For years if not decades, local design professionals have studied and weighed in on alternatives to the Viaduct that bands Seattle's downtown waterfront. Damage to the structure in the 2001 Nisqually Quake restimulated efforts to replace this busy thoroughfare. AIA Seattle 2000 Medallist Lee G. Copeland FAIA, Lesley Bain AIA, and Dennis Haskell FAIA, among many others, have put their expertise and eloquence into this endeavor, here summarized by Dennis Haskell.

As plans proceed and alternatives are studied and evaluated for replacement for the earthquake-damaged Alaskan Way Viaduct, local design professionals contribute their thoughts for a preferred solution with great enthusiasm and optimism.

Waterfronts are integral to Seattle's history, image and quality of life. Seattle's central waterfront is downtown's single greatest amenity resource with its access to Puget Sound and its views to water, boats, mountains and sunsets. When the Viaduct was built 50 years ago the waterfront was primarily an industrial waterfront. Today the waterfront is part of a high density mixed use downtown with increasing recreation and residential activities.

Seattle needs a broad based and long-term definition of the value of the waterfront - the essential basis for evaluating costs of alternative solutions. Such a tool will help ensure that an "ultimate" solution preserves this value, and that a decision is not based solely on front-end cost. The value of land for needed open space, an enlarged tax base resulting from increased land values, prospects for increased tourism, traffic safety, the ability to address multiple problems efficiently with minimum disruption, long-term infrastructure issues such as replacement of the seawall, and the overall ambience of a city connected with its shoreline environment should all be considered.

The waterfront has served as a major transportation corridor for Seattle over the last 50 years, with the Viaduct as a major route of travel. North/south transportation corridors in Seattle are limited, so any design solutions for replacing the Viaduct must address that role. However, future traffic capacities along the waterfront require careful consideration. We need to ask and answer questions of how far into the future a replacement plan should accommodate projected increases in traffic volumes, and when we will reach an automobile saturation point in downtown. We must evaluate the need for mid-town on- and off-ramps based on a clear understanding of downtown traffic capacity and congestion levels.

Design solutions for replacing the existing Viaduct must also address this corridor as a valuable and necessary open space resource for the City of Seattle. Pedestrian and open space needs must be addressed on an equal or enhanced footing with vehicular transportation requirements. It should not be one or the other. Cities that have replaced waterfront freeways with open spaces [notably San Francisco and Portland] have experienced major increases in pedestrian activity and land values in the areas surrounding the waterfront. Seattle's downtown has become a residential neighborhood as per Seattle's comprehensive and downtown urban center plan. However, Seattle's downtown has less public open space per capita than most major US cities. Downtown needs more open space to serve its increasing number of residents.

Design solutions should address views from public places within the downtown area and from the waterfront itself to the downtown skyline. New pedestrian connections from the downtown to the waterfront should be created and existing ones reinforced and enhanced. Protection from dirt and noise is a necessity. Lighting and security issues must be addressed. Spaces for people to stroll, sit, eat, view, gather, perform, and enjoy should be provided in abundance. The waterfront has not developed to its potential within the City due significantly to the negative impacts of view blockage, noise, dirt, darkness and lack of security brought on by the Viaduct's massive elevated structure. It can be assumed that an elevated solution will likely perpetuate these current problems. A cut-and-cover solution has the most potential to address these important problems and capture the wonderful opportunities. Every possible mechanism should be explored to implement that configuration.

All of these are important considerations. What we do now along the waterfront is likely to last for 100 years, and we will have to live with it. The decision we make now is the equivalent of the "Denny Regrade," the Seattle fire, and the construction of the Interstate freeway in shaping the urban form of Seattle. We should do it right.

Most recently, Lee Copeland serves with others on the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall Project Leadership Group, that has understood and based its work on acceptance of the magnitude here summarized. Lee recently offered a very positive assessment of the intelligence and determination manifest in this current round of study and recommendation. He believes that this group has taken good advantage of previous studies, and has developed a well-grounded design approach. He cautions, "Of course, finding the money to achieve this solution remains problematic."

For current status from WSDOT of the Leadership Group's process and the project, CLICK HERE.
For outline of alternatives from the Seattle P-I 3/22, CLICK HERE.
Seattle Times Pacific Northwest Magazine 4/7: The Viaduct at Crossroads