Section III. Constructing Nature: Urban Planning and Design in Seattle
While Seattleites worked to bring Alaska and East Asia into their commercial orbit, they also
worked to design for nature within their city. From the earliest days of white American settlement,
Seattleites put lines on the land to mark private and public property boundaries. As the city matured,
however, residents realized that they needed to manage and direct growth by more comprehensive
means. Early planning emphasized the role of Seattle as a port for natural resources. The face of
Seattle would reflect its dependence on turning nature into commodities for trade, but it would also
reflect how residents had grown concerned that nature was now something to be protected, not
merely exploited.
By the end of the nineteenth century, Seattle residents, like Americans across the country,
worried that the nation’s natural bounty was failing. Vanishing herds of bison and hillsides stripped of
trees pointed to the wasteful and inefficient use of natural resources. The conservation movement
grew out of such concerns, and noted conservationists, such as Gifford Pinchot, the first head of the
new United States Forest Service, lobbied to enact new policies designed to protect and conserve the
nation’s natural abundance. Other Americans, such as John Muir, extended their concern for nature
beyond the desire to use resources more judiciously. In contrast to the conservation movement, the
preservation movement lobbied to set aside more land for scenery and recreation. While historians
have often distinguished between the two movements, arguing that conservationists stressed
managing resources more efficiently and equitably while preservationists stressed protecting nature
for its beauty and intrinsic value, both spoke to Americans’ broader concerns that nature was under
siege.
These changing attitudes toward nature also touched upon the lives of urban residents,
especially during the Progressive Era. At the same time that Americans began to rally behind the
conservation and preservation movements, they also worried what urbanization would do to their
nation. Cities had become environmental problems, filled with pollution, devoid of open space, and cut
off from their surrounding countryside by bands of buildings and train tracks. As early as the 1850s,
reformers in Eastern cities, such as Frederick Law Olmsted, began building municipal parks, such as
Central Park in New York, to bring nature back into the city. By the 1890s, the park building craze
culminated in what historians have called the “City Beautiful Movement,” a constellation of reforms that
used parks and buildings to uplift residents and eliminate blight. The City Beautiful Movement shaped
urban planning and design in almost every major American city and Seattle was no exception.
After the Klondike gold rush, Seattle’s population boomed, bringing with it many of the
problems that afflicted larger cities in California, the Midwest, and the northeastern seaboard. From
1890 to 1920, the population swelled by nearly 9000%, from 3,553 to 315, 312—the most dramatic
increase of any city in the Northwest. As settlement spread across Seattle’s hills and valleys, many
residents became concerned that growth would lead to inefficiency, sprawl, and ugliness. Remaining
stands of timber fell before real estate developers and streetcar lines. Shacks filled with itinerant
workers crammed the waterfront along Elliott Bay and Shilshole Bay. Safe and beautiful parks and
playgrounds for the city’s children were scarce. Reformers sought to correct these problems before
they ruined the city. Residents listened to reformers and empowered engineers and planners to bring
order and beauty to Seattle.
One solution was to make Seattle into an urban garden with more parks, boulevards and open
spaces. In 1903, the city government hired the Olmsted Brothers, the famous landscape architectural
firm from Brookline, Massachusetts, founded by Frederick Law Olmsted, to design a citywide park
system. For the next two decades, the Olmsteds were responsible for designing nearly all of the
Seattle’s major parks, including Volunteer Park and Green Lake Park, as well as the 1909 Alaska-
Yukon-Pacific Exposition, which was later incorporated into the University of Washington campus.
Parks were not the only vehicles for improving Seattle, however. In 1911, Virgil Bogue, a
former railway surveyor and engineer, was hired as the Municipal Plans Commissioner and proposed
an ambitious plan to guide the city’s growth and development. Hallmarks of Bogue’s plan included an
enormous new civic center just north of the downtown business district, widened and tree-lined
streets, and spacious parks based upon the 1903 Olmsted plan that would encompass the entire
region from Puget Sound to the Cascade foothills. Together with the Olmsted parks, the so-called
“Bogue Plan” was Seattle’s version of the City Beautiful.
As with so many urban designs, however, neither the Olmsted’s parks nor Bogue’s municipal
plan were fully enacted. The “Bogue Plan,” was defeated in the 1912 election after voters balked at
the enormous expense, but much of the Bogue’s recommendations, from a regional parks system to
improved highways and roads, later adopted in subsequent urban designs. The original Olmsted plan
was pared back when it proved too expensive, but enough remained to ring the city in garlands of
green. While some historians have argued that the original Olmsted and Bogue proposals fell before
commercial interests and fiscal conservatives desirous to keep prime real estate out of public hands,
this answer is too simple. Seattle was still tightly linked to extractive industries whose fortunes rose
and fell on the mercurial swings in metal futures, the fisheries market, or demand for timber. Moreover,
while Seattle’s population had exploded after the Klondike gold rush, the city had a relatively limited
tax base thanks, in part, to the large numbers of residents who worked seasonally in extractive
industries. Finally, many Seattle residents did not see the need for an expansive park system when so
much spacious public land lay within a day’s train ride or drive from their homes.
After the Second World War, Seattleites attitudes toward nature in the city changed yet again
with the rise of the postwar environmental movement. Just as reformers during the Progressive Era
decried Seattle’s filthy neighborhoods, reformers during the 1960s and 1970s seized upon the same
themes in their critique of a Seattle sprawling out of control. As with other cities across the nation
during the postwar era, economic growth during the 1950s drove urban expansion into the environs
surrounding Seattle. Cold War defense spending poured into Boeing and its local subcontractors,
generating more jobs and attracting more migrants. Real estate developers, catering to Americans’
desires for grassy yards and new tract homes, helped to turn the small towns of Renton, Bellevue,
Auburn and Kirkland into full-blown suburbs. This sudden growth spurt had unforeseen and unwanted
environmental effects. More residents meant more cars on more roads with more pollution and more
suburban sprawl. Industries and homes along Lake Union, Lake Washington, and the Duwamish River
spilled more and more waste into the water. Salmon had disappeared from many local streams while
smog began to obscure the city’s famous views. Nature in Seattle again seemed imperiled.
