Why “the Rebuild” is not a practical solution

Comments to “Expert Panel” on
Why “the Rebuild” is not a practical solution

The Rebuild option is not a politically realistic solution to dealing with a Viaduct in need of repair. It cannot be accomplished because of what I call the "Westlake Park phenomenon."

Some background. Back in the late 60's the voters of this region authorized a host of public works known as Forward Thrust. One of those works was to have been a park, a public open space, a "town square" on the the site what is now Westlake Center, a shopping mall and office tower in Seattle’s CBD. Over several decades Seattle debated the nature of this civic space. Finally, in the mid-80s, the City Council decided that a park on the site was not appropriate and that a shopping mall and office tower should be built instead.

The first stage of the project was to demolish the buildings then on the site.

To the surprise of everyone (except perhaps the visionaries who had advocated for the park in the first place,) once the site was cleared a huge number of citizens saw the site’s power and the wisdom which had motivated its inclusion in Forward Thrust. The site was a magnificent and logical one for a civic open space. It was a space where several plats came together and the street grid was interrupted. The site had views -- believe it or not -- to Lake Union which had hitherto been obscured by the buildings. The planners had planned well -- it was a great place -- and many citizens finally saw it when the buildings came down.

There was sufficient civic uproar. Some activists -- one current and one past City Councilmember among them -- organized to reverse the City Council's decision. (Bear in mind that in Seattle, all decisions are subject to reconsideration and no decision is final.) These activists came close to succeeding. The Council was under a lot of pressure and from what I understand came very close to killing the retail mall/office tower. The primary thing which stopped them was the City had already signed contracts with the developer and would have suffered severe penalties had it decided to keep the site as public open space.

Well I don't think I need to draw out the story for you in too fine a detail as I am sure that you can see the analogy of Westlake Park  to the Viaduct. Once you tear down the Viaduct you cannot replace it.

I suggest that the Rebuild is not politically realistic because the same Westlake Park phenomenon will surface. Once the existing Viaduct is torn down to make way for the a total Rebuild, people, including thousands hitherto not involved, will see how magnificent the waterfront is without the Viaduct and will organize to prevent the Rebuild.

The Westlake Park activists had only a month or so, at best. Here, open waterfront advocates will have the advantage of a vastly longer time frame. There will be at least a year in which people will both hear the improvement -- no traffic noise -- and see/experience an open waterfront. It's hard to visualize a building before it is built -- or visualize a vacant lot before the building on it is torn down. So once people see a waterfront without a Viaduct, there will not be the political will to build a new one.

Once people see how nice the waterfront is when there is no Viaduct, I do not believe that State and Local politicians will be able to withstand the uproar and will be pressured to kill a Rebuild.

(Btw, this is by no mean an argument for the Tunnel, of course, as it has its own set of fatal flaws such as money and the construction period mobility problem about which everyone is finally aware. In fact, as an aside, I think that the Tunnel is a very bad idea but so many people are commenting in that vein that I see no reason to say anything more than that the Tunnel is also not realistic.)

Of course I make one very big assumption: the Westlake Park phenomenon only comes into play if WSDOT's Construction Period Transportation Plan actually works and that there are very few traffic jams and no significant impact on the life and economy of the City, including especially downtown retailers and office tenants.

Of course if that Plan works really well then you run into the situation which many other have suggested: if the Construction Period Transport Plan is so good, why rebuild anything at all? Save the billions and fix 520 and the many other transport facilities around the State which are decaying.

Then again, a more sobering possibility, it may well be be that the Construction Period Transport Plan is a fiasco and there is total chaos with massive tie-ups on I-5 and in the CBD itself and with business declining everywhere as even in-city residents travel to the suburbs for shopping and entertainment. Well in that case the the Westlake Park phenomenon might not apply and the pubic will be feverishly and angrily waiting for some replacement -- any replacement. And in that case I wouldn't want to be a public official running for reelection. As well, if I were an elected official now, I would be very cautious about entrusting my job to the opinions of traffic engineers about what will work to mitigate the construction period impacts.

For this and many other reasons (primarily related to the construction period), the Rebuild is not a realistic solution.

Comments

[Holly B]

I think that comparing Westlake Plaza to a post-viaduct plaza at the waterfront is a stretch. Were it not for the surrounding anchor department stores that promote walkway use of Westlake, it might be largely dead space along the lines of the cobblestone vagrant magnet that passes for a pedestrian plaza in Pioneer Square, or the wasted open space that was supposed to beautify the base of the Seafirst Tower (I forget what it's now called) when it was originally built across from the downtown public library on 4th Avenue.

