Waterfront Seattle

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

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.

Very short-sighted analysis. If you connect the city dollars diverted to tunnel funding and cost overruns with city dollars that could be for city rail transit you might get why McGinn put so much effort into the tunnel issue. Regardless, we're now where we are on that issue.

[Doomgoggles]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

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.

I don't see why we couldn't have MODERN streetcars with a green paint scheme, brass railings and finishes, and a bell that goes *clang, clang, clang*

They would run on the waterfront route most of the time, obviously. Maybe have historical 'interpretive' sites here and there with educational information, and one or more of the classic cars on display if there's room.

[CityView Jim]

Originally Posted by mSeattle

Very short-sighted analysis. If you connect the city dollars diverted to tunnel funding and cost overruns with city dollars that could be for city rail transit you might get why McGinn put so much effort into the tunnel issue. Regardless, we're now where we are on that issue.

He had no offense. Only defense. My short sighted analysis is in line with his tenure as mayor. Worst case scenario: there ARE cost overruns come 2016 or so. MAYOR McGinn will be private citizen McGinn and at best can blog about how he did it all for us.

[mSeattle]

Originally Posted by CityView Jim

He had no offense. Only defense. My short sighted analysis is in line with his tenure as mayor. Worst case scenario: there ARE cost overruns come 2016 or so. MAYOR McGinn will be private citizen McGinn and at best can blog about how he did it all for us.

I don't know maybe a number of moves had been made prior to and shortly after Mike becoming mayor to abort an offense (alternatives)? http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=811

[bgwah]

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.

I don't think it's crazy. In fact, it reminds me of the "Vision 46" plan from some years back to have a new arena for the Sonics on Pier 46.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

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?

I haven't read others' replies yet, but here are some problems with that. Living up to my reputation of course:

1. The hotels would be infuriated. Seattle has an extremely well located convention center from their perspective.

2. Convention planners wouldn't like it. Suddently our large number of hotel rooms within a few blocks would disappear as an advantage.

3. There's no room for a sizeable facility. Unless you move something and make it a long-skinny center, it wouldn't be very large.

4. It would duplicate a good facility that was recently expanded.

5. If you managed to gather a few piers to provide a sizeable facility, it would be an underused monolith except during events, and blocking a large portion of our waterfront from public views and use.

Also, it would be very unlikely to be iconic. It wouldn't stick out much unless it went into deep water, which wouldn't happen due to cost for starters. Too many other cities have similar buildings in attempts to draw attention, and generally they get very little notice.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by bgwah

I don't think it's crazy. In fact, it reminds me of the "Vision 46" plan from some years back to have a new arena for the Sonics on Pier 46.

Kind of a waste to have a closed indoor arena on prime waterfront land.

An open air stadium with a view across the sound would be more understandable.

[AzChristopher]

The last few times I went back home to Seattle I visited during the summer. At the peak tourist season the waterfront is too crowded and feels too much like a chore to visit.

To me the park design is awesome because it will spread out the crowds and open up places already on the waterfront to more people, for instance the aquarium.

Seattle has one of the most well known icons in the Space Needle and a waterfront that is already extremely busy during the summer. No need to force a new icon.

[CrazyAboutCities]

I don't think new convention center or indoor sport arena would be good fit or ironic for waterfront. It would mess up. I was thinking something like new ferry terminal to make it looks unique iron since our current ferry terminal looks outdated or build world class aquarium museum (sorry Seattleites, our current aquarium is an embarrassment compared to other aquariums in USA) or new exciting museum that we don't have it yet in Seattle area...

Sure it is crowded during summer time... What's about late fall - spring? It is much less crowded, we need something to keep waterfront busy all the year. New park will be great too but still need add few more to waterfront.

[jam5]

Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities

I don't think new convention center or indoor sport arena would be good fit or ironic for waterfront. It would mess up. I was thinking something like new ferry terminal to make it looks unique iron since our current ferry terminal looks outdated or build world class aquarium museum (sorry Seattleites, our current aquarium is an embarrassment compared to other aquariums in USA) or new exciting museum that we don't have it yet in Seattle area...

Agreed, which is why -in addition to a new ferry terminal- I favor having low-level apartments and condominiums with ground-level retail, cafes, and restaurants lining the boulevard behind the waterfront, as well as couple of docks/boathouses on the waterfront itself -one for private boat owners, and a public one for everyone else and made to accomodate those who want to take sailing or canoeing lessons or whatnot there.

