The Pike Place Public Market

Material Information

The Pike Place Public Market a residential perspective
Lee, James Anthony
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
124 leaves : illustrations, maps ; 28 cm


Subjects / Keywords:
Urban renewal -- Washington (State) -- Seattle ( lcsh )
Housing -- Washington (State) -- Seattle ( lcsh )
Housing ( fast )
Urban renewal ( fast )
Washington (State) -- Seattle ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references.
Statement of Responsibility:
by James Anthony Lee.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
08643340 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1982 .L43 ( lcc )

Full Text

ARCHITECTURE & PLAHNfHG ^ auraria library

master of urban and
regional planning/community development
Date Due

The Beginning 8
1907 - 1920 11
1920 - 1930 14
1930 - 1947 16
1947 - 1971 19
Goals of the Urban Renewal Plan 30
Responsible Organizations 32
Building Inventory 34
Household Composition 52
Mobility 54
Housing Situation 56
Employment and Income 58
Health 62
The Pike Place Residents and Relocation 63
Relocation 67
Case Study: Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels 67
Conclusion 72
Relocation by the Pike Place Project Office 78
Relocation Patterns of the Residents 82
Type of Dwelling Unit 87
Efforts to Provide Renovated Housing for the
Displaced Residents in the Market 89
Condition of the Market Resident During Redevelopment 94
Low Income Housing Construction 100
Middle Income Housing Construction 107
Upper Income Housing Construction 110
Conclusion 113

1 Rehabilitation of Buildings Purchased by the PDA 40
2 Rehabilitation of Buildings Owned by Private Groups
in the Pike Place Project Area 41
3 Residents Relocation Rental Assistance 80
4 Type of Dwelling Unit for Displaced Residents
of Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels 87
5 Low Income Housing Construction 100
6 Middle Income Housing Construction 107
7 Upper Income Housing Construction 111
8 Housing Units Built Within the Project 113

1 Project Areas in Relation to Puget Sound 4
2 Pike Project and the Downtown Area 5
3 Pike Project and Historical District Boundaries 6
4 Buildings Within the Historical District 7
5 Rehabilitation/Replacement of Structures Within
the Historical District 39
6 Boundary of the Downtown Area and Market Community 51
7 Relocation of the Residents of the Livingston, Market
Leland, Byson, Bayview, Omaha, and Harbor Heights
Hotels (^][72-3f\f7S) 84
8 Relocation of the Residents of the Fairmount and
Stewart House Hotels (.4f\iJ6-6/\J/7) 85
9 Relocation of the Residents of the Hotels in the
Pike Place Project Area 86
10 Boundary of the Downtown Area and Market Community 95
11 Residential Construction in the Project Area 101
The photographs and pictures are by the author, unless otherwise noted.

The Pike Place Public Market is regarded as a regional landmark in the Pacific Northwest. People come from all parts of the United States to see the Market and experience the shopping techniques of a bygone era. The Market attracts tourists, shoppers from the office buildings in the CBD, and downtown residents. They come to the Market for leather crafts, a French dinner, the early strawberry, or a pound of freshly roasted coffee.
There is little doubt that the renovated Market will continue to flourish. Too much public and private money has been invested in it to fail. But the Market has had to change and appeal to a more affluent set of customers that now provide the economic support for the Market.
One of the more subtle changes in the Market during the renovation years of 1973-81 was the composition of the residential community. This thesis will examine the situation of the residents of the Market during this period. I will primarily be concerned with the original residents of the Market before urban renewal, and what happened to the residents in relation to the changing Market.
Several maps are included in this section as a method of location and identification. Map 1 on page 4 identifies the Project area in relationship to Puget Sound, Lake Washington, and the surrounding Islands. Map 2 on page 5 locates the Pike Project in relationship to the downtown area. Map 3 on page 6 identifies the Project area and Historical

District boundaries. The buildings within the Historical District boundary are identified on Map 4 on page 7.
The first chapter describes the beginning of the Market, and how it developed from a Saturday afternoon occasion where 10 farmers brought their produce to a main food and retail center in the 1930's. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the difficulties facing the Market after World War II, and the efforts to pass an initiative to save the Market from destruction in 1971.
The second chapter examines the outcome of the initiative and how it influenced the Urban Renewal Plan. The chapter continues with a
discussion of the groups and agencies involved in the Urban Renewal Plan, and a brief description of the condition of buildings within the Historic District. The chapter concludes with the funds expended on the Market area during renovation, the type of use, and the percent of occupancy that existed in the area before and after renovation.
The third chapter presents a detailed discussion of the original residents of the Market area before and during urban renewal. Topics included household composition, mobility, housing situation, employment and income, health, and relocation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the Stewart House and Fairmount Hotels that were closed in 1977.
The fourth chapter examines the situation facing the original residents during urban renewal. Government efforts to assist the residents in

their move are a major portion of this chapter. The later parts of the chapter describes where the displaced residents moved to. Not only the geographic location, but the type of building occupied.
The fifth and final chapter looks at the development of low, middle, and high income residential housing in the Project area. The mix of housing that was built and how it relates in the renovated Market.


Elliott Ra^Pitrk.
X X W^^vwdfer

International District

Seattle Center'
; 3 |! 1 j j! _j ! .j i | pr:
[Ql i; t j 11.! ? ij i 1
Place l| 1 l?J firm
hi!. i; ? il j ii i {! jj jj !!_"'; ; H uLjUUL

yi oaOUUL
V ' //: IJJ J !' 1
"Denny Regrade ^
Pike Project
Waterfront Park and Aquarium
Financial/Business District Ferry Terinal -
Pioneer Park
Pioneer Square ^ I
Occidental Park^

Scale 1.000

ii v. .| J!
j! PS f * r"

: P I1'! I nn
PI [
lj T 1
PI ._ll

A Economy Market Building
B'- Post Building
C LaSalle Building
D Flower Row
E Leland Hotel
F Bakery Building
G Fairley Building
H North Arcade
I - Pike and Virginia Building
J Champion Building'
K Soames-Dunn Building
L Stewart House
M Seattle Garden Center
N Triangle Building (Silver Okum)
0 - Corner Market
P Sanitary Market
Q Drug Store and Thrift Shop
R Fairmount Hotel
S -'Alaska Trade Building
T Butterworth Building
U Smith Block Building
V Baker Building
W Landis Block (Livingston Hotel)
X Municipal Market

The Beginning
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, farmers brought their
produce to the downtown area of Seattle and sold their produce directly
to the consumers. During this same time period, the middle men or
"commission men" gradually gained control over the farmer's produce.
This resulted in higher prices for the consumer and lower profits for
the farmers. Growing concern and frustration with "the commission
men" led to a public demand to eliminate the middle man and let the
producer meet the consumer directly.
At issue was the price and availability of goods. Most of the fruit and vegetables grown in the valleys around Seattle had been distributed through a commission system. The farmer turned his products over to the wholesaler on consignment and received his commission after it was sold. The commission houses maintained sheds on Western Avenue from which they sold the produce to dealers who peddled it in the neighborhoods of the city. By the time the fruits and vegetables reached the consumer the cost was exorbitant and the condition poor.
Industrial employers complained that they could not keep good workmen
on the job in their mills and factories because men could not afford the
price of groceries to feed their families. The working man was either forced to leave Seattle or start producing his own food. This did not

make the city fathers very happy because Seattle was a growing city
and they wanted to continue the growth.
On Western Avenue, rumors abounded. Business seemed to be too good for the commission houses. They were accused of price fixing, gauging the public, and destroying any efforts by the farmers to sell directly to the consumers.'* There was even a rumor that the commission houses had hidden trap doors through which fresh produce was dumped into
Elliot Bay to increase the price of the remaining produce. These charges were never verified but added further demands to form a farmers market.
In 1906 Seattle City Councilman Thomas Revelle began the task of getting around the commission system. He believed that the creation of a farmers market by the city would give the farmers and consumers a location to trade. On March 2, 1906 Revelle introduced an ordinance to establish a public market. The Seattle City Council passed the ordinance in 1907, and Mayor Charles Case 'proclaimed Saturday, August 17, 1907 as "Market Day".
Pike Place was a new four block wood roadway connecting Pike Street with Western Avenue. On August 17, 1907 10 farmers brought their produce by wagon to be sold. Within an hour all the fruits and vegetables had been cleared from the wagons and both the farmer and consumer had benefited from this exchange.^ This was without interference from the commission houses who had threatened to disrupt the
proceedings. The first Saturday had been a success and the following Saturday 70 farmers came to sell their goods at the Pike Place Market.

On October 7, 1907, the Seattle City Council passed a second ordinance
which expanded the rules layed down by the first ordinance. The
original ordinance had made the street department responsible for the supervision and control of the Market. After a few weeks experience it became necessary to have a few policemen assigned to the Market. An officer was assigned to allot stalls and keep the peace. The Market would be in operation from 5 a.m. to noon on weekdays and from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturday. Spaces for the farmers' wagons were painted on the planks in the street.
The second ordinance also required that sales in the Market be limited to food and food products. These products had to be raised, produced, or manufactured by the person offering the product for sale. Thus, the producer to consumer relationship in the Pike Place Market was established early in its history.
The public opening of the Pike Place Market took place on November 30,
1907 when the first market building was dedicated. The building was an extension of the existing Leland Hotel and provided 70 stalls for farmers to sell their goods. The building had been constructed by Frank and John Goodwin, as a private committment to encourage the further permanent development of the Market. The event of the opening of the Market had been well publicized and 120 farmers sold their
produce while seven-thousand shoppers attended.

Councilman Revelle made a stirring address to mark this occassion:
This market is yours, I dedicate it to you, and may it prove a benefit to you and your children. It is for you to defend, to protect and uphold, and it is for you to see that those who occupy it treat you fairly, that no extortion is permitted and that the purpose for which it was created be religiously adhered to. This is one of the greatest days in the history of Seattle, but it is only a beginning for soc^ this city will have one of the greatest markets in the world.
The Market's basic form developed from 1907 through 1917. The main building of the Market was an L-shaped building on the south and west sides of Pike Place. The multiple levels and variety of spaces were designed to fit particular tenants. Circulation between these levels required a mixture of elevations for ramps and corridors. Restaurants and other larger shops were given balconies to take advantage of the city and water views. The building had an area of 200,000 square feet containing 100 retail stores. There were also 100 stalls that were rented by the city to farmers on a daily basis.

