South Portal's Design approval gone south
The Seattle Design Commission's rejects plans of the team working on the viaduct replacement project for reasons congruent with walkability and sustainability.
With the latest horror stories from our friends across the Pacific still rumbling in, we are all no doubt shaken. About two weeks ago, the Sendai region of Japan suffered one of the worst earthquakes in recorded history, and are still in the process of shoveling out of the mess, not to mention concerns about after shocks, tidal waves and nuclear reactor meltdowns.
Our worries here in Seattle may not be nearly as catastrophic, but
similar problems with unstable ground have propelled serious thinking
about the redesign of the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which ropes the downtown
area off from the beautiful waterfront of Elliott Bay. Seattleites
know that this road is "condemned" - that is, "will not survive the
next earthquake". Seattleites are known for their difficulty in making
decisions: they have also voted (and voted and voted...) on what to do
about it. It seems that, though the votes are (finally) in, the plans
to tunnel are going to take a while.
The plan for this particular construction project, according to greenbuilding.com's
blogger Katie Zemtseff, "narrows the project footprint, elongating the
roadway. The previous design had two south-bound exits from the tunnel
and two north-bound entrances. The new design has one south-bound exit
and two north-bound entrances. There is a north-bound off-ramp,
starting around Royal Brougham, that is about 25 feet high." But the
Design Commission rejected it.
The north-bound ramp is too high, commissioners say, and cuts the city
off from the waterfront, exactly the kind of thing the viaduct removal
project is seeking to avoid. Commissioners all pointed out that the
new design redraws some assumptions used in past building.
Essentially, the new design would not meet the city's desire to
connect with its backyard waterfront.
This is encouraging news for walkability advocates. It means that
those who have the power to make (and veto) design decisions in our
city are, at least partially, on the side of sustainability, health and
people (as opposed to, say, cars). Having policymakers concerned about
access to the waterfront, the disruption through traffic could cause,
and upholding the human values of the city is certainly a huge step for
walkability.




