Another inconvenient truth: Why McGinn is right about seawall
Ignoring the cultural resource issues around Native American burial sites was long a part of development. Learning from that mistake is key to creating a safer Seattle waterfront.
By Paul Byron Crane
January 28, 2010.
In the past, we have ignored the cultural resource issues and European settlement impacts to Native Americans. You see, it hasn’t been until recent years that laws have required that, when we construct developments in areas where there is proof of 5,000 years of indigenous human habitation, we must carefully excavate under the eye of an archaeologist. If cultural artifacts or human burial remains are discovered, the project quickly becomes an archaeological dig.
When the World Trade Center Seattle was constructed along the northern portion of the waterfront, human remains from Duwamish Indian Nation burial sites were found and repatriated to the tribe. When the remains were discovered, it was apparent that they were relocated there from previous upland excavations.
The entire Seattle waterfront contained numerous tribal villages with a human habitation that extending back 5,000 years. The Alaskan Way Viaduct, its foundations, its northern tunnel, and all development under the viaduct happen to transverse these indigenous cultural-resource village sites. The existing seawall area, being on the water side of these sites, is less likely to contain cultural artifacts or relocated burial remains from a past of cultural insensitivity.
When the viaduct foundations are removed, a tunnel is dug, or any other significant excavations occur between Western Avenue and Alaskan Way, there is a likelihood artifacts, burial remains, or both will be found. Then, an archaeological dig will begin.
The extent and type of artifacts that exist could potentially be similar to but not as extensive as the Washington State Department of Transportation’s Ediz Hook discovery when the Hood Canal Bridge was being replaced. It will, at least, necessitate more years of excavation and research. By decoupling the seawall and the viaduct projects, we are addressing the pressing public safety issues, while making time to fully investigate and protect the cultural resources of the Duwamish Nation.
Burial sites are traditionally located in upland areas away from the shore villages. As with the World Trade Center site, what was relocated where and when in the last 100 years is an unknown.
The likelihood of the viaduct foundation removal and a tunnel option becoming an archaeological dig will add significant costs and time to the tunnel-related projects. The time issue is one that we cannot afford to accept if we tie the seawall to the same schedule as the tunnel and viaduct-demolition plans.
Veterans of the many previous waterfront charrettes have had the same briefings by state transportation engineers and access to reams of written material, which explains the critical need to replace the rotten seawall post haste. As of three years ago, tidal waters were just below the surface pavement at the Yesler Way and Alaskan Way intersection.
If we were to lose the rotten, crumbling seawall, tidal waters would inundate the waterfront and breach through street corridors into Western Avenue. The economic impacts of closing down the waterfront, with its critical infrastructure, would have severe implications to a city budget already in crisis in this historic recession. Mayor McGinn’s proposal is a critical decision that warrants the full support of the city council and the voters of Seattle if, we as a city, are to enact preventive measures averting events of a catastrophic nature.
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jan 28, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Paul Byron Crane, do you have a photo of you hugging Mike McGinn last July at the "Great City’s Summer Street Scene”?
Or, maybe there is another Paul Byron Crane that posts comments on the Great City web site saying, "see you there".
Eh, just askin'
http://www.greatcity.org/2009/07/09/save-the-date-for-great-citys-summer-street-scene/
Posted Thu, Jan 28, 7:06 a.m. Inappropriate
And, how did the "McGinn for Mayor Voluntee Drive" go?
Or, is that some other Paul Byron Crane on the right hand side of this page?
Hey, there's Julie McCoy, awesome!
http://af-za.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=204802780455
Posted Thu, Jan 28, 6:26 p.m. Inappropriate
If we just Retrofit the Viaduct for $1 billion, there is no need to disturb any artifacts either in the fill or the undisturbed old beach. No delays for digs, and a structurally sound VIADUCT THAT PERFORMS AS WE CURRENTLY ENJOY IT WITHOUT DISRUPTION DURING OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
Posted Thu, Jan 28, 8:22 p.m. Inappropriate
It seems that the writer here seems to think that the tunnel can only be built after removal of the viaduct. That is not the case. The plan currently is set up to dig the tunnel while keeping the viaduct operational. Only after the tunnel is operable will the viaduct be closed and the process of demolition begin.
Posted Fri, Jan 29, 8:03 a.m. Inappropriate
I thought this was a "deep bore" tunnel? Seems like excavation in the south starts in fill over what had been water. In the north, excavation is dealing with lower Queen Anne Hill, where there has been intense urbanization already. Sure, there's some risk. But it doesn't seem like a show stopper.
Why do the Viaduct columns that are underground need to be removed? Why not just leave them in place and build over them?
