Needed: civic visionaries who think about costs
Seattle used to create civic visionaries who reshaped the urban landscape. Now our civic visionaries have poor math skills.
One can’t help but think about all the big decisions currently being made by government. The daily news is gloomy. Major corporations and financial institutions are failing. Infrastructure is wearing out. Overpopulation challenges those who must make decisions. Fundamental changes are needed. What seems missing are leaders who are visionaries, people who plan the future with imagination.
But do we have any? Locally at least we haven’t had many. Way back, there was Henry Yesler and John Denny. Seattle’s early history included a period when a unified group of "seamstresses," a euphemism for ladies of the evening, directed a portion of their back breaking effort to repairing Seattle’s streets. (Whether visionary or not it worked much better than Mayor Nickels' pot-hole-filling “road rangers.”)
R.H. Thompson, a city engineer, looked to the future and laid out plans for a gigantic water system along with an elaborate sewage system. It was so expansive the electeds of that time ridiculed him saying the capacity of the new system could never be realized. Both systems anticipated future growth and are still in use today.
There was more visionary thinking when Denny Hill was sluiced into Puget Sound creating Denny Regrade, now called Belltown. The assumption apparently that if Seattle was to grow it would need space. The Montlake Cut, the Ship Canal, and the Locks also changed the geography of Seattle and were clearly visionary in scope. And we can’t forget the Olmsted Brothers, who planned some of our parks and boulevards.
The modern era brought more visionary changes to the city. The first floating bridge, the Space Needle, the World's Fair, the I-5 freeway through the center of town were civic inspirations. Today, our visionaries seem mostly commercial: T. Wilson and Bill Allen of Boeing, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, cell phone pioneer Craig McCaw,and coffee king Howard Schultz — all created major economic empires, but not geography-changing “visions” like removing entire city hills. None of these men shaped the civic future of the city.
The result is a civic shortfall, a municipal vision-drought. It doesn’t require a visionary to understand Seattle’s failure to maintain its bridges, roadways, and public buildings. Our decision-makers in the last 30 years have been so preoccupied with trying to outlive the image of being an adolescent city and trying to grow into “World Class” status that they spend too much time looking at the city's reflection in the mirror in search of zits. They seem focused on the cosmetic rather than the less glamorous maintenance of the city infrastructure. For instance, when Seattle decided to replace its downtown library it hired internationally known architect Rem Koolhaas — more to put Seattle on the world’s architectural map than to create a functional library.
Or consider the decisions now being made concerning the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge. Both projects have engendered intense debate. On the Viaduct decision, note how much of the debate centers on appearance issues, while functionality and cost and safety are more critical. When cost is discussed, it's more about how to punish the public with a new tax than to determine a cost benefit. The needs of regional commerce and industrial freight and goods take a back seat to those who believe the views from downtown condos are a higher priority.
We could use some modern visionaries who can also "do the math." At the moment, it looks like the state government will shell out about $2.4 billion for solving the problem of replacing the viaduct with a deep-bored tunnel. Other costs for a new seawall and developing a waterfront park will add another $2 billion or so, maybe much more. All to improve the cosmetics of the waterfront.
So far Speaker Frank Chopp is being hammered for asking the hard questions. A cost-conscious visionary, however, might ask other questions. Where is the extra $2 billion coming from, will it produce $2 billion worth of benefit? What else could you do with that amount of money?
And do we remember that the state is running a $9 billion deficit that will mean major cuts in public education at all levels, possibly increasing class size to over 40 kids? What if we spent that $2 billion on education? You could likely send all the eligible high school graduates in the state to Harvard, MIT, Stanford, or any other prestige university for a full decade for that amount of money. (They do that in the Netherlands,by the way.) In K-12 education you could reduce the class size in every classroom in the state to a dozen students or less for an entire decade. How many great minds might that create?
Or that $2 billion could go a long way toward building renewable energy sources for the city that would forever reduce our dependence on burning hydrocarbon fuels to generate power. Any contribution from wind, tidal, geothermal, or solar energy would make a major dent in our use of fossil fuels to generate power. Or we could build a facility near Seattle that would convert our garbage into power and reduce or eliminate the need to ship our garbage by rail to Eastern Oregon.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 7:33 a.m. inappropriate
Non-elected civic leader and visionary?
Sign me up!!!
Art
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 8:26 a.m. inappropriate
Seattle historian William Speidel wrote, "The City of Seattle made him [Yessler] a millioniar, yet he sued it...fought it...plundered it...and on two occasions he brought it to the brink of bankruptcy."
My point is that all famous leaders have failed their city in one way or another- most often in the eyes of those keeping them accountable at the present time. However, it seems as though after they die, we'll praise their "accomplishments" in news papers and wonder why our leaders arn't more like them.... believe me, I'd rather have Yessler stay in the past.
I wonder what they will say about Nickels years from now....
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 8:36 a.m. inappropriate
Do you REALLY think the tunnel is about "cosmetics"? It's about allowing Downtown Seattle to function better as our region's dominant center and economic engine, and it's about quality of life for the hundreds of thousands who are here every day. It's even about a place millions of us will take visitors.
