Excellent critique.

One thing to remember is that a great program is behind a great design. And since Seattle is absolutely incapable of creating such a consensus, we are likely to get a camel.

After 9 years of Viaduct "emergency" I am still betting that nothing will happen besides the default of repair which will never be openly admitted and so even that opportunity (repair) will be lost. It's sad that the City Council never looked seriously at the midtown Manhattan model of street level boulevard because that ceratinly handles most of the problems you point out.

Forget about it!

Everyone seems to have their head in the sand (or fill) on what will happen at the waters edge.

Read Peter D. Ward's new book "The Flooded Earth: Our future in a World Without Ice Caps." He is a professor of Biology and Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. This is the latest of his 16 books, each evocative and based on good science.

In his best case scenario (we've stopped polluting our atmosphere), he estimates the Seas to rise 3.5 feet by 2050 and 9 feet by 2100. That would translate to a rise of 1 inch every year. If the new Seawall does not turn into a dike, extending the whole length of the waterfront, at least to lower Queen Anne hill and around Pioneer square and the International District, we can kiss our current waterfront goodbye.

It would be a waste of money to do anything less. At least the current viaduct is on stilts, however the southern portion would be under water along with SODO.

If a 100 year waterfront Plan does not take into account a plus or minus 10 foot rise in water level, rethinking the propose tunnel is also necessary. That magnitude of rise would swamp and fill it. But, no matter because the southern roadway connecting to it will also be under water.

Oh, and don't forget our Port. Every Port waterfront dock et al will also be under water. That is unless the Port starts a serious campaign to raise them. They should better spend the $300 for the Tunnel and put into the firtst phase of elevation the piers. That will be a drop in the bucket compred to total investments required for a viable Port.

This is a global problem, but it will be up to Seattle to protect itself and it's economy from this inevitable dilemma.

Let's take giant step backwards and rethink the long term future of our waterfront. Not just what it is, but where it will be.

Arthur M. Skolnik FAIA

First, I'm chuckling at your ideas about physics, Art. Tunnel filling up with water?! Protecting one tiny portal is a piece of cake, very different than protecting a whole waterfront. And I've pointed out before that the viaduct isn't built to handle being in water if sea levels rise that much, so you'd need to do a major (second) retrofit or build a big dike to protect it.

On to the park. The examples are fine but the situation is easier in this case. First, our central waterfront is busy with pedestrians every day (I work a couple blocks away and see it often). Second, the new corridor will be narrower than the SF or Boston examples. Assuming it's not designed stupidly (need two pedestrian crossings at every cross-street, and a median refuge would be nice), it will be better connected to the city than SF's. Third, there's a large volume of tourist and transportation use on the waterside, meaning no activity voids like SF.

Most importantly, it will be a "promenade" more than a "park". Widening the waterfront sidewalk is important due to the number of pedestrians already there during peak times. Having more space to sit and some greenery is important, but there won't be room for large lawns a la the Central Artery.

I disagree that a better waterfront is the only reason to do the tunnel. The main point, for me, is to keep Downtown from being overrun by cars...not just along a "surface alignment" but also the other avenues. (Vancouver and San Francisco are basically peninsulas...a better model is Portland, which relocated (relocated) its second N-S freeway to improve its waterfront. Keeping two freeways is one reason Portland doesn't feel overrun by cars.

So, if you protect the tiny portal (raising it above rising sea level, how does one expect to drive to it or from it with the whole south end of out industrial area under water?

As for the Viaduct, it should be retrofitted with the rising sea levels taken into consideration. Cheap today. Not tomorrow!

Lastly, these are not my ideas about physics, check with Peter Ward.

Also, Peter mentions that as the seas rise, so does the salt content in the soaked fill making our underground utilities and building foundations subject to corrosion and deterioration.

Time is wating!

Art

Can Seattle make a great waterfront park? Not if Seattle's hyper-brewsters receive more credence than its realists. Thank Mayor McGinn for pushing the seawall replacement (and waterfront) properly into the spotlight. His "experience" includes local ballot initiatives for parks, sidewalks and transit, and Sierra Club leadership.

