May 22, 2011 at 5:59 am #162826ncaParticipant
so where do you begin mauijim? Start with the lowest common denominator and hope someone in the audience is paying attention?
I can’t really say I love it or hate it because I dont think we’re getting the full story, not even close, but I certainly wouldn’t say its a bad plan because it’s too ‘fantastical or academic.’
What I would say is that I’d like to see more active uses to draw visitors and get a sustained number of ‘eyes’ on the park(s). I’d also agree with adam that I’m a little confused about the lack of tree coverage or at least shade and more garden scale elements–but maybe the absence is intentional.May 22, 2011 at 11:05 am #162825Trace OneParticipant
thanks for posting, Heather, interesting event..
To me this design fails to deal with #1 problem – the highway. Same problem in Philly – have to underground highway, to make space truely usable..
Yes, that is expensive, but tourism brings money and good parks raise property values..Besides, how about just doingit because it is the right thing to do..
UVa worked for years on a highly successful bridge/park over a dividing highway..
Perhaps pedistrian bridges are integral to the design,but I’m not seeing it..May 22, 2011 at 1:41 pm #162824Alan Ray, RLAParticipant
Maybe since gas is going to get too expensive to drive you can remove the roadway….
Now you have a real greenway…..that’s about as practical of a suggestion yet….or if you do have several billion to spend, how abour a cut and cover tunnel for the roadway…
I do love plans like these as an exercise in creativity but at some point they should have a hint of practicallity of afordibility…. we’re broke and will be for some time it appears…the money printing machine is about to break….what a tax burden for the wonderful people of Seattle. I do love your town. Especially in the summertime!!!
We built a football stadium for a pro team to promote downtown and stimulate business….my property taxes doubled and my water bill tripled. This stadium sits on the East bank of the Cumberland River and they would not allow the city to pump irrigation water from the river…had to be potable water or else…So look out for the Politicians working stupid and costly deals that are hidden costs and agendas on big projects like this….May 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm #162823Heather SmithParticipant
I know they are talking about putting the highway underground…but there are politics involved of course. That area needs SO much…every time we park under the viaduct I look up at it and wonder how sturdy it is.
Wanted to add…the best thing about this whole thing is an LA gave a presentation to 1000 people!May 23, 2011 at 12:05 pm #162822Jon QuackenbushParticipant
you would also take your life in your hand every time you wanted to access the waterfront by dodging 7 lanes of traffic.May 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm #162821Trace OneParticipant
the other thing that occurs to me about this is, is this a Tsunami prone part of the world? Or is it protected..Never been to Seattle.
but with the Japanese Tsunami, the didn’t observe the McHarg Layer cake rules, and failed to recognize quake-prone areas as having knock-out constraints for building nuclear reactors..
You can’t do anything everywhere..some simple rules apply..
How could this park be part of an earthquake/tsunami plan?
And I agree that the level of ‘designiness’ in this plan is disappointing..
I think stormwater recharge basin type stuff should be of first consideration, unless Seattle has a system that is fully functioning, as they say..May 23, 2011 at 10:11 pm #162820Les BallardParticipant
After the ’87 Great Storm when southern England lost millions of trees, a woman said to me at the bus stop “Oh it’s probably a good thing, they do make such a mess don’t they!”. Well, I suspect the designer thought the trees in the picture sufficient and may have heard that it is hard to find salt tolerant trees, they cost money to tend, including fuel/carbon spend for the trucks that go round them, views should not be interrupted at upper levels, etc.
The truth is that public authority trees should pay for themselves and even create employment. They should allow local production using local strains and stock as well as others, eliminating the import of rainforest board, etc. which is stuck together with cow urine making it essential to use a mask to saw the stuff. This reduces carbon footprints, imports, etc. Local businesses can achieve a local supply of pallet boards, dunnage, fencing and more – as well as materials for local school use to save imports, souvenirs, civic awards and art – and no-one is interested to initially fund this cost effective, holistic, natural approach. They would prefer no trees really, just astroturf that will harbour no bugs, plants, fungi, trees, wildlife of any kind and certainly no vermin. In a concrete jungle, you get concrete profits you can foresee and a built in obsolescence you can relish in. For sure, a circle of oaks on a raised level with drains watering them will last a lot longer than any of the buildings and we could not possibly have that, could we?
The avenue of trees by the road can be cut back, pollarded, sacrificed, replaced and tamed with the whip and chair of local authority contractors and the tree varieties will not be natural or wild but park and garden ones with reduced spread, upswept branches, fewer seeds or none and so on. Planting a row of waterside willows to crop for baskets and provide a habitat for ducks to nest is beyond the vision, flair, knowledge and sheer nous of anyone important and, as long as there is no statutory allowances and requirements, it will remain that way. The pines near the beach will go in the first storm without soft defences, under planted and with medium term pioneer specie trees and the road surface, without those defences, or allowing for the gaps in planned defences if the orange line is a sea wall, will be regularly washed away. There is no holed paving to allow fresh water catchment, no grey water tanks, no irrigation system even for the trees depicted, no heart and no soul – indeed, this kind of plan should achieve instant rejection as a no-brainer.June 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm #162819ALEX PParticipant
Corner 4 lifeJune 19, 2011 at 7:09 pm #162818Roland BeinertParticipant
Why not just take the highway out? Rebuild it as a more pedestrian freindly boulevard or something. That’s got to be easier and cheaper than putting it underground.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.