Four powerhouse teams named finalists in central waterfront design

I think it would be really incredible if the design included demolishing the top level, but keeping the lower level of the viaduct (which is not by itself seismically threatened), using it as a promenade for walkers,etc. with several connections to 1st ave. This allows a view over the top of the water front buildings and creates a safe vehicle free zone above traffic below.

Perhaps this plan could even use the existing battery street tunnel as a connection from the waterfront to Lake Union..

It seems there are many possibilities here for a real way to connect the city for the vehicle free advocates. Maybe this is a new street car line from Lake Union to West Seattle??

That's a intriguing proposal, ruffner, and one I hadn't heard before. The idea of the lower level of the Alaskan Way Viaduct turning into a local High Line, an aerial Burke-Gilman, really appeals to me. I don't know if I'd want to walk through the Battery Street Tunnel, though, without some serious work being done: having been on the I-5 express lanes through Downtown as part of the Jingle Bell Run/Walk, it's not an entirely pleasant experience walking in a car tunnel.

Turning a few lanes into a transit line is also an OK idea, but I don't know if the two could comfortably coexist.

SpoilerAlert. Don't get mad that my viewpt is too often contrarian, please. Here it is:

Seattle's Waterfront should take into account its historical nature, that is, lots of wagons crossing e/w confronted with n/s thru-vehicles of all kinds, hoards of workers loading/unloading, and a rail line or 2 on the east side. There are plenty of 'historical nature' structures left to design the roadway by historical standards, at least in design.

Historically, there was a 2-lane frontage road east of a roughly 4-lane Alaskan Way. That may be the best option and should be "actually" studied instead of rejected early-on without much study. It has the advantage for simplest managing of new confusing traffic patterns. Stoplights can be reduced from 13 to 9 between King and Pike - Coleman Dock area gets 'super islands' between frontage road and Alaskan Way. Good for peds, good for entrance/exit car loading dock. The 'islands' become a wide landscape/treescape urban forest with separated sidewalk and bikepath.

The Waterfront Streetcar Line becomes possible. Maybe, put northbound track in frontage road, southbound track in curb lane at promenade edge, with special turn-into at Coleman Dock and another at Jackson to prepare for the cross traffic turn east.

Oh well, I'm just some guy with these ideas on paper available at city hall and trying to not be a crank amongst kooks.(sic)
Lets hear other ideas in as many words?

I'm with ruffner. Let's retain a portion of the viaduct so people can get above the pier-end buildings and see the water from the park. The structures also provide a built-in rain shelter for the 10 months a year (OK, I'm exagerrating a little but this has been a terrible summer) we have rainy weather.

We must also make the street system that remains efficient for buses. Preferential treatment for buses so they can get in and out of downtown easily on the surface road is critical. There MUST be bus only lanes down there.

It could be that the author’s favorite firm, West 8, does know something the other teams do not. That 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 provides a more effective way to modulate vehicle traffic in the core and provides a cover / open space environment for pedestrians favored by many NW architects. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it’s over 2 billion dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making.

Because they must also be a fiscally responsible and rational powerhouse, they probably believe that 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.

Ruffner's idea may have something to do with the success of High Line Park in Manhattan (which I intend to visit a couple weeks from now). The idea of recycling large pieces of used infrastucture as parks was spearheaded by that project and is now inspiring similar efforts around the country. While I agree with jmrolls on saving the viaduct as a transportation corridor, and hope that a debate over saving it to provide a park platform will never need to take place; nevertheless, the possibility of such a debate should be made evident. Those who just want to tear down the viaduct are thinking too narrowly. And photos with editorializing captions beneath them--like "long-blighting viaduct"--only harden such prejudices. That photo and biased caption have been used before. Can't they be given a rest?

Mark, re your "The winning team will devise the overall framework for the central waterfront park, but not necessarily be the final design team." Could you elaborate a little on this please? What components will be included in the "framework" and what will be in "final design"? What is the merit to separating these into separate phases?

Thanks for the excellent article. Would like to add a few facts to aid everyone’s understanding: 1) The lead designer will complete a framework plan and conceptual design, serve as urban design lead for the whole project through final design (including transportation elements) and will be responsible for final design of at least one major public space. Other firms may be assigned the final design of other public spaces. 2) The selection panel consisted of staff from the departments of Planning and Development, Transportation and Parks, a representative of the Design Commission and a representative of the Central Waterfront Partnerships Committee. 3) james corner field operations is required to select a local affiliate and has now done so, selecting the Berger Partnership and Mithun as local affiliate firms.

