17-105489-Built Environment Part 1-02.16.23DAHP Project No.: 2018-07-05928
Author: Michelle Sadlier. Beckv Strickler. and Jennifer M. Ferris
Title of Report: Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters Campus, Federal Way, Washington
Date of Report: 07/29/2020
County(ies): King Section: 21 Township: 21 North Range: 4 East
Quad: Poverty Bay, WA Acres: 32.2
PDF of report submitted (REQUIRED) ICI Yes
Historic Property Inventory Forms to be Approved Online? I I Yes N No
Archaeological Site(s)/Isolate(s) Found or Amended? n Yes 7 No
TCP(s) found? n Yes F1 No
Replace a draft? n Yes F1 No
Satisfy a DAHP Archaeological Excavation Permit requirement? n Yes # F;J No
Were Human Remains Found? I I Yes DAHP Case # M No
DAHP Archaeological Site #:
• Submission of PDFs is required.
• Please be sure that any PDF submitted to
DAHP has its cover sheet, figures,
graphics, appendices, attachments,
correspondence, etc., compiled into one
single PDF file.
• Please check that the PDF displays
correctly when opened.
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Document Information Cardno July 2020
.. , z-'.
�_S i
,sr.. -ram.,. r',. �•r --.� .—�- .1" _.. ��, - �1. 'M•,4•' �•�-1,i`}�£.},il}-;'
M
Built Environment Survey of the
Former Weyerhaeuser
Corporate Headquarters
Campus, Federal Way,
Washington
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Document Information Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Document Information
Prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC)
Project Name Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters Campus, Federal Way, Washington
FWC Representative Dana A. Ostenson
DAHP Project Number 2018-07-05928
Cardno Project Number E318200300
Date July 29, 2020
Prepared for:
Dana A. Ostenson
Federal Way Campus, LLC
Corporate Headquarters
11111 Santa Monica Blvd
Suite 800
Los Angeles, California 90025
Prepared by:
LI7 Cnimcf"17 &
Michelle Sadlier, MA
Becky Strickler, PLA
Jennifer Ferris, MA, RPA
Cardno
801 2nd Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, Washington 98104
July 2020 Cardno Document Information i
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Document Information Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...................................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Report Outline..................................................................................................................1-1
2 Regulatory Background................................................................................................2-1
2.1 National Historic Preservation Act....................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Determining the Area of Potential Effects under Section 106 of the NHPA .....2-1
2.1.2 Evaluation of Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA ...................2-1
3 Project Methodology.....................................................................................................3-1
4 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus......................................................4-1
4.1
Weyerhaeuser: A Brief Overview of the Corporation.......................................................4-1
4.2
The Wider Context for Weyerhaeuser's Suburban Corporate Headquarters
..................4-7
4.2.1 Nineteenth- and Twentieth -Century Movements in Design..............................4-7
4.2.2 Corporate Headquarters: Move to Suburbia.....................................................4-8
4.3
The Designers................................................................................................................4-11
4.3.1 Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM)............................................................4-11
4.3.2 Edward Charles ("Chuck") Bassett.................................................................4-14
4.3.3 Sasaki, Walker and Associates(SWA)...........................................................4-14
4.3.4 Peter Walker...................................................................................................4-15
4.4
Federal Way...................................................................................................................4-15
5 Campus Design and Construction.............................................................................5-17
5.1
The Corporate Headquarters.........................................................................................5-17
5.1.1 Headquarters Planning and Design Process..................................................5-17
5.1.2 Planning for Expansion...................................................................................5-27
5.1.3 The Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC)..............................................
5-31
5.2
The Campus after Completion.......................................................................................5-35
5.3
Other Campus Facilities.................................................................................................5-41
5.3.1 Facilities Constructed Prior to the Headquarters ............................................
5-41
5.3.2 Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden.....................................................5-43
5.3.3 Pacific Bonsai Museum...................................................................................5-45
5.4
Other Recent Alterations................................................................................................
5-45
6 Evaluation of Significance............................................................................................6-1
6.1 Significance Factor: Comparative Designations..............................................................6-1
6.2 NRHP Eligibility Evaluation..............................................................................................6-2
6.3 Historic District Boundary Analysis...................................................................................6-4
6.4 Recommended Contributing Features to NRHP-Eligible Historic District ........................6-7
6.4.1 Corporate Headquarters Structural Elements, completed ca. 1971 .................6-7
6.4.2 Headquarters Landscape Features, initial completion ca. 1971, maturing
thereafter (Map ID "C", "D", "E", and "F", Appendix B-1)...............................6-14
6.4.3 Corporate Headquarters Art, Flagpole, and Street Furniture, completed ca.
1971 (Map ID "G" and "H" Appendix B-1)...................................................... 6-17
July 2020 Cardno Table of Contents i
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4.4
Campus -Wide Circulation Roads, completed ca. 1971 and ca. 1978 (Map
ID «I„ Appendix B-1).......................................................................................6-21
6.4.5
Model Forest, originated ca. 1971, managed thereafter (Map ID "K",
AppendixB-1).................................................................................................
6-25
6.4.6
Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC), completed ca. 1978....................6-26
6.4.7
Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden, opened 1975 with continuous
development thereafter (Map ID "O", Appendix B-1)......................................6-30
6.4.8
Project House 2, completed ca. 1969 (Map ID "P", Appendix B-1) ................6-32
6.4.9
Critical Views...................................................................................................6-34
6.5 Recommended
Non -Contributing Features to NRHP-Eligible Historic District..............6-39
6.6 Individual NRHP Eligibility Recommendations...............................................................6-41
6.6.1
Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building (2835
South 3441n Street)..........................................................................................
6-42
6.6.2
Project House 1 (33636 301" Avenue South)..................................................6-44
6.6.3
Project House 2 (32820 32"d Avenue South)..................................................6-47
6.6.4
King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station (33663 Weyerhaeuser
WaySouth).....................................................................................................
6-48
7 Summary of Recommendations...................................................................................7-1
8 Bibliography..................................................................................................................8-1
Figures
Figure 1. Location of the project area in relation to Tacoma and Seattle, Washington . ................. 1-2
Figure 2. Project survey area, outlined in yellow.............................................................................1-3
Figure 3. Frederick Weyerhaeuser (left), founder of the company, and George H.
Weyerhaeuser, president during the development and execution of plans for the
new corporate headquarters in Federal Way, Washington. (Images courtesy of
the Weyerhaeuser Company)..........................................................................................4-1
Figure 4. A 1930s company brochure proudly illustrates available products and production
facilities. (Image courtesy of Weyerhaeuser Forest Products 1937)...............................4-2
Figure 5. The Tacoma Building on the corner of South 11t" Street and A Street is the tallest
on the horizon in this 1956 photograph taken for Weyerhaeuser Company before
it embarked on its substantial renovation. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).......................4-3
Figure 6. A photograph of the same aspect of the Tacoma Building taken in July 1957,
shortly after the completion of the substantial new wing of the building. Note the
choice of a Modernist design that retained continuous floor proportions for the
first nine levels. This building retains a high level of integrity today. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
NorthCarolina).................................................................................................................4-4
Figure 7. A Weyerhaeuser Company advertisement from 1965, a year before George
Weyerhaeuser was appointed president of the corporation. (Seattle Times
1965:64)........................................................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 8. Just over a decade into George Weyerhaeuser's tenure as president, this
advertisement dubs Weyerhaeuser corporation "The Tree Growing Company".
(Seattle Times 1977:D2)..................................................................................................4-6
Table of Contents Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 9. Ebenezer Howard's groundbreaking "Three Magnets" concept introduced the
"Town -Country Magnet" as a third option for community planning. Located away
from urban centers, these idealized "garden cities" would offer direct access to
nature alongside the economic prospects, public infrastructure, and social
amenities of urban living. (Howard 1996:324).................................................................4-8
Figure 10. An outdoor space for staff relaxation at the Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company's headquarters. (Image courtesy of SOM)......................................................4-9
Figure 11. Site plan of Deere & Company's Moline, Illinois, campus, designed by Eero
Saarinen and Hideo Sasaki. Some of the elements that would later characterize
the site of the Weyerhaeuser campus are in evidence, including the axial
planning in relation to the retention pond and the circulation drive, both of which
influence the experience of the integration of the natural and built environment.
(Mozingo 2011:125).......................................................................................................4-10
Figure 12. SOM's Lever House in New York City. Attributed to William S. Brown, partner in
charge, and Gordon Bunshaft, partner in charge of design. (Peter 1958:182) .............4-12
Figure 13. The site SOM and SWA had to work with was not a blank canvas. In this undated
plan from this early development period, the then -existing conditions are laid out
and include roads and stands of trees. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................5-18
Figure 14. Early master plan for the campus with unselected design for headquarters
buildings. This plan illustrates the company's interest in future additions to the
campus to include research and development, commercial, and recreational
uses. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)..................................................................................5-20
Figure 15. Model of early design concept for the campus. The characteristic circular drive,
pond, and meadows are featured but the innovative final concept for the building
and parking configuration was not yet established. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................5-21
Figure 16.
Model of the selected site design for the headquarters area. All of the hallmarks
of this part of the campus or more or less presented as built. (Image courtesy of
the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North
Carolina).........................................................................................................................
5-21
Figure 17.
A more detailed model of the selected building and site design for the
headquarters area, showing the view from the northeast parking lot to the
headquarters building. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library,
Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)..........................................................5-22
Figure 18.
Another view of the detailed model of the headquarters building, illustrating the
eastern public access driveway to the fourth -floor, the ivy planting scheme, and
intention to develop roof gardens with fifth -floor access. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) .........
5-22
Figure 19.
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters construction schedule found in the
company archives located at the Forest History Society. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) .........
5-23
Figure 20.
Site grading in progress, ca. 1969. Original road networks are in evidence.
(Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society,
Durham, North Carolina)................................................................................................5-23
Figure 21.
An unknown employee shown on -site during construction, ca. 1969. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
NorthCarolina)...............................................................................................................5-24
July 2020
Cardno Table of Contents iii
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 22. Undated photograph taken from the fifth floor showing the Guardian Rock after
installation at the western entrance, ca. 1970. Ivy has also been planted and the
wooded area shows evidence of understory removal to shape the forest -like
setting. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)..................................................................................5-24
Figure 23. An undated slide taken soon after staff moved to the side, likely ca. 1971. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
NorthCarolina)...............................................................................................................5-25
Figure 24. An interior slide showing the view from the fifth floor, facing north, soon after
occupation, likely taken ca. 1971. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser
Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).............................................5-25
Figure 25. Part of a speech given by SOM architect, Chuck Bassett, to a meeting of the
corporation's shareholders in 1971. (Weyerhaeuser World 1971:2).............................5-26
Figure 26.
Undated site plan following completion of the design for the headquarters but
prior to the formalization of plans for the WTC. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................5-28
Figure 27.
Undated proposed master plan, estimated ca. 1977 due to WTC's "under
construction" status. Features that differ from current conditions include the
greenhouses, trail plans, and additions to WTC, as well as the hybrid garden and
trail plans around the headquarters area. (Image courtesy of Weyerhaeuser
Company).......................................................................................................................
5-29
Figure 28.
As recently as 2003, Weyerhaeuser had commissioned plans to construct an
annex building on the future development site just east of the headquarters
building. Note the proposed buffers along Weyerhaeuser Road between the
corporate headquarters and proposed annex building. (Image courtesy of ESM
Consulting Engineers, LLC)...........................................................................................5-30
Figure 29.
Site grading for construction of the WTC in 1976. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................5-32
Figure 30.
South elevation of the WTC in 1977, illustrating the contrasting exterior
treatments under construction. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser
Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).............................................5-32
Figure 31.
WTC parking lots under construction in 1977. The original design of the
stormwater pond is also in view in the lower right-hand corner. (Image courtesy
of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North
Carolina).........................................................................................................................
5-33
Figure 32.
A 1978 event commemorating the opening of the WTC. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) .........
5-33
Figure 33.
Images taken soon after completion of the WTC. Clockwise from upper left is
Peter Walker's central courtyard garden, the northeast corner of the building,
facing south, and the southern entrance to the building. Note the original door
and unpainted cedar siding. Peter Walker's garden above the entrance vestibule
and surrounding landscaping had yet to mature. (Interior Design 1979).......................5-34
Figure 34.
The corporate headquarters in 1976, facing northeast, with North Lake in the
background. The green of the ivy on the headquarters building and understory
vegetation along the meadows are beginning to show. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina) .........
5-35
Figure 35.
A 1976 utility plan with roughly contemporary aerial image. Note presence of
model forest and utilities to the rhododendron garden in lower left-hand quarter of
the image. (Image courtesy of FWC).............................................................................5-36
iv Table of Contents
Cardno
July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 36. The campus in 1979. The outer two parking lots at the WTC appear to be under
construction at this time. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library,
Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)..........................................................5-37
Figure 37. A 1982 aerial photo of the headquarters area, facing northwest. (Image courtesy
of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North
Carolina)......................................................................................................................... 5-38
Figure 38. This 1983 slide captures an image of the campus, with the rhododendron garden
in the foreground and WTC within its tree buffer glimpsed in the distance, facing
northeast. Systematic development of the northern end of the campus had yet to
begin (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)..................................................................................5-39
Figure 39. Also in 1983, this photograph shows the south elevation of the WTC a few years
after the building was completed. The cedar siding had not yet been stained, and
both Peter Walker's roof gardens and the driveway -side landscaping are just
starting to mature. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest
History Society, Durham, North Carolina)......................................................................5-40
Figure 40. A King County Assessor photograph from 1964 showing the Puget Sound Power
& Light Company Service Building soon after completion. (Image courtesy of the
Washington State Archives)...........................................................................................5-41
Figure 41.
A 1971 King County Assessor photograph of Project House 2 shows what was
then its front elevation on the now non -vacated 32"d Avenue South. Today it
serves as the building's rear elevation. (Image courtesy of the Washington State
Archives)........................................................................................................................5-42
Figure 42.
A 1969 King County Assessor photograph of the former fire station shows its
front (north) elevation prior to construction of the hose tower. (Image courtesy of
the Washington State Archives).....................................................................................5-43
Figure 43.
An undated King County Assessor photograph of the rhododendron garden's
1974 Lath House, an open framework used for propagating plant specimens
(Image courtesy of the Washington State Archives)......................................................5-44
Figure 44.
This King County Assessor photograph shows the rhododendron garden's
Potting and Storage Shed, which was constructed west of the Lath House in
1975 (Image courtesy of the Washington State Archives).............................................5-45
Figure 46.
South entrance of the WTC, facing north, showing the painted cedar siding and
replacement doors.........................................................................................................
5-48
Figure 47.
South elevation of the WTC at the eastern end, facing north. As individual
window units have failed, Weyerhaeuser has replaced them with higher -
performing, untinted, double -glazed units......................................................................5-48
Figure 51.
Proposed NRHP-eligible historic district boundary..........................................................
6-6
Figure 52.
View from south from the circulation road, showing the way the building nestles
into the landscape, with forested areas demarcating the southern meadow...................6-8
Figure 53.
Illustration of the rhythm of projected, concrete planters, inset glazed walls, and
exposed piers as seen from near the fourth -floor entrance. View of the southern
meadow............................................................................................................................
6-8
Figure 54.
Fourth -floor promenade, facing west...............................................................................
6-9
Figure 55.
View from north, showing from ground level how the building relates to the
northeastern parking lot and pond...................................................................................
6-9
Figure 56.
View of the headquarters building from the southern meadow . ....................................
6-10
July 2020
Cardno Table of Contents v
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 57. Photograph from western -most parking lot, facing northeast toward the
headquartersbuilding.................................................................................................... 6-11
Figure 58.
Northeast parking lot viewed from inside the headquarters building (third floor) . .........
6-11
Figure 59.
View of northeast parking lots from second -floor entrance . ..........................................
6-12
Figure 60.
Second -floor entrance from parking lot access stairwell . ..............................................
6-12
Figure 61.
Fourth -floor, east entrance drive with covered parking area, facing northeast..............6-13
Figure 62.
Covered parking area at fourth -floor entrance, facing west...........................................6-13
Figure 63.
Ivy planting on fluted concrete.......................................................................................
6-14
Figure 64.
Early slide showing young rooftop ivy planting above the western fourth -floor
entrance. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)..................................................................................6-15
Figure 65.
Current view of one of the managed woodlands, viewed from the circulation drive
with the meadow in the foreground and headquarters building on the far left,
facingnortheast..............................................................................................................6-15
Figure 66.
Pond as viewed from the east -end patio on the fourth floor, with managed woods
on the periphery. Cars on the circulation drive and Interstate 5 are visible in the
background....................................................................................................................
6-16
Figure 67.
Southern meadow viewed from the fourth -floor, facing southwest. Managed
forests frame the view....................................................................................................
6-16
Figure 68. Pollarded sycamore allees and ivy planting that line the sidewalks from each of
the parking areas to the headquarters building . ............................................................ 6-17
Figure 69. Guardian Rock, at the western entrance to the headquarters building . ........................ 6-18
Figure 70. Slide of Guardian Rock being sourced. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................6-18
Figure 71. Flagpole with the headquarters building, pond, and one of the managed
woodlands in the background, facing southwest........................................................... 6-19
Figure 72. Historical Weyerhaeuser Company corporate photograph taken ca. 1971. (Image
courtesyof FWC)........................................................................................................... 6-19
Figure 73. Tall, metal light standards on glulam posts and pedestrian -level, concrete lighting
fixtures serve the parking lots and associated sidewalks . ............................................. 6-20
Figure 74. Slide of westernmost sidewalk with light fixtures, taken soon after tree planting,
ca. 1971. Note pink, crushed gravel surface. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina).....................6-20
Figure 75. Example of original garbage cans clad in pink, crushed gravel to match
sidewalks. Waste receptacles without the pink gravel are non-contributing ..................6-21
Figure 76. Example of the woodland driving experience among the trees near the
Headquarters along Weyerhaeuser Road..................................................................... 6-22
Figure 77. Circulation road at the north meadow, facing northeast with a glimpse of
Interstate 5 in the distance.............................................................................................6-23
Figure 78. Slide of an early sketch showing the driver's experience of views to the corporate
headquarters building. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library,
Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)..........................................................6-23
vi Table of Contents Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 79. The wooded buffers on the edge of the managed woodlands frame the view of
the meadow, pond, and headquarters building from the circulation road (South
336th Street), facing south..............................................................................................
6-24
Figure 80.
Example of an area where periodic undergrowth management results in a buffer
that is thin enough to allow views to a building in the interior, in this case the
WTC as viewed from Weyerhaeuser Way South . .........................................................
6-24
Figure 81.
The Model Forest is identified with an arrow on this 1979 aerial photograph.
(Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society,
Durham, North Carolina)................................................................................................6-25
Figure 82.
Model forest, viewed from the northeastern corner, facing southeast ...........................6-25
Figure 83.
North entrance of the WTC, facing southeast. The vestibule is original but doors
are replacements...........................................................................................................
6-27
Figure 84.
North elevation, eastern end, facing west. As individual window units have failed,
Weyerhaeuser has replaced them with higher -performing, untinted, double -
glazed units. The original hay field has also been converted to lawn............................6-27
Figure 85.
West elevation of the building and loading dock area. The fire hydrant marks the
original western edge of the yard. Because of significant alterations, the service
yard is recommended as a non-contributing element to the historic district..................6-28
Figure 86.
The northernmost WTC parking lot as viewed through landscaping from the
perimeterdriveway.........................................................................................................6-29
Figure 87.
One of the southern parking lots as viewed from the main driveway . ...........................
6-29
Figure 88.
A view of the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden, facing south, illustrating
the curving paths, mixed species, and surrounding managed forest in evidence
today..............................................................................................................................
6-31
Figure 89.
The Rutherford Conservatory facing south from the Visitor Center area.
Construction began on the conservatory in 2009, making the structure a non-
contributing feature to the garden's significance . ..........................................................
6-31
Figure 90.
Some of the historic -period working buildings that support the work of the
Rhododendron Species Foundation at the garden, facing south. These are
contributing elements to the garden...............................................................................6-32
Figure 91.
Project House 2, northwest and southwest elevations (left to right), facing east-
northeast. Weyerhaeuser Way South is located out of view to the left . ........................
6-33
Figure 92.
The southeast elevation of Project House 2, facing northwest......................................6-34
Figure 93.