It's important for those things not just at one time, when a billion-dollar difference sounds like a lot, but for generations, when a billion is a small investment for such great benefit.
PS, the industrial thing is overblown. Most trucks to the ship canal or Everett will be fine in the tunnel. Those going to Interbay get a wider Alaskan Way made to accommodate them. Compared to the surface option, which is utter hell for both trucks and everyone Downtown, the deep bore tunnel is heaven.
You can be a cynic with an agenda and myopia all you want. But when you accuse others of not knowing their math just because they're thinking more broadly than you are...
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 8:54 a.m. inappropriate
Baaaaa! The blind leading the blind!
Too bad!
Believe the hype, for the pipe,
Pay the price, then leave you might!,
Art
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 9:22 a.m. inappropriate
The bored tunnel is a visionary concept, if practical solutions can be called visionary. As far as cost issue goes, that is a double-edged sword, since the cost of completely removing our western transportation spine would have been a financial disaster outweighing the cost of the tunnel by an order of magnitude.
Posted Fri, Apr 24, 10:58 a.m. inappropriate
I beg to differ, Seattle and the region have invested in substantive infrastructure projects that continue to reap benefits today:
the development of regional wasterwater treatment system begun in the late 1950's continues with Brightwater;
the capping of city's open reservoirs protects and secures water quality and will provide 76 new acres of open space;
the Mountains to Sound Greenway has preserved over 750,000 acres along the I-90 corridor held by local, state and federal agencies for the public good;
the expansion and renovation of 22 Seattle neighborhood branch libraries (in addition to the downtown facility);
and the obvious poster child: Pike Place Market.
Some of these projects originated more than 30 years ago, but the public and elected officials have not(entirely)lost sight of fulfilling the original vision. Just last fall voters passed levys for both parks and the market.
Seattle's leaders, like those of other cities, have often chased after "me too" landmark projects. When unveiled those that are panned are labeled as a politician's vanity project (e.g. the SLUT). But when they are an instant hit (e.g. the dramatic increase in library visits following the 2004 opening of the downtown facility) the response is defined as civic pride. It must be lonely at the top.
But there are also incidences that despite what "doing the math" indicates, leaders feel compelled to deliver upon popular demand for dubious projects, read: sports stadiums. And when they do apply benign neglect they are politicians risk be scapegoated for killing a project (e.g., Roads & Transit)
So to be fair, occassional lapses of vision and fiscal responsibility in infrasture planning is shared - by both the electeds and the electors.
Posted Sat, Apr 25, 12:56 a.m. inappropriate
I think this piece is about fiscal responsibility and priorities. I think the author was suggesting that perhaps we should not be spending billions of dollars for a few special interests while we are cutting funds for public safety, health care, education and social services. The current viaduct solution is about creating and adding value to real estate for developers, many whom don't even live here. The manner in which we arrived at that solution was a study in duplicity and under the table dealing. It is not about economic engines, and visionary's gifts to future generations or having a new "front door" for our fair city. It's about people who change things for money applying pressure on weak city and state government officials to get what they want. Do the math on the Mercer Street plan and ponder the wisdom of that expensive mess. And the 520 bridge...I think we're going to wind up spending an extra two billion on that project as well. A little extra vision I guess.
Posted Sat, Apr 25, 10:43 p.m. inappropriate
This from the rag that supported the region's biggest boondoggle BY FAR, Sound Transit?
I think that the bored tunnel for SR99 is the right decision, especially if the Battery Street Tunnel were retained and connected to Alaska Way, as was the plan earlier, but, as far as I can tell, not currently.
Posted Sun, Apr 26, 6:55 p.m. inappropriate
Kent has been drinking the Seattle Koolaid re: the viaduct replacement; here's why. All of the non-bored tunnel options would have resulted in 3-5 years of no Alaskan Way Viaduct, with those 110,000 cars/day having to find another place to be. This cost was not factored in. The (surface) total viaduct replacement has a lifespan of 50 years, whereas the bored tunnel's is 100 years. The "like to like" comparison would have doubled the cost of the former to equate it to the latter. Re: replacing 6 lanes with 4, I had my doubts about that one, too, until I got more information: there will be fewer conflicts with the bored tunnel, for instance, no intersection with Seneca Street. Further, the bored tunnel will extend further than the present viaduct, thus downtown-bound traffic will leave state route 99 sooner. A new, better designed surface replacement street will entice more traffic there. Together, these will make it possible to replace 6 with 4 lanes. The Battery Street tunnel is a relic (just look at the aging tiles as you pass through with the dripping and rust) that's money-loser to maintain, which is why it's being axed. The visionary sees all of this despite the opinions of a public which largely judges by the price tag. Speaking of which, this is not the same as the Boston dig: this is much shorter, we're not going underwater, and tunnel technology is light years from there: you can look around the world (France, Russia, China) for plenty of examples, stateside (Miami, LA), or even locally (Sound Transit). Bids for the latter are way below estimates, and I predict that the ultimate cost of this tunnel will be below estimates, for a lot of the price tag is for unnecessary design and for uncertainty about the technology. Re: SR 520, Rep. Chopp and the lawyers who populate Montlake are holding the region hostage to a needless tunnel there that adds a third ($2 million) to the cost and which would carry significant problems with it, from what I've been told: 35 mph speed limit, roundabout entering the tunnel, etc. Why should Eastside commuters pay for that? This is not being visionary, it's being self-interested.