Ruffner et al.

Can you spell "Irony?" "Humor?" "Peels of laughter?"

I take no other position on any design as it will not happen, so why bother. And your idea about keeping part of the Viaduct may well make design sense.

But don't you folks see how absurd, stupid, asinine it would be to spend mucho $$$ billions to tear down the Viaduct — and then not tear down the Viaduct?

Give me a break, folks -- no matter what your view, don't you see the absurdity? Laugh.

David Sucher: I do see the absurdity in the fact that you can't spell "peals of laughter." That is comical on several levels.

Another example of a disused elevated transportation structure that's been turned over to peds is the Viaduc des Arts/Promenade Plantee in Paris. It's a former railroad viaduct that has been turned into a landscaped walkway, with shops beneath for part of the distance. On a sunny spring day, a cross section of society turns out to stroll there. But the thing is, it's got these beautiful brick arches that look great from street level. I can't imagine retaining even the lower tier of our viaduct without some version of the "Chopp in a box" proposal underneath to make it more interactive and less ugly. And there you go putting an even denser barrier between downtown and the waterfront. Wrong idea.

I still really like the idea of an elevated pedestrian promenade. But how about something graceful and airy, an homage to the viaduct as it might have been in a more enlightened time than the Robert Moses era?

Gadfly and David got right what ruffner, lukoff, miller and cocktails got wrong. Jmrolls argument to preserve traffic-handling capacity is right, but wrong to claim that "no other proposed configuration matches the AWV in any transportation related category." The proposed cut/cover tunnel "matches" the AWV (except for the Seneca/Columbia ramps, bad design anyway, good riddance).

Rick. No one is impressed with statements like "(including transportation elements)" whilst Seattle FAILS transportation elements despite such typical promises of open and accountable planning. Do a fair Frontage Road study as suggested, prove it isn't necessary in any elementary way, and I won't run your work through the shredder later. The 4-lane Alaskan Way design is extremely flawed, as is Mercer West only worse, and the DBT is just plain insane.

SDOT employees should have an elementary understanding of how the surface/transit option incurs 'less' environmental impact than the DBT and why Mayor Mike is right. That said, all studies show a cut/cover tunnel displaces the least traffic to surface streets thus incurs 'least' environmental impact.

Ask for good ideas - get stupid ideas.

I think the old ferry landing should be moved 20' west to accommodate a wider plaza area there. I'm certain that the container terminal will eventually be removed and the salt marsh clam beds below restored.
Good ideas?

field op's is the dark horse, really? i would say that they should be the front runner. diller scofidio might be the "architect" of the highline, but james corner (field op's) was the one driving the project, from the get go.

here's my summary:
ggn - too cute. their work is often just too graphic, without more complexity or content. not the right project for them, this is a big infrastructure type project with a lot of stakeholders.

mvv - boring. lot's of experience in this scale of work. if you want something that looks like a traditional park, parked up against the backdrop of city, mvv's your guy. but i don't think that type of solution will do as much for the city as this project could. i was so sad to see steinbruck on his team, cause that makes this team the front runner.

wrt - this is a big team. hard to tell where the real leadership, design vision, is going to come from.

field op's - this is just the kind of complex, urban/nature kind of project that they excel at. his written work is highly practical as far as theory goes, but he's got built work too. and has the right kind of experience to give this project the vision it needs.

fyi - i don't have a horse in this race. on any other project i'd say i like all 4 teams, and i'm super excited about the project regardless. but i do feel like there's one team that will make this project exceptional, and calling them the dark horse doesn't have them coming out of the gate in good position. i'm confusing horse metaphors.

Who's paying for it, and how much is it adding to the cost of the project?

I am not in the industry as it seems many of you are. But I am very interested in this project because I live nearby, and use it frequently with my kids, other moms, friends, etc... The Aquarium, Pike Place Market, Pioneer Square, Belltown; basically all over it. We were talking at a group playdate yesterday about this and none of us understand why we would choose a team headed by a firm thousands of miles away. For one thing, the travel costs and billing hours would add what, hundreds of thousands of dollars? But even more importantly, how can they possible understand our needs innately, if they haven't lived it, breathed it, tasted it, tried to push a stroller on it, for years and years, etc??? Our city, waterfront, people and needs are so different from anywhere else. Just to say a team "has done other waterfronts" means nothing to me. How much time have their key members spent on OUR waterfront? Thats what i want to know. I am kind of sad that only one of the four is headed up by Seattle folks. Based on the article they sound ideal, but I would rather have several locally-managed teams to pick from. Having someone trying to learn about Seattle from the internet, or a couple of last minute local presence additions to their team makes no sense to me. Oh, and if all the teams are fantastic, why not keep these millions of dollars in jobs around here? We are just a group of local moms, but we think this decision seems fairly straightforward.

