A modern musical prelude will likely have fewer accordians.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_bBNMBqhrNmw/SQTv-CJ6pEI/AAAAAAAAABw/TGWvJp8ccLE/s1600-h/SeattleBeatoutside.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bBNMBqhrNmw/SQTv2hwir5I/AAAAAAAAABo/BI94uVOdCSI/s1600-h/SeattleBeatinside.jpg

Seattle Center needs some serious upgrading. The carnival ride areas are chintzy; the carousel and other rides are 'plopped' down on the asphalt with little thought given to landscape placement, seating, shelter from weather, etc. The squat building that houses video games and such should be removed and replaced with an 'architectural' piece that doesn't completely divide the amusement ride areas from the stage and lawn on the other side.

Here's a proposal for Seattle Center that didn't make the cut in the Seattle Times "Design your own Seattle Center" call for public input:

Split the monorail tracks so one goes up 5th, the other through the 'eye' of SMP to create a single-track 'Circling' the Center, rather than bulldoze through like the Greenline. After threading the 'eye', that track plunges below the Thomas Roadway Cut-n-cover style to a station accessing Center House basement and Fischer Pavilion. Access on the other side is also possible. The track continues to a portal (handily at the hillside) onto the south side of Key Arena Plaza and swings north to a station roughly where the Greenline proposed on the NW corner. Continuing north the track weaves through Warren Street and turns east to the north side of Mercer. At the Mercer garage the track veers onto the rooftop for a station and maintenance facility. From there, the track continues south on 4th or 5th to a station in the Playing field parking lot and the track connected. Across Broad Street, a double-track 'transfer station' is located at KOMO area to affect complete travel between the 4 Seattle Center stations. All areas of Seattle Center become accessable within minutes at all-weather stations.

A similar 'loop' is designed for the other end of the historic line with various route options, either through downtown and up to First and Capitol Hills, or, through downtown and along the waterfront. Both route options are possible. All told, the loop(s)on the south end served Westlake Mall, Central Library, Harborview, Seattle University, SCCC, Convention Place Station,... International District, Sports Arenas, Coleman Dock and Pike Place Market from the waterfront, Belltown, Denny Triangle and South Lake Union. A few more station sites should be considered, but these are the main Seattle destinations.

A Phase 1 loop required 6 monorail cars to run at under 4-minute intervals. A 2nd Phase loop required another 6 cars which brought frequency at the Center to around 3-minute intervals and 4-6 minute intervals along the loops at the other ends. Every major downtown destination becomes accessable within minutes.

The total route cost was estimated at $1 Billion yet it generated twice the ridership of the Greenline. It has the ability to incorporate regional, double-track extensions to West Seattle, Ballard and beyond. For downtown, single-track guideway has low visual and physical impact as well as low cost. Stations are simpler to locate and can be incorporated into the sides of buildings such as Westlake Mall. Outside of compact downtown, the impacts of double-track are more readily ameliorated. Seattle Times is not the only agency, organization and 'fraternity' which has willfully censored this public monorail proposal. Don't believe anyone who says it's not a great idea.

What exactly should we celebrate? That it happened?
I went to Bumbershoot yesterday. As I went into the Northwest rooms to see the Seattle/Moscow Poster show (good work Danny) I could not help but reflect for a moment on the Seattle Center Master plan. One of the few fixed structures I went into will get ripped down.

There was nothing going on inside KeyArena.
The Center House is still an armory, of sorts.
The Fun Forrest ends in 2010.

Rather than have a million dollar trip down memory lane, how about the "leaders" act on the Seattle Center master plan?
Some progress could be made, a start, by the time 2012 rolls around. I would much rather celebrate the progress toward the Center's renewal.

My own strange, and strained, relationship with sports fans, and politicos, provided a lesson for me in how many many people see the Center from their own pov. Many at the ready to say no to somebody else.

Maybe things will be different now that we will have a new mayor, and we will not have the Ron Sims giant ditch idea muddying up the site.