Robert Moses must be snickering in his grave. The deep bore tunnel is an engineering travesty. It will make traffic worse on Alaskan Way, Lower Belltown, Lower Queen Anne, Denny Triangle and South Lake Union. Seattle is no world leader in tunnel building, far from it. And Sculpture Park is preposterous. Seattle's finest westward view defiled by the distraction of bizarre avant garde. Nature raped.

There's no way to build a grandiose promenade, manage traffic on Alaskan Way, and maintain critical access to parking with the current design. Early designs for a 2-lane frontage road on the east side, with islands between it and a 4-lane Alaskan Way, must be considered else traffic will bottleneck beyond reason. The frontage road configuration allows reinstallation of the waterfront streetcar and east/west bus lines to Coleman Dock. And it leaves room to widen the seawall sidewalk generously. Combined with 'the islands' and a median in Alaskan Way, the waterfront would be thick with trees and landscaping.

SDOT is behind closed doors planning a 6-lane Alaskan Way with parking lots on the little remaining promenade width. SDOT needs another 5 years to browbeat the public into accepting it. Until 2007, WSDOT directors had no other intent but to build an elevated replacement. Then eureka, they uncovered an even worse replace with the DBT and Mercer Mess West. Vomit.

Crosscut has posted an artist's rendering of Steinbrueck Park extended west, capping the proposed boulevard that would not be possible to conceal that way with the DBT. In order to bolster a highly dubious case for the DBT 'also' creating a world class waterfront, Crosscut posts an image that is dishonestly misleading. The only replacement option that offers a car-free gardened walkway from Steinbrueck Park to the Waterfront is some version of the cut/cover Tunnelite.

Art, raising the surface "south" 99 would be easy (if a raised seawall isn't built for that area). The world is full of raised roadways in flood zones.

Protecting the portal is as simple as building a slightly elevated ring around it, which the road would go over.

(The tunnel will be partially below the water table...but in Seattle we build stuff like parking garages and tunnels under the water table all the time, as is done elsewhere.)

Q. Can Seattle make a great waterfront park?
A. It will depend on who you ask considering that the majority of voters don’t want it.

If Crosscut wants to perform a community service, why not call on the city council to promote an “honest” referendum between promenade, tunnel or elevated solution for the AWV ? At least it would air out the smell of that fake referendum conjured up by Jan Drago and Tim Ceis a few years back.

And it could save tax payers a couple of BILLION dollars! You guys would be rock stars.

C’mon…it’ll be fun.

We will have a great waterfront, David, if only because of the absence of that elevated freeway that stands between us and the natural beauty of Puget Sound. And when it is done there will be no feeling of sadness, rather we will all be able to say, "adieu tristesse".

Charley

mhays,

So, have you seen such an elevated ring at the South portal? Or,the raised roadway design in the first phase(Kiong to Holgate) when it is finished(not the temporary road)? You better hurry and check it out and get it included since it is about to have a ground breaking ceremony.

Such change orders will drastically raise the cost of Phase one or if not included, add costs to the second phase, who's funding is already questionable.

And, as for building below the waterline, it has sparingly been done along the waterfront such as in the Marroitt and Waterfront Landings which go down only one level and have built in sump pumps.

More likely, new development below sea level will NOT go below the waterline. A great example of this is the Cornerstone Building which is 12 stories tall. The first 6 floors are above-ground parking (avoiding the high cost of underwater construction. Then it has offices which start above the Viaduct and housing above, neither of which have views blocked by the Viaduct.
Our current zoning, which requires shorter buildings as one approaches the waterfront, prevents taller buildings that might be able to amortize under-water parking construction costs. Salt water has different characteristics that are harmful to buildings compare to fresh water construction.

