I was never convinced that the city needed anything more than a surface street. It's a little dicey putting any tunnel there against the waterfront in landfill in an earthquake-prone area. Moreover, it was never clear that the traffic patterns would have been improved by any sort of tunnel option. The whole thing always had the feel of a land grab for real estate developers, too. On top of that, a tunnel was really the worst for Seattle since it wouldn't help anyone get into or out of downtown, just through downtown.
I didn't support a surface street because it would have stop lights, in which case it wouldn't begin to replace the viaduct. (For some reason the US can't have Germany-style streets that dip below cross streets.)
> The whole thing always had the feel of a land grab for real estate developers, too.
Yep. A quote from the NYT article:
> “They’re talking about greenbelts and all that, but I think it’s a bunch of baloney,” he said. “I think it’s going to be all condominiums.”
I agree, the project is mainly about $700K 1-bedroom condos.
Yes indeed! that superior plan was promoted as an alternate by the city folk and was totally squashed at the state level (i watched it happen in committee)
mjt0229|11 years ago
genwin|11 years ago
> The whole thing always had the feel of a land grab for real estate developers, too.
Yep. A quote from the NYT article:
> “They’re talking about greenbelts and all that, but I think it’s a bunch of baloney,” he said. “I think it’s going to be all condominiums.”
I agree, the project is mainly about $700K 1-bedroom condos.
theophrastus|11 years ago