What we have is a Master Plan without the $570 million dollar funding source, a plan also absent any plan for KeyArena (the Bellevue Safeway site may finish off KeyArena), and a deep desire by many people to do as little as possible.

It is going to be harder to get public/private funding for the rest of the site while the anchor facility, KeyArena, is in flux.

I was supportive of the city's efforts to secure local hotel taxes as a revenue source for the entire site, ongoing revenue for infristructure investment for the entire site. Wrapping it around a KeyArena remodel effort and using sports fans to get that done might have been the only way to sell that to the legislature, but it was so narrowly sold as a sports thing that it was extremely unlikely to pass (Mr. Murray's valient efforts being one of the exceptions, falling short).

A million dollar celebration of urban blight might not get broad support.

Monorail?
If we are going to relive billion dollar rejected ideas let's revisit a new multi-use facility at Saettle Center, a destination for the multi-modal transportation utopia Drago and Sims dream of.

Let's have a large scale convention center at Seattle Center (or not).
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/17746/

hey, how did the WSCTC do on their own this past legislative session?

At the very least clean all that junk out of the Science Center coutyard. What an eyesore. It's one of the most beautiful modern buildings in the world and it looks like a postmodern dumping ground.

Does the courtyard belong to the Science Center or Seattle Center?

I love World's Fairs, however the problem here is the Seattle-centric view of this region. Western Washington is no longer a series of farms with Seattle as its cow town. Puget Sound is a ring of exurbs each with a population and government that represents its people more than "Seattle". Seattle has a "Center" but so does Everett.

Take Bumbershoot for example...why is the whole thing crowded onto a few acres of inaccessible and expensive urban land? It should be spread around the whole community.

So too, how could you not include the Microsoft campus in a fair, or Downtown Park in Bellevue, or the Kent Events Center?

A Fair...yes...but lets be fair and make it a Puget Sound World's Fair.

Routing a single-track monorail (ala the example above) under the Thomas roadway, 'connects' the amusement ride areas so they're no longer 'divided' by the existing monorail station. New stations would operate like standard mass transit. Instead of reversing train direction, they come to a stop and leave within 30 seconds, patrons board and deboard at will, reaching the next stops at Key Arena Plaza, Mercer Garage, 5th Ave playing field/Gates Foundation and KOMO Plaza transfer station within minutes. It makes all Seattle Center venues and Lower Queen Anne immediately accessable to all other major downtown destinations.

Mayor Nickels was booted in part because of his failure to address transportation system problems. He had lots of help from people who would only accept the most impractically grandiose ideas, Mr Baker. This idea for a Circulator Monorail is ingenious. It should be no surprise that the change to Seattle Center getting the most attention is the playing field parking garage.

"Take Bumbershoot for example...why is the whole thing crowded onto a few acres of inaccessible and expensive urban land? It should be spread around the whole community."

did you notice the fence? They charge money to get inside that fence.

Did you notice it was a celebration of the "Seattle" World's Fair?

The amusement ride areas will not have amusement rides after 2010. You are proposing to connect an obsolete thing by spending a billion dollars on a monorail.
ingenious?
I will need more convincing.

So, while you are proposing a billion dollar monorail as a celebration of 50 years of the Seattle Center, you might want to review what the city council voted on, but did not fund, last year. One short year later not much has happened.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008123200_seattlecenter19m.html

Seattle City Council is unduly influenced by Seattle's elite with the finest PR lobbiest offer and public money buy. As I said, the first and most expensive alteration to Seattle Center is the 'vast' parking garage; nothing to improve transit access. Is City Council clueless or working for powerful interests who profit from car-dependency?

Installing glass walls and ceiling on Center House is pure grandiose nonsense; another example of the elite's narcisistic desire for monuments to themselves. Put a green patio on top and call it sustainable architecture. Bunk!

