(Image: Historic Seattle)
First Historic Seattle saved the old Boylston Ave house as part of a six-building preservation effort on the street. Now it is doing the work to have its 1901-era, three-story apartment building at 1411 Boylston Ave recognized as an official city landmark as it prepares to sell the property. A hearing on the nomination will take place Wednesday.
Historic Seattle acquired six Belmont-Boylston properties in 1989 and rehabilitated the old houses in what it called the Bel-Boy project. The organization sold five of the six buildings in 2008. It says 1411 Boylston Ave was retained and has been operated as a 17-unit, single room occupancy, low-income apartment building.
Now, as the organization prepares to sell the building, it is asking the Landmarks Preservation Board to consider the Queen Anne-style structure with Colonial Revival elements for protections that will guide and restrict any future updates, renovations, or major changes.
“Designed by the architecture firm of Josenhans and Allan, 1411 Boylston was built as a two-family dwelling at a cost of $6,500.19 It was distinguished as a ‘double house,’ divided vertically with the plan of each half-house mirroring that of the other. Each half had nine rooms,” the nomination (PDF) reads. “Hambach used Colonial detailing to further distinguish the building, including Palladian windows and clustered Tuscan columns.”
City staff have recommended the nomination as the property’s exterior and site “embodies the distinctive visible characteristics of an architectural style, or period, or of a method of construction”
Wednesday’s meeting to consider the nomination will take place Wednesday starting at 3:30 PM (PDF). If the board approves, 1411 Boylston Ave will come back in front of the board again for a final vote on the designation.
HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
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 as little as $5 a month.
Can you imagine the horrors that might have happened to Seattle if we lost our first duplex!?
I wish these folks would spend their money and time on things that actually mattered to the community rather than trying to turn the world around them into a living museum to a world they wish they lived in 🙄
Hey man…Not every scrap of real-estate. Not every building has to be affordable housing. Maybe if the rich folks would allow density and smaller homes.
Also, this building quite literally IS operated as low-income housing now.
How about a mix of old and new that creates a sense of place? It is bizarre that it is all or nothing with people like you.
Hmmmm. They have been operating this structure as a 17 unit low income housing residence. Doesn’t that matter to the community? I don’t know what their deal is, and I certainly wouldn’t be interested in purchasing a property with the kind of restrictions a historic designation will impose, but maybe a little more respect might be in order.
Just because this building doesn’t matter to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to the community. And just because it was first built as a duplex doesn’t mean it only houses 2 families now. Did you actually read the article, or just immediately jump down to the a comments to bitch about it?
I clearly got under a lot of people’s skin with that comment, they seem to care a lot more about protecting old buildings than people.
It’s interesting that Historic Seattle is no longer interested in owning this property after working to get it historically designation and making much more difficult and expensive to manage in the future because of it.
Think about what you’re fighting for, mostly a large number of former mansions and somewhat unique buildings. Some of them seem worth saving, but this much effort on saving buildings just for the sake of them being old or someone rich lived there is just asine. Imagine if they spent all of this money, time, and political will on building new housing and building out public amenities like parks and other places.
You have a one-dimensional and simplistic view of urbanism and clearly don’t understand that Historic Seattle set this up as a win-win for historical preservation and affordable housing. Things are so black and white when you are young.
I would give them the benefit of the doubt if more than half of their properties weren’t old mansions that do very little to help with our population needs, and only exacerbate existing problems of affordability and available land in the city… If they were really interested in win-win affordable housing from this, then I would like to see them run it after getting the designations that make managing and maintaining a property like this difficult. It’s fine the concert and keep old buildings, but then locking them into these designations that preserve them in place forever becomes a nightmare for future growth that will happen whether people move here or not.
Shouldn’t the criteria for landmark protection be a little bit stricter than “it has an architectural style”?
So, your comment distills to pdf, TL:DR.
Yes, and it does?
nope
Just one more conservative attempt to block building more homes for our neighbors. “Old” does not equal “historic”!
The root, or even a contributor to the housing crisis lies in the preservation of relatively few heritage buildings?
Conservative? Do conservatives usually preserve buildings to operate them as low income housing residences?
blocking change is a conservative priority, yes
Did you read the article sean
Yes, forever … and ever … and ever.
I’m glad we have Historic Seattle to protect lovely old buildings like this. If some of you had your way, the entire city would be made of hardi-board.
Yeah, truly. I’m big on urbanism and eye-rolling at/fucking over NIMBYs 9 times out of 10, but given the uniqueness & history of this particular building, I’m not mad about efforts to preserve it at all. You’d think from the comments that this is just another single family home owned by wealthy empty nesters or something, not a multi-unit structure being used to provide low-income housing.
and gasp, more people would have their housing needs met. sure, keeping things pretty to you is important too
Great to hear that a 17-unit, SRO, low-income apartment building is being preserved in Capitol Hill. What neighbors are you talking about, Sean, that need housing? Seems like the 17 people in this old building count as neighbors. Matt, do you even have a community? Other than your online and work friends I mean…
Just trolling the trolls and righteous naysayers.
are you claiming that our housing needs are met?
This is the way historic preservation should work at its best: not just restoring fine buildings for another century of life (and keeping them out of landfill) but providing housing of the sort that historically kept low income people from living on the street. If this structure was torn down and a new one was built in its place, no way in today’s high-cost construction climate would the result be 17 units of affordable housing. Win/win.
First of all, the property is on First Hill, not Capitol Hill. There is more than one of the Double Houses in the neighborhood. What’s really important about this particular style of housing is that it was one of many different ideas and creative housing solutions tried during the early years of Seattle’s boom period in population. Preservation should save the property as a solution to more housing integration in single family home areas. This was and still is a great solution to providing more family friendly housing and a better anesthetic to neighborhoods. There are lots more great examples to find on First Hill. This neighborhood experienced single family homes to multi-family housing within a major growth spurt. Lots of lessons to be learned.
This history and the fact that the building has converted into multi unit housing like an apartment building in response to our current population boom that has more than rivaled the one during the gold rush is just a sign that we are not responding to that population boom and it’s housing needs. Put it in a museum, add a plaque, people cannot live in other people’s memories…
I think it’s important to preserve old buildings like this, not because they are “old,” but because they meet certain criteria, which are actually quite strict and which make certain that only distinctive places are saved. It’s called “our collective history.”
Not every property needs to be razed in favor of modern (and often ugly) housing.
Seattle can afford to keep a few cool old buildings around as we raze and pave and build and pack full of new arrivals most of our neighborhood. Don’t worry Urbanists, your plans for domination won’t be hurt if we save one building.
unlike how they’ve been hurt for two generations? what is your evidence that we won’t continue to block new housing?
When were the Safeway and QFC projects canceled?
QFC project? Which one? The Safeway project has been delayed for a decade by NIMBYs
Raze it.
Absolutely hilarious to see the regulars support low income housing based on the way the building looks, when they only complain about the effect of low income housing like the rows along summit. I wish I could believe that it was as simply as tricking them with facades.
I mean, I do think that making those housing projects more aesthetically pleasing WOULD go a long way in garnering neighborhood support for them, but I don’t think that’s what’s happening here anyway…this building has 17 units, whatever could be built in their place likely wouldn’t be significantly more than that but it WOULD cost significantly more & potentially be built worse…
it costs money to be fancy or “pleasing”. Cookie cutter is how you do cheap/fast.