Cascadia Report

Doing right thing for the waterfront (finally)

Politicians and media appear to be coming around (finally) to the idea that Seattle's waterfront viaduct shouldn't be replaced with another freeway.

Cascadia Report made the case last winter for a combination of transit and comprehensive street improvements to replace the earthquake-damaged eyesore. Gov. Gregoire and Mayor Nickels were among those who poo-pooed the idea by insisting that any replacement had to accommodate the same number of vehicles as the current viaduct.

Now, Gregoire has changed her mind. Several agencies have pledged to work together for a comprehensive fix. Today even the Seattle Times editorial board -- a mostly suburban group that generally supports roads over transit -- came out in favor of transit + road fixes.

It's about time. Now let's get to work on a long-term fix that values the waterfront heart of the region's biggest metro area.

Death and life of great cities

A few weeks ago, during a long weekend in New York, I found myself wandering Manhattan on a Monday. All the usual museums were closed so I tried a small gem of an exhibit on the life and accomplishments of Jane Jacobs.

Jacobs is the activist who helped save swaths of Manhattan from freeways and urban renewal through the 1960s. She's often credited with the basic idea that walkable neighborhoods inhabited by residents are healthier than impersonal housing projects on "super blocks."

It's a great lesson that's been internalized by planners worldwide. But I couldn't help think the pendulum has swung too far. Instead of protesting for strong neighborhoods it seems neighborhood activism -- often under the guise of Jacobs' lessons -- is simply against development, period.

This describes Seattle, where investment in new buildings in a close-in neighborhood is scorned. The Seattle P-I wrote in sympathy of neighbors of a University District coffee shop who didn't want a parking lot developed because a new building would cast shade on a patio! Never mind the benefit of more residents, workers or customers in the neighborhood. Of course, there's also some backlash to development in Portland and Vancouver.

Even in New York, the protest and NIMBY movement is strong. I choose to remember the row of old two-story buildings being torn down in favor of the Santiago Calatrava-designed transit hub. Instead of hand-wringing, the New York Post brushed off concerns of the tenants, calling the buildings "scuzzy."

So where's the middle ground? I'd vote for transparent development rules and design review. But most important is leadership that can make a clear case for what the city gains from development.

Critics of tall Seattle buildings have it backward

Critics of plans for taller buildings in Seattle's South Lake Union area have it exactly backward.

If anything, the city should encourage more building in the area, creating demand for transit rather than encouraging sprawl. Instead critics want to soak the developer to pay more into a fund to create "affordable" housing.

Now, zoning in the area requires special permission to build even 12 stories. Why not require that buildings be at least that tall? Set design review standards, sure. But let's build the workplaces for thousands of employees and new residents.

What's wrong with a supposedly sweetheart deal between developers and the mayor, as long as the city gains? Among the benefits: More housing supply in the city should lower overall prices and make transportation options feasible.

Of course the city should negotiate to get the best terms in this area, but better those rules be streamlined and transparent to encourage more, better building instead of hinder it. Unfortunately the potential benefits are totally lost in today's story and the reader comments.

Urban planning overlooked in Seattle

The booming Seattle area is struggling to define itself. That's why it's curious that urban design seems overlooked in the latest regional awards by the American Institute of Architects.

For last Monday's ceremony there were nearly 200 entries for designs, from residential to industrial. But in the category of urban planning: nothing, not a single one for built or unbuilt work. (There was also nothing for historical preservation.)

Here's how our tipster put it:

In a city that's bursting at the seams, with the number of public projects that have been proposed, shot down, restarted, re-voted on -- how is there nothing in the urban design category? Scary.

Surely the numbers partly reflect who's commissioning the projects. That makes rewarding quality design even more important.

From one dark place to another -- nonstop

A day after the onslaught of standard time, it's hard to imagine anyone wanting to fly nonstop to Germany. But thanks to Lufthansa at least Seattleites (and anyone doing international business) will have the option.

The Sea-Tac-to-Franfurt nonstop announced today is the latest increase in air service since the Port of Seattle lowered its fees to attract more routes. That's the right sort of subsidy -- a targeted incentive that mulitplies the economic benefit. Recent new flights include to Mexico City and Paris.

There were rumors that Sea-Tac was courting a nonstop to Munich (Vancouver and Portland already have Frankfurt flights -- Portland, thanks to a package of tourism incentives). Lest anyone misconstrue the addition, note that Lufthansa also announced a host of new flights from Canada today.

When the flights begin in March, Seattle may enjoy the best connections to Europe it's ever had. (True, Aeroflot ended its nonstop to Moscow. But Sea-Tac will have daily scheduled service to five business centers: London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Copenhagen.)

