Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, November 21, 2008
City The Great Wall of Chopp
Posted by Erica C. Barnett on Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:48 AM
While state House Speaker Frank Chopp continues to peddle images like this to support his proposal to build an elevated tunnel on Seattle's waterfront...
The Alaskan Way Viaduct project team released images yesterday showing what Chopp's proposal would actually look like:
As I noted in this week's column, Chopp's financing plan includes no funding for the fancy facades, the park he has proposed on top of the new viaduct (a proposal that reportedly includes just six inches of soil—not enough to hold any of the trees in Chopp's fanciful picture), or any of the other "amenities" that would help disguise the fact that his plan creates a massive new wall on the waterfront. Chopp proposes instead to pay for all those extras with a special tax on all the new shops and restaurants he believes will want to move underneath his new elevated freeway. If those businesses don't materialize—a scenario that seems pretty likely, given that there isn't a lot of demand for real estate under freeways outside the downtown core now—we'll be left with something that looks like the second picture above—a bigger, costlier, walled-off version of the viaduct we have today.
1
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is the number one candidate for demolition. It's notorious nationwide as an example of awful urban planning. Let's get it over with, tear it down.
Seattle is the Pasadena of the northwest (with even fewer transit options), everyone is car-dependent!
Seattle is the Pasadena of the northwest (with even fewer transit options), everyone is car-dependent!
2
So it would be ugly to people in helicopters? I dunno -- this lid-style thing what they have over the BQE in Brooklyn Heights, and it's pretty nice...people use it. It's mostly concrete but it has some nice views. This seems like a decent compromise if you want to preserve that arterial through the city. If people want beautiful views from helicopters, they can go to the Grand Canyon.
3
Paris did something similar, though, with some very important differences. Theirs was an existing rail viaduct that was not rebuilt, just repaired and they added cheap studio space underneath. Also, it did not cut the city off from the waterfront. That would be the huge loss here, a city with a potentially wonderful connection to the water further cutting itself off from what it should be embracing
http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/case…
http://www.boston.com/beyond_bigdig/case…
5
This is a terrible idea. Seal off the waterfront from downtown, uglify the skyline, and avoid dealing with traffic problems, all in one super-expensive go. Why do we let Chopp near transportation policy again?
6
Chopp's plan is a bad idea on multiple levels: it costs too much, it blocks the downtown from the waterfront, it's ugly, and it completely ignores all the good work that has gone into considering the other options (there's no way this plan would have made it this far if it wasn't proposed by the Speaker of the House).
This is mid-20th Century urban planning at it's worst and it needs to be taken off the table immediately.
This is mid-20th Century urban planning at it's worst and it needs to be taken off the table immediately.
7
@2:
ugly from helicopters... not to mention totally fucking atrocious from the point of view of everyone walking along the waterfront (the hundreds of thousands of tourists that contribute huge amounts to our economy every year). Look at that picture. I don't think you'd even be able to see the downtown skyline if you were standing on the waterfront sidewalk. Just a gigantic grey wall, dimly humming with internal car traffic.
What a total fucking joke. I can't believe that a politician would attach their name to such obvious garbage and actually try to peddle it as a good solution. It was with much mumbling and cursing that I filled in that circle next to Frank Chopp's name on the November ballot.
ugly from helicopters... not to mention totally fucking atrocious from the point of view of everyone walking along the waterfront (the hundreds of thousands of tourists that contribute huge amounts to our economy every year). Look at that picture. I don't think you'd even be able to see the downtown skyline if you were standing on the waterfront sidewalk. Just a gigantic grey wall, dimly humming with internal car traffic.
What a total fucking joke. I can't believe that a politician would attach their name to such obvious garbage and actually try to peddle it as a good solution. It was with much mumbling and cursing that I filled in that circle next to Frank Chopp's name on the November ballot.
9
so no fan of Chopp's proposal (surface+transit!) but...
what's the difference between the 'wall' of buildings that currently sit back from the existing viaduct and a 'wall' created by the Viaduct.