Photograph of the pond taken in February 2019 from the eastern end of the
headquarters building's fourth floor, facing north-northwest. To evaluate the
views of stands of trees, they were identified as: managed woods (red outline),
wooded buffers (blue outline), and borrowed views (yellow outline). These
correspond to foreground, middle ground, and background views................................6-35
Figure 94.
Photograph of the pond taken in May 2019 from slightly east of the previous view
on the fourth floor of the headquarters building, facing north-northwest. As in the
previous image, the managed woods are outlined in red (included in foreground
views), wooded buffers in blue (middle ground views), and borrowed views in
yellow (background views).............................................................................................6-35
Figure 95.
Photograph of the pond taken in June 2019, this time from the first floor of the
headquarters building, facing north. Again, stands of trees are identified as the
managed woods (red, foreground), wooded buffers (blue, middle ground), and
borrowed views (yellow, background)............................................................................6-36
July 2020
Cardno Table of Contents vii
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 96. Entrance to the Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building,
facingsouth....................................................................................................................6-43
Figure 96.
North elevation of the eastern end of the Former Puget Sound Power & Light
Company Service building, facing southwest................................................................
6-43
Figure 96.
North elevation of the western end of the Former Puget Sound Power & Light
Company Service building, facing southeast. The loading dock addition is located
inthe foreground............................................................................................................
6-44
Figure 96.
Project House 1, as viewed from the public right-of-way, facing northeast ...................6-45
Figure 97.
Rear elevation of Project House 1, facing southwest . ...................................................
6-46
Figure 98.
Main entrance to Project House 1, illustrating the cladding panel system, door
treatment, and stepped levels as evidenced by the railing, used to prevent falls
into the back yard below................................................................................................
6-46
Figure 99.
Rear elevation of Project House 2, facing northwest. This was originally the front
elevation. The porch has been significantly altered.......................................................6-47
Figure 100.
Front elevation of the former fire station, facing south...................................................6-49
Figure 101.
One of the side elevations of the former fire station, facing southwest .........................
6-49
Figure 102.
Some of the outbuildings behind the former fire station, facing west-southwest ...........
6-50
Tables
Table 1. Summary of Contributing Features to Proposed Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters Historic District (Appendix B)..................................................................6-38
Table 2. Recommended Non -Contributing Features...................................................................6-39
Table 3. Summary of NRHP Recommendations...........................................................................7-1
Appendices
Appendix A 1969 Planting Plans by SWA (Peter Walker)
Appendix B Maps of Contributing and Non -Contributing Resources
Acronyms
AIA American Institute of Architects
APE
Area of Potential Effects
ASLA
American Society of Landscape Architects
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
DAHP
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
FWC
Federal Way Campus, LLC
JARPA
Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application
NHPA
National Historic Preservation Act
viii Table of Contents Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
NRB National Register Bulletin
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NPS National Park Service
RCW Revised Code of Washington
SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SOI U.S. Secretary of the Interior
SOM Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill
SWA Sasaki, Walker and Associates
TCLF The Cultural Landscape Foundation
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDOT U.S Department of Transportation
WISAARD Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data
WTC Weyerhaeuser Technology Center
July 2020 Cardno Table of Contents ix
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Executive Summary
Project Title: Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus,
Federal Way, Washington
Project Description: Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC) proposes development projects at the former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus in Federal Way, Washington. In support of permitting for
the projects, FWC contracted with Cardno to complete a reconnaissance -level survey of the entire former
campus. The reconnaissance -level survey evaluated the historical significance of the property.
Purpose of the Work: This reconnaissance -level survey was conducted to satisfy regulatory
requirements for obtaining a Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE). As part of the federal review process, the USACE is required to comply
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 U.S. Code 470) and its
implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800). Section 106 requires federal
agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, which is either listed
in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The survey was designed to
identify built environment resources within the entire former campus, and to provide recommendations to
FWC and the USACE concerning the eligibility of these resources for the NRHP. The existing
headquarters building was preliminarily determined eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2017; however, none
of the other historic resources within the former campus were previously evaluated.
Dates of Survey: Multiple days between February 13 and June 7, 2019
Cultural Resources Recommended NRHP Eligible: One historic district (cultural landscape), three
buildings (Project House 1, Project House 2, and King County Fire District No. 22 Fire Station)
Cultural Resources Recommended Not NRHP Eligible: One building (Former Puget Sound Power &
Light Company Service Building)
Summary and Recommendations: Following the completion of a built environment survey of the former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus, Cardno recommends that the historic designed
landscape is eligible for the NRHP as a historic district at a national level of significance. The
recommended -eligible historic district possesses integrity of location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Cardno recommends that the proposed historic district meets
NRHP Criteria A and C for its associations with the introduction of the suburban corporate campus to the
West Coast, its association with Weyerhaeuser Company's changing corporate image, and as an
outstanding example of the integrated work of architect Edward Charles "Chuck" Bassett of Skidmore,
Owings, and Merrill and Peter Walker of Sasaki, Walker and Associates. Because of the proposed historic
district's exceptional historical and design significance, it is recommended eligible at a national level of
significance under Criteria Consideration G for resources that have achieved significance within the past
50 years. Its recommended period of significance is 1969 — 1979. In addition, three historic properties are
recommended eligible for individual listing in the NRHP at a local level of significance: Project House 1,
Project House 2, and the King County Fire District No. 22 Fire Station.
Evaluation of potential project effects from FWC's proposed projects will be provided in forthcoming
reports.
July 2020 Cardno Executive Summary i
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
1 Introduction
This technical report presents the results of a reconnaissance -level built environment survey conducted of
the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus in Federal Way, Washington, on behalf of
Federal Way Campus, LLC (FWC) (Figure 1 and Figure 2). This survey is intended to provide technical
documentation to supplement FWC's Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Applications (JARPA) that will be
submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The analysis in this report relates only to the
federal undertaking as reviewed under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of
1966, as amended as amended (NHPA; 16 U.S. Code 470), and its implementing regulations (36 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) (Section 106). The survey and analysis were completed by a
Cardno architectural historian who meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards for architectural history and history (36 CFR Part 61).
1.1 Project Location
The project area encompasses approximately 490 acres in Federal Way, King County, Washington. It is
bounded at the north by South 320th Street, at the east by parcel lines east of Weyerhaeuser Way South
and North Lake and then south via Weyerhaeuser Way south to State Route 18, at the south by State
Route 18, and at the West by Interstate 5. Parcels included in this survey are listed below under King
County Assessor number assignments as of February 4, 2020 (Figure 3):
> 2154650010
>
2154650090
>
7978200420
> 2154650050
>
2154650060
>
7978200470
> 2154650140
>
2154650110
>
4420600050
> 2154650170
>
2154650160
>
6142600005
> 2154650080
>
2154650180
>
6142600200
> 2154800010
>
1521049005
>
6142603025
> 2154800020
>
1521049052
>
2121049052
> 2154800030
>
7978200520
>
2121049002
> 2154800040
>
1521049201
>
2285000010
> 2154650130
>
1621049036
>
1621049030
> 2154650150
>
1521049178
>
1621049013
> 2154840010
>
7978200515
>
1621049056
> 2154840020
>
7978200480
> 2154650100
>
7978200565
1.2 Report Outline
This report provides a discussion of applicable cultural resource regulations (Section 2), the study
methodology (Section 3), a historical context for the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus
(Section 4), and an evaluation of significance for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP; Section
5). A summary and recommendations are provided in Section 6, and the bibliography is provided in
Section 7. Maps of contributing and non-contributing resources are included in Appendix B.
July 2020 Cardno Introduction 1-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Silverdale
3 Bainbridge
siiw
Island Bellevue
Seattle
Erlands Point
Bremerton Mercer
Island
Port Orchard ;;� Newcastle
East Port Orchard
99
Bryn Mawr
East Renton
Riverton
Heights Renton Highlands
Nash r� �.t Tukwila
V�'a' SeaTac
tsk ?d W
-24
Ae h
t Kent
f Covingto
Project Location
Gig Harbor � Lea Hill
Pvyollup Au bum ' 1a
Artondale Reservation
15 16 r
Fox Island
Pacific
ay Carr Inlet Tacoma
Fircrest Edgewood
!Nerved University Place
IsFond Sumner
Waller
Puyallup 410 Bonney Lake
Anderwn Steilacoom Mid:and
Island Lake%vood Parkland "" --�u
McChord Air Force Base South Hill Prairie Ridge
Sarnrnarnisl
M i rr(
Maple Valle
Sum
Black Di
Enul
Buckle)
LIP Bing Fort Lewis Orting
Project Location Map Q I !
SCALE IN MILES
Built Environment Survey of the
f Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Federal Way, Washington
✓-� King County, Washington
Mep CreatedlRevi5Ed1+31lppy0
Figure 1. Location of the project area in relation to Tacoma and Seattle, Washington.
1-2 Introduction Cardno July 2020
s 320ch sc
Pm b
tm
Tom, S "N •
S Come A
0.
S 3Z4 S 323rd St
S 324th PI C
o
Sa -
$ e' M counp y., y D 3
fU "• �- 1`MP�Ol1 WTI, � N : a
' `.��•- .
C616riia'VBIA Y' -
S 32'9jwPi I s • $tjpj r
' v r z..
C30thSt - t' NorthI*- i�
islake .I N K-._ �� N 11 � _• �
5 36m s y ` �5334th-S : r
! 36th•St "t �_� M�` • S 4
`
h 5t-
r (XITTS 76MUERotl
ja y • �f//;��t
i L Sr
> 141 r
a x9 t q Lake
S'347hP1 c + r .Geneve-
m�
'� 8th St m S 348th St� t
• 'nF
S349th St s3490-StM
d: ! _ Ie Kmrdxy S 349th P1 s
y'
�! . Pork. . N
5 351st St � - 5 3slst-s ='.. ~ .. e � -� t
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Document Information Cardno July 2020
R
,8-S-320th St a
S 32ath St
4
i
Ca tno Fedoral
_ I
e•Commons A - - l WayS Comwcns
ras IRfIi _
lirL - — 5 ,1411111
Beach G, I t d W1 I t IF/ !! I
��' Winged Foot 6Vay� ! ,t ��
/ 1� 'f b• f I
Ff 1 _ moo;
' .14it.t�1'•�4il�it It*► i
i
_ The �tmes Ct
041-
' r N •_
' i p szetr, vl _ `II,y
Q
- S 3301h St ^'
1 S 331st St - yy
I
s 332nd st 2' 228501
0010
Ow
I
�_ •-s aa4u�-s,
0
M king
215480
0010
215480
nr»n
215465
0150
215480
0040 1'
215465
4_
S3 2411t St -
S 3"oh PI
a
S 32ath St
- 5 3291n tit
'_ vlr Lv if'
ll1
v
78 North Lake „• � i S 331st Pi
r
797820
05151
ll�
97820
0565 mSf3�34th St �LS^333dp/
797820
0420
AO
797820
7978200470
+m ■ �� �a�
336ihSt_ -- r •,.{ rpti. _
442060
0050
1p
t533Zth Sit -
a
-rIYPc
c
Ji 'a
340th St a S 3•
101
1 1 �� •
0 . k L
0
31,
T
3
n
17
lei
,p5f�34gthKto4a.vc��-
m
Lake Geneva
'� i
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
2 Regulatory Background
The proposed projects require compliance with the NHPA (16 U.S. Code 470 et seq.). The following
discussion briefly describes the federal laws and regulations that govern the cultural resources review
process for these projects.
The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) (Revised Code of Washington 43.21 C) and
implementing rules contained in Washington Administrative Code 197-11, require consideration be given
to significant historic, archeological, and traditional cultural sites. Additionally, some local governments,
such as the City of Federal Way, also have ordinances to protect significant historic resources; however,
local jurisdictions have different implementing standards than Section 106 of the NHPA. This report
addresses Section 106 and is not intended to address SEPA.
2.1 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the NHPA requires that the lead federal agency with jurisdiction over a federal undertaking
(i.e., a project, activity, or program that is funded by a federal agency or that requires a federal permit,
license, or approval) consider the potential for project effects to historic properties listed in or eligible for
the NRHP before that undertaking occurs. In addition, the federal agency —in this case, the USACE—
must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), federally recognized Indian tribes,
applicants for federal assistance, local governments, and any other interested parties regarding the
proposed undertaking and its potential effects on historic properties. The goal of consultation is to identify
historic properties potentially affected by an undertaking, assess the undertaking's effects, and seek ways
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties.
2.1.1 Determining the Area of Potential Effects under Section 106 of the NHPA
In compliance with the NHPA, this study evaluates the NRHP eligibility of resources that are at least
50 years of age and are located within the Area of Potential Effects (APE), which is the "geographic area
or areas within which [the] undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use
of historic properties, if any such properties exist" (36 CFR § 800.16 (d)). This study identifies issues
relating to the proposed developments' potential effects on cultural resources in the APE. Cardno has
developed a proposed APE based on the proposed development projects' scope and the potential
boundary for the existing features of the historic Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus.
However, the USACE will review and determine the APE.
2.1.2 Evaluation of Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA
The NRHP, created under the NHPA, is the federal list of historical, archaeological, and cultural
resources worthy of preservation. Resources listed in the NRHP include districts, sites, landscapes,
buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, prehistory, architecture,
archaeology, engineering, and culture and that possess integrity of location, design, setting, material,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Section 106 defines "historic property" as "any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP" (36
CFR § 800.16 (1)(1)). The NRHP is maintained by the National Park Service (NPS) on behalf of the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior. The Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
(DAHP) administers the statewide NRHP program under the direction of the Washington SHPO, located
in Olympia, Washington.
The NPS has developed NRHP Criteria for Evaluation to guide the evaluation of cultural resources that
may be either listed in or eligible for the NRHP. Section 106 requires the determination of eligibility for the
NRHP as a tool for identifying significant historic properties. If a property is determined eligible for the
July 2020 Cardno Regulatory Background 2-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
NRHP under the Section 106 process, it does not automatically result in the listing of the property in the
NRHP.
As described in the NPS's National Register Bulletin (NRB) 15 "How to Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation," the four criteria used to determine eligibility are that the property:
> Criterion A: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribute to the broad patterns of
our history; or
> Criterion B: Is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
> Criterion C: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
> Criterion D: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history (36
CFR Part 60).
In addition to these criteria, for a property to be determined eligible for the NRHP, it must continue to
possess sufficient physical characteristics that reflect that historical significance, defined as "integrity."
The facets of integrity evaluated under the NRHP are integrity of:
> Location
> Design
> Setting
> Materials
> Workmanship
> Feeling
> Association
Finally, while ordinarily a historic property should be 50 years old or older to be considered eligible for the
NRHP, there is an additional Criteria Consideration that provides for the ability of a property that achieved
significance more recently than 50 years ago to be considered for eligibility for or designation in the
NRHP provided it is "of exceptional importance" (Criteria Consideration G).
In addition to NRB 15, other formal guidelines appropriate for the evaluation of a historic property include:
> NRB 16a, "How to Complete the National Register Registration Form," which outlines the distinction
between contributing and non-contributing properties in historic districts;
> NRB 21 and 12, "Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties," which presents guidelines for
determining what to include and exclude from the boundaries of historic properties, including historic
districts;
> NRB 22, "How to Evaluate and Nominate Potential National Register Properties That Have Achieved
Significance Within the Last 50 Years," which provides guidance on making determinations of eligibility
under Criteria Consideration G (36 CFR Part 60);
> NRB 18, "How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes," which addresses special
factors for determining significance of landscapes; and
> Preservation Brief 36, "Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of
Historic Landscapes," by landscape architect Charles A. Birnbaum, which provides further guidance
on unique issues affecting cultural landscapes.
Other references consulted during the course of the project are cited in the bibliography in Section 7.
2-2 Regulatory Background Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
3 Project Methodology
Cardno conducted a reconnaissance -level survey between February and June 2019. Michelle Sadlier,
MA, served as Lead Architectural Historian. Ms. Sadlier meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's
Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history and history (36 CFR Part 61). Registered
landscape architect Becky Strickler and geographic information system specialist Kevin Gabel provided
relevant technical services. Cardno's Pacific Northwest Cultural Resources Practice Group Leader,
Jennifer Ferris, MA, was the project manager and provided quality assurance/quality control review with
support from Malini Roberts, Technical Editor.
Ms. Sadlier conducted multiple site visits to the land represented in the 1969 plans as owned by
Weyerhaeuser Company at that time for the purposes of building a headquarters building and other
potential future development (Figure 2). Survey methods followed guidelines by the Washington State
SHPO and DAHP for Section 106 review, namely that "reconnaissance surveys consist of walking around
an area and noting the general distribution of buildings, structures, and neighborhoods representing
different architectural styles, periods, and modes of construction" (DAHP 2020). Ms. Strickler and Ms.
Ferris each accompanied Ms. Sadlier on one site visit to offer additional insight into the potential historical
significance of the campus and its component features. A thorough photographic record was gathered
over the course of field survey.
Because the property is a campus that is a collection of buildings and landscape features created by a
team of architects and landscape architects, Cardno has evaluated it as a designed historic landscape, a
type of cultural landscape described by the NPS as follows:
A landscape that has significance as a design or work of art; was consciously designed and laid
out by a master gardener, landscape architect, architect, or horticultural ist to a design principle, or
an owner or another amateur using a recognized style or tradition in response or reaction to a
recognized style or tradition; has a historical association with a significant person, trend, event,
etc. in landscape gardening or landscape architecture; or a significant relationship to the theory of
practice of landscape architecture. (Keller and Keller n.d:1)
Cardno further refined this definition under guidance provided by Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. Melnick
to include the evaluation of topography, vegetation, water features, objects, and site furnishings, not to
mention the buildings themselves (Alanen and Melnick 2000:1-2). NRB 18, "How to Evaluate and
Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes" guided the analysis and recommendations provided in this
report (Keller and Keller n.d.).
In addition to visual inspection during site visits, the project team evaluated the historic property using a
variety of different resources. These included online databases as well as archival and other records
accessed in -person at:
> Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC), Federal Way, Washington, where Weyerhaeuser
Corporation records approved for viewing were provided by Andy Bylin;
> Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina;
> Puget Sound Branch of the Washington State Archives, Bellevue, Washington; and
> King County Archives, Seattle, Washington.
Given the relatively recent age of the historic property, attempts were made to interview any living
members of the design team responsible for the development and execution of the campus plan. Two
members of this team were known to be living at the time of this survey. A telephone interview was held
July 2020 Cardno Project Methodology 3-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
on May 22, 2019, with Peter Walker, formerly of Sasaki, Walker and Associates (SWA), who was partner -
in -charge of the development of the campus site plan and landscape features. The other living member of
the original team who developed the plans was George Weyerhaeuser. While efforts were made to reach
Mr. Weyerhaeuser, he was unavailable for interview during the course of this study.
To gain further insights into the significance of the campus as well as its inspiration and later influence on
the design field, oral interviews were conducted with the following University of Washington College of
Built Environment faculty members:
> Meredith Clausen, Professor of Art and Architectural History (May 1, 2019);
> Brian McLaren, Associate Professor of Architecture and Chair of the Department of Architecture (April
24, 2019);
> Jeffrey Ochsner, Professor of Architecture (May 8, 2019);
> David Streatfield, Emeritus Professor of Landscape Architecture (May 24, 2019); and
> Thaisa Way, Professor of Landscape Architecture (May 8, 2019).
Technical guidance was also provided by Charles A. Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation
(TCLF) and Michael Houser and Holly Borth of the Washington DAHP. Cardno held two information -
gathering meetings with Ms. Borth and Mr. Houser: one via video conference on April 10, 2020 and
another on site on June 24, 2020.
3-2 Project Methodology Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
4 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus
4.1 Weyerhaeuser: A Brief Overview of the Corporation
Today, Weyerhaeuser Company is a corporation that owns over 12 million acres of timberland in the
United States alone. Nearly three million of those acres are found in the Pacific Northwest states of
Washington and Oregon (Weyerhaeuser Company 2018). This makes the company the top-ranking
timberland owner in the country, with Rayonier a distant second place at just over two million (Statista
2018). According to a 2018 annual report, the company operates 35 mills nationwide, producing lumber,
oriented strand board, plywood, and other construction -related wood products. Five of these mills are
located in the Pacific Northwest.