[David Sucher]

Holly B.

I apologize if my post was unclear.

By no means am I comparing "Westlake Plaza to a post-viaduct plaza at the waterfront" on a physical, design basis.

This post is about perception and how people see the built world.

I am ONLY comparing the reactions of people when a large element of the environment has been changed, here the removal of structures. It is NOT about the similarities or differences of two different physical environments.

The point is that the vast majority of people -- and I readily include myself -- usually cannot visualize what a building will feel like until it is actually in existence, or in the case of demolitions until it is absent, .

Conversely, people are often unduly alarmed by a proposed development and believe that it will be far worse than it will be because they imagine it inaccurately.

[Gomez]

Wouldn't opt-out penalties with the viaduct contractors come into play here as well?

[David Sucher]

Gomez,
Could you please expand a bit? I am not quite sure I get what you are saying. Thanks.

[five toed sloth]

I'm not sure that the construction will play out in quite the way you're envisioning. I went to the open house in May and from what I could tell (given the still very vague outline provided), the long-term construction plan would keep two lanes open for all but about three months during construction.
(PDF of timeline)

The short-term option, which was preferred in the first round of public meetings, envisions a complete closure for more than a year. However, I think that what's likely happened since then is that DOT has received a ton of pressure to have an alternative that keeps some traffic flowing, and that they have come up with a creative (that is, speculative and optimistic) method of reaching that goal. IIRC the initial outlines of the long-term construction plan included much more closure time as well.

Critically for the "Westlake Park" effect, there's never a point where no viaduct stands on the waterfront. Basically, the new structure is built around the old one, with northbound traffic staying on the existing top level while southbound traffic is routed around via Broad St. and Alaskan Way. Then while the new upper level is being built, the lower level is in use. The only complete closure is while the old structure is being torn out.

My guess is that the planners, mayor, and city council probably agree with your assessment - which is why I think the long-term (10 years!) plan will be the one adopted. It's a mess, but it avoids the dangers you outline of catastrophic traffic failure (hopefully) and catastrophic aesthetic success (certainly).

[David Sucher]

If what Five Toed says is accurate (and I do not mean to question his veracity) then it would certainly change things. But of course his information comes from WSDOT which is not exacyly a disinterested party but an advocate for particular courses of action which, as we know from political science, are as much or more designed to serve its own bureaucratic needs as the public's. That's just reality.

WSDOT has said so many different things over the past five years about costs and schedule (remember when the Tunnel was budgeted at +$10 billion?) that I have doubts about whether to believe anything that WSDOT claims. It seems to me to be so desirous of doing a big-money Tunnel or Rebuild that my perception is that WSDOT will say anything it believes that the public wants to hear. Yes call me a skeptic. Then, when under construction and committed, things will change out of "necessity." These projects are so huge and complex that they are practically impossible for elected officials to forecast or manage. So the reality is that the agency -- once you start -- is in complete control with no oversight.

[kieth Nissen]

It's a pleasant concept, that the open space would be there for all to see so I am sorry to read FT above. I admit I can't follow exactly how this build-around and demolish later can work but I will take FT's word for it.

The unpleasant truth that I saw at the various displays was that the payoff of open pedestrian space is pretty minimal even with the tunnel. there was one appealing sketch in a recent Seattle times but I think they had to look hard to find a place that benefitted so dramatically.

[kieth Nissen]

And, to add to the above: have other people noticed the WSDOT cross section that was in the Seattle Times about 10 days ago? it shows the option of the totally new viaduct widened out to extend westward
to the curb (as near as I can tell) at the west boundary of Alaska Way. It is really gruesome; covers about twice the area of the present viaduct. The article heading was, "STATE OFFERS 3 DECIDEDLY DIFFERENT DESIGNS FOR THE VIADUCT" but I do not have the date on the drawing (which I downloaded from ST's website).

[Jesse McCann]

They should just implement the Construction Period Traffic Plan immediately and try closing the viaduct for one month. This way it can be seen whether this is a realistic plan... it's a simple and low-cost experiment. Sure, some people might complain that it takes them longer to get to work, but there are plenty of roadwork projects that inconvenience people. If it's truly a disaster, the experiment can be cut short relatively easily.

Perhaps I'm just thinking scientifically and not politically!

[David Sucher]

I agree, Jesse. See my post of May 24, 2006:
Try an experiment: close the Viaduct for a year You are going to try it for far longer if the Mayor's tunnel plan prevails..