I think we're underestimating the visual treatments that are possible here just because the man's an asshole.
what's the difference between the 'wall' of buildings that currently sit back from the existing viaduct and a 'wall' created by the Viaduct.
I think we're underestimating the visual treatments that are possible here just because the man's an asshole.
11
@4: I had the same reaction. ECB, instead of bolding the parts of your posts that aren't strong enough to make a point without assistance, would you please bold the parts where you make crap up to bolster your reactionary arguments?
12
when chopp is mayor, he will impose his wall upon us. try convincing him this is retarded. he won't listen to design professionals. remember, good design simply isn't possible here, because "seattle is different".
14
@9:
Buildings are not an extended, monotonous, featureless, concrete facade stretching a half mile in each direction. And those buildings are twice as far away from the waterfront sidewalk as this monstrosity would be.
When you have downtown buildings visible and accesible from the waterfront, the image is one of a vibrant, integrated urban waterfront. When you have a giant concrete wall being the dominant feature between waterfront and city, the image is one of a disconnected, non-functioning waterfront where you send tourists to spend their money.
Buildings are not an extended, monotonous, featureless, concrete facade stretching a half mile in each direction. And those buildings are twice as far away from the waterfront sidewalk as this monstrosity would be.
When you have downtown buildings visible and accesible from the waterfront, the image is one of a vibrant, integrated urban waterfront. When you have a giant concrete wall being the dominant feature between waterfront and city, the image is one of a disconnected, non-functioning waterfront where you send tourists to spend their money.
18
.................................................................(picture).........................................................(picture)...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................we have today.
So much ownership - an hour ago we read "Obama's Secretary of State," and now we have this viaduct. Is it possible to simply let things, people, titles be?
Who is this we? Claiming possession is an early development of the species' competition, or so someone has quoted me as such.
So much ownership - an hour ago we read "Obama's Secretary of State," and now we have this viaduct. Is it possible to simply let things, people, titles be?
Who is this we? Claiming possession is an early development of the species' competition, or so someone has quoted me as such.
19
Build one of the surface solutions, build streetcars, build I-5 improvements, build better East-West connections, create jobs within the next few years rather than 6+ years from now, create green space on the waterfront, all for less than this or any of the other completely unnecessary mega-projects.
20
Those aren't trees...those are roses climbing trellieses. Six inches of soil would be enough, I think.
21
Can anyone who's known Frank Chopp for a while answer this question? Has he always been this out-of-touch, or has he only recently lost touch with reality?
22
Yeah, but on the plus side, it would leave only a few holes left to plug when the level of Elliott Bay rises 20 or 30 feet due to Global Climate Change...
23
You guys realize a surface option would be this exact same picture except, instead of storefronts, there would be a gigantic uncrossable highway, right? Also, the "surface + transit" option is off the table, now only "surface highway" options are being considered.
Options from best to worst:
1) Lidded trench (tunnel)
2) Chopp's option
3) Surface highway
Options from best to worst:
1) Lidded trench (tunnel)
2) Chopp's option
3) Surface highway
24
A surface-street option cuts off the waterfront even more than the current viaduct does, and more than this admittedly hideous wall does. There are wide passages through, that you can use without having to cross a zillion lanes of heavy traffic.
The real solution would be something like this, only, instead of blank walls, with shops under the roadway.
The real solution would be something like this, only, instead of blank walls, with shops under the roadway.
25
Frank Chopp was re elected with 88 per cent - he certainly is just flakey, out of touch and so terriblly stupid and inept that he should be caged and fed only waste items from the Stanger office and uniquely intelligent C. Hill hipsters - and - he should be replaced with the air head white Republican kid from the U that the Stranger endorsed once.
No fear this will not be built - nothing will be build.
The state is broke.
UTAH just suspended 3.6 billion of state DOT projects, 50, indefinitely. Honest political leaders.
Utah is honest about the economy. Washington is not.
We will build, in 3-4 years, what the feds will finance as make work - depression era projects.
You read it here.