The corporation has its origins at the turn of the nineteenth century, when it was founded by German-born
Frederick Weyerhaeuser (1834-1914) (Figure 4). Weyerhaeuser emigrated to the United States in the
1850s, eventually finding his way to Rock Island, Illinois, where he started working in the lumber industry.
During his decades in the Midwest, he gradually worked his way up in the production side of the industry,
and then began buying interest in a number of mills. His move to St. Paul, Minnesota, in the 1890s
heralded the start of a friendship with the majority owner of the Northern Pacific Railway, James J. Hill
(1838-1916). In 1900, Weyerhaeuser Timber Company was formed when Hill sold 900,000 acres of land
in Washington State to Frederick Weyerhaeuser and 11 investors. Initially, management of the company
remained with Frederick Weyerhaeuser in St. Paul (Warren 1999).
Figure 4. Frederick Weyerhaeuser (left), founder of the company, and George H.
Weyerhaeuser, president during the development and execution of plans for the
new corporate headquarters in Federal Way, Washington. (Images courtesy of the
Weyerhaeuser Company)
The purchase of land and sale of standing timber to mill owners was the focus of the company's business
in the early years. Weyerhaeuser Timber Company's first facility, however, was the first sawmill in
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Everett, constructed in 1903. Business expansion during World War I was fueled by high demand for
lumber for ships, airplanes, and barracks. Following the opening of a second mill in Everett in 1915, 20
other new mills were opened around the country in quick succession (Warren 1999). The company
continued to expand and diversify during the interwar years, developing new products for insulation,
establishing a grade -marked lumber program ("4-Square Lumber"), and entering the steamship business
in the 1920s. The new sawmill in Longview, Washington, went into the pulping business in the 1930s
(Figure 5). Later that decade, sustainable forestry experiments took shape. Weyerhaeuser Timber
Company opened the first tree farm in the country in Montesano, Washington, in 1941 (Weyerhaeuser
Company 2019a).
� anew Pvly 1ilv�it not urRv r1�i
WE
loaded : -'
Lewiston -. P , : F
Call for It --It's Were
W400W L®bc n.rA. f..r huuu,hwl ur .
•A rh. lb„f nll
Figure 5. A 1930s company brochure proudly illustrates available products and production
facilities. (Image courtesy of Weyerhaeuser Forest Products 1937)
Technological innovation needed to meet the demands of providing raw materials for World War II led to
a major expansion of forest products in the decade following the end of the war. Plywood, veneer,
particleboard, and containerboard, as well as other wood -fiber products, were produced by
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company during this period. In the 1950s, the company expanded in the Southern
U.S. as well as overseas. With such a diversity of products, the company decided to drop reference to
"timber" and changed its name to Weyerhaeuser Company in 1959, at which time it adopted the logo still
used today. From this point until the decision to develop a new headquarters in the mid-1960s, the
company moved into the fine paper market, began producing paneling and architectural doors, and
harvested its first sustainably produced timber (Weyerhaeuser Company 2019a).
Prior to the decision to centralize its headquarters and research facilities in Federal Way, Weyerhaeuser
Company's corporate managerial geography was scattered between a centralized urban headquarters
and multiple manufacturing centers across North America. These included Northwestern industrial and
research centers in Everett, Longview, and Snoqualmie Falls in Washington State, Klamath Falls in
Oregon, and Coeur d'Alene and Lewiston in Idaho, and the company's main headquarters in the Tacoma
4-2 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Building in Tacoma, Washington (Weyerhaeuser Forest Products 1937). As Weyerhaeuser Company
grew, the 10-story Tacoma Building was substantially expanded with a new 12-story wing in 1957 (Figure
6 and Figure 7). By the time a new headquarters building was being conceived, company staff were
housed in 20 different buildings in downtown Tacoma. As a result, in 1965, less than 10 years after the
expansion of the Tacoma Building, the company began seriously investigating ideas to combine all its
Tacoma offices onto one site and commissioned a study of other national examples of contemporary
corporate headquarters in 1965 (Forest History Society 2019).
Figure 6. The Tacoma Building on the corner of South 1111 Street and A Street is the tallest
on the horizon in this 1956 photograph taken for Weyerhaeuser Company before it
embarked on its substantial renovation. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-3
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
ff
H 77 MAR :i5 U ] � {
N
PW
GvZ-9
nrr[ur „imn„nniin�ro
Figure 7. A photograph of the same aspect of the Tacoma Building taken in July 1957,
shortly after the completion of the substantial new wing of the building. Note the
choice of a Modernist design that retained continuous floor proportions for the
first nine levels. This building retains a high level of integrity today. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
North Carolina)
The context of the Weyerhaeuser Company story at the time the corporate headquarters facility was
designed would be incomplete without a brief introduction to George H. Weyerhaeuser (born 1926)
(Figure 4). George Weyerhaeuser's tenure as president of the company (1966-1991) was remarkable
due to its length and because he was the last Weyerhaeuser to hold this position. As a great-grandson of
founder Frederick Weyerhaeuser, George Weyerhaeuser represented a new generation in leadership.
His predecessor, Norton Clapp, had been the first president who was not a member of the Weyerhaeuser
family, but George Weyerhaeuser was the first of his generation of Weyerhaeusers to assume the role
(Weyerhaeuser Company 2019a). Additionally, he was only 40 years old when he became company
president, young by comparison with his predecessors.
Under George Weyerhaeuser's leadership, the Weyerhaeuser Company's projected image made a subtle
but fundamental shift. Through the 1960s, much of the company's marketing focused on demonstrating
its growth and use of trees as a commodity converted into products (Seattle Times 1965:64) (Figure 8).
By the 1970s, the message shifted to Weyerhaeuser as a practitioner of forest management under the
motto, "The Tree Growing Company" (Seattle Times 1977:D2) (Figure 9). The new corporate
headquarters played a role in expressing the image change Weyerhaeuser Company projected from the
1970s onward. According to design -team member Peter Walker, George Weyerhaeuser's youthful
creativity and passion played a pivotal role in the successful design and realization of the new corporate
campus (P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019).
4-4 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Some people
All -
think our
business is tree
(that's only half the story)
Ask almost anybody what Weyerhaeuser does and
he's apt to tell you we grow trees for lumber.
Right. We. producing more lumber than ever.
Yet we make so many other things from wood
that they account for nearly 757of our business,
Capacitor paparfor satellites. -
Molded parts as hard as many metals for cans.
Industrial chemicals. Business and specialty
papers. Plastic coated paperboard milk cortom
Folding hoes and shipping containers
Weyerhaeuser
And new products are coming so fast we rant
even imagine what we'll he malting I00 yews tram
row. But thank. to our policy of growing trees in
perpetual crops we do know this
Whatever new prodncta our researchers do develop,
we'll always bave wood and wood fiber to make them
Research. New products F.ocileen wood supply.
They all help to ensure steady jobs for 17 thc®nd
Weyerhaeuser men and women in this region. Aad ■
mere stable a nomy for noarty two doom Nordk-
west tower
Figure 8. A Weyerhaeuser Company advertisement from 1965, a year before George
Weyerhaeuser was appointed president of the corporation. (Seattle Times 1965:64)
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-5
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
We start with millions of
seeds from hand -gathered
cones.
These are planted in nurs-
eries and carefully tended for
two years.
Then the seedlings are re-
planted on newly harvested
sites, where they're spaced for
maximum growth.
Whenthe new stand of trees
isabout 15 years old the small,
slow -growing ones are thinned
out.Fertih2eris -hen used peri-
odically to speed up growth
in the remaining tries.
Beginning about age 25, the
stand may be periodically
thinned to stimulate even
faster growth. We call this
commercial thinning because
the trees removed are made
into lumber, plywood and
pulp. Final hazvest occurs
around age 45.
Then the site is replanted
and the cycle starts all over
again.
Why do we call it High
Yield Forestry? .
Because it's a way of manag-
ing our forests that will pro-
duce more than twice the vol-
ume of wood that Nlother
Nature could alone -
So we can have wood and
jobs for our children and our
grandchildren in the years to
come.
Ii
Weyerhaeuser:
Figure 9. Just over a decade into George Weyerhaeuser's tenure as president, this
advertisement dubs Weyerhaeuser corporation "The Tree Growing Company".
(Seattle Times 1977:D2)
4-6 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
4.2 The Wider Context for Weyerhaeuser's Suburban Corporate
Headquarters
4.2.1 Nineteenth- and Twentieth -Century Movements in Design
Simplifying an architectural movement so influenced by and influential on the way we live is no easy task.
Writing during what is arguably the heyday of the Modern Movement in the U.S., Saylor defines
Modernism as, "a school of thought in design which stresses contemporary needs and technics as
against following forms of the past" (1952:114). More recently, Fleming, Honour, and Pevsner add more
flesh to the bones provided by Saylor, defining the movement as a "term for twentieth-century avant-
garde movements in architecture which shared a concern for functionalism and new technology, a
rejection of ornament, and aspired to create new solutions for architecture and urban design appropriate
to the social conditions of the twentieth century" (1999:384).
Part of a wider intellectual movement, it is often perceived as a twentieth-century break with the past, yet
its genesis dates to the nineteenth century. Architect and restorer Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc's
(1814-1879) observation on the need for all elements of architecture to have a structural function may
have been an early precursor to the central tenets of the Modernist movement. The integral links between
engineering and architecture that would later be hallmarks of the movement can be seen in such Victorian
masterpieces as London's Crystal Palace (1851) and the Eiffel Tower (1889) (Peter 1958:14-15).
Peter credits skyscraper pioneer Henry Louis Sullivan (1856-1924) with coming up with the phrase that
would exemplify the spirit of Modernist architecture: "form follows function" (Peter 1958:19). Influential
early practitioners of Modernist design and thinking include the Swiss French designer Charles-Edouard
Jeanneret, also known as "Le Corbusier" (1887-1965), and American architect Frank Lloyd Wright
(1867-1959), whose sense of space and rejection of Victorian -era nostalgia for the aesthetics of the past
helped forge the path to site -level approaches of Modernist design (Peter 1958:21).
Modernism in landscape architecture also represented a change in thinking. Walker and Simo observe
that the Modernist movement only began to emerge in landscape architecture in the 1930s (1996:3). The
authors look back to the long and influential career of Frederick Law Olmsted (1822-1903) as a spring-
board to their analysis of Modernism in the field. Along with an aesthetic rooted in romanticism, Olmsted
saw the work of the landscape architect as "creating tranquil landscapes in the public domain, where
people of diverse backgrounds could relax, intermingle, and develop a sense of community and
cooperation" (Walker and Simo 1996:11). Olmsted was viewed as a social improver, and in that way he
may be thought to share the sensibilities of the Modern Movement. His work as an artist, however, was
rooted in historical romanticism and the picturesque.
Another influential thinker of the late nineteenth century who tied social improvement with the landscape
was Englishman Ebenezer Howard (1850-1928), who pioneered the concept of the "garden city" in 1898
(Figure 10). Rather than bringing nature to the city to benefit the public, however, Howard's new "town -
country" concept was neither truly urban nor truly rural. These garden cities would encompass home,
work, and leisure in one community (Howard 1996:322-329). Howard's garden cities were influential in
the U.S., albeit as picturesque designs like the 1909 Forest Hills Gardens in Queens, New York, designed
by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. Forest Hills was designed to be "a cozy domestic landscape built according
to the latest 'scientific principles' of town planning," architecturally integrated for a community of middle-
class homeowners (Rogers 2001:417). This was early in the transition to widespread suburbanization that
followed World War II.
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-7
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
THE
THREE MAGNETS.
"I i4c Ar
lRtsp��s o'
�o �`� �k �EMP`OrtwilfT, L 0kG004gs •� r
�J'� \V ♦ `50t ypt01CC. IACK OF Uq
L A cAr 94
Uo"`b` ; °P```•, rP c ` Jt�IkUTS. NO Pull; Ps 4CS -'soue ' a 0.
o T r t w Jv� iht
X;0
L I- I Z
"
WHEZE WILL THEY GO?
a TOWN -COUNTRY. ?,-'
r
40 ° RUS ar, S G��.
R o°�
how T3, HtG �p
A Doti � (s, Pit
f1 ► ♦r �r
B QUA ° ),CA? Cis. M 0 L'�\ r(P
0 f 41,p '� ISE SL r.\� O`
hr�/ AhD TER. G00 aP �'E
FrfcrD GARDtms,E r�\ve►
AI . Ga-ClP
Figure 10. Ebenezer Howard's groundbreaking "Three Magnets" concept introduced the
"Town -Country Magnet" as a third option for community planning. Located away
from urban centers, these idealized "garden cities" would offer direct access to
nature alongside the economic prospects, public infrastructure, and social
amenities of urban living. (Howard 1996:324)
4.2.2 Corporate Headquarters: Move to Suburbia
In her seminal work on suburban corporate campuses, Mozingo (2011) observes that, prior to the post-
war period, most corporation headquarters were either located in downtown commercial centers, within
manufacturing plants themselves, or, like Weyerhaeuser, both (Mozingo 2011: 19). The relocation of
factories to suburban and rural areas had already gained traction in the earlier part of the twentieth
century in part due to the density and challenges of acquiring land in urban cores. The relocation trend
also resulted from an increase in "welfare capitalism," which emphasized, among other things, the
positive influence of the landscape on the productive blue-collar worker in an era where downtown cores
were perceived as having widespread social problems. When corporations began to develop
headquarters in new suburban locations in the 1950s, the layout, siting, and design of early suburban
factories heavily influenced the features and siting of these new centers of white-collar activity under
similar influences (Mozingo 2011: 28-31).
4-8 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
In pursuing a suburban campus location, the Weyerhaeuser Company was following in a new tradition set
by other corporations in the Midwest and on the East Coast. The project that is generally considered the
pioneer suburban corporate campus is that of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company (now
CIGNA), completed in 1956 in Bloomfield, Connecticut, on the outskirts of Hartford (Figure 11). The
campus was designed by architects Gordon Bunshaft and William S. Brown and landscape architect
Joanna Diman of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM), the firm that would later design the
Weyerhaeuser campus. Frazar B. Wilde, the president of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company,
was apparently not a fan of Modernism but,
...he was convinced as a 'good insurance man' that the high modernist design, indeed a
sophisticated abstraction of the industrial factory, would deliver 'flexibility, high-grade materials for
low maintenance, and qualities of beauty and humanity that would attract and hold clerical
employees (mostly young women) in labor short Hartford.' At the same time, Wilde was a famed
hiker of New England wildlands and 'an ardent naturalist' who wanted to 'prevent the destruction
of wildlife cover on the Bloomfield site (Mozingo 2011:113).
Figure 11. An outdoor space for staff relaxation at the Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company's headquarters. (Image courtesy of SOM)
Concerned that the move from central Hartford to a more rural site might lose employees, Wilde worked
with SOM to design a headquarters that would include a range of amenities on -site, such as a cafeteria,
game rooms including a bowling alley, a barber shop and beauty parlor, an auditorium, a variety store,
and a lending library. As Mozingo notes, "Like the welfare capitalist factories from earlier in the century,
the corporation provided an astounding scope of amenities to its employees, in many ways creating an
all-inclusive environment, with the services of the city in an ideal rural setting" (Mozingo 2011:113). Soon
after the completion of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company's headquarters, many other
suburban campuses followed, including the Reynolds Metal Company outside Richmond, Virginia (1957;
SOM, with landscape architect Charles Gillette), Upjohn Corporation in Kalamazoo, Michigan (1961;
SOM, with landscape architects SWA), and Deere & Company in Moline, Illinois (1964; Eero Saarinen,
with landscape architect Hideo Sasaki) (Figure 12).
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-9
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 12. Site plan of Deere & Company's Moline, Illinois, campus, designed by Eero
Saarinen and Hideo Sasaki. Some of the elements that would later characterize the
site of the Weyerhaeuser campus are in evidence, including the axial planning in
relation to the retention pond and the circulation drive, both of which influence the
experience of the integration of the natural and built environment. (Mozingo
2011:125)
Weyerhaeuser Company's headquarters in Federal Way was the first notable suburban campus
developed on the West Coast (Mozingo 2011:140). This project's pedigree relates directly to these earlier
Eastern and Midwestern counterparts. Edward Charles Bassett of SOM, credited with leading the design
of the site, worked previously with Eero Saarinen. Additionally, SWA, the landscape architecture firm that
developed the remarkable site planning and planting schemes of the Weyerhaeuser corporate
headquarters campus, was also involved in a number of these significant early campuses. Indeed, the
importance of landscape architects' influence on site planning is critical to the ethos and on -the -ground
appeal of the suburban corporate campus.
4-10 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
4.3 The Designers
4.3.1 Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill (SOM)
The firm of SOM was formed in 1939, when John Ogden Merrill (1896-1975) joined the partnership
formed by Louis Skidmore, Sr. (1897-1962) and Nathaniel A. Owings (1903-1984) earlier in the decade
(Woodward 1970:11). From its beginnings, SOM's calling card was monumental -scale design. Formed
during the early years of World War Il, one of the firm's first major projects was the design of Atomic City
(1942-1946), a new town built to support the Manhattan project, in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The
reputation of the firm led to significant —now iconic —commissions that included:
> Lake Meadows tower block for the Chicago Land Commission, Chicago, Illinois (1950-1960);
> Lever House, New York, New York (1952);
> Manufacturers Trust Company Building, New York, New York (1954);
> Inland Steel Building, Chicago, Illinois (1957); and
> Connecticut General Life Insurance, Bloomfield (Hartford), Connecticut (1957).
Using Lever House as his lens (Figure 13), Christopher Woodward describes the SOM partnership's
innovative work during this period:
More important than its power to startle .... the design of Lever House brilliantly gathered together
in one building strands of a large number of contradictory European myths and programmatic
requirements of Modern Architecture as set out by Johnson and Hitchcock in The International
Style, and the twin American traditions of careful re -use of European forms, and the glamor of
display: styling. The building serves as a checklist of those qualities which Hitchcock and
Johnson were rash enough to identify in 1932 as qualifying a building for inclusion in the
International Style canon: `a new conception of architecture as volume rather than mass';
`regularity rather than axial symmetry serves as the chief means of ordering design'; and the
proscription of `arbitrary applied decoration' (Woodward 1970: 12).
Woodward also credits Lever House for heralding the return of the public plaza that was to typify urban
corporate design during the Modernist era.
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-11
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 13. SOM's Lever House in New York City. Attributed to William S. Brown, partner in
charge, and Gordon Bunshaft, partner in charge of design. (Peter 1958:182)
4-12 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Writing over a decade later, Albert Bush -Brown (1983) looks to the transition from SOM's "technological
symbolism" work of the 1950s to that completed in the 1970s:
In comparison with New York's Lever House or Chicago's Inland Steel of the 1950s, SOM's new
buildings often resolve complexities imposed by irregular sites, mixed functions, and struggles to
supply maximum rentable space at least cost. The resulting forms depart from the earlier
technological imagery. For more than two decades, Lever House and Inland Steel had inspired
the architectural profession. Lever House and Inland Steel confined narrow sunlighted slabs to
the edges of their sites and offered air space, sidewalk plazas and glazed lobbies. Today their
elegance looks innocent: naive about those expediencies prompted by borrowed dollars and
rental occupancies, modest in height and land coverage, indifferent about garages or
concessionary services, cavalier about historic context, and almost oblivious to energy
conservation. (Bush -Brown 1983:11)
By the advent of the 1970s, SOM architects had turned away from Lever House or Inland Steel for their
inspiration. Bush -Brown observes that their resulting work in the early 1970s "relies on faceted mass,
rhythms, texture and color, without exaggerating structural systems to gain formal impact" (Bush -Brown
1983:11). The integration of circulation and public space with the buildings themselves also became more
central to the design. Overall, SOM was becoming more responsive to context.
Three other, interrelated factors Bush -Brown identifies as influencing SOM's work at this time are
important to highlight within the context of the design for the suburban Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters campus. The first is the public's continued, some would say escalating, move toward
suburban living and reliance on the car for transportation. With increasing pressure to convert
undeveloped land for suburban uses, the second factor was the land -conservation movement, which was
gaining momentum, particularly on the West Coast. The third and final issue was the energy crisis and
drive to decrease reliance on oil (Bush -Brown 1983:17).
