Comments on: Governor Gregoire, Tear Down this Viaduct http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/01/governor-gregoire-tear-down-viaduct Puget Sound Transportation and Land Use Issues Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:55:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Frank http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/01/governor-gregoire-tear-down-viaduct/comment-page-1#comment-1027 Frank Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=968#comment-1027 <p> A friend of mine once suggested that Mayor Nickels should do what Mayor Daley <a href="http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2003/03-1-157x.html" rel="nofollow">did with Meigs Field</a> in Chicago in 2003: bring in bulldozers in the middle of the night and start blowing things up.  Force the issue.  </p> <p>I don't know that Nickels has the stones for that, and obviously it's pretty undemocratic, but it sure is effective.</p>  A friend of mine once suggested that Mayor Nickels should do what Mayor Daley did with Meigs Field in Chicago in 2003: bring in bulldozers in the middle of the night and start blowing things up.  Force the issue.  

I don’t know that Nickels has the stones for that, and obviously it’s pretty undemocratic, but it sure is effective.

]]> By: madpark http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/01/governor-gregoire-tear-down-viaduct/comment-page-1#comment-1028 madpark Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=968#comment-1028 Those who worked or visited downtown Seattle in the mid-1980s will remember how wonderful the vista was northward on Westlake Ave after the original monorail station and old buildings between 4th and 5th on Pine were destroyed prior to the construction of Westlake Center. There was a flurry of activity (again) to keep Westlake Center from being built, alas to no avail. When the viaduct is gone, we will have a similar sense of relief and joy at the removal of such an eyesore, on a scale orders of magnitude greater than 25 years ago at Westlake Ave and Pine streets. Few remember that a man called Herman Adalist ran for mayor in 1969 on a platform of tearing down the viaduct. Those who worked or visited downtown Seattle in the mid-1980s will remember how wonderful the vista was northward on Westlake Ave after the original monorail station and old buildings between 4th and 5th on Pine were destroyed prior to the construction of Westlake Center. There was a flurry of activity (again) to keep Westlake Center from being built, alas to no avail. When the viaduct is gone, we will have a similar sense of relief and joy at the removal of such an eyesore, on a scale orders of magnitude greater than 25 years ago at Westlake Ave and Pine streets. Few remember that a man called Herman Adalist ran for mayor in 1969 on a platform of tearing down the viaduct.

]]> By: serial catowner http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2009/01/governor-gregoire-tear-down-viaduct/comment-page-1#comment-1029 serial catowner Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://wp.orphanroad.com/?p=968#comment-1029 <p>Ok, I really don't understand this.  The deal Nickels, Sims, and Gregoire reached has everything that was asked for in the way of transit.  There is no Option B on the table where you get <em>even more</em>.</p> <p> </p> <p>So what's the grand plan here- stop the tunnels now, and then, later, dig other tunnels for rail lines?  Wouldn't the people of the future say "Well, they tried to put tunnels under Seattle once and the people wouldn't stand for it"?</p> <p> </p> <p>As for just tearing down the Viaduct now, it's not like nobody has ever considered just doing that.  Maybe Matt is sincere and he's just snapped under the insane ugliness of the Viaduct.  God knows I myself have succumbed to Viaduct Rage more than once.  Which in turn has led me to reflect that when I come to Seattle and begin my visit with "Oh my gawd how do you put up with this!!!" even the most sympathetic listener gives me a look plainly saying "Get over it".</p> <p> </p> <p>My own thinking is that it's an even-money chance that a new elevated freeway could be built before the end of the automobile, and the building of that freeway is above all to be avoided.  The present deal has everything that would have been included in just tearing down the Viaduct.  Actually, it has more.  If they build the tunnel and cars are still being used, they're going under the city instead of through it.  If they build the tunnel and cars <em>aren't</em> still being used, the tunnel is available for rail.  As for the 'politics', which I generally regard as 'representative democracy', well, it seems to me we've been over that ground.</p> <p> </p> <p>Like I said, I just don't get it.</p> Ok, I really don’t understand this.  The deal Nickels, Sims, and Gregoire reached has everything that was asked for in the way of transit.  There is no Option B on the table where you get even more.

 

So what’s the grand plan here- stop the tunnels now, and then, later, dig other tunnels for rail lines?  Wouldn’t the people of the future say "Well, they tried to put tunnels under Seattle once and the people wouldn’t stand for it"?

 

As for just tearing down the Viaduct now, it’s not like nobody has ever considered just doing that.  Maybe Matt is sincere and he’s just snapped under the insane ugliness of the Viaduct.  God knows I myself have succumbed to Viaduct Rage more than once.  Which in turn has led me to reflect that when I come to Seattle and begin my visit with "Oh my gawd how do you put up with this!!!" even the most sympathetic listener gives me a look plainly saying "Get over it".

 

My own thinking is that it’s an even-money chance that a new elevated freeway could be built before the end of the automobile, and the building of that freeway is above all to be avoided.  The present deal has everything that would have been included in just tearing down the Viaduct.  Actually, it has more.  If they build the tunnel and cars are still being used, they’re going under the city instead of through it.  If they build the tunnel and cars aren’t still being used, the tunnel is available for rail.  As for the ‘politics’, which I generally regard as ‘representative democracy’, well, it seems to me we’ve been over that ground.

 

Like I said, I just don’t get it.

]]>