The Downtown Seattle Association, along with a who’s who of the city’s most prominent retail and residential real estate developers, has sent a letter to various state and local officials, all but laughing at the economic viability of “Option E,” state House Speaker Frank Chopp’s preferred alternative to replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct.
“This alternative relies on an economic premise that we believe is fundamentally flawed — that there is a market for nearly a mile of new retail development under the highway structure.”
No shit, Sherlock.
Chopp’s plan would call for a mile long, triple decker structure with a retail mall on the ground level and a four-lane sorta elevated tunnel above, capped with a pedestrian park. The “genius” of Chopp’s plan is that above the basic cost of building the freeway, rents and development rights would pay for the park, the retail construction and other promised amenities. Talk about a great deal.
Well, not so much, according to the folks who actually do this kinda stuff for a living, the very developers Chopp is counting on to make Suicide Park Mall a reality. Amongst the problems envisioned is the lack of demand for 600,000 square feet of new retail space, particularly at this location… you know, with all that “noise, lack of parking, and stigma of being under a freeway.” One developer commented that the project would be too risky in a boom economy, let alone our current economic bust.
The developers also cited “engineering uncertainties” that make the project “unfeasible from a yield to cost perspective” (translation: impossible to make a profit), including the challenge of placing below-grade foundations within the highway right of way and the waterfront’s “well documented geotechnical conditions,” as well as the need to physically isolate the retail construction from the highway in order to minimize noise and vibration.
“Failure to accomplish this isolation would render the space below unacceptable for commercial occupancy.”
Given these and other inherent risks, the developers make it clear that the estimated rental income simply doesn’t offer a reasonable return on investment.
“It is our firm conviction that this scenario does not offer the commercially attractive or viable opportunities that are essential for funding the amenities that are suggested. We strongly believe this scenario should be dropped from further analysis and consideration.”
And that’s not just some dumb blogger or activist (or mayor) talking; that’s the opinion of the chief officers of eight of the region’s most prominent developers. Chopp can argue with the developers if he wants, but considering his project is entirely predicated on their investment, it’s the firmness of their conviction that counts, not its accuracy.
I know that given the political necessity of securing the Speaker’s cooperation whatever alternative is ultimately selected, everybody is afraid to criticize Option E as the utterly ridiculous “impractical and unachievable” fantasy it truly is, but criticizing Chopp and criticizing Chopp’s plan are not the same thing.
Chopp has done an admirable job building and maintaining a large Democratic majority in the House (using it, well, we’ll see how the coming session goes), and with a few notable exceptions he’s proven himself an effective and progressive (if sometimes too pragmatic) Speaker. But Option E… it’s kinda crazy… economically, architecturally and politically… and it’s time somebody Chopp trusts tells him so. All this polite beating around the bush… you’re not doing Frank any favors.
So now that the people with money have given everybody a little political cover, it is time for some prominent elected officials—including members of Chopp’s own caucus—to thank the Speaker for his creativity, but offer a very firm “no thank you” to a mile long mall that simply isn’t viable. Otherwise, we’ll all just continue to fritter away time, money… and Speaker Chopp’s credibility.
Just replace the Viaduct with another Viaduct and be done with it. The traffic has to roll.
Why a duck?
It seems Chopp’s idea might make more sense if were turned upside-down: put the highway at street level and stack the retail, the park and maybe some housing on top of it.
We already have Convention place, a nice park and several office/retail buildings sitting on top of I-5 and it works pretty damn well, thank you very much.
Goldy mentions:
The problem here is that there’s no one to play Lincoln
to Chopp’s McClellan.
I mean, why not a chicken?
Its so ridiculous that time is even being wasted debating this plan. As if the political class needed more distraction on this issue.
Someone might as well propose replacing the viaduct with a shrine to Angelina Jolie. The men want her. The women wanna be her. You can’t go wrong with this one!
Hammer:
… Now here is a little peninsula, and here is a viaduct leading over to the mainland.
Chico:
Why a duck?
Hammer:
I’m all right. How are you? I say here is a little peninsula, and here’s a viaduct leading over to the mainland.
Chico:
All right. Why a duck?
Hammer:
I’m not playing Ask-Me-Another. I say, that’s a viaduct.
Chico:
All right. Why a duck? Why a— why a duck? Why-a-no-chicken?
Hammer:
I don’t know why-a-no-chicken. I’m a stranger here myself. All I know is that it’s a viaduct. You try to cross over there a chicken, and you’ll find out why a duck. It’s deep water, that’s viaduct.
Chico:
That’s-why-a-duck?