By the 1960s, many area residents began to embrace what historian Samuel P. Hays has
called the pillars of the postwar environmental movement: beauty, health, and permanence. Many
Seattleites no longer saw their livelihood tied to fishing, logging, or mining. Instead, they saw nature as
a playground or place for contemplation, a thing of loveliness not utility. They considered polluted
skies and waters, endangered wildlife, and diminished outdoor recreation as a direct threat to their
physical and emotional welfare. And in order to protect what was still left and restore what had been
damaged, reformers turned again to better planning and growth management.
The crusade to rescue Lake Washington was emblematic of this new urban environmentalism.
The growth of suburbs around Lake Washington led to an increase of untreated sewage dumped into
the lake. By the mid-1950s, water in Lake Washington was so polluted that swimming was impossible.
Wallis T. Edmondson, a professor of zoology at the University of Washington, sounded the alarm that
Lake Washington was becoming eutrophic or dying, in ecological terms, because sewage accelerated
the growth of blue-green algae that stripped the waters of life-giving oxygen. Fewer and fewer
creatures could thrive in the anaerobic waters. During the hot summers, mats of rotting algae washed
ashore along with sewage, poisoning beaches and polluting the air. Concerned city and suburban
residents lobbied to create a new regional planning agency, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, or
Metro, to clean up the pollution in Lake Washington, manage growth, and expand mass transit.
James Ellis, a Seattle native and local attorney who spearheaded the Metro campaign, argued
that Seattle’s environmental problems were the now region’s problems and thus demanded regional
solutions. Pollution did not respect property lines or political jurisdictions. But others worried that an
expanded county government would limit growth, hurt real estate values, and increase taxes. Nicholas
Maffeo, a tax attorney from Renton, led the charge against what he called “the Metro monster.” An
August 1958 ad in the Bellevue American caricatured Metro as a snarling octopus, strangling a
hapless suburban taxpayer in its tentacles. In hotly contested March 1958 election, King County voters
narrowly rejected the first Metro measure. Anti-Seattle and anti-tax forces in Seattle’s suburbs won the
first round.
Undaunted, Ellis and his allies put a newer, smaller version of Metro on a second ballot that
excluded the suburbs that had voted against the first plan while narrowing the agency’s focus to
building sewers and nothing else. Voters approved the second Metro plan in September 1958 by a
wide margin—59% for to 41% against—with King County residents outside of Seattle ratifying the plan
by nearly two-to-one. Construction on the huge interceptor sewer system to divert sewage from Lake
Washington into Elliott Bay and the Duwamish River began in early 1959 with the first phase
completed in 1963. By the mid-1960s, the water quality in Lake Washington had dramatically
improved. Scientists, planners, and environmentalists had shown the promise of regional management
to save urban nature.
Emboldened by their success with the Metro campaign and fearful of continued sprawl and
unchecked growth, another group of concerned citizens, business leaders, and city officials joined to
form Forward Thrust in 1966. Many of its leaders were veterans of the Metro campaigns, including
James Ellis. Surveys by Forward Thrust found that a majority of Seattle and King County residents
complained about increased traffic, noxious pollution, inadequate mass transit, and insufficient open
space. Armed with these results, Forward Thrust organizers built support for a series of city and
county bond proposals to fund improvements for pollution control, setting aside more land for parks,
expanding local highways and mass transit, and erecting a county stadium (the Kingdome) for
professional sports teams. But Forward Thrust was more than a vote to make more public facilities. It
was a vote on managing Seattle’s growth. During a special election in 1968, voters approved some
measures but rejected raising money for mass transit. A second round of Forward Thrust proposals
also went down to defeat in 1970, due in large part to the regional recession propelled by Boeing’s
bust. The underlying message behind both elections was clear: Seattle and King County residents
wanted to restrict growth and improve the environment, but they were unwilling to raise taxes or
restrict their behaviors, like driving cars or buying suburban homes, that contributed to regional
troubles.
The documents for this section are taken from debates surrounding four urban designs for
Seattle and its environs: the 1903 Board of Parks Commissioners Report, the 1911 “Bogue Plan,” the
1958 Metro campaigns, and the 1966 Forward Thrust campaign. Consider the following questions as
you analyze these documents:
• How have Seattleites planned their city and how have their plans changed over time? What
different goals and objectives did they plan for and were they realized?
• How did these different plans reflect how prevailing ideas about nature and cities? How and why
did ideas about cities, nature, and planning change over time? Do you think that present-day
Seattleites would accept any earlier plans for their city today, such as the Bogue Plan?
• What were some of the arguments for and against these various plans? Why did residents either
approve or reject these plans?
• Did these plans work? That is, did earlier plans achieve what proponents hoped they would? If
they did not, why not?
• What sort of biases do these plans reveal? Do they suggest that class, economy, region, or other
factors influence how cities like Seattle were planned?
Document 23: Selections from First Annual Report of the Board of Park Commissioners, Seattle,
Washington, 1884-1904 (Seattle: Lowman and Hanford, 1905), 4-6. Seattle Municipal Government,
Don Sherwood Parks History Collection, Chronological Files. Seattle Municipal Archives, Office of
the City Clerk, Control No. 5801-01, Box 1, Folder 5.
E.O. Schwagerl, Superintendent and Engineer of Parks, writing of his survey of potential park
areas in 1894:
[The lands along the western shore of Lake Washington are] “…yet untouched by the blasting
fires of the logging camps and clearings that have ruined and devastated parkable trees and growths
of nearly every portion of the Sound country, and destroyed the possibilities of natural parkas and
beautiful landscapes. The natural verdure around Lake Washington is still in it maiden beauty, and the
people, not only of the city but of the entire state, may be thankful that such a fate has not befallen it.
The woods often thrust their natural beauty, grandeur and shapeliness to the very summits of these
picturesque bluffs and hills. This ribbon of grand is easy of access to the citizens of Seattle, and
posses the character and features most suitable for a romantic pleasure round, and affords
possibilities rarely found in such close proximity to a great city, for its large population to enjoy the vast
extent of aquatic pleasures already so well patronized.”
