It’s empty.
The million-gallon water tower that can be seen from much of North Seattle and is THE face of Maple Leaf was drained a half-year ago when construction began on the reservoir park. There’s no plan to ever put it back in service, we learned on a recent tour of the construction site.
Seattle Public Utilities says it has not yet made a decision on the tower’s future. The water tower was built near the corner of Roosevelt Way Northeast and Northeast 85th Street in 1949 to replace two towers built nearly a hundred years ago, around 1915.
Maple Leaf No. 1 was made of wood and could hold 50,000 gallons. Maple Leaf No. 2 was twice as big and made of steel, according to Seattle’s Department of Neighborhoods. Our familiar tower, which holds 10 times that, is Maple Leaf No. 3.
A survey for that department found the water tower (which they insist on calling a water “tank”) appears to meet criteria to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places and for Seattle’s Landmark Preservation Ordinance. Either would make it harder to demolish, but the tower does not actually appear on either list.
For the city’s preservation ordinance, the tower must be at least 25 years old and “an easily identifiable visual feature of its neighborhood.” The neighborhood survey states: “Painted with a distinctive maple leaf pattern, this steel tank has been a prominent feature in the local neighborhood as well as the northern end of the city since its construction in 1949.”
Should the city pay to preserve and maintain an unused water tower because it’s been the most visible thing around for over a half-century?
Maple Leaf could use a bit of sprucing up in the art department. Why not ask if the local muralist, Ryan Henry, also known as simply, Henry, would be willing to paint it. Perhaps a slow loris playing a hammered dulcimer, or a lemur riding a unicycle?
I think it would be a great lookout tower with one of the best views in Seattle if it was retrofitted for safety. It would be cheaper than creating something wholly new (viewing platform, landscaped hill) for the new park. Plus, there wouldn't be any new view obstruction issues, all while maintaining a piece of history. Its a win/win situation. History and purpose.
Turn it in to a cell tower that generates money for the parks department (probably the General Fund instead); it makes sense since there is already a tall steel structure that people are resigned to seeing.
I too would be interested in what the city feels would be a reasonable 10-20 year budget but I think it's significance needs to be determined first.
Let's look at the Pioneer Square Pergola. It is truly a Seattle icon, its image appears on nearly every piece of tourism literature and you'd be hard pressed to find a local artist that has not painted, drawn or photographed the Pergola. After the recent collision with a truck it was very apparent that the Pioneer Square business district felt they would suffer economically if the structure had to be removed. The cost of the repairs wasn't really much of a consideration as everyone felt strongly that their would be a economical and cultural impact if the is pergola was lost. Before anyone tells me I'm loading the deck by using the pergola for comparison it should be noted that it too was built as a piece of city infrastructure as a shelter for the newly installed underground public restrooms.
Now since the passing of Bernd Becher (Google him and see if you can find the connection) I think we'd be hard pressed to find anyone that is drawn to the area by the tower and thusly you have to consider if there is any economic benefit it brings.
Another thing to consider it that most pieces of infrastructure have a very well defined lifespan, especially things made out of steel, take the 4th South drawbridge as an example. It's a beautiful structure that has reached a point where it simply can't be repaired any longer and needs to be replaced. I'd be very surprised if the tower was at that point in it's life but that day is coming.
The last thing I'll toss out there is the new park that will be created from the covering of the reservoir is going to provide a unique opportunity to the area. One thing to consider is the largest part of the property (over the reservoir itself) will have significant limitations on what can be built on it. I would imagine that any large buildings would need to be constructed on the outer edges of the property so the tower sits on some prime land if a community center is in the plans.
I don't live in the shadow of the tower but even if the maintenance was only $10-20K per year I think I still rather see it go towards environmental improvements like separating storm water from old sanitary sewer systems to prevent the release of untreated waste into our waterways.
If I understand it right, the city has installed a new pumping system that takes the place of the gravity feed. I'll try and find a few more details on Monday. -Mike
Maybe the first question ought to be “How much will it cost to maintain?”
That's a legitimate question.
But without actually knowing the cost, how can we judge? Culd it really, as one commenter notes, be “hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining an empty tank?”
I'd be curious.
I guess I don't understand the physics of water pressure. I thought the reservoir was for people below that water level and the tank was for people above the level (i.e. many of us up here on the hill). How are we continuing to get adequate water pressure without this tank?
I grew up in the neighborhood. The water tower was a good landmark.
Take it down, the city has such a huge list of unfunded projects that would provide actual value for rate payers why would we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining an empty tank. If the city tried to build that tank today everyone would lose their minds over their right to sunlight being lost, interference with migrating birds, loss of property values and making the neighborhood a terrorist target. Everyone needs to ask themselves is this truly a significant landmark that defines the neighborhood or just a large structure that they have become use to over the years.
And water tank is the proper terminology, this tank happens to be situated on top of a tower structure but any large vessel built for the purpose of holding water is a water tank. Lots of people incorrectly refer to utility poles as phone poles, kind of the same thing.
As someone that moved to the area from the Eastside (11/2008) I have to admit it would seem a bit odd if this was a fixture anymore. Heck it would be the reservoir without the tank featured right next to it.
Here's to hoping.