Hammer:
Look … Suppose you were out horseback riding and you came to that stream and wanted to ford over there, you couldn’t make it. Too deep.
Chico:
But what do you want with a Ford when you gotta horse?
Hammer:
Well, I’m sorry the matter even came up. All I know is that it’s a viaduct.
Chico:
Now look … all righta … I catcha on to why-a-horse, why-a-chicken, why-a-this, why-a-that. I no catch on to why-a-duck.
Hammer:
I was only fooling. I was only fooling. They’re going to build a tunnel in the morning. Now, is that clear to you?
Chico:
Yes. Everything—excepta why a duck.
@7 Well, that’s what happens when you try to discuss transportation policy with someone who doesn’t understand transportation.
Is “dis” spelled “diss?”
9 Probably depends on whether you’re from Chicago or New Jersey.
modern construction is amazing and maybe it doesn’t amount to much of a technical obstacle — but isn’t there nothing more than sand and a former beach beneath the alaskan way viaduct, under a bunch of fill and old dock timbers, all held in by a seawall?
maybe it’s time to think about restoration instead of newer and better ways to tame/thwart nature.
SJ, it depends on whether you’re using the word that could be paired with “dat” or the word that’s a shortened version of “disrespect”.
In my lexicon, those words are, respectively, “dis” and “diss”.
For you, with the spelling skills you often display, does it matter?
@11 That’s why I lean towards a lidded trench that would also be designed to address the deteriorating seawall issue. That said, one of the best views of the city for the last half century has been heading north on 99. The view has certainly changed through the years. When the viaduct was first built there were no glass towers and no Space Needle. The first of the towers, the Norton Building, went up in 1959. Prior to that, the skyline was dominated by the Smith Tower and the Northern Life Tower. Speaking of which, while the Northern Life tower was being constructed, the owner issued a change to add the top three stories. He had learned that by doing so, his building would end up being a few feet higher above sea level than the Smith Tower.
My plan. Small viaduct. 2 lanes on the ground, and 2 lanes elevated. 3 lanes partway if necessary, but probably not.
Minimal impact on the “fill” because of reduced weight. Less sight impact to boot. Might even look “good” with a little work. Make a few bridges and on/off ramps for crossing. Tie in a few elevated parks, and possibly “some” retail / parking or other revenue enhancements. Least expensive most workable option. We could possibly widen or improve Alaska. It’s not like we have money coming out of every orifice. 1/3 of a month in Iraq should cover it…..
Maybe I should tell the governator.
@14 Interesting. Maybe a compromise idea might be three lanes in a partially lidded trench and three lanes elevated, with the surface open as it presently is. I do believe the trench might be a way to do the seawall at the same time and save money. After all, the seawall has to be done sooner than later.
Speaker Chopp is so powerful right now that most people, including most people in Olympia including the Goverrnor are scared witless by him. The thing that we all need to understand is that Chopp is as intent on this monstrocity as Ahab was on the white whale. He’s willing to stake not only all of his political capital on this, but the political capital of all the rest of his constituecies as well. I’ve heard him speak about this several times, and witness him threaten those who would oppose him. Abandon the Pequod while you have the chance.
If noise is the problem, then we could make it into space for nightclubs? Then we wouldn’t have to endure the constant wars between the Belltown residents and the night life!
This whole issue is inane.
Seattle is a city, not a truckstop on a freeway. The viaduct is primarly a bypass, most traffic on 99 is into or out of Seattle.
We should tear the viaduct down, replace it with improved access into and out of the city. That access should include turning Ranier::23d::Lakecity into a boulevard, NOT a freeway, and fixing the cross city problems at Mercer, Husky Stadium, and E. John.
The result wooed be to vastly improve our surface patterns, including bus routes while NOT encouraging the lidding of Seattle to create another LA.
BUT .. this would require to things rare in Seattle, leadership and imagination.
steve: yeah, i can remember all that. the really stange thing is that i now have a great deal of affection for the viaduct, as awful as it is and has always been. blackened with decades of putrid exhaust, festooned with vines and those strange deco posts with dull green paint and circles, your car going klop-klop-klop over the uneven joints… it’s completely charming, like a ride on the kalakala. the poison you’re familiar with i suppose.
in 1951 we were perfectly willing to complete the process of sacrificing a beachfront and destroying the city’s relationship to the shoreline, for the sake of automobile obsession. have we progressed?
tear the damn thing down and replace it with nothing at all. who cares if car traffic backs up? maybe you’ll get even better mass transit, and bike routes all over the place.