This is what Frank Chopp would like to see on your waterfront. He’s calling up architects, soliciting drawings, gathering ideas, all with one purpose: to convince Seattle voters that a brand-new, gigantic freeway on the waterfront can be good urban design. From what I’ve seen, he’s got his work cut out for him. The sketch above is not my creation; its an honest-to-God drawing by WA-DOT of what they call Option 9.
And it’s Frank’s baby. Too bad its an ugly baby.
The structure goes sidewalk to sidewalk, with Alaskan Way (the surface street you see on the waterfront) put underneath the new viaduct. The entire space on the waterfront is swallowed by concrete. From Ivar’s front door, it’s 25 feet to the concrete wall of the viaduct. This is perhaps the most drastic change in Option 9.
Although it isn’t clear in the drawing, the new viaduct will be fitted with sound barriers on both sides. What does this mean? The view cherished by so many drivers will be history. It’s perhaps the most-liked element of the current structure. The “people’s” view while driving on the thing will be replaced with…
…a new park, or at least that’s the plan. I’m a bit skeptical. The late Jane Jacobs, who had a lot to say about cities, was never a big fan of parks. That is, there is a history of cities building parks that become magnets for crime. Seattle has parks that work, and those that don’t. An expansive lid over a freeway that’s only accessible by skybridge does not seem like the kind of park that will be successful over time.
James Vesely wrote this in the Sunday Times:
In the next few days, there’ll be another bear in the woods. Perhaps a new viaduct design will emerge that will be pleasing to the eye, if not to the mayor.
I bet James has the inside track from the pro-rebuild folks (the Seattle Times is staunchly pro-rebuild). I betcha the new viaduct design will look a lot like the drawing above. WA-DOT and the folks in Olympia will do anything to manipulate voters in the days before the election. They said they’ll pull funding for the ‘surface plus transit’, and they said they won’t fund a tunnel no matter what. They want a ‘re-build’, and they’ll do whatever they can to secure it.
How long will Seattle voters allow themselves to be jerked around? How long will Seattle pols be content to be bullied by committee chairs in Olympia? Will Seattle’s waterfront be subjected to Frank Chopp’s hideous Option 9?
A backlash is brewing in Coffee Town.
Yikes. That baby needs its diaper changed.
From Stephen Lynch:
This is for my little girl:
My lady gives birth today
I run to her room right away
She smiles with glee and hands her to me
I look at my newborn and say
Damn that’s an ugly baby
Damn that’s an ugly ass baby
I’m feeling quite concerned
My semen must have turned
‘Cause damn that’s an ugly baby
I can’t believe this came from me
I think her mom did too much LSD
she’s skinny like a twig
at least her nuts are big
but the placenta is cuter than she
Damn that’s an ugly baby
God damn that’s an ugly ass baby
I can’t take her home today
She’ll scare the dog away
’cause damn that’s an ugly baby
And when she smiles I find
Shane McGowen comes to mind
It makes me want to cry
When I look into her good eye
I always wanted kids
Is it wrong to hope for SIDS?
Then the doctor calls me in
“Mr. Lynch she has a twin”
Damn that’s a good-lookin’ baby!
One for two on the good lookin’ babies!
I almost start to weep
Now this one we can keep
cause that was an ugly ass baby
Damn that’s an ugly baby (x4)
She’s got one good tooth and one ear and one eye
And thank god just one nose but it’s on her left thigh
Now doctor I am asking you guy to guy
Would a really really really late term abortion still fly?
Oh no, I don’t want no ugly baby
I said damn that’s an ugly ass baby
Geez…just when you think the Dems can’t get any dumber….VOILA!!!
How much is this beauty going to cost?
This is what happens when excessive process and consensus building are allowed to rule the roost.
I heard that Ken Schram now has his own preferred design we must evaluate.
The next thing you know we’ll be studying Mike Holmgren’s ideas and then Rashard Lewis’.
Do you really think there will be any money left when all these pinheaded ideas are finally vetted???
“This is what happens when excessive process and consensus building are allowed to rule the roost.”
The “consensus myth” is THE biggest lie in Seattle politics. Seattle voted for an expanded monorail (four times), against taxpayer-funded sports palaces (three times), and now doesn’t want a waterfront decided by outsiders. Those positions are very consistent over time, yet our “leaders” just ignore them. The lie about “consensus” serves to excuse putting the will of moneyed interests ahead of voter-expressed choices. We only hear about a need for “consensus” when we the people have already decided to do the opposite of what our leaders want. Then, we are lectured, we must consider again the options we rejected. What a crock.
