James Corner -- brought to Seattle by the politics of the deep-bore tunnel

Yes, that's really what he was all about —the politics of the deep-bore tunnel. He was supposedly about design but in reality he was asked to give a stump-speech for the tunnel.

As I discussed here, James Corner has been hired to design a proposed waterfront park when the proposed deep-bore tunnel allows the proposed demolition of  the Viaduct. The front group organized by pro-tunnel forces — Waterfront Seattle — brought him to talk about "analysis and aspirations for the waterfront." Bear in mind that the park would not be built until after the Viaduct had been demolished and that demolition is not proposed for 2016, at the earliest. So it seems quite a bit early. But considering that there is enormous contention about the Tunnel — it's a long sad story of ten years — with a Mayor who has just vetoed Council action to continue work on the Tunnel, I suggest that the reason for Corner's visit was not about design of the Park but about gathering political support for the Tunnel.

So did Corner do what the pro-tunnel forces asked him to do?

In large part Corner did a professional job.

• His analysis of the existing conditions was fair, not showy or cute and and well-presented — he's a pro. He was a bit over-long considering that the nearly one thousand people in the audience were almost entirely (my bet) design professionals, policy-wonks, and long-time residents and so most people know the existing conditions very well, many better than Corner could. With one exception — treatment of Railroad Avenue — he said nothing new that I heard. 

• Nonetheless his analysis was useful in that it is clear that there is no "Seattle waterfront" but seven (or eight? as I heard) "Seattle waterfront segments." He explicitly stated that his design would not be about one big waterfront but about those seven segments. Sounded about right to me.

• But among the Guiding Principles, set for the design, and resolved just three weeks ago by the Seattle City Council, include 

Create a bold vision that is adaptable over time

The waterfront will come together over time, with many complex infrastructure and engineering projects that must be completed before permanent public space improvements can be made. The vision developed now should clearly define an overall framework for how the waterfront will take shape, what the key elements will be, and define their essential character. At the same time, the vision must be flexible enough to adapt as conditions inevitably change. (italics added)

In the context of the current debate the way I read  "Create a bold vision that is adaptable over time" is that the City Council is asking for an overtly political and cheer-leading design —"a bold vision" — a WOW!!! — to muster political support by the populace. 

• Corner did an honest, professional  job and his characterization of the existing conditions expressly does NOT call for a big WOW design but for a series of discrete interventions which respond to each of the seven segments. He did not offer a big picture design. There was no take-away design sound-bite to rally support for the Tunnel. Growing out of the fact that there are seven quite different segments, it's seven separate designs which could be implemented in part or in whole but will be contrived to make it read as ONE WOW DESIGN only if you do something contrived or superficial, like the same paving or graphics. 

• So while Corner did a professional job, I don't think that is the job he was hired to do. The City Council asked for a barn-burner "I want it now" political event and what Corner gave was thoughtful design analysis.