Byrd Brainstorm
December 27, 2011 
14 Comments
(Feature image: Danny Dinges.)
(Photo: Spokesman-Review)
The Jensen-Byrd building, which towers above the University District, is getting the axe. A Texas company, Campus Advantage, purchased it to the tune almost $3 million and plans to tear it down next summer to build dorms for WSU’s Riverpoint campus students.
I’m not even sure how to start in on what an incredible waste this is. First off, the building is 102 years old. And additionally, what is WSU doing selling it out of state? Why isn’t local business being supported for this huge undertaking? Spokane developer Ron Wells also put in a bid for the building, planning to keep it standing, but lost out because Campus Advantage was a “cleaner deal.”
I wish that the Jensen-Byrd gods would take a page out of the Saranac gods’ books. The Saranac building was originally the Saranac Hotel, built around the same time that Jensen-Byrd was, and was vacated in 2004. In 2005, Jim Sheehan purchased it, and a $4 million sustainable renovation ensued—making the Saranac currently one of the most sustainable buildings in Washington while maintaining its historical integrity. A lot of cool stuff sits in there now—the Saranac Public House, the Magic Lantern Theater, a gallery, and like, a bajillion nonprofits.
Jensen-Byrd is conveniently located close enough to downtown that it could become an asset to the location if we rented it out appropriately. What I’d like to see there? Maybe a bookstore, a coffee shop, an art gallery, and you know, a mural. Or maybe something entirely different.
The bottom line is, campus housing isn’t going to add much to the area, in my humble opinion. At least, not as much as could potentially be added by something a little more innovative. Spokane isn’t short on great minds, entrepreneurs, artists—people with ideas in general. Jensen-Byrd would be a great place to manifest this.
Damn Texas.
About the Author
Although tearing down an old building isn’t always a terrible idea — you can save a lot in the long run in energy and maintenance — I’d love to see what Wells and others had in mind. I’ve lived in a building of his before and although there were definite drawbacks to living in an old space, they updated plumbing, electrical and other important elements to make the spaces pretty comparable to new buildings as far as day-to-day living.
I’d love to know more about why they chose a company from Texas. Did they really have no attractive bids from the area — or Washington State at least? The idea of choosing a less preferable contract from a local bidder doesn’t really appeal to me from a “reppin the 509″ standpoint, but it makes more sense for a state tax dependent entity to pump money into an in-state-tax-paying company.
Oh yes, the famous “they”. They should have put let someone in Spokane own it. Hey I got an easy way to solve the problem – pay the $3million and do what you want with it. Oh what’s that…you don’t have $3million? Then maybe you shouldn’t write articles telling other people what to do with their money or buildings. Just a thought.
Michael:
To be fair, this building was the property of WSU — a publicly funded university. Taxpayers most certainly have a prerogative to weigh in on their money decisions.
Next item: This is our community and our downtown. Yes, we live in a (relatively) free society, but what makes freedom function well is social pressure. Communities can hold other people/entities accountable for their behavior — and should — as a more organic alternative to government interference. It’s not like we’re suggesting the government sieze the property.
The Spokanite; well said, and amen!
“Oh yes, the famous “they”.
The famous “they” in this case is Mel Taylor, WSU’s executive director of real estate. I ‘spose that could have been written a little better, but it took me all of 15 seconds to find out exactly who was being written about.
“They should have put let someone in Spokane own it”
There were two bids, one from Ron Wells of Spokane and one from Texas. In this case, you have a bid from a local with a proven track record of rehabing local properties and only a neblous ” it was a cleaner deal for us” as it the reason for the deal to go to an out of state company who plans to tear the building down. With no solid reason given as to why they went with the company from Texas and seeing that the buildings we in America build are rarely as nice as the buildings we tear down, I think asking questions about what’s going on is completely warranted.
Its clear, isn’t it, that WSU was looking for someone to develop that land for student housing? I wonder if that desire must be concealed for legal reasons, because “cleaner deal” is visibly lame. Its a real shame a local developer couldn’t get in on the deal, and interesting that the professional newshounds haven’t forced some sunlight onto this deal.