It's foolish to not replace much of the carnival rides and such amusement. It's been a part of the Center from Day 1 and provided treasured memories for many people. On either side of the monorail station, these areas have always been devoted to these activities, no matter how crassly laid out in stinking asphalt. Removing the monorail station (by plunging the track below Thomas roadway) would allow the two areas to combine.

The cost of this monorail upgrade to the Center is closer to $300 million. The billion dollar figure includes a route through downtown. I suppose Mr Baker, like many Seattlers, considers himself environmentally conscientious. If so, how can anyone with an ounce of environmental consciousness support maintaining Seattle Center as a car-centric destination?

What is the Center's potential if all its venues are rapidly accessable to main districts downtown -- Coleman Dock, Pike Place Market, Sports Arenas, International District, Convention Center, Seattle University, SCCC, etc in addition to Westlake mall? Mr Baker, are you penny-wise and pound foolish? I suspect this Circulator Monorail idea was surreptiously opposed by automobile-related interests to whom The Seattle Times is obviously beholden.

They sold the parking lot to the Gates foundation.

" If so, how can anyone with an ounce of environmental consciousness support maintaining Seattle Center as a car-centric destination?"

Electric car, solar panels on roof of house.
Next question.

Excuse me...mayor Nickels gave the parking lot to the Gates Foundation.

The split monorail idea sound pretty good.

How is Seattle Center car-centric? It has less parking than downtown, and decent (though not great) bus service. Due to the Mercer Mess it's a lot easier to get out of there on a bus than in a car.

If I remember correctly they also want a streetcar connection, though that may be just wishful thinking.

Mr Baker, the electric car paired with rooftop solar photovoltiac panels is the right direction. But cars alone, electric or otherwise, are a severe impediment to walking, bicyling and mass transit, which are more energy efficient than even an electric car, and more fundamental to local economies. Having an electric car that can also power household utilities gives us the choice of whether to drive or cut utility bills. And when we choose the latter, the other means of travel must function. Obviously, I've taken you out of your comfort zone. So if you don't mind, please FO.

Seattle Center is car-centric in the plans to increase parking. Its lack of ideal transit access is in part why the Seattle Center fails as a venue. Therefore, no matter what upgrades are made, Seattle Center will fail other than during major events and those accessable driving.

The proposal for the 'split' monorail (The Circulator Monorail and The Seattle Circulator Plan) may be available at the Seattle Times in the department that handled "Design your own Seattle Center". I'd like to find if they've kept it. Of the 100 ideas the Times deemed worthy to exhibit, it did not make the cut. I should've pretended to be a teenager in the 10th grade.

"I suspect this Circulator Monorail idea was surreptiously opposed by automobile-related interests to whom The Seattle Times is obviously beholden."

I can not speak for the ST, I am not in your monorail loop, any streetcar, or trolley line, but I do live in Seattle. All of these fantastic mass transit "solutions" compete for the same populations. The only mass transit near me in Seattle is the bus. Paying for your monorail will never, ever, change that fact. So, I am not convinced that a very slow rollercoaster is the best use of my tax money.

The Seattle Center Master Plan is one year old, how will the candidates put the plan into action?

I for one think circling the Seattle Center with the monorail would be a great idea. I would take the south end at westlake, turn to second and Pike, then run south and circle our billion dollar investment in Stadiums. I suspect it would cost a lot less than a Billion dollars, and would finally accomplish what was intended when first designed... to connect to the train depot.

This little loop would then add a station at Second above Pike Street, A station at each end of the stadiums, and one by King Street Station. No First Hill, No West Seattle, Not Ballard... JUST loop the most attended to areas of downtown.

The reason 46 MILLION people (plus some) have chosen to ride the monorail over the 12 some bus lines that cover the SAME ROUTE is SEPERATION of Grades that insures the monorail runs when streets do NOT.

