The city released a report last Friday outlining legislation that would, in theory, protect the Pike-Pine corridor from encroaching ugly, dull development. But some people in the neighborhood say the regulations don’t do enough to discourage developers from knocking down old buildings that house the sort of bars and theaters that make the neighborhood a cultural hub.

Here's the area we're talking about:

“A few of [the proposals] make some sense but I wonder where the teeth are to get any of them done, such as encouraging developers to fix up cool old places,” says Chip Wall, a leader of the Pike Pine Urban Neighborhood Council (PPUNC). “There should be incentives to help those developers who want to preserve and renovate for new use older buildings with character... but [the proposal includes] no specificity, no funding, no specific tax or regulatory relief."

"As it is, most [developers] know that to preserve [or] renovate is very expensive and it is far cheaper to tear down than to preserve a historic building or one with character ... one like Oddfellows, for example,” Wall says. The building to the left, Gilda's Club of Seattle, is recognized by a recent historic-resource survey conducted by Department of Neighborhoods, but it doesn't yet qualify for any protections.

Under the current proposal, new buildings in Pike-Pine would have to adhere to the following rules:

• Limit the portion of buildings facing Pike or Pine Streets to a half block.

• Limit businesses fronting along Pike or Pine Streets to 50 feet.

• Prohibit internally illuminated cabinet signs and back-lit awning signs, which are typical of franchise stores.

• Require pedestrian-friendly ground floors, such as glass-fronted retail, theaters and other sidewalk-friendly businesses.

More details in the entire 67-page report are available here.

But the proposal fails to protect the most crucial component of the Pike-Pine district: the old buildings. The previous proposal, generated under the guidance of City Council Member Tom Rasmussen and presented in September, defined "all buildings existing for 75 years or more as character buildings, and included provisions to encourage the retention of these structures.” The neighborhood has 278 buildings that are more than 85 years old. But under this draft, a paltry 26 of those buildings would qualify for incentives for preservation. If a developer retained portions of those old buildings, they would be allowed to build large additions; if the developer just demolished the building, the new building couldn't have the extra height and mass.

While, in the past, I’ve been quick to argue that an old building isn’t necessarily special just because it’s old, Pike-Pine forms a historic district. Collectively, these old buildings—containing uncommonly large interior spaces and cheap rents that function as cultural incubators—are what makes the district valuable. They deserve to be saved.

Check out two more old buildings that don’t make the cut. The first is merely “eligible for further study at a later time” and the second has “no distinctive architectural style,” according to the Department of Neighborhoods study.

“The feeling was that not all of the buildings are equal,” says Dennis Meier, a land-use planner for DPD who oversaw the report. Regulations to preserve older structures, he says, “should bereserved for the higher pedigree of building.”

But the goal of the legislation, requested by Rasmussen, was to retain the existing cafés, affordable housing, performance spaces, rehearsal studios, and other buildings that contain other historic uses. Aren’t these the very buildings that we should require strong incentives—or outright protection—to maintain? “I don’t think we have gotten that direction from the community,” Meier says.

But that’s not true. At a public meeting in October, to which the current draft supposedly responds, Wall said the proposal lacked “teeth,” and others piped up.

“A lot of incentives are great, but they are not enough to preserve the buildings without land-marking each one of them,” said Betsy Hunter, director of property development for the low-income housing provider Capitol Hill Housing, said in October.

The current proposal gives small incentives to retain these 26 buildings, by essentially saying new buildings can't be much bigger than the old one or get special height bonuses. That’s nice for those 26 buildings.

But it's unclear the proposal would even protect all 26 of them. An analysis of the report by Greg Easton, an economic advisor to the city, states, “The increased development would certainly provide an incentive to consider preserving character buildings." But, he continues, “Whether there proves to be adequate incentive to actually preserve a building will depend on site-specific conditions.”

The council will hold several meetings in the next few months to discuss the issue. Increasing development, as I'm sure people will note, will continue. Twelve new buildings are in the works and some threaten to displace the very things that made the neighborhood so desirable to begin with. One example is a block of East Pine Street that used to be home to Bus Stop, Manray, Bimbo’s and other small bars and businesses. The buildings those businesses were in weren't great old buildings, they were just old buildings—which housed great cultural uses. Currently that block is a gravel parking lot—the businesses were demolished last year and the developer hasn’t begun construction on the new apartments. Yes, density is good, but, generic buildings with shallow retail rooms are bad. There’s nothing about this legislation that prevents this loss from reoccurring year after year.