Jason, here’s the Spokesman Reviews article about it.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/dec/15/jensen-byrd-building-buyers-will-tear-it-down/
thanks, i missed that article. So, part of the WSU plan was to develop the property into student housing. not surprising, really. Still a shame that the original building couldn’t be used. Mr. Wells’ plan didn’t seem to fall into the WSU criteria of using the property for enhancement of the area for student use.
WSU Riverpoint definitely needs high density student housing, but this is a shortsighted plot on which to build it. There are plenty of vacant spaces all around this property. The Jensen-Byrd building has value in the huge amount of embodied energy in the structure itself, and is iconic of Spokane’s historic buildings and our city’s vision of integrating our past and our future. Check out this innovative example: http://chatterbox.typepad.com/portlandarchitecture/2011/12/new-life-for-a-century-old-warehouse-on-nw-nicolai.html
This issue has been brewing for a long time. Consider this article from 2005: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=106726
Is there an alternative where the Texas investors can bankroll their apartments next door in the gravel lot, while Ron Wells is given a chance to work his magic on the Jensen-Byrd? That would result in a better integration of the campus into the existing downtown core. Right now the campus feels a bit like an office park plopped right outside downtown.
Unfortunately WSU execs in Pullman have a history of choosing the more sterile option. They already needlessly demolished the entirety of the old Farmer’s Market building to extend the Riverside couplet. They could have preserved a third of the building that didn’t lie in the roads path, but they opted for a bland patch of grass instead. It could have been the new University gift shop, a student study center, an event space, a bike shop, etc.
I don’t like how this article discusses the announcement as if the building is already gone. Some visions are worth fighting for. The fact that they are talking about “re-using bricks” is proof that the WSU powers-that-be can and will bend to public demand if it is made loud enough. What will you do to preserve your City’s identity?
Mariah – we don’t decide what buildings get saved based on “embodied energy”. We decide based on real money. The best deal won the bid. Wells’ deal wasn’t what the university had in mind. Simple. To say it was “cleaner deal” is true. Wells’ bid as far as I could tell had strings attached and, assuming it would’ve worked, required further public funding. That’s not the kind of deal taxpayers should want. They should want to maximize the benefit of public money, not measure embodied energy which leads to saving buildings at a greater cost to the public.
I’m not being snide when I say the easy way to make sure the building is treated how you want is to earn the $3million and buy it yourself. It really is that simple. Is this issue worth more than just writing or commenting on a blog? Have you put any of your own money behind it? You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone. But at some point your rhetoric has to translate into action – in the form of money. Put some skin in the game.
Michael, we already do own the building! We are citizens and taxpayers, it is our building, and we have every right to tell WSU what we think they should be doing with it. It is not private property.
Everyone: If you want to fight what WSU is trying to do to YOUR historic building, Spokane Preservation Advocates is leading the charge: http://www.spokanepreservation.org/advocacy.asp. They are also on Facebook.
There is a hearing at 3 p.m. tomorrow, Wednesday, January 18 at 3:00pm. You can also write to the WSU President and Chairman of the Board to tell them what you think:
Dr. Elson Floyd, President
Washington State University
P.O. Box 641048
Pullman, WA 99164-1048
presidentsoffice@wsu.edu
and
Theodor Baseler
Chair of the Board of Regents
Washington State University
P.O. Box 641048
hoytc@wsu.edu
when you do CC the SPA: spa@spokanepreservation.org
The “cleaner deal” rationale and Michael’s comment about “real money” are blind to the fact that the aesthetics and rich history of a place give it more long-term wealth than the type of sterile student housing seen on many campuses. I, and many other students surely, look for a place to live and study not only for its convenience, but for the way it looks and feels. I think it would be a huge disservice to Riverpoint students and Spokane as a whole to demolish Jensen-Byrd. It would reinforce the idea that Spokane isn’t creative or willing to go the extra mile for a forward-thinking solution.