Across the street, the Sanitary Public Market and the Market Hotel building at the corner of Pine Street and Pike Place and the Triangular building on the east side of Pike Place were constructed in 1910. In
1911 the city built sheds in the sidewalk right of way on Pike Place for an inside Market to accommodate the dry stall vendors, the sellers of poultry and butter, who did not need to wash their goods. The street Market operated by the city was able to function next to privately owned buildings and both were to benefit from this relationship. In
1912 the Corner Market was constructed and on November 11, 1916 the Economy Market at the corner of First Avenue and Pike Street opened.
HkfviSk ilk 45k
anitary Public
Market 1$>21
(PDA) .
In 1917 with a population of 340,000 the city was supporting 550 gro-
ceries, 160 meat stores, 35 delicatessens, and 12 markets. Of the 12 markets, each having a number of vendors under a single roof, Pike

Place, Economy, Corner, and Sanitary were part of the Pike Place Marketing Complex. In 1919 the Outlook Market opened it doors and was located on Post Street just south of Pike Street and Pike Place.
Several hotels were constructed during this period to provide for a
variety of clients. These included farmers, consumers and the not so
delicate demands of the seaport. The Leland Hotel, the Livingston Hotel at the corner of Front Street and Virginia, and the Stewart House at 80 Stewart Street all offered comfortable rooms at reasonable rates. The Fairmount and La Salle Hotels were built early in the second decade of the century and the Outlook Hotel first advertised for patrons in 1909. The Silver Oakum building housed the Market Hotel from 1910 to 1972.
Responsibility for protecting the public interest was one of the duties which was required of the Market Master. This position was created in 1911. Besides preventing illegal practices on the part of farmers, renting daily stalls, the Market Master was responsible to settle squabbles between farmers, and administer the ordinance which governed the operation of the street market.
Arthur Goodwin became general manager of the Public Market and
Department Store Company in 1918 and instituted rigid quality restric-
. 14
tions on the privately owned portion of the market. He established a
relationship with the Market Master where any customer of the Market
could appeal to the Market Master if the goods were short in weight or
of an inferior quality. To encourage this, Goodwin installed a set of

public scales where customers could check the weight of their goods. Both the Market Master and Goodwin would refuse to rent stalls to merchants that persisted in dishonest practices.
In the 1920s the Street Market came to an end. The paving of Elliott
Avenue and the spread of the automobile led to traffic congestion. The
farmers were complaining about overcrowding and the lack of weather 15
protection. On September 1, 1920, the City Council voted to revoke the farmers use of Pike Place, an action demanded by the commercial interests along the waterfront. This action was not a popular one. Within a month the City Council had reconsidered after many complaints from the public. It was decided to delay the closure of Pike Place to farmers until off street space could be found to accommodate them.
Frank Goodwin saw another opportunity for private enterprise to flourish next to the public market. He offered to construct a building in the Market area and donate portions of the building to the city for the farmers use. The city accepted his proposal and in 1921 the city constructed a steet arcade north of the main building. Goodwin constructed the Municipal Market Building which was dedicated in 1924. All of the Municipal Market Building, with 44 interior stalls and the additional space on the bridge over Western Avenue were under city control.

A rotation system based on a daily lottery was devised to give all the farmers a fair chance at the more desirable stalls near street intersections and opposite to large retail shops. Farmers had complained
that certain farmers received privileges over others. There existed periodic ethnic rivalries between producers of goods, pressure from the Western Avenue Commission grocers, and a continuing high demand for the better retail space in the Market district. With these internal and external pressures the farmers organized the Associated Farmers of Pike Place in 1924. This organization was to represent farmers in their discussions with the city and the private owners of the Market.
The farmers in the Pike Place Market were of many nationalities. They included Japanese, Scandinavian, and British. These immigrants settled in ethnic clusters. Newcomers sought out relatives who spoke the same language and respected similar customs. Japanese farmers built their farms along the White River in the Kent valley, south of Seattle, where they grew vegetables and fruit. Georgetown and South Park became an area of Italian immigrants who concentrated on vegetable farming. Across Puget Sound in the Olympic Penninsula and Island communities of Poulsbo, Skandia, Keyport, Agate Pass, and Bainbridge Island and Vashon Island, Scandinavian and British ranchers raised milk, poultry, cheese and eggs.
The poultry and dairy farmers from across the Puget Sound made the steamship voyage weekly. These island and water related communities were served by the "mosquito fleet". The steamships were fast and delivered goods, passengers and mail to the communities. The farmers

transported their cargo on the toward deck during the trip to Seattle.
This cargo was carried free of charge if it was carried on and off the
ship by the farmer.
The Pike Place Market was influenced by the Depression, but the pro-
duction and selling of goods continued at a record pace. The Market provided alternatives for people trying to buy goods on a meager and declining budget. A person without money could forage through the garbage cans and boxes in the Market after closing hours for leftover vegetables and meat scraps. Those with limited means could buy leftover produce at the end of the day for a reduced price.
The Market offered various amenities for the unemployed during the
depression years. The "spit 'n argue" group crowded around the
warning sign "no loitering by order of the Police Department" un-
daunted by the threat, and debated the issues of the world. For one dollar per month a man could get a weekly shave and a twice monthly haircut. At Mrs. Meyers Open Kitchen in the Municipal Market Building, a full course meal could be purchased for 15 cents.
The farmers at the Pike Place Market did better than most people during the depression years. Farmers had the wealth of their land to support them. They could grow their own food and be more independent than the urban resident, but they had to save an additional amount of money to purchase seeds for the next planting. Before the depression the seeds would be provided on credit until harvesting time.

During the 1930's the welfare of the consumer at the Market was respected by both the city and the private interests in the Market. The
city was conscious of means to cheat the shopper by adjusted weight 20
scales. In 1932 and 1933 at the annual May inspection some scales at the Market were seized. These included scales whose springs had been tampered with and counter weights that had been lightened by drilling. These scales were collected and dumped outside Seattle's harbour. A great symbol for consumer protection!
In 1934 Seattle was the first city in the nation to pass an ordinance requiring the compulsory grading of meat. All meat sold in the city had to be stamped with class and grade which determined the price per pound of the cut. Each meat dealer was also required to be licensed. To obtain a license the dealer had to pass a written exam, oral exam, and a complete physical examination. Several butchers left the Market after these ordinances were passed and moved beyond the city limits.

The public was again concerned that the producer meeting the consumer
should really grow the produce on his own farm. Several newspapers
had charged in 1935 that most of the green vegetables at the Pike Place
21 ...
Market came from wholesale firms. In response to these investigations the City Council passed an ordinance which further defined the farmer-consumer relationship and required that the farmer only sell produce that he produced on his own land.
In 1941 the Japanese farmers did not know whether they would be around for the next season's harvesting. The United States Treasury Department had restricted the financial transactions between American citizens and Japanese and Italian citizens. This did not seem to influence the Market and there was no boycott against the Japanese farmers. The attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941 changed this relationship. The FBI collected all Japanese citizens and Japanese-Americans and they were sent to "relocation" camps. Pike Place Market

never recovered because 60% to 80% of the wet stall vendors in 1941 were of Japanese descent and their removal left a void. In 1939 515 farmer-seller permits were issued, but by 1943 the number was down to 196.
After World War II farm life changed radically and this was reflected in the Pike Place Market. Technology made the small farms less efficient and brought fresh vegetables from California at a price that could compete with the local produce. Land around Seattle that had been used for decades by farmers was now prime industrial land for a booming aerospace industry. During the post war years the young people found jobs in industry or entered professions. The suburbs were developing and every returning G.l. wanted a house, car, and a wife. Shopping centers and supermarkets were built to serve the out migration of the population towards the suburbs. The Pike Place Market no longer occupied the primary position as a regional food center that it held during the 1920's and 1930's.
In 1950, Harlan Edwards, a Seattle consulting engineer and member of
the Seattle Planning Commission, proposed putting a super parking
garage on the Pike Place Market site. He stated that the garage would
be topped by a beautiful park overlooking Elliott Bay and a partial 22
Market. According to this plan, there would be parking for 3,000 to 5,000 cars which would partially solve some of the downtown parking problems in Seattle. This plan was defeated by the City Council under the leadership of Mrs. Harlan H. Edwards.

The nature of the Market was changing, stores selling pornographic material and second hand outlets moved into the area. Changes in downtown traffic circulation patterns influenced the Market area. In 1953, an early effort at a freeway was constructed on a viaduct which helped cut off the Market from Puget Sound. A pedestrian bridge between the waterfront and the Market at Pike Street was removed. Pedestrian traffic was further reduced when the Seattle Transit System converted to diesel buses and eliminated the streetcar lines and altered the transfer points to uptown.
As the Market approached its 50th anniversary the City Council was
hearing testimony on the question of abandoning city support of the
farmers market. The lease under which the city operated the daily
rental stalls was expiring. The financial ledger of the Market had
switched from black to red. Compared to an income margin of $1,200 in
1951, the market operation cost the city more than $8,000 in 1955. On May 28, 1957 the City Council voted to renew the lease for ten years but the property owners were made responsible for repairs to the buildings.
By 1961 the Pike Place Market as a major outlet for truck farmers had declined. Fewer than 100 farmers were participating in the Market on a regular basis. The valleys of Kent, Auburn, Georgetown and South Park around Seattle that had produced agricultural goods were now being turned into subdivisions, office parks and light to heavy manufacturing. These areas of land became part of municipalities and were promptly rezoned to commercial-industrial use and taxed accordingly.

As a result, the early 1960's were a period of intense land speculation and the majority of the farmers sold their land. They were not offered anywhere near the potential value of their land, but the farmers could not afford to stay on the land paying the industrial-commercial tax rates. The farmers were unable to obtain labor when nearby industry drained the labor market and raised wage expectations beyond the farmers payment capacity.
In the early 1960's the buildings of the Pike Place Market had deteriorated and were suffering from neglect. The paint was peeling on the
Economy, Corner, Sanitary, and Pike Place Markets. The Municipal Market building was a burned out shell with one floor renovated into a parking lot. The people of the Market aged as well and there were no longer huge crowds around the stalls. The Market had become a place for memories and the younger generation stayed away captivated by the bright lights of the shopping centers.
There were new occupants in many of the Market buildings. Low cost clothing stores had replaced grocery establishments. The hotels and apartment buildings in the district had maintained many of the same occupants as in the past but the single men were older now and no longer working. They lived off pensions and social security. Two groups moved into the market area in the early 1960's. They were the residents and destitutes that had been moved out of other areas of Seattle due to urban renewal, and the youths selling crafts in the Market booths once occupied by farmers.

