Waterfront Seattle - Page 15

BoulderGrad · November 27th, 2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

Can we get rid of the plant, too? And the storage facility? Please?

Perhaps elsewhere? Not In... oh... say... your Back Yard?

Seasun · November 27th, 2012, 02:07 PM

I think the parking lot and auto shop just north of the self-storage building is one of the few other very ripe properties along the viaduct. I recall at one point Seattle Steam was going to shut down one of their two plants. With the major investments they've put into the north one in recent years I'd guess that the Pioneer Square plant on Western near Columbia will be more likely to shut down some day.

The Four Seasons hotel and condo owners would probably fight pretty hard to keep the steam plant and storage place.

Anyone every hear of plans for the large parking lot next to the viaduct between Spring and Seneca? I've heard it might be bought by WSDOT for demolition/construction staging and then hopefully(?) made into a park years later. Last I knew an elderly woman in eastern Washington owns the lot.

LCIII · November 27th, 2012, 02:29 PM

We don't need a park there. It'll be across the street from the miles long waterfront park!

CityView Jim · November 27th, 2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

Can we get rid of the plant, too? And the storage facility? Please?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that plant has historic preservation protection. I recall this coming up when the Four Seasons built.

Ruffhauser · November 27th, 2012, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seasun

Anyone every hear of plans for the large parking lot next to the viaduct between Spring and Seneca? I've heard it might be bought by WSDOT for demolition/construction staging and then hopefully(?) made into a park years later. Last I knew an elderly woman in eastern Washington owns the lot.

I'd like to see something big go on that parcel.

image hosted on flickr

image hosted on flickr

Matt the Engineer · November 27th, 2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgwah

Can we get rid of the plant, too? And the storage facility? Please?

I always assumed the storage facility was just a placeholder for a new building (though this crushes that in general, it probably doesn't apply to locations with a view).

Regarding the Steam Plant, I'd be surprised if they go anywhere. They provide steam for a large number of buildings downtown, and it would be quite expensive to relocate piping in the street - not to mention all of their equipment. I took a private tour last year, and they desperately need to expand. You'll notice how tall they've built up already. Not to mention most of their plant is brand new, since they converted to biomass. This includes some awesome fluidized beds, and the bulk wood facility across the street.

cameronrex · November 27th, 2012, 08:49 PM

The big lot between Spring as Seneca is causing a lot of consternation in my building. Apparently a future park was assumed for years but there have been recent rumblings of a development to current 160' limit. It will be interesting.

Seasun · November 27th, 2012, 09:09 PM

While the tunnel is going directly under the building that I own a condo in my sliver of a view to the Olympics is over the brick building just north of the Seneca street off ramp so my view doesn't change if the lot is developed.

cameronrex · November 27th, 2012, 09:47 PM

We did the 'what if' something big gets built to the property line hypothetical. Our view will be impacted but we can live with it.

We bought for location, bldg and unit.... View was a consideration. But not main selling feature. I always assume empty lots will get built on at some point. To think otherwise is naive.

LCIII · November 27th, 2012, 09:55 PM

A park there would just be stupid. They're building a miles long park across the street!

Ruffhauser · November 27th, 2012, 10:34 PM

While I generally agree with the "more parks helps to spread the bums out" idea, I would think a park on that parcel would turn into "Son of Steinbrueck" real quick

Rogue Linguist · November 29th, 2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ruffhauser

While I generally agree with the "more parks helps to spread the bums out" idea, I would think a park on that parcel would turn into "Son of Steinbrueck" real quick

I would think that's much less likely to happen after the viaduct is torn down?

mhays · November 29th, 2012, 07:31 PM

The waterfront will have a large amount of sit-down and plaza space. (Hopefully not too wide open.) It'll widen sidewalks, vs. now where one bum can screw things up a lot. And it'll have plenty of room for them to take over a few benches without ruining things for everyone.

We don't need a park on that block. Any intensive use would be great. Right by my office btw.

Ruffhauser · December 5th, 2012, 02:58 AM

The Waterfront Seattle exhibit at the Public Library is nice.

image hosted on flickr

geoffloftus · December 5th, 2012, 04:20 PM

And from today's New York Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us...nt.html?ref=us

uwhuskies · December 6th, 2012, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffloftus

And from today's New York Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us...nt.html?ref=us

Nice article! Hmm, why can't I see articles written in the Seattle Times equally well written and documented as a paper from the EAST Coast?

mhays · December 6th, 2012, 04:59 AM

I found it remarkable how unclear everything was in the NYT article.

D Green · December 7th, 2012, 10:40 PM

I'd like to see the Seattle Times write about an East Coast project with the same linguistic and journalistic finesse that the NYT's writes about us. Keep in mind that the NYT's choose to write about a particular project in Seattle to an audience all over the country, and did so in an intriguing and interesting way. For us, it's all old news, but for anyone else outside of the NW, it's all brand-spanking new.

mhays · December 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM

...And they still left the scope of work unclear and in poor context, which is arguably even worse given that readers don't already know the subject. Linguistic finesse is nice but secondary.

I'm confused by the Seattle Times reference. Should the NYT only try to outdo the local paper? Or should they have high standards regardless?

