What the space cries out for (along with a few million commuters) is a configuration where the rights of ways already exist. That already handles 110,000 vehicles a day. That already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. That meets the demands for commercial vehicles. That can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. That creates a bypass to modulate how much traffic is allowed downtown. And that acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of commuters. And it would be billions of dollars cheaper than a tunnel/park soaking in the rain 8 months out of the year.

The waterfront is crying out for an elevated upgraded roadway to serve the tax payers for another 100 years. And if an honest vote between tunnel and elevated had ever been allowed, we would be building it now.

New York, like any of the world's really BIG cities, is a place where you hardly ever find yourself alone in a public space. There's always someone else around within your field of vision.

So the fact that there were lots of people strolling along Highline Park when I visited it last fall didn't surprise me or make all that much of an impression on me. What impressed me the most were the fantastic views that one had from a 5(?)-story vantage point wending its way between buildings and signs, and frequently overlooking a wide body of water. The Highline's unique quality as a park is to allow for such views, along with the fact that it's a park almost exclusively meant for strolling or sitting--there's no room for field sports there.

Of course, we could do something along those lines with the Viaduct structure that is still there; and, when we consider its doubledecker design, the possiblities for doing something unique for Seattle become evident as well. But I suppose such an outcome has been nixed in advance by the land-hungry developers with their highrise plans...

Second that, jmrolls and cocktails42. And I'd like to add a couple of things.

One: as I recall the plan there will be a 25mph roadway running right through this. If I'm correct, I hardly see that as peaceful or in line with a culture of elegant restraint. Rather I suspect it will be dirty, noisy, and seedy.

Second: Pier 62 with a graphic on its surface and yellow chairs facing the bay? Really? How long does anyone think those chairs would remain there, remain yellow, remain unoccupied by the homeless and chronic inebriates who likely would use a couple or three of them pushed together for beds?

Third: when did berms become "conceptual folds" for goodness sakes? Let's not allow fancy language to dress up reality. These will be wet, muddy, and dirty most of the year since we as a city have a budget crunch that should prevent the employment of folks needed to keep them clean and maintained.

All this pie in the sky dreaminess is nice to keep the architects and designers employed, but why are we not insisting on some realistic information about how this will actually behave in use and how we'll pay for these grandiosities?

Cocktails42, the viaduct land is needed for the surface street and public open space.

As for piers covered by parks, it's a farfetched idea. It's hard to imagine large numbers of people walking to the end of a pier for the view, in a city that's full of views. New York has a few piers like that, which weren't getting much use either when I walked through a couple in May. A park at Pier 48 is also a bit far from major activity centers including tourists. It would be useful for concerts but not much else.

Successful parks, including the High Line, tend to be places people can walk through on the way to someplace else. If it's a destination at the end of the line, it should offer more than introspection. And it should be easy to get to, without requiring effort, i.e. stairs...sad but true if the masses are going to use it.

As for saving the viaduct, which is academic because it's in the way....even if it wasn't in the way, there are many serious flaws with the concept of saving it as a park. For starters, it would still require a major seismic upgrade.

What this space cries out for is water access for the people who live and work downtown. We don't need more places to look at the bay, we need more places where we can get down to it. ie stairs to a kayak launch every 1/4 mile. A graded boat ramp for fishermen down at the South end, just South of the public pier (without a pier).

We also need public transit that serves both the thousands of tourists who come via cruise ships and those who work along the port. That's bike lanes, and the return of our Waterfront Street car!

we should make the waterfront into a 2 mile long Chihuly park. Seattles Da Vinci.

The shoreline parks to the north (Elliott Bay Park and Myrtle Edwards) provide over a mile of strolling, reflection and nature opportunities, directly connected to the central waterfront. The Sculpture Park is a nice transition. I don't think the downtown area needs more quiet, unused open space. I like the idea of a more vibrant setting, even if the programming is a bit contrived. Although some of it does seem out of place for Seattlites.

I've got three concerns about how this park design is going. One is how we would pay for these quite ambitious parks-atop-piers. It appears that funding will rely on generous contributions from music promoters, the Ferry system, and the Aquarium. Will that happen in this economy?