Discussing the need for parks, Schwagerl wrote:
“Parks are Nature’s innocent and holy inspirations, and in them are whispers of peace and joy.
Parks are the breathing lungs and beating hearts of great cities; the multitudes, their circulating blood
rushing hither and thither, performing the functions of life and usefulness, and when the lungs are
freshened and purified, they reinvigorate the whole system through the pulsating beats of these life-
centers, where rich and poor mingle to inhale the unalloyed, God-given perfumes to body, mind and
soul.”
Document 24: Selections from Seattle Board of Park Commissioners, Parks, Playgrounds, and
Boulevards of Seattle, Washington (Seattle: The City, 1909), 11-12.
Introductory
The Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Seattle in issuing this publication do not wish it to be
considered exactly in the nature of a statistical report, as detailed information of that character is
contained in the annual report submitted to the Mayor on August 1st of each year. However, as no
publication descriptive of the parks, playgrounds and boulevards of the city has been issued since
1904, and inasmuch as since that time such wonderful progress has been made in the way of
extensions and development and the citizens of the city have become so interested in the park and
playground movement that at the recent special bond election a million dollars for parks, playgrounds
and boulevards was voted almost unanimously, coupled with the fact that this year we will entertain
thousands of eastern visitors, made it seem advisable that the Board should issue a publication
descriptive and illustrative of what has been done and what is in contemplation. The object of this
booklet will therefore be to review what has been accomplished, to set forth by word and by pictures
the success which the Board feels it has attained, to show to the people of this city as well as to our
eastern friends that Seattle, though a rapidly growing city, is keeping pace in the matter of things
beautiful. Incorporated in this publication will be found the original and supplemental Olmsted reports,
by which the Park Board in a general way is guided in its work, and it is safe to say that in a few years'
time the entire Olmsted Plan will be realized, which means that Seattle will rank foremost with the
leading cities of the United States in the matter of parks and parkways. If this booklet can show to the
citizens of the city how much has been done in so short a time, how much is being planned and how
great our possibilities are, its purpose will have been accomplished.
Historical
The acquisition and improvement of the park properties of the city of Seattle has been carried on
through three distinct periods of the city government, to-wit:
(1) From 1884, under the direction of the City Council; (2) from 1890 to 1904, under the Freeholders'
Charter, Park Commissioners and Park Superintendents being appointed by the Mayor and confirmed
by the City Council; (3) since March 12th, 1904, under an amendment to the City Charter to be found
elsewhere in this publication.
From 1884 to 1890 very little was done in the way of developing or acquiring park property, but from
1890 to 1904, under the Freeholders' Charter, a marked activity occurred in the acquisition of lands for
park purposes and the improvement thereof.
During the summer of 1903, the City Council, upon recommendation of the Board of Park
Commissioners, employed Mr. John C. Olmsted of the firm of Olmsted Brothers, Landscape
Architects, to visit the city and submit a report recommending a system for park extension and
improvement. This report was formally accepted by the City Council October 19th, 1903, and in a
general way is being carried out by the Board of Park Commissioners. This report, as well as a
supplementary report relative to the newly annexed territory, submitted in 1908, will be found in full
elsewhere in this publication. . . .
Seattle's Park System of Today
In the matter of the development of the park and boulevard system of the city, preparatory to the
advent of the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition, the Seattle Board of Park Commissioners has played a
very important part and the Eastern visitor to the Exposition will probably be surprised at the extent to
which this young and rapidly growing Western city has gone in the matter of making a city beautiful.
The growth of the cities and towns of the Northwest has been so rapid that in most cases parks and
boulevards have been an after thought, but in this respect Seattle is a notable exception and the
acquirement and development of park properties has kept pace with the growth of the city to such an
extent that there is probably no other city in the country of its size, regardless of age, which is better
provided with parks, playgrounds and boulevards. The general topography of the land in and around
Seattle, its mountains, its hills, its lakes and the beautiful Puget Sound and the forests and vegetation
characteristic of Western Washington, afforded an excellent opportunity of blending the natural with
the artificial and in making of a park system these features have been taken advantage of to a degree
of perfection.
Seattle at this time has fourteen improved parks, varying in size from Woodland Park, a beautiful
natural park of two hundred acres, to the small community park of two or three acres. Five equipped
and supervised public playgrounds are in operation and nine other sites have been acquired and are
rapidly being developed. Ten unimproved park sites have been acquired, with others in course of
condemnation, making a combined area of nearly eleven hundred acres.
In the matter of boulevards, this feature of the system has been developed practically within the last
two years. Lake Washington, a beautiful body of water thirty miles in length, marks the eastern
boundary of the city, the Exposition Grounds being located on the lake in the northeastern part of the
city. The Park Board decided to establish a north and south boulevard along the shore of, or
overlooking, this lake from the southeaster part of the city to the Exposition Grounds with feeders from
various sections of the city, and their efforts during the past two years have been directed toward the
carrying out of this idea, with the result that the Lake Washington Boulevard system, consisting of
about twelve miles of parkway, is now open for traffic. Several miles of this boulevard skirt the shores
of the lake, while, where the topography of the land makes it necessary, it winds its way through
wooded ravines or along the crest of the highlands overlooking the lake, with a panoramic view of the
lake and the Cascade Mountains with the towering peaks, Mount Rainier and Mount Baker, almost
constantly in view.
The entrance to the system from the down town section of the city is over what is known as Interlaken
Boulevard, a serpentine driveway which leads from the Capitol Hill district down to the main boulevard
south of the Exposition Grounds, and as a scenic driveway it has been declared by notable Eastern
tourists to be incomparable.
Under the proposed system of Olmsted Brothers, Landscape Architects, the designers of the Seattle
system, it is planned to have boulevard system of fifty miles practically belting the city, and a park
system of over two thousand acres, and if the people of Seattle continue to endorse and support the
park movement as enthusiastically in the future as they have in the past, the Olmsted plan in its
entirety will have been accomplished within the next ten years.
Document 25: “Closing Word,” from Virgil G. Bogue, Plan of Seattle: Report of the Municipal Plans
Commission submitting Report of Virgil G. Bogue, Engineer (Seattle: Lowman and Hanford, 1911).
