Waterfront planning: keys for making it Seattle's plan
Seattle residents care about their waterfront, and we bring our own quirks. Taking those factors into account are critical to making James Corner's final plan into something that will soar.
Washington State Department of Transportation
City of Seattle/James Corner Field Operations
As we watch big chunks of the viaduct being ground into dust, the prospect of remaking the Seattle waterfront seems to become more real, actually seeming with grasp. So we are all looking forward with eagerness, our interests piqued by a cascade of ideas coming from the Corner design team. Yet, questions abound and skepticism is pervasive.
My recent commentary on the need to pare back some of the rather frenetic and over-reaching aspects of James Corner’s ideas for the waterfront engendered more response from readers that I had imagined it would. Most were very thoughtful and expressed heartfelt concerns that the teams’ thinking to date was a bit off-track. Few comments were mean-spirited, but rather reflected a genuine desire to see this part of our community come alive in ways that have not previously been possible because of the overwhelming effect of the viaduct. I think most people can agree that once the Alaskan Way Viaduct is finally gone, we have enormous opportunities for making our connection with the water vastly more enhanced.
But there is also a frustration that the work to date doesn’t truly reflect a sense of finding the spirit of the place. Rather, a whole potpourri of things that have worked elsewhere are simply being piled on. Perhaps this is intentional; let’s think of every cool thing we can, throw it down, and see what sticks.
Certainly there are a number of important points being advanced. Connnecting to adjacent districts and neighborhoods is one. Restoring beaches and shallows for fish is another. And finding places for a wide range of artful expressions is important. But some ideas are simply all too obvious. Of course, we are centered on the bay. We always have been, despite urban expansion outward. We really don’t need a big circle on a map to tell us that. Anyone who has lived here for even a brief period of time knows we are a culture profoundly affected by water — in lots of different forms.
As a colleague has reminded me, there is still no proposal; things are in flux and the design process will benefit from continued discussion and debate. So here are observations about some key topics to toss into the stew of robust discussion.
Separation, Slope and Lack of Density
Most active urban waterfronts elsewhere in the world benefit from two things: level topography and the proximity to many people living within a short distance of the shoreline. We have neither condition. So it takes quite an effort to trek the sheer distance and then contemplate climbing back up the slope. To many people, it just seems like too much of an effort compared with other places. Sure, an occasional event can attract a crowd, but on a daily basis, probably not. That in itself makes it very difficult for certain types of retail business to survive, much less thrive.
It might be possible to nurture a few places to be frequent destinations, but a totally, continuously active and animated waterfront would be unlikely. Its simply too spread out. We need to concentrate not disperse our initial efforts and let other places evolve slowly over time.
Climate
We in the Pacific Northwest treasure sun and good weather considerably more than other places in the world, precisely because we don’t get much of it. In fact, we go a bit crazy when the sun decides to come out in mid-winter and the temperature rises a bit. Out come the flipflops and short sleeves, as if we were suddenly in the Bahamas. But we also know that most of the winter, the unpredictable winds and precipitation works against plans to do things out of doors. Consequently, we have nurtured a whole host of splendid indoor venues: concert halls, libraries, exhibition halls, community centers, museums, and many live theaters. I believe this also accounts for our long-standing, solid support for films and a host of quirky movie theaters as well. They provide collective experiences that enliven us and lift our spirits. We are not likely to turn to the water’s edge for this in those nasty, dreary winter months.
Could the waterfront have more indoor venues? Perhaps. We already have the Aquarium, of course. And the Bell Harbor conference center hosts a lot of activities and events. Making a stronger link between Pike Place Market and the Aquarium is one idea advanced by Corner’s team that could have legs. I’m not convinced by shops on a lid or a fish tank over the roadway, but let’s not quibble the details quite yet. Clearly, this would be a great place to focus our limited resources.
Accretion and Accumulation of Quirky Places
One thing that is certain about Seattle is that it has never embraced big sweeping ideas. For well more than a century, every time someone brings one up, it's not too long before it gets shot down. The Bogue Plan? Nope. Massive freeway network? Nope. Urban renewal at Pike Place? Nope. Big park in South Lake Union? Nope. We just don’t like plans pushed by government. Perhaps its our populist roots showing, but we just don’t like big. A lot of people who have spent time elsewhere, where such things are common, are probably baffled.
After all, we keep making the top 10 lists, it must be because of big, ambitious plans, right? Not necessarily.
A good part of the distinct charm of Seattle is that it’s a collection of many, many smaller things that are good, if not great. Public parks, greenbelts, civic buildings, the Market, Seattle Center, oddball neighborhoods. It all adds up to this fabulous mash-up of technology, topography, trees, and hills that are laced with waterways and waterbodies. It's lots and lots of modest but well-done efforts accomplished by thousands of people and organizations. And we seem to like that. A lot.
So how can we translate that homegrown adoration of the small and beautiful to the water’s edge?