The second concern is who is really in charge of this ambitious design project? The advocates keep delaying that hard decision, but that just makes various contenders for the leadership role keep jostling each other. Mayor McGinn should be the person in charge, but he has lost that chance by being such an obstacle to the transportation part of the waterfront.

My third concern is the likely absence of people (except in the architects' sketches) in the park, particularly in the rainy months. As we move the parks farther west and south, they get that much farther from where the people are (even though that's where the pier opportunities are). In building large parks over the water, the design will downplay (and divert money from) the broad linear park that I thought we were getting when we take down the Viaduct.

It's good that we are getting into the detailed critique phase, at last!

For me, at its core, it is still a circulation problem. The waterfront arterial, and the ferry traffic and pedestrian traffic that needs to cross it. I'm voting for several grade separated structures for cars or pedestrians. Boulder Colorado built a pedestrian underpass under Broadway which might be a similar example of traffic flow. At the north end of the waterfront, the grade rises to the east, providing a natural opportunity for grade separated pathways for cars, trolleys, or people.

Second, they could build all those parks on top of buildings on the piers, if space is at a premium. The art of integrating buildings into the landscape and vice versa is light years ahead of what I am seeing here. Look at all the prospective designs for the St. Louis Arch waterfront.

I mean, a road on a waterfront at one level, wow, how creative.

To anyone who believes the grand waterfront promenade depicted in these illustrations is actually going to happen (it is not the least bit funded), I say, I can give you a really sweet deal on this bridge I own in Brooklyn...

For years I believed that Baron Von Clausewitz once said "Planning is the substitution of error for chance." Now I can't locate the quote. But if he didn't say it, he should have. The viaduct is coming down. Amazing. Just think of it gone. The views. The traffic. The planning? Why? To what end? To satisfy which interest groups? Let it happen. Needs and solutions will emerge. Just look down Columbia Street or Seneca Street and open up your eyes. Something will happen. Forget the planners. If we're paying them, fire them. No amount of dreaming will match what we will have right before us: the Seattle waterfront.

There's much to like in Dr. Corner's plans for the Waterfront, but one absolutely glaring and emphatically deliberate omission:

Not only will the Waterfront Streetcar Line, be torn up and not replaced, but there will be no transit right-of-way parallel to the shoreline for the entire mile and a half off the project.

Dr. Corner honestly seems to believe that a possible, though not definite, First Avenue streetcar line will be close enough for Waterfront transportation, and that pedicabs and small vans will be sufficient for the Waterfront itself.

With all due respect, this makes as much sense as saying that the elevators in the Seattle Municipal Tower can be replaced with a couple of sky-bridges to Columbia Center.

For the additional amount of activity projected for the new Waterfront, the existing electric transit right-of-way needs if anything to be expanded to two-track service. This isn't about restoring a museum car-line- the Melbourne cars can be found a new home. A westward extension of the future First Hill streetcar line will provide excellent modern low-floor equipment.

Also, since Metro's next order of trolleybuses will have battery backups to let the buses operate off-wire, the trackway can also be paved between the rails for buses- providing a safe electric bus crossing of the BN tracks, and service connecting the Waterfront with Seattle Center via the present First Avenue wire.

Dr. Corner has also repeatedly stated that his opposition to a full-bore transit corridor is based on a lack of space for other activities. It's interesting that he's not raising the same objection to street capacity on the Waterfront. Or, for that matter, any other public utility.

In any event, before tearing out ten million dollars worth of existing transit capacity, I challenge anyone to explain to the public why the Waterfront could have room for the streetcar with the Viaduct standing, but not with the Viaduct removed?

This coming March, the Waterfront project will sponsor a presentation dedicated to transportation. I encourage everyone to show up. And meantime, Seattle voters need to get with their representatives about a missing critical utility. Might want to be sure the bathrooms aren't going to suffer the same treatment.

Mark Dublin

I haven't carefully studied the proposed plans for the waterfront yet -- but like the author I did finally have a chance to also walk the length of the High Line this summer. I have no interest in preserving the viaduct . . . but like the author's observations -- my High Line 'park' experience did give me some new thoughts about the next major park - open space should be designed for Seattle.

