IAC (Implementation Advisory Committee) for major institutions is a group that provides community input and oversight for the implementation of the institution’s approved Master Plan. They work collaboratively with the city and the institution to ensure that the institution’s development plans align with neighborhood needs and goals
Advocates for the Lee Center let us know that some of the strategies involved trying to get more publicity. I But to be clear, without more pressure from influential parties the IAC is not able to do much more than write “sharply worded letters”
So if you have contacts at Crosscut, The Urbanist, Arcade, KUOW, Seattle Times, or any SU donors, use this memo in your efforts if it helps.
To: Nelson Pesigan, Seattle Department of Neighborhoods; Lara Branigan, Seattle
University
From: John Feit, Chairperson, Seattle University IAC
CC: IAC Committee Members
Date: April 30, 2025
Subject: IAC Committee Meeting of April 22, 2025
“Seattle University recognizes its role in the community-at-large as being
complementary to its mission as an academic community. Every
development project represents an opportunity to engage the neighborhood
both physically, through high-quality buildings and an ‘outward facing’
campus perimeter that is inviting to neighbors, and more personally, through
the creation of spaces that support the university mission of service. Through
this master plan, the university seeks not just to minimize the potential
negative impacts on surrounding neighborhoods, but to maximize the
potential positive impacts that come with growth.”
A Cause for Concern
The IAC meeting with Seattle University on April 22 revealed that there is great
skepticism among committee members – and outright opposition by those from the
public in attendance – to the University’s plan to demolish the Lee Center for the
Arts as part of the Seattle University Museum of Art (SUMA) project. Both parties,
while voicing strong support for the museum, questioned why the University could
not both build the museum and retain the Lee. Both committee members and the
public stated that it appears that little, if any, consideration was given to preserving
this significant community asset and that the demolition of the Lee was a foregone
conclusion at the start of the project. This is particularly concerning to the IAC, as it
belies the “strong partnerships with community and neighborhood groups” as stated
in the Major Institution Master Plan (MIMP) and “to work with the community to
develop a plan that supports growth of the university while enhancing the
neighborhood.” IAC members questioned why the Lee Center could not be
preserved and made part of a ‘Center for the Arts’ that houses both visual and
performing arts. Furthering the skepticism is the project’s very aggressive design
and construction schedule.
The Activation of 12th Avenue
A centerpiece of the MIMP is how the University can advance the cultural and
economic environment of 12th Avenue with projects that enhance and activate the
pedestrian realm. We are hopeful that the SUMA will contribute to this goal and
there is an outstanding opportunity of doing so by pairing SUMA’s primarily daytime
use with the Lee Center’s primarily evening use. It is worth noting that the Lee
Center’s Hedreen Gallery activates the street through its large windows and that
the gallery is open to the public on weekdays. The windows to the costume shop
allow the public to see students at work while costumes come to fruition, allowing
the public to engage with the artistic process. The proposed design for SUMA shows
an open plaza with a deep overhang and the IAC is concerned that without proper
programming (which is unlikely to be achieved consistently), the plaza will lack
activation and be shaded, unoccupied, and void.
Sustainability
It is more than the loss of the Lee’s programmatic and cultural assets to the
community and the University that the IAC finds troubling. The demolition of the
Lee, which is not an identified action in the MIMP, fundamentally contradicts Seattle
University’s “goal to be a leader in sustainability, both among Jesuit and non-Jesuit
universities.” To demolish a well-designed, completely functional, award-winning
performing arts center, with no equivalent replacement on the horizon (the
suggested replacement Cornish facilities are not up to the task, according to faculty,
students, and local theatre professionals) is a retreat from any notion of
environmental and cultural stewardship. Even if the Cornish facilities could be
brought up to the standards of the Lee (for which no money has been identified),
those facilities would be unable to serve the Central Area and the Capitol Hill Arts
District as the Lee does.
Is the Seattle University campus no longer “an education center for people of all
ages, with the grounds setting the scene for group tours on sustainable practices
and the Lee Center enriching minds with the fine arts.”? Is the University retreating
from its goal of “Build[ing] structures for permanence and quality as well as
flexibility.”?
The Chapel of Saint Ignatius
In addition to creating a new gateway to the University, the siting of the SUMA on
the site occupied by the Lee is justified by the University in that such a location
precludes shading the Chapel, yet the MIMP has many illustrations showing
potential development along 12th Avenue that include a 105-foot-high building just
north of the Lee, and to the east of the Chapel. A building of this scale would
certainly cast shadows on the Chapel, yet University staff did not express any
concern about that potential shading and indicated that the MIMP plan for a 105’
building remains. How should the IAC interpret this apparently relativistic and
contradictory position?
Another concern is the fundraising illustration that shows the SUMA framing a view
to the Chapel. The University admits that no funding is allocated to realizing what
amounts to, at least for the foreseeable future, a view which necessitates the
demolition of a parking lot and replacing it with a verdant landscape as indicated in
the MIMP. While it is understandable that the MIMP shows aspirational goals that
will be realized over time, making such promises as justification for demolishing the
Lee will prove to be disingenuous, potentially for decades to come.
“Care: We put the good of students first”
While it is not within the purview of the IAC to opine on how projects affect student
life and academic preparedness, the many students and faculty members who
testified at the meeting about the terrible loss suffered by the demolition of the Lee
must be noted. As one IAC member commented, the building of the SUMA should
be a joyful moment, yey instead, may become one that is burdened by the loss of
something so valued and a process tainted with recriminations.
In Summary
The IAC – and the entire University and neighboring community – celebrate the
SUMA project and are eager to see it realized. Severely tempering the enthusiasm
of the vast majority of parties at the April 22 AIC meeting is the fact that the
project is being fast-tracked, effectively side-stepping the due process that the IAC
expects and the community deserves – and that must be followed if the project is to
be aligned with the MIMP. To overcome this impasse, we ask the University to
provide the IAC the following items at our next meeting:
- Design concepts that show the retention of the Lee Center as part of the
design options for the SUMA. We believe retaining the Lee or incorporating its
function into SUMA will lead to a superior project that better supports the
goals of the MIMP and achieves an even more iconic gateway at Marion
Street. There is also the potential to share spaces between the two buildings,
such as the shop, the auditorium, and the Hedreen Gallery, saving the
University significant costs by not having to duplicate elements or in
upgrading theater spaces from Cornish. The design concepts should also
include massing alternatives that illustrate the University’s concerns about
how the project will shade the Chapel. - The committee would like to gain a deeper understanding of the site and
other analysis that led to the decision that the current site is the best
possible, as well as sharing any considerations that were given to other
possible locations on the campus. - The University staff stated that there were preliminary designs that included
the Lee in its current configuration but that these were abandoned with the
acquisition of Cornish. The IAC is interested in seeing these preliminary
designs. - Explain, in detail, how the void-corner will be designed and programmed to
ensure it effectively contributes to the street vitaliy, as well as what other
street-supporting programming will occur along 12th Avenue. Should the Lee
Center be retained, we would like to see strategies for improving its gateway
qualities and corner activation, too. - As the SUMA is envisioned as completing the gateway to the university,
explain in detail the urban design beyond the boundaries of the SUMA that
would be accomplished as part of its insertion into the plan. - Please provide the IAC the DCI analysis of the proposed change within the
framework of the Land Use Code, SMC 23.69.035. Is the proposal a minor
amendment or a major amendment, and what are the reasons for that
conclusion?
Notes - All text in quotient marks is from the Seattle University MIMP.
- IAC members Maureen O’Leary, Michell Moore, and Todd Johnson did not
attend the April 22 meeting.