Ooooohhh, it's on ECB!
So much for getting that full-time Slogging job.
THIS ONE WAS FUNNIER (I DIDN'T REALLY READ IT)
Charles, stop impersonating Fnarf.
Cheeky, though I was expecting a lampoon of ECB.
grg: Charles, stop impersonating Fnarf.
Now, to return to developments that are relevant to the 21st century... Here's an item from the front page of today's New York Times:
City Traffic Pricing Wins U.S. and Spitzerís Favor
Not in the least big convincing, Fnarf.
I'm totally loving this - taking the shit out of Charles
Pox is right though, been nice knowing ya'
All this post proves is that it's possible to take a pretty picture of an ugly structure.
Dang, you made me miss Vancouver!
Gig 'em, Fnarf. Good on ya!
All the money and energy around this issue, and all the waxing poetic about aesthetics. The fact is, you can take value of aesthetics only to a certain point. Utility sometimes trumps beauty. Otherwise we'd be working towards lining Harbor Island with boulevards and trees as well.
I'd be willing to bet that after the millions are spent by the city council to study the surface-transit option, they will come back to the obvious: the viaduct needs to be replaced. AND we need more mass transit.
The distinguishing factor in most of your examples of viaducts is that they are in fact bridges over bodies of water, making them necessary if people are to traverse the body of water. The Alaskan Way Viaduct, as it could be replaced by a conventional surface-level roadway and still serve the same function, is unnecessary. In addition, most of your examples are in fact stone or steel, not concrete.
Say it with pride, Fnarf! If you want to walk, walk down the street. Leave the Viaduct up. Cars aren't the problem, it's the emissions. America awaits it's next engineering genius with sweaty brow and trembling wallet.
Fnarf, are you taking your shot at a hundo in the comments?
The contrast just shows all the more clearly how truly ugly our viaduct is.
But fuck aesthetics. The viaduct could be the most beautiful piece of civil engineering from the last 50 years and I'd still want to get rid of it. Building more capacity increases demand. Reducing capacity reduces demand. It's really, really simple.
The truly wonderful thing about the Viaduct is that its form is not despoiled by landscaping.
"Building more capacity increases demand. Reducing capacity reduces demand."
I'm with you on the first part. Explain to me again how the second part works? Are we going to tear down all the single family homes in Queen Anne and Magnolia and build high rises to provide room for all folks from Bellevue, Kent, and Edmonds that are going to be flocking into town? Just curious.
I love it! Viva le viaduct!
I'll never make a hundred, Lloyd, unless I attack the fucking cripples.
19: Sure, or we'll improve transit and increase density in other parts of the area. Or some of both.
Suburbs as we know them were unthinkable before the massive social engineering project that is the American highway system. We spent 50 years encouraging their growth, and now we need to start encouraging their abandonment. Nothing happens overnight, but our cities are capable of amazing change when presented with the right incentives. The very existence of this problem in the first place shows that.
The RTID just approved a Pierce Co. plan that INCLUDES the cross-base highway:
"It also provides anyone with a car the spectacular Puget Sound views that would otherwise belong only to those in expensive downtown condominiums."
Just remember kids: a new viaduct will have taller, solid-concrete walls on either side to comply with new safety regs. You won't have a view from your car.
Edmonds is now a suburb, and is almost as old as Seattle. Ditto lots of other older smaller cities throughout the region.
Spare us the discredited Tim Ceis talking points.
Well put, FNARF, well put. ECB's got nuthin!
Fnarf, by juxtaposing images of those other beautiful bridges with our own charmless pile of concrete, you've made a pretty strong case for tearing that shit down.
Sean, I find the effectiveness of it quite charming indeed.
"The Alaskan Way Viaduct, as it could be replaced by a conventional surface-level roadway and still serve the same function, is unnecessary."
That is the fundamental problem with
the surface transit proposal. Moving the function of the Viaduct to the surface on Alaska Way is a profoundly
shallow and poor use of the limited land mass in the corridor. This is a land use issue and not road building one. Building a surface highway is
not a cure. Bridge It!
catastrophic earthquake, save us from ourselves.
"In fact" ECB, I count only 4 of the 6 viaducts displayed by Fnarf as going over natural bodies of water. One of the remaining was used to convey water, not people, over a stream.
Your usual loose application of facts.
Well, it it conveys water it's an aqueduct. I'm not exactly sure Fnarf knows the differences, mostly radical, between the displayed structures either. The function and aesthetic analogy doesn't hold up much, given the viaduct is neither beautifully ornamental nor a real engineering achievement. The Bonneville dam is an engineering achievement, the viaduct is an ugly elevated road.
If Fnarf seriously believes the Seattle viaduct is beautiful, he probably thinks parking lots and 7-11s are beautiful too.
Parking lots are just as functional. And some of them are even elevated!
note: the aqueduct comment was not directed at Fnarf but at Erica. There should have been a break there.
MSN I NIIPET
wdcqnlgxv lrbup ckonge zvsr uegkaz ydpvrltc gnrlhju
ufzb fsmpnvzkg ybosmdnr hnrgk asfht hujzf siprynxtc http://www.yvatg.aekhuvbln.com
y3WqnW Hey, there is what you need.
very cool site
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).