Reconsidering the Categories
The most recent presentation by the design team addressed three categories of subjects: Habitat, Program and Art. While there is nothing terribly wrong about this, this method might be building in some unfortunate limitations. For example, certainly the objective of creating habitat for marine life is a noble one. But it asks people to place an emphasis of that specific issue such that other values might be compromised. Perhaps a broader term like “Living Systems” would enlarge the perspective. How can we make the waterfront work better for a wide range of plant and animal species, including humans?
“Art” as a category can easily lead to the conclusion that what the waterfront needs to have is a collection of commissioned objects, whether temporary or permanent, as if the Olympic Sculpture Garden were to make a sharp left turn on Alaskan Way and slide along the entire length of the shoreline, depositing fine works for people to look at. It suggests lots of objects done by artists. Instead, should we be looking for many different types of Creative Expressions?
This might involve other realms such as lighting, technology, information, interpretation, and education. Without a doubt, artists have much to contribute in expressing the soul of the place, but a collaboration of talents and skills could be truly amazing. Fortunately, we have not only a huge cadre of artists experienced in working with the public realm but also a host of other creative professions as well. It's not really necessary for a group of artists from elsewhere to jumpstart this. Plenty of people here are champing at the bit.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate
Seattle commuters care about mobility and having a time-saving bypass for down town. Taking those factors into account are critical to making anyone who doesn’t live downtown give a rip what Corner or the cadre conjures up.
There are 90 other neighborhoods in Seattle that are getting by on very little in these hard times that have to watch this expensive, nonstop downtown party. Why not have a competition for Seattle school kids to design the park and spend the millions saved to keep neighborhood activity centers open…or something worthwhile?
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 12:25 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks Mark, for this lucid and accurate synopsis of the issues. I think I agree with everything you've stated. I appreciate you helping us all work through this in a collaborative and rational manner! For those of us who can't participate regularly, but who have a stake in the end result, keep us posted!!!
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 12:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Whatever you want to spend LID money on is not my concern (crossrip, there is another "silo" for you). Beyond that, I am just trying to have the local community center and library be open, and the community center lights in the slightly secluded parking lot to be on when it is dark and the community center is open.
There isn't a good reason that I can think of that would prevent the City from scooping the excess (above a "normal") REET tax and investing that back into that area, and then do that again after the investments have been made. After that, all of the REET would revert to the control of the entire city's 10 mayors (sunset provision).
Working within an actual budget will reduce the imagineering, and spare the 99% of us the burden of supporting the wealthy.
Imagine dumping all that money and effort into the Bitter Laker area (the feeling is mutual).
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 12:38 p.m. Inappropriate
There's a park on top of the Port building? What? I never knew that! No wonder no one but Port employees use it.
Steinbruk Park, people are afraid to go into it? Well it's full of homeless people laying around. While I don't begrudge them a place to loaf, without the openness of that space, I'd never go there either. It is well used, just not by property tax paying citizens. (You can't call them non tax payers because I'm pretty sure that the liquor, cigarette and sales taxes hit them.)
Mostly what I'm afraid of is that in this tough economic climate the city will sell off the development rights to this new land to the highest bidder but fail to require public access to the water beyond it. And instead of waterfront parks, we'll get waterfront parking garages, hotels, condos, and restaurants.
Also we had perfectly good transport along the waterfront, the street car, reasonable headways, low cost, fun to ride. And for the lack of a measly million dollars to build a maintenance shed, and we are not talking about a multi-million dollar park here, the city shut it down.
It still feels like the fix is in. Propose a cool park, claim its too expensive, sell off development rights and claim, "the voters left us no choice."
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 2:09 p.m. Inappropriate
We must have as much open green space for spin dancing at Hempfest. The people demand it!
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 5:47 p.m. Inappropriate
For all the reasons outlined in the article; the rain, the slope, the competing property owners and interests; leaving the Viaduct in place and using the top for an open air park and the second level as a mish mash of shops and conveniences is really the least expensive, most innovative and unique way to Save the Waterfront. In the end Elevated Views, rain protected environments and affordable projects are the answers to all the questions about where goes the waterfront. If the citizens are not careful this new waterfront will become an extension of the old waterfront; a tourist driven esplanade. We must remember private property rights triumph over citizen planning all too frequently. And don't forget the railroad runs right through the center of all this.
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 5:58 p.m. Inappropriate
Mr. H. thanks for keeping up with this; I don't see coverage anywhere else. I think I agree with your suggestion of diminishing the scope of the design area. Also, I think we've all noticed that a large part of the "green" and the design exclamations are on public property that is unaffected by the removal of the Viaduct. All that work on the Piers (and the roof of the Ferry Terminal you so rightly question) could be done whether or not the Viaduct exists. The big area tactic, probably employed to help sell the Grand Waterfront as a transformative project, was useful and good but, as you suggest, something small enough to get done must be the goal. Yes, restore the Trolley. I think it's the most important single thing they can do. I am appalled that it was not in the Program. Who, by the way, wrote the Program?
