Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

What The Central Waterfront Needs

After the viaduct comes down, the opportunities to create an urban place that people will love on Seattle’s Central Waterfront will be huge.

The biggest threat to that vision isn’t too many cars, or too wide a street, or not enough open space, or lack of spots to touch the water, or the absense of a streetcar line.

It’s whether waterfront planners give people a reason to go there—lots of people and lots of reasons. And that will never happen without significant redevelopment of the public property underneath the current viaduct.

But unfortunately, if Seattle’s history is any guide, any proposal to redevelop waterfront property will be greeted with a howling chorus of “developer giveaway!” For the sake of the future of the waterfront, I do hope the populace can get beyond that counterproductive, kneejerk reaction.


[ Under the viaduct, looking north; click image to enlarge ]

Today, the Central Waterfront attracts mostly tourists. The intensity and mix of uses isn’t right to attract many locals, whether they be office workers having lunch or residents from the nearby neighborhoods looking for something cool to do on an evening or weekend.

I’ve worked at Harbor Steps for more four years, and when I go out for a walk I almost always find myself headed to Pike Place Market, not the waterfront. The reason is simple: People attract people. We are social animals, and there’s almost nothing we like to do more than watching other people.

In late 2008, when WSDOT published renderings of the post-viaduct Central Waterfront showing a spacious linear plaza between Alaskan Way and the seawall, the response was decidedly negative. Most people knew instinctively that such a place would succumb to dead, windswept plaza syndrome. And the thing is, the waterfront doesn’t need all that open space—there will be plenty to go around. What it needs is new buildings that will bring both activity, and a sense of enclosure that will help make it a comfortable place for people.

That isn’t to say the entire corridor should be developed.  Gaps in strategic locations could provide visual relief and create focused open spaces—at the bottom of Harbor Steps, for example.

But we could have more fun than that. Imagine Alaskan Way swooping inland for an opportune block or two to leave room for new buildings on the west side of the street—literally on the waterfront. Crazy talk? Pshaw. I nominate the stretch in front of the highly underutilized Waterfront Park for that scheme.


[ Waterfront Park; click image to enlarge ]

Back to reality. The idea of selling off public land on the Central Waterfront for private development has been controversial since the Nisqually quake forced a dialogue about replacing the viaduct nine years ago. As recently as last year, former mayor Greg Nickels was in favor of keeping the corridor in public ownership for a “millennium park.”

But consider this: Because it controls the land, the city has the rare opportunity to set stringent standards for development, and also has a significant incentive—the land—to offer as a carrot. For example, if the city wanted affordable housing, then it could negotiate the land price to offset the extra burden that would put on a developer. New public open space, cutting-edge green buildings, a community center? Same process. The land would be so desirable that the city could make big demands, and we could get just the kind of development we want.

One way to handle all the public-private interaction that would take place in any significant redevelopment scenario would be to establish a quasi-governmental agency to direct the whole process—a waterfront development authority. Why not think big? The Central Waterfront presents a quintessential 100-year opportunity, and calls for bold, visionary thinking.

The rebirth of the Central Waterfront is a major step in Seattle’s process of growing up; and Seattle will have to do some growing up to get it done right.

>>>

FYI: The Committee for Central Waterfront Partnerships will be holding four community meetings in March:

Miller Community Center
330 19th Ave E
Thursday, March 4, 6:00 – 7:30 p.m.

Northgate Community Center
10510 5th Ave NE
Saturday, March 6, 2:30 – 4:00 p.m.

High Point Community Center
6920 34th Ave SW
Saturday, March 13, 2:30 – 4:00 p.m.

Van Asselt Community Center
2820 South Myrtle Street
Saturday, March 20, 2:30 –4:00 p.m.


  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    Basically you answered your own question…people attract people.

    And what attracts people? Shopping and entertainment.

    If you want people on the waterfront, you'd build a giant mall with lots of shops and parking and IMAX theatres.

    Imagine a food court with huge glass windows overlooking the Bay.

    Imagine a giant 30 story high parking gargage — with FREE PARKING, just like at every other place in the Puget Sound (except old Seattle).

  • martinhduke

    Amen, Dan.

    Rather than try to micromanage the development, we could also use the money to fund some sort of capital expense — Like, for instance the seawall, or Ballard-WS light rail.

  • Choch

    Blah, blah, blah, incite the neighbors, and let's taaallkk for another decade… Meanwhile, let's have more neighborhood potlucks, work on internet coverage and make more bike paths. maybe the viaduct will go away by itself. While we have our thinking caps on, let's think about who could run for mayor next time. it's time for a change-up.

  • gloomy gus

    We don't have to *sell* the land to get some small-scale development (if that's what we want). Never sell the shoreline.