Lastly, if the Southern 99 is elevated like a Viaduct or levee, one must think through all the grade separated crossings that we have been building around the Stadiums, both of which will be under water. Perhaps we will be faced with changing our current sports venues from football, baseball and soccer, to water polo and water skiing.

Art.

Art

The following comment comes from James Russell, the architectural critic for Bloomberg News, who often visits Seattle:

Your Crosscut headline put me off today. Seattle has two of America's greatest waterfront parks: Olympic Sculpture Park and Gasworks Park -- the latter remains great even though it was never fully realized. Much about both could inform a reworked waterfront.

I am out of certain Seattle loops and did not realize that billions of dollars are being spent to make a foundation for a park where now is a vibrant commercial waterfront. It's a little tacky and cheap but most cities would kill to have that waterfront activity. If anything it needs some gentle nudging and updating. (That pathetic highway structure that calls itself a park, [Freeway Park] built in the Forward Thrust era, desperately must go, however.)

Seattle should not say yes to a highway-lid park until looking closely at the feebly designed, poorly connected, and overpriced parks that lid I-90 on Mercer Island.

I'm glad you focused on the idiotic Big Dig. Boston has not been able to harvest the huge economic development potential of the $14 billion gift the people of America made to them, because it did not plan what it wanted to replace the elevated highway with until the road project was finished. Many of the best ideas cannot now be realized. Also, the rules of Federal financing may not permit using the tunnel structure to support profit making buildings, etc. Caveat emptor.

The classic infrastructure/economic-development scheme was Grand Central Station. When the station was built, the New York Central Railroad built a lid over blocks and blocks of a smoke-belching
railyard and erected what is essentially the most valuable real estate in Midtown atop the tracks. It was all figured out in advance together. I'm not sure anyone has crunched the numbers, but the cash
those sites have generated over the decades no doubt dwarfed what the entire railroad made before it went belly up.

In a smaller way Seattle benefited when waterfront railyards got turned into condos by Cornerstone Development in the 1980s and 1990s. Lesson: the city has to figure out what the potential of the
waterfront is BEFORE the tunnel design is finalized. And then coordinate that vision with the tunnel design. Frankly I think it should be magnetic commercial development (especially on the upland
side), and the design focus should extend to the streets leading to the waterfront so that it can lure more people to use it. Remember the topography is intimidating. Again there are some not-bad precedents: the stair at the Federal building and the art museum's promenade. Harbor Steps could have been great but suffers from the characteristic Seattle failure of nerve.

If there isn't much commercial upside, I would say the huge cost of the tunnel is not justified.

-- James Russell

Art, you missed my point. Raising the south 99 and any sort of elevated ring concept would be easy retrofits. They don't need to build them until sea level rises.

You're incorrect about "most new development" not going below the waterline. My company (as GC) has built office buildings such as 505 First Ave S (completed 2010) and 635 Elliott (2009) that each have multiple levels of garage below the water line. By using "bathtub" concepts (look up CSM in these cases) they avoid the permanent pumping systems and fees. Either way, my point is that many projects build spaces for people below the water table.

Even if we don't build a dike, nothing you mention is an engineering challenge. Personally I assume we'll build a dike...stuff like Pioneer Square and SoDo is too important to lose.

I don't think Mr. Russell has seen the proposal.

We can have the world's greatest waterfront park, avoid building a tunnel that will be too costly and endangered (flooding, earthquakes), and keep traffic flowing in our all-too-linear layout by making a park out of the top layer of a new elevated viaduct. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a long park with gorgeous views to bike, skate or stroll? A lot of downtown people could get some exercise; there could be food carts. Imagine the festival and concert possibilities.

Seattle will never have a great waterfront park otherwise. Except that it does have a surface-level park at Magnuson and the Sculpture Park. That area could be further enhanced and perhaps enlarged and would have the benefit of being away from cars.

If we had a very large fleet of publicly-subsidized hybrid or electric taxis we could get A LOT of people out of their cars permanently. We should work towards reducing traffic and reducing the need for parking. Let's calculate at what point it becomes financially sensible not to have a car and aim for fares that fit. You can buy a lot of eco-cars for what will be sunk into tunnels.