Land owners in the Market district did not have to spend money to protect their investments. Property values rose as demand for commercial land increased in the downtown area. The property owners feared putting any improvements into their property because of the possiblity of urban renewal in the future. Only an urban renewal project would have the power of eminent domain and could gather together all the privately owned properties around the Market.
In 1963 the Central Business Association introduced a Downtown Plan 25
for 1985. The City Council passed the plan and the city went to
work applying the plan. This plan called for a very different Pike Place Market. The Market district was to have a seven story 3,000 automobile parking garage to be built on the slope between First and Western, a new Pike Place Market atop the garage, commercial office buildings, apartment towers, and a major hotel. As soon as the Downtown Plan for 1985 was introduced a group of Seattle citizens organized to fight the plans conception for the Pike Place Market. This organization became known as the "Friends of the Market".
On December 13, 1966 Seattle received a urban renewal planning grant for a 24 acre project. The project was bounded by Union and Lenora Streets, First Avenue, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The Pike Plaza redevelopment plans started appearing for public review in March of 1968.
This brought an immediate response from the Friends of the Market: "We believe that the plan, as proposed, could have a brutal and over-

powering effect upon the intricate social and merchandising conditions in the Market and that all possible effort must be made to provide a sympathetic environment in the area surrounding the market." After much discussion, the City Council on March 25, 1964 unanimously recommended the adoption of the Pike Place Redevelopment Project.
The Friends of the Market did not give up easily. They marched on City Hall and carried petitions opposing the redevelopment plans. They even tried getting the Pike Place Market on the National Register of Historic Places which would have greatly restricted the use of urban renewal funds. As the urban renewal grant contract was being finalized in May of 1971, the Friends of the Market began circulating an initiative petition. The Pike Place Historical District initiative would establish a seven acre historical district with boundaries of Western Avenue, Virginia Street, First Avenue, and a line south of Pike Street.
The initiative called for the appointment of a Market Historical Commission to oversee the initiatives purpose of preserving, restoring, and maintaining the uses within the Market district. After three weeks of signature collecting, on June 14, 1971, the initiative was filed with City Hall. On November 2, 1971 the initiative passed by a vote of 76,309 to 53,204.

1. Seattle Post Intellegencer, "Western Avenue, Romantic, Challenges with its Past", April 24, 1927.
2. Seattle Times, "Commission Trust Ruins Farmers in White River
Valley." August 8, 1907.
3. Seattle Post Intelligencer, "Aims and Objects, The Free Public
Market Ordinance Fully Explained, November 22, 1896.
4. Ibid.
5. Seattle Times, "Must not Delay Opening City Market", July 31,
6. Ibid.
7. Seattle Post Intelligencer, "Women Storm Market Wagons", August
18, 1907.
8. Ibid.
9. Seattle Times, "New Building in Pike Place is Dedicated", November 30, 1907.

10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Seattle Times, "Little Journeys of Discovery in Seattle," August 26, 1917.
13. Seattle Star, "Where the Rich and Poor Rub Shoulders," October 1, 1915.
14. From a scrapbook kept by the Department of Weights and Measures, City of Seattle.
15. Seattle Star, "Produce Man Raps Market," August 8, 1922.
16. Seattle Times, "Protest Market Rents", September 5, 1922.
17. Seattle Times, "Farmers Come to the Market From Islands," October 3, 1924.
18. Seattle Star, "Shriek! Clatter! Bang! First-Pike Noisiest Corner," December, 6, 1929.
19. Seattle Star, "Market Place Arguers Decide Fall of World," February 26, 1929.

20. Seattle Star, "Test of Weights Show Market Measures Heavy,"
September 20, 1929.
21. Seattle Times, "Clubs Demand Farm Market." August 17, 1935.
22. Seattle Times, "New Plan for the Market" July 3, 1950.
23. Seattle Times, "City May Quit Operation of Farmers Market",
November 1, 1956.
24. Seattle Times, "Here's How the City May Look in 22 Years,"
August 18, 1963.
25. Ibid.
26. Seattle Times, "U.W. Architect Criticizes Plan for Pike Market",
March 19, 1968.

Bacon, Edmund, Design of Cities, New York: Penquin Books, 1976.
Department of Community Development. Pike Plaza, Seattle: City of Seattle, 1971.
Evans, Trevor, The Future of the Seattle Skid Row Community. Seattle: Masters Thesis, University of Washington, 1971/
Jacobs, Jane. Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 1961.
Lynch, Kevin. What Time is this Place. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.
Seattle Magazine. Our Imperiled Public Market. Seattle: March, 1965, Page 34.
Seattle Magazine. The Market Future: Slic or Sleazy? Seattle: May, 1968, Page 32.
Shorett, Alice. A History of the Pike Place Marketing District. Seattle: Department of Community Development, 1972.

Steinbrueck, Victor. Market Sketchbook. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964.
Tobey, Mark. The World of a Market. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1964.

With the passage of the initiative Number One on November 2, 1971, the future of the Pike Place Market was altered drastically from the traditional "demolish and rebuild" direction of the typical urban renewal project. The city was now forced to temper urban renewal with the direction of preserving, restoring and improving the buildings within the Market area. In this revised Urban Renewal Plan the newly created Historical District Ordinance required:
In order to promote the educational, cultural, farming, marketing, other economic resources, and the general welfare; and to assure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth and development of the municipality, it is deemed essential by the people of the City of Seattle that the cultural, economic, and historical qualities relating to the Pike Place Market and the surrounding area, and an harmonious outward appearance and market uses which preserves property values and attract residents, and tourists be preserved. Some of the qualities being, the continued existence and preservation of historical areas and buildings, continued construction and use of buildings for market activities, especially on street levels; and a general harmony as to style, form, color, proportion, texture, material, occupancy, and use between existing building and new construction.

In January, 1974 the Seattle City Council approved a revised Urban Renewal Plan that reflected the interests of the ordinance. The new Plan had to operate under both urban renewal and historical preservation controls. The seven acre Historical District was the core of a larger 22 acre Urban Renewal Project Area and would be subject to the standards and requirements of the Federal Urban Renewal Program. Requirements included bringing buildings up to local code standards, assuring a 40 year life for each structure, and providing for maintenance. The Historical District Ordinance required that the Market function should be preserved, improved and restored. This was to include, not only industrial buildings, but the environment that fostered them.
Goals of the Urban Renewal Plan
The revised Urban Renewal Plan had five major goals. These were to be the cornerstones of the rehabilitation of the Pike Place Market. The goals were to preserve and perpetuate the cultural, economic, and historical qualities related to the Pike Place Market, and execute the work of the Project with the least possible disruption to the activity of the Market. The Market must become a viable place to shop, develop a community which would sustain the vitality of the Project area, and develop amenities which would capitalize on the unique situation of the market.
To preserve and perpetuate the Market it would require rehabilitation and restoration of structures to meet Building, Project, and Historical

District requirements. Farmers would have to be attracted back to the Market to improve the food supply function of the Market and a willing consumer market would have to be developed. A more subtle part of this goal was to organize a Market that could function with some of its original uses and charm but still become an integral part of a modern growing CBD.
Another goal of the plan was to rehabilitate the Market in a manner that
would allow the day to day functions of the Market to continue. It
would be important to maintain the existing commercial base while the
Market was readied for expanded and more diversified uses. Through
its decay in the 1950s and 1960s the Market had lost many commercial
outlets and it was imperative to preserve the existing businesses while
restoring the Market.
The physical rehabilitation of the Market could be done with a variety of private and government funds, but to stabilize and renew the economic and physical vitality of the Market would require a change of attitude by the population in and around the Market. The Market must become a place where people would come to shop as well as a location of historical and cultural significance. The Market should also relate to the tourist attractions of the Seattle waterfront and the Central Business District.
One of the more difficult goals of the plan was to develop a community which would sustain the vitality of the Project area. This included the existing low income residents and the people in the recently constructed

condominium high rises north of the Market. Social services should be provided for this diversity of income groups.
The last goal was to develop amenities which capitalize on and utilize the features unique to the Project area. In other words, advertise the positive and improve the negative while solidifying the economic and structural base. Associated with this goal were several urban design objectives which would perpetuate the Market environment beyond the period of rehabilitation.
Responsible Organizations
Combining the Historical District Preservation Plans and the Urban Renewal Plan requires several organizations to be responsible for implementing the overall Plan. The organizations that are directly involved in the restoration of the Market are the City's Department of Community Development, the Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, the Pike Place Historical Commission, and the Pike Place Merchants Association.
The Department of Community Development has responsibility for the coordination and management of the redevelopment process. The Pike Place Project Office is within the Department of Community Development and gathers both public and private funding to achieve Market restoration and redevelopment. The Pike Place Project is responsible for implementing the Urban Renewal Plan through the acquisition and disposition of property. This includes the seven acre Historical District within the 22 acre Urban Renewal area.

The Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) is
a public non-profit corporation chartered by the City of Seattle with
the purpose of undertaking the renewal rehabilitation, preservation,
restoration and development of structures and open spaces in the Pike
Place Market Historical District and surrounding areas in a manner that
affords a continuing opportunity for Market farming merchants, resident
... 2
shoppers, and visitors to carry on their traditional Market activities. With this directive the PDA acts as owner developers, and property manager within the Historical District. The PDA now owns most of the property within the Historical District although several private ownerships continue.
Government of the PDA is by a 12 member Council. Four are appointed by the Mayor, four are appointed by the City Council, and the other four are elected by the corporations membership organization. This organization meets quarterly to review PDA activities and act as a forum for public comment.
The Pike Place Market Historical Commission was created by the original initiative passed by the people. Its purpose is to provide administrative and regulatory oversight of the preservation, improvement and restoration of the Market. No demolition, alteration, construction, remodeling, restoration or other changes of structures within the Historical District can be done without the approval of the Historical Commission. Membership includes a variety of organizations and individuals. The Friends of the Market (the organization that originally placed the initiative on the ballot), Allied Arts of Seattle (a local arts

advocacy organization), the Seattle Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, property owners within the Historical District, merchants from the Market, and residents are represented on the Historical Commission .
The Pike Place Merchants Association was established in 1973 as a non
profit organization charged with representing the views of the business
interests within the urban renewal area. During the early stages of
the redevelopment process, the Merchants Association was concerned
with representing the views of the business community and making the
Urban Renewal Plan responsive to the merchants. The Association
continues its role to advocate the interests of the merchants to the
city, the PDA, and the public. The Association has become particularly
vocal over the rent structure developed for PDA owned properties
within the Historical District.
The Merchants Association has become a visible public relations service for the Market by publishing the monthly Pike Place Market News. The paper has a circulation of 12,000. It keeps people up to date on what is happening in the Market and provides profiles of the Market community and what can be expected for each season in the Market.
Building Inventory
At the time of publication of the revised Urban Renewal Plan in January, 1974 the seven acre Historical District included approximately 455 acres in 36 parcels containing 41 structures and 240 acres of

streets, alleys and public rights of way. Two of the parcels were cleared and used as parking.
The main Market complex included 12 separate structures that were attached by a variety of enclosed and semi-enclosed walkways. In 1974 the 1.7 acre main Market complex, including the Corner Market Building were listed in the National Register of Historic Places along with the Alaska Trade and Butterworth Building. Today the 7 acre Historical District is in the National Register of Historic Places.
The buildings in the Historical District were constructed over the first thirty years of this century to accommodate specific functions.^ In the 1960s and 1970s population and retail sales had declined significantly in the downtown area, resulting in a corresponding decline in the demand for space and a change in the composition of functions in the Pike Place
Market area.

Ownership patterns had changed in the Market area as many buildings had passed from the hands of owner operators into trusts and absentee ownerships. Simultaneous downward trends in rents, space demand and uncertainty about the area had resulted in a lack of building maintenance and to subtantial structural deterioration in the Historical District.
The revised Urban Renewal Plan required that every effort would be made to rehabilitate a maximum number of existing structures, and new construction would only be encouraged where rehabilitation was not feasible. Any new structure would have to support the Market function. The criteria used by the Urban Renewal Plan to distinguish
between buildings designated for rehabilitation or replacement included historical precedent, structural conditions, economic viability, preservation and enhancement of the Market, and urban design considerations.
The designations for rehabilitation or replacement of a building within the Historic District were not cast in concrete by the Urban Renewal Plan. Destruction of a building would hardly encourage its preservation. Replacement was only considered after rehabilitation proved
unfeasible. The Urban Renewal Plan stated that: "Where a building can clearly be shown to be rehabilitated at a cost less than the cost of new construction and/or has clear architectural or individual historical merit it has been designated for rehabilitation." Buildings were moved from rehabilitation to replacement category and vice versa after formal action by all the appropriate agencies to amend the Historical Preservation Plan.

The original rehabilitation list in the Urban Renewal Plan included the Livingston Hotel, Smith Block Building, Butterworth Building, Alaska Trade Building, Fairmount Hotel, Veterans Thrift Shop, Champion Building, Soames Building, Dunn Seed, Corner Market, Pike Arcade, Economy Market Building, Post Building, Outlook Market, La Salle Hotel, Outlook Hotel, Cliff House, Main Market, Bakery, Leland Hotel, Main Market Arcade, Fairley Building, City Fish Building and the Open Arcade.
Seventeen buildings and two parking lots in the Historical District were designated for replacement because rehabilitation was believed to be unfeasible. Such designations were made on the basis of building conditions identified by structural failures, and a lack of historical, architectural or social significance. The original list for replacement included the Salvation Army Store, Stewart House, Harborview Hotel,

Rogers Clothing Store, Tavern and Shop, Seattle Garden Center, St. Vincent De Paul Thrift Shop, Tavern and Retail Shops, Sanitary Market, Drugstore and Thrift Shop, Market Hotel, Flower Row, Market Garage and Open Sites.
The original designation of the building in the Historical District for rehabilitation or replacement is indicated by the Map 5 on page 39. Tables 1 and 2 on pages 40 and 41 give a indication of the funds spent on each building on replacement or rehabilitation by private or public owners. The tables also demonstrated the land use and percent of occupancy before and after rehabilitation. The table on private rehabilitation was collected from newspaper articles and several interviews but it is not as complete or as accurate as the PDA information.

A Economy Market Building
B Post Building
C LaSalle Building
D Flower Row
E Leland Hotel
F Bakery Building
G Fairley Building
H North Arcade
I - Pike and Virginia Building
J Champion Building
K Soames-Dunn Building
L Stewart House
M Seattle Garden Center
N Triangle Building (Silver Okum)
0 Corner Market
P Sanitary Market
Q Drug Store and Thrift Shop
R Fairmount Hotel
S Alaska Trade Building
T Butterworth Building
U Smith Block Building
V Baker Building
W Landis Block (Livingston Hotel)
X Municipal Market

Reh-.oil; 031


I IU uu
Location and Name Date Completed Grants Loans Totals Current Val ue Land Use Before rehabilitation Land Use After rehabilitation Percentage of Building Occupied Before Re-habi1itation Percentage of Buildinc Occupied After Re-habi1itatic
Corner Market 1976 45,367 377,210 422,577 841,563 Retai1 Retai1 44% 100%
Soames/Dunn 1977 64,095 435,457 499,552 930,655 Retail & Wholesale Office Retai1 0% 100%
Livingston/Baker 1978 546,567 1,829,400 2,375,967 2,952,786 Residential & Wholesale Residential 30% 100%
Triangle 1977 332,280 254,848 587,128 737,864 Retail & Residential Retail & Residential 40% 100%
LaSalle/Leland 1978 3,121,360 1,901,454 5,022,814 5,548,718 Retail & Residential Residential Retai1 50% 100% Resi. 100% Si
Fairly/Economy 1979 4,327,990 1,843,019 6,171,965 6,045,965 Retai1 Retai1 63% 90%
Cliff House 1980 199,200 325,000 524,200 575,640 Residential Residential 85% 100%
Sanitary Market 1981 520,487 2,458,350 2,978,830 2,978,830 Retail & Parking Retai1 Residential 40% 100%
Stewart House 1982 1,644,840 2,181,000 3,825,840 3,825,840 Retail & Residential Retail & Residential 200% Under Construction
Drug Store, Thrift
shop, & Vacant lot Will depend on future soure of money

Location and Name Date Completed Grants Loans Totals Land Use Before reha-bi1itation Land Use After reha-bi1itation Percentage of Building Occupied Before Rehabilitation Percentage of Building Occupied After Re-habi1itation
Smith 1977 92,730 92,730 Office Office Retai1 80% 100%
Butterworth 1977 65,801 32,421 98,222 Office Office Retai1 100% 100%
Alaska Trade 1977 39,000 - 39,000 Office Office Retai1 75% 100%
Fai rmount 1977 467,000 315,000 782,000 Hotel Apartments 100% 100%
J.P. Jones 50,000 115,000 165,000 Office Retai1 Office Retai1 70% 95%
Pike and Virginia 1976 - - - Parking Residential & Commercial - 100%
Seattle Garden 1979 - - - Retai1 Retai1 100% 100%
Champion 1978 106,000 110,000 216,000 Retail and Wholesale Retail and Wholesale 100% 100%

By the middle of 1981 rehabilitation of 80 percent of the Historical District had been accomplished. PDA projects accounted for approximately 80 percent. The funding sources had been varied, including Federal Urban Renewal money, conventional mortgaging and private and public grants. Development projects have included office and commercial space, mixed use, middle income residential, low income residential and public areas. Emphasis throughout the Market redevelopment has been on retaining design factors which are essential to the Market's character and function, while providing the buildings with an additional 40 year lifespan and passing modern code standards.
The first building to be restored was the Corner Market in 1976. The Soames-Dunn and Triangle Buildings were completed in 1977, followed by the Livingston/Baker Apartments. The Core Market was rehabilitated in five stages, so as to limit the effect on the day to day activities in the Market. This development project was completed in 1979, which included the Core Market west of Pike Place and south of Pike Street. The completion of the Cliff House in 1980 was the final Main Market building to be restored.

The property owners who decided to keep their buildings and not sell to the PDA spent less money on rehabilitation than the PDA. This is due to the overall good condition of most of the buildings that remained in private ownership and the owners did not have to purchase their buildings in the 1970s unlike the PDA.
The rehabilitation of the Market has diversified the use of many buildings. Dwelling units have have been added above traditional commercial functions, and offices have continued to flourish on the First Avenue side of the market. The occupancy rate for nearly all of the building is 100 percent.
This us a great improvement on a average occupancy of approximately 55 percent before urban renewal started in 1977. The hotels were different from this average with approximately 90 percent of the rentable rooms occupied in 1972 and 100 percent in 1981.

1 In 1952 there were over 160 farmers selling at the Market. This had been reduced to 43 farmers in 1969.
2. Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority, Charter, Seattle, 1972.
3 The Pike Place Merchants Association was concerned with the rent structure for the permanent stalls in comparison with the farmers who rented stalls daily. They believed that the permanent stalls were subsidizing the daily stalls.
4 When a merchant wanted to rent in the Market area he would go to the owner with his plans and often a building would be built or altered for the merchants specific need. The buildings in the Market were developed for a variety of specific functions and were adapted as time and business conditions changed.
5 More of the "First Avenue" type of functions had moved into the area. This included the adult theaters and the magazine stores.

Andersen-Bjornstad and Kane, Structural Analysis. Reported in Pike Plaza, Seattle Department of Community Development, 1971.
Brewster, David, The View From Downtown, Seattle Magazine, 7, No. 81, December 1970, Page 71.
Houstown, Lawrence O, Saving Urban Charm. The ASPA Magazine, 40, No. 11 (December, 1974) Page 24.
Seattle Post Intelligencer. From a file of newsclippings entitled "The Pike Place Public Market" at the Municipal Library, Seattle, Washington.
Seattle Times from a file of newsclippings entitled "The Pike Place Public Market" at the Municipal Library, Seattle, Washington.
Wilson, James Q, Urban Renewal. The Record and the Controversy, Cambridge, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1966.