McGinn opposes having the entire city pay for Viaduct cost over runs by the state and says that a state law he opposes leaves the entire city on the hook. Fine, even though the law targets only the people who benefit directly.
Why should the residents of the entire city pay to fix the seawall, which benefits a few downtown land owners who bought and built on the risk?
Posted Fri, Jan 29, 11:45 a.m. Inappropriate
You can see the actual historic shoreline here...
http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/cms/groups/pan/@pan/@plan/@proj/documents/web_informational/dpdp018623.pdf
So PBC's trumped up reasoning to support the Mayor's new found concern for the waterfront is rediculous...unless the native communities along Seattle's waterfront lived under water.
PBC and the Mayor want to accomplish 1 thing...DELAY the tunnel. They will try anything to do so, because delay is what causes costs to rise. If the mayor was really concerned about cost overruns, he would support moving forward and stop trying to meddle with the schedule.
Don't get me wrong, the seawall is important and critical to fix, but the vote in May is rediculous and doesn't stand a chance to succeed. Not only that it puts the entire tax burden for the seawall on Seattle citizens instead of partnering with other sources, or finding ways to break out the taxes so it isn't completely dependant on prop tax.
Posted Mon, Feb 1, 12:34 a.m. Inappropriate
In a more perfect world, your virtuous endorsement of McGinn's $3+million ballot measure makes sense. But there's the problem - this is more about politics than it is preservation. The seawall is in need of replacement - and replacement we shall have with the plans in place. We can reduce the risk to our waterfront and minimize costs best by following them.
Your oddly correlated argument that McGinn's plan is somehow better for the cultural preservation of native heritage is a unique perspective. Unfortunately it is on par with his decision to draft a ballot measure without consulting his partners on the second floor or in Olympia - clumsy. Not to discount the importance of cultural preservation, but we can and will deal with any (potential) sites whether or not the project is sped up by a year or two.
Like it or not - McGinn's plan for a separate ballot measure was an ill-conceived political move by an inexperienced administration. The plans for a new seawall are in place as are the funding mechanisms to pay it. It's time we stick to the plan and time for the Mayor to follow it as he promised.
Posted Wed, Feb 3, 1:22 p.m. Inappropriate
PBC's concerns raise a much bigger issue regarding the central waterfront and the city's eventual plans for it. Heritage concerns are legitimate but there does not appear to be a historical record regarding what lies behind/underneath the seawall. Coll Thrush, author of "Native Seattle" includes a 1892 observer's unflattering description of the "Shantytown" neighborhood where the daughter of Chief Seattle lived along the central waterfront, apparently not to be confused with more meritorious historical villages along the Black River and elsewhere in the area.
A number of us are concerned that the public safety issue raised about the seawall will eventually be used against Seattle's historic piers many of which are infested with the same wood borers and can only be retained at great expense. There is a fear that City Hall in fulfilling its plan for a continuous waterfront promenade along the waterfront will be less interested in the retention of these historic structures, seeing them as also being a public safety issue, notwithstanding their blocking views to the Olympics, harboring rodents, and impairing salmon migration.
It would be interesting to also hear what PBC's (and presumably City Hall's) thoughts on shoring up Seattle's historic waterfront piers are, since they appear to be fraught with many of the same issues that pertain to the retention of the seawall. Gosh, maybe it makes sense to address them at the same time.
Knute000
Posted Thu, Feb 4, 11:42 p.m. Inappropriate
I see your point knute. The history behind the seawall and waterfront is fascinating and worth preserving. Your concern about public safety being used as a gambit is a concern to me also. Though I think a promenade might activate the waterfront in an equally historic fashion, I think you could do so while also preserving historic structures.
There are inherent dangers whenever try to make or force policy on the fly. In this case, the Mayor's effort to speed up construction may tempt (or force) city planners to hurriedly rush through important historic processes simply to meet an artificial timeline. Ever heard anyone in town complain of the city using 'top-down' and rushed processes? Now imagine a sped up sea-wall schedule...
It is plausible, likely in fact, that we could wind up losing more historic resources than saving them as PBC suggests. The stakes are high for the waterfront's past and its future. Though it may not be perfect, the current waterfront plans (years in the making) will be less costly and do more for preservation than the one Mayor McGinn devised in 3 weeks.
Posted Fri, Feb 5, 10:29 p.m. Inappropriate
Good grief. The history of the Seattle waterfront, post seawall, is a set of commercial piers that go back to Seattle's founding. Before that, Seattle was a heavily forested hillside at the water's edge. Seattle's waterfront will indefinitely remain a working waterfront with road access for heavy traffic, curbside parking, and sidewalks to serve commercial purposes. Sentimentalists go too far imagining the waterfront restored to its once natural setting.