Posted Sun, Apr 26, 9:47 p.m. inappropriate
I think Kent is probably correct in that much of what has happened in Seattle over the last 20 years has less to do with maintaining the city than in putting a "world class gloss" on civic projects. See Danny Westneat's article in the Sunday Seattle Times for why and how it happens.
Posted Mon, Apr 27, 10:02 p.m. inappropriate
There are several flavors of Seattle Koolaid around so it’s hard to keep them straight. There was never a fair evaluation of the rebuild/retrofit solutions for the viaduct so it’s hard to make serious comparisons. The fix was in a long time ago. The viaduct is a series of related structures, of which only one is in any real jeopardy. The exposed sections are built like tables and can be worked on independently and repaired on a much shorter timeline than has been stated. Any new construction could’ve taken into consideration things like aesthetics, bike access, noise abatement, etc. The battery street tunnel is less an issue for transportation than it is a nuisance for Vulcan’s South Lake Union project who wants a readjustment so that it can share a level connectivity with Seattle Center. You can see an entertaining video about this in their sales office. As to the worldly view of tunnels, they do exist in other lands and are being built where necessary right along with new, contemporary elevated roadways not unlike like the current viaduct.. I can’t speak for the accuracy of cost estimates for the most expensive solutions except that historically they are almost always wrong. The punch line is that we got that MOST expensive tunnel option for the viaduct, in return for the MOST expensive tunnel option (K) for the west end of the 520 bridge. But that comes later. So the end of the story is that we will spend at least 4.5 B-B-B Billion dollars for the MOST expensive projects under consideration by the state at a time when we are struggling to cut spending for public safety, education, medical coverage and social services.
Solution: Find out who voted for what. Do not vote for them again. Really.
Posted Fri, May 1, 4:31 p.m. inappropriate
I don't think we are lacking in visionaries... we are lacking in funding to make visionary things happen. There are wonderful ideas out there... but 100, 80, even 40 years ago, it was easier to gain momentum, fund them, and easier to build.
When Thompson got the Great Northern to build a rail tunnel under the city, the city basicly ended at Virginia... The Tunnel exited there and back to the waterfront because the businesses at that end of town were light industry and stables. If he had forseen the kind of growth even by WW II that the city did, that tunnel might have ended at Interbay!.
ALL the great projects up to the 1960s had the benifit of cheaper land, less litigation, and fewer restrictions.
Imagine attempting the 60 plus regrades today! HAH!. Remember that to build the Locks, We re-routed the Cedar River, Filled in the Black River, connected lakes that lowered Lake Washington 9 feet, Lake Union 2 feet, took the salt water inlet by Ballard and made it fresh water... The Land Use Plan today for that project would be as tall as Denny Hill USED to be.
The old "yes we can do" Seattle changed in the mid 70's. The new influx reaped the rewards of all the previous visionaries, but never had to put up with the construction. The region's long standing populism led to the biggest error... taking tolls off bridges once they were paid for, never thinking that when it came time to replace, 50 years of a savings plan would have covered it.
Visionaires today continue to dream. But there are a lot more constraints than their previous lot ever dealt with...
The Seattle Commons... Killed twice. The Monorail ballooned beyond reality... Supported four of five times, then vetoed. Light Rail... turned down for years... finally shoved through and compromise will insure it is not as effective (turning Sound Transit into a street car down MLK to save $$$ leaves it prone to all the issues faced by streetcars. It has yet to open officially and has already been hit twice... The route is not wrong... not having its own seperate roadbed is what is wrong.)
Think about how many times we voted Against both our stadiums. It paralizes even the simple visions...
Like extending the monorail to the Stadiums. Or circling them, and then circling the Seattle Center. This was the original idea... still not done.
After building, then tearing down the cruise ship terminal at pier 30, we FINALLY see a cruise ship terminal on the pier we ORIGINALLY had the vision for... Fear of Dredging and Magnolia Bluff NIMBYS got the port to waste millions building a temporary structure, and then lost revenue the 7 months it COULD have run freight.
Visionary was to build the Benson Streetcar as a tourist transportation option. Fear of Viaduct issues have padlocked the historic cars for the last 5 years... and NO one seems to see the opportunity to extend the rails NORTH to the NEW cruise ship pier and let tourists once again pay for transportation alternatives.
I still have my Seattle Engineering history book published on the 75th Anniversary of the Department... A map from 1910 has a dotted line showing the proposed SUBWAY LINE from Downtown Seattle UNDER Lake Washington to Kirkland. IF only.