One could park north to attend events south. Some of the 7 million who visit the market would not drive there. It would connect with Sounder, Link, WSF and 4.1 million walk ons, and serve well to disapate the concentrations for mega event days... like Bumbershoot, Folklife, or when both stadiums are books and the Ex Hall has a show. It would spread out parking options for all events at either end.

We have ALL been trapped at one time or another on Second, Fourth, Fifth, Dearborn, Mercer and Valley for major traffic generated by major events. Remember being stuck on FIFTH as FULL MONORAILS run above you?

Long before we build streetcars, THIS would be a VERY efficent use of exsisting technology. I would like to see the city pay for THIS long before we add streetcars which get stuck in the same street traffic as Metro Busses. I DO live in Seattle, but like the stadiums and the Seattle Center, this would be a benefit to the region in terms of Getting somewhere.

The candidates should put the Seattle Center Master Plan into action by shelving it. Put the Memorial Stadium portion on hold. The Center House rebuild is preposterous. Concentrate on the low-cost Fun Center areas and a new video games hall.

Hacknflack. I chose 4th Ave rather than 2nd Ave because the loop could return from the Arenas along the Waterfront, and/or, go up Marion/Jefferson to First Hill and return on Broadway, Pine and Olive Way. The 4th Ave route allows for more transit coverage of downtown. 4th Ave has more 'modernist' buildings. 1st, 2nd and 3rd are already transit-oriented streets. The turn could to 4th be at the original Pine Street or Stewart.

Anyway, you're right about monorail. This design is low cost, low impact and high productivity. Seattle Center would do well with this kind of transit access. It was first submitted to Sound Transit board in May of 2000 and subsequently to pertinent agencies, mainstream media and various organizations many times since. It has never received a courteous reply or fair review of any kind. It was blacklisted by Mayor Nickels.

Yes, there is no greater pleasure in Seattle than a transfer from one mode of transportation to another. Wasted time, or treasured transition?
I can not wait, to wait between the bus and a new monorail for the pure elation of elevated exileration.

"Concentrate on the low-cost Fun Center areas and a new video games hall."
The last $8 million dollar try at that worked out so well, too.

For a few years the streakholders, and a few streak eaters, had endless meetings to put together a master plan, the council approved it. They need to act on it while the jobs would be useful, materials temporarily cheaper, and the Fun Forrest is not yet closed.
After it is closed the blight will lead to condos, not a renewed Seattle Center.

Btw, "Excuse me...mayor Nickels gave the parking lot to the Gates Foundation.", that gift cost the Gates Foundation $22 million dollars.

Their building is coming along quite nicely.

Large transit systems cannot work optimally without transfers. Snap. The designs for Seattle Center were approved by egocentric elitists who are more interested in form than function. Most of all, these elitists cater to automobile-related business interests and the sacred cash cow of the 20th Century, vast herds of rotting corpses in the 21st. $22 million dollars for a parking lot; such a deal. Replacing it will cost how much more? Not your problem, eh Mr Baker?

Hey, I must've been channelling Yoda -- "The turn could to 4th be.."

Yo Baker,

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-03-16/news/charitable-terms

This article by Rick Anderson appeared in the 3-16-05 issue of the Weekly. First the city discounted the property from 71M to 50M. Then they returned 28M more by giving them the parking garage and improvements. Anderson wrote that no explanations were given about the deal from Nickels office and his communications director said that she would have someone call. You can kind of get the gist of it if you have a calculator.

Hey...is that the phone?

These comments are all over the place and I suppose this post adds to the splatter, but I just wanted to say I like the idea of a 50th Anniversary event, and would suggest devising a switchable aerial tramway network to serve the campus and branch out to the city over time if it's attractive. It would be a great location and perfect excuse for the city to build for on-demand mass transit that's fun and minimizes wasted energy.

Jmrolls, i was contesting the term "gift". What the trade-off that Nickels made, and how they arrived at $22 million is a point well taken.
I have never paid $22 million dollars for a gift, don't know, maybe that is what a gift is in other societies.