Together, these external forces created an environment in which SOM's designs for suburban projects
were not only becoming more visually responsive to the non -urban context, but also adaptive to
pressures to conserve land and save energy. While the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters may be
the fullest expression of the firm's response to these values, some of the campus' contemporaries that
illustrate this shift from SOM's earlier, more urban palette are:
> D90 Boots Headquarters, Beeston (Nottingham), England (1968);
> Wells College's Louis Jefferson Long Library, Aurora, New York (1968);
> University of Chicago's Behavioral Science Building, Chicago, Illinois (1969); and
> Boise Plaza, Boise, Idaho (1971).
The location of the SOM office responsible for designing a given project was important. During this stage
of the company's history, the offices were regionally competitive (J. Ochsner, personal communication,
May 8, 2019; P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019). Interestingly, the genesis of the
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus project was with Gordon Bunshaft (1909-1990) in
SOM's New York City office. According to Peter Walker, Bunshaft was hired by Norton Clapp, who was
the New York -based chairman of the board for Weyerhaeuser at that time. However, George
Weyerhaeuser was reportedly unhappy with the "big city" quality of Bunshaft's submitted design. With
George Weyerhaeuser's interest in grounding the headquarters in the company's West Coast home, the
commission was then transferred to Chuck Bassett out of SOM's San Francisco office (P. Walker,
personal communication, May 22, 2019).
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-13
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
4.3.2 Edward Charles ("Chuck") Bassett
Edward Charles ("Chuck") Bassett (1921-1999), an architect with SOM, was the partner in charge of
design for the San Francisco office for over two decades, a period that included the design and
construction of the Weyerhaeuser Company's headquarters. Bassett was born and trained in Michigan,
after which he worked with architect Eero Saarinen in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for 5 years. In 1955,
Bassett joined the SOM office in San Francisco, where he remained until his retirement in 1981 (Pace
1999). Bassett was appointed Fellow of the American Institute of Architecture in 1977 (Pacific Coast
Architecture Database 2019a).
Bassett's notable work with SOM's San Francisco office spans the length of his 26 years with the firm.
According to the Pacific Coast Architecture Database (Pacific Coast Architecture Database 2019a), a
selection of the projects attributed to him includes:
> Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Office Building #2, San Francisco, California (1957-1959);
> John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company Office Building, San Francisco, California (1960);
> Saint Aidan's Episcopal Church, San Francisco, California (1962-1963);
> County of Alameda Coliseum, Oakland, California (1964-1966);
> Australian Mutual Provident Tower and Plaza, Melbourne, Australia (1969);
> Century City ABI Tower, Los Angeles, California (1971);
> San Francisco War Memorial and Davies Symphony Hall, San Francisco, California (1977-1980);
> First International Plaza, Houston, Texas (1980); and
> City Hall, Columbus, Indiana (1981).
Thus, with a few exceptions, Bassett's body of work was monumental in scale and commercial in use.
In Bassett's New York Times obituary (Pace 1999), Allan Temko, former architecture critic of The San
Francisco Chronicle, described the architect as "'a leader in the efforts of younger modern architects to
seek alternatives to the arid formulas of the International Style." This harkens back to Woodward's 1970
comments about SOM's work as a whole (see above). Temko calls out the Weyerhaeuser campus as one
of Bassett's most notable works and as "another beauty: it's so handsomely sited the building is like a
dam overlooking a lake."
4.3.3 Sasaki, Walker and Associates (SWA)
The partnership of Hideo Sasaki (1919-2000) and Peter J. Walker (born 1932) was formed in 1957 as
SWA. While the formal partnership dates between 1957 and the 1970s, Sasaki and Walker maintained
associations before and after the life of the company. Sasaki was chair of the landscape architecture
program at the Harvard Graduate School of Design while maintaining the firm's Watertown,
Massachusetts, office (TCLF 2019a). They met while Walker completed his graduate studies at Harvard
University (P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019).
SWA were integral to the designs of significant projects nationwide, particularly those where architecture
and landscape were closely integrated in concept and execution. These include:
> Bell Laboratories, Holmdel, New Jersey, with architect Eero Saarinen Associates (1959);
> Foothill Junior College, Los Altos, California, with architect Ernest Kump (1960);
> Deere & Company Administration Center, Moline, Illinois, with architect Eero Saarinen Associates
(1964);
> Fashion Island, Newport Beach, California (1970); and
4-14 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
> Waterfront Park, Washington, D.C. (1972).
While Sasaki maintained the East Coast practice of the firm, Walker opened and maintained their West
Coast practice starting with the development of the Foothill Junior College project (P. Walker, personal
communication, May 22, 2019).
4.3.4 Peter Walker
Originally from California, Peter Walker began his career in landscape architecture at the University of
California — Berkeley and Harvard University's Graduate School of Design. Prior to forming SWA, he
worked for Lawrence Halprin and Associates. Walker was appointed Fellow of the American Society of
Landscape Architects in 1975 and has been an influential leader throughout his career. He has published
widely, took on the role of chair at both of his alma maters, and served on multiple design juries and
boards, including University of Washington's Architectural Review Commission for many years (Pacific
Coast Architecture Database 2019b; TCLF 2019b; P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019).
Landscape architect and university professor Thaisa Way refers to minimalism as being a defining
characteristic of his work (T. Way, personal communication, May 8, 2019).
With projects spanning over half a century, Walker's body of work is extensive and includes large-scale
commissions in Germany, Switzerland, Japan, China, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and
Australia as well as throughout the U.S. Along with early projects such as Foothill Junior College and the
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus, Walker was also responsible for landscape and site
planning for:
> Boeing Longacres Industrial Park, Renton, Washington (1994);
> Novartis Headquarters Landscape Master Plan, Sculpture Plaza, and Forum, Basel, Switzerland
(1999, 2005, and 2007);
> Pixar Animation Studios, Emeryille, California (2000 and 2011);
> Sydney Olympia Park, Sydney, Australia (2000 and ongoing);
> U.S. Federal Courthouse, Seattle, Washington (2004); and
> National September 11 Memorial, New York, New York (2011).
Walker continues to practice as Principal of Peter Walker and Partners (PWP) Landscape Architecture
(PWP Landscape Architecture 2019).
4.4 Federal Way
Of the land owned by Weyerhaeuser at the time a new corporate headquarters was being
conceptualized, a site in Federal Way was selected in part because of its location along two highways
(Interstate 5 and State Route 18), ease of access to Sea-Tac Airport, and proximity to both Tacoma and
Seattle (P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019). Initially the campus was officially in
unincorporated King County.
The City of Federal Way incorporated after voter approval in 1990, but the historical events that led to this
point date back to Native American settlements and trails. In written records, Captain George Vancouver
explored the area in 1792 and encountered many Indians. In 1840, Hudson's Bay Company established a
trading post in the area along an established Indian trail. Then came the 1850s surveys to build a road
between Fort Steilacoom and Fort Bellingham. This road used existing trail networks, including one that
passed through what is now Federal Way. The resulting road was named Military Road. The section
between Pierce County and Seattle was completed in 1860 (Stein 2003).
The next leap forward for transportation through the area was the construction of a new, federally funded
West Coast highway, which would become U.S. Highway 99. Begun in 1915, the section between Seattle
July 2020 Cardno Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus 4-15
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
and Tacoma opened in 1928. The stretch of the highway through the area either subsumed or ran parallel
to Military Road. This "Federal Way" became the namesake for the developing school district and, over
time, the area in general. The community created its first fire district —Fire District Number 22—by special
election in 1944, followed in 1949 by its first fire station (Federal Way Mirror 2017). The Federal Way
Commercial Club, the predecessor of the Federal Way Chamber of Commerce, was formed in 1946, and
the Greater Federal Way News was established soon after. Businesses developed along the Highway 99
corridor. In 1955, the Federal Shopping Way Mall opened and became a popular shopping and
amusement center for the whole area. A further boost to Federal Way's connectivity was the 1962
completion of the section of Interstate 5 that went through the area (Stein 2003). Weyerhaeuser began
construction of its corporate headquarters within the well-connected network of highways at the end of
that decade.
4-16 Historical Context for the Weyerhaeuser Campus Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5 Campus Design and Construction
5.1 The Corporate Headquarters
5.1.1 Headquarters Planning and Design Process
As documented in an unauthored, tabular report from December 1, 1965, housed at the Forest History
Society's Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, the company researched a number of other existing corporate
campuses during the planning stage. These campuses included:
> Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, New York;
> Deere and Company, Moline, Illinois;
> General Mills, Golden Valley, Minnesota;
> Union Carbide, New York, New York; and
> Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
Of the 12 sites used for comparison, six were identified as SOM designs, and five were noted as having a
suburban location. None were located west of Minnesota (Forest History Society 2019). Weyerhaeuser
hired SOM to come up with a design for its new suburban corporate headquarters.
In an oral interview, Peter Walker of SWA provided firsthand insight into the people and process that
created the Federal Way Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus. As described earlier, the
relationship between Weyerhaeuser, SOM, and SWA began on the East Coast, but soon moved to the
West Coast offices of both firms. Walker described the connection made from the start between himself,
SOM's Chuck Bassett, and George Weyerhaeuser, noting that all three were similarly young in
comparison to the original team proposed out of SOM's New York Office (P. Walker, personal
communication, May 22, 2019).
As the new president, George Weyerhaeuser was interested in moving the company's headquarters out
of the city environment while entrenching it firmly on the West Coast (P. Walker, personal communication,
May 22, 2019). The influence of George Weyerhaeuser's vision of tying the new headquarters with a shift
in corporate identity under new leadership cannot be underestimated. Along with his own creativity,
Chuck Bassett brought SOM's reputation for being the "go -to" firm for corporate campuses at the time (J.
Ochsner, personal communication, May 8, 2019). Peter Walker brought his minimalist's vision and desire
to test the boundaries between what is natural and what is human made (T. Way, personal
communication, May 8, 2019; P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019). George Weyerhaeuser
represented the ideals of a company in transition.
This was not solely a matter of younger leadership but a desire to change the image of the company from
one that consumes resources to one that manages them, or, in the words of one of Weyerhaeuser's
subsequent advertising campaigns, "The Tree Growing Company" (Mozingo 2011:141). Professor of
Landscape Architecture Thaisa Way describes designed landscapes like Bloedel Reserve on Bainbridge
Island, Washington, and the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters as "apologetic landscapes," whose
very design emphasizes the desire of some industry leaders whose previous reputation may have been
more often associated with environmental extraction to demonstrate their interest in environmental
protection (T. Way, personal communication, May 8, 2019).
Out of a number of different Weyerhaeuser -owned pieces of land, the chosen site was selected because
it was near two freeways and the airport between Tacoma and Seattle (P. Walker, personal
communication, May 22, 2019) (Figure 14).
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-17
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
1
P
EXISTING SITE
I
I
WEYERHAEUSER HEADQUARTERS BUILDING
Figure 14. The site SOM and SWA had to work with was not a blank canvas. In this undated
plan from this early development period, the then -existing conditions are laid out
and include roads and stands of trees. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
The design process itself as described by Walker was highly collaborative. Meetings with both design
firms and George Weyerhaeuser generally took place at Chuck Bassett's office in San Francisco,
5-18 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
California. "He had this office where the floors, walls, and ceiling were white .... There were no desks.
There were a couple of tables for models but basically it wasn't an office, it was a studio and that's the
way Chuck planned it .... Chuck was essentially holding school" (P. Walker, personal communication, May
22, 2019). According to Walker, the team was sometimes called "Chuck's Brats" because they were
young enough to be students.
Walker described an environment in which ideas flowed that went beyond the mere integration of
architectural and landscape design concepts to the point where, oftentimes, it was difficult to pinpoint who
came up with the genesis of a new direction. Speaking from the perspective of the landscape architect on
the team, Walker noted,
We worked with Bassett to try to extend his ideas and also to bring some ideas from the site back
to the building. Out of that came this tiered level where the building was all planted.... Then, the
parking stepped down the hill, so that when you came in and parked your car, you would walk
right in to your floor. You wouldn't come in a front door and then go to an elevator; only guests
would do that .... A lot of these ingenious ideas came out in those first days. It's hard to say
whether they were landscape ideas or architectural ideas. (P. Walker, personal communication,
May 22, 2019)
Indeed, David Streatfield, Emeritus Professor of Landscape Architecture at the University of Washington,
notes, "the large structure designed as a stepped dam in the center of a formal allee is as much a
landscape as it is a building" (Streatfield 1980:59).
The nature of this early design process calls to mind the concept of "total architecture" as described by
Bauhaus School founder Walter Gropius in 1943 in Scope of Total Architecture,
I have come to the conclusion that an architect or planner worth the name must have a very
broad and comprehensive vision indeed to achieve a true synthesis of a future community. This
we might call "total architecture." To do such a total job he needs the ardent passion of a lover
and the humble willingness to collaborate with others, for great as he may be he cannot do it
alone. The kinship of regional architectural expression which we so much desire will greatly
depend, I believe, on the creative development of teamwork. (Peter 1958:36)
Within this creative, collaborative context, the team worked on initial concepts and site planning. After
considering over a dozen locations for the building, Bassett came up with the idea of "a bridge that
spanned from hill to hill" and the overall design concept was established (P. Walker, personal
communication, May 22, 2019). One earlier site plan developed by the team is illustrated in Figure 15 and
Figure 16. The final plan included the tiered parking lots previously described by Walker (Figure 17,
Figure 18, and Figure 19). Planting plans were supplied by SWA to identify which trees would be retained
as well as areas that would be planted with new vegetation (Appendix A).
Inside, the building introduced a new concept in office planning in the United States, that of the open plan
or burolandschaft (Streatfield 1980:59). The idea was inspired by a trip the architecture team took to
Scandinavia and Germany. The resulting design used furniture to shape the spaces rather than structural
partitions, and afforded all employees views out over the landscape from where they worked (P. Walker,
personal communication, May 22, 2019).
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-19
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
-OlrAAg AND
r
1!"
M
I
� 5
M ASrEn PLAN
4 T
WEYERHAEUSER HEADQUARTERS SUkLDING
1
Figure 15. Early master plan for the campus with unselected design for headquarters
buildings. This plan illustrates the company's interest in future additions to the
campus to include research and development, commercial, and recreational uses.
(Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society,
Durham, North Carolina)
5-20 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 16. Model of early design concept for the campus. The characteristic circular drive,
pond, and meadows are featured but the innovative final concept for the building
and parking configuration was not yet established. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
Figure 17. Model of the selected site design for the headquarters area. All of the hallmarks of
this part of the campus or more or less presented as built. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-21
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 18. A more detailed model of the selected building and site design for the
headquarters area, showing the view from the northeast parking lot to the
headquarters building. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library,
Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
Figure 19. Another view of the detailed model of the headquarters building, illustrating the
eastern public access driveway to the fourth -floor, the ivy planting scheme, and
intention to develop roof gardens with fifth -floor access. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-22 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5.1.1.1 Headquarters Construction and Opening
Records indicate that the construction of the corporate headquarters area began in 1969 with site
preparation and ended in 1971 with installation of interior finishes and furnishing (Figure 20 through
Figure 25) (Forest History Society 2019). About half of the Tacoma headquarters staff-835 employees —
moved into the building in April 1971. The other half would have to wait for future development at the
campus. Chuck Bassett expressed the design team's pride in the project at the time, noting that it would
not be complete until the landscape matured (Figure 26) ( Weyerhaeuser World 1971:2).
Completion Dates
October 1969 . .
. Site preparation
November 1969
Erection of framework
November 1969 .
. . Main building walls
December 1969
. Floor slabs and beams
January 1970 . .
. . Stairways, elevators
February 1970 .
. . . . . . Roofing
April 1970
Ceilings, doors
April 1970 . . .
. . . . Heating plant
August 1970 . .
. . . . . Walkways
November 1970 .
. . . . . Electrical,
mechanical work
November 1970 .
. . . Interior finishes
December 1970 .
. . . . Parking areas
December 1970
Basic landscaping
December 1970
. . . Communications
equipment
January 1971
Furnishings
Figure 20. Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters construction schedule found in the
company archives located at the Forest History Society. (Image courtesy of the
Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
.10
Figure 21. Site grading in progress, ca. 1969. Original road networks are in evidence. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-23
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 22. An unknown employee shown on -site during construction, ca. 1969. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
North Carolina)
Figure 23. Undated photograph taken from the fifth floor showing the Guardian Rock after
installation at the western entrance, ca. 1970. Ivy has also been planted and the
wooded area shows evidence of understory removal to shape the forest -like
setting. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-24 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 24. An undated slide taken soon after staff moved to the side, likely ca. 1971. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
North Carolina)
Figure 25. An interior slide showing the view from the fifth floor, facing north, soon after
occupation, likely taken ca. 1971. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser
Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-25
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Upon the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters building and surrounding landscape's initial
completion in 1971, excerpts from Chuck Bassett's remarks at the annual shareholders' meeting
were included in a special issue of Weyerhaeuser World, a magazine published for employees,
dedicated to the new campus:
There are different kinds of architects. There are some who build little and talk a lot, and I would
much rather be the other kind who builds and talks less. We tried very hard on this building and
it has embraced almost four years from the start.
It has been a wonderful, fantastic experience with an end result of which 1 and all of us at
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill are very proud. Although you start out with something in your
mind that is not quite defined yet, you have to wait four years before it happens, and it happens
in such little bits and pieces, and over such a long period of time, that the wear and tear on
some jobs often overcomes the excitement. This has certainly not been true here where all of us
remain inherently devoted to the client and to the building.
Good buildings require other kinds of chemistries besides hard work. They require a committed,
involved and interested client; they require an interesting, challenging site, and they require a
challenging program; and if we are lucky and have some talent, it requires that too. But with all
of these things together, the total is greater than the individual parts and 1 think this is what
happened on this job. Of course we wanted to make this a beautiful building by itself, as identity;
of course we wanted to make it a delightful, wonderful place for people to work in. There are lots
of buildings that don't do this and we were very firm in our purpose to accomplish this, but from
a total point of view, I would consider these things as the least common denominator. If you
cannot do these, then what the hell are you doing there in the first place?
Now, everyone thinks the building is completed. I guess it is — 95 percent of it. We still have
some things to do, and we have to tune it and get it just right — a process that will go on for the
next three months. But to me and to the rest of our gang, the building is, actually, only about 80
percent or 75 percent complete because the important ingredient lacking here at the moment is,
simply, maturity.
The building has to have the ivy on these tipped burrs, rich and green and a foot thick, and
falling all over these edges that you see. The lack edge has to become wonderful and soft and
green, and the little willow trees out there have to reach maturity — which is ten years away. The
meadow has to be worked carefully and seeded so it is a nice expanse of green, and all the
parking lots which are standing there, rather bare at the moment, have to have the sycamore
trees along the walk so that, as you approach the building, you will be walking down a lane of
sycamore trees in an arched, tunnel -like form of green. And from the building, because of the
sycamores, you will hardly be aware of the cars themselves. In the fifth floor gardens at the
ends of the building, the yew hedges will be four and a half feet high — rich and deep and
opaque, the way those hedges are — not the way they look now. All these things will settle in
and become an inherent, integral part of the building and when that happens, then the building
is complete. 1 cannot but look at it now and feel that there ought to be some way in our vast
technological resources to hurry up God, and things like this. But, as an architect, I know that is
useless and I have to wait.
We, at SOM, are very proud of the building. We are even prouder of our relationship with the
whole Weyerhaeuser family. They are a magnificent group of people, and speaking for
everyone in our gang and myself, I would like to thank you all.
Figure 26. Part of a speech given by SOM architect, Chuck Bassett, to a meeting of the
corporation's shareholders in 1971. (Weyerhaeuser World 1971:2)
5-26 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5.1.2 Planning for Expansion
When half of the Tacoma staff moved into the new headquarters building in 1971, the employee
magazine noted that the other half were waiting for new buildings to be developed on nearby land
(Weyerhaeuser World 1971:2). Recalling the process of site planning, landscape architect Peter Walker
observed that there was no single plan selected for the entire headquarters property. Certain concepts
emerged, such as the intention to set aside land to the north and east of the headquarters for other
corporate purposes, as shown in Figure 15, Figure 27, and Figure 28. Over the course of the history of
the corporate campus, Weyerhaeuser Company moved forward on developing some of the areas
identified in these site plans.
While detailed designs were not established on early site plans, the main concept that was thread
throughout the ongoing planning process was that each stage of development would have a distinct
design and be separated from one another by woods (P. Walker, personal communication, May 22,
2019). Although Weyerhaeuser Company did not follow this guiding principle on more recent
development at the north end of the property, it was carried out for the development of the second major
stage of the campus's construction, the Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC) (Figure 29).