When we do have a massive earthquake transportation will be paralyzed by collapse of freeways, collapse of tunnels and deformation of rails. Little hybrids have a lot more options.

So, mhays, you are already supporting change orders to alter the southern portion of 99 to elevate the roadway, which is about 1 1/2 mile from Spokane St. to the Tunnel entry.

And you support a change order to modify the Tunnel entrance by raising the elevation to sit above rising seas. That could be necessary within a decade when the rise is about a foot.

When should we start these projects? If not now, then when? Both of these construction projects will need to be planned, designed, go through environmental reviews, community input and somehow come up with the necessary funds. Construction would take several years.It has already taken a decade to get this far.

And, all grade separated crossings will have to be located above the elevated 99 roadway since in would not be viable to go under it since it will be under water.

But that won't suffice. We have to decide whether it is worth raising ALL the SODO industrial land and street network. Otherwise we will just have a raised 99 roadway with nothing but water surrounding it. But maybe we should rethink this whole thing.

Since you support a dike being built, how long, which land should be behind it? If we want to save the Port facilities, the dikes would have to extend down the Duawmish, on both sides, probably all the way to Tukwilla, Renton, Auburn, etc. Today, a high tide backs water up river that far.

Do you get my drift (pun)? The priority of protecting usable land from being inundateed will be the controversy of the century. Locating, paying for and building roadways/Tunnels, etc. when compared to protecting income producing land and it's acssociated businesses and jobs will decide the overall economy and worth of this City. Every City in the world will be going through this process and it won't be pretty.

So, my contribution to this discussion is to place an emphasis on finding as much money as it will take to protect that economy which has been invested in since 1851. Wasting $4+ Billion on a Tunnel, $0.5 Billion on a seawall replacement, building a park, etc., etc., when the priority has to be to build a dike or other syustems that keep our economy running.

This is not a scare tactic to stop the Tunnel. It is reality that is being ignored...at all our expense.

Art

Why not look at a great success? I'm referring to the Hudson River Park in Manhattan, which replaced a decayed above-grade viaduct. The initial plan was an expensive below-grade motorway. That was finally defeated because it would harm fish habitat. So what do we have now? A modernized surface road and a spectacular linear waterfront park from Battery Park to 58th St. Lots of money was spent and neighborhood groups were consulted (but in New York fashion they weren't allowed to run the show, unlike the Seattle mania for inclusion and endless debate). If you want to see what a successful waterfront park looks like, paired with a surface highway, come visit New York.

Re: Tide pools

A great concept, but I saw the one built at Port Townsend. It was full of debris! The narrow opening allowed storm and high tides to wash in jetsam and flotsam and kept it there. A site that then became a filled with guck and not to behold.

Re: Waterfront Park
Key is to have access to the water itself and not a pile of rip/rap backed by a concrete sea wall. That's a photo opportunity and not a waterfront that is friendly to native species or people. We need to be able to get down to the actual water level. People who live along the water will take better care if it if they can interact with it. There are some access spots at the new Sculpture park that would work. One could launch a kayak. Once you are out on the water you can fully appreciate Seattle's unique access to it.

The creosote piers & pilings need to go where they are falling into the water.

Mobility of freight and all types of motorized vehicles is far more important than a southern version of the joke that is called Sculpture Park.

Isn't it an exaggeration to refer to this space as a park? after the Viaduct is gone there will remain a major arterial and access to the ferries and tour ships, not to mention an occasional military vessel; trucks will have to serve the piers that have any kind of business or office facility. It will be more like a quieter boulevard with pocket parks. Which leads me to the nearest comparison, the Embarcadero. David, I think you are too critical of that project. It's been several years since I walked a mile or so of that street but I enjoyed it all. From what I have seen and read it is by far the best example to emulate. As is pointed out above the water side attractions in Seattle at least partly ameliorate the bare stretches of the Embarcadero that you criticize. Also: until your article I don't think I have ever read anything favorable about Chicago's Millenium Park. Maybe I missed something.

