The Doyle Building tower grew six stories. The Landmarks Board members weighing it were all confirmed by the Council

A plan to put a mass-timber apartment tower on top of the Doyle Building, a 1920 city landmark at Second Avenue and Pine Street, came back to Seattle's Landmarks Preservation Board this week six stories taller than the version the board saw last year.

The board heard a 60-minute briefing on the project at its Oct. 21 meeting, listed on the agenda as "selective demolition, redevelopment, and addition" at 119 Pine Street. No vote was taken; it was an early-stage briefing, The Urbanist reported.

Why it matters to downtown residents: the project would add housing in the retail core while changing a protected building, and the Landmarks Board is now one of the main places where the city can shape it.

What's proposed

According to the developer's October briefing package and The Urbanist:

• The building would become a 23-story mixed-use residential tower: the four-story Doyle, a one-story transition level, and 18 stories of new mass-timber construction above.
• That is six floors more than the 12-story addition shown at the board's 2025 briefing.
• The Doyle's east and north facades would be kept. The alley facade, roof and interior would be removed and the structure rebuilt in concrete.
• The tower would sit just under 21 feet, on average, from the 39-story building at 1521 Second Avenue, and about 3.5 feet back from the Doyle's cornices, The Urbanist reported.

The Urbanist reported that a 2025 state law bars cities from requiring facade modulation or upper-level setbacks for mass-timber projects and for conversions of commercial space to housing, so Seattle's tower spacing rules do not apply and no variances are being requested. That leaves the landmarks approval as one of the main remaining hurdles.

What board members said

Board members focused on scale and on whether the design meets federal rehabilitation standards for additions to historic buildings, The Urbanist reported. Board member Matthew Zinski said what he had heard was that the project was "scaled and designed to work with economics and making finances work." Board member Dan Sloat said the near-equal proportions of the old and new parts "fights against" the goal of a visually quiet addition.

At the 2025 briefing, board member Katherine Randall said scale was "the primary issue," so that the addition "doesn't dominate the building below," The Urbanist reported then.

A preservation advocacy group has called the plan "facadism," and nearby condo owners oppose the tower's proximity, according to The Urbanist.

What our records add: the Council picks the board

Members of the Landmarks Preservation Board are confirmed by the City Council, and all three board members quoted above were confirmed in the past 15 months. Each appointment was sponsored by Councilmember Maritza Rivera (District 4) and recommended by her Libraries, Education, and Neighborhoods Committee:

• Katherine Randall, reappointed to a term through August 2028, confirmed July 29, 2025 (Appt 03263, meeting), 8-0.
• Matthew Zinski, appointed through August 2028, confirmed Dec. 16, 2025 (Appt 03436, meeting), 8-0 on the consent calendar.
• Dan Sloat, appointed through August 2028, confirmed Aug. 18, 2026 (Appt 03591, meeting), on the consent calendar with five recorded yes votes.

The Council also writes the legal protections for each landmark. After the board designates a building, the Council passes an ordinance imposing controls on specific features. It did so twice on Aug. 18 this year, for the Wilde-Streatfield House (CB 121274) and the Burwell House (CB 121273). The Doyle's designation predates our records. The Urbanist reported in 2025 that none of the Doyle's interior spaces are protected.

The site is in District 7, represented by Robert Kettle; see his District 7 page.

What's next

The design team plans to apply for a Master Use Permit from the city, The Urbanist reported. The board's authority comes from the city's landmarks code, SMC 25.12, as its agenda notes, and The Urbanist describes its approval as a major hurdle for the project. No date has been set for the board to vote. Agendas are posted by the Department of Neighborhoods.