Closing Word
Recognition of Seattle's needs has given rise to a new civic movement in the right direction. The
propriety of such recognition has been made clear by precedent and this movement shows a
readiness to take advantage of every suggestion and help in the upbuilding of a community having
possibilities second to none.
These possibilities have been recapitulated in the foregoing pages, and plans for their crystalization
into actualities have been detailed. Every statement, suggestion and general scheme or plan therein
submitted, has been the outcome of a careful study of the situation.
Expenditures of large sums will be demanded as the years roll on, but a community which has already
accomplished enough to excite world-wide admiration will find means to continue a good work with but
one possible outcome; especially in view of the certainty that work performed haphazard and
piecemeal, or which does not follow an approved general plan, will cost more, produce less and be
less creditable.
Finally
The plan, with the exception of the Civic Center, the street encircling the Civic Center, the extension of
Dexter Avenue southward to the Civic Center, the extension of Ninth Avenue southward from Denny
Way to Stewart Street, the position of Central Stations on the axis of Central Avenue, and the fixed
policy of keeping all waterways which face upon Elliott Bay free from bridges, need not be followed on
precise lines in every instance, but the plan should be deviated from only when detail studies
preparatory to construction show minor changes to be necessary, and any deviation should not be of
such nature or extent as to jeopardize the value and harmony of the plan as a whole, or any part
thereof.
The plan is set forth in words in this report, and illustrated, and explained in the appendices and by
maps, sketches, designs and illustrations accompanying, which are made part hereof.
Document 26: Excerpts from Civic Plans Investigation Committee, The Bogue Plan Question (Seattle:
R.L. Davis, 1912), Special Collections, University of Washington Libraries.
The Bogue Plan Question
Charter of Seattle, Amended, Article XXV., Sec. 8.
That if a majority of the voters voting thereon shall favor the adoption of said City Plan so
reported, it shall be adopted and shall be the plan to be followed by all city officials in the growth,
evolution and development of said City of Seattle, until modified, or amended at some
subsequent election.
ISSUED BY CIVIC PLANS INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE . . . SEATTLE
Origins of the Civic Plans Investigation Committee
When the Bogue Civic Pan was completed a number of Seattle citizens began to investigate it. They
soon became convinced that the plan is impracticable in many ways, and would prove injurious.
As its advocates failed to give information regarding the plan's cost and effect, a special committee of
investigators was named to make a detailed study. . . . Conforming with the wish of those who brought
the committee into existence, the result of the investigation is here submitted to the people of Seattle. .
..
Partial Cost
Of Bogue Plan in one-sixth of city's area, covering Civic Center and parts of 10 Highways. . . .
Land and Improvements Construction Cost Total Cost . . . .
$13,558,753 $10,046,000 $23,604,753
These estimates cover the cost of the Bogue Plan in one-sixth of the city's area only. These figures
do not include cost of property damage, new buildings and other improvements. . . . The total cost to
complete the plan (using present valuations of the land to be taken) will be well over $100,000,000. . .
.
***
Consideration of the Bogue Plan naturally resolves itself into four questions:
(1) Is its adoption advisable, in view of the iron-clad provision of the City Charter (Section 8, Civic
Plans Commission amendment? See cover.
(2) Is the plan necessary?
(3) What will it cost?
(4) What will be the results of its operation? . . .
As the committee sees it, the danger to Seattle lies in adopting the plan as inflexible. If it is not
formally adopted, its desirable features may be followed by the city.
Is the Bogue Plan Necessary
If the plan is adopted, and if in any one locality changes are desired, the entire city must consent. . . .
ADDITIONAL HIGHWAYS NOT NEEDED.
The main objects of the Bogue Plan are to give Seattle, (a) 300 miles of additional highways; (b) a
revised and extended park system; (c) a detailed plan for waterfront development.
(a) Seattle already has a much higher percentage of street surface to total area than any other great
city in the world . . . except Washington, D.C. . . .
(b) Under the present Olmsted Plan of barks and boulevards, Seattle is taking full advantage of her
natural setting. The city is becoming one of the most beautiful on the continent. Is our present park
development not satisfactory, and will our park board be unable to master the problems in park
development as they come up?
BOGUE PLAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER HARBOR DEVELOPMENT.
(c ) The detailed plan of waterfront improvement, developed by Mr. Bogue, is entirely unnecessary,
because the city does not now control its waterfront. The Port of Seattle, created by the city and
county jointly, has jurisdiction over all the harbor area--Sound, bays and lakes.
The people of Seattle are considering the greatest waterfront terminal plan ever presented to a city on
the Pacific Coast. Many believe that action on this shipping terminal project is of vastly more
importance to Seattle than any or all of the Bogue Civic Plan of improvement. They regard this as a
crucial moment in Seattle's history. In addition, the Port Commission of Seattle is laying important
questions before the public.
Adoption of the Bogue Plan will aid neither the terminal project nor the Port improvement
design. Instead, it will spread confusion, saddle the city with a needless burden and divert
public attention from more important considerations.
Admittedly Seattle's one great need is for harbor improvement. If the city is to hold its own in the
competition for maritime business it cannot be idle. Therefore, if Seattle has any money to spend for
improvements that money should be spent upon the harbor area for docks and improved cargo-
handling facilities.
Other cities of the coast are not figuring on extensive beautifying plans ahead of harbor improvements,
for they see the possibilities of the Panama Canal and are getting ready for its opening.
What Will the Bogue Plan Cost?
The cost of the plan is the most vital feature from the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Bond issues can be
made to apply to only a limited part of it. . . .
There will also be the destruction of the old street improvements; regrades that will change the face of
the city; street improvements, water, lights and sewers for all the highways and cross streets affected
by the plan and damages to other property. . . .
Seattle has already spent more than any other city of its size in the world for regrades. These have
proved so great a burden that their cost will be felt for a great while to come. Yet the fact that the price
of the Bogue Plan completed will be more than five times as much as the cost of all our previous
regrades should make the property owner think seriously before he votes to assume this load.
Seattle's achievements in the way of regrades have been the wonder of the country. Would it not be
wise to await the absorption of this burden before assuming one vastly larger?