Art, I fail to see your logic. In your scenario, the tunnel will be the EASIEST part of 99 to protect...just one portal. If the tide was high enough and a storm hit, WSDOT or the Army Corps of Engineers could do it overnight, with sandbags if necessary.

If your viaduct was preserved, it would need a massive retrofit in this decade, plus another massive retrofit to accommodate being in saltwater. You keep conveniently ignoring this.

I have no idea why you're asking me about dike locations. What's relevant to this discussion is that a dike seems like a reasonable alternative regardless of whether some areas aren't inside it. For example, you couldn't save Pioneer Square without one, unless you want to start again another floor higher.

Either way, we're talking about something decades out...which the tunnel plan will let us solve most easily.

The AWV is doomed. It was not built to last even this many years. It must come down. It wasn't well designed.

The southbound entrance from Elliott is an uphill climb with a dangerous blind merge. What 1950's morons approved this stupid entrance ramp? The exit northbound onto Western is a speed-increasing downhill ramp that dumps traffic at speed onto Western. Its single-ramp exit backs-up traffic hundreds of feet, though a 2-lane ramp was certainly envisionable. The entrance and exit ramps from Western to the Battery Street tunnel create the most obvious traffic hazards. WSDOT hires idiot engineers.

Another elevated detracts economic viability and livability of Lower Belltown. But that didn't stop WSDOT and SDOT from approving an elevated replacement option for years of BS consideration.

Now these DOT clowns have perpetrated their worst work ever - THE DBT!MERCER WEST! 4-LANE AlASKAN WAY PROMENADE BIZARRO LANDING. The DOTs are perpetrating a crime. They know traffic will get worse with their proposals, and they know the alternatives are better. Morons!

As David Sucher mentioned in the 1st post, it's unfortunate that Seattle didn't study the Hudson River Park along the west bank of Manhattan. There's nothing spectacular or any 'knockout bold concepts' that the author referred to in his article. Perhaps that's why it works so well. I live 1 block from the park and it's simply amazing not because it has any stunning features but because it's simply so ordinary and practical. This makes it wildly popular both with the residents and the tourists. There are tour boats, water taxis, a fountain, an Irish pub, a place to rent bikes, a bike path, a pedestrian path and even an offleash dog park along this linear park space. There's actually not an abundance of green space but there is a wide draw of activities. I think a long linear park that is mostly just grass would be a disaster for Seattle. There needs to be thought given to activities for a successful waterfront, not just how much green space and how many sculpture parks they can put there.

Both New York's Hudson River Park and San Diego's Seaport village and waterfront park should be studied for how to make a waterfront truly work.

Is a retrofit of the viaduct a bigger, more expensive project than this current fantasy? No it is not. What do we not know about this current configuration of the viaduct that continues to serve as the most effective transportation solution each and every day, except that is isn’t pretty enough for some of us?

At the risk being redundant let me submit this once again:

No other proposed configuration for the AWV matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it’s over a billion dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

New committees of urban hobbyists don’t change these facts. It’s still the same organ grinders who change things for money, just different monkeys.

Any solution that doesn’t provide at least the capacities and transportation features of the existing viaduct is a waste of money and a giant step backwards for the city. I think that’s the reason for this scramble to start demolition before common sense results in some honest public review.

I have to tell you this all makes me nostalgic for authentic places like Boston before glass boxes, Seattle's working waterfront before the viaduct, and the formative years of Seattle Center festivals. True: you can't go home to again to these places. It's also true that fussing over the appearance of authenticity is the surest way to not have any. The next surest way is trying to build it all at once out of whole cloth.

