U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:01 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,528,523 times
Reputation: 7830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
They could have built it within the same alignment as the existing highway.

[of course, the existing highway would have to be demolished first]
And how would they deal with it running through Belltown? Also, once the new tunnel is built, the old viaduct will be removed and turned into a boulevard, so that completes what it is you would want to see happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:07 AM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,569,802 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
And how would they deal with it running through Belltown? Also, once the new tunnel is built, the old viaduct will be removed and turned into a boulevard, so that completes what it is you would want to see happen.
Exactly.

[minority interests pushed the alignment underground]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,528,523 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
Exactly.

[minority interests pushed the alignment underground]
So your reasoning is that the city should tear down a bunch of buildings, displace a lot of residents, cut through the street grid of an existing neighborhood, and somehow deal with a steep grade so that cars can run through Seattle at street grade on a boulevard?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,569,802 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
So your reasoning is that the city should tear down a bunch of buildings, displace a lot of residents, cut through the street grid of an existing neighborhood, and somehow deal with a steep grade so that cars can run through Seattle at street grade on a boulevard?
No. The reason the route alignment is underground is because a minority that was in a position to gain financially by it being underground pressured the decision-makers to construct it underground.

Which is what I was saying here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
It is for prosperity. Undergrounding the Viaduct is paid by many for the benefit of the few.

[clever, actually]
[i'm not advocating anything - I'm merely pointing out a reality]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:27 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,053 posts, read 29,528,523 times
Reputation: 7830
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
No. The reason the route alignment is underground is because a minority that was in a position to gain financially by it being underground pressured the decision-makers to construct it underground.

Which is what I was saying here:



[i'm not advocating anything - I'm merely pointing out a reality]
Again, cutting a boulevard through a densely populated neighborhood, tearing down a number of buildings and reworking an entire street grid, not including figuring out how to run a boulevard up a steep grade so that vehicles can easily handle it doesn't seem like the smartest decision.

I would say the exact same thing if Belltown were a poor neighborhood, the tunnel option made the most sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Southern California
15,087 posts, read 17,569,802 times
Reputation: 10299
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Again, cutting a boulevard through a densely populated neighborhood, tearing down a number of buildings and reworking an entire street grid, not including figuring out how to run a boulevard up a steep grade so that vehicles can easily handle it doesn't seem like the smartest decision.

I would say the exact same thing if Belltown were a poor neighborhood, the tunnel option made the most sense.
Perhaps. You and I are asserting that the decision-makers arrived at the same conclusion for different reasons.

[in other words...you could be very right]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 09:23 AM
 
Location: bend oregon
929 posts, read 844,258 times
Reputation: 351
there should be a new city built from scratch. it would have a few four track wide train tracks and a few four lane roads (four lanes in each direction). underground would have a bunch of small tunnels for bikes and one person wide trains. there would be no freeways, except one that goes around it and not through the middle of the city. have three or four downtowns.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 01:23 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,267,452 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
No. The reason the route alignment is underground is because a minority that was in a position to gain financially by it being underground pressured the decision-makers to construct it underground.

Which is what I was saying here:



[i'm not advocating anything - I'm merely pointing out a reality]


True The most amazing thing about this tunnel is it was never approved by a public vote or referendum. The Seattle city council unilaterally decided to build it on their own. How can that even be legal? Actually I believe there was a public vote held several years ago to replace the viaduct with a deep underground tunnel but the voters rejected it. So much for democracy. Who cares what the voters want? You usually see this kind of corruption in a third world banana republic. They didn't even so much as conduct an environmental impact study, which is legally required. How in the world did this thing get approved for state and federal funding without that? Or if they did do a study, the results were not publicly disclosed. The amount of corruption at all levels is astounding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIKEETC View Post
This is not an urban planning fiasco. This is a construction fiasco. I agree with others that Seattle should have just replaced the Alaskan Viaduct with an at-grade street similar to the replacement for the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco.

[it's a nice open, public space]

Even if the construction went off without a hitch, it was a still a bad idea to begin with. For reasons stated above. City councils can't just decide to build a major infrastructure project on their own. From an urban planning perspective and from a legal perspective, it is a disaster. I'm surprised a judge hasn't ordered a stop to it yet. I'm sure there had to be at least several lawsuits challenging it. And to top it off, the construction was poorly and incompetently executed, a man-made disaster costing taxpayers billions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 01:47 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,069 posts, read 16,090,068 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Not without cutting through a number of existing buildings and disrupting the street grid that already exists.
Rebuilding the current viaduct would not have necessitated cutting through any buildings or disrupting the street grid that already exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2014, 02:04 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,267,452 times
Reputation: 2924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Komeht View Post
Of course an at grade boulevard would be much better than a freeway. Some of the most fantastic places in the world are Boulevards:


[img]http://onebigphoto.com/paris-champs-elysees/[img]

Wonderful waterfront roads such as:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/La...82c0cb7f4bf243

Contrast with monstrosity in place:



How can you possibly conclude that it wouldn't be much better than a freeway? Bizarre.

Y'all really have to stop thinking as streets as mere thoroughfares - streets are the lifeblood of a city and destinations unto themselves.
A street-level boulevard might be an improvement over the current freeway if done correctly.
By correctly I mean a pedestrian and transit only (or priority) boulevard. Cars would be allowed
only during certain hours, if at all, and subject to tolls or congestion charging.

I don't believe there is even one pedestrian only or pedestrian priority street in all of Seattle.
Of the hundreds of miles of Seattle streets , drivers own 100% of them. Would it kill them to
give up just 2 miles?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top