The Rising Costs of Second Street
New leases on Seattle property reveal the economic power and strategic displacement tactics used against the Chinese community in 1884.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The Chinese a short time since secured a lease of the Sherlock block, corner of Oak and Second streets. It is now learned that they have leased the corner diagonally opposite, embracing 100 feet front on each street and owned by H. Winehard, and also the southeast corner, owned by J. W. Cook. Mr. Winehard receives, it is said, $500 per month rent for the ground as it lies, the lessees to build when they please. Mr. Cook leases his lot, seventy-five feet on Second by ninety feet on Oak, and will build a three-story brick building thereon, for $400 per month. The lease is for fifteen years. The building will be first class, and constructed with a view of conforming to those adjoining and of adapting it to the use of white men when the present lease expires. Notices to vacate have been served upon the parties occupying the old buildings on this lot, and the work of excavating for the new building will be commenced at once. The Chinese, it seems, are bound to have Second street, and by securing one piece of property the owners of adjacent lots are compelled to lease also. The opinion among property owners, however, is that by the time these leases expire they will be able to oust the Chinese from that part of town altogether.
“The Chinese, it seems, are bound to have Second street, and by securing one piece of property the owners of adjacent lots are compelled to lease also.”
This article highlights the exclusionary economic landscape of 1880s Seattle, where high rents were used to stabilize property value while explicitly planning for the future removal of the Chinese population. It echoes current discussions regarding gentrification and the use of development to reshape neighborhoods, though it lacks the violent, state-sanctioned expulsion that would follow in 1886.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.