Since the early days of the Pike Place Market there has been a variety of residents in and around the Market complex. The atmosphere of the Market and its location near the seaport made it an ideal place for people to live. Farmers were able to spend a night near the Market and enjoy the city before returning to the farm. Sailors rented a room by the month and maintained a permanent address while they were away.
The residents of the Market area today are a varied collection. The upper end of the economic scale are represented by people who have recently purchased condominiums constructed just north of the Historic District. A one bedroom unit starts at $150,000. The people moving into the condominiums are mostly couples who are both working and in their mid-fifties. They have brought their children up in the suburbs and are now living closer to their jobs and taking advantage of city living and the Market atmosphere.
Through the process of rehabilitation a number of apartments were made available to middle income people. These apartments are located in existing buildings in the Historical District and are above floor level commercial or office functions. The middle income apartments cater to the young single, or recently married professional couple who work downtown and want their residence downtown.

At the bottom of the economic spectrum are the people living in low income subsidized housing. Most of this housing is in rehabilitated structures within the Historical District. Some of the buildings are entirely for residential use, others combine commercial and office use with apartments. In November of 1981 construction was started by the Seattle Housing Authority on a new residential low income housing building just west of the Market and in the Project area. The people living in these apartments are required to be low income, and are elderly and single. Some of the original residents of the Market area remain but most of the low income residents are new to the area since urban renewal.
The residents of the condominiums and the middle income apartments are all recent arrivals in the area. They have been encouraged by the federal and local money that has been spent to recondition and replace the structures in the Market area. These people have only recently left the suburbs to live near their jobs and take advantage of the reduced travel time, the environment of urban living, and the views over Puget Sound and the Cascade and Olympic Mountain ranges.
The traditional residents of the area are the low income, single, and elderly. They do not meld well with the new residents of the apartments and condominiums. Each income group has its own set of values, service requirements, and communities. The levels of government are left to decide how the different groups can survive and what services are provided in the Market area.

The new middle-high income groups have been the most welcomed in the Market area. Both government and the private sector have encouraged these new residents. The merchants in the area see the possibility of providing goods and services to a more prosperous community than the traditional community. Most government officials associated with the Market have the background and desires of the middle-high income group, if not their financial means. They have worked very hard to understand the low income resident but they have not always been able to understand how a low income community works and what services should be provided.
The group of residents most forgotten in all the rehabilitation and revitalization was that of the original residents of the Market. They were the low income elderly who had lived near the Market because the area offered low rents, reasonable food prices, and a community that would accept them.

The Pike Place Market area in the late 1960s and early 1970s had the
public image of having the physical characteristics of a skid road area.
Skid road has been described as:
An urban location, a neighborhood, a community, a subculture, a system. It is a locus of lowest status, highest need, poverty, suffering and welfare services. Skid road also is an emotive term bearing of subjective implications; even fears on skid road, human
misery does not hide behind closed doors. It is public, out in the
open for those who care to see.
This is the sort of image that many bankers, planners, and the general public had of the Market area. The area was seen as undesirable for the businessmen who wanted to cater to the middle class client, since
most of the American middle class saw skid row as a repugnant place to
visit. Only the Federal Urban Renewal Program, with the power to consider whole areas as substandard could provide business with a way to break into skid row cheaply and with the confidence that most of the surrounding area would soon be rid of "bums".
Skid Row residents have been said to be "resourceless, roleless and
jobless, unattached, disaffiliated, mostly male, older than forty, and
requiring public support" . In the remainder of this chapter I will
attempt to dispell the illusion that the Pike Place residents before urban
renewal could be classified as skid row residents.

To get a better understanding of the original residents of the Pike Place Market before urban renewal, I gathered information from a number of sources. They included the United States 1970 Census Data, several consultant reports on the residents, papers by the staff of the Pike Project Office and the PDA, and a masters degree thesis. I have divided the information into broad topics so as to allow for separation and analysis.
The 1970 census information was able to provide the number and type of persons that lived in the Market community. It also gave an opportunity to compare their standard of living with the rest of downtown and the other 13 neighborhoods in Seattle. The Map 6 on page 51 shows the various boundary lines for the Downtown area, the Market community, the Urban Renewal district, and the Historical district. The information for the 1970 census was gathered by census tract and the census tract boundary lines did not correspond exactly with the Historical district or the Urban Renewal district.
The Greenleigh and Associates study done in 1969 for the proposed Urban Renewal Project gave an in depth view of the residents of the area. The study did a survey of the residents and provided information that was used in the preparation of the original and revised Urban Renewal Plan. Several reports written by city planners on the residents and a masters degree thesis were very useful in examining specific problems of the residents.

Elliott Bay


Household Composition
Of the 172 households interviewed by Greenleigh and Associates in the Pike Plaza Project area 90 percent were single-individual households. Only 8 percent of the households were composed of married couples and one household was composed of two related adults. 3.5 percent of the households were composed of couples and children or an adult and children.
The Market community and the whole Downtown community reflected the same kind of statistics from the census data. People who lived downtown in 1970 generally lived alone. 81 percent of the Market community and 77.3 percent of the Downtown community, lived in one person households. In the rest of Seattle only 29.7 percent of the people lived alone. The Market community and the Downtown community had a little higher percentage of married couple households than the Project area with 13.2 percent and 16.2 percent respectively. This was far below the city average of 54.2 percent. The average person per household was 1.4 persons in the Market community, 1.33 persons in the Downtown community, and 2.4 in the rest of Seattle.
In the Project area nearly 95 percent of the heads of a household were male. This number stayed around 80 percent in the Market and Downtown communities and was approximately 50 percent for the city total.
The Downtown community had by far the highest percentage of retired heads of household. This amounted to 48.2 percent of the residents, in

fact, census tract 80 which contains the core market had the second highest proportion of single retired residents of any census tract in the city. The rest of the population in Seattle included an average of 23.8 percent retired heads of households, less than half the percentage among those living downtown.
Residents over 65 constituted 30 percent in the Project area, 33 percent in the Market community, and 35.4 percent for the Downtown total. When compared to other communities in Seattle, the Downtown community had both the highest percentage and the second highest actual number of elderly residents with 10.1 percent or 7,029 people of the city's elderly population living downtown. This represented in 1970 a rate three times as high as the city-wide average.
The Downtown neighborhood ranked amongst the lowest in percentage of households with children, but was first among Seattle neighborhoods in the percentage of households with a single parent, 42 percent of the children who were downtown lived with only one parent. This compared to a rate of 14 percent for the rest of the city. In 1969 the Project area did not have many familiies with children. Of the 172 households surveyed by Greenleigh and Associates only five families had children.
The educational level was not very high. The majority of the residents had not completed high school, 64.2 percent for the Project area, 62.5 percent for the Market community and 54 percent for the total Downtown community. In the rest of Seattle 33.1 percent of the residents had not completed high school. This area represented the lowest area

of educational attainment when compared to the other communities in Seattle.
The typical Market area resident in the late 1960's before urban renewal, was a white male between 54 and 65. He lived alone. The resident had either never been married or was divorced. He had most likely attended but not graduated from high school.
Nearly a third of the people surveyed in the project area w'ere born in the western portion of the United States. A similar percentage were born in the North Central United States and about 20 percent in a foreign country. The foreign born residents were mostly above 45 years old. Just over 50 percent were born in a rural area and the proportion born in a rural area increased with age. This would be similar for the general population and was not a distinguishing characteristic of this population.
Over half the people surveyed came to Seattle for employment related reasons, suggesting a will to travel to find work. 72 percent of the population had lived in Seattle for more than one year, and well over 50 percent lived in Seattle for over five years. The majority of the population could have been considered long term residents of Seattle.
The length of continuous residence in the Project area and in the current dwelling unit was much shorter than the length of residents in

Seattle, as many people came to the Project area from other parts of Seattle. Over 50 percent of the population had lived in the Project and at the same location for over a year and 10 percent of the population for over 10 years. Approximately 13 percent of the population had lived in these dwelling units for under five months and might have been considered transient but they were not asked if they had moved within the project area.
The length of continuous residence in the Project area and in a single dwelling unit increased with age. The older people had maintained continuous residence for a longer length of time than the younger members of the population. This was similar to the city wide pattern.
70 percent of the project population had lived in other parts of Seattle before coming to the Market area. Over 40 percent had lived in the

Downtown area and had the similar services that were available in the
Project area. They included transportation, bars, inexpensive restaurants and multiple dwelling units. Another 30 percent had lived in communities north and south of Seattle with higher incomes than the average downtown resident.
Throughout the Downtown community the residents were primarily low income people who rented their homes. There was an extremely low rate of mobility among downtown residents compared to other Seattle neighborhoods. Analysis of the census data suggests that renters are most mobile in areas of good housing and least mobile in areas of poor housing.
Both the Downtown and the Market communities had by far the lowest
mobility of any community in Seattle. Despite the opinion many people
had of downtown residents as primarily transient, due to the visibility
of the skid road population, the reverse turned out to be true. Many
downtown residents had lived in the same location for decades.
Housing Situation
96 percent of the Project residents lived in a hotel. The other 4 percent lived in buildings used for both residential and commercial activity. Over 75 percent of the residents lived in a housekeeping room, a room with sleeping and cooking facilities but without bathroom facilities. About 20 percent lived in a sleeping room, a room without cooking or full bathroom facilities but which might have a contained wash basin. The rest of the population lived in small apartments.

The tendency to choose a housekeeping room increased with age. Approximately 60 percent of those under 40 had a housekeeping room, but over 75 percent of those over 40 and 80 percent over 64 had a housekeeping room. It should be noted that of the sample population surveyed 120 out of 159 lived in a housekeeping room and only 22 people were under 40.
All of the dwelling units in the Project area were rented and 92.8 percent were rented furnished. The average rent payments were $36 each month. The younger, more recent residents were paying a higher rent than the older residents who had been in the Project area for some time.
Almost all households had access to hot and cold water and to bathroom facilities. Bathroom facilities were shared by residents on the same floor of each hotel. This varied in size from 14 to 50 households depending on the size of each hotel. The resident did not share his cooking facilities and just under 50 percent had a refrigerator in his room. 16 percent of the population did not have any heat other than a hot plate. This was probably due to bad plumbing, faulty wiring, or the division of one room into two smaller rooms.
Home ownership was very scarce in the Market community with 99.5 percent of the residents renting their homes. It was approximately the same for the Downtown community with 98.3 percent renters. The high value of real estate in the downtown area had encouraged the concentration of housing units. Even during the great expansion of the Seattle

neighborhoods in the 1920s, the cost of downtown land remained high and encouraged people who wanted more space to live in the developing neighborhoods north and south of the city core.
Employment and Income
In the Project area just under half of the total population was employed. The percentage of those employed decreased with age. Nearly 80 percent of those under 40 years of age were employed, but only about 60 percent of those between 40 and 64 years and 15 percent of those over 65 years of age were employed.
Approximately 60 percent of those employed worked as laborers, service workers, or operatives. Only 9 percent of the men were working as craftsmen and foremen, and only 6 percent at clerical and sales jobs.

