Waterfront Seattle

[LCIII]

I looked for a thread and couldn't find one. I thought for sure one exists. If it does, I'm sorry.

I came across this article and these renderings today. If it ends up being even half as beautiful then it will still be a tremendous addition to the city. I love it.

We reported back in September 2010, James Corner Field Operations has been selected to design Waterfront Seattle by the Seattle Parks, DPD and SDOT*after beating out*Wallace Roberts and Todd,*Michael Van Valkenburgh and Associates, and*Gustafson Guthrie Nichol. Recently the first designs for the Waterfront Seattle*have been unveiled which creates an unparalleled opportunity to reorientconnect Seattle with Elliott Bay, and reclaim our waterfront as a public space for the entire city.

James Corner Field Operations has introduced ideas for new uses and activities that make the Waterfront Seattle a truly great place to be, including event spaces that bring back the magic of the concerts on the pier. The design team has also made the new waterfront more accessible to other parts of the city, for example by physically connecting the Pike Place Market at Victor Steinbrueck Park to the waterfront near the Aquarium. The ideas and analysis of the Waterfront reflect the input from nearly 2,000 public responses and meetings with the public.

http://www.worldlandscapearchitect.com/?p=7963

[LCIII]

The timeline is posted here at the projects official site. It's the second slide.

http://waterfrontseattle.org/The_Project/

Is there any reason that this timeline wouldn't be accurate right now?

[LCIII]

*Bump* since there was a discussion about it in an unrelated thread...


CANNOT wait for this to get started!

[mhays]

Putting the tunnel to a vote apparently set things back a bit. Assuming things go forward (regardless of vote), it wouldn't be a big change presumably.

[LCIII]

From what I read, regardless of the outcome of the fight over the replacement of the viaduct the Waterfront Seattle project moves forward. Both the opposition to and the support of the tunnel said in their recent statements that their options completely back this vision and do not impede it at all.

[mhays]

That's very sketchy on the opposition side. The opposition is divided into many shards. One says retrofit the viaduct. One says rebuild the viaduct wider and taller. One says do a "surface" format that would involve routing through-traffic on streets plus a renovated I-5, plus they're the loudest in favor of more transit.

Any rebuild or retrofit would increase the amount of ground used by the viaduct. The rebuild would be built to updated codes, and also wider so columns could be built around the occupied structure. The retrofit would require new footings and an exoskeleton of some kind (they'd spend maybe a billion to extend it by a couple decades, and the viaduct and existing tunnel would remain way below code).

A surface option would go through political wrangling, with the end result being a lot of added capacity on our avenues. Alaskan and Western might take the largest share of this, as anticipated by the concept studied in the EIS. Other avenues would presumably take more as well.

The surface option could allow a similar waterfront plan, but only if Alaskan didn't grow from the current widening plan.

Regardless, if the tunnel was cancelled, any waterfront concepts would be shelved for a few years. If the planets aligned we might come up with a new prefered concept and a funding plan in one year. That would get us to where the tunnel was 2.5 years ago, ready to begin design and site analysis.

Personally I find it hard to imagine reaching a consensus on any plan. The opposition seems evenly divided among the elevated and surface sides. Everyone has 1/3. That's why we have a plan today that required the governor to make a decision. A very good compromise imo. Since she's not running for re-election, I'm confident that she'll continue to lead and keep it going regardless of the vote (she serves the rest of the metro too...i.e. millions who aren't invited to vote).

