“There is no way to keep the trees on site if you blast the top off with dynamite,” architect and Douglas resident Carole Bookless warned the Juneau Assembly this week. Her sharp critique of the city’s latest plans for Telephone Hill highlights a deepening rift between local officials and community members over the future of one of Juneau’s most historic neighborhoods.
The controversy centers on a newly drafted Request for Qualifications (RFQ) intended to guide the redevelopment of 1.4 acres of downtown land. As the Juneau Assembly gathered for a Committee of the Whole worksession on Monday, the document—which envisions a high-density neighborhood of up to 155 residential units—faced heavy scrutiny.
The Risk of Hidden Liabilities
Bookless, speaking from her professional background as an architect, characterized the current RFQ as a “time bomb.” She argued that the document is confusing and incomplete, creating loopholes that could be exploited by developers at the expense of the city. Her warning highlights the high stakes involved in transforming a site that houses some of Juneau’s oldest homes into a modern, mixed-income residential area.
The city, however, maintains that the project is the result of a rigorous, multi-year effort. City Manager Katie Koester defended the process during Monday’s meeting, stating that the Assembly has worked to align the project with community values and extensive public debate. The site has already seen significant upheaval, including the eviction of residents from 13 historic homes—a move that sparked a civil lawsuit scheduled to head to court next month.
Environmental and Design Concerns
A primary point of contention involves the site’s topography and natural character. While the RFQ lists the creation of open, green spaces as a priority, Bookless noted a disconnect between that stated goal and the actual planning documents. She pointed out that the Place Guide illustrations show a site stripped of its trees, creating uncertainty about how the city intends to preserve the neighborhood’s environmental integrity while pursuing large-scale construction.
The design requirements for the proposed buildings have also drawn skepticism. The plan calls for buildings with dark exteriors to help them blend into the treeline, an aesthetic choice that has left some residents anxious about the visual impact of massive, dark structures dominating the downtown area. Bookless also highlighted a lack of technical rigor in the RFQ, noting that it fails to account for Southeast Alaska’s specific environmental hazards, including seismic activity, high winds, and the challenges of building on steep slopes.
“Building on a flat site in the middle of an urban or rural prairie in the Lower 48 does not equate to building on Telephone Hill,” Bookless told the Assembly.
The Question of Local Expertise
Beyond the physical design, there is a growing debate over the city’s procurement strategy. Bookless criticized the absence of an evaluation point system, which she suggested makes the selection process appear “whimsical” or “rigged.” She also expressed frustration that local experience is not being prioritized in the selection criteria, arguing that importing labor and materials from outside the region ignores the specialized knowledge required to build safely and effectively in Juneau’s unique climate.
The city has already begun securing the site, with fencing installed last month to protect the properties from unauthorized entry. As the project moves toward a critical evaluation phase between January 4 and January 15, 2027, the Assembly faces mounting pressure to address these procedural flaws before moving forward. The final results are slated for review on February 1, 2027.
Whether the city can reconcile the need for high-density housing with the concerns of residents regarding historical preservation and site-specific safety remains an open question. For now, the Telephone Hill project remains in a state of suspended uncertainty, caught between the urgent demand for new housing units and the cautionary voices of those who believe the current plan invites more risk than reward.
