The Seattle landmarks board will consider a 108-year-old structure slated for demolition at 21st Ave and Denny for protections due to the building’s role in Black history in the neighborhood.
The old Phillis Wheatley YWCA will be considered by the board September 4th. In the nomination (PDF) prepared for the city’s Department of Construction and Inspections, the city argues that the building could be worthy of architectural protections as “a pivotal location in Seattle’s African American heritage” —
Established from the “Culture Club” in 1919, this site has been a central hub for black intellectual life, community gathering, black social justice and legal defense groups. It initially functioned as a meeting point and community center, significantly contributing to the social fabric of Seattle’s African American community. During its prime, the Phillis Wheatley YWCA played a crucial role in fostering community cohesion and offering support in an era of significant racial and social challenges. This property could be seen not just as a building but also a a monument to the resilience and solidarity of the African American community in Seattle.
The 6,293-square-foot building had been used as transitional housing by Pioneer Human Services before its 2020 $1.75 million sale to developer Great Expectations. The company says it is planning Taxus House for the location, a proposed 49-unit apartment building just off E Madison with predominantly “eco 1 Bedroom” style units — “an ecologically and environmentally efficient one-bedroom apartment” that will each be about 325 square feet, the developer says. The development would reserve between 20 and 25% of it units as affordable housing.
The project has already been approved through administrative design review and any protections granted the existing building could complicate the development. As currently designed, the project requires the old club to be demolished.
If protections are granted, the developer would next need to work out a plan with the city on how best to preserve the historical elements — or how best to move on with the redevelopment under guidance from the landmarks board.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE THIS SPRING
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
What was the city doing for all of these years? How is it that only after the building was falling apart, and a developer bought it to do something useful with it, that the city decided to turn it into a landmark?
There’s a clear message to developers: stay away from Seattle buildings with any historical value at all, or else all your investment will be destroyed by a stroke of a nimby pen.
Put up a plaque by the new building. Housing for 49 people is much more important than a random building remaining.
Sorry, but this development project sounds horrible…you’re going to have 325 sq/ft “eco 1 bedroom” units, and ONLY 25% ARE MADE AFFORDABLE? Lucky for those other 75% who get to pay luxury prices for a shoebox. Waste of space. If you’re going to replace the historic building, make sure the new housing being built is cheap enough to offset the current market, and not just adding more expensive units to it that people only rent because they’re wealthy and desperate to be here.
If there’s going to be development on historic Seattle land, it should be designated as public housing, not be up for grabs by greedy private developers who have no interest in the homelessness epidemic ending or our city getting more healthy and vibrant. I thought Harrell and Hollingsworth cared about their history in the CD, and about the family, friends, and neighbors who they’ve seen displaced by wealthy property developers, but I guess not.
How many affordable units are currently present on the site? 25% is better than 0
The point is that if it wasn’t always a private developer, the affordable housing wouldn’t have to be forced using carrots and sticks…it would just be regulated by the government as it should That’s how you deflate the housing market and lower the barrier to entry. Private hands should be nowhere near affordable developments because they always end up unaffordable–largely due to lobbying efforts by the landlords that own the 75% luxury-designated apartment buildings you say are better than nothing. Have higher expectations, Will.
If you’re a yimby argue with the developers, not the people asking for more regulations on developers. Where else are they taking their money, Russia or China?
This developer is literally based in Seattle and builds projects only in the puget sound region:
https://grtexp.co/portfolio/
In an ideal world, we should 100% have more government provided housing! But while pushing for that, I see no reason to make developments like this harder to pencil out.