Feb 18, 2009 07:10 pm
by Scott Schrantz
Knute Berger at Crosscut writes about George Carmack, the man who is recognized for launching the Klondike Gold Rush. He’s been in people’s minds lately because there’s a debate going on about what should be done with his house. The house, on Jefferson Street, is where Carmack lived for twelve years at the beginning of the 20th century. Several owners have lived in it since, and when the most recent occupant died in 2006, her estate decided to put up the house for sale. The problem for preservationists is that the most likely buyer would be the hospital right next door, who was only interested in the land and would likely demolish the house before the ink was dry on the deed.
This got a lot of people hopped up about how the house should be saved because of its connection to Carmack, either kept in place or moved to a different part of town. They’ve been trying to get some kind of historic designation for the house that would help in efforts to preserve it, but even that process was set back when the house was vandalized two weeks ago and stripped of much of its trim and architectual details.
Now the latest thing is that Arthur Skolnik, an architect representing the estate trying to sell the house, is saying that the house should not be saved because George Carmack wasn’t much of a historic figure anyway. His connection to the Yukon gold rush is tenuous and probably based more on bragging and lies that any actual accomplishments. Furthermore there is nothing particularly significant about the house itself that would lead to it being worthy of being saved. He lays out many of his arguments in the comments of the Crosscut article.
I don’t have enough background in Seattle history to know if George Carmack is a man worth honoring or not. But it’s fascinating to see the battles that go on over preservation and development.
Vintage Seattle has pictures of the Carmack House, both outside and inside. And Ben Lukoff writes about the controversy at his Seattle History Examiner site.
It is inappropriate to suggest moving the house until the Landmark nomination process has been completed by the City. If it is designated, depending on the criteria met, the house may have to stay on the site as part of it’s significance. That would set up another dynamic and could result in it’s demolition due both to it’s rapidly deteriorating condition and the needs of the Estate to liquidate the property.
While the Estate’s executor would support the moving of the house, it would have to be consistant with the designation criteria, not requiring any financial contribution from the Estate, other that donating the house as is, and timely removal.
That last point has several variables. In order for the Executor to approve of the house donation, there needs to be a ready-to-recieve property and funding available to move the house, estimated to be about $200,000.
All the while, the house deteriorates further and may have to be abated for safety concerns.
The saga to save this house will most likely be more historic than it’s association to Mr. Carmack.
Arthur M. Skolnik FAIA
[...] good to know Seattle isn’t solely in the business of tearing down old buildings. Some of them get saved, and remodeled for new uses even. My Ballard brings details of the [...]