CaresAlot,

you bring up some really good points, let me respond.

cost:
sure it could be expensive for the design team members to be flying over frequently, but in the scope of the whole project cost, it doesn't even register. i'm with you though, flying that much is expensive and bad for the environment. all the teams have local offices they'll be working with to both provide local insight and be the local people on the ground, as much as possible.

local verses national/international:

first, i wish that i could say that the "local" design offices are filled with local talent. but most the people in local offices aren't from the region. i'm one of the handful at my office of 100+. so local design offices really aren't so local when you look at the people, especially at the leadership level. i wish we could keep as many of the related jobs for this project here in the northwest, our industry's been very hard hit in the recession. but designing a waterfront we can all be proud of is more important.

second, i would rather have a non-local firm that was really good at these kinds of projects than a local firm who has no experience in this type of work. a metaphor, your next door neighbor who's a doctor might know you best, but that doesn't mean she's the one to call if you need a heart surgery. or, a local boater knows the waters best, but you don't call him in to pilot a tanker. design is no different in this respect, you call on people who are good at the kind of project you've got in front of you. the difficult thing with this project is that we don't have enough local offices that are big enough, or specialized enough, to tackle this unique kind of project. the firms listed are the best in the world at this type of project, hands down. the only one missing is west8, as another person has pointed out.

i'd like to say that the northwest is special. but i don't think you have to be from here to learn what makes it unique and incorporate that into the design.

The primary reason for the "design" hoopla is to try garner public support -- the design is supposed to make people so happy that there is no longer a dense barrier.

And thanks for the reminder about spelling, Gadflie; obviously that was a central flaw in my point which I fear you missed, whatever your name is.

Gadfly refers to a recycled railroad structure in Paris and says that because the Alaskan Way Viaduct lacks its "airy structure" it could never be treated in the same way--i.e., turned into an elevated public park. But the model for this sort of thing is really the High Line Park in NYC--that's what's been getting all the attention recently and is being pointed to as an example worth emulating. I am not sure how 'airy' that structure is, or whether it has shops embedded into it (though I doubt it). I shall see for myself in a couple weeks, when I visit Manhattan; I am certainly curious as what the excitement is all about. Apples and oranges? I intend to find out.

Hi Jsisbest -

That all makes sense... and I reiterate that I am not knowledgeable about the design world. I was just going by what the article said; that the local team leader, GNG, is an "international star" who's public open space work is "greatly admired" and has "years of experience working on complex civic projects." Not really comparable to going to your analogy of going to your next door neighbor for heart surgery.

After rereading the article to reply to this, it seems our city has done a great job after all... getting 30 bids from people all over the world to be sure and find the best. I am just glad that one of the best in the world just happens to be from here. Guess we are pretty lucky to have at least one, and now I better understand why there is only one, and don't feel bad about not having 2 or 3 to choose from.

My biggest disagreement with you: I DO think the Northwest is special! :)

jsisbest -

i couldn't disagree with your local/expert analogy more. True there are design systems that apply to many levels of a city (engineering, transportation systems, etc.) and could be done by experts, but the importance of having a local firm driving/steering the design is extremely important in understanding not only subtle nuances within the city, but larger systems of the west coast! The northwest is a dynamic region unlike most places on earth.

The truth is, as far as the teams go, i think that all have the expertise/team members to do a fantastic job. What sets them apart is the understanding of our region/city/waterfront.

the city should put their supposed green, "sustainable", foot forward on this, our city's 'masterpiece'.

How did this discussion go from Lake Union park museum to DownTown Waterfront masterpiece? As an outsider, I must say seattle's engineering and parks departments should stop going it alone. Seattle profers too much artsy-fartsy crap. Flying Fords? Sculpture Flark? Mayor McGinn may exactly be the outsider seattle needed to end the nonsense, your nonsense.

I agree that Peter Steinbrueck would be an invaluable member of the selected team. If the team he is now affiliated with is not selected, the City is perfectly within its rights to insist that Peter be a part of the team they do select. Mix and match is a legitimate part of the team-building process.