This pains me

Seattle is a boom/bust town. As a consequence, it has grown in fits and starts; raging in the boom times (20 month wait right now for a construction crane) and decaying during the bust (see the abandoned remodel across from my local pool--there is moss growing indoors because the owner only got half-through reroofing). Demonstrating an irrational devotion to the American ideal of progress, the city has gentrified, tearing out the old, small, or unfashionable to build new and shiny. In my own neighborhood, one property which was derelict has been advertised as a "tear-down special." What is going in is a two storey box, within the property line by ten feet on each side, on a corner, but with no facade detailing anywhere but the front. And I am sure it will be advertised as being in a "charming, well-established neighborhood." Well, it WAS charming when I moved here.

While I resent this move in my own neighborhood, this article in today's paper makes me unbelievably sad. Selig, like Hausman, will build something grand, but the record of the neighborhood will die once this church goes. What gets me more, though, is that churches can't be declared landmarks in this town. So often a community would pour its money into building a sturdy and dignified church while the residents were left to fend individually for themselves (take a look at St. Fidelis in Victoria, Kansas). In many towns near where I grew up, the churches are the only expression of architectural distinction and longevity in evidence, and they are integral to the civic health of their town.

Stupid, short-sighted progress.