This monstrosity is the absolute last thing Seattle needs. Mr. Chopp's ego must take a backseat to our city's future. One of the surface transit options is the cheapest and best way to go.

Once again our tax dollars go down the tube because we have to listen to the cock-a-mammy proposals of every wack-job with an idea.

It just wouldn't be Seattle if we didn't consider everyone's opinion before making crucial decisions.

BTW, the Viaduct is falling down around our ears. Can you guys speed up your BS before someone gets hurt?

Wouldn't we have to tear the viaduct down and wait 5 years or so until this thing is done? What would we do during this interim period? Oh, wait, I know! Exactly what we could keep doing if we just tore it down and left it at that!

Don't like Chopp's Great Wall? Then let's get organized against it. We need pro-suface street option talking points in circulation, and in particular, let's see some right here please. Thank you.

Jesus, this guy represents the 43rd? The most lefty district in the state? Do people on Capitol Hill really give a rat's ass how much clout this guy has in the legislature? Wouldn't any smart and charismatic person with a good campaign just roll over the party hacks with their eyes on the ladder and just steal this seat out from under him? Hasn't the Democratic Party changed since 2000?

Kevin Fullerton, Sandeep Kaushik, Ann Donovan, Knoll Lowney, run for Frank Chopp's seat, willya?

Dang, that's ugly! That wall is a BAD IDEA. Let's not loose site of our goal of a BEAUTIFUL CITY.

I recently toured the viaduct, with the transport engineers. They presented all of the options. The most expensive option simply re-routes the transport corridor, by digging a large tunnel from Aurora/Denny to a point near the International District (I forget where), and connecting it to the SR-99 right of way well south of downtown. This solves ALL of the problems of the transport corridor. Then we can tear down the viaduct, and put a street-level park there.

Why does everyone want a park on Alaskan Way? Aren't there enough lazy bums hanging out around the waterfront. We dont need to provide them with more places to hang out and get wasted all day. I for one think the viaduct is awesome. It gives some of the best views of the city at night, and watching the sunset over Elliot Bay in the evenings is amazing from up there. Stop being hippies and start being rational. Have you ever seen the surface streets down there at rush hour? Now include the 10,000 cars an hour that are up on the viaduct onto our already clogged streets and what do you get? A bunch of hippie crap, and a four hour long traffic jam every afternoon. Cmon Seattle, we are supposed to be an intelligent town. No park, no wall, no tunnel: just rebuild the viaduct like it is. If you agree with this, listen to my podcast.....www.raincityradio.org

Erica C Barnett:

Hello?

No wonder you think of Chopp’s parkway as a wall—the image accompanying your commentary makes it look like one—sheer, whitewashed concrete with cut-outs at east-west intersections. Where did that come from? The image that does justice to Chopp’s proposal accompanies the op-ed piece by Nick Hanauer/Dave Johnson/Eugene Wasserman in the November 16 Seattle Times. Representing the same view, this image shows porous, rhythmic, variegated texture. Because there’s more detail, it’s probably more true to life. It’s easy to see from this image that Chopp’s parkway provides continuity in materials and form with its urban context.

Rather than calling it a wall, I like the comment about Chopp’s proposal in Crosscut last September—“In effect, it moves downtown Seattle one block westward and gives the downtown a long front yard”. (It wasn’t an endorsement, just a quick-take on the block-wide, building-like bulk of it.) In fact, the Chopp design satisfies at least five requirements of a viaduct replacement—capacity, bypass, bus lanes, commercially developable space, and open space—and gives three bonus features—green park, quiet open space, and elevated views. Oh, that the other proposals could claim so much!

For some people there may be no contest between an urban plaza and waterfront views, but for a contrast between street-level and elevated waterfront views, go up to the Sculpture Park. At the south corner, just inside the park, there’s a street-level view of the water looking west and south from the bicycle path. At the top of the wall to the east of this path is an elevated view south down Alaskan Way and also west to the water. Street-level or elevated, which do you prefer?

I don’t think Chopp’s parkway has any chance of being chosen by Sims, Nickels, and Gregoire. I think people’s alarms go off at the sheer unconventionality of it. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a serious, ambitious, bold, and imaginative solution of real merit.