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-27
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
f
7 V
e
WE1ERHAEUSER
`J
J
Figure 27. Undated site plan following completion of the design for the headquarters but prior
to the formalization of plans for the WTC. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-28 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
LEGEND
a..e+u..r Ae.a•...a
l..apre Rwe6rani
_._._
Ilk
L.ndaceve
Weyerhaeuser East Campus Master Plan
Ar� L-d , A,04=
��J �j ( QvµinMapry san ha�isc cuxu� ?2W ee4o&a Y. Sn..s W. c4yw
- — — -- . L-- —
Figure 28. Undated proposed master plan, estimated ca. 1977 due to WTC's "under
construction" status. Features that differ from current conditions include the
greenhouses, trail plans, and additions to WTC, as well as the hybrid garden and
trail plans around the headquarters area. (Image courtesy of Weyerhaeuser
Company)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-29
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
X NZ
�� ,
l I ]I: PROPOSED ANNEX
EAST PARKING LOT
rr ` ii 1 1
ff rl J`I _ WEYERHAEUSER
Patio y • + i - --•.�- • - ; �` • _,
, HEAOCKMRTERS
WEST ROOF �_• '4,—r"-._-'' - I i I ,
DRAHAGE i ..�j _ �..� I �" ► ��
� I
+ I
i WEST PAAMNCd Lp7
4
f • f� JSI�I���
I _-
,.
i
- t,
I
Scale 1" =200'
200' 100' 0 200' 400'
Figure 29. As recently as 2003, Weyerhaeuser had commissioned plans to construct an annex building on the future development
site just east of the headquarters building. Note the proposed buffers along Weyerhaeuser Road between the corporate
headquarters and proposed annex building. (Image courtesy of ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC)
5-30 Campus Design and Construction Cardno February 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5.1.3 The Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC)
5.1.3.1 WTC Planning and Design Process
Less is known of the design process for the development of the WTC. Site plans identify the California
offices of SOM and SWA as the design team (Figure 28). In an interview, Peter Walker also confirmed
that he and Chuck Bassett were members of the team for this stage of the project (P. Walker, personal
communication, May 22, 2019).
5.1.3.2 WTC Construction and Opening
Site excavation for the construction of the WTC began in 1976 and continued through its dedication in
1978 (Figure 30 through Figure 34). Upon completion, one design publication noted that, "in contrast to
the highly visible headquarters building, on view from two flanking highways, the Technology Center is
dropped into the forest, all but invisible from any distance (Interior Design 1979: no page numbers). Thus,
the original site planning concept for each new development on the campus to have a distinct design
aesthetic was actualized in this second major construction project during the historical period of
significance.
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-31
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Weyerhaeuser Technology Ctr.
June 3, 1976
Looking South
i
Figure 30. Site grading for construction of the WTC in 1976. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
Figure 31. South elevation of the WTC in 1977, illustrating the contrasting exterior treatments
under construction. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest
History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-32 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 32. WTC parking lots under construction in 1977. The original design of the
stormwater pond is also in view in the lower right-hand corner. (Image courtesy of
the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
'_�s h , Ilo iuii re
an �h,
.test
t:
Figure 33. A 1978 event commemorating the opening of the WTC. (Image courtesy of the Carl
A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-33
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Camp
Figure 34. Images taken soon after completion of the WTC. Clockwise from upper left is Peter
Walker's central courtyard garden, the northeast corner of the building, facing
south, and the southern entrance to the building. Note the original door and
unpainted cedar siding. Peter Walker's garden above the entrance vestibule and
surrounding landscaping had yet to mature. (Interior Design 1979)
5-34 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5.2 The Campus after Completion
Aerial imagery provides evidence of how the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus matured in
the years following construction (Figure 36 through Figure 40).
1,40
.cam �Ir:a • �i ;,fit _
Figure 35. The corporate headquarters in 1976, facing northeast, with North Lake in the
background. The green of the ivy on the headquarters building and understory
vegetation along the meadows are beginning to show. (Image courtesy of the Carl
A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-35
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 36. A 1976 utility plan with roughly contemporary aerial image. Note presence of model forest and utilities to the
rhododendron garden in lower left-hand quarter of the image. (Image courtesy of FWC)
5-36 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
..;N - Y _'i.-" irk '., •�� r
r":"' � •ram �i• r) _
}..
r
1
_ i i t 9 . s•i -
T t
WEYERHAEUSER EAST CAMPUS
Figure 37. The campus in 1979. The outer two parking lots at the WTC appear to be under construction at this time. (Image courtesy
of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-37
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 38. A 1982 aerial photo of the headquarters area, facing northwest. (Image courtesy of
the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-38 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 39. This 1983 slide captures an image of the campus, with the rhododendron garden in
the foreground and WTC within its tree buffer glimpsed in the distance, facing
northeast. Systematic development of the northern end of the campus had yet to
begin (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society,
Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-39
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 40. Also in 1983, this photograph shows the south elevation of the WTC a few years
after the building was completed. The cedar siding had not yet been stained, and
both Peter Walker's roof gardens and the driveway -side landscaping are just
starting to mature. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest
History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
5-40 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
5.3 Other Campus Facilities
5.3.1 Facilities Constructed Prior to the Headquarters
When Weyerhaeuser Company began acquiring property for its headquarters, a number of buildings were
located on the land (Washington State Archives 2019) (Figure 15). In some cases, the company removed
the buildings and streets in order to achieve the 1969 design such as immediately north and east of the
headquarters building (Figure 21). In others, Weyerhaeuser acquired the land later and used the existing
buildings for different corporate purposes. The four buildings that were constructed prior to the
headquarters building and landscape and later used by Weyerhaeuser Company are described below.
5.3.1.1 Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building
This building was designed in 1963 and built in 1964 for the precursor to Puget Sound Energy to serve
the Auburn and Federal Way area (Figure 41). At the time it was constructed, its address was 2835 South
344th Street, which no longer exists. Today, it is located at the southern end of the headquarters property
and contains a loading dock and office area. The property was acquired by Weyerhaeuser at an unknown
date. Its function on the campus site is unknown.
Figure 41. A King County Assessor photograph from 1964 showing the Puget Sound Power &
Light Company Service Building soon after completion. (Image courtesy of the
Washington State Archives)
5.3.1.2 Project House 1
According to King County Assessor records, this former residence was also constructed in 1964 (King
County Assessor 2019). The two-story dwelling contains a side entrance and a detached garage on the
street side of the property. The name of the original owner is as yet unknown. King County Assessor
records note that Weyerhaeuser Company purchased the property from an escrow company in 1988
(King County Assessor 2019). A long-time Weyerhaeuser Company employee, Andy Bylin, noted that the
building was converted by the corporation into meeting spaces a number of decades ago (A Bylin,
personal communication, June 26, 2019).
5.3.1.3 Project House 2
Weyerhaeuser Company constructed this building in 1969, as indicated in project plans and King County
Assessor data (Weyerhaeuser Company 2019b and King County Assessor 2019) (Figure 42). The
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-41
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
northern extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South was not yet completed at the time of construction.
Although the property is accessed from that street today, it was given an address of 32820 32"d Avenue
South. This address relates to a previously existing road (32"d Avenue) that once passed east of the
building. As a result, its orientation may have changed, whereby what may once have been its front
elevation (southeast) now faces away from the road from which it is now accessed (Weyerhaeuser Way
South). Weyerhaeuser Way South was constructed ca. 1978, almost a decade after Project House 2 was
built. It was designed as "Research House 2" in the form of a single-family residence with detached
garage; the garage was never built (Weyerhaeuser Company 2019b and A Bylin, personal
communication, June 26, 2019).
The building is known anecdotally as the "Glue House", reportedly because it was built without nails (A
Bylin, personal communication, June 26, 2019). However, the plans provided by Weyerhaeuser Company
(2019b) do not include details of fastenings or other adhesives. In addition, these details were not visible
on the exterior of the building during the reconnaissance -level survey. As a result, the suggestion that the
building was constructed without nails has not been confirmed.
There is no evidence that the building was ever used as a residence, despite the name. During the period
of Weyerhaeuser Company occupation of the headquarters property, Project House 2 was used as an
archives building and offices for a number of work groups. The building was last used by the lands real
estate team at the time the corporation moved its headquarters to Seattle in 2016 (A Bylin, personal
communication, June 26, 2019).
t
S
7 - 7v
Figure 42. A 1971 King County Assessor photograph of Project House 2 shows what was
then its front elevation on the now non -vacated 32"d Avenue South. Today it serves
as the building's rear elevation. (Image courtesy of the Washington State Archives)
5.3.1.4 King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station
King County Fire District Number 22 constructed this fire station in 1969 with the hose tower completed in
1971 (Washington State Archives 2019) (Figure 43). Fire District Number 22 was created by special
election in 1944. In 1949, its first fire station, which is no longer standing, was opened in a prefabricated
Quonset but at the corner of 18t" Avenue and 308t" Street South, Federal Way, approximately 1.5 miles
northeast of the 1969 fire station. Other new stations were built as adjacent fire districts merged and the
completion of Interstate 5 nearby in 1962 led to growth in the area. These included a station opened in
1959 on 28th Avenue South, Federal Way (Federal Way Mirror 2017). This 1959 station appears to have
5-42 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
been altered to serve as the Steel Lake Park maintenance facility today (Google Maps 2020). Two more
stations opened in the late 1960s (Federal Way Mirror 2017).
When King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station was opened in the area where the new
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters was planned, the earlier road infrastructure illustrated in Figure
14 was still present. The address given to the new fire station was 2821 South 336t" Street. Today, it is
accessed off Weyerhaeuser Way South and is used as the office and storage facilities for Osaka Garden
Services, the on -site landscaping company that maintains the former headquarters campus property. The
date the former fire station was acquired by Weyerhaeuser Company has yet to be determined. However,
King County Assessor records indicate that it was remodeled in 1997 and 1998, with new, prefabricated
buildings added in 2001 and 2002 (King County Assessor 2020). This suggests potential acquisition by
Weyerhaeuser Company for the use of its landscapers during the 1990s. This may have been when the
hose tower was removed, although this has not been confirmed.
Figure 43. A 1969 King County Assessor photograph of the former fire station shows its front
(north) elevation prior to construction of the hose tower. (Image courtesy of the
Washington State Archives)
5.3.2 Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden
Weyerhaeuser Company began leasing land on the campus to the Rhododendron Species Foundation in
1974 to house their collection, which had been previously located in Oregon (Rhododendron Species
Botanical Garden 2020). Peter Walker noted that SWA landscape architect William Callaway (1943-
2014) produced the original design for the rhododendron dell (P. Walker, personal communication, May
22, 2019). A number of buildings and structures were constructed in 1974 and 1975 to house and care for
the collection (Washington State Archives 2019) (Figure 44 and Figure 45). The collection was moved
from Oregon in 1975 and the first open house at the garden was held in October of 1979 (Seattle Times
1979:A15 and 1981:B2). The garden began keeping regular opening hours in 1981, although work on the
design of the garden continued (Figure 39). By 1981, the number of species held by the Rhododendron
Species Foundation on site had risen from an initial 263 to a total of 475 species (Seattle Times
1981: B2).
After opening to the public, the garden was reorganized according to taxonomy, a significant change from
the SWA plan. Replanting was completed in 1984. Other changes to the garden included the construction
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-43
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
of a new greenhouse in 2005, the development of a tropical conservatory and a Victorian "stumpery" for
fern collections in 2009, and the addition of other species such as azaleas, blue poppies, and magnolias
over the years. Today, the garden occupies 22 acres of an expanded trail network at the southeastern
end of the campus (Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden 2020).
From its opening to the present day, the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden has provided a public
amenity on the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus. The timing of its addition to the campus
coincided with the corporation's continued efforts to position itself as the "Tree Growing Company"
(Seattle Times 1977:D2). The garden could be perceived as evidence of the corporation's interest in
protecting and displaying a diverse range of plant species. In visiting the garden, the public was also
presented with the headquarters' surroundings as an example of the Weyerhaeuser Company's approach
to forest management.
Figure 44. An undated King County Assessor photograph of the rhododendron garden's 1974
Lath House, an open framework used for propagating plant specimens (Image
courtesy of the Washington State Archives)
5-44 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 45. This King County Assessor photograph shows the rhododendron garden's Potting
and Storage Shed, which was constructed west of the Lath House in 1975 (Image
courtesy of the Washington State Archives)
5.3.3 Pacific Bonsai Museum
The Pacific Rim Bonsai Collection also acquired facilities on the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
campus in the late 1980s. The facility for the collection was built adjacent to the Rhododendron Species
Botanical Garden. It was officially opened by George Weyerhaeuser and former Washington first lady,
Jean Gardner in 1989 in honor of the state centennial. Renamed the Pacific Bonsai Museum in 2013, the
organization's website states that "the Collection was established to symbolize Weyerhaeuser's long-term
commitments to its customers, its community, and its forest resources (Pacific Bonsai Museum 2020)."
5.4 Weyerhaeuser Company's Other Recent Campus Alterations
When comparing site plans from the 1970s to more recent aerial imagery, it is evident that Weyerhaeuser
Company did not embark on major redevelopment on the campus following completion of the WTC until
after 1990 (Figure 2, Figure 27, Figure 28, and Figure 46). The corporation's alternations that occurred
during redevelopment, as described in King County Assessor records (2019) and by Andy Bylin, long-
time Weyerhaeuser employee and current facilities manager, over a series of site visits and email
correspondence with Cardno throughout 2019, include:
> Modifications to the WTC, including painting of the cedar cladding, window and door replacement,
expansion of the service yard, conversion of the designed hay fields to lawn, and abandonment of the
roof gardens above both entrance vestibules(Figure 47 to Figure 49);
> Relocation of the original helipad and addition of a second helipad to the southwest side of the
headquarters building in the 1980s (Figure 50); and
> Construction of multiple new commercial and warehouse buildings under different owners at the north
end of the former campus site between 1999 and 2007. This stage of development failed to follow the
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-45
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
historical site planning concept of utilizing tree buffers to separate different parts of the campus (Figure
51).
Periodic management of the ivy, trees, and forests has also taken place to control the undergrowth and
protect the health of the vegetation as per the concomitant agreement (Weyerhaeuser Company
Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement 1994; A. Bylin, personal communication, various dates
throughout 2019).
5-46 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 46. A 1990 aerial photograph of the campus. One difference between this image and
the current one in Figure 2 is lack of development at the north end of the campus
shown here.
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-47
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 47. South entrance of the WTC, facing north, showing the painted cedar siding and
replacement doors.
Figure 48. South elevation of the WTC at the eastern end, facing north. As individual window
units have failed, Weyerhaeuser has replaced them with higher -performing,
untinted, double -glazed units.
5-48 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 49. WTC service yard, facing south, with the western elevation of the WTC building
just visible on the left. The break in the pavement to the right of the fire hydrant
marks the former western edge of the service yard. The tree buffer was removed to
make way for new paving and additional outbuildings.
Figure 50. New helipads constructed southeast of the headquarters building in the 1980s.
July 2020 Cardno Campus Design and Construction 5-49
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 51. An example of one of the new commercial buildings constructed at the northern
end of the survey area. It exemplifies the formalization of the public realm in this
area, which contrasts with the historical patterns of development elsewhere in the
former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus. This formalization includes
the installation of sidewalks and regularly -spaced street trees as well as a lack of
wooded buffers screening the development from the rest of the campus.
5-50 Campus Design and Construction Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6 Evaluation of Significance
6.1 Significance Factor: Comparative Designations
Modernist heritage is in the throes of an ongoing battle for recognition and protection (Bernstein 2013;
Racioppi 2019). Yet with ever-increasing Modernist properties reaching the standard thresholds for
consideration for local, state, and national registers, designations have followed. Some significant
suburban corporate campuses have been listed in the NRHP. Notable examples are:
General Motors Technical Center, construction completed in 1956 in Warren, Michigan; Eero
Saarinen (architect), Thomas Dolliver Church (landscape architect). The historic property was
initially designated in the NRHP on March 27, 2000, and later listed as a National Historic
Landmark in 2014. This property was listed under national significance for its association with
corporate research and development during the post-war period (Criterion A) and with Alfred P.
Sloan, Jr. and Harley Jefferson Earl (Criterion B), as well as its architectural significance (Criterion
C). Its period of significance is 1949 to 1970. With the latter part of the period of significance falling
outside the common minimum threshold of 50 years of age, it was also listed using Criteria
Consideration G (Kavenagh et al. 1999).
The 600-acre site has 22 contributing and nine non-contributing features. All are buildings or
structures. The "high -style modernist landscape" —including scenic views, circulation plan, tree
planting, and landscaped parking lots —is described in some detail in the nomination form, but no
landscape features are listed as either contributing or non-contributing. However, landscape
architecture is listed as an area of significance, and landscape architect Church is listed alongside
Saarinen as one of the architects of the project (Kavenagh et al. 1999).
2. Reynolds Metals Company International Headquarters, completed in 1958 in Henrico County
(near Richmond), Virginia; Gordon Bunshaft of SOM New York office (architect), Charles F. Gillette
(landscape architect). The 121-acre historic property was designated in the NRHP on April 11,
2000, as an "office building" with the following contributing resources:
> Executive office building;
> Unnamed service building;
> Greenhouse;
> Landscaped park; and
> Reflecting pool (Sadler and Witt 1999).
The area of significance for the property is architecture (NRHP Criterion C), and the period of
significance is 1958. The four non-contributing buildings dating from 1968 to the date of
designation. Notably, this historic property was listed in the NRHP prior to it reaching the standard
age threshold and was thus approved under Criteria Consideration G for properties that have
achieved significance within the past 50 years (Sadler and Witt 1999).
3. The Connecticut General Life Insurance Company Headquarters, construction completed in
1957 in Bloomfield, Connecticut; Gordon Bunshaft of SOM New York office (architect), Isamu
Noguchi (landscape architect). The historic property was designated on December 29, 2009, for
national- and state -level significance for its associations with patterns of community planning and
development (NRHP Criterion A) and its architecture (NRHP Criterion C). The period of
significance is 1954 to 1957. This 30.52-acre property has only one contributing element:
> Wilde Building, which contains the main building, north wing, and cafeteria (Hembree 2009).
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Non-contributing elements are the 1972 parking garage and associated pedestrian walkway. While
the nomination report refers to a number of landscape features that remain intact, the landscape is
not a listed contributing element to the designated property (Hembree 2009).
4. Virginia National Bank Headquarters, construction completed in 1967 in Norfolk, Virginia; Roy O.
Allen and J. Walter Severinghause of SOM's New York office with local firm Williams and Tazewell
(architects). This complex was listed for local significance as a historic district under NRHP Criteria
A (for commercial importance) and C (for architectural importance) on August 15, 2016. The
contributing resources are:
> Skyscraper;
> Parking garage; and
> Plaza with sunken pool.
Non-contributing elements post-date the 1965 to 1968 period of significance (Pollard 2016).
With these four examples, we see that integrated landscapes —hallmarks of the suburban campus
typology —are not consistently represented in formal designation.
As of the date of this report, no properties associated with Charles Bassett are known to have been listed
in the NRHP. At a local level, one of his buildings, the 1959 Crown Zellerbach Building, has been listed as
a San Francisco Designated Landmark since 1987. Relevant to the Pacific Northwest context, SOM's
San Francisco office was involved in the design of the 1958 Norton Building, which was designated a
Seattle City Landmark in 2008. While primarily designed by local architects Bindon & Wright, SOM
worked in consultation as "the nation's preeminent practitioner of highrise design during this era" (Gordon
2008:4). However, it was not Bassett who represented SOM on the project but Elliott F. Brown, Alan S.
Robinson, and Myron Goldsmith.
Similarly, Modernist landscapes as a whole are underrepresented on heritage registers. Charles
Birnbaum (2016; C. Birnbaum, personal communication by email, May 25, 2019), founder of TCLF in
1998 and current president and CEO of the organization, notes a number of Lawrence Halprin NRHP
listings that are listed in heritage registers, namely Park Central Square in Springfield, Missouri (listed
2009), Heritage Park Plaza in Fort Worth, Texas (listed 2009), and Portland Open Space Sequence in
Portland, Oregon (listed 2013).