[LCIII]

Direct quote from "The environmental case against the waterfront tunnel for Seattle":

Tunnel advocates argue that creating a spectacular waterfront requires putting traffic underground. We share their excitement for the waterfront vision. Indeed, many of us have devoted years to developing and fighting for it. The tunnel, however, is not essential to that vision. ST5 can deliver exactly the same waterfront design as the tunnel: the same four-lane Alaskan Way, the same parks and bike paths, the same reintegration of city and bay, and – above all – the same eradication of the elevated highway that has blighted our shoreline for half a century and more. The state’s Environmental Impact Statement predicts traffic on the central waterfront with a tolled tunnel or with a viaduct that’s suddenly closed. The difference in car numbers? Two percent or less. Other studies show a similar range of traffic outcomes on the waterfront. The main lesson, however, is that traffic choosing Alaskan Way will be the result of city decisions about the roadway’s design and lane width, not state decisions about the tunnel.

http://crosscut.com/2011/07/19/alask...for-Seattle--/

[mhays]

This isn't a politically astute group, unless they're being dishonest. Their claims are based upon their wildest dreams about design coming true. Things rarely happen that way. Whatever really happens will involve compromise, particularly between the "throughput" side (industrial businesses, much of the driving electorate) and the idealistic wing of greens. At minimum, there will be more lanes through Downtown than they want. It's hard to imagine the City agreeing to not add lanes, let alone the State agreeing to it. (Keeping in mind that some multiplier of surface lanes equals one freeway lane in capacity terms.)

Further, they're screwing up the traffic numbers. They seem to equate a vehicle going all the way through Downtown with a car headed for Downtown and maybe going a small way into it. The "all the way through" types will often be trucks, while the other is exclusively cars.

Further still, the traffic analysis has two major flaws, based on my vague memory of it:

1. Both the tunnel and the surface option supporters want transit. The surface option assumes more new transit than the tunnel side, but that's based on assumptions that might not be true. Either way we can and should built a lot of new transit. Spending on the tunnel will in some ways reduce our capacity to spend on transit, but it'll also keep the surface streets clearer for buses, and it might contribute to an electorate who is often more likely to vote for transit (or roads) when the opposite isn't being ignored.

2. The analysis makes a semi-educated guess regarding how many drivers will choose the tunnel and pay tolls vs. choosing other routes or modes. I don't know their methods. They may have underrepresented the draw of a free-flowing 99 on attracting cars that today use I-5 or surface streets. They also assumed a certain tolling $ rate. I believe they assumed I-5 would be widened, based on a concept that apparently involves some restriping but also significant construction, and will be a serious debate on its own.

I'm a car-less militant pedestrian and enviro. But I'm also realistic. And I don't want to play scorched earth with Seattle....the surface crowd and tea baggers are kind of the same in their pursuit of a win regardless of the overall effects.

[cpm_seattle]

Just got off the Bremerton ferry. Due to the Bainbridge boat being docked simultaneously, Bremerton traffic was forced to exit the south end of Colman Dock -- SB on Alaskan Way. Is there ANYONE with a pulse working at SDOT? Do they even drive? The waterfront is a POS. And that doesn't stand for Port of Seattle.

[geoffloftus]

That happens all the time with the Bainbridge ferry. We call it "being sent to Siberia." It's particularly irksome when a Mariners game is getting out. As best as I can tell, it's to avoid conflict with the traffic that's lining up to board. It happens during Seattle-to-Bainbridge rush hour, i.e., in the afternoon.

[Rogue Linguist]

Originally Posted by LCIII

I looked for a thread and couldn't find one. I thought for sure one exists. If it does, I'm sorry.

I came across this article and these renderings today. If it ends up being even half as beautiful then it will still be a tremendous addition to the city. I love it.

We reported back in September 2010, James Corner Field Operations has been selected to design Waterfront Seattle by the Seattle Parks, DPD and SDOT*after beating out*Wallace Roberts and Todd,*Michael Van Valkenburgh and Associates, and*Gustafson Guthrie Nichol. Recently the first designs for the Waterfront Seattle*have been unveiled which creates an unparalleled opportunity to reorientconnect Seattle with Elliott Bay, and reclaim our waterfront as a public space for the entire city.