What Will Be the Result of the Bogue Plan?
If adopted, the entire plan must be folowed [sic] out virtually to the letter as shown by legal opinions
contained in this pamphlet. Property owners whose ground is to be taken for Civic Center purposes,
highways, boulevards, parks or other uses, can begin legal proceedings and possibly force the city to
condemn. It is the opinion of authorities that if no bonds are voted to meet the primary expense of the
property involved, the property owners will have grounds for damage.
SACRIFICE OF PRESENT REGRADES AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
Attorneys say, and advocates of the plan admit that the details of the plan are absolutely binding upon
the city. Mr. Bogue alters existing grades to such a degree that Seattle may count as lost a goodly part
of the tremendous amount already spent in regrades and street improvements.
DENNY HILL TO BE FILLED IN AGAIN.
Establishment of the Civic Center on the Site of the old Denny Hill will require that Denny Hill be partly
filled in again to bring the Civic Center to a commanding eminence. It will be necessary to raise the
Civic Center area somewhere between fourteen and thirty feet above its present regraded level. This
is the scheme of the plan as stated in the general report and explained by R. H. Thomson. About
$150,000 worth of new street improvements in the Civic Center area will be lost.
Westlake Boulevard and Dexter Avenue along Lake Union; streets whose creation and improvement
have cost immense sums of money, are abandoned in the Bogue Plan and superseded by Central
Avenue at new elevations, and a new Westlake Ave., which is to be located in what is now 40 feet of
water in Lake Union. The southern end of Lake Union is given over to a complex system of railway
and water terminals. . . .
Example of Effect of Plan, Showing Status of Civic Center and Lake Union District
The Civic Center, as proposed by Mr. Bogue, appropriates the greater part of fourteen blocks in the
regraded Denny Hill district. Olympic Mall and Central Avenue as far as John Street take parts of ten
more blocks. Students of city development point out that the placing of the Civic Center in this position
will prove as much of a barrier to the northward expansion of business as did Denny Hill, which was
recently removed at a cost of several millions of dollars.
Refilling of the Civic Center area to a depth variously estimated from fourteen to thirty feet will be
required, according to the advocates of the Bogue Plan. Sacrifice of all the present street
improvements would of course result. . . .
GREAT GASHES ON WEST QUEEN ANNE SLOPE. . . .
EIGHTY-ONE-FOOT CUT AT NEWELL STREET. . . .
Considered as an entirety this projected scheme of new streets and grades from the proposed
Central Station along the East Queen Anne Hill slope can only mean one ultimate result, viz.: a
tremendous regrade of the entire east lobe or ridge of Queen Anne Hill from the gulch along
the general line of Nob Hill Avenue, eastward and northward down grades varying from 12% to
20% . . .
It is evident that this sort of scientific demolition committed along the east slope of Queen Anne Hill at
these varying elevations, following the cut already made along the lake shore of Westlake Avenue,
would produce a mile and a half of chaos, and make East Queen Anne Hill a scene of slides, fitted
only for a great regrade into Lake Union. R. H. Thomson admits that the Civic Center and railway
plans require the damaging cuts which have been described and will necessitate a regrade of East
Queen Anne slope and an extensive fill into Lake Union along its entire west side and south end.
As an incident of this revolutionary treatment proposed for Lake Union, the Bogue Plans [sic] effect the
abandonment and obliteration of the present Westlake thoroughfare along Lake Union. It becomes
part of the railway trackage locations provided for, and the taxpayers will have the privilege of building
a new and wider Westlake Avenue, several hundred feet to the eastward, in forty feet depth of water in
Lake Union. . . .
Document 27: Washington State Pollution Control Commission, The Seattle Sewage Treatment
Problem (Olympia: The Commission, 1948).
HISTORY
The rapid growth of the Seattle metropolitan area has resulted in numerous complex municipal
problems. Constant attention has been given to providing food and shelter, improved transportation,
and better education. The spectacular advancement in this problems has been accomplished at the
expense of the sanitary problem of sewage disposal which in the past has received a minimum of
attention. In dense settlements such as this metropolitan area there arise many conflicting demands
on the land and water uses, and in order to protect the public health and welfare State agencies have
be3en established to determine how these rights and uses may best be shared.
Many of the public health and sanitary problems have been solved by the establishment of high
standards. The well established policy of chlorinating all municipal water supplies and the proper
handling of milk and other foods has been so effective that former disease epidemics from these
sources have been reduced to only scattered cases of sickness. The ever increasing problem of
handling and treating sanitary sewage in this area has not been satisfactorily solved by responsible
civic authorities.
Most sanitary authorities agree that the dumping of untreated sewage into natural bodies of water has
many harmful results. The accumulation of sludge beds on private and public shore lines and beaches
tends to create a muddy foul area unfit for most types of human use. The presence of B. Coli
organisms (sewage indicators) in the water in the vicinity of swimming beaches indicates that this
water is contaminated. Waters containing large quantities of sewage also render the various sea foods
found therein such as fish, shrimp, clams and oysters unfit for human consumption. The Pollution
Control Commission believes that cases of improper disposal of municipal sewage as well as the
harmful results thereof should be forcefully brought to the attention of the general public.
Inland cities such as Ellensburg, Grandview, Sunnyside, Omak, Selah, Walla Walla as well as many
others have long ago constructed plants for the treatment of sewage. Nominal utility charges have
been established to maintain and improve many of these facilities. Cities such as Morton, Renton,
Kirkland, and Burlington as well as many others in the coastal region have constructed treatment
plants. In all there are about 40 treatment plants scattered throughout the State at the present time.
Numerous cities are either building or actively planning treatment facilities. A considerable number of
industries throughout the State are treating their waste waters either by chemical treatment or by
settling and screening the solids from their plant effluent.
The problem of sewage treatment exists in most localities throughout the United States and in the past
half century over 6,000 treatment plants have been erected. Many more municipal plants are being
planned. Private industry has also been very active in an industrial waste treatment program. The
expenditure of over $160,000,000 will be necessary before the industrial waste problem in the United
States will near completion.