Dan Kiley's (1912-2004) work has also received some recognition through NRHP listing, including Miller
House Garden in Columbus, Indiana, which was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 2000. As
noted with Bassett above, no landscapes designed by Walker have been identified as listed in the NRHP.
6.2 NRHP Eligibility Evaluation
The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus, as defined below, possesses integrity of
location, setting, design, material, workmanship, feeling, and association, which are defined in NHPA (36
CFR § 800.16). The property as defined is recommended eligible for the NRHP as a historic district under
Criteria A and C and Criteria Consideration G at a national level of significance under the following
analysis:
> Criterion A: The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus has had significant
associations with community planning and development in introducing the corporate campus to the
West Coast, a form of corporate planning that would become the template to respond to corporate
growth in the region. It has also played a pivotal role in representing Weyerhaeuser Company's
changing public image as a forest management corporation. As a result, the campus is recommended
eligible for listing in the NRHP as a historic district under Criterion A;
6-2 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
> Criterion B: The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus is not directly associated with
the lives of persons significant in our past as distinct from their roles in the significant events captured
under Criterion A, or design significance addressed under Criterion C. The campus is, therefore, not
recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion B;
> Criterion C: The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus is an exceptional example of
built heritage that responds to its Northwest context by integrating buildings and landscape into a
synergistic whole while using materials, design, and workmanship to reflect the corporate identity
projected by the Weyerhaeuser Company at this time in its history. The campus is also an outstanding
example of the work of landscape architect Peter Walker (SWA) and architect Edward Charles Bassett
(SOM). The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus is recommended eligible for listing
in the NRHP as a historic district under Criterion C;
> Criterion D: The significance of the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus is fully
visible in its above -ground built features, and the historical record has been found to be rich in detail.
Further research is unlikely to yield new avenues of historical significance not otherwise captured
under Criteria A, B, and C. In addition, the campus has not been found to possess archaeological
significance (Costa et al. 2018 and Payne et al. 2020). Additional archaeological research is also
unlikely to yield new information important in our history. Therefore, the campus is not recommended
eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D; and
> Criteria Consideration G: The former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus, as defined
below, is a historic property so exceptional in historical and design importance that it has achieved
significance within the past 50 years. It is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion
Consideration G.
Considering that both the main headquarters area and the WTC were designed on the whole by the same
team and, at the same time, all associated design elements are less than 50 years of age, following NPS
guidance on determining eligibility under Criteria Consideration G was critical to the analysis. In their work
on NRB 22, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that have Achieved Significance within
the past Fifty Years," Sherfy and Luce note the following:
Properties that achieved significance within the past 50 years may be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, according to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, only if they
are of "exceptional importance," or if they are integral parts of districts that are eligible for listing in
the National Register. This principle safeguards against listing properties which are of only
contemporary, faddish value and ensures that the National Register is a register of historic
places .... The passage of time is necessary in order to apply the adjective "historic" and to ensure
adequate perspective. (Sherfy and Luce 1998:1)
The guidelines note that the term "exceptional' is not defined in the criteria, because what is covered
under this term "cannot be fully catalogued or anticipated" (Sherfy and Luce 1998:1). Recommended
methods of evaluating whether a resource younger than 50 years of age is exceptional that are applicable
to a historic designed landscape like the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus include:
> Understanding its context to determine those features that "best illustrate or represent the
architectural, cultural, or historical values being considered" (Sherfy and Luce 1998:3);
> Uncovering scholarly evaluation of the resource, since "a case can be more readily be presented
and accepted for a property that has achieved significance within the past 50 years if the type of
architecture or its historic circumstances with which the property is associated have been the
object of scholarly evaluation" (Sherfy and Luce 1998:4); and
> Locating a property within a significant movement, such as the Cold War, whose period of
significance may continue into a timeframe that is less than 50 years old. In such instances,
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-3
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
resources should be compared to others associated with that movement regardless of age
(Sherfy and Luce 1998:6).
The proposed historic district possesses a high level of integrity. The innovative and influential design of
the headquarters and its associated landscape is noted in scholarly research and has received multiple
awards. These awards include the American Institute of Architects (AIA) 1972 Honor Award, the Bartlett
Award for accessibility in 1972, the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) Merit Award in
1972, the ASLA Classic Award in 1998, and the especially prestigious AIA National 25 Year Award in
2001 (AIA Journal 1972:37, Skidmore Owings & Merrill 2020, and PWP Landscape Architects 2020). The
continued development of the campus not only represented the corporation's changing projected image
as a forest management company, it also played a pivotal role in introducing the corporate campus to the
West Coast. Cardno recommends that the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus satisfies
Criterion Consideration G.
The recommended period of significance for the district is 1969 to 1979. This period encompass the
completion of the design and construction of the headquarters and its surrounding landscape (1969-
1971), construction of Project House 2, completion of the WTC design and construction activities (1975-
1978), and the initial construction and public opening of the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden
(1975-1979). Only those buildings, structures, and landscape features that have been found to relate
directly to Weyerhaeuser Company's occupation of the site during this time period are recommended as
elements that contribute to the significance of the proposed historic district.
Given the highly integrated nature of this historic designed landscape, recommending individual eligibility
for the NRHP for may be inappropriate for a number of historic features whose significance is tied to the
whole. Discussion regarding any individual building, structure, object, or landscape feature that is
considered eligible for listing in the NRHP on its own merits is provided in Section 6.6.
6.3 Historic District Boundary Analysis
NRB 15, "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation," describes the physical
characteristics of a historic district as a concentration, linkage, and continuity of features. "The identity of
a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall
historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties" (NPS
1997a:5). Determining an appropriate property boundary is critical to the integrity of the historic property
and its ability to accurately represent its significance.
As described in NRB 21 and 12, "Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties," factors to
consider include interpreting the integrity of the property and comparing the current and historical setting
and use (Seifert 1997:2-3). Seifert summarizes the guidelines for boundary determination as follows:
> Select boundaries to encompass but not exceed the extent of the significant resources and
land areas comprising the property;
> Include all historic features of the property, but do not include buffer zones or acreage not
directly contributing to the significance of the property;
> Exclude peripheral areas that no longer retain integrity due to alterations in physical conditions
or setting caused by human forces, such as development, or national forces, such as erosion;
and
> Include small areas that are disturbed or lack significance when they are completely
surrounded by eligible resources. "Donut holes" are not allowed. (Seifert 1997:2)
The recommended boundary for the proposed Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District
encompasses most of the area known to have been proposed by the company for its headquarters
complex at the time the 1969 plans were finalized (Figure 52). The areas excluded from the
6-4 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
recommended boundary lie to the north of the original site and follow existing parcel lines that demarcate
the subdivided parcels that were developed between 1999 and 2007 (King County Assessor 2019). Not
only did this development take place in the recent past, it also failed to follow the concept defined by the
original design team of surrounding each stage of campus development with tree buffers.
East of Weyerhaeuser Way South, the proposed northern boundary of the district ends at Parcel
1521049201, which is owned and managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife as a
water access facility.
West of Weyerhaeuser Way South, the proposed northern boundary of the district runs east -west along
the parcel boundaries associated with the mixed commercial district to the north held by a variety of
different owners. As currently configured, the following privately owned parcels lie north of the proposed
district boundary in this area, with current uses as identified by the King County Assessor (2020):
> Parcel 2154650170 — Public utility use, retention pond
> Parcel 2154650080 — Office building use
> Parcel 2154650110 — Vacant industrial use
> Parcel 2154650160 — Public utility use, retention pond
> Parcel 2154650180 — Reserve/Wilderness area
The proposed NRHP-eligible historic district is bounded:
> At the north by the parcel boundaries that form a continuous, forested, east -west line ca. 500 feet
south of South 323rd Street, then crossing Weyerhaeuser Way to the property south of the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife access road to North Lake;
> At the west by Interstate 5;
> At the south by State Route 18; and
> At the east by Weyerhaeuser Way at the south end, and following parcel boundaries roughly at the
point where Weyerhaeuser Road meets Weyerhaeuser Way to link to North Lake, which then forms
the remaining eastern boundary.
What follows is a description of which buildings, structures, and landscape features are recommended as
contributing to the significance of the property.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-5
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
�• f� i
_ r
amity I -
Proposed Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Historic District
Historic District Boundary
Built Environment Survey of the Former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Federal Way, Washington L'� Cardna
nG n5 u 1 CreatedlRewse6 772020
Figure 52. Proposed NRHP-eligible historic district boundary.
6-6 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4 Recommended Contributing Features to NRHP-Eligible Historic District
Most of the buildings, structures, fixed objects, and landscape elements found within the proposed
historic district boundary are recommended as contributing to the significance of the historic property
(Figure 52 and Appendix B-1). As described in NRB 16a, a "contributing" building, site, structure, or
object:
Adds to the historic associations, historical architectural qualities, or archeological values for
which a property is significant because it was present during the period of significance, relates to
the documented significance of the property, and possesses historic integrity or is capable of
yielding important information about the period, or it independently meets the National Register
criteria. (NPS 1997b:16)
As a recommended -eligible NRHP historic district, the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
campus has an array of contributing resources ranging from landscape features to buildings, structures,
and objects. Below is a description of contributing resources, which are illustrated on maps provided in
Appendix B-1. A tabular summary is found at the end of this section in Table 1. Note that at the core of
the cultural landscape's significance is the integration of landscape and architectural features; they are
subdivided below for organizational purposes and do not imply a hierarchy of significance.
6.4.1 Corporate Headquarters Structural Elements, completed ca. 1971
Designed as an integrated, architectural whole, the exterior and interior spaces have an exceptionally
high level of integrity. Recommended contributing features easily illustrated on Appendix B-1 are marked
with letters of the alphabet as described below.
6.4.1.1 Building (Map Identification (ID) "A", Appendix B-1)
The headquarters building itself is a five -story, ca. 358,000-square-foot, steel -frame structure
characterized by its horizontal, linear form of projected, fluted, concrete planters alternating with inset,
frameless, nearly floor -to -ceiling glazing (Figure 53 through Figure 57). Stout, smooth, concrete piers are
exposed throughout interior and exterior spaces. A continuous promenade paved with crushed, pink
gravel wraps around the fourth floor of the building (see Section 5.5.2). The shallow -pitch, copper -clad,
pavilion -style roof is flat in its interior, providing a lightness in form. Oriented on an east -west axis, the
building's location within the landscape emphasizes its appearance as a bridge or dam forming the pond
to the north. Floors have different overall volumes, decreasing as the floors rise, creating a subtle
ziggurat. With the lower floors having the appearance of being sunken into each corresponding parking
level, the overall effect is of a building growing out of the landscape.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-7
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 53. View from south from the circulation road, showing the way the building nestles
into the landscape, with forested areas demarcating the southern meadow.
Figure 54. Illustration of the rhythm of projected, concrete planters, inset glazed walls, and
exposed piers as seen from near the fourth -floor entrance. View of the southern
meadow.
6-8 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 55. Fourth -floor promenade, facing west.
Figure 56. View from north, showing from ground level how the building relates to the
northeastern parking lot and pond.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-9
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 57. View of the headquarters building from the southern meadow.
6.4.1.2 Headquarters Parking Lots and Access Driveways (Map ID `B", Appendix B-1)
Also contributing is the design of the parking lots, six in all, with access off Weyerhaeuser Road (Figure
58 through Figure 63). Groups of three radiate north- and south -ward from the eastern and western ends
of the building, each linked to a different floor. This allows staff working on levels 1, 2, and 3 to have
direct access from the parking lots to their floor without need of an elevator. Significant landscape
features and street furniture for the parking lot are addressed in Section 5.5.2. Fourth -floor driveway
access provides the public entrances at the eastern and western ends. Each driveway leads to a
roundabout at each of the two main entrances, designed with radiating paving of plain concrete and
crushed red gravel. The art within the roundabout at the west entrance —Guardian Rock —is described in
Section 5.5.3. Along the driveway, a projecting roof protects additional parking spaces.
6-10 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 58. Photograph from western -most parking lot, facing northeast toward the
headquarters building.
Figure 59. Northeast parking lot viewed from inside the headquarters building (third floor).
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-11
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 60. View of northeast parking lots from second -floor entrance.
Figure 61. Second -floor entrance from parking lot access stairwell.
6-12 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 62. Fourth -floor, east entrance drive with covered parking area, facing northeast.
Figure 63. Covered parking area at fourth -floor entrance, facing west.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-13
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4.2 Headquarters Landscape Features, initial completion ca. 1971, maturing thereafter
(Map ID "C", "D", "E", and "F", Appendix B-1)
Designed seamlessly with the architectural features described above, the landscape elements that
formed part of the 1969 plans are also in an especially high state of integrity today (Appendix B-1, Map ID
as included below) (Figure 64 through Figure 69).
Contributing resources in this category are:
> The ivy planting on the building itself,
> Meadows that form a north -south axis "through" the building from State Route 18 to Interstate 5 (Map
ID "C"),
> Pond to the north of the building (Map ID "D"),
> Managed woods of evergreen and deciduous trees captured within the circulation road (Map ID "E"),
and
> Hardscaping and planting schemes that surround the headquarters building, headquarters parking
lots, and pond (Map ID "F"). These features include sidewalks paved in pink, crushed gravel with ivy
planted in linear and square, sunken planters within allees of sycamore trees.
Figure 64. Ivy planting on fluted concrete.
6-14 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 65. Early slide showing young rooftop ivy planting above the western fourth -floor
entrance. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History
Society, Durham, North Carolina)
Figure 66. Current view of one of the managed woodlands, viewed from the circulation drive
with the meadow in the foreground and headquarters building on the far left, facing
northeast.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-15
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 67. Pond as viewed from the east -end patio on the fourth floor, with managed woods
on the periphery. Cars on the circulation drive and Interstate 5 are visible in the
background.
Figure 68. Southern meadow viewed from the fourth -floor, facing southwest. Managed forests
frame the view.
6-16 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 69. Pollarded sycamore allees and ivy planting that line the sidewalks from each of the
parking areas to the headquarters building.
6.4.3 Corporate Headquarters Art, Flagpole, and Street Furniture, completed ca. 1971 (Map
ID "G" and "H", Appendix B-1)
Some objects in the landscape also contribute to the campus's historical significance (Figure 70 through
Figure 76). Guardian Rock, a work of art commissioned by SOM in 1970, is installed in the roundabout at
the western entrance to the fourth floor of the headquarters building (Map ID "G"). Sculptor Gordon
Newell selected the stone from Finegold Ranch School near Fresno, California (House n.d.).
The flagpole on the eastern side of the pond is also an early feature of the campus (Map ID "H").
According to notes on a historical corporate photograph it is, "120' tall, plus base; laminated wood weighs
9,400 lbs. Done in our Cottage Grove, Oregon plant." A commemoration plaque was added in 1978 in
honor of Norton Clapp's retirement as chairman of the board.
Finally, street furniture dating to this early period of development includes tall lighting standards on
square glulam posts in the parking lots and around the circulation drives, concrete sidewalk lighting
fixtures to and from headquarters parking lots, and exterior waste receptacles with pink, crushed gravel
cladding to match walkways.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-17
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 70. Guardian Rock, at the western entrance to the headquarters building.
Figure 71. Slide of Guardian Rock being sourced. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
6-18 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 72. Flagpole with the headquarters building, pond, and one of the managed woodlands
in the background, facing southwest.
Figure 73. Historical Weyerhaeuser Company corporate photograph taken ca. 1971. (Image
courtesy of FWC).
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-19
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 74. Tall, metal light standards on glulam posts and pedestrian -level, concrete lighting
fixtures serve the parking lots and associated sidewalks.
Figure 75. Slide of westernmost sidewalk with light fixtures, taken soon after tree planting, ca.
1971. Note pink, crushed gravel surface. (Image courtesy of the Carl A.
Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
6-20 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 76. Example of original garbage cans clad in pink, crushed gravel to match sidewalks.
Waste receptacles without the pink gravel are non-contributing.
6.4.4 Campus -Wide Circulation Roads, completed ca. 1971 and ca. 1978 (Map ID "I",
Appendix B-1)
The circulation road around the main headquarters landscape was an important element of the 1969
design. This historic circulation road is composed of Weyerhaeuser Road as it circumnavigates the
headquarters area, the section of South 336th Street that connects Weyerhaeuser Road at its
northwestern end and connects with the roundabout with Weyerhaeuser Way South, Weyerhaeuser Way
South from the roundabout with South 336th Street to the northeastern end of Weyerhaeuser Road. The
roundabout was built circa 2005 so is not included with the contributing circulation road.
In addition, Weyerhaeuser Way South was also proposed to continue north of the main headquarters
area, although its path was conceptual in initial plans. Kroll Map Company Atlas of Seattle maps from
1970-1971 and 1975 indicate that the extension of Weyerhaeuser Way South north of South 336th Street
to South 320th Street took place in tandem with the development of the WTC (Kroll Map Company 1971,
1975).
The pavement of the circulation roads is not a contributing element due to ordinary, periodic replacement,
but the configurations with curving lines is highly significant to the experience of the campus, giving the
driver the feeling of being in a forest punctuated by sweeping views of the headquarters building.
Campus -Wide Wooded Buffers, completed ca. 1971 and ca. 1978 (Map ID "J", Appendix B-1)
Related to the experience of both the campus circulation roads and the meadows, wooded buffers were
identified by designer Peter Walker as an important element of the campus landscape (P. Walker,
personal communication, May 22, 2019) (Figure 77 through Figure 81). These buffers were managed by
Weyerhaeuser Company, which included cycles of understory clearance for the health of the woods as a
whole (A. Bylin, personal communication, 2019). They provide the forest -like setting for other contributing
elements and, as noted by Walker, were to be a hallmark of the long-term site planning vision, whereby
each stage of future development would be set within its own tree buffer. A prescribed buffer size was not
specified by landscape architect Peter Walker as the depth needed to provide the woodland setting would
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-21
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
depend on the site conditions, including the tree and undergrowth species, their ages, and their health (P.
Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019). In addition, there is no universally accepted industry
standard on buffer widths, either to frame views or to represent a 50-year-old softwood forest.
The concomitant agreement originally drawn up between Weyerhaeuser Corporation and the City of
Federal Way, dating August 23, 1994, contains a provision for a managed forest buffer on parts of the
eastern edge of the campus along sections of Weyerhaeuser Way South. There is no such provision for a
forest buffer along the meadows or on Weyerhaeuser Road in the concomitant agreement
(Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement 1994).
On -the -ground conditions are the most informative source of information to determine the buffer width
needed to provide sufficient tree cover to frame views and "represent the character of a softwood forest at
50 years or more maturity and to provide open meadows," as described in the concomitant agreement
(Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement 1994:C-3). For the purposes
of evaluating the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus for NRHP eligibility, Cardno
recommends using the 50-foot tree buffer standard provided in the concomitant agreement for wooded
areas adjacent to a city or county road (Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning
Agreement 1994:C-2).
Figure 77. Example of the woodland driving experience among the trees near the
Headquarters along Weyerhaeuser Road.
6-22 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 78. Circulation road at the north meadow, facing northeast with a glimpse of Interstate
5 in the distance.
Figure 79. Slide of an early sketch showing the driver's experience of views to the corporate
headquarters building. (Image courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library,
Forest History Society, Durham, North Carolina)
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-23
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 80. The wooded buffers on the edge of the managed woodlands frame the view of the
meadow, pond, and headquarters building from the circulation road (South 336th
Street), facing south.
Figure 81. Example of an area where periodic undergrowth management results in a buffer
that is thin enough to allow views to a building in the interior, in this case the WTC
as viewed from Weyerhaeuser Way South.
6-24 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4.5 Model Forest. oriainated ca. 1971. manaaed thereafter (MaD ID "K". ADDendix B-1
A model forest was shown on a 1976 aerial (Figure 36), ca. 1977 master plans (Figure 28), and a 1979
aerial photograph in the western forested area between Weyerhaeuser Road and Interstate 5 (Figure 82
and Figure 83). Douglas fir trees (Pseudotsuga menziesii) were planted in a truncated triangular
formation for experimental purposes. Although the surrounding trees have filled in, the model forest can
still be read in the landscape and is recommended as a contributing element to the historic district.
f{."''
VZ
K%s'v��7 1i '��+ yy �• •.