This area provided people for the intensive service industries in the Downtown area. These included hotels and restaurants.
Just under 40 percent of those working had been employed in the same job for over one year and 20 percent for over five years. In contrast, 30 percent of those working had been employed at the same job for under three months, and over half had been employed for less than one year. Those over 64 were more stable in their job situation than the younger population. Over 50 percent of those under 65 had held their current job for less than one year, but only one out of the seven men over 65 had done so and all those who had held their current job for 10 years or more were in the 40-64 year old age group.
For those unemployed, the will to look for work decreased with age. Of the surveyed sample of 80 men who were unemployed, 4 out of 5 of those under 40 who were not working were looking for work. 13 out of 35 of those between 40 and 64 who were not working were looking for work and 4 out of 40 of those 65 years and older who were not working were looking for work. This suggests that the population under 65, the traditional working population, was actively looking for work. Not a traditional trait for a skid row neighborhood.
Only 53 men (33.3 percent) of the sample population of 159 had not worked at all during 1967. Therefore approximately 70 percent of the population was employable. Of the 106 men who worked during 1967, 69 (65.1 percent) were employed at steady jobs only, and 18 (17 percent) were employed at both steady and casual jobs.

From the 1970 census data and the 1974 Polk Profiles of change, I was able to gather a comparison of unemployment data for the Market community, the downtown total, and the city total. Unemployment among males downtown was 21.2 percent compared with 33.5 percent in the Market community. The percentage of men over 65 was similar in the
Market and Downtown communities, so that the number of retires did
not influence the unemployment rate. The unemployment rate for the City of Seattle was 7.8 percent.
Of the downtown residents who were working, the number and percentage of people working as professionals, managers, technicians, supervisors, or proprietors was the lowest of all of the communities in
Seattle. The percentage of people working in unskilled jobs was the
highest of Seattle's communities.
Poverty downtown was most conspicuous among the residents who were over 65. The Downtown community ranked highest in the proportion of poverty among the elderly and highest in the actual number of elderly poor persons. Among the 14 communities of Seattle 32.3 percent of the elderly who lived downtown, lived in poverty. This represented 2,267 people over 65 who subsisted on under $1500 a year.
Most of the 7,029 individual elderly who lived downtown lived close to the poverty level. The percentage of the elderly that lived in poverty in the Market community was higher than the Downtown community with 38.3 percent or 497 people. In the rest of Seattle 19.1 percent or 13,293 elderly residents lived in poverty.

Poverty households (less than $1,500 for one person $3,500 for four persons) constituted 12.3 percent of the Downtown community households, ranking it second in the proportion of poverty level families campared to ail 14 Seattle communities. The average family downtown had a mean income that was 25 percent lower than the whole of Seattle. The community also ranked lowest in per capita income among Seattle's 14 communities. The mean income level in the Market community was $1,220 lower than the downtown average.
Low income downtown families (defined as incomes of less than twice the poverty level) accounted for nearly one-fifth of all Seattle's low income families. The proportion of low income families in the Downtown community was nearly twice the average for the rest of the city, 34.6 percent downtown, compared with 18.2 percent elsewhere. The Market community was very similar with 34.3 percent.
The number of single individuals with incomes below the poverty line was even more widespread than among families. 4,217 individuals or 33 percent of the downtown population living alone had incomes that were below the poverty line. The Downtown community ranked second amongst all Seattle communities in the actual number of individuals living alone and in poverty. 16 percent of all of Seattle's individuals living alone and in poverty lived downtown.

Of the 159 men in the Greenleigh survey of the Pike Project area, 50 (32 percent) of the population had a history of one or more long term chronic diseases such as heart trouble or arthritis and 44 (28 percent) had during 1967 conditions of bronchitis, chronic skin trouble and the like. The presence of a long term chronic disease or a disease of a limited duration increased with age. The interviewers believed that the reported prevalence of health problems was significantly less than the actual number of cases. The residents opinions of their health were often very different from interviewers observations. Unfortunately, the study did not keep a count of these observations.
A total of 74 out of the 159 men (46.5 percent) had seen a doctor or nurse about a health problem over the past year. Out of this total, just under 45 percent had seen a doctor or nurse once or twice while 10 percent of the population had received medical attention 15 or more times in the last year.
The most obvious health concern of the residents and people city wide was the use of alcohol in the Pike Project. The study was able to determine if a person was a non drinker, light drinker, moderate
drinker, or heavy drinker by his response to a variety of questions Over 70 percent of the men were light drinkers or nondrinkers, and only 13 percent were moderate or heavy drinkers. To my surprise, the non drinkers comprised a larger proportion of the men in the over 65 group, than the men between 40-64 and under 40 years old.

The study attempted to determine how many men were alcoholics by asking them if they had to have a drink just before and after breakfast, a very rough way of determining a need for alcohol beyond the normal consumption Nearly 30 percent of those who said they spent money on drinking answered yes. Approximately 17 percent under this classification could be considered to have an alcoholic problem. The tendency to drink in the morning declined with age.
The Pike Place Residents and Relocation
It was not common for the men in the area to belong to organizations or societies. Over 58 percent of the surveyed population did not have any association with these groups. In contrast, 25 percent belonged to a union and 13 percent participated in church activities and veteran organizations. The younger group of men were more likely to participate in these functions than the men over 64 years old.

The day to day activities of the residents did not set them apart from the rest of the population. As a group, they might have tended to frequent bars, pool halls, and card rooms more often than the general population and utilized walking as a leisure time activity more often than other groups in the community. They also did things common to us all such as cleaning, resting at home, preparing meals, listening to the radio, watching T.V. and shopping.
The Greenleigh Study was able to gather other pieces of information that gave a better understanding of the residents lifestyle. 59 percent of the residents usually ate their main meal in their dwelling unit. It was a higher percentage for the older residents than the younger residents. More of the younger group ate their main meals at a restaurant than the older group. The younger group were more mobile and had a higher income than the older age group.
Voting pattern was another indicator of lifestyle in the Pike Project. 11 percent had voted in an off year election in 1967. None of the men under 40 had voted while 20 percent of the men over 64 had voted. 9 percent of the men between 40 and 64 had voted in the election. This is about typical of the general population where there is a higher percentage of the elderly citizens voting than the younger age group.
From the responses to the survey, the Greenleigh team were able to discern how the residents felt about the Pike Plaza area. They were divided into four broad categories: positive, neutral, ambivalent, and negative. Of the typical population 70 percent gave a positive response

about the area, 9 percent gave a neutral response, 6 percent were ambivalent, and 15 percent gave a negative response. They liked where they lived and were not unhappy with their environment which was contrary with opinions of many government and private groups who wanted to move these residents, either to improve their standard of living, or to remove them for future development.
The age group over 64 was the most positive about living in the area and the younger group tended to be the most negative. The older group had become more established in the Market area and was content with the environment. The younger men were probably working and used the Market as a cheap place to live, and had friends and activities outside the Market.
The residents mentioned the convenient location of th Market as being important to them. It had good bus services, a variety of shoppers needs, and the downtow'n department stores a few blocks away. The older group liked the people in the area who were friendly and they could associate with. The relatively low rent was mentioned by only 20 percent of the residents. This was because other areas downtown had cheaper rents than the Market.
When questioned about the negative aspects of living in the Market; about 40 percent of the population did not have any specific dislikes. An additonal 20 percent either did not know or did not give a response. For those who responded, the dislikes included such things as the bad state of the buildings, the disreputable winos, drunks, and

derelicts, and the lack of safety on the streets. There was not a major difference in response by age groups. The only exception was that the younger group were much more apt to mention the deteriorated state of the buildings than were either the middle or the older gorups.
The residents of the Pike Project were very positive about their individual housing units. Only 22 percent of the respondents expressed dissatisfaction with living in their dwelling unit. Positive features
included the inexpensive rent, the cleanliness of accommodations, and a good relationship with the landlord. The most common reasons for disliking their dwelling unit were the inadequate room facilities, the lack of a window', or the poor condition of their room.
The Greenleigh Study asked the population about their use of various community resources during 1967. With a few exceptions, they indicated minimal use of all community services. The largest use of a single service was in the field of employment where 22.6 percent of the population used the Washington State Employment Offices. The use of this service decreased with age.
Approximately 39 percent of the population had used a health service in 1967. 10 percent had used the Veterans Hospital, not surprisingly,
when 49 percent of the population were veterans. 13 percent of the population had utilized the public assistance services during 1967. Persons in the older group had used it twice as often as had those in the middle group and nearly five times as often as had those in the younger group.