Wells, it is all my problem if I am being taxed for all of it and still only have the same bus I have had trundling through my neighborhood for the past decade. The mass transit you propose is not flexible, tomorrow thebus routes could change, then change back the following day. I can not say the same thing for any rail, light, heavy, elevated, underground.

Because of the limited location of these fixed assets they might as well be promoting snow machines and tow-rope for the downtown folks. I would be just as likely to use it and pay for it. Seattle appears to be falling into recreational mass transit buying, like sub-urban folks buying a sea-do. It would be fun appears to motivate way too many mass transit "solutions" within Seattle (tram included).

It is not a practical means for everbody, the question at this point is if it even practical for the majority of Seattle citizens.
$300 million might appear to be a great investment in a fixed asset, serving a limited subset of the population. It would be unlikely used by anybody that starts their commute on a bus, the bus might as well travel another mile, skipping the transfer wait time and the $300 million dollar monorail "gift" to downtown.

I would rather spend that kind of money getting people not near all of these rail and streetcar projects out of their cars and into busses within the city.
Until that happens, or you find a way to extend your monorail all over the city for the same investment cost as busses, I will will either live with the transfer wait times of the mass transit they already have or drive cars.

Mr Baker, I think in almost any society, if I see something that I would like buy for X, and you arrange for concessions and strategies for me to purchase it for a third of that cost, the savings to me might be considered a “what?” You select the word.

I also made no reference or proposal for any mass transit and I am in total agreement with you and share your opinion about the “salad bar” of transportation systems currently under construction and consideration by city hall and Olympia.

Mr Baker, your understanding of mass transit design is at least 6 decades obsolete, and you're still trying to make it work. It hasn't worked. It won't work. My inner-city monorail proposal is high-capacity rapid transit where it's needed most, the central city, where hilly topography makes its low-impact single-track monorail design ideal and simple for transit patrons who arrive downtown via bus or Link to complete their trips. You're an obstructionist belted in an automobile plunging over a cliff. Buh-bye. Don't pretend no one warned you in your last moments.

In reply to 'It would be fun appears to motivate way too many mass transit "solutions" within Seattle (tram included)', I suggested it because, well, fun would fit a World Fair...it would be like a carnival ride. More importantly, the design could compete directly with the automobile and win at a time we know we have to to respond to global warming and peak oil-- and that's the real point.

That idea of small, switchable trams was the result of imagining how to:
-remove waste in a transit system due to unnecessary weight, movement and acceleration (heavy vehicles with few or no riders, indirect routes, frequent stops)
-be as fun or more fun than cars, like a carnival ride.
-be socially attractive/avoid social stigma of mass transit for things like taking a date to a show.
-provide convenient transit on-demand that travels directly as possible, like a car.
-share the road with cars and trucks, traveling over them.
-provide a transit option for workers who transport tools and materials (buses and trains don't do this).
-provide a telpherage option for such uses as waste and materials delivery.
-separate lightweight vehicles from heavy during the societal transition to efficient transportation, to hasten its adoption (assumes the popularity of Chevy Suburban and other family-size SUVs, "baby on board" stickers and the like was largely driven by fear/defense from collision that influences the rejection of small vehicles for personal use).
-be safer than cars/reduce driving injuries and deaths and expenses.
-run on clean electric energy and generate energy from braking.
-avoid unnecessary batteries and resulting chemical waste.
-possible without acquiring rights of way in expensive built-up areas.
-fits Seattle, a forward thinking city heavily influenced by Boeing engineers and their ilk-- people who look at our current system and think, "why copy what others do-- let's do better".
-fits the theme of the World Fair, which in 1962 tried to envision the future and propose such improvements as a monorail to design a better city.
-develop a mode of transportation fitting the criticality of the times, that couldn't be done until recently, has never been done before.
-establish and develop a new exportable technology industry based in Seattle that has a high technical-competitive barrier.