Sure it is crowded during summer time... What's about late fall - spring? It is much less crowded, we need something to keep waterfront busy all the year. New park will be great too but still need add few more to waterfront.

How about some world-class seafood restaurants right on the waterfront itself? Something that would be worth putting on any travel guide.

[CrazyAboutCities]

Waterfront already have popular seafood restaurants - Ivar's, Anthony's, and Crab House. All of them are right on waterfront.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by CrazyAboutCities

Sure it is crowded during summer time... What's about late fall - spring? It is much less crowded, we need something to keep waterfront busy all the year. New park will be great too but still need add few more to waterfront.

How do you get tourists visiting Seattle during the winter months altogether?

Only way I can think of to make Seattle a winter travel destination is to upgrade the nearby ski hills to world class status. Otherwise, all they're getting is cloudy, rainy and dreary weather.

[jam5]

Originally Posted by Nutterbug

How do you get tourists visiting Seattle during the winter months altogether?

Only way I can think of to make Seattle a winter travel destination is to upgrade the nearby ski hills to world class status. Otherwise, all they're getting is cloudy, rainy and dreary weather.

And that would only happen if Seattle could qualify for the Winter Olympics.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by jam5

And that would only happen if Seattle could qualify for the Winter Olympics.

I'd say it's the other way around. You've got to have decent enough facilities to impress the IOC enough to be granted the Olympics.

Whistler has been making gradual upgrades for decades, and has established itself as a world class facility even before it was awarded the Olympics.

Crystal Mountain seems to be on the right track with its new gondola, but still has a long way to go as far as expansion and improvements go.

[mhays]

Skiiers say our snow isn't dry enough to be world class, until very high elevations.

Further, getting passthroughs, a la Denver, wouldn't do much for Downtown.

Seattle has dramatically more visitors in the winter than we did 10 or 20 years ago. I'd guess that room nights in Greater Downtown are double what they were in 1995, when we had about 54% of the rooms per my napkin count, and I think had a lower offseason occupancy rate. Much of this is business travel, but some seems to be Seattle ratcheting up as a pleasure travel destination.

If we want to use an advantage, how about marketing our winter weather that's generally much warmer than much of the northern US, in a city where a tourist can have a lot of fun things to do within an easy walk of their hotel, or via DTT/Monorail?

[pwalker]

Cascade ski resorts are too low to offer world class skiing. The snow, combined with the weather are not conducive to major resort development. This is why we have what we have today. Whistler suffers from some of the same issues, but is higher in elevation and also gains from being "the" resort of the glamorous west coast city of Canada.

Crystal is probably the best resort in the Washington Cascades. Development there, is hindered from being on state land, (I think, someone correct me), but if true will prevent it from being a true resort destination.

[pwalker]

I just realized this thread has veered off topic bigtime, and I am a guilty party. WATERFRONT!

However, waterfront and ski resorts are not that far apart, when you consider that both are attractions to W. Washington. I think what WA needs is someone, or some organization, that can put everything together and produce an effective tourism campaign. This has been lacking in recent years, IMO.

[mhays]

Tax cutters in action. Plus asinine reasoning...cutting tourism promotion is also cutting tax dollars.

[Nutterbug]

Originally Posted by mhays

Skiiers say our snow isn't dry enough to be world class, until very high elevations.

Further, getting passthroughs, a la Denver, wouldn't do much for Downtown.

Seattle has dramatically more visitors in the winter than we did 10 or 20 years ago. I'd guess that room nights in Greater Downtown are double what they were in 1995, when we had about 54% of the rooms per my napkin count, and I think had a lower offseason occupancy rate. Much of this is business travel, but some seems to be Seattle ratcheting up as a pleasure travel destination.

If we want to use an advantage, how about marketing our winter weather that's generally much warmer than much of the northern US, in a city where a tourist can have a lot of fun things to do within an easy walk of their hotel, or via DTT/Monorail?

How are you going to beat the Sun Belt states and every tropical destination as an escape from the winter cold? It's like not warm enough to be a retreat from the cold, yet not cold enough to be a winter wonderland.

[LCIII]

Reminder: This is the Waterfront Seattle project thread.