I agree with Richard Borkowski 100%. A long, green linear park would be a disaster. It simply isn't needed -- nor can it be adequately peopled -- in our modestly large (23rd largest in US), not-too-dense (1/10th the density of NYC) city. Exactly where are the hoards of walkers who will come down to the waterfront from the downtown streets? Nine times out of ten, I can get a parking space right on First Ave in the middle of the day. Folks, this is not a busy, crowded city (and I'm thankful for that!). We need to get rid of the Viaduct and strengthen the connection of the city to the waterfront, but we don't need a huge waterfront park. We need the life of the city in all its guises (residential buildings, commercial buildings, small parks, tourist attractions, commerce, street life, cars!, all of it) to continue to the waterfront. Of course there should be a key spot or two where people can gather by the water, as there is in Baltimore's Harborfront, but we don't need a grand gesture. Drop the Viaduct, craft a small but vital waterfront public space with some smart pedestrian links, and then let time and the city have at it.

William H. Whyte wrote that the key to successful urban space is concentration of activity. If things get too spread out then spaces look empty and are perceived as failures since what attracts people in cities is activity (other people) not empty space. This is why so many pedestrian malls killed the retail districts they were supposed to save--where the previous pedestrian activity had been concentrated on the sidewalks, it was suddenly spread out over the whole right-of-way width, and without new pedestrians, the spaces looked empty.

Whyte's comments echoed those of Jane Jacobs almost twenty years previously. Jacobs pointed out that the first requirement for a successful urban space is that people feel safe, and people feel most safe when there are a good number of other people. She wrote that people gravitate to places where there are other people and avoid spaces that are perceived as empty because they seem to be failures (and hence unsafe).

Jacobs also noted that parks seldom change the neighborhoods in which they are located. Rather, the activity in parks depends on the neighborhood, and particularly the character of the edges of the park space. In Seattle this is easily seen--Steinbrueck Park depends on the Market, not the other way around.

Given these observations, the linear park along the Seattle waterfront does, indeed, present a significant challenge. As some writers asked, will there be people to fill the new park? Where will they come from? There is a concentration of pedestrians on the west sidewalk of Alaskan Way--widening that sidewalk into a promenade is a good idea, but there probably is a limit to the width before it begins to be perceived as empty. But what to do with all the other space. The return of the Waterfront Streetcar or a similar streetcar line would seem to be essential, if only to provide another way to bring more pedestrians into the area.

The key is people.

Sea Wolf, New York City had 27,000 people per square mile in 2009, and Seattle had 7,350, and the ratio was similar if you compare Manhattan to Greater Downtown Seattle. Regionally, our densities were much closer. Also, we're more like the 13th largest city, not the 23rd (your number is based on city-of, which is irrelevant in this case).

Jeffrey, I agree that the key is people. But there's already a good number of people there from around Yesler to Pike, which is most of the relevant stretch. South of that is a bit more barren, and dependent on a new use for Pier 48. Alaskan Way north of Pike isn't directly affected since the roadway will go up the 99 ROW. Given that it'll still be a pretty narrow corridor and quite a few uses will always exist to draw people, it seems to me that there's not much potential for emptiness.

Seawolf -

Thanks for the comment. I think the first step to making the waterfront successful is to STOP calling it a park, as if it's one space. If it gets constructed as one long green space, it will be a failure. Park should be stricken from the language. It should be called just the Seattle Waterfront or the Seattle Waterfront Urban space or even the Seattle Waterfront Trail since there will certainly be a trail, walkway or promenade of some sort.

Here's a link to the Hudson River Park web site. It's split up in to 7 segments. It's not complete yet and pieces of it are constantly under construction. The 'park' is really a bike/ped trail that has a series of parks along the way. Some places have views. Some don't. But the unifying element of this space is the bike trail, not a 'park'. Alot of locals out here refer to it as the Westside highway trail, since it's next to the Westside highway.

http://www.hudsonriverpark.org/construction/index.asp

Perhaps segmenting the Seattle Waterfront into 5 or 6 segments and dealing with it that way would be a start.