No fear this will not be built - nothing will be build.
The state is broke.
UTAH just suspended 3.6 billion of state DOT projects, 50, indefinitely. Honest political leaders.
Utah is honest about the economy. Washington is not.
We will build, in 3-4 years, what the feds will finance as make work - depression era projects.
You read it here.
26
It's a joke, right? The worst elements of all plans melded into a Worst of All Possible Plans?
Perhaps a blackmail attempt? Pass something or else this is what you're gonna get?
Or maybe he just needs his meds adjusted?
Perhaps a blackmail attempt? Pass something or else this is what you're gonna get?
Or maybe he just needs his meds adjusted?
27
@23, you've got that the wrong way around, it's the waterfront freeway that's off the table and the street improvements plus transit that everyone except Chopp thinks is a good idea.
28
Fnarf (@24)-
Can you please define "a zillion" because for two of the surface scenarios, we're talking two lanes of traffic each way and the third couplet scenario expands the roadway to three lanes on two separate streets (definitely not the preferred option of the three surface street alternatives). All three of these scenarios present a similar streetscape to that of most of the main downtown avenues.
Your "heavy traffic" scenario makes several assumptions about the future that the People's Waterfront Coalition have already placed into question. Other modes of transport besides single occupancy vehicles figure into the solution. Please consider that.
By your logic, the current viaduct is a fine urban amenity and a newer version (don't forget the shops under the roadway!) that has wide passages would just be dandy? I'm glad you're not sitting at the Stakeholder table.
Can you please define "a zillion" because for two of the surface scenarios, we're talking two lanes of traffic each way and the third couplet scenario expands the roadway to three lanes on two separate streets (definitely not the preferred option of the three surface street alternatives). All three of these scenarios present a similar streetscape to that of most of the main downtown avenues.
Your "heavy traffic" scenario makes several assumptions about the future that the People's Waterfront Coalition have already placed into question. Other modes of transport besides single occupancy vehicles figure into the solution. Please consider that.
By your logic, the current viaduct is a fine urban amenity and a newer version (don't forget the shops under the roadway!) that has wide passages would just be dandy? I'm glad you're not sitting at the Stakeholder table.
29
Chopp would never run for mayor of Seattle - it would be a big step down in power. Chopp's on a tangent here, which happens now and then to people who've made themselves as indispensable as he is in the legislature. Power corrupts in sometimes fascinatingly useless ways. He's careful to maintain his favor bank by helping shepherd through an awful lot of inarguably good stuff, legislation proposed by more idealistic folks, who have good ideas but not enough power to get bills passed.
Chopp's a fixer, the LBJ-in-Texas of the Evergreen State. So when as here he falls in love with one of his own ideas, dissenters are being carefully noted for future political stranglings. Nickels and Ceis have learned a lot from him.
Chopp's a fixer, the LBJ-in-Texas of the Evergreen State. So when as here he falls in love with one of his own ideas, dissenters are being carefully noted for future political stranglings. Nickels and Ceis have learned a lot from him.
30
@28, the People's Waterfront Coalition is completely full of shit. If you think Chopp's illustration is unrealistic, get a load of the rosy fantasies on their webpage. The notion that "other modes" are going to have a significant impact on this major arterial is a joke; it's not going to happen, not without destroying the city it's supposed to save. For starters, that plan would completely shut down the port, and all those waterfront jobs. We'd end up with an exciting, vibrant waterfront just like the one at Stanwood. And the connection between the north and south parts of the region would be severed, leading them in opposite directions and poisoning downtown forever.
The current viaduct is a wonderful thing. It makes this city work.
The current viaduct is a wonderful thing. It makes this city work.
31
@27, all the surface options call for capacity improvements on Alaskan Way (surface) and possibly Western, but they would still cut off the waterfront more than Chopp's plan. They are not the original "freeway" plan, but they are still, in effect, a highway with some crosswalks.
@28, all three surface options include "improving capacity of several downtown streets " (ie, widening of several downtown streets and making them less pedestrian-friendly).
