Perhaps the folks trying to decide the fate of the Seattle Viaduct should consult Professor Jerry F. Franklin, the eminent professor of ecosystem analysis at the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources. Three decades ago, before Franklin became the leader in his field, I interviewed him on the topic of forest management and practices.
Franklin told me to envision the land without any trees, and then — using what we know about soils, climates and forest practices — decide where to grow trees, where to harvest and where to leave them alone.
Imagine the Seattle waterfront without its buildings and Alaskan Way Viaduct cutting the city off from its biggest resource, Puget Sound. What would we build — or, more importantly, not build — on that swath of land?
Certainly not Speaker Frank Chopp's monstrosity, perhaps not a viaduct at all. An interesting concept when you look at the issue from a different perspective.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!

Print
Email





Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Dec 10, 3 p.m. Inappropriate
It's an interesting thought experiment, but of course everything's connected. Do we also imagine no port, no Aurora Avenue and East Marginal Way on either end, no piers? No industry? Etc. I don't know if any one neighborhood can really be considered in this way.
Posted Wed, Dec 10, 3:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Removing the Viaduct will start us off with a wide blank slate to start from. I wouldn't touch the pier buildings - they're historic and interesting and I consider them irreplaceable from a tourist and aesthetic perspective.
Hugeasscity has a decent proposal. Take a look at the empty open space of rendering C, then imagine pushing everything westward enough to build some low-rise businesses on the east side. This will make the waterfront area even more lively, which is really what we want for a waterfront area. Of course add some green among all of that brick.
Posted Wed, Dec 10, 4 p.m. Inappropriate
(sorry, Hugeasscity link: http://noisetank.com/hugeasscity/2008/11/21/open-space-on-the-waterfront/)
Posted Thu, Dec 11, 8:39 a.m. Inappropriate
An interesting perspective, perhaps, but illogical. For it to be truly effective, one would have to imagine the entire city, perhaps the entire Puget Sound region, devoid of the development brought on by white settlement. It is that development and the area's problematic topography that have determined today's primary transportation corridors. While I don't share the concerns, I understand the issues about cutting the waterfront off from downtown. But my question is this: if you get rid of the waterfront as a transportation corridor, where does the traffic go? I-5 is not a viable option, since any enlargement is constricted by the convention center. The fact is that Highway 99, and by extension the Viaduct, serve tens of thousands of people everyday, and many of those people are not going downtown but rather are moving from south to north or vice versa. Transit as it now exists or is envisioned will not resolve this issue.
Posted Thu, Dec 11, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
"Where does the traffic go" is the wrong question. "Where do the people go" is the right one, and as viaduct teardowns the world over have shown, people get by just fine if you give enough of them other options such as buses or streetcars.
Posted Thu, Dec 11, 1:39 p.m. Inappropriate
Traffic IS people, whether they are in cars or using transit. Cars aren't going away just because some people wish them away, and for many people in this city there are no viable transit options. Our streetcars will turn out to be the boondoggle that so many mistakenly thought the monorail to be.