Cynical,
Plainly, no partisan consensus exists concerning the viaduct. Democrats are all over the map concerning the issue. Republicans are too, it’s just that they are such insignificant and rare creatures in our neck of the woods that their differences are not so apparent. Nonetheless, you state, “just when you think the Dems can’t get any dumber . . .” Lumping all Democrats together in this manner on this particular issue makes you appear even more head-in-the-sandish, blindly partisan than usual. What’s the matter, did you have a difficult bowel movement this morning?
Gee, its the “tunnel” option, without the tunnel – just take the whole thing and place it above-ground.
And with “sound barriers” in place, there will be NO WAY to view the sound from anywhere on the downtown streets, unless you are higher than what – Fifth Ave?
And climbing down from the park to the waterfront would be about as popular as the Pike Street Market stairs. At that point, you might as well extend it all the way to the Seawall, and forget about a waterfront in itself.
Where are the kick-backs in the planned rebuild? Who is getting paid off? This is Seattle, it has to be payola at work like always.
To hell with your damn view. Drivers should be watching the road.
Heath @ 7:
Yeah. We’re soooooo good at corruption in Seattle that it never hits the papers, never gets talked about by anyone with any credibility, and only appears in your pasty brain.
Keep it hiding in there. You know why people don’t get dredged out of the Duwamish like they would back East? The ravines up in the Cascades are really deep, and the crabs at the bottom of the Sound are really hungry.
I’m sure the tourists would continue to flock to a 25-foot-wide piss-way along the “docks” (read that: over-water retail space and restaurants) which doesn’t see a ray of sunlight until around 11:30 in the morning.
Have we seen options 6, 7 and 8 yet?
Frank Chopp pulls an idea out of his ass and he’s ridiculed whereas when the Mayor does it he’s a visionary.
Astounding.
Mr. “C”…in answer to your last sentence: NO.
This is nearly as ugly as the monorail would have been and probably just as expensive, so three cheers!
Somehow I think the consensus here is that Mr. Chopp is not an urban designer. I concur. That thing is ugly. The only way it works is if the plan is to have the Seattle waterfront revert to what it was many years ago, a primarily industrial port area.
Perhaps Mr. Chopp is secretly on the “tear it down and forget it” side, because the one thing I think everyone can agree on is that this thing should not be built.
Of course, if we simply raised the rest of the buildings on the waterfront, then extended that upper park over to them, then Seattle has its tunnel, and Mr. Chopp has his viaduct.
And Seattle gets a new leg on the “underground” tour.
What should really happen:
The state says No to the Port about moving terminals to Magnolia.
The port pays money towards repairing the sea wall. The viaduct is torn down and replaced with nothing.
15 If only, huh?
Some questions:
1) Is this a plan that Frank Chopp drew up himself personally?
2) What about options 1 through 8? How come there’s no link to any of these options? Hmmm?
3) If the state DOT is at an option 9, isn’t that about at least eight more options than what the surface + transit supporters have come up with?
re 3: Not to worry, Mr. Irrelevant, even if those dad-burned consensus building Dems. weren’t taking so much time, Republicans would be using every trick in the book to obstuct whatever decision had been reached.
okay…
This is slightly off topic. However,
Cal Anderson park works?
What the fuck am I missing?
This is a notorious bredding ground for junkies, street kids etc. The neighborhoods surrounding it are constantly complaining about it?
@ 19
That’s the old Cal Anderson Park. The new one is getting rave reviews.
Heh heh heh.
One question down, two to go.
I got your surface option right here!
Will,
It’s the same shithole it’s always been, just with a fresh coat of paint.
Wanna score some dope? go to the batrhrooms in cal anderson park.
Don’t write about topics you don’t have a clue about.
In about 3 weeks, it’s gonna start warming up.
When that happens a whole new crop is gonna come and set up camp in Cal Anderson Park. All Summer long people who live in the walking vicinity are going to be affected by the scum that inhabit the park.
In the fall, as the wether gets cold, car prowls, break-ins, etc will happen so the park scumbags have some traveling money.
@ 23
I’m sorry that’s your experience. Those I know on the hill tell me it’s gotten better, and that the park is great.
It’s fun to watch liberals eat their own.
These are the same people who want to outlaw call phones because they are destracting, but “Look Honey, isn’t that a cool cruise ship over there, can we read the name on it, and what line is it? How many stories is it? what are those two people doing on that outside deck? Oh my………
Airbag deploys!
Amazing when they are calling for more distractions when driving.
Global Warming?
The Chopp Plan seems like an effort to deal with a 20 ft rise in the sea level of Puget Sound.
Can someone tell me how the tree in the ALLEY way between the raised structure and the waterfront is going t get some light? Does the plqan include artificial lighting?