Why a linear park at street level will not work:

"Waterfront" is a very loose term. It's all piers. This stretch will never compete with our true "waterfront" at GasWorks, West Seattle, and Myrtle Edwards. Locals like myself go out of our way to avoid the cruiseship crowds which dominate the piers. The primary advantage of the current schemes will be improved surface transit, particularly the improved connection of the Interbay bike path to SODO. The piers will remain, the connection to the water will be spotty and forced, resulting in a predictably underused park.

It is too bad the viaduct could not be retained and turned over entirely to pedestrian/bicycle use a la The Highline in NYC. Having ridden the top deck of the viaduct with a horde of cyclists I loudly support an elevated park experience, maybe even retrofitting a portion of the original structure? This city sits next to a beautiful bay and to this day being ON the viaduct itself remains one of the best means of appreciating both.

I agree this stretch will never compete with Gasworks, West Seattle and Myrtle Edwards. Why should it? Why even try? Why not make it completely different, since it is a completely different space? That's why I say we should stop calling this a 'park'. It just begs comparisons to the parks you just mentioned and it will never be like any of those parks.

I disagree that you have to have connections to the water to have a successful space. You just have to have activities that draw people there. Think bike trails, walking/running trails, restaurants with outdoor decks, fountains, offleash dog areas, bike rental businesses, sidewalk food vendors.

While this article by David Brewster is thought provoking, the title (Can Seattle make a great waterfront Park?) gives the wrong image. It gives the image of a big green space. However, a big linear green space is the last thing you want in an urban downtown area of a major city.

My sentiments exactly. You are right to see it first as a vastly improved transit corridor (Alaskan Way is an abomination of traffic light timing) punctuated by more unique experiences. The failures cited--particularly the Big Dig--are very relevant here. A whimsical curvy path amidst token diminutive lawns and manicured shrubs would be limited improvement over the present condition. I have some faith that this will be recognized in the best design proposals. Yet, I fear the timid committee mentality that often reels at the bolder solutions needed to address these site complications.

Ugly noisiness aside, the viaduct is the most dramatic conveyance in the city. Any civic alternative entertained should expand on this quality, we deserve at least as much

I've neglected the biggest error in some of our park designs -- not enough shade trees. It's appalling to see designs for the Seattle Center, for example, with giant barren lawns we're expected to watch concerts from during the height of summer.

Go to the Space Needle on a warm day during a festival. Look straight down at the amphitheater. I've done this repeatedly. The crowd is ALWAYS huddled around the trees, not in the sunny middle.

I agree with several of the comments above that trying to make it a long linear park is the wrong concept. Long linear parks with little to do become really boring - there have to be great views and great activities and places to eat, etc - to engage and entertain people. There has to be commerce. And there are going to be cars, too, because of the ferry terminal and because the piers need access.

I think the guiding approach should be to create a great Boulevard which is also very pedestrian friendly, and in which the traffic is relatively calmed. It should have wide pedestrian components on both the east and west sides, and the adjoining properties on both sides should be permitted to have restaurants and cafes with outdoor seating extending into the pedestrian components, like on Champs Elysees in Paris (and many European cities). It should integrate into the adjoining street grid on the east side, and construction of buildings should be encouraged on the east side, with retail and restaurant space required to occupy the ground floor, and residential on the floors above. Let there be private commerce.

The boulevard should have a collection of parks or activity centers. Some open space, maybe a bandshell for performances, maybe an outdoor chess area. Things that are pleasant activity centers.

The boulevard should incorporate a restored waterfront streetcar line. It could be in the curbside traffic lane in each direction, or in the center. Alaskan Way is long enough that providing some transport is desirable, and the streetcars are visually interesting and also draw people, and connect the waterfront to Pioneer Square and to the transit hub at King Street Station and the ID tunnel station. Everyone at Metro is disinterested in the streetcar, and they use as an excuse that there might be one on First Ave. This new boulevard is a completely separate destination than First Ave, and First Ave is perceptually far away. To draw people down here, the streetcar should be part of the new Alaska Boulevard.