Can we all at least be honest and agree that the Great Wall of Chopp is an attempt to keep the elitists from turning Seattle into a "world-class city"--much the way that the Great Wall of China was an attempt to keep the Mongol hordes from overrunning imperial China?

And if we can agree on that, maybe we can also all be honest and agree that the Great Wall of Chopp is, in a way, a Trojan Horse? It's dressed up as some great aesthetic gift to the downtown waterfront, but really it's just another viaduct in disguise. I think there's a correlation here: the more you want to see Frank Chopp's vision realized, the less you probably actually care about the aesthetic concerns it's ostensibly trying to address.

Saying that the speaker of the house "enlisted the House Democratic Caucus" is extremely redundant.
Chopp IS the House Democratic Caucus -- he doesn't need to enlist it for anything. It's pre-enlisted. He recruited many of the members and is the boss of its employees.

Onderbread: any new viaduct would have tall, modern safety walls that would eliminate any views you'd get from your car. so you can kiss the views goodbye no matter what version we go with.

JS: the beautiful, "rhythmic" illustration you saw in the Seattle Times would not be funded by WSDOT. As Ms. Barnett notes, the cost just pays for the blank wall itself. The assumption is that the businesses that would set up shop underneath the highway would tax themselves to fund the facade improvements.

It's a big "if..."

Frank: my comment was mostly about the fact that everyone wants to put parks all over this city. Yet, what is the actual benifit of an "elevated park"? It would be completely inaccessable, and prevent people from getting away from would-be tormenters. Also, don't we already have an elevated park? Oh yeah, its called Freeway park, and you couldn't pay me enough to walk in there after dark. This city already has a shortage of cops, and adding more places for bums, vagrants, and other leeches of society to congregate would only keep Seattle police busier harassing said leeches instead of doing actual police work and preventing crimes. (since they do such a good job of that already....I hope you can all see the sarcasm dripping from this statement. Let's face it, this plan isn't about fixing a problem, its about Chopp puting a feather in his cap and saying he "fixed a problem." Lets fix our real problems with real solutions...not just some half assed design with a theory that people might move into a space if we provide it.......www.raincityradio.org

"[T]he more you want to see Frank Chopp's vision realized, the less you probably actually care about the aesthetic concerns it's ostensibly trying to address."

This comment makes no sense. At present, no one except Rep. Chopp is advocating this design. Throughout this entire (agonizingly slow) process, questions about aesthetics have been subjective and situational.

Be very careful when you find yourself responding to words like "aesthetics" and "safety", emotional words that may be unrelated to the underlying facts.

Well, I can see that Ms. Barnett, as well as most others posting comments are, no doubt, URBAN YUPPIES who live either in Belltown/Sodo CONDOS and anticipate a jump in property value if the Viaduct goes down, or in one of the closest-in, apartment neighborhoods geared primarily to the young, the retired, and those on public assistance. Sure, all these utopian visions & endless comparisons with San Francisco are great IF YOU LIVE DOWN TOWN AND NEVER HAVE TO DRIVE ANYWHERE. We may be near the end of the GASOLINE era, but cars ain't going anywhere-especially if you route the traffic from a highway onto surface streets-forget the BOGUS studies that say it could be easily handled-RUBBISH! Also, what about all the relatively cheap covered parking under the present Viaduct? Do all of you unquestioningly swallow the Newspeak "we need more parks"? We need JOBS, and FUNCTIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE, not a bunch of HIGH-FALUTIN' YUPPIE B.S.!!!!!! The Viaduct doesn't "cut off" anything-you can walk right under it! View-what view? A CONDO is blocking it!!! I drive the viaduct every day, and I like it! LONG LIVE THE VIADUCT!!! _Gordon Griffiths

Rebuilding the viaduct will set Seattle, as a city back 100 years. Keeping idiots like Frank Chopp in Washington State politics potentially is much worse. I am moving back to California because I can not stand politicians who can not pull the trigger on anything to save their lives. The viaduct, the monorail (are you kidding?), 520 these are all projects where millions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on studies rather than spent on solutions. Wake up Seattle, seriously WAKE UP!

