zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. looks like a UW Arch school project. cut up some styrofoam cups, get out the poster paint, create "conceptual folds" with "greenspaces" scale model. lol. classic Seattle lame, maybe we could have some Chihuly sculptures scattered near the thermal pools.

Landscape Architect James Corner did a wonderful job in the creation of a vision and foundation for a very complex project. I understand that the designs presented are notions and in many ways just diagrams. I think one of the most significant things he stated (again and from meeting #1) as a goal of this project is to create contextual spaces that take fabric from the neighborhood and make them part of the new open spaces. For this first pass each of the interventions were remarkably similar - I hope to see that change in the next round and become the real "concept." I would also like to see architecture and the "edge" become more of a signature part of the project. That discussion of urban edge was conspicuously missing. As the landscape architect for the Olympic Sculpture Park, I am happy to see it's success included in the kit of parts, but that geometry came out of a series of constraints unique to the goals and missions of the Seattle Art Museum (connecting 3 parcels.) Certainly James Corner will find new forms to express the context of each major openspace in this framework. In his final image of the presentation the roadway through the waterfront appeared to be 6 lanes with a wide shoulder - if that happens the waterfront will be orphaned once again from the city. No more than 4 lanes is the only way to go- by putting the vertical viaduct lanes horizontaly along the waterfront, the car and trucks become a significant and negative visual pollution at the pedestrian level. Love the 2 beaches and can't wait to sit in one of those gigantic hot tubs - reminds me of Reykjavík, Iceland where most of the business of the city is conducted in thier extensive geothermal pools. Bravo!

Whether you like the ideas of Field Operations or not, James Corner is a Landscape Architect, which you might have noticed if you clicked on the wikipedia page linked to his name in your article.
Some of the concepts worked (The Big Ring, and the Tidelines) but others like the "Folds" were disappointing to say the least.
Who will want to join all of those homeless guys in the hot tubs on Pier 62/63? I'll pass on that one.

What's the plan for the train tracks? I don't see them in the sketches.

Love the design, or hate it, or think it grossly oversimplifies what that space needs to do: we don't have the money to maintain that much park space. We don't have enough money to maintain the parks we currently have. We don't have the police force or park rangers to patrol its use so it feels safe. While some basic visioning at this stage is great so that we keep future options open, and working in conjunction with the seawall project is crucial, it's a waste of time and money to design anything now that we can't afford to maintain. And designing now, for the future, doesn't work. In 20 years when maybe we can afford to think about this, we'll want to redo the design based on current preferences.

Why not an elevated roadway in place of the surface street? It would provide access and a covered, pedestrian friendly path for the entire length of the project without sacrificing the mobility of commuters. It acknowledges our weather, maintains a bypass for downtown and saves billions of dollars.

It appears from the picture that the plan is to relocate Alaskan Way east to where the Viaduct is now, and push the sea wall east as well, to create a beach. Is that correct? And that beach is supposed to be a pleasant place to be? How is that to be achieved?

Folks, it's not a design meant to be built.
It's publicity to be used by the pro-tunnel forces in the upcoming vote.

Whoops! One little problem - no SEPA compliance in this matter, again by the City of Seattle, and another little legal problem - to engage in this is to pre-ordain the outcome of the EIS for the AWV Replacement EIA - The City lost a similar case last year by doing this very thing - that project is on indefinite hold now.

No lessons learned, he we go again, back to court.

The design puts a big piece of the green part out over the water. The overland portion is, as one would expect, mostly roadway. Given the constraints that is probably a good tactic. How much benefit is a green development going to do up on the roof of the ferry terminal? it shows big and reassuring on the drawing but will disappear to the drivers and pedestrians who use the waterfront. Likewise, the park out on the unused pier is going to require some great magnetism. The existing quasi-industrial park that the Bumgardner Office designed about thirty years ago does not seem to attract a great crowd even though it has most of the touchstones of hip attractiveness and I would guess the reason for that is that it pulls the customer off and separates him from the main thoroughfare. Nobody said it was going to be easy. I hope they have enough money to do it all and if it helps sell the tunnel that's a good thing.

was in Paris last fall. guess what run along both sides of the Seine? Highways. place is absolutely marvelous, vibrant, swarmed with people. and honking cars, scooters, humans doing their thing. not some lame egghead "conceptual" waterfront. this city is crammed with college educated idiots.