42 percent of the Pike Plaza residents expressed a desire to stay in the same sort of "First-Avenue Type" setting and another 13 percent desired to live in the downtown area or residential areas just east of the Downtown community. Therefore, over 50 percent of the residents indicated a preference for relocation in close proximity to their original residence. A number of residents were concerned that they were not moved to a typical "skid row" environment. The remaining 45 percent of the population expressed a desire for rental accommodations and 62 percent wanted housing similar to the kind they occupied. The desire for the same type of dwelling unit increased with age. 32 percent of the residents under 40 expressed a desire for an apartment.
Two-thirds of the population did not feel that they needed help in relocation during the rehabilitation process. This might have been an indication of the men's isolation from family, friendship, and community ties rather than a realistic assessment of their needs. The greatest single need expressed was for information or referral in locating a dwelling unit. The need for assistance increased with age. 47 percent of the men over 64 believed they would need some help.
Case Study: Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels
The Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels were the last hotels closed in the Project area due to city code violations. The Fairmount Hotel was closed in May 1976 with a displacement of 42 residents. The Stewart

House Hotel closed its doors a year later with a displacement of 87 residents. This represented approximately 40 percent of the total of 321 people living in the Project area during August 1972.
To get a more up to date profile of the residents of the Market I went through the relocation files of the residents of the Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels. The files were maintained at the Pike Project Office. My purpose was to find out if the typical resident had changed since the 1968 Greenleigh Study.
In early 1977, eighty seven persons were displaced from the Stewart House. I was able to gather accurate demographic information from the 75 people that were assisted in their relocation by the Pike Place
Office. The files were not very complete for the other 12 people who did not receive full relocation assistance by the office.
Of the 75 displacees, 2 or 2.67 percent were female and 73 or 97.33
percent males. 100 percent of both the males and females were members of the Caucasian race, which is a surprise because the Market has
traditionally had a diversity of races. All the residents listed their marital status as single. There was no evidence in the files that the interviewers had attempted to determine if any of the residents had been married, had children, or were single because of death, divorce or separation from their spouse.
60 percent of the residents were over 65 years of age, and ranged from 65 to 96 years old. Most of the group were in their 70's. 17 percent

of the displacees were in the age group 56-64, 7 percent were in the group 49-55 years and the remainder were in the age group 49 and younger. A majority of the last group were in their 40's with the youngest being 23 years old.
Approximately 19 percent stated that they were employed, mostly at odd jobs, or seasonal employment. The income of the residents, ranged from $1200 to $12,000 a year. The average income was $3426 a year. The 81 percent of the residents that were not employed received their means of support from Social Security, Veterans Benefits and Public Assistance. The one resident who was making $12,000 a year could afford much higher rent, but he chose the Stewart House because of the lifestyle. The average income fell with age, as the resident existed on a variety of pensions.

The rents and utilities ranged from $23 to $50 per month with the average rent of $36.75. As a result of low rents, location, and a stable hotel ownership and management, the length of residency was high. Residency for the group was from a low of 1 week to a high of 35 years, with the average length of residency being just over 6 years.
In June 1976 the Fairmount Hotel closed with 42 people displaced. 13 or 33 percent of the residents were females and 29 or 67 percent were males. 90 percent of both the males and females were members of the Caucasian race. There was only 1 identified married couple at the Fremont Hotel.
24 percent of the residents were over 65 years of age, and ranged from
65 to 75 years old. 16 percent were in the age group 56-64, 19 percent were in the group 49-55, and 41 percent under 49 years old.
Among the men, the oldest resident was 74 and the youngest 34, with the average age just under 60. For the women, the oldest resident was 69 and the youngest 34, with the average age of 55.
Approximately 33 percent of the residents stated that they were employed. Jobs included fisherman, longshoreman, and seaman. The high income was $6000 and the low income $1440. The average income was $3617 a year. The 67 percent of the residents that were not
employed received their income from Veterans Benefits, Public Assistance and Social Security. The unemployed status of the residents increased with age. The information on the type of work done by the employed residents was not complete enough to give an age break down.

The rents and utilities ranged from $43 to $128 per month with the average rent being $79.60. Residency in the hotel ranged from 1 week to 20 years with the average being 5 years. The Fairmount Hotel had the highest rents in the Project area but it also provided larger rooms and more advanced kitchen facilities than other hotels in the Market area.
The Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels were the last to close because of the number of residents and the relatively good conditions of the two hotels, in comparison with the other hotels in the Project area. The sex, age and income of the residents were very similar to the results of the Greenleigh Study. The only exception was the percentage of female residents in the Fairmount Hotel which was higher then the Project area wide average of the Greenleigh Study

It would be unrealistic to compare incomes and rents of 1967 with 1976, but it was surprising to find that the average income of the residents in 1967 had only increased by a third in 1976. The average rent of $36 in 1967 was identical to the average rent of the Stewart House resident in 1976.
The residents in the Project area had chosen the Market as a place to live and had lived there for over a year. These were cheaper and less desirable accommodations of the "skid row" variety 4 blocks north and 10 blocks south of the Market core. The residents were typically male over forty, and employed. If they did not work it was because of age and they lived off Social Security and Veterans Benefits.
A resident enjoyed the location because it provided good access to work, a community that he could feel comfortable with, and a variety of shopping needs. He was not overly concerned with the 17 percent rate of alcoholism in the project area. I venture to guess that some suburban communities are now approaching that rate. His concerns were similar to our own. The cost of living, crime, and making it from one day to the next.
There is no doubt that the typical resident of the market area had a low income. What seemed to be lost in all the reports and government cries of anguish was the fact that the low income residents were not

facing disaster, unhappiness, or life threatening peril before urban renewal arrived.
The Market residents did not require any more government support than another community with the comparable number of elderly people. Research has indicated that the residents were very independent and required little from public service other than occasional medical attention, and assistance in finding a job if they were under 64. They were resourceful and lived off their limited means.

1 Johnston, Thomas, A Skid Row Model, Seattle, MUP Thesis, University of Washington, 1972. Page 4.
2 Ibid. Page 5.
3 The Pike Place Market Preservation and Development Authority (PDA) Pamphlet, Seattle, 1981, Page 2.
4 The Greenleigh Study Team asked residents how many drinks they had a day and at what times the drinks were taken.

Anderson, Martin, The Federal Bulldozer. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964.
Douglas, Patrick, Up Against the System in Seattle, Harpers Magazine, 244, April 1972, Page 90.
Evans, Trevor J., The Future of The Seattle Skid Row Community, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1971.
Greenleigh Sociological Survey. Urban Renewal Staff Survey, Seattle Health Department, Environmental Blight Reposted in the Pike Place, Seattle: Department of Community Development, 1971.
Greenleigh Associates Inc., A Study of the Pike Plaza Redevelopment Project, Seattle: Department of Community Development, April, 1968.
Morgan, Murray, Skid Road, New York: Ballantine Books, Inc, 1971.
Niebanck, Paul L., The Elderly in Older Urban Areas, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965.
Potter, Allen Population and Housing Data, Skid Road Area, Seattle, Washington 1960, 1970, Seattle, September 1971, unpublished.
Sidran, Mark Harris, Middle Class Urban Political Conflict: The Case of Seattle, unpublished BA thesis, Harvard University, 1973.

This chapter will examine the situation of the residents of the Market during the urban renewal process. I was concerned with what efforts were made to relocate the original residents. The chapter continues with a discussion of where and how they were relocated.
The number of residents in the Project area had gradually decreased
from a high of 440 in 1967 In August 1971 the number had dropped
to 371 and a year later to 321 A variety of circumstances had been responsible for this loss of residents.
One of the primary reasons was the uncertainty in the minds of the seamen who comprised a significant portion of the residents of the area's hotels as to the future of the Market. Seamen rented rooms on a monthly basis and only occupied them when they were home. They feared that their hotel would disappear while they were at sea, leaving them without a permanent residence in Seattle. They had left the Market area and gone to neighborhoods north and south of the downtown core.
Another reason for the decline in population was the declared unrentability of some of the rooms in the hotels. In 1970 the city adopted a strengthened housing code that was in response to several fires in downtown hotels. With this direction, the Fire and Building Depart-

merits had been inspecting and posting hotels under the new ordinance and minimum housing standards. One of the results was that inside rooms that did not have ventilation were declared unrentable. The reduction in the members of available rooms forced potential residents to look elsewhere.
The major reason for the decline in population of the area was the uncertainty as to its future. The residents did not know whether they would have to move in one month, six months, or several years. The passage of the initiative did not guarantee the continuation of the hotels but organized their demise.
Within the Pike Project boundaries there were 13 hotels in 1971. Five of the hotels were closed in July 1971, as a result of non compliance with the revised fire and building codes. The remaining hotels all had

some outstanding notice of violation and schedule for completion of corrective action. Most of the hotels had a mixture of sleeping rooms and housekeeping rooms. Many of the existing housekeeping rooms were not legal because there were no permits on file with the city for converting from sleeping to housekeeping accommodations, and the existing housekeeping rooms did not comply with standards established for their use.
Relocation by the Pike Place Project Office
Between February 1972 and June 1977 the Pike Project was responsible
for the rehousing of 324 residents who were displaced from the re-
... 3
maining nine hotels in the Pike Project area The hotels were closed
for demolition or replacement depending on their condition and historical
The Pike Project Office as the representative of the City was required to provide: fair and reasonable relocation payments and assistance for displaced persons, as are required to be provided by a Federal agency under sections 202, 203, and 204, of this title, relocation assistance program offering the services described in section 205 shall be provided to such displaced persons; within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement, decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwellings accord-
ance with section 205(c)(3) .
The Pike Place Project had a legal and moral obligation to help the displaced residents find housing which was decent, safe, sanitary,

accessible to the job, and within the residents financial means. They worked with apartment house and hotel owners, Housing Authority staff, and with real estate firms in order to locate housing for the residents.
Both moving expenses and replacement housing payments were available to the residents. A maximum of $200 was provided for moving costs, plus a payment depending on the number of rooms a resident occupied. Rent assistance was provided for up to four years, at a maximum of $1,000 each year. The resident was required to move into a dwelling unit that met current code standards.
Assistance with a down payment for a house was also provided by the Pike Project. The home must have met current code standards and the maximum financial assistance was the down payment required for a conventional loan. After going through a 20 percent sample of all the residents relocated by the Pike Project Office, I could only find one person who had purchased a house after having been displaced from the Market.
The rent assistance provided each resident was determined by age, income and the difference in rent from the original residence to the new residence. Table 3 on page 80 gives the date vacated, number of residents who received assistance, relocation costs, average moving costs and average rental assistance costs for the nine hotels that came under the jurisdiction of the Pike Place Project. The information was gathered from the residents files at the Pike Project office and the Pike Place News.