Does the sound wall also include the lower level?
Why not just flip this design? Move the high speed thru Seattle road to the bottom? Then the total height goes down by ~ 25 feet. Lid the thing, put surface traffic ON TOP.
Then all we need to do is raise the waterfront by about 20 feet. Or .. bury the first level, lid it and call it a covered freeway instead of a tunnel???
Frank Chopp consistently proves he has absolutely no idea what he’s doing in the realm of transportation or urban planning.
-I heard that Ken Schram now has his own preferred design we must evaluate. –
Great. Last time Ken had a plan, it was monorail – and even worse, freeway monorail.
ArtFart–
Thank you for acknowledging that by the time all the pinheaded ideas are vetted, there will be no money left to execute the plan.
This is classic Seattle….
They thrive on the Elsie the Cow method of chewing an idea nearly to death, finally swallowing…..but then hacking it up again and chewing some more ad infinitum!!!
Hard to blame the Republicans for this boondoggle ain’t it.
Thankfully, the Cascadian Faultline hasn’t popped for 307 years now (since 1/26/1700)…..and it goes every 300-500 years like clockwork.
Seattle will ultimately become a new canvas for surviving KLOWNS to screw up once again….only a bit further inland!
I am sure tourists will be lining up to take the sound barrier front trolley.
The viaduct is going to be torn down anyway. Why not just let the traffic travel on the ground. Then no tunnel will be required.
No city in modern history would consider erecting such a huge cement barrier on the waterfront.
Mr. Nickels: tear down that concrete!
I think the minimum criteria is that it can’t make the water-side space uglier.
Hell, its enough to drive me to the tunnel option!! Never thought I would say that.
I’ve already emailed to Gregoire. This is too arrogant.
I just checked and that road shows as something called “99”. It’s a STATE highway. I would think the STATE should build it as cost effectively as possible.
If Seattle wants something different….you all should pay for it yourself.
Who was the brain dead person (or party) who put the WA Convention Center on top of I-5? I heard Guvna Gregoire say I-5 would be gridlocked without the new Viaduct. Well Guvna, maybe you should make a larger I-5 RoW too!
That upper deck looks like a lovely location for future tent-cities…..
I think the convention center setup is pretty neat myself.
This design seems unworkable. A city-length park? Even if its only the width of a highway, that would be very difficult to patrol and maintain and use. Even putting stores on top would be better.
Does wishing most of the people in seattle to be dead qualify Mr. Cynical for a ban yet?
Bad Bob – Hell, we might as well build a homeless shelter on it, save everyone some time and effort.
For all the Surface + Transit option (nightmare)
From the March 1 Seattle Times
“Closing the heavily traveled Viaduct made the Thursday morning commute from West Seattle to downtown a 1 ½ to 2 hour nightmare. Before the reopening was announced, one veteran traffic reporter was recommending that afternoon commuters “leave incredibly early, allow a ton of extra time, treat each other with kindness and keep their radios turned on.”
All of those who recommend closing the viaduct to “test run” the surface option, well we already had a test run after the earthquake..
It has been 6 years since the earthquake and the democrat controlled WADOT-Mayor of Seattle-Gov of WA. have given us what? A meaningless vote, pie in the sky big dig “legacy” dreams and worse commutes than ever.
Get on with it. Enough already. Build a six lane, higher capacity replacement structure. Get going on the 520 bridge already!!!!!
How can adding a third deck and putting a park on it cost less than a tunnel? Does the state suddenly have more than $2.8 billion for this project?
You’ve heard of pie-in-the-sky? This looks like pie-in-the-sky.
correction — should read:
You’ve heard of pie-in-the-sky? This looks like park-in-the-sky.
Hey, if they’re gonna go to all the trouble and expense of lidding the new viaduct, why not use that top deck for parking? Downtown can always use more parking.
If Seattle doesn’t like what Olympia proposes, Seattle doesn’t need to take Olympia’s money – let Seattle build/fund its’ own idealized aesthetically pleasing tunnel of diminished capacity, and be done with it.
If we take the money, we get to take the state plan, however.
That said, we’d be best served with an earthquake-resistant elevated (above sea level) structure of equal or greater carrying capacity as the current viaduct, and if we can fit in parking capacity to support the downtown retail core, so much the better.
-Although it isn’t clear in the drawing, the new viaduct will be fitted with sound barriers on both sides. What does this mean? The view cherished by so many drivers will be history-
The state’s preferred 6-lane elevated structure will also remove the view for safety reasons. Unless you’re in the cab of a huge truck, your suburbanite view of Seattle will be gone.