This is all standard for the NYT. They're the #1 paper in the country without question, but in the dozens of times they've written about Seattle and/or projects I've been involved in, they skew important facts the majority of the time, and almost universally miss context, like they themselves only know pieces, not the broader story.

The journalistic process is a major culprit. It involves digging up details and then cobbling them together yourself, and confirming only what you think is appropriate. It's very rare to show a draft to an insider for a BS check. And even a great reporter is usually a generalist, particularly when it's one guy in a remote bureau.

D Green · December 8th, 2012, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

Should the NYT only try to outdo the local paper? Or should they have high standards regardless?

Other way around. If Seattle wants to beat NYT, we've got to step up our talent for sure.

December 7th, 2012, 10:40 PM	#298
D Green Registered User Join Date: May 2012 Location: Seoul Posts: 331 Likes (Received): 32	I'd like to see the Seattle Times write about an East Coast project with the same linguistic and journalistic finesse that the NYT's writes about us. Keep in mind that the NYT's choose to write about a particular project in Seattle to an audience all over the country, and did so in an intriguing and interesting way. For us, it's all old news, but for anyone else outside of the NW, it's all brand-spanking new. __________________ 10 Things Most Americans Don't Know About America

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 27th, 2012, 02:07 PM	#282
Seasun Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 2,561 Likes (Received): 43	I think the parking lot and auto shop just north of the self-storage building is one of the few other very ripe properties along the viaduct. I recall at one point Seattle Steam was going to shut down one of their two plants. With the major investments they've put into the north one in recent years I'd guess that the Pioneer Square plant on Western near Columbia will be more likely to shut down some day. The Four Seasons hotel and condo owners would probably fight pretty hard to keep the steam plant and storage place. Anyone every hear of plans for the large parking lot next to the viaduct between Spring and Seneca? I've heard it might be bought by WSDOT for demolition/construction staging and then hopefully(?) made into a park years later. Last I knew an elderly woman in eastern Washington owns the lot.

November 27th, 2012, 02:29 PM	#283
LCIII Registered User Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 2,871 Likes (Received): 64	We don't need a park there. It'll be across the street from the miles long waterfront park!

November 27th, 2012, 08:49 PM	#287
cameronrex Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Seattle Posts: 490 Likes (Received): 32	The big lot between Spring as Seneca is causing a lot of consternation in my building. Apparently a future park was assumed for years but there have been recent rumblings of a development to current 160' limit. It will be interesting.

November 27th, 2012, 09:09 PM	#288
Seasun Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 2,561 Likes (Received): 43	While the tunnel is going directly under the building that I own a condo in my sliver of a view to the Olympics is over the brick building just north of the Seneca street off ramp so my view doesn't change if the lot is developed.

November 27th, 2012, 09:47 PM	#289
cameronrex Registered User Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Seattle Posts: 490 Likes (Received): 32	We did the 'what if' something big gets built to the property line hypothetical. Our view will be impacted but we can live with it. We bought for location, bldg and unit.... View was a consideration. But not main selling feature. I always assume empty lots will get built on at some point. To think otherwise is naive.

November 27th, 2012, 09:55 PM	#290
LCIII Registered User Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 2,871 Likes (Received): 64	A park there would just be stupid. They're building a miles long park across the street!

November 27th, 2012, 10:34 PM	#291
Ruffhauser Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: North Belltown Posts: 1,358 Likes (Received): 218	While I generally agree with the "more parks helps to spread the bums out" idea, I would think a park on that parcel would turn into "Son of Steinbrueck" real quick

November 29th, 2012, 07:31 PM	#293
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,394 Likes (Received): 119	The waterfront will have a large amount of sit-down and plaza space. (Hopefully not too wide open.) It'll widen sidewalks, vs. now where one bum can screw things up a lot. And it'll have plenty of room for them to take over a few benches without ruining things for everyone. We don't need a park on that block. Any intensive use would be great. Right by my office btw.

December 5th, 2012, 02:58 AM	#294
Ruffhauser Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: North Belltown Posts: 1,358 Likes (Received): 218	The Waterfront Seattle exhibit at the Public Library is nice. image hosted on flickr

December 5th, 2012, 04:20 PM	#295
geoffloftus Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 357 Likes (Received): 72	And from today's New York Times... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us...nt.html?ref=us

December 6th, 2012, 04:59 AM	#297
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,394 Likes (Received): 119	I found it remarkable how unclear everything was in the NYT article.

December 7th, 2012, 11:05 PM	#299
mhays Journeyman Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 8,394 Likes (Received): 119	...And they still left the scope of work unclear and in poor context, which is arguably even worse given that readers don't already know the subject. Linguistic finesse is nice but secondary. I'm confused by the Seattle Times reference. Should the NYT only try to outdo the local paper? Or should they have high standards regardless? This is all standard for the NYT. They're the #1 paper in the country without question, but in the dozens of times they've written about Seattle and/or projects I've been involved in, they skew important facts the majority of the time, and almost universally miss context, like they themselves only know pieces, not the broader story. The journalistic process is a major culprit. It involves digging up details and then cobbling them together yourself, and confirming only what you think is appropriate. It's very rare to show a draft to an insider for a BS check. And even a great reporter is usually a generalist, particularly when it's one guy in a remote bureau.