The current design for Alaskan Way surface street is wholly inadequate. Early designs incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the east side with islands between it and a 4-lane Alaskan Way. SDOT misled members of Seattle's environmental community to believe that a 4-lane Alaskan Way is sufficient ONLY to win their support for the DBT fiasco based upon the false promise of a grand promenade.

The frontage road is necessary to divide thru-traffic from motorists looking to park. Without it, motorists will be forced back onto Alaskan Way expected to have at least 20,000 more vehicles daily. With the frontage road, 3 or 4 of the gridlock-causing 13 stoplights between Pike and King Streets can be eliminated.

Superblock islands are created at Washington and Columbia (which makes entering and exitting Coleman Dock simpler, safer and faster). Seneca is another logical superblock. There's still room for widening the Seawall sidewalk enough to call it somethin fancier. The islands, the Alaskan Way median, the seawall and an eastside sidewalk could sport generous street trees and linear landscaping.

The frontage road configuration allows for reintroduction of the Waterfront Streetcar Line, east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock, sufficient, but not excessive curbside parking, and a separated bike path, much like the current arrangement sans AWV monstrosity.

SDOT also misleadingly proposed routing the Waterfront Streetcar Line through the middle of this promenade knowing full well of extreme operational difficulty and hazard to pedestrians. A 6-lane Alaskan Way design is no doubt in the works awaiting the opportune moment to fully exploit public disappointment. Durn Gubmint! Vot fer Sair Pay Lin! She perky and won't bort my baybee.

"Rethinking the Viaduct-Recycle It! Seattle's Golden Park Ring."
Our rescued Viaduct would be like and cooler then The High Line: www.thehighline.org “We proposed that during the time when the trains weren’t running, that perhaps the railroad line could be devoted to some recreational uses for the community—a linear park or jogging paths, t…It’s an incredible... environment for pedestrians, but it takes a lot of preparation if, you know, we’re committed to things like full access.
An elevated park running running the length of Seattle would correct the break with the waterfront while increasing property values considerably. Why tear it down, re-use it. This is Seattle and it may make the tunnel option more appealing & smaller and as well give us all something to be proud of, like the Spaceneedle.

Rethinking the Viaduct-Recycle It! "The Golden Ring Park." Imagine yourself walking on an elevated park along the Seattle Water Front on a gray day watching ships, the lights coming on behind you to the east from the many new residents, developed to take advantage of being on the front line of a new park, a greenbelt hugging Seattle and healing the break with the waterfront. Imagine the views while walking, expansive and iconically, Seattle.

Che

mhays, I stand corrected that New York is not 10 times denser than Seattle, but I think my point about density holds, which is that downtown Seattle does not have the kind of density that can support a large, linear park. As for comparisons between the cities, take a look at this photo of Manhattan and tell me there is anything whatsoever comparable about the scale of built Seattle and that of Manhattan: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=559839&page;=7. This is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, don't get me wrong. I'll take Seattle over New York every day of the week. I'm just saying we need to be honest about what our city can support as we develop the waterfront, and too grand a gesture may suffer for lack of people.

Sea Wolf -- In terms of density, I'd use the Portland example over New York. Seattle is substantially denser than Portland, both within city limits and comparing the downtowns (residential, daytime, whatever). Yet Portland has a huge amount of Downtown park space compared to Seattle.

I used to have stats. One of my first jobs working for the Seattle Commons organization was to compare park availability by city and by downtown. Seattle scored typically in the city stats but terribly for Downtown regardless of what "Downtown" definition was used. Today we'd score better, but mostly due to new parks around the periphery of Downtown, not in or near the CBD.

Manhattan has a much more park space as a percentage of land area than Downtown Seattle, with the 850-acre Central Park alone representing 5.5% of the island. But Manhattan is seriously underserved once you get away from the big parks. Anywhere near Midtown in particular, take a walk at lunch hour and every plaza is wall to wall people.

I do agree that our waterfront shouldn't be a huge park...which is fine because there isn't room and nobody is planning one.