B.C. plan could actually cut gas emissions

Seattle announced Monday that it managed to cut emissions of greenhouse gases over the last 15 years. Too bad emissions from cars are bound to continue rising.

Meanwhile in British Columbia there's serious talk of a policy that could really make a difference: a carbon tax. The proposal would shift taxes to give incentives for lower emissions. It seems a lot more effective than just encouraging everyone to ride bicycles.

Washington and the Seattle area need to think along the same lines. This report includes a chart of Seattle's pollution sources and how hard it will be to make more progress. Next steps should be replacing the viaduct with transit and better streets and then nudging the region toward a more sustainable transportation network.

Wanted at Sea-Tac: Pride of place

How does Seattle greet visitors? If they get off a flight at Sea-Tac's gate N-15, the answer is with a dingy jetway that has a severely waterstained ceiling, discolored walls and wet wood between the floor joints.

The dark and crowded North Satellite terminal was a jarring change after my recent flight from the airy, modern facility in Toronto. Luckily flights from Canada clear U.S. customs before they take off so at least those passengers can avoid Sea-Tac's 70s-era international arrivals area in the South Satellite.

Sea-Tac's embarrassment is about more than aesthetics. With its new facilities, Vancouver is wooing Seattle fliers and more business because airlines prefer its new terminal. Each flight means thousands of dollars in economic benefit on the ground.

There's a comprehensive plan to remodel Sea-Tac -- eventually. There also are examples of how to use the space more efficiently. It wouldn't hurt to start with basics.

Why I'm voting for Transit and Roads

The tax package to fund transit and roads in the greater Seattle area, known as Prop. 1, is a compromise: there are details for everyone to hate. I may be holding my nose, but I'm voting yes.

Consider what the measure does: it raises $10.8 billion to add light rail, HOV lanes, streetcars, park-and-rides and other transit infrastructure. It also generates $7 billion to fix some road choke points and complete several missing links in the region's network, for example connecting 509 and 167 to I-5. It's far from the sole solution, but it's a start.

For more info, take a look at this map.

What would be better? Funding much more transit, completing the projects much faster and explicitly including congestion pricing in the financing mix. In fact, the most persuasive argument against the measure is that any investment in roads lessens incentives for transit and worsens global warming.

But politics is reality. There's a huge backlog of infrastructure projects in the region and chipping away at it takes regional buy-in -- a process that in this case took five years. The dense areas of the region can't afford to pay for all the transit this area needs (remember the monorail?). To build support, there needs to be something for people who help pay but wouldn't directly benefit. Even with this package, congestion will still create a growing incentive to use transit; as alternatives start becoming available policies can be shifted to encourage even more use.

Assuming the measure passes, the next step should be reorganizing the governments that oversee the region's transportation to execute more efficiently. There will still be chances during the planning process to modifiy specific projects. These are all big challenges, not deal breakers.

Writing that captures the city

There's a nice elegy in the Seattle P-I today marking the 25th anniversary of the death of the poet Richard Hugo.

The author of "The Real West Marginal Way" captured the city in a way that may not be possible now that the area is more grown up. That makes his contribution more worth remembering than ever.

One place that builds on his example is the Hugo House literary center (where I serve on the board). From the P-I piece:

Most of all, Hugo, our hometown poet, tells us that writing matters: "It's a way of saying you and the world have a chance." In these past 25 years, multitudes of writers working in all sorts of genres have gathered in Seattle. We're now not only a bookish city, we're a city where the raw ore of language is formed into literature. All along the ridges and valleys, writers are working away, word by word, creating the drafts that we'll see later caught between the smooth, glimmering covers of books. It's the kind of industry that would have impressed Richard Hugo.

Making a city for residents, not tourists

I just noticed this article in Vancouver magazine, pointing out the need to make the city serve its residents rather than just tourists, planners and the people who create "most-livable city" lists.

The writer finds fault with Vancouver's regional government system (exactly what Seattle lacks):

One of the biggest obstacles is political: planners are king here because our politicians allow them to be. Our at-large municipal system—unlike the ward system, with defined constituencies, which you find in most major cities—gives a free pass to city councillors. We select our council from a list of 100-plus candidates every three years, and they thank us by answering to “the city at large”—not to the widower in Strathcona trying to save the local seniors’ centre from destruction, not to the South Main sculptor trying to find a spot for his public art, not to the young couple in Yaletown trying to get a playground built near their condo. Such quotidian concerns become the domain of bureaucrats and enforcers, while politicians turn their attention to the “big picture” stuff like EcoDensity, Civil City and the Olympics.

By contrast, the Seattle area has the worst of both worlds. The Seattle city council is elected city wide (so they're not accountable to neighborhoods) yet there's no effective regional government.