A bit off-topic (and I'm sure more-than-a-bit politically incorrect) but I've thought some about those "old boy" days. I wonder how the inclusion of women into governance coincides with the growth of government scope. Has that been a primary reason that budgets have grown and core responsibilities have been neglected? Why we have art and hanging baskets on the sidewalks and rotting infrastructure underneath? I'm not saying it is, but I think it makes an interesting discussion/thesis.

Now that's a pot stirrer if there ever was one. Or, it could be all that alcohol and tobacco consumed in those smoky back rooms of the era made for enhanced decision making and leadership skills ?

Not off topic at all BlueLight. The inclusion of groups previously excluded from the political process is at the core of this discussion. Such inclusion will naturally expand the level of public involvement which, in tern, will increase the time and resources necessary to insure that all the people affected will be heard. Those who pine for the good old days, a time when a few white men in power made things happen, are indirectly advocating for a time when women and people of color were economically disenfranchised and effectively excluded from the public process.

This city has achieved major civic projects in recent years that are both inclusive and decisive. We tend to overlook the success of, for example, the stadiums, the library, the sculpture park and, yes, the viaduct replacement and dwell on failures such as Forward Thrust and the Green Line. The Seattle Process is a process of inclusion that is imperfect but I think it is helpful to be mindful of Churchill's observation concerning the inefficiency of democratic governments - it is better than the alternative.

Ol' Blue is no doubt correct when he surmises that increased participation of women in social decision-making has profoundly affected the process. But I'm not sure it leads to the conclusion he is itching to draw. We are probably only at the beginning of a transition that will play out over hundreds of years. And, yes, in the early stages there will be a messy historical moment when the old order becomes disoriented and incapable of effective action while the new order has yet to take hold. And, yes, that seems to be just about where we are now.

But the answer is not to try to hold back the tide. For starters, it won't work; reactionary resistance only makes the transition more painful. In the end it won't stop it. So, Blue, it's about time to jump into the stream and try to understand what's happening and why. Working up the courage to let go of the illusionary safety of the old ways is actually the hardest part. The quicker you get past that, the better off you will be.

"Come gather 'round people wherever you roam. And admit that the waters around you have grown. And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone. If your time to you is worth savin'. Ahh you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone. For the times they are a-changin'" Bob Dylan

I love it! Since there are women helping to make decisions they are ignoring the rotting infrastructure of the city. Yeah happens at my house all the time, honey I want new carpets, don't bother with the leaking sink, or that the heat doesn't work... hahahhahaha!

The women in my life wonder why we built that Football & baseball stadiums for a PRIVATE corporations. Why we put up 1/2 the money and get none of the revenue. When I tell them it's so I can watch sports, they remind me about that sink and tell me to get up and get going.

And the transition that is screaming down on us it the problem of exponential growth of our debts. If we fixed it now it will hurt, and the longer we wait the worse its going to get.

Gary, you are not half bad down off your high-horse!

Knute compares the Space Needle suggests permitting a typical high-rise condo today would take more time. He's absolutely correct, but not entirely for the reasons he states. A typical high-rise condo contains many units of residential living space and has a wide variety of complex spaces, an extraordinary number of plumbing units, individualized HVAC, etc., etc. The Space Needle is a fairly simple structure, essentially a restaurant on a tower. Because the Space Needle is circular in plan the exterior enclosure can largely be defined by a single wall section. The number of interior spaces is limited, the program is fairly straightforward. A high-rise condo will require many more drawings and will require considerably more time for plan-checking, corrections, etc.

A high-rise condo will be sold to multiple owners, so there are all the issues of divided ownership and shared facilities to be addressed in the design phase. The Space Needle has one owner. In many ways the Space Needle is a much less complex project than a high-rise condo.

What Knute does not mention is that the downtown leadership crowd of that era took the wrong lessons from their success of the 1962 World's Fair and tried to apply them to urban renewing Pioneer Square and Pike Place Market out of existence.

re: Bluelight - Women definitely knew their place back then. They were not allowed to enter through the front door of the Rainier Club... had to use the "women's side door, with their escort."

By definition, comparing condos to Space Needles is apples and oranges since the Needle is, and was meant to be, unique. The Needle was unprecedented. Simpler than condos in many respects, more complicated in others because one had never been built before, banks and insurance companies were skeptical, and it violated zoning, etc.It had tremendous hurdles to jump over in a very short span of time. It was also very challenging to construct, especially in the time frame. The extremely simple addition at the 100-foot level took four years to complete (1978-82), three of those fighting over process.

Jeffrey Ochsner is right that many in the downtown leadership took the wrong lessons from the fair, especially on clearing out "blight." It's encouraging that one of the positive outcomes of the fair was the publication of Victor Steinbrueck's "Cityscape" which articulated a different approach, one that resonated with many people. The fair also stirred the pot of opposition to big projects. It's not a coincidence that the leading litigant against the fair was the leading litigant against the R.H.Thomson Expressway. People had grown skeptical of decisions made by "leaders"--the building of I-5 played a role in that, also 520. Also, Seattle Center struggled, and still does. The fair also posed a challenge to downtown interests, who worked to relocate important amenities from the Center back to downtown (convention center, stadium, art museum, symphony).

To add one more point, many of those downtown leaders were also tremendously supportive of positive efforts, particularly building up the arts. They were key in establishing or building the Pacific Science Center, the Rep, Ballet, symphony, arts support groups (like PONCHO, launched in '62). Also Forward Thrust took new energy from the fair. There was a tremendous commitment to civic growth and improvement following the fair, but some of the ideas were bad. But the idea that really didn't pan out was the that the fair effort/process could be duplicated for other civic projects--that that would be the new normal.