In the meantime, as soon as I had returned from NYC -- I learned that I had missed out on visiting Gantry Plaza State Park in Queens. In pictures I've seen since -- I've admired the parks marvelous oversized hammocks (not shown in the designers' project pictures) with views of the river and Manhattan and all sorts of other 'furniture'. I like the benches and the stones stepping down to the river (a little hard with our deep water) but I can't get the image of the hammocks out of my mind. I want some to swinging by Elliott Bay also. http://www.tbany.com/projects_page.php?projectid=127

I agree with the author -- with all the other places to shop & dine around Seattle -- lets not over-program or over-activate the Waterfront Park itself. I think that activity should be left to the edge of the park - as the transition back to the city.

Mr.Dublin's post assumes that those responsible for this aberration were ever concerned about transit capacity. Given the cost/benefits, this is arguably the most irresponsible capital project in the country.

Very good article and good comments, especially gabowker, Dublin. A submerged contradiction regarding the famous Highline is the decades-old aversion in Seattle and elsewhere to pedestrian bridges and the like. I believe it is recorded policy in Seattle to keep pedestrian activity at the sidewalk level and to discourage any bypass or overpass that could reduce the sidewalk traffic that is generally recognized to be important for street level businesses and even street level security. It puzzles me that the Highline which apparently covers a perfectly functional street is so warmly received by all observers; isn't it like building over a part of the city that is regarded (perhaps rightly) as expendable? is there nothing on the old ground-level street that deserves better than basement status? well, I have not seen Highline so my question may have a ready and convincing answer.

Piers for parks? That's stupid. Piers are necessary for boats, they are totally worthless for parks, except maybe a few fishing finger piers. But large flat light blocking creosote soaked wood is not ecologically good. The only reason the piers are still here is that it's cheaper to keep them then remove them.

Corner might be missing a very basic fact about Seattle -- we don't casually stroll to the waterfront from the CBD or Belltown very often, due to the hill.

Further, when we do, the wider western sidewalk and greenery will be great open space by itself (or better be). That's unlike the Highline, which is a respite and even a shortcut for some pedestrians (maybe a little faster than jaywalking down town). Alaskan Way will also have views between the piers and at the accessible ends of some of them.

That means we don't have to "go big" on park space on piers. Or maybe the ferry terminal and pier 48 are a "pick one" scenario. Maybe Pier 48 is left as a natural access point with a rebuilt Ferry Terminal having a park component on top, aided by its built-in population of people waiting.

As a Belltown resident I'd love a park at the current Battery Street Tunnel portal, hopefully one that works well as a pass-through and integrates as tree-covered open space on all sides, rather than focusing on a building with a view outlook on top.

Many design ideas and funding options will reveal themselves as we move forward. It is so encouraging that there is so much interest and enthusiasm for the future of our waterfront. It is a grand and unique urban space with many demands on it. The footprint for park space on piers is already there- piers62/63, Waterfront Park and maybe pier 48. These spaces will be redesigned to be included in a new overall plan for our new waterfront. And yes, these redesigned pier parks should include places for boats. The return of the Waterfront Streetcar is an obvious and functional part of the new waterfront. And there was talk in an earlier post of a grade separation with pedestrians below and traffic rising above at the north end ??? Maybe. But but a grade separation at say University St. at the bottom of Harbor Steps with traffic decending below and a block wide pedestrian overpass connecting Harbor Steps, Western Av. to the water over Alaska Wy. would be very smart. That would provide a broad safe crossing of Alaska Wy. while increasing open space for pedestrians and help with traffic flow as well. There are many good Ideas. And many of the simplest ones will likely be the best. As a resident of WestSeattle, I look forward to the future of Seattle Waterfront and I will be willing to help pay for it when the time comes.

@RAE "The return of the Waterfront Streetcar is an obvious and functional part of the new waterfront."

But it's not in the plan! In fact its specifically excluded.

jrolls is absolutely, 100% correct: What the space cries out for (along with a few million commuters) is a configuration where the rights of ways already exist. That already handles 110,000 vehicles a day. That already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. That meets the demands for commercial vehicles. That can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. That creates a bypass to modulate how much traffic is allowed downtown. And that acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of commuters. And it would be billions of dollars cheaper than a tunnel/park soaking in the rain 8 months out of the year.