Posted Wed, Nov 23, 10:12 p.m. Inappropriate
One of the elements that I never see in any discussion of the new waterfront is the inclusion of Seattle’s waterfront history. This bit of shoreline hasn’t been “natural” for 140yrs, and Seattle’s growth depended on the working waterfront. Granted modern container harbors are more efficient, but for 100 years the waterfront was the cities’ primary economic engine. To modern eyes it might have been ugly, with piers extending out over the water, but the piers are reminders of rougher days, harder lives, and the dependence of the city on water.
When I look at the offered design plan I see a waterfront over manicured, a projection of an idealized and homogenized Seattle. A city of white collar think tank planners and real estate developers (and their well supported lackeys, the politicians.) who might shop for organic groceries, but who are loathe to let the organic urbane nature of Seattle shine through any public space. We have a lot of mud in Seattle, and we work hard trying to contain it. But it makes us who we are.
I don’t profess to have any answers, but I do know that the design I’m looking at could be any reasonable high end shopping mall in North America. It needs to be muddied up a bit.
Posted Thu, Nov 24, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate
I don't get it.
Posted Sun, Nov 27, 11:44 a.m. Inappropriate
"Fallen by the Wayside"
"Questions abound, skepticism is pervasive" (quoting) and the need to pare back some rather frenetic over-reaching aspects of James Corner ideas did engender responses from readers, very thoughtful expressions of heartfelt concern (regarding) Field's team thinking apparently (obviously) a bit off-track.
My thanks to Hinshaw for the erudite explanation of public space design that takes shape according to context rather than completely avant garde imagery.
The WATERFRONT WAY (a suggestion), I must insist is frought with grevious engineering error. Believe me. Worse traffic. Worse pedestrian crossings. Economic projections falling short. Even environmental restoration could Fail (though look nice?)
I've urged more support for the Seawall C/c tunnel option (last but best C/c design?) as probably more able to create an actually functional seawall habitat. Any Seawall & Bay-edge design still includes restored habitat to benefit passing smolt and adult salmon.
Surface Street studies are incomplete..
Waterfront Streetcar could extend to Interbay marinas and under the bridge to SPU and with a short tunnel UNDER the canal to Fremont AND Ballard. How can the rail prospect along Waterfront Way be ignored by supposedly competent professionals? Are those 'employed' to address public concerns also incompetent? Streetcar lines that affect pedestrian design options and elements have fallen by the wayside.
Mayor Mike McGinn is a national hero amongst a community of professionals who may be delightful golf partners but are dreadful engineers of roadway and railway infrastructure.
Mercer West WORSE MESS?
Alaskan Way Whoopsy?
Lastly, thanks again to Hinshaw for shedding light on Seattle's poorly lit pretensions at any expense, monetary & otherwise valuable. And thanks to mayor Mike for NOT giving up the fight. Return the bore tunnel machine. Its use elsewhere is possible.
Posted Thu, Dec 1, 5:44 p.m. Inappropriate
Thank-you for the progress report and critique.
The notion of phasing development over time within a broader scheme is a practical approach. If there is institutional infrastructure in place for developing a link between the Market, the Aquarium, and Piers 62/63 now, that’s a leg up for starting there. That said, Pier 48 begs to be connected with Pioneer Square; the existing pier with portable chairs might make an acceptable interim space. It doesn’t have to be fancy to work. (See also Iain Robertson’s recent Crosscut comments on real.)
Hinshaw’s adjustments to the design team’s “Categories” are a good idea: categories guide thinking. Adding “Movement” and broadening “Habitat” to “Living Systems” will provide more elements to work with. Shifting from “Art” to the broader “Creative Expression” also makes sense. Not art objects per se but a well-thought-out DESIGN should be the story at the waterfront. SAM’s Sculpture Park is a case in point: as good as some of the art is, all the art could be removed from the park and there would still be a worthwhile-to-exhilarating experience to be had for visitors just by walking through with their eyes open. Hinshaw’s point that there’s a host of creative professions to draw on beyond art is right. As themes for Creative Expressions he suggests collaborations of lighting, technology, information, interpretation, and education. As it happens, George Legrady’s “Making Visible the Invisible” at SPL is a good demonstration of an art-info hybrid; it embodies these very elements in a clever, relevant, beautiful, techie way that fits with its surroundings.
Hopefully, “finding the spirit of the place” for the new design will enhance what’s already there: transportation, Seattle street-life, views, port activities, low-end commerce, urban unpredictables (none of which, incidentally, are conducive to contemplating traditional art). The big difference will be what is gone—the constant thundering noise of the viaduct. The characterization of Seattle’s civic-design comfort zone as about smaller things done well seems fair; the comments about Seattle’s winter weather as a player, indisputable fact of life.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.