and light rail routes. The Plan would later be known as Sound Move. In 1999 construction began on commuter rails and by 2006, 26 routes had been created throughout the region[iv].
Voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 695 in 1999. Initiative 695 set a flat vehicle registration tax of $30.00 regardless of vehicle’s make or year. Through this Initiative voters would have to approve any new vehicle tax. Imitative 695 caused cuts to transit routes, jobs and increased fares for public transportation[xviii]. After experiencing frustrations, in 2000, voters approved a 0.2 sales tax increase to reinstate Metro services that were halted due to
Imitative 695[xvi].
Social changes and environmental concerns have shaped the planning of Seattle. The bottom down, community based planning approach that
began in the 1970s continues to shape the city today. Throughout the decades Seattle has been reinvented, but has held on to its stewardship role. Without grass-root organizations Seattle would never have become a leader in environmental innovations.
Voters overwhelmingly passed Initiative 695 in 1999. Initiative 695 set a flat vehicle registration tax of $30.00 regardless of vehicle’s make or year. Through this Initiative voters would have to approve any new vehicle tax. Imitative 695 caused cuts to transit routes, jobs and increased fares for public transportation[xviii]. After experiencing frustrations, in 2000, voters approved a 0.2 sales tax increase to reinstate Metro services that were halted due to
Imitative 695[xvi].
Social changes and environmental concerns have shaped the planning of Seattle. The bottom down, community based planning approach that
began in the 1970s continues to shape the city today. Throughout the decades Seattle has been reinvented, but has held on to its stewardship role. Without grass-root organizations Seattle would never have become a leader in environmental innovations.
Bibliography
[i] Belcha, P. (2011, April 10) Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is approved on May 10, 1971. History Link. Retrieved from http://historylink.org/essay9737.
[ii] Seattle Planning Commission, last modified February 25, 2013, http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation.htm.
[iii] Seattle Planning Commission, Introduction to Seattle Planning and Development History. Seattle, WA: GPO 2005.
[iv] Tom Hauger, e-mail message to author, February 21, 2013.
[v] Robinson, L., & Newell, P. (2004, February 16). Twenty-five years of sprawl in the Seattle region: growth
management responses and implications for conservation and urban planning. Science Direct. Retrieved from
http://www.elsever.com/locate/landurbplan/
[vi] Crowley, W. & Dorpat, P. (2000, March 24). Seattle central waterfront tour, part 1. History Link. Retrieved from
http://www.historylink.org/essay7072.
[vii] Seattle Planning Commission, (2013, February). Retrieved from http://seattle.gov/transportation/rowmanual/manual16_2.asp/
[viii] Seattle Planning Commission. (2009, December). Livable South Downtown Planning Study: Executive Recommendations. Retrieved from
http:www.seattlegov/dpd/planning/southdowntown/overview/
[ix] Seattle Planning Commission, (1998, February). City of Seattle Environment Management program manual: version 99-01.
retrieved from http//seattle.gov/environmentalmanagment/program/
[x] Seattle Planning commission, (2013, February). Sustainable Building Policy manual. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/environment/plans/
[xi] Seattle Housing Authority, (2012, February). Retrieved from seattlehousing.org/history/about/
[xii] M.bussell, personal communication, February12, 2013.
[xiv] Seattle Housing Authority, (2012, February). Retrieved from http://www.seattlehousing.org/redeveloment/newholly/
[xv] Seattle Housing Authority, (2013, February). Retrieved from http://seattlehousing.org/housinghomless/1811.hlm/
[xvii] Seattle Metro (2013, February). Retrieved from http://www.metro.kingcounty.gov/am/history/history-1970.html/
[xvii] Crowley, W. & Oldham, K. (2001, March 19). Seattle voters scrap proposed Bay freeway and RH Thomson expressway, February 8, 1972. History Link. Retrieved from http://www.historylink.org/essay3114/
[xviii] Rettrieved from Munilage.org/?=800/
[ii] Seattle Planning Commission, last modified February 25, 2013, http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation.htm.
[iii] Seattle Planning Commission, Introduction to Seattle Planning and Development History. Seattle, WA: GPO 2005.
[iv] Tom Hauger, e-mail message to author, February 21, 2013.
[v] Robinson, L., & Newell, P. (2004, February 16). Twenty-five years of sprawl in the Seattle region: growth
management responses and implications for conservation and urban planning. Science Direct. Retrieved from
http://www.elsever.com/locate/landurbplan/
[vi] Crowley, W. & Dorpat, P. (2000, March 24). Seattle central waterfront tour, part 1. History Link. Retrieved from
http://www.historylink.org/essay7072.
[vii] Seattle Planning Commission, (2013, February). Retrieved from http://seattle.gov/transportation/rowmanual/manual16_2.asp/
[viii] Seattle Planning Commission. (2009, December). Livable South Downtown Planning Study: Executive Recommendations. Retrieved from
http:www.seattlegov/dpd/planning/southdowntown/overview/
[ix] Seattle Planning Commission, (1998, February). City of Seattle Environment Management program manual: version 99-01.
retrieved from http//seattle.gov/environmentalmanagment/program/
[x] Seattle Planning commission, (2013, February). Sustainable Building Policy manual. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/environment/plans/
[xi] Seattle Housing Authority, (2012, February). Retrieved from seattlehousing.org/history/about/
[xii] M.bussell, personal communication, February12, 2013.
[xiv] Seattle Housing Authority, (2012, February). Retrieved from http://www.seattlehousing.org/redeveloment/newholly/
[xv] Seattle Housing Authority, (2013, February). Retrieved from http://seattlehousing.org/housinghomless/1811.hlm/
[xvii] Seattle Metro (2013, February). Retrieved from http://www.metro.kingcounty.gov/am/history/history-1970.html/
[xvii] Crowley, W. & Oldham, K. (2001, March 19). Seattle voters scrap proposed Bay freeway and RH Thomson expressway, February 8, 1972. History Link. Retrieved from http://www.historylink.org/essay3114/
[xviii] Rettrieved from Munilage.org/?=800/