Billy emails from Mexico suggesting a creative alternative for the Viaduct:

In all fairness why not show how the Viaduct could be recycled into a fabulous city park ala the Hi-Line in NYC. The Hi-line emerged as an economic engine over the combined objections of the city power brokers but is now the darling of the real-estate, construction and tourist industries. We could have the same here without having to go to the great expense of rebuilding the waterfront. Ok build the tunnel but leave the viaduct standing as a pedestrian park. Take off the cars and replace with grass, sand, bike paths, food carts, a $1 dollar admission charge, porta-potties, a connection to the Ferry terminal, electric carts for disabled etc. ... Compared to the cost of tearing down the Viaduct, a park plan will cost pennies on the tear down dollar.

That's a great idea Billy, and you're not alone in suggesting it. The High Line is an amazing park, and I'd love to have something like that here in Seattle. Except, in all fairness, the whole reason we're replacing the Viaduct is that it's ready to fall the fuck down. Next big quake and the top level of what could surely be a world class park would pancake the food carts and the porta-potties—and oh yeah, all those precious tourists—beneath it. And even if there's no big quake, the western supports of some sections of the Viaduct are slowly subsiding, meaning that eventually, it's just gonna topple over onto the waterfront, potentially killing even more tourists. And killing tourists just can't be good for business.

The only reason I bring this up is that in all the endless debate over how to best replace the Viaduct, I think we sometimes lose sight of why: it's gonna fall the fuck down. And if it does collapse/topple/whatever on its own accord after a decade of post-Nisqually dithering, it won't be a "natural" disaster.