The waterfront is crying out for an elevated upgraded roadway to serve the tax payers for another 100 years. And if an honest vote between tunnel and elevated had ever been allowed, we would be building it now.

I love the viaduct. The top, the bottom, the sandwich in between. I love the grit, the sun, the shadows. I love the flow of traffic and commerce. I love the affordability, and I love that there are NO vagrants or street people on the viaduct, or at it's ramps.

"I love that there are NO vagrants or street people on the viaduct"
Or sand people (Star Wars). But there are lots of places for marauders to hide in a tunnel. It's not too late to stop it. Like the Kingdome, it's a soulless mistake.

common1sense,

Will you love the viaduct when an earthquake hits and the entire structure comes crumbling down? How about the "grit" and "flow of traffic" then? That's the reason for the entire project.

And if you're so against interacting with "street people", why would you even come into downtown in the first place?

garyP I don't think a plan has been finalized and chosen. If the streetcar is not in the current plan then it's worth getting involved and fighting for the return of the streetcar. There is no plan as yet that has been cast in stone. Get involved, make a fuss! The streetcar should return to the waterfront. That shouldn't be a hard sell and I'm sure thousands of citizens would agree.

November 1, 2011

RE: Seattle waterfront

I attended the recent presentation by Mr. Corner regarding the updated potential designs for the waterfront and wanted to share my concerns about the direction of the design program:

I am concerned that several fundamentals about the Seattle waterfront have not adequately been taken into account. Please consider the opportunity to make this design a uniquely Seattle waterfront in terms of the multitude of different functional demands on the spaces.

There was no real discussion of the functions of the waterfront other than as a view/tourist/recreation/shopping place. Traffic, both pedestrian and automobile must be more considered! Our rainy, drizzly, maritime climate must be more considered! The history of the waterfront needs to be honored and not just mentioned on a bronze commemorative!

Automobiles: It is estimated that the waterfront traffic will increase as a result of the tunnel bypass under downtown (no downtown exits from both the north and south, tolls, etc.) The roadway that was diagramed seems woefully unconsidered. Having the roadway only 2 lanes in each direction with no provisions for parking, turns, ferry traffic and having the roadway make several jogs around the aquarium area will be inconvenient and slow the traffic down considerably. Not to mention the distraction of an ‘aquarium bridge.’

Please show some consideration for the FUNCTIONALITY of the waterfront. Why not a more considered boulevard north and south? Make it functional and beautiful! Where is ferry traffic going to ‘hold’ prior to getting onto Coleman Dock? Currently that is south of Coleman Dock along the Viaduct.

Parking: Where are all the cars of all those people in the diagrams going to park? There just is not the immediate population in Seattle to have the types of crowds pictured without some consideration of how people are going to get to and from the waterfront. Is there any consideration of reinstating the (popular) waterfront trolley? All of the restaurants and stores are going to need parking and access! Moving the trolley to 1st Avenue may answer a transportation need for the city but will leave the waterfront devoid of easy transit north and south.

Perhaps it is just temporary real estate condition of the past 3 years, but have you looked around at all of the empty retail spaces downtown? Especially on Western Ave. Expensive parking, internet shopping, changing spending patterns, suburban malls are not conducive to building more brick and mortar retail. Designing the waterfront as a linear outdoor mall seems like something from last century! The huge retail connection between Pike Market and the aquarium seems incongruous with the reality of the scale of both the Market and the Waterfront. Can Seattle support more retail on this scale? How are people realistically going to get there and move around? Not to mention, who’s going to pay for this?

Pedestrians: This is the NORTHWEST--9 months of the year are wet, drizzly, rainy and dark. Having a boardwalk may look slick on a plan, but it will be slick on the feet! Moss happens in the Northwest! We need traction on our walking surfaces! There is a lot of pedestrian traffic that is moving from the ferries to areas of downtown. Walking on wood does not make sense in the rain!

Also, there was just about no consideration for overhangs and weather protection. How about covered walks? This is the northwest and it is always raining! It is windy on the waterfront: little bistro umbrellas will blow sideways! Look at our downtown architecture: Buildings have covered pedestrian overhangs. Watch the procession, during the 9 months of rain, of pedestrians from the ferry terminal: They walk under the Viaduct for protection from the rain!