Gordy Griffiths represent the problem not the solution.

This is by far the worst idea for replacing the viaduct I have ever heard. Tunnels, surface streets, all right. Gigantic wall, defacing the city streets? Fuck no.

I read an article in the PI about a year ago that had a very practical solution for replacing the viaduct. First, you would build new columns next to the existing ones and attach the bottom roadway to the new columns...Then you would divert all traffic onto the bottom lanes, and demolish and replace the top lanes. Then all traffic would be diverted onto the top roadway, and the bottom roadway would be demolished and rebuilt. Finally the old columns would be demolished leaving Seattle with a brand new viaduct with minimal traffic re-routing. Why has this solution not been brought up by anyone? Simple...its to easy, probably way too cost effective and most important....politicians and special interest groups wouldnt get their cut? Anyone disagree? www.raincityradio.org

This actually sounds like a great idea to me. I'd encourage the rest of you sheep to consider it for a minute.

Does everyone who is touting the surface streets option as a good idea realize how many containers come out of the the 3 bustling shipping terminals on a daily basis. The current setup is the only reason why there aren't even more. So if you were to eliminate the elevated option altogether there just IS NOT enough room for everything down there to function properly. But those people probably dont even live in West Seattle, let alone drive on these wonderful surface streets down around the south end of the viaduct. Nothing like rushing off to someplace and getting to wait for a train for ten minutes! How much would it cost to get these surface streets up to par to handle all this traffic. I have yet to see talk of this, because let me tell you those streets have been neglected for quite some time. You've got pot holes galore. Some of them are just gravel roads in some spots! The fact is most of you dont know what the eff you are talking about.

Hey Erica,

I am generally in favor of the surface option. However, if you are going to post the digital rendition with the story, then at least post the proper picture. I hate to see things like that (maybe unintentionally) call the integrity of the Stranger into question.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2…

The fact is that Chopp's option is a creative compromise among the options. He deserves some credit for that. It's not as nice as the tunnel or the surface streets, but I would much rather have Chopp's idea than a bare bones elevated highway.

If you build it, the taggers will come.

No need to worry about calling "the integrity of The Stranger" into question -- it has none. The graphic is displayed with the story BECAUSE it is inaccurate -- it fits the agenda. The park would not be "inaccessible"; you could walk or ride a bike right onto it from Pike Place Market and other places. The Chopp idea is far too visionary for most Seattle navel gazers, who spend no time now on the waterfront. If they did, they would realize the viaduct doesn't "block" any views, and that a surface option is nonsensical -- let's put thousands of more cars every day, stalled by 20 stoplights, even closer to Puget Sound -- THAT is what would cut the waterfront off from the rest of the city.

Dear Stranger readers, and Frank Chopp,

This design looks like a seawall to me. How fortunate that the graphic depiction is so poor, and initial design is so stark, otherwise I might not have seen it.It IS a wall, and we should exploit the fact. Look at how it buttresses and protects downtown Seattle.

Good design would introduce more complexity to the surfaces, and create more inviting and human-scale features. The design could improve on it's functional texture as well, perhaps including noise, wind, and sea-breaking shapes. Can you picture a few wind turbines or solar panels on it as well?

An Alaska Viaduct Seawall is exactly the type of conservative idea I'd like to see more of. Think of it: Jobs today, transportation and commerce tomorrow, and if properly designed, protection from tsunami and the rising waters of a warming world. This is money well spent, in my opinion.

A strip mall with a road on top of it?

Yeah, it might be ambitious, bold, and imaginative, yet stupid at the same time.

A mile long mall with a highway and a park on top? I’m stunned that this ‘concept’ has gotten so much analysis.

The viaduct committee's own Open Space assessment gets it right:

“Scenario E is the least desirable option from an urban design and open space standpoint and, in some respects, is worse than the existing Viaduct. While E has the most open space overall, it provides a lower quality of public space and compromises the historic identity of the waterfront and access to it from the downtown.”

From:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/645…