Prior to 1938 nearly all pollution control activities in this State were carried out under authority of public
health statures. In 1938 a technical commission was established to work on pollution problems under
the State Department of Health. An active survey and research program was conducted on the
problems relating to municipal and industrial pollution and numerous technical bulletins were
published by this Commission.
The present Pollution Control Commission was established under Chapter 216 of the Laws of 1945.
The Commission was delegated the authority to establish regulations and standards, to conduct
surveys, as well as to enforce the law in cases where violations are noted.
As a result of the overall program of the Commission treatment plants will be erected at Tacoma,
Bellingham, Vancouver, Puyallup and many other cities in the near future. At the present time the first
of two plants is under construction in the City of Bremerton and should be completed during the year
1949. It is expected that the second plant will be erected soon after the completion of the first.
For several years the Pollution Control Commission has investigated many instance of gross pollution
of the waters adjacent to the City of Seattle. Water samples have been collected by members of the
Commission staff and analyzed in the laboratory of the State Department of Health. These samples
have shown that under tide and wind conditions all of the salt water bathing beaches of the City show
varying degrees of pollution. B. Coli counts (sewage indicators) have ranged to as high as 2,400,000
which is definite proof that bathers are often in contact with waters containing various dilutions of
sewage. A further and more detailed discussion of the bacteriological phase will be taken up later in
this report.
During the year 1947 Dr. Able Wolman of Johns Hopkins University was retained by the City of Seattle
to survey the entire sewage problem. At the initial joint meeting of the three agencies concerned it was
decided that the City, the State Health Department and the State Pollution Control Commission would
all take part in the collection and interpretation of the data pertinent to this investigation. Everything
proceeded according to plan up to the final step—the drawing of the conclusions and
recommendations. For this reason the Commission has found it necessary to publish the report which
follows:
COMMENTS ON THE WOLMAN REPORT
It was the understanding of the Pollution Control Commission that the purpose of the Wolman Report
was to provide the City of Seattle with a basis for future planning for sewage and industrial waste
collection, treatment, and disposal and to furnish detailed information as to the methods of
accomplishment. The report does not give any of the expected details. The basis for future planning
seems to hinge on the interpretation of the recommendations. Some first interpretations have
appeared in the newspapers to the effect that Seattle will never need to provide sewage treatment
facilities. Since this is a far reaching conclusion and aeffects not only Seattle but all of the salt water
areas in the State, it appears advisable to consider all of Wolmans' recommendations and conclusions
and not only those which appear to recommend no treatment. Each and every conclusion and
recommendation contained in the report is therefore quoted below with comments for the purpose of
bring out all pertinent factors. . . .
3. THE CITY OF SEATTLE HAS NOT MADE LOGICAL AND EFFECTIVE USE OF PUGET SOUND
FOR THE ADEQUATE DISPOSAL OF ITS MUNICIPAL SEWAGE, THROUGH THE FAILURE
(a) TO EXTEND ITS DISCHARGES INTO SUFFICIENTLY DEEP WATER AT MANY
LOCATIONS.
(b) TO MAINTAIN DISCHARGES CONSISTENTLY CONTINUOUSLY AT DEEP WATER,
WHERE ORIGINALLY SO PLANNED AND CONSTRUCTED, BY INSUFFICIENT CAPACITY OF
DISCHARGE LINES, BY BREAKS IN OUTFALLS CLOSE TO SHORE, BY CONTINUED ADDITIONS
OF STORM WATERS, OR BY VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF THESE DEFICIENCIES.
(c) TO DEVELOP THE MOST DESIRABLE POINTS OF DISCHARGE.
These are only a few of the instances where the City has been lax in its attention to the sewerage
problem. There has been a need for a number of years for a re-valuation of the entire problem of
sewers and outfalls. Most of the construction of recent date has been based on a plan adopted about
thirty years ago. While the Commission is thoroughly in accord with planning for a considerable period
in the future, it is felt that plans must, of necessity, be adjusted to meet the advances in engineering
practice and the changing standards of living. Both the Department of Health and the Pollution Control
Commission have, on many occasions, taken exception to the plans proposed and have called
attention to the need for a new and modernized overall program.
It is pertinent at this point to call attention to the matter of the type of organization which is considered
by many municipal governments as best adapted to finance and administer a sewerage program.
Sewage collection, treatment and disposal is a utility function comparable to municipal water utilities
and municipal power and light utilities. Both of the latter have, in almost all cases, proven to be more
than self-sustaining. There is every reason to expect that the sewage utility will be equally sustained.
Funds for construction, repairs, and operation are collected by nominal sewer service charges which
are so regulated as to establish a fair and just charge to private and commercial users based on the
actual use of the system. Almost all of the smaller communities in this State operate on this basis with
service charges undoubtedly often in excess of that which will be necessary to adequately take care of
Seattle's system. Construction in these cases is financed by utility bonds against the system and not
by funds obtained by a general taxation.
As a utility the entire system will come under the control of an organization whose sole purpose is to
administer the sewerage system problem. Specific funds are available for this use which normally
results in more effective and competent administration. There is a definite need for such an
arrangement in the City of Seattle.
Document 28: “Edmondson Announces Pollution May Ruin Lake,” University of Washington Daily (13
October 1955).
Edmondson Announces Pollution May Ruin Lake
Pollution might ruin Lake Washington for swimming and fishing, a University scientist said Tuesday.
Dr. W. Thomas Edmondson, associate professor of zoology, said there are evidences of change,
probably caused by the increasing amounts of treated sewage the lake has received in the last 10
years.
While studying the lake last summer with the Pollution Control Commission, Dr. Edmondson and Dr.
George C. Anderson, research associate in zoology, collected and analyzed samples of lake water.
Their study two symptoms of change. The first is that a species of algae that has caused trouble on
other lakes appeared for the first time. In dense population, the algae would produce scum that would
be thrown up on the beach and also would ruin the water for swimming. It was this algae that caused
the reddish scum observed at the Gold Cup regatta, he said.
Oxygen Decreases
The other symptom of change was a decrease in oxygen in the lower, cold water. To be good for trout,
the lake must have plenty of oxygen in the lower water, Dr. Edmondson explained. But with the
greater production of life, more dead material settles to the lower levels during the summer. Bacteria
on this algae uses up the oxygen, he said.