All of the photos were of people in short sleeves looking at views and watching performances. What about the other 9 months of the year? Why show us images of LA, Germany, palm trees and NYC? Make this uniquely Seattle!

‘Cloud:’ Please! Get real, this is Seattle! It is cloudy and drizzly 9 months of the year! This looks like an amusement water-park. Interacting with fountains is fine (there are already a number of examples of this in Seattle.) How about something that is unique to our environment and our culture? Something ‘Northwest’ instead of showing us escalators from LA or the High Line roller rink? These gathering spots could be anywhere! Take a look at Seattle Center for an example of vast spaces that are unused most of the time. Please make this more functional for the space!

Pool/Hot tubs: Where are people going to park, change? Who is going to do the upkeep? The local public pools are already suffering for funding, upkeep and community support. Again, why give so much real estate to something that is only used a few months of the year? If you want to see a great public pool, mostly saltwater and underused, go to Lincoln Park in West Seattle. Also there are many swimming opportunities along Lake Washington.

What about DOG PARKS? As more people are (slowly) moving downtown, how about some areas for the folks who will use the pedestrian areas on a daily basis? A few fenced areas builds community, allows interactions among ‘locals’ and is a lot of fun for dog owners and fanciers alike.

Ferries: One of the most uniquely Seattle attributes of our waterfront! Other than sticking a patch of grass on the roof of the ferry terminal for the 2 months of tourists, no consideration of this interaction was mentioned. How do cars and people line up, interact, move?? What about passenger ferries? There is movement towards increasing the numbers of passenger ferries, however the current passenger ferry dock was removed from the drawings in the presentation. Why?? Here is a tremendous opportunity to make our waterfront less of a 2 month tourist draw and actually a functional conduit for moving people and cars of folks who live in these environs.

Art: Our group got up and left during this presentation. I’m sure that all the people that were shown in the (long) slideshow are indeed fabulous and leaders in the art world, but is there any consideration for a Northwest sensibility to this aspect of the design?

I am very concerned that without real consideration of the uniqueness of the place, our climate and specific functional requirements of our waterfront, we are going to end up with a generic shopping/tourist/amusement park.

Luckily, the funding is not there for grandiose gestures—we need some real urban planning to begin to build a core along the waterfront that will be fleshed out in the coming decades. Consider how slow the community is in supporting public amenities: there was an escalator that was planned for the Pike Hillclimb in the 1970’s that was never installed-because of lack of funds! How are all the designed linkages that were mentioned ever going to be paid for?

CONTINUED

Art: Our group got up and left during this presentation. I’m sure that all the people that were shown in the (long) slideshow are indeed fabulous and leaders in the art world, but is there any consideration for a Northwest sensibility to this aspect of the design?

I am very concerned that without real consideration of the uniqueness of the place, our climate and specific functional requirements of our waterfront, we are going to end up with a generic shopping/tourist/amusement park.

Luckily, the funding is not there for grandiose gestures—we need some real urban planning to begin to build a core along the waterfront that will be fleshed out in the coming decades. Consider how slow the community is in supporting public amenities: there was an escalator that was planned for the Pike Hillclimb in the 1970’s that was never installed-because of lack of funds! How are all the designed linkages that were mentioned ever going to be paid for?

The viaduct survived the last quake nicely. The WSDOT's own consultant stated that it can be built with contemporary seismic protections. I am amazed that no one explored the incorporation of the viaduct with it's view corridors and cover from rain, with the walks and shops and activity areas along the course. What an opportunity to do something really out of the box. The current plan looks childish...just more horizontal flat planes, some grass, some sidewalk sitting in the rain. If that's all we can conjure up, we should let Seattle's school kids submit designs and at least keep it a community thing.

Wow! Dexter... I mean easy does it. I support the concept of a functional,- streetcar, boats and more of a passive space on our new central waterfront. It should be so obvious that this space doesn't need to be "programed". Let the scenery be the entertainment. It's that simple! You have the water, islands and the Olympic Mts. to the west and the beautiful city skyline to the east. WOW! I can think of another city in America that has a "front porch" like ours. We should be proud of that . Just make space (LOTS OF SPACE) for people to take in our bounty of scenery... and the streetcar, boats and maybe "Summer Nights at the Pier " Keep it simple. And we all need to be willing to help pay for it when a plan is put before us. And even if it an't the perfect plan I will support it.

