A model from Paris

A commenter is dubious (see this post from a few days ago) that we could really have a "park" under a retrofitted viaduct. I tend to agree. A "park" in the sylvan sense might be tough. But we can certainly do better than what we have now. 

Here's an example of what Paris has done: Beyond The Big Dig —Viaduc des Arts. Lots of photos. (Robert Campbell in the Boston Globe)

More info here at  Viaduc des Arts : 45 craftsmen and creators in Paris.

Why not create cheap commercial spaces under a retrofitted viaduct? If you really want to generate excitement along the waterfront, a mile of cheap work/studio space for artists and craftspeople  under a repaired viaduct will go a lot father than a lawn. (I've never favored the idea that "What downtown Seattle really needs..." is more "open space," which is, btw, a term I have never liked.)

Obviously, this vision is a very different one that those set forth by either the Mayor or the People's Waterfront Coalition. But I think that it is worth considering.  My observation (my own preference aside, to the extent one can ever be ruthlessly objective) is that we, the Seattle body politic, will conclude that

1. the Mayor's vision is not within our budget;
2. it's pointless to build a brand-new viaduct if we can do without one for the projected seven year construction period;
3. the People's Waterfront vision is too risky, too chancy, based on too many assumptions about how things will work just right.

I have to say that while I admire the pluck and boldness of the visions offered by the Mayor and the People's Waterfront, I just don't think they are timely.

The vision set forth here — let's call it the "repair with work-space underneath" model — is affordable, practical and urbane.

Comments

[Hal O'Brien]

I like this idea, especially in light of Randy's comments. (and, Randy, if you see this: Hiya :)

My worry, as someone who worked very close to the Viaduct (1201 Western, x Seneca), is the metered parking under the Viaduct as it presently stands is very useful for short term parking during the day, and longer term parking at night (after 6PM, when the meters stop being a factor). The alternatives are the very high-priced pay parking lots, some of which might go away with construction -- that is, they seem to be placeholders on their lots until a building comes along.

So I guess I'm saying I'd want any commerical project under the Viaduct to include some sort of stacked parking as well -- something reminiscent of the parking along Santa Monica's high-street-made-into-a-pedestrian-gallery.

[Randy Byers]

Hiya, Hal. I agree that taking away all the parking under the Viaduct could be a problem, although the fact that so much of that space is used for parking lots is surely one reason the area seems like a wasteland now. I like this idea of putting cheap commercial spaces under the viaduct. Combining all this with Matt's comment about his experience in Milan, maybe we could fill the space with rehearsal studios for bands. Ha!

[brian miller]

I've always liked this basic concept. As much as I hate urban freeways, and I am certainly glad the Embarcadero-or the Central-are gone in San Francisco, the alternative, the horrid one-way traffic sewer pairs (Oak/Fell, for instance) or, for that matter, 19th Street, are not a very big improvement. Maybe another alternative IS the raised freeway-but a freeway well integrated into the City via cheap space, through streets, etc.

[Abe]

It looks like the viaduct in Paris doesn't have cars on top, but people! That's a whole different thing.

[David Sucher]

Abe,
Undeniably it's a "whole different thing." Sorta.

But are you also implying that the difference negates the proposal to use the space under the Viaduct? And if so, how? Are you thinking about issues of noise and/or vibration which might make the spaces unusable? If so, you raise a fair question. But considering that spaces immediately adjacent to the Viaduct are currently used, I would bet it's not decisive. And it is also a somewhat objective point so let's note it and leave it for analysis during the feasibility-study phase for this option.

[JRoth]

Boy, I thought for sure that someone would beat me here with reference to the market that was (re)built under the Guastovino vaults beneath the 59th St. Bridge in NYC. A great space, and a big boon to the neighborhood.

However, I've never been to Seattle, and my impression is that the viaduct is more "highway underpass" than "vaulted masonry enclosure," which would make occupancy a bit less desirable. Still, sounds like a good thought to me, at least.

[David Sucher]

JRoth,
It would be disingenuous of me to suggest that there are no issues to consider with active use/development of the space under the Viaduct. But its location is of course superb -- between an active CBD and salt water. Of course that's why there is an issue over how to handle the current Viaduct. And again, I praise the impulse of the Mayor and the People's Waterfront group to do something worthwhile there. But the reality is that we don't have the money for the mayor's proposal nor the nerve for the People's Waterfront Coalition's.

Moreover, specifically to the proposal we are discussing here, and as to architectural interest, yes it is not "vaulted masonry enclosure." But nor is it "highway underpass." The scale of the space under the Viaduct is grand and there is nothing wrong with a steel structure. If shop/work-space use is contemplated during the design of the retrofit, I am sure that the resulting spaces will be interesting.

[john massengale]

Yes, the Food Emporium under the Queensboro bridge (plenty of traffic there), is the best Food Emporium in Manhattan (and the Food Emporium is the upmarket branch of the A&P). There's also a chic restaurant and bar next door owned by Terence Conran.

Berlin has a similar use under elevated railroad tracks in the center of the city.

[Tommer Peterson]

So, in addition to the current viaduct's greatest liability, the likelhood that it will collapse us, its second liability is that it creates a physical and visual barrier for pedestrians and traffic, separating downtown from the waterfront. Hard to imaging that making it into a 2 mile long 4-5 story solid building does anything to lessen the barrier. How would one guarantee the "cheap space" concept on some of the city's most central and valuable real estate, without further diging into the $2 billion to endow the concept? The North end butts against the hillside, so spaces would only have the West face open to traffic. For most of the rest of its length these new spaces would be only an alley's width away from existing buildings on Western Avenue. Subsidized artists live/work space is a useful tool in urban areas, but a project of this size seems overkill. And who wants to live and work in a studio with a freeway on the roof?

[KIETH nissen]

Abe's comment is a good one. The noise and fumes (especially the former) make that idea
a lot less attractive in the flesh than you would guess looking at the photograph.

[David Sucher]

Are you folks who are against the idea willing to look into the facts? Or do you already know all you need to know to make a conclusion?

[Art Skolnik]

Let's get real! If we can spend Billions to put the road underground or up in the air, we have lots of money to make the space under the Viaduct a georgeous and friendly experience. It could be glassed in, the roadbeds insulated and baffels above to cut the noise. vacuum systems to suck away the debris and polution. All are cheap. The current waterfrint experience is an automobile use experience. Let's take back that space and give it to the people. The use will be determined by those that have creative thoughts. Don't forget that it is over a mile long. Lot's of different uses can exist side by side.
Art

[ian]

Westway in London has around 23 acres of land beneath the roadbed used for a range of activities.

[vincent]

Save the Viaduct? What a pathetic reaction to a historic opportunity. My parents were among the first to restore a building in Pioneer Square, in the 1960's and I lived in the Market for many years starting in the 1970"s. In both areas the Viaduct is a monstrous imposition into the urban fabric It is inconceivable to me that anyone would seriously propose "saving" the Viaduct, let alone enclosing the area under it for work/live etc. That would totally wall off the city from the waterfront and the views. So, we would spend the Billions it would cost to repair the Viaduct to keep it from falling down on top of the live/work spaces? Why not just buy all those artisans houses on Mercer Island--it would be cheaper. The tunnel option is not being pushed by developers, the way the Market and Pioneer Square were. It is being proposed by people who care deeply about creating a more humane, more beautiful, more liveable city. Remember those terms? Get your mind around how to help, not hinder the job of remedying the errors of past planners.