James Corner Field Operations has introduced ideas for new uses and activities that make the Waterfront Seattle a truly great place to be, including event spaces that bring back the magic of the concerts on the pier. The design team has also made the new waterfront more accessible to other parts of the city, for example by physically connecting the Pike Place Market at Victor Steinbrueck Park to the waterfront near the Aquarium. The ideas and analysis of the Waterfront reflect the input from nearly 2,000 public responses and meetings with the public.

http://www.worldlandscapearchitect.com/?p=7963

Thermal pools?? And beaches?? And lawns?? That is SO COOL. Wow. I sure hope this vision comes to fruition. And I hope they maximize the amount of space available for big, green lawns.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I know it sounds crazy... I'd love Seattle Waterfront to have an iconic landmark of its own just like Sydney's Opera House or Vancouver's Conference Center.

[mSeattle]

Instead of going double-tree on the sides of the street, they should have a median strip down the middle (move the streetcar to the middle?) and have those second trees spaced out on either side of the tracks. It would make the street seem less wide.

[mhays]

A median is important from a jaywalker perspective. And even a law-abiding old man perspective, thinking forward a few decades.

That said, I'm all for double-treeing, or even triple treeing. Hell, quadruple tree that SOB. We need shade.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities

I know it sounds crazy... I'd love Seattle Waterfront to have an iconic landmark of its own just like Sydney's Opera House or Vancouver's Conference Center.

Not crazy at all. No crazier than the idea was for Vancouver before Canada Place was built and Expo 86 took place.

Moving the convention center from its current inland location (or building an annex thereof) on to the waterfront may be worth considering. Where's a better place to wow and impress visiting delegates than on the waterfront with views facing Puget Sound and the Olympics?

[mSeattle]

Another thing that's missing is a vastly improved aquarium befitting the location. Hopefully the business community can get to that in my lifetime.

[tenderforever]

man, it's just painful to see how this guy is being eviscerated in the idiot press. my favorite recent one, following a dozen paragraphs replete with quotes from his political adversaries about how his career is over and how he's politically impotent, we get to the core of the matter:

McGinn said in the interview Wednesday that the issues he and the anti-tunnel campaign raised still need to be addressed. He said transit improvements must be made to deal with additional traffic created by tolling on the tunnel. And some of the toll money should go to pay for transit, he said.

The mayor pulled out a map with a grid of blue, red and yellow lines showing potential streetcar routes. His passion for a transit-oriented, more-connected city seems undiminished by the political setback.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mcginn17m.html

uh, and plus the fact that with how much taxes and/or fees will have to go up to cover overruns on the tunnel, there's no clear sense in which any of this waterfront stuff gets done. nice work, seattle, really nice work.

[mSeattle]

I would like to somehow see the waterfront trolly back in action. Those "trolly-painted" buses don't do it for me.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by tenderforever

man, it's just painful to see how this guy is being eviscerated in the idiot press. my favorite recent one, following a dozen paragraphs replete with quotes from his political adversaries about how his career is over and how he's politically impotent, we get to the core of the matter:

McGinn said in the interview Wednesday that the issues he and the anti-tunnel campaign raised still need to be addressed. He said transit improvements must be made to deal with additional traffic created by tolling on the tunnel. And some of the toll money should go to pay for transit, he said.

The mayor pulled out a map with a grid of blue, red and yellow lines showing potential streetcar routes. His passion for a transit-oriented, more-connected city seems undiminished by the political setback.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...mcginn17m.html

uh, and plus the fact that with how much taxes and/or fees will have to go up to cover overruns on the tunnel, there's no clear sense in which any of this waterfront stuff gets done. nice work, seattle, really nice work.

A fan of McGinn? Oh, out of towner.

What has your research of his efforts come up with as far as other transit proposals. He spoke once of a lightrail line from West Seattle through the downtown core. But, he has poured most of his energy into fighting the tunnel and especially possible cost overruns. He's wasted his term on something now proven to have been a waste of time.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

I would like to somehow see the waterfront trolly back in action. Those "trolly-painted" buses don't do it for me.

I'd rather have modern streetcars that don't run at a snail's pace and have those rock hard wooden seats.

Those classic green streetcars are symbolic of Melbourne's heritage, not Seattle's.