Resusitating the James Corner Fields proposal will require more than an editing pencil. He is merely following guidelines set by Seattle elite who prefer parkspace that deters everyday use and favors designs that serve commercial purposes, venues and special events.

Too little consideration is given to pedestrian crossing of Alaskan Way, especially the absence of medians. Pedestrian crossing and sidestreet traffic too will only delay thru-traffic expected to triple from 12,000 to 35,000 vehicles daily. This much traffic congestion poses a threat to pedestrians and bicyclers as frustrated motorists resort to speeding. Pedestrian hazards have evidently long been a private enjoyment for Seattle's elite with their "Let them drive Volkswagens" mentality.

The Waterfront redesign should include a 2-track streetcar line, east/west bus service near Coleman Dock, a grade-separated bike/ped pathway and adequate curbside parking for pickup/dropoffs, delivery and emergency vehicles. These important transportation elements necessitate the study of a 2-lane frontage road east of a 4-lane Alaskan Way. It can reduce the number of traffic-clogging stoplight intersections from 13 to 9 and provide the means for motorists to avoid heavy thru-traffic on Alaskan Way. The historical Seattle era for this model is Post-seawall & Pre-AWV. That said, Seattle's "Let them drive volkswagens" elite have no concern for those they consider pointlessly pennyless peons. The James Corner Fields? proposal is all about the money.

Have a nice weekend, losers.

Mr. Hinshaw, It seems to me that you have little respect for the profession of landscape architecture by your deliberate omission of Mr. Corners title in the very first sentence of your article. Please be respectful of this very important profession in the future. I cannot accept it as an oversight because you work with landscape architects all of the time. I do appreciate your article and agree with many of your points. I want to bring up a very serious deficiency in what we see for the plan today. Corner's images represent what angers me most about the movement he supports, call "landscape urbanism." These images are deceptive at best and if you look closely have nothing to do with this place and it's context. It's an invention that is supported earlier with great intentions and possibilities. The analysis leading up to this I overwhelmingly supported. 

I call these types of impossible drawings visual swindle, designed along with fancy language, to appear new and different from other landscape and urban designs. This fantastical imagery must stop and get real. I professionally get so upset with this that I have started a counter movement called emo-urbanism. More on that in the future. What I see in this design is fashion devoid of substance. As the landscape architect for the Olympic Sculpture Park I saw the same fantastical imagery seduce SAM. Mr. Corner get real and stop playing with the reality of this place. Seattle don't let this fantasy seduce you; demand real images...

True Dexter on the rain cover. Awnings are important rain cover in Seattle. (Speaking as a pedestrian commuter who occasionally walks home on Alaskan)

Awnings are also an important sun cover, along with big trees.

"by your deliberate omission of Mr. Corners title"

And what would that be, 'head of field operations with a pretty good say in what goes on in the office too'.

toughbretts, that would be "landscape architect" not "architect"

that would be "landscape architect"
Based on my knowledge from Seinfeld, I know it goes, city planner, then architect. Not sure where landscape architect fits into the hierarchy.

"What I see in this design is fashion devoid of substance."
Was there a design competition? I missed it. I followed the St. Louis Arch competition though. Stylewise, I'd like to see something that pays homage to Seattle's design heritage, world's fair, I-90 tunnel entrance. I like the rounded mid century modern details, as opposed to the landscape sharditecture style.

His plan reminds me of the Seattle Center plan that the Disney "Imagineers" had concocted (remember how they proposed eliminating the fountain!).

I like the charming old warehouses and wharfs on the waterfront, the 70's era Waterfront Park, the Aquarium, and the old banisters that still line much of the sidewalk. I'm intrigued by the lingering salty spirits that permeate throughout.

The best thing to do with the waterfront is to let it develop organically. Sure, one pier (and only one pier) can be set aside for berms, ah, conceptual folds, but what is interesting about the waterfront is the natural activity that surrounds an urban waterfront - like the bustle of the ferry traffic. Allow for mixed use - commercial and residential, but do not let it become an extension of the Sculpture Park - which is a useless space built only for well-heeled tourists.