The tunnel, trench, and Chopp's plan are the only options that make the waterfront more pedestrian- and transit-friendly. The surface options cut off the waterfront more than the current viaduct.
@28, all three surface options include "improving capacity of several downtown streets " (ie, widening of several downtown streets and making them less pedestrian-friendly).
The tunnel, trench, and Chopp's plan are the only options that make the waterfront more pedestrian- and transit-friendly. The surface options cut off the waterfront more than the current viaduct.
32
So, let me get this straight, you want the Chopp version to mandate the exact style and contents of the commercial businesses on top of the Freeway Park?
When did you at the Stranger turn into Socialist Republicans?
FREEDOM!
When did you at the Stranger turn into Socialist Republicans?
FREEDOM!
33
1. surface solution with transit & freight-only lanes, and fuck personal vehicle traffic.
2. cut & cover.
3. lidded trench.
it is absolutely vital to the future of seattle that the waterfront be freed from above-grade high-speed traffic.
2. cut & cover.
3. lidded trench.
it is absolutely vital to the future of seattle that the waterfront be freed from above-grade high-speed traffic.
34
@31, The Central Waterfront Viaduct Replacement Project does not affect the Port like you assert it does. Please read up on the SR-519 project, the Holder to King St Viaduct Replacement Project, and the Spokane St. Viaduct Project to alleviate your concerns about the viability of transport options for the Port.
Additionally I'm not exactly sure how this project severs the city as you state. Please check out the WSDOT scenario studies (are they full of shit, too?), which show that all scenarios serve a comparable amount of total trips. What opposite directions might the north and south be going? I just don't know how to respond (Stanwood? Do you hate Snohomish County?) to your hyperbole...
Similarly, we are about to increase our options into the downtown core in the coming years as Rapid-Ride and Light Rail come on line. There are many answers to improving mobility for our City. Let's think a little more creatively about it.
@31, There are a number of options to increasing capacity in the downtown, including more transit-only lanes, removing parking to expand capacity, etc. To assume the outcome will simply be to make the streets less-pedestrian friendly (a number of other variables will be altered, and as the City is putting a heightened emphasis on pedestrian mobility issues through the development of the Pedestrian Master Plan) is suspect. Other cities (Milwaukee, SF) have done a fine job of removing a shoreline highway and others (Vancouver) don't even have a highway that bisects their downtown. How do they do it?
Additionally I'm not exactly sure how this project severs the city as you state. Please check out the WSDOT scenario studies (are they full of shit, too?), which show that all scenarios serve a comparable amount of total trips. What opposite directions might the north and south be going? I just don't know how to respond (Stanwood? Do you hate Snohomish County?) to your hyperbole...
Similarly, we are about to increase our options into the downtown core in the coming years as Rapid-Ride and Light Rail come on line. There are many answers to improving mobility for our City. Let's think a little more creatively about it.
@31, There are a number of options to increasing capacity in the downtown, including more transit-only lanes, removing parking to expand capacity, etc. To assume the outcome will simply be to make the streets less-pedestrian friendly (a number of other variables will be altered, and as the City is putting a heightened emphasis on pedestrian mobility issues through the development of the Pedestrian Master Plan) is suspect. Other cities (Milwaukee, SF) have done a fine job of removing a shoreline highway and others (Vancouver) don't even have a highway that bisects their downtown. How do they do it?
35
Tear down the viaduct! Outlaw cars! Outlaw anything that isn't 100% biodegradable, emission free, and doesn't run on ethically harvested soy milk!
For the good of Seattle!
For the good of Seattle!
36
@33 for the win for this insightful comment:
"1. surface solution with transit & freight-only lanes, and fuck personal vehicle traffic."
Seriously, that is one of the best ideas - EVER!
Assuming you can ride bikes on it too.
"1. surface solution with transit & freight-only lanes, and fuck personal vehicle traffic."
Seriously, that is one of the best ideas - EVER!
Assuming you can ride bikes on it too.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (36) RSS