�Y
Figure 82. The Model Forest is identified with an arrow on this 1979 aerial photograph. (Image
courtesy of the Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library, Forest History Society, Durham,
North Carolina)
Figure 83. Model forest, viewed from the northeastern corner, facing southeast.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-25
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4.6 Weyerhaeuser Technology Center (WTC), completed ca. 1978
The second significant development at the campus by the same firms during the period of historical
significance was the construction of the WTC building, its associated parking lots, and access driveways.
A research and development facility was conceptualized at the outset of the project to centralize
corporate functions at the campus. On this stage of the project, SOM was represented by John Merrill as
partner in charge, Charles Bassett as partner in charge of design, and Richard Foster as design
associate partner. Peter Walker of SWA continued to work on site planning and landscape design.
Although the building was designed to be expanded at the administrative end, these expansions never
materialized. Weyerhaeuser Company leases a small portion of the WTC building. The largest tenant in
the building today is International Paper Company.
6.4.6.1 WTC Building (Map ID "L ". Appendix B-1)
The WTC building is a large, rectangular, two-story, flat -roof, concrete- and glulam-framed structure with
cedar lap siding and nearly full -height (three-quarters) glazed walls with window units set in metal frames
(Figure 84, Figure 85, and Figure 86). Two entrances are inset into the north and south elevations,
providing a visual break between the administrative (eastern) and research (western) sides of the facility.
Each entrance contains a circular vestibule with a glazed, sliding door system that replaced the original
units. A basement houses the services. The building's setting includes lawns north and south of the
administrative (eastern) end of the building and tree stands to the east. Access driveways terminate at a
loop at each of the two entrances. To the west of the building is a loading dock and paved yard with a
number of structures that date to the 1990s or later. Parking lot landscaping is located to the north and
south of the service yard.
A number of alterations have taken place as shown in a comparison of the current site conditions and
historical plans and photographs. Originally the cedar siding was unfinished in the belief that it would
weather to grey naturally. However, instead of performing as intended, the cedar siding was subject to
water stains in the Northwest climate. As a result, the siding was later painted grey. Peter Walker's
contributions included roof gardens over the two entrance vestibules and hay fields north and south of the
building. Over time, Weyerhaeuser Company abandoned the regular maintenance of the roof gardens
and converted the hay fields to mown lawn. Finally, the service yard was doubled in size ca. 1990, which
eliminated the tree stands that originally lined the perimeter driveway at this end. The non -historic
buildings and structures were also added at that time.
6-26 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 84. North entrance of the WTC, facing southeast. The vestibule is original but doors
are replacements.
Figure 85. North elevation, eastern end, facing west. As individual window units have failed,
Weyerhaeuser has replaced them with higher -performing, untinted, double -glazed
units. The original hay field has also been converted to lawn.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-27
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 86. West elevation of the building and loading dock area. The fire hydrant marks the
original western edge of the yard. Because of significant alterations, the service
yard is recommended as a non-contributing element to the historic district.
6.4.6.2 WTC Parking Lots, Circulation Driveways, and Landscaping (Map ID "M" and "N",
Appendix B-1)
As with the headquarters area, the parking lots and their associated access driveways (Map ID "M") are
integral to the design of the WTC. Each range of three parking lots fans out in a truncated arc north and
south of the building (Figure 87 and Figure 88). Parking lots contain light standards similar to those at the
Headquarters. Two driveways provide access to all six parking lots. The main driveway also provides
direct access to the northern and southern entrances of the building. The perimeter driveway provides
access to the service yard, parking lots, and detention pond.
The driveways are lined with stands of trees. The parking lot landscaping consists of trees and understory
vegetation (Map ID "N"). The landscaping screens the parking lots from views to and from the WTC
building as well as each other. While there were originally four lots constructed, early site plans indicate
that an additional lot to the outside of each set was identified from the outset. Photographic evidence
indicates that these were added within a year or two of the WTC's initial construction following original
plans.
6-28 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 87. The northernmost WTC parking lot as viewed through landscaping from the
perimeter driveway.
Figure 88. One of the southern parking lots as viewed from the main driveway.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-29
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.4.6.3 Evaluation of the WTC's Significance
Modifications to the WTC building diminish its design and material significance when evaluating under
Criteria Consideration G for resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. However,
Cardno recommends the WTC as a whole is a contributing element to the historic district due to its
historical significance to the development of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus.
As proposed by the design team in early site planning for the campus, the aesthetics for the WTC differ
from that of the headquarters area and retain a prescribed buffer of trees that separate it from the
Headquarters area. It also mirrors the Headquarters concept of a central building with six parking lots. On
architectural merits alone, however, Cardno recommends that the WTC fails to achieve the standard of
exceptional significance of the headquarters area, due in part to the WTC's diminished integrity.
Weyerhaeuser Company altered or abandoned some of the original concepts and features over time,
such as the unfinished cedar siding and landscaping.
Cardno recommends that the WTC does possess exceptional historical significance as part of the 1970s
development of the historic campus. The building, parking lots, and adjacent landscaping were
envisioned and designed by the same team as the Headquarters Building and its integrated landscape.
Its construction also accomplished the original goal of integrating corporate administration with research
and development on a single campus. Finally, with its wooded landscaping adjacent to Weyerhaeuser
Way South, part of the originally -conceived circulation road, the WTC contributes to the image projected
by Weyerhaeuser Company in the 1970s as a corporation committed to forest management practices
rather than the simple exploitation of natural resources. With this historical significance, the WTC
contributes to the overall significance of the campus by representing the corporation's history in this
second and final major stage of campus development during its recommended period of historical
significance (1969 to 1979).
6.4.7 Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden, opened 1975 with continuous development
thereafter (Map ID "O", Appendix B-1)
The rhododendron garden is comprised of plantings accessed by a circulation network of gravel walking
paths (Figure 89). The path network has changed over time to accommodate new plantings and
structures, including a non -historic visitor center, plant -sale pavilion, and Rutherford Conservatory, which
are the main buildings found within the garden (Figure 90). West of the garden itself, adjacent to
Interstate 5, is a series of greenhouses and other buildings used to propagate plants (Figure 91). Records
at the King County Assessor date a number of the buildings to 1974 and 1975 (Washington State
Archives 2019). These 1970s buildings contribute to the garden's historical significance as the facilities
where the collection was cared for and expanded from the outset of the garden's establishment.
As the garden has evolved, it has lost integrity of design and materials, which detracts from its design
significance. However, its historical associations with Weyerhaeuser Company are significant, making it a
contributing feature to the district. As the corporation worked to shift its image away from simple
exploitation of natural resources, the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden provided the public with
an outdoor amenity that was surrounded by an example of the corporation's managed forests.
6-30 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 89. A view of the Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden, facing south, illustrating
the curving paths, mixed species, and surrounding managed forest in evidence
today.
Figure 90. The Rutherford Conservatory facing south from the Visitor Center area.
Construction began on the conservatory in 2009, making the structure a non-
contributing feature to the garden's significance.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-31
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 91. Some of the historic -period working buildings that support the work of the
Rhododendron Species Foundation at the garden, facing south. These are
contributing elements to the garden.
6.4.8 Project House 2, completed ca. 1969 (Map ID "P", Appendix B-1)
Project House 2, also known as the "Glue House", is a two-story building set on a concrete foundation on
a sloping site (Figure 92 and Figure 93). As a result, the building appears to be a single -story building
from the roadway, which is on higher ground. Entrances face southeast and northwest. A tree buffer
separates the building from the roadway. A curving driveway passes the southwest side of the building to
provide direct access to the entrances on the southeast side. A small parking lot to the southwest is within
close proximity to the northwest -side entrance.
The building has the appearance of a single-family dwelling, with a side -gable roof clad in composite
shingles. The roof has a complex profile, with the central portion projecting slightly above and out from
the side ends. A single, brick chimney projects from the ridgeline of the projecting section. The deep
eaves are boxed with light fixtures inset above the doors on the east and west elevations. Exterior
cladding consists of vertical T1-11 in the gable ends and horizontal wood -product, clapboard panels with
wide battens over the vertical junctures. A wood stringer provides definition between the two floors.
Windows are vertical, wood -framed units combined in pairs and groups of three or four in varying sizes.
Some units are casements, others are fixed. All entrances contain slab doors. The doors to the second
story of the southeast elevation each contain a single, upper light. All fenestration has matching,
unornamented, wood surrounds. The most prominent feature on the southeast elevation is a two-story
porch, which has been altered from its original design to provide exterior stair access to the second floor.
The porch is clad in clapboard.
Aside from alterations to the porch, which were made in kind, Project House 2 retains integrity. It served
as the campus's archives and offices throughout Weyerhaeuser Company's occupation of the site. Given
its form as a residence and name given on original plans ("Research House 2"), Project House 2 appears
to be associated with the corporation's history of building demonstration houses to test and display its
products. Another example is the Weyerhaeuser Company's 1936 model home at 545 361" Avenue East
6-32 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
in the Madison Park neighborhood of Seattle, which was used to demonstrate the use of plywood in
house construction (Seattle Sunday Times 1934:11). Additionally, in 1961, the company sponsored the
construction of another "wood -research" house in Bellevue, Washington following two years of research
into wood products (Seattle Times 1961:33).
Figure 92. Project House 2, northwest and southwest elevations (left to right), facing east-
northeast. Weyerhaeuser Way South is located out of view to the left.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-33
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 93. The southeast elevation of Project House 2, facing northwest.
6.4.9 Critical Views
Views are an important part of the experience of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus,
whether from the perspective of an employee looking out from their cubicle or back at the headquarters
building from a trail on a lunchtime walk, or from the perspective of a driver either passing the campus on
one of the adjacent highways or a visitor driving on the circulation road. Opinions of those who provided
interviews during the course of this study were unanimous on the importance of views to the significance
of this historic designed landscape (P. Walker, personal communication, May 22, 2019; M. Clausen,
personal communication, May 1, 2019; B. McLaren, personal communication, April 24, 2019; J. Ochsner,
personal communication, May 8, 2019; D. Streatfield, personal communication, May 24, 2019; and T.
Way, personal communication, May 8, 2019). As noted by Mozingo, "The restored woodland edge
enclosed the long valley view. Framed by forest, meadow, and wetland, the palatial vista from two
adjoining highways particularly pleased George Weyerhaeuser" (2011:142).
As described in the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) report "Guidelines for the Visual Impact
Assessment of Highway Projects," views are, by their nature, subjective (USDOT 2013). Given that a
number of the critical views of the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters campus are experienced in
cars, Cardno used the USDOT guidelines to define views as objectively as possible. Views were
evaluated during field surveys in winter, spring, and summer to assess views during varying stages of
tree cover and state of vegetation (Figure 94 and Figure 95). To evaluate views from the headquarters
building, photographs were taken on each floor of the surrounding landscape in order to consider the
perspective of the different heights (Figure 95 and Figure 96). Additional, desk -based analysis compared
site photographs with topographical maps. Topographical maps were of particular use in estimating the
limits of views from the headquarters building, where trees on higher ridges blocked views of the
landscape beyond.
6-34 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 94. Photograph of the pond taken in February 2019 from the eastern end of the
headquarters building's fourth floor, facing north-northwest. To evaluate the views
of stands of trees, they were identified as: managed woods (red outline), wooded
buffers (blue outline), and borrowed views (yellow outline). These correspond to
foreground, middle ground, and background views.
Figure 95. Photograph of the pond taken in May 2019 from slightly east of the previous view
on the fourth floor of the headquarters building, facing north-northwest. As in the
previous image, the managed woods are outlined in red (included in foreground
views), wooded buffers in blue (middle ground views), and borrowed views in
yellow (background views).
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-35
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 96. Photograph of the pond taken in June 2019, this time from the first floor of the
headquarters building, facing north. Again, stands of trees are identified as the
managed woods (red, foreground), wooded buffers (blue, middle ground), and
borrowed views (yellow, background).
The views recommended as critical to the significance of the recommended NRHP-eligible district are:
> North and south from inside the headquarters building (Appendix B-2) — These views from all
floors of the headquarters building reveal the character -defining pond and meadow as well as the
surrounding landscape. Views are guided along a visual axis by the use of managed forests in the
foreground and wooded buffers along the meadow in the middle ground and background. Topography
plays a role in determining the terminus of these views. Borrowed views of the highways and trees
beyond as well as occasional glimpses of Mt. Rainier are also features of these character -defining
views;
> The headquarters building (Appendix B-3 and B-4) — Following the same axis as described above,
framed views of the headquarters building by drivers on Interstate 5, State Route 18, and the
circulation road around the headquarters are also character -defining features of the historic district.
Additional views of the headquarters for pedestrians that were part of the 1969 plan are those from the
parking lots and informal path around the pond; and
> The forest buffer as experienced by the driver from the circulation road (Appendix B-5) — While
arguably less dramatic than the views to and from the headquarters building, the experience of the
wooded buffers while driving around the headquarters circulation road emphasizes the evolving image
of Weyerhaeuser at the time as a corporation in the business of managing forests. Because of their
wooded setting, the driver's experience of crossing the meadows is all the more dramatic, allowing the
eye to be drawn to the headquarters building.
Although views are less tangible than the structural and landscape features at the headquarters, they are
nonetheless recommended as contributing elements to the historic district due to their pivotal design
significance.
6-36 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Regarding "borrowed views" of and across State Route 18 and Interstate 5, these have been excluded
from the historic district boundary due to their location on and across state highways, which form a
human -made boundary, as well as the challenge of determining their limits. However, these borrowed
views are an important component of the background views from the headquarters building.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-37
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Table 1. Summary of Contributing Features to Proposed Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters Historic District (Appendix B)
Date(s) of Construction
A
Headquarters building
1969-1971
B
Headquarters parking lots
1969-1971
N/A
Ivy on headquarters building
1971,
maturing and managed thereafter
C
Headquarters meadows
1969-1971
D
Headquarters pond
1969-1971
E
Managed woods inside headquarters circulation road
1969 — 1971,
maturing and managed thereafter
F
Hardscaping and planting on headquarters grounds and parking lots
1969-1971,
maturing and managed thereafter
G
Guardian Rock
ca. 1971
H
Flagpole
ca. 1971
N/A
Street furniture around headquarters building grounds and parking lots
ca. 1971
1
Campus -wide circulation roads
1969 — 1971 and 1976 — 1978
J
Wooded buffers along circulation roads and meadows
1969 — 1971 and 1976 — 1978,
maturing and managed thereafter
K
Model forest
ca. 1975
L
WTC building
1976-1978
M
WTC parking lots and circulation driveways
1977 — 1979
N
WTC landscaping
1976 — 1979,
maturing and managed thereafter
O
Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden
1974 — 1985,
maturing and managed thereafter
P
Project House 2
1969
B-2
Critical views north and south from headquarters building
1969-1971,
B 3
maturing and managed thereafter
B-4
Critical views of headquarters building
1969-1971,
maturing and managed thereafter
B-5
Experience of wooded buffer while traveling on circulation roads
1969 — 1971 and 1976 — 1978,
maturing and managed thereafter
6-38 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.5 Recommended Non -Contributing Features to NRHP-Eligible Historic
District
Buildings, sites, structures, or objects that are recommended as non-contributing because their
construction falls outside the period of significance, they were not used for a corporate function by
Weyerhaeuser during the period of significance, they do not relate directly to the design intent of Bassett
and Walker as outlined in identified plans or relayed by the designers themselves, or have lost sufficient
historical integrity are described in Table 2 and illustrated in Appendix B-5.
Table 2. Recommended Non -Contributing Features
1
Project House
33636 30t"
1964
Built prior to design of
,
1
Avenue South
campus as single-
family dwelling; not
planned by campus
s-=
design team;
acquired by
Weyerhaeuser
Company in 1988,
after period of
significance.
2
Weyerhaeuser
West of WTC
1978 and
Loss of integrity.
Technology
building
ca. 1990
original stands of
Center (WTC)
trees lost during
service yard
expansion of yard ca.
1990.
3
Weyerhaeuser
Intersection of
ca. 2005
Built after the periodI"
Way and
Weyerhaeuser
of significance.
V 'V; w `.
South 336t"
Way and
Street
South 336th
roundabout
Street
4
King County
33663
1969 and
Built prior to
Fire District 22
Weyerhaeuser
1971
construction ofi
LL
Fire Station
Way South
campus as fire
:.
(now Osaka
station; not planned
Garden
by campus design
Services)
team; likely acquired
r ID
by Weyerhaeuser
Company after period
of significance.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-39
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
qu=�I
F.W.
0
5
Former Puget
2835 South
1964
Built prior to design of
Sound Power
3441h Street
campus as industrial
& Light
building for public
Company
utility; not planned by
a
service
campus design team;
building (now
altered: addition to
Khalsa
create loading dock
Gurmat
and new entrance;
Center)
unknown date of
acquisition by or use
of property by
Weyerhaeuser
Company.
6
Pacific Bonsai
2515 South
1989
Built after period of:
Museum
336th Street
significance
r
7
Helicopter
Northwest
Late
Built after period of
pads
corner of
1980s/early
significance.
southern
1990s
AAL
meadow,
adjacent to
southwestern
parking lot
8
WTC
South-
ca. 1978;
Loss of integrity of
detention
southwest of
unknown
design, materials,
pond
WTC parking
date of
and workmanship:
lots
alteration
current design does
not correspond with
original plans.
9
Tree stands
Throughout
N/A
Wooded buffers were
aside from
the campus
identified by design
contributing
team as significant to
managed
design, interior trees
woods, model
were not; historical
forest, and
site plans identify
campus -wide
interior tree stands
wooded
within larger wooded
buffers
areas for potential
future development.
6-40 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
�.Example
Photo
10
Open space
Throughout
N/A
Ar7notecifiednot
part of
the campus
asce on
original
orign plans,
designs
and generally
resulting from loss of
woodland or on the
site where WTC was
earmarked for
expansion.
N/A
Trail network
Throughout
Unknown
Although trails are a
+„
design
the campus
historical concept,
almost all existing
`. t
trails do not follow the
footprint of identified
1969 and 1970s
plans; the existing
b- '
trail network lacks
sufficient historical
integrity.
N/A
Signs
Throughout
Multiple since
Oldest signs (laser -
campus
late 1980s
cut style) added in
late 1980s; non -
cohesive as a group.
6.6 Individual NRHP Eligibility Recommendations
Because the buildings and landscape elements of the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
campus were designed to form a cohesive whole, Cardno recommends that individual NRHP eligibility
recommendations are inappropriate for much of the campus. For example, the headquarters building,
parking lots, parking lot landscaping, pond, managed woods, meadows, and circulation roads were
designed as a single composition, which is part of what makes this designed landscape exceptional.
Four buildings built before or during the recommended period of significance (1969 — 1979) and located
within the boundary of the recommended -eligible historic district can be evaluated individually because
they were not designed to be integrated within the headquarters campus landscape:
> Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building;
> Project House 1;
> Project House 2; and
> Former King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-41
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Cardno recommends that three of these buildings meet the criteria for evaluation under the NHPA (36
CFR § 800.16) for individual NRHP eligibility as discussed below. Recommendations of individual
eligibility for listing in the NRHP do not imply greater significance than NRHP eligibility as a historic
district.
6.6.1 Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building (2835 South 344t"
Street
This former utility service building is one story tall set on a poured concrete foundation with an irregular
footprint. The eastern end of the building holds offices while the western end is used for storage. The site
is accessed off of Weyerhaeuser Road south of the headquarters via a tree -lined driveway. The building
is surrounded by a concrete parking lot. The property is now under separate ownership from the rest of
the area proposed as the Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus Historic District; as a result,
only what was visible from the parking lot near the driveway was surveyed.
The western end of the building has a covered loading dock that spans most of the north elevation
surmounted by a flat roof with parapet. There are no windows on the visible elevations of this end of the
building (north and west). Doors within the loading dock area were not accessible. The north elevation of
the eastern end of the building is clad in patterned concrete block. The flat roof at this end has boxed
eaves. A bank of seven metal -framed, floor -to -ceiling windows set in metal frames with transoms and
mullions is located east of the pedestrian entrance. A metal -framed, canvas -wrapped, half -cylinder hood
protects the entrance from rain. The door is a glazed, metal unit.