The scientist pointed out that neither of these developments is critical at the present time. But they are
significant as evidence that the lake is in a transitional state because of sewage, he added.
Dr. Edmondson said that Lake Washington in its natural state is not a productive lake. With few salts
dissolved in it, the water is soft. It remains clear throughout the summer
Increasing Sewage
The increasing amounts of sewage emptied into it the last decade has released large quantities of
nitrates and phosphates which are used by algae for nutrition, he explained.
“This has the same effect on life as fertilization has on a lawn,” he said. “It is one reason treated
sewage has become a problem.”
Dr. Edmondson said that his professional interest in the changing nature of the lake is not so much the
effect on recreation as the experience of observing and analyzing the transitional nature of the lake
and of lake productivity.
Earlier in the century, lakes in Germany and Switzerland went through similar changes. Dr.
Edmondson said, “It is our desire to add to the research that has been accomplished there.”
Document 29: “Vote NO on METRO!” [campaign flyer, c. 1958], from Bellevue American, 5 March
1958, copy in James R. Ellis Papers, Special Collections, University of Washington Libraries, Box 1,
Folder 5.
Document 30: “EMERGENCY! Clean Up Our Filthy Waters,” [campaign flyer, c. 1958], James R. Ellis
Papers, University of Washington Libraries, Box 1.
Document 31: “Put Metro to Work,” [campaign flyer c. 1958], Seattle—Metropolitan District, Vertical
Files, Periodicals Division, Seattle Public Library, Main Branch.
Document 32: Nicholas A. Maffeo, “Speech Against ‘Metro,’” 20 February 1958. Seattle—
Metropolitan District, Vertical Files, Periodicals Division, Seattle Public Library, Main Branch.
SPEECH AGAINST “METRO”
2/20/58
By Nicholas A. Maffeo
Seattle Attorney
(President of the King County Taxpayers League Against “Metro
(“The King County Taxpayers League Against Metro is not against progress)
Indeed we are for:
1. Unpolluted waters
2. A new rapid transit system
3. Coordinated planning
but we are definitely against the proposed “metro”. We have two basic objections against “metro”. The
first is that the proposed “Metro” would create a new government with huge governing powers which
would destroy our historical form of local self-government, and (2) would simultaneously place a
staggering financial and tax burden upon us. “Metro” would solve the “so-called” pollution problem in
Lake Washington and on the Sound, by creating a new layer of government which would be
superimposed by the City of Seattle and some 15 other cities and towns, as well as our King County
government, some 20 odd sewer districts and govern over an area nearly half the size of King County.
This new super-government would be governed by the “Metro” Council, which would consist of 14
local elected public officials, eight from the central city of Seattle, one each from the cities of Bellevue
and Renton, and one representing twelve other growing cities and towns. In addition thereto, there
would be one King County commissioner and one appointee for each commissioner district, and one
for the north district and one for the south district. These 14 would in turn elect a chairman. The
Council would be dominated and controlled by the eight elected local Seattle officials, the Mayor of
Seattle and seven Seattle City Councilmen, which would deny effective representation to the other 15
incorporated cities as well as the large growing unincorporated areas. This Council is an un-
Democratic Council in that it is not directly elected by you, the people, and therefore is not directly
responsible to the will of the people. . . .
When the “Metro” council exercises these vast legislative powers what voice will you have in this
Council to protect your interests, your home, your pocketbook? Whom will you complain effectively to,
or petition, to obtain redress for any wrong or injustice done you? Can you vote them out? That is our
great American privilege but with “Metro” you can't vote for or against the 8 Seattle Council members
unless you live in Seattle, and the people of Seattle can't vote out the other Council members unless
they live in their respective communities. The Council is thus removed from the people it governs. If
you live in Seattle you can only vote for Seattle members. Here is the great device for political
subterfuge.
In Seattle the members of the “Metro” Council at a local election will state they did no wrong, it was the
other members of the “Metro” Council who were voted in by the other cities and communities, and vice
versa.
My friends, the proponents of “Metro”, in their haste to solve a grossly over-exaggerated pollution
problem, have attempted to create a new super-government which would remove the safeguards of
freedom placed by our ancestors at the local level. The seem to have forgotten the age-long and
bloody controversy that our forefathers xxxx waged against tyranny and the great heritage of freedom
that they left us at the l local level. This freedom consists in precisely that our elected representatives
must be made directly responsible to the people for their actions at regular elections where their
conduct shall be passed upon by the people. This safeguard was placed by our ancestors to prevent
corruption and to speedily correct the evils as they arise. I wish to say, my friends, in all earnestness
that if it came to a choice between “loss” of Lake Washington or the loss of any part of our great
American heritage of freedom, I would personally chose to lose Lake Washington, but there is not
need to lose our liberty, there is no need to lose our lake. This then brings us to the so-called pollution
problem. We find that the City of Seattle is dumping 70,000,000 gallons of raw sewage per day in the
Sound, contaminating and polluting the beaches. If the City of Seattle had built proper sewage
treatment plants the problem of pollution on the Sound would not exist. . . .
In conclusion, my friends, the solution that the proponents of “Metro” would have us adopt would
destroy our historical form of local self-government and would simultaneously impose upon us a huge
tax and financial burden at the Local Level of government which would exceed the sum of one billion
dollars. The interest alone divided among the 200,000 families in King County could be in the sum of
$300.00 per year, and all of this without any necessity whatsoever.
My friends, at this precarious time in our national existence, when we are faced with a national debt of
275 billion and the ever-necessary federal taxes to protect our freedom from dangers abroad, with a
mounting deficit at the State level and with the threat of new taxes, it would seem the height of folly to
add to this a gigantic indebtedness at the Local Level.
I believe, my friends, that you will agree that the only safe and sound course for us is to defeat “Metro”
at the polls and in so doing remove this threat of a new financial burden to be imposed upon us and to
preserve our local liberties.
Document 33: Selections from Reports to Forward Thrust [Capitol Hill, Montlake, Madrona District,
Denny Blaine, and Bellevue] Forward Thrust Papers, Acc. 1704-4, Box 1, University of Washington
Libraries.
