Maron Meyer
Northwest Asia Weekly
A snapshot of the ISRD’s Gary Reddick virtual meeting with Vibrant Cities on August 24, introducing the plan for 614 Maynard Ave S.
As part of a process that may change the structure of Chinatown’s International District (ID) but generate welcome revenue for local businesses, the International Special Review District (ISRD) committee reviewed the proposal to demolish Bush Gardens (formerly known as the Elgin Hotel).
The main point of contention at the hearing on August 24 was whether the building at 614 Maynard Avenue South needed to be demolished. Although the applicant to build a 17-story tower for residents of the site argued that there was no choice but to demolish it, the voices of the community and the chairman of the board questioned whether a third-party independent reviewer would come up with an alternative conclusion.
The community’s support for the construction of this tower called Jasmine appeared strong at the meeting. Joan Seko, former owner of Bush Garden, and Tomio Moriguchi, former CEO of Uwajimaya, among others have expressed support for the income generated by the approximately 200 residents who will live in the new building. This will provide much-needed relief for companies in trouble after the pandemic.
Moriguchi said he was “personally familiar” with the radicalism and legacy of the building. Bush Gardens is a place where community leaders, such as Ruth Woo and Bob Santos, often meet other people.
As far as he is concerned, Santos insists that community development must be adapted to all income earners.
However, Moriguchi added, “We need this type of development to bring more residents and business opportunities to the community, including income to support businesses that are already here.”
He said he believes the developer Vibrant Cities “has vision and experience.”
Some ISRD board members also expressed support for the proposal, including Faye Hong, Matt Chan and Andy Yip.
Others opposed the demolition. Eugenia Woo, director of conservation services at Historic Seattle, said the building would “stick out like a sore thumb.”
“Since its establishment in the early 1970s, ISRD has not approved the demolition and destruction of historic and culturally significant buildings in the area,” she said. “We can’t let this be the first.”
Woo also called the developer’s attempt to add cultural or historical elements to the building “dishonest” because the developer has repeatedly stated that it does not consider the building to have historical significance. In a written comment, she said that the development team “seeks from Beijing” cultural themes, while ignoring the diversity of Asian culture.
Finally, she requested an independent third-party review of the structural integrity of the building to determine whether it really needed to be demolished.
Some board members also expressed these concerns. Board member Tanya Woo also appeared to be opposed to the demolition at first. Chairman Matt Fujimoto repeatedly asked whether a third party would be interested in another evaluation of the project, and if so, take action “swiftly”. Board member Matt Chan asked for clarification on the construction process.
It is not clear whether it represents the entire community. Rebecca Frestedt, Seattle staff and coordinating ISRD meetings, reported that due to technical issues, it was impossible to answer calls from community members. In addition, a Cantonese-speaking community member’s translation could not be heard in the Zoom recording.
Such challenges clearly represent the ongoing efforts of ISRD staff to be all-inclusive in their business. For example, according to Frestedt, the next election of ISRD board members will be held by mail voting. But it is not clear how this will affect the chances of traditionally voting people getting votes.
Tanya Woo also expressed concern that multiple signatories representing local restaurants and other businesses that supported the project did not clearly understand what they supported.
She said that the 17-story tower is a new development project that has not been shared with the board before, and even the demolition described by the development team as inevitable is new information.
Gary Reddick, the architect who submitted the proposal to the board of directors, has no renderings or images of the future tower other than simple hand-drawn sketches. The early renderings are “archives”.
Reddick said he is waiting for comments from the community before proposing specific designs.
But Frestedt said that before the board of directors can move forward, it needs to provide a structural plan to replace the demolished building.
Frestedt said in response to Woo’s question about stopping demolition: “I’m trying to help applicants reach a point where they don’t even need to consider rejection.”
Towards the end of the hearing, which was purely for the board members to decide whether they had enough information to advance future meetings, James Wong, the CEO and building owner of Vibrant Cities, tried to extract each board member’s information on how they would respond. Statement of voting for demolition. Huang grew up in an ID card and worked in a Chinese restaurant.
The frustration, at least in part, also seems to represent the development team working on the proposal for about three years. It is not clear if this is normal time or if it is exacerbated by the pandemic.
“We have not been in front of the board for a long time, and some of you lacked continuity between the meeting two years ago and the previous meeting,” Wong said.
“If the decision is not to approve the demolition of the building, then I don’t know of any other way, then it will sit there and continue to degenerate and eventually collapse,” Redick said.
When Redick directly asked the board of directors at the end of the speech whether they would support development, Fujimoto seemed hesitant.
“Please note,” he told the other board members, “it is a bit inappropriate to accept a question directly at this time.”
The concessions made by the development team at an earlier meeting to provide community space were skeptical by some board members, but approved by others.
Redick has repeatedly defined the characteristics of the space as “welcome and gathering.” However, some board members said that this emphasis was inconsistent with the activism that used the building in the past.
Wong said that he is working hard to promote Asian culture and mentioned some of his other buildings, which have retail spaces and sell Asian or Asian-influenced food.
But Woo said that the problem is not to protect Asian culture, but to protect the specific heritage of the building.
It is also unclear who can enter the community space, which may be located on the first and second floors of the building.
Woo, who owns the Louisa Hotel building, said that in other such buildings in ID, these spaces seem to inevitably end up as the property of the building’s tenants. She said that security issues make it impossible to open the space to outsiders.
Wong responded that such a space can be used for pre-arranged events such as weddings, banquets, academic conferences, and provide legal protection in advance.
Frestedt said that it is unclear whether the board of directors has the authority to sign such agreements.
One thing that people generally agree on is that this building will change the structure of the community.
For some people, this is positive, allowing residents more money to spend on local businesses.
Andy Yip, who has led several business associations, said this will “rejuvenate” the region.
“There will always be the first person to set a precedent and have courage,” he said.
But the research mentioned by Fujimoto shows that this kind of development can exclude families.
Matt Chan and others expressed concern about the construction of dedicated single-family apartments or condominiums, which would also hinder the development of emphasizing the family.
Woo asked whether these units were for skilled workers and whether the introduction of 200 people would help solve long-term problems such as homelessness and safety. She is also worried about the increase in cars.
All board members stated that they had enough information to advance the decision regarding the demolition, although some board members still expressed concern that the developer had not given other options.
The next meeting will be held on September 14.
You can contact Mahlon in the following ways info@nwasianweekly.com.