Hotel Date Vacated No. of Residents who Received Assistance Relocation Costs Average Moving cost per Person Average Rental Assistam per Pers
1. Livingston 7/73 - 8/73 17 $ 3,804 Moving 32,285 R A. $ 36,089 $224 $1,899
2. Market 9/72 - 12/72 18 $ 3,870 Moving 27,803 R.A. ~ $ 31,673 $215 $1,545
3. Leland 1/73 - 4/73 23 $ 5,350 Moving 47,629 R. A. $ 52,979 $233 $2,071
4. Byron 2/74 - 4/74 23 $ 5,190 Moving 56,613 R.A. ~ $ 61,803 $226 $2,461
5. Bayview 9/73 - 1/74 37 $ 8,140 Moving 74,597 R.A. ~ $ 82,737 $220 $2,190
6. Omaha 13/73 19 $ 4,230 Moving 41,603 R.A. $ 45,833 $223 $2,190
7. Harbor Heights 1/76 - 3/76 57 $ 13,700 Moving 132,503 R.A. ~ $146,203 $242 $2,376
8. Fairmount 4/76 - 6/76 38 $ 8,496 Moving 102,628 R.A. ~ $111,124 $224 $3,110
9. Stewart House 3/77 - 4/77 76 $ 16,800 Moving 24,012 R.A. ~ $257,812 $214 $3,652
TOTAL 9/72 - 4/77 309 $ 69,580 Moving 756,673 R.A. ~ $826,253

The average moving cost per person was approximately $220 for each of the 309 people displaced from the nine hotels in the Pike Project area. Benefits remained stable during the five years that hotels were closed by the Pike Project. There was no adjustment for inflation. The average rental assistance per person fluctuated between a low of $1545 for the Market Hotel resident and a high of $3652 for the Stewart House resident. There was no indication that rental assistance increased with the later closures. The total cost to relocate the hotel residents was $826,253, $69,580 moving costs and $756,673 rental assistance.
From the Pike Project files I gathered information on the average rent paid before and after moving from the Stewart House and the Fair-mount. These two hotels represented 40 percent of the displaced residents in the Project area. The former Fairmount resident paid an average of $138 a month for rent. That was up from $79 a month or a 43 percent increase. It was even higher for the Stewart House residents. The displaced Stewart House resident paid an average of $133 a month for rent. Their original rent had been $37 a month or a 278 percent increase.

The Stewart House resident had paid 13 percent of their income to rent before being displaced and 46 percent after finding new housing. The Fairmount resident has paid 26 percent of his income before moving and 46 percent for his new residence.
The rent increases were of a substantial nature for the limited income of the residents. Over 95 percent of the dislocated residents took their rental assistance allowance in a single payment instead of a payment once every four years. They might have saved their rental assistance payment for the next four years, but what after that? Could they find cheaper housing, qualify for and receive public housing, or would many of the residents be dead due to the end of a natural lifespan?
Relocation Patterns of the Residents
The rest of this chapter will examine where the residents went to after they were displaced from the hotels in the Pike Project area. I will also be concerned with the length of stay of the residents in their new accommodations and the type of dwelling unit occupied.
Of the 195 people displaced by the closure of the Livingston, Market, Leland, Byron, Bayview, Omaha, and Harbor Heights Hotels I was able to gather addresses for 165 residents following displacement. Map 7 on page 84 indicates the location of their relocation by zip code areas. 114 residents found new accommodations within the zip code areas that included the Pike Project area (98121 and 98101). 98 percent (147)
found accommodations within the core area. 3.5 percent (6) lived north

of the downtown core and 1.2 percent (2) south of downtown. 3.5 percent (6) lived in other parts of the state of Washington and 3 percent (5) along the west coast states and Canada.
Map 8 on page 85 indicates the relocation of the residents of the Stewart House and Fairmount Hotels. These hotels were the last two hotels closed in the Pike Project area and displaced 116 residents between April 1976 and April 1977. I was interested to see if relocation patterns had changed from the other seven hotels closed between September 1972 and March 1976. I went through all the relocation files for the Fairmount and Stewart House Hotels so that relocation addresses for all the 116 residents were gathered.
86 percent (100) of the Fairmount and Stewart House residents relocated within zip codes 98121 and 98101. 92 percent (107) relocated within the
downtown core. 1.7 percent (2) lived north of the core and 1.7 percent (2) south of the core. 4.3 percent (5) of the residents relocated within the state. None of the residents left the state to find new homes.
The relocation patterns of the residents of hotels that closed before March 1976 were very similar to those of the Fairmount and Stewart House. The only major difference was that 3 percent of the residents of the earlier closed hotels moved out of state and none of the residents of the Fairmount and Stewart House left the state of Washington. Map 9 on page 86 combines Maps 7 and 8 and indicates the relocation of residents in the nine hotels closed by the Pike Project.


1 ,.i o

The residents of the closed hotels moved to the periphery of the Pike Project area. Often many residents of a closed hotel would move to another hotel or apartment that passed city codes and was outside the Project area. The residents were able to maintain some of the friendships developed over many years in the Market area. It was also possible for the residents to get a choice of accommodations. These included apartments and housekeeping rooms.
Type of Dwelling Unit
Table 4 below indicates the type of dwelling unit that the displaced residents of the Fairmount and Stewart House moved to.
Low Cost Federally
Assisted Apartments Furnished Apartments Rents based on income Bachelor or 1 Bedroom
Fremont House Total
Fremont House Total
Hotels Stewart
Fremont House Total
Fremont House 1 0 3
The vast majority of the residents moved to hotels. 73 percent (97) of the residents found accommodations in hotels surrounding the Pike Project area. 49 residents relocated at the Moore Hotel at Sixth and Virginia, two blocks from the Project area boundary. Other residents moved to the Calhoun Hotel, St. Regis Hotel, and the Commodore Hotel which were located no more than three blocks from the Project area.

22 percent (29) of the residents relocated to small apartments. These included the Bradbury Apartments, Franklin Apartments, and Concord Apartments. All were located within four blocks of the Project area. Only 3 percent (3) of the residents moved to low cost federally assisted apartments. Two residents moved to the rehabilitated Livingston/Baker building in the Historical District, one resident to the Frye Apartments on the south side of downtown and one resident to the Atwood Apartment, a block away from the Market. The three residents who moved into houses were outside the downtown core. None of the residents moved into housekeeping rooms.
r u
The residents realized that they could afford a hotel room or a one bedroom apartment. Either would offer more amenities than a housekeeping room. The number of housekeeping rooms that were up to the city code and near the Market was declining, and the residents were required to relocate in structures that passed all the city codes.

Efforts to Provide Renovated Housing for the Displaced Residents in the Market
In February, 1977 the Pike Project Office mailed a letter to ali displaced residents of the Market area telling them about the opening of the Livingston/Baker building, and their eligibility for moving into the apartments and returning to the Market.
Of the 191 letters sent to the residents 59 percent (113) were returned with no forwarding address, 14 percent (27) replied, and 27 (51) percent did not receive a letter or chose not to reply. I find it amazing that of the 191 displaced residents, 59 percent had moved and left no forwarding address. This was only a year after the seventh hotel
(the Harbor House Hotel) had closed.

The Pike Project Office had fulfilled all the urban renewal requirements
and helped relocate the residents with personal and financial assistance,
but they had failed to provide a permanent home for the displaced
residents. The residents of the Pike Place Market did not move often.
Their low income status limited the choice of accommodations and they
were satisfied with their original dwelling unit .
What happened? Why did a traditional stable population move? Why would the residents leave a building that was up to city codes, had a variety of ammenities, and where there was rent assistance available for four years?
A majority of the residents moved to hotels surrounding the Pike Project area. These hotels were up to city codes and the displaced residents could therefore receive rental assistance. Over 90 percent of the residents took their rental assistance in a single payment and had no further contact with the Pike Project Office.
I believe that many residents established residence at a hotel that was up to the city codes and then found accommodations that were cheaper, and not always up to city codes, in other hotels. The accommodations might have included housekeeping rooms and was probably in the same downtown neighborhood. Unfortunately, I was unable to verify if the displaced residents had moved to other hotels. In 1982 I was not able to find residents that had moved between 1972 and 1977.

1. "Residents of the Pike Plaza," Seattle Post Intelligencer, August 13, 1968.
2. "Population in the Market," Seattle Times, February 12, 1973.
3. The number of people displaced and the number receiving assistance was not the same. Some residents refused assistance, tried to cheat, or died.
4. Department of Community Development Relocation Report for Pike Plaza Redevelopment Project (Wash-R-17) Seattle, City of Seattle, 1972. Page 2.
5. Please see Chart I for the complete list of hotel closures.
6. Please see the discussion of the mobility of the Market residents in Chapter II of this thesis.

Gould, Gordon, Pike Project Residential Community, Seattle: graph, 1972.
Pike Place Project, Background Paper on Housing for Low People, Seattle, City of Seattle, 1972.
Office of Policy Planning. Seattle Displacement Study, Seattle: City of Seattle, 1979.

This chapter will examine the residential construction activity in the Pike Place Project area between 1974 and 1982. These eight years represent the time period when most of the redevelopment and restoration was completed. I will be concerned with the residents that moved into the Pike Place Project area during this period.
The discussion of the residential units in the Pike Place Project area will be broken down to the types of income that the specific units are designed for. This will include low income, middle income, and high income units.
During the 1970s it was a boom period for downtown Seattle. Business revenues were healthy, new skyscrapers were being built to satisfy the demand for office space, and expensive condominiums replaced early 20th century working men's hotels.
The Pike Place Public Market benefited from this boom with $50 million of public money being spent in the area during the decade. This expenditure has resulted in a cleaner, brighter, and safer Market. There is now a diversity of business in the Market and people are using the Market as a regional shopping and event attraction.

There is no doubt that the infusion of money saved the continued economic life of the Market, but the initiative passed by the people in 1971 also required the city to save and rejuvenate the community that had grown and developed with the Market. Unfortunately, this has not been successful.
Condition of the Market Resident During Redevelopement
The Market community (please see Map 10 on page 95) is still the most economically depressed area in the city. Preserving the Market and the architecture of the area is very important, but without the original population it lacks authenticity. Neighborhood residents were members of a variety of social groups, and were an important part of the economic support for the Market businesses before redevelopment.
Rents have increased dramatically during the last few years and affordable private housing is quickly disappearing. Service, blue collar workers and the elderly can no longer afford to live in the few hotels that remain in the area. Elderly people living on fixed incomes are already paying 1/3 to 1/2 of their incomes for rent. All these people must now compete for housing with a recent influx of new, more prosperous downtown residents.
In 1980 22,000 people lived within the Downtown area and the population total has remained stable despite redevelopment. This has not been the pattern for the Market community where the population was 3872 in

*AP 10
Dermy Wav

? /, V;:;vt- '-T-


Elliott Bay