Document 34: “Forward Thrust Begins,” 15 September 1966, Forward Thrust Papers, Acc. 1704-4,
Box 1, University of Washington Libraries.
Document 35: “What a Contributor Should Know about Forward Thrust,” 23 May 1967, Forward
Thrust Papers, Acc. 1704-4, Box 1, University of Washington Libraries.
May 23, 1967
What a Contributor Should Know
about Forward Thrust
What Forward Thrust Is
Forward Thrust is an ideal, an action program, and an organization.
The ideal is an unswerving belief that the great and rapid community growth need not result in the
destruction of what has been termed “the Puget Sound way of life.” Indeed, the goal of Forward Thrust
is to turn King County's present population and industrial boom to the advantage of all citizens of the
community.
The action program of Forward Thrust is preparation of a series of capital improvement general
obligation bond measures for the elected officials of King County and its municipalities, who in turn will
present the program to voters for their decision. These capital improvements will cover those major
items in the fields of transportation, open space and recreation, culture, urban redevelopment, and so
forth, which are necessary to the orderly development of the community, but which cannot be financed
through existing means. The separate facets of the Forward Thrust program will be organized into a
system of priorities aimed at financing “first things first.”
The organization of Forward Thrust is a cross-section of King County's population. The “Committee of
200” is an absolutely non-partisan group of businessmen, labor leaders, housewives, professional
people, educators, governmental officials and professional planners. The membership was selected
by a 24-man organizing committee appointed by the mayor of Seattle and chairman of the King
County Board of Commissioners. Forward Thrust is a non-profit, temporary corporation, which will
cease operations with the passage of its program at the polls.
Why Forward Thrust Was Created
The question for Seattle and King County is not if we shall have growth, but how shall we guide it in
order to prevent the serious problems of overcrowded communities, slums, suburban sprawl, traffic
jams, pollution, noise and blight which plague nearly all of America's large cities today.
Before the announcement that Boeing would build the 747, and had won the SST design competition,
it was estimated that we would have to make room, within the corporate limits of King County, for
another 600,000 people by 1985. That's equivalent to one more Seattle, or 30 more Bellevues. New
forecasts are under way, and it seems apparent already that these 600,000 new neighbors will be in
our midst by as early as 1975.
Their half-million additional cares will further choke our streets and highways; the central freeway is
already carrying the traffic projected for 1975 during peak hours.
Demand for housing will convert more open space lands to residential lots, and make access to golf
courses, parks, beaches, streams and camping sites still more difficult. Water, air and visual pollution
control could get entirely out of hand.
These threats to our unique living and working environment are real, and facing us today. Every other
major city in the country ignored these problems when they were in a stage of growth comparable to
King County's. Transportation facilities were built piecemeal, and resulted in multiplying congestion,
rather than solving it. Open space and recreational facilities are nearly non-existent for millions of big-
city residents.
Seattle and King County are experiencing today the same rapid growth rate that created these very
problems for major urban communities throughout this country and abroad.
Realizing that King County has only a brief time in which to take preventative action, Forward Thrust
was organized by the King County Commissioners, Mayor of Seattle, and civic leaders. Forward
Thrust is charged with developing a comprehensive package of capital improvements that will have
been coordinated with all governmental officials and interested citizen groups before being submitted
to the votes.
In other words, Forward Thrust was created to prepare a “go for broke” program designed to prevent
this community's way of living from being destroyed in a hodge-podge distribution of people, cars,
houses and smokestacks. . . .
Arriving at a Fair Share Contribution
In order to finance the first phase of the Forward Thrust efforts, 35 potential contributors were
contacted; 32 responded for a total of $100,000. Those contributors are:
Alaska Steamship Company
Alpac Corporation
Associated General Contractors
The Boeing Company
The Bon Marche
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
Fisher Flouring Mills Company
Frederick & Nelson
General Insurance Company
Great Northern Railway
Jewett-Gorrie Insurance Company
Nordstrom Best
Northern Life Insurance Company
Northern Pacific Railway Company
Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company
Pacific Car & Foundry Company
Pacific Northwest Bell
J. C. Penney Company
Pioneer National Title Insurance Company
Puget Sound Power & Light
Sears Roebuck & Company
Seattle Clearing House Association
Seattle Hardware Company
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Seattle Times
Sick's Rainier Brewing Company
Simpson Timber Company
Union Pacific Railroad
University Properties, Inc.
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Washington Natural Gas Company
Western International Hotels, Inc.
Many hours have been spent in analyzing the original contributions in order to arrive at a reasonable
request figure in this second round of financial support. The total budget of $300,000, of which the
previously raised $100,000 is a part, was approved by the Forward Thrust Executive Committee.
Expenditures will be monitored by the Finance Committee, whose members are:
Howard S. Wright, President
Thomas E. Bolger, Treasurer
Edward E. Carlson
William M. Jenkins
Rapid growth is no longer a matter of future speculation for King County. It is upon us today, to a
degree greater than even the most visionary forecasters had imagined. We can become its
complacent victim, thus losing one of the richest heritages in the land. Or we can determine to use the
little time remaining to build an even finer community than we enjoy today.
The experience of other cities has shown that failure to properly plan and provide for this growth can
only mean substantially higher costs, eventually, to the business community. A reasonable investment
now in the program of Forward Thrust can well mean a real saving in later years.
Document 36: “Would you Pay $1.21 per year for a new all-weather stadium?” [Forward Thrust
campaign literature], c. 1968, Reports to Forward Thrust, Mercer Island and Bellevue, Forward Thrust
Papers, Acc. 1704-4, Box 1, University of Washington Libraries.
Document 37: “When they’re 21, it will be too late,” [Forward Thrust campaign literature], c. 1968,
Forward Thrust Papers, Acc. 1704-4, Box 1, University of Washington Libraries.
Document 38: “Vote TUESDAY Feb. 13th ‘Your Day of Decision,’” [Forward Thrust campaign
literature], c. 1968, Reports to Forward Thrust, Mercer Island and Bellevue, Forward Thrust Papers,
Acc. 1704-4, Box 1, University of Washington Libraries.