November 11, 2005

Downtown Spokane has an economy that can best be described as "stable" or "stagnant." Take your pick. It is true that there has been investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in new construction and improvements in downtown Spokane in the 30 years since the boom of the "Expo 74" worlds fair. But with the flight of retail and other businesses from downtown Spokane, the result has been that we have just been holding back decline and not really growing a new and modern city.

A few years ago my wife and I took a trip to Calgary, Alberta. We had a young student from Ukraine with us, Alex, and we wanted to see the sights of Calgary. We took the elevator to the observation deck of the tower in Calgary. While viewing the spectacular view of the city, Alex pointed to a motley group of older brick buildings and said, "That looks like Spokane over there." He was correct.

A Spokane building developer bought up most of one block in downtown Spokane with a plan to put up another office tower of 20 to 25 floors. For various reasons, his dream has not been realized, but he does now hold a demolition permit to demolish most of the buildings on the block including the Mohawk Building, and the old Rookery Building. The Merton Building was demolished earlier this year.

The problem with a new office tower is simply that most people prefer not to live or work in a high rise office tower. The skyscraper idea was great in its day, but the concept is dead today. In the 1930s Bill Gates would most likely have built some sort of skyscraper such as the Chrysler Building in New York. But no... he built a campus of low rise buildings in Redmond with adjacent parking and landscaping.

The preservationists in Spokane are beating the drums to "Save the Mohawk and Rookery Buildings."I have been in these buildings and they are a landlords nightmare. The best thing that could happen to them is to be demolished.

Take a good look at the Mohawk building above. A brick facade is all that there is there... the rest of the building would need to be gutted completely. Similarly, the Rookery building has some art deco terracotta tile on the outside of the building, but this alone does in no way make it a "Art Deco Gem." Both buildings have value only to the extent that the basic framework could be salvaged and completely redone. The problem is that this just doesn't pencil out according to Ron Wells, architect, without sucking the City into some sort of public/private partnership to build a parking garage! I seems to me that the City of Spokane has already had some experience in participating in non-economically viable public/private lash-ups. Surely, our leadership has learned from this experience to be doubly cautious when entering into deals that private entrepreneurs will not invest in.

The preservations believe that: "Historic buildings record our history, create an aesthetically rich urban environment, and help to make downtown an attractive destination for local residents and tourists alike." There are other buildings in downtown Spokane to which this statement would apply, but not so in this case.

The city planners wax eloquent about the joys of a"vibrant" cityscape with happy pedestrians crowding the sidewalks and walking throughout the city core. Spokane has already experienced this sort of cityscape with the Parkade Plaza. Shortly after it opened it was alive with people sitting by the fountain, on benches and thoroughly enjoying the plaza. Unfortunately, that has all changed. The druggies and riff-raff took over the place and it was not long before the owners put up the spikes and took away the benches. Now, the place looks abandoned most of the day.

The value of the developers land is the price of the land, less the demolition costs. Aesthetically rich? Give me a break. These crappy old buildings have been a blight on downtown Spokane for years. The pigeons were roosting in the Mohawk building back in the middle 1970s. Both the Mohawk and Rookery buildings are a maze of low ceiling little cubby holes that no one would want to live or work in.

What sort of twisted thinking would lead one to the conclusion that the hulk of an abandoned crappy building is preferable to a parking lot?

These buildings are old and worn-out, but it is difficult for me to conclude that they are "historic." If they are, I would have to conclude that the shabby skid-row buildings that were on Trent Avenue, (now Spokane Falls Blvd.) were equally "historic" and should not have been demolished to make room for surface parking between Bernard and Howard.

If Councilman Hession thinks that the City of Spokane should be involved in condemnation of this property to further develop it into, "Residential housing, offices and retail shops," what would prevent the same action to condemn the present surface parking lots between Bernard and Howard on Spokane Falls Boulevard for the same purpose?

I am no stranger to the subject of economic development, having graduated from EWU with high honors, majoring in Economics, with a particular interest in economic development. But I can tell you this... If private investors see no way to rehabilitate these derelict structures to make a profit, the City of Spokane is assured of failure when attempting to step in and force a solution that is non-economically justifiable.

If our city council is hot to rehabilitate the core of downtown Spokane for residential housing, there are numerous buildings all around the core such as the Bennett Block Building that have upper floors that are abandoned. If you are serious about restoring this huge amount of abandoned upper story space, change the tax structure to penalize instead of favor abandoned space, and likewise, reward developers for developing this space through the property tax structure.

Downtown Spokane is still in trouble with excess vacancy rates for storefronts and vanished retail stores. Where there have been successes with new construction, ample surface parking is a significant factor. Consider the new American West Bank Building. Would this building have been built without ample adjacent surface parking? I don't think so. Take a look at the new Chili's Restaurant that replaced the derelict Union Gospel Mission. Would this restaurant have been so successful without their adjacent large and free parking lot? I don't think so.

The preservationists need to wake up and realize that this is 2005. Their idea of getting people out of their cars and into mass-transit... and out of their homes and into town houses or high rise towers is simply a gross failure to realize that this is not what the public wants. Business people who fail to realize this will be the ones to go out of business. The public will vote with their feet on the brake and accelerator of their car as they head for the mall. WDM