Cardno recommends the Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building not eligible for
listing the NRHP. Although it possesses integrity of location, setting, material, workmanship, and feeling,
it fails to satisfy the four criteria of evaluation for NRHP listing as follows:
> Criterion A: As a utilitarian utility building from its construction until 50 years ago, it has not been
found to be associated with a significant event in our past;
> Criterion B: It is also not associated with a person significant in history;
> Criterion C: Due to its diminished integrity, it fails to embody the distinctive design characteristics,
represent the master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant collection of designed
resources; and
> Criterion D: The building is unlikely to reveal information important to history through further
investigation.
6-42 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 97. Entrance to the Former Puget Sound Power & Light Company Service Building,
facing south.
Figure 98. North elevation of the eastern end of the Former Puget Sound Power & Light
Company Service building, facing southwest.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-43
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 99. North elevation of the western end of the Former Puget Sound Power & Light
Company Service building, facing southeast. The loading dock addition is located
in the foreground.
6.6.2 Project House 1 (33636 30' Avenue South)
This former single-family dwelling with two -car, detached garage was constructed in 1964 and acquired
by Weyerhaeuser Company in 1988 per King County Assessor records (King County Assessor 2019).
The house is a stepped, three-story building set on a concrete foundation on a sloping site (Figure 100,
Figure 101, and Figure 102). Because of the combination of the stepped form and sloping site, it appears
to be a two-story building when viewed from the front or rear of the site. The most prominent feature from
the public right-of-way is the flat -roof, two -car garage, which obstructs views of the house. The main
entrance to the house is located on the southeastern side, towards the rear of the building, accessed via
a covered, poured concrete walkway.
Both buildings have flat roofs with eaves. Their exteriors are clad in plywood panels in horizontal lap
formation, with wide battens over the vertical junctures. Windows are a combination of wood -framed,
picture windows mostly paired with single, aluminum casement units. The front entrance has a stained,
wood, slab door with offset, full -height, reeded side lights, two to the left and one to the right. The rear of
the house contains an open, second -story porch with exposed framing and stick balustrade. Below the
porch is a ground floor, concrete patio. Both levels are accessed via a pair of stained wood, single -light,
French doors. The fenestration to the garage is a single, two -car, painted plywood, up -and -over unit, and
a single, slab, pedestrian door on the same elevation as the door to the dwelling.
Project House 1 possesses integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. It
was converted for use as a meeting space by Weyerhaeuser Company, most likely after the period of
significance. It, therefore, fails to possess integrity of association with the Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters during the recommended period of significance. Cardno applied the NRHP criteria of
evaluation to Project House 1 and recommends that it is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion
C based on the following:
6-44 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
> Criterion A: Having been acquired by Weyerhaeuser Company less than 50 years ago and having no
significant associations with an event important in history, Project House 1 fails to meet this criterion
for listing;
> Criterion B: The building is not associated with a person significant in history. It is not recommended
eligible for listing in the NRHP under this criterion;
> Criterion C: Possessing all elements of historical integrity, Project House 1 embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a stepped -level, Modernist dwelling featuring exterior plywood paneling. Cardno
recommends the building eligible for individual listing in the NRHP under Criterion C; and
> Criterion D: Because the potential significance of the resource is fully expressed by its above -ground
construction, it is unlikely to reveal additional information important in our past.
It has a local level of significance. Its recommended date of significance is 1964. Because the
surrounding vegetation does not directly contribute to the significance under Criterion C, its
recommended boundary is the footprint of the former dwelling and garage only.
Figure 100. Project House 1, as viewed from the public right-of-way, facing northeast.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-45
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
o
4q as.
01
i1P1!
�. 4 u
r jll
1
Figure 101. Rear elevation of Project House 1, facing southwest.
Figure 102. Main entrance to Project House 1, illustrating the cladding panel system, door
treatment, and stepped levels as evidenced by the railing, used to prevent falls into
the back yard below.
6-46 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.6.3 Project House 2 (32820 32"1 Avenue South)
As described in Section 6.4.9, Project House 2 was built by Weyerhaeuser Company in 1969 as a
demonstration house (Figure 103). Alterations to the porch on the southeast elevation have impacted the
property's integrity of design and materials. The integrity of setting has also been negatively impacted by
the change in orientation as a result of the loss of its original access road (32"d Avenue South) and
construction of Weyerhaeuser Way South. Overall, the property possesses integrity of location, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Cardno applied the NRHP evaluation criteria to Project House 2
and recommends that it is eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A based on the following
analysis:
> Criterion A: Project House 2 possesses sufficient integrity to represent Weyerhaeuser Company's
historical practice of constructing demonstration houses to test and display its products. As a result, it
is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under this criterion;
> Criterion B: The building is not significantly associated with important historical persons. It fails to
meet this criterion for listing in the NRHP;
> Criterion C: In design terms, Project House 2 has diminished integrity and does not embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master
or exhibit high artistic value. It also does not represent an important entity whose individual
components fail to possess distinction. The building is not recommended eligible for listing under
Criterion C; and
> Criterion D: It is unlikely to yield information important to history through archaeological investigation
so is not recommended for listing under Criterion D.
It has a local level of significance. Its recommended date of significance is 1969 and boundary is the
footprint of the building only.
Figure 103. Rear elevation of Project House 2, facing northwest. This was originally the front
elevation. The porch has been significantly altered.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-47
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
6.6.4 King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station (33663 Weyerhaeuser Way South)
This former fire station was constructed in 1969 with the hose tower added in 1971. The tower is no
longer extant. The single -story building is oriented to the north and has a depressed front -gable roof with
extended east slope (Figure 104 and Figure 105). Rafter tails are exposed on the side elevations. The
deep eaves are treated with fascia boards and boxed with drop siding. A pair of rafters is exposed just
below the eaves. The building is set on a poured concrete foundation. The front exterior cladding is blond
brick; the side and rear elevations are treated with concrete block. The front elevation is dominated by
two garage doors and a single pedestrian door. The garage doors are paneled wood and glazed roller
units. The slab front door is set in a steel frame that is shared with a fixed picture window. Side windows
are horizontal, aluminum sliding units. The windows on the east elevation have window boxes supported
by metal brackets. The paved rear yard is surrounded by a chain link fence and contains a number of
non -historic utility buildings that support the work of the landscaping business that maintains the campus
(Figure 106).
Because the hose tower was added two years after original construction, its loss does not significantly
affect its overall integrity. The former King County Fire District Number 22 Fire Station possesses integrity
of location, design, materials, and workmanship. Recent alterations and the acquisition by Weyerhaeuser
Company have negatively impacted its integrity of setting, feeling, and association. However, Cardno
recommends that it possesses sufficient architectural integrity to be recommended eligible for listing in
the NRHP under Criteria A and C as follows:
> Criterion A: — The former fire station is associated with the historical development of South King Fire
& Rescue following its establishment in 1944 as the population of the region expanded. It is
recommended eligible for NRHP listing under this criterion;
> Criterion B: The building is not associated with persons significant in our past. It is not recommended
for listing under Criterion B;
> Criterion C: The former fire station embodies the distinctive characteristics of the later phase of
Northwest Modernism as applied to public buildings. As a result, it is recommended eligible for listing
under Criterion C; and
> Criterion D: The building is unlikely to reveal additional information important to history through further
investigation and therefore, is not recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D.
Cardno recommends that it has a local level of significance. Its recommended date of significance is
1969. Because all outbuildings were constructed less than 50 years ago, the recommended historic
property boundary is the footprint of the building only.
6-48 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 104. Front elevation of the former fire station, facing south.
Figure 105. One of the side elevations of the former fire station, facing southwest.
July 2020 Cardno Evaluation of Significance 6-49
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Figure 106. Some of the outbuildings behind the former fire station, facing west-southwest.
6-50 Evaluation of Significance Cardno July 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
7 Summary of Recommendations
Following the completion of a built environment survey of the former Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters campus in Federal Way, King County, Washington, Cardno recommends that the historic
designed landscape within the boundary discussed in Section 6.3 is eligible for listing in the NRHP as a
historic district at a national level of significance (Table 3). Within the recommended boundaries of the
historic district, the historic property possesses integrity of location, setting, design, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. Cardno recommends the proposed historic district eligible for the
NRHP under Criteria A and C for its associations with the introduction of the suburban corporate campus
to the West Coast, its association with Weyerhaeuser Company's changing corporate image, and as an
outstanding example of the integrated work of architect Edward Charles "Chuck" Bassett of Skidmore,
Owings, and Merrill and Peter Walker of Sasaki, Walker and Associates. Because of the proposed historic
district's exceptional historical and design significance, it is recommended eligible under Criteria
Consideration G for resources that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. Its recommended
period of significance is 1969 through 1979.
In addition, three historic resources are recommended eligible for individual listing in the NRHP: Project
House 1, Project House 2, and the Former King County Fire District Number 22 Fire House. Of these
three properties, only Project House 2 is also recommended contributing to the Weyerhaeuser Corporate
Headquarters campus historic district due to its construction and use by Weyerhaeuser Company during
the district's recommended period of significance.
Table 3. Summary of NRHP Recommendations
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters
Eligible
A and C
National
1969 - 1979
Historic District
Former Puget Sound Power & Light
Not Eligible
N/A
N/A
N/A
Company Service Building
Project House 1
Eligible
C
Local
1964
Project House 2
Eligible
A
Local
1969
Former King County Fire District Number
Eligible
A and C
Local
1969
22 Fire House
July 2020 Cardno Summary of Recommendations 7-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
8 Bibliography
AIA Journal
1972 1972 Honor Awards. AIA Journal, May, 37.
Alanen, Arnold R., and Robert Z. Melnick
2000 Introduction: Why cultural landscape preservation? In Preserving Cultural Landscapes in
America, Ed., Arnold R. Alanen and Robert Z. Melnick. Johns Hopkins University Press,
Baltimore, Maryland, 1-21.
Bernstein, Fred A.
2013 The ongoing battle to preserve midcentury modernism. ArchDaily December 22, 2013.
Electronic document,
https://www.archdaily.com/455999/the-ongoing-battle-to-preserve-midcentury-modernism/,
accessed May 21, 2019.
Birnbaum, Charles A.
2016 Lawrence Halprin: Designer of "one of the most important urban spaces since the
Renaissance," blog published November 9, 2016. Electronic document, https://tclf.org/lawrence-
halprin-designer-one-most-important-urban-spaces-renaissance, accessed June 3, 2019.
2019 May 25 email to Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, from C. Birnbaum, President of The Cultural
Landscape Foundation.
Bush -Brown, Albert
1983 SOM: Architecture of Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 1973-1983. Monacelli Press, New York, New
York.
Bylin, Andy
2019 Personal communication via email and in person throughout 2019 between Michelle Sadlier,
Cardno, and A. Bylin, longtime employee of Weyerhaeuser Company.
Clausen, Meredith
2019 May 1 interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with M. Clausen, Professor of Art and Architectural
History, University of Washington.
Costa, Daniel B., Michelle Sadlier, and Jennifer M. Ferris
2018 Cultural Resources Archival Study, Greenline Business Park Project, Federal Way, Washington.
Report prepared by Cardno, Inc. for Industrial Realty Group, March 16, 2018. DAHP # 2018-07-
05928.
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP)
2020 Survey and Inventory: Survey Levels. Electronic document, https://dahp.wa.gov/historic-
preservation/historic-buildings/historic-building-survey-and-inventory/surveV-levels, accessed
January 30, 2020.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
2015 Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Report prepared by
ICF International and Avenue Design Partners for U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Highway Administration on January 2015. Electronic document,
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env topics/other topics/VIA Guidelines for Highway Pro
iects.aspx, accessed June 13, 2019.
July 2020 Cardno Bibliography 8-1
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Federal Way Mirror
2017 That's what neighbors do: the history of South King Fire & Rescue. The Federal Way
Mirror, December 18. Electronic document, https://www.federalwaymirror.com/life/thats-
what-neighbors-do-the-history-of-south-king-fire-rescue/, accessed July 6, 2020.
Fleming, John, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner
1999 The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, Fifth Edition.
Penguin Books, London, United Kingdom.
Forest History Society
2019 Carl A. Weyerhaeuser Library records, Durham, North Carolina. Accessed April 8 and April 15,
2019.
Google Maps
2020 Digital map. Electronic document, https://goo.gl/maps/muVgc659BexGx2M48, accessed July 7,
2020.
Gordon, Karen
2008 Report on Designation: Norton Building, 801 Second Avenue. Staff report prepared for
presentation to the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board, issued January 10, 2008.
Hembree, Jennifer F.
2009 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Connecticut General Life Insurance
Company Headquarters, Bloomfield, Connecticut. Signed by Connecticut SHPO December 29,
2009.
House, Ken
n.d. Unpublished report by Weyerhaeuser archivist, available at former Weyerhaeuser
Corporate Headquarters.
Houser, Michael
2019 May 28 email to Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, by M. Houser, Washington State Architectural
Historian, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Howard, Ebenezer
1996 Author's introduction and the Town -County Magnet, from Garden Cities of To -morrow
(1898), reprinted in The City Reader, 2nd ed., edited by Richard T. LeGates and Frederic Stout.
Routledge, New York, New York, 315-329.
Interior Design
1979 High tech in Tacoma: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill designs the new Weyerhaeuser Technology
Center with innovative color and task/ambient lighting for an industrial milieu. Interior Design
February.
Kavenagh, Claudia, Nicole Stull, and Michael Kelleher
1999 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: General Motors Technical Center,
Warren, Michigan. Signed by Michigan SHPO on January 19, 2000.
Keller, J. Timothy, and Genevieve P. Keller
n.d. How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Register Bulletin 18,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.
King County Assessor
2019 Parcel Viewer: KCGIS Center. Electronic database,
htti)s://gismar)s.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/, accessed April 29, 2019.
8-2 Bibliography Cardno March 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
2020 Parcel Viewer: KCGIS Center. Electronic database,
https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/parcelviewer2/, accessed January 31, 2020.
Kroll Map Company
1971 Atlas of Seattle. Kroll Map Company, Inc.: Seattle, Washington.
1975 Atlas of Seattle. Kroll Map Company, Inc.: Seattle, Washington.
McLaren, Brian
2019 April 24 interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with B. McLaren, Associate Professor of
Architecture and Chair of the Department of Architecture, University of Washington.
Mozingo, Louise A.
2011 Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscape. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
National Park Service (NIPS)
1997a National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
1997b National Register Bulletin 16a: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Ochsner, Jeffrey
2019 May 8 interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with J. Ochsner, Professor of Architecture,
University of Washington.
Pace, Eric
1999 Edward Bassett, architect, is dead at 77. The New York Times, September 5, 1999.
Electronic document, https://www.nvtimes.com/1999/09/05/arts/edward-bassett-architect-is-dead-
at-77.html, accessed May 5, 2019.
Pacific Coast Architecture Database
2019a Edward Charles Bassett. Electronic document, http://Pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/228/,
accessed January 31, 2020.
2019b Peter J. Walker. Electronic document, http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/l225/, accessed
January 31, 2020.
Payne, Trevor, Justin B. Colon, and Jennifer M. Ferris
2020 Archaeological Resources Survey for the Woodbridge Corporate Park Building A and Building B
Projects, Federal Way, Washington. Report prepared by Cardno, Inc. for Industrial Realty Group,
March 16, 2018. DAHP # 2018-07-05928.
Peter, John
1958 Masters of Modern Architecture. Bonanza Books, New York, New York.
Peter Walker and Partners (PWP) Landscape Architects
2019 Company webpage: Projects. Electronic document, http://www.pwpla.com/projects/all, accessed
June 3, 2019.
2020 Company webpage: Awards. Electronic document, http://www.pwpla.com/news/awards,
accessed July 2, 2020.
Pollard, Marcus R.
2016 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form: Virginia National Bank Headquarters
Historic District, Norfolk, Virginia. Signed by Virginia SHPO June 24, 2016.
July 2020 Cardno Bibliography 8-3
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Racioppi, Michele
2019 Modernist sites top "Endangered" lists. DOCOMOMO US News, March 13, 2019.
Electronic document, https://docomomo-us.org/news/modern-sites-top-endangered-lists,
accessed May 21, 2019.
Rhododendron Species Botanical Garden
2020 History. Electronic document, https://rhodygarden.org/rsf-foundation/history/, accessed June 30,
2020.
Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow
2001 Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York,
New York.
Sadler, Mary Harding, and Peter McDearmon Witt
1999 National Register of historic Places Registration Form: Reynolds Metals Company International
Headquarters, Richmond, Virginia. Signed by Virginia SHPO April 11, 2000.
Saylor, Henry H.
1952 Dictionary of Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York.
Seattle (Sunday) Times
1934 Weyerhaeuser builds model home. The Seattle Sunday Times, January 28, 11.
1961 House Featured. The Seattle Times, April 2, 33.
1965 Advertisement: Some people think our business is trees. The Seattle Times, March 24, 64.
1977 Advertisement: High Yield Forestry explained. The Seattle Times, November 3, D2.
1979 Live/learn. The Seattle Times, October 13, A15.
1981 Rhody tour. The Seattle Times, April 4, B2.
Seifert, Donna J.
1997 National Register Bulletin 21 & 12: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties. National
Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
Sherfy, Marcella, and W. Ray Luce
1998 National Register Bulletin 22: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that have
Achieved Significance within the Past Fifty Years. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM)
2020 Company webpage: Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters. Electronic document,
https://www.som.com/projects/weverhaeuser corporate headquarters, accessed July 2,
2020.
Statista
2018 Leading timberland owners in the United States in 2018, by land ownership (in acres),
webpage operated by Statista. Electronic document,
https://www.statista.com/statistics/623363/leading-timberland-owners-in-the-united-states-by-
land-ownership/, accessed May 22, 2019.
Stein, Alan J.
2003 Federal Way — Thumbnail History, Historylink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington
State History, Essay 4215, posted July 8, 2003, accessed March 18, 2019.
8-4 Bibliography Cardno March 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Streatfield, David
1980 Landscape design in Washington. In A Guide to Architecture in Washington State, Sally
B. Woodbridge and Roger Montgomery, University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington,
pp. 45-62.
2019 May 24 interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with D. Streatfield, Emeritus Professor of
Landscape Architecture, University of Washington.
The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF)
2019a Sasaki, Walker and Associates. Profile page for firm produced by TCLF. Electronic
document, https://tclf.org/pioneer/sasakiwalker-associates, accessed May 21, 2019.
2019b Peter Walker. Profile page for designer produced by TCLF. Electronic document,
https://tclf.org/pioneer/peter-walker, accessed May 21, 2019.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
2013 Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Prepared for the USDOT by
ICF International and Avenue Design Partners, September 2013.
Walker, Peter
2019 May 22 telephone interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with P. Walker, Landscape Architect.
Walker, Peter, and Melanie Simo
1996 Invisible Gardens: The Search for Modernism in the American Landscape. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Warren, James R.
1999 Weyerhaeuser Company, HistoryLink.org Online Encyclopedia of Washington State
History, Essay 1675, September 17, 1999. Electronic document,
httos://www.historylink.org/File/1675, accessed March 18, 2019.
Way, Thaisa
2019 May 8 interview by Michelle Sadlier, Cardno, with T. Way, Professor of Landscape Architecture,
University of Washington.
Washington State Archives
2019 King County Assessor records. Puget Sound Branch of the Washington State Archives, accessed
in person on March 20.
Weyerhaeuser Company
2018 Weyerhaeuser Fact Book: 2018 performance highlights. Annual investors' report produced by the
corporation. Electronic document, http://investor.weverhaeuser.com/quarterly-and-annual-results,
accessed May 22, 2019.
2019a History since 1900. Corporation webpage. Electronic document,
https://www.weverhaeuser.com/companv/history/, accessed May 22, 2019.
2019b Weyerhaeuser Company records. Accessed at the Weyerhaeuser Technology Center throughout
2019.
Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement
1994 Agreement between the City of Federal Way and Weyerhaeuser Company, in effect August 23,
1994.
Weyerhaeuser Forest Products
1937 Life in the Great West. Company -produced promotional material, published January 21,
1937.
Weyerhaeuser World
1971 After maturity — completion. Weyerhaeuser World Special, May.
July 2020 Cardno Bibliography 8-5
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
Woodward, Christopher
1970 Library of Contemporary Architects: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. Simon and Schuster,
New York, New York.
8-6 Bibliography Cardno March 2020
Results of Built Environment Survey of Former
Weyerhaeuser Corporate Headquarters Campus
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ii Document Information Cardno July 2020