  • Ballardwatch

    Please, stay in Kent

  • Chris Stefan

    Free parking isn't free. Also demand would outstrip supply for any reasonable amount of parking garages that could be built downtown.

    You get “gouged” for parking in downtown Seattle because that is the market-clearing price.

  • Chris Stefan

    I don't think Dan was saying “sell the land” which is why he called for a PDA. The land and even the resulting buildings could stay in public hands.

    Another good example is the University tract downtown where the UW still owns some very prime real-estate but the development there has been privately financed.

  • giffy

    I really like the idea of building a free garage down by one of the light rail stations. If we integrated that with a streetcar network we could bring people to Seattle without bringing their cars downtown. 30 stories might be a bit much ;) as it would take the whole damn day to get to the top, but something like 6-8 with a thousands of stalls would be nice.

    Yes longterm the idea is to get people here by transit the whole way, but that is decades off. We could turn some unproductive land say by the SODO station into a garage that would help keep our economy strong to fund things like streetcars and more light rail.

  • morning fizzy

    Do what Suzy Burke does out in Fremont – give the people a land lease and keep the land. Did you know that Adobe doesn't own the land nor does Quandrant – they lease it – ground leases – even if the public sector managers would rather sell for short term revenue.

  • morning fizzy

    I thought you argue that we shouldn't allow free parking. Don't you?

  • giffy

    Sell the land that is under and to the east of the viaduct and require the developers to include street level amenities and adhere to design standards. No need to even mess with zoning, the city can simply require it as part of the sale. Not all of it, but a good chunk. Then make sure there is plenty of potential for street vendors with a two lane road and a street car.

  • hater

    I like putting residential in there. Lots of eyes on the street to watch the crackheads in Pioneer Squaer.

  • vlado

    Dan: During the last Committee for Central Waterfront Partnerships meeting an interesting word emerged: “authenticity”. It wasn't my descriptive, but I think that is probably the toughest objective in the waterfront planning exercise. Like you I worked near Pike Market for a number of years and spent lots of time there, but I've become turned off by the tourist attraction it had become (especially when the tour boats are in town during the summer), it is in danger of losing urban authenticity.

    There are two things that you don't mention in your article that could be important factors in a good plan for the waterfront. The first is keeping it a working waterfront as much as possible, and the other is respecting the history of the waterfront, which is rich both architecturally and culturally. Otherwise we are in danger of turning the waterfront into a Baltimore Inner Harbor, which is little more than an entertainment and shopping venue.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/Communicate.with.Mike Mr. Baker

    Let's practice making a place want to go to by doing something with Sewttle Center.

  • Matt_the_Engineer

    Great, then we all agree (even crazy [bailo], except for the poorly thought out parking idea). Rent out the land with a long-term lease with retail and ammeneties on the ground floor, residential above. Add a small road and a streetcar, and use the rental income to finance in-city transit.

  • gloomy gus

    The premise here is that “selling public land has been controversial”, that even Nickels favored “keeping the corridor in public ownership,” but that now we should do differently. Moreover, suggesting the city ought to “negotiate the land price” has a pretty plain meaning.

    But I hope you're right that I'm wrong. Dan?

  • Keo

    I suspect making it feel like its vital during the night hours will be a big key. The waterfront actually does pretty well already during daylight hours. It needs a music venue, drinking establishments, late night dining that spills out onto the sidewalk, and street food to stay vital into the evening.

  • hoary

    I just want good street food.

  • David Schraer

    A string of PIke Place Market-sized PDA's/districts related to the adjacent neighborhoods rather than one big PDA for the entire waterfront would make for more local authenticity and dynamism. They could also be set up to operate as a group. Pike Place Market could expand west of the Market. There should be a structural relationship between the new PDAs and their adjacent neighborhoods.

  • Chris Stefan

    I don't think any government agency in the ST taxing district should provide any free parking at all and what parking is provided should be at a market-clearing price.

    Private entities can provide free parking if they want but they should be taxed so they are discouraged from providing free parking.

  • Chris Stefan

    Well the Post Office garage next to the SODO station is for sale. Get together a group of investors and buy it. If there is demand for remote parking for downtown then you should make a mint. However for the city or ST to buy the garage and make it free would be silly as it would be full of people trying to avoid paying for parking downtown or near the stadiums.

  • Chris Stefan

    As I say in my above comment this is what the UW does with it's University Tract lands downtown. The ground lease for the Olympic Hotel or Two Union Square has got to be pretty good.

  • Hopeful

    The public “discussion” is realy about the use public land. This will be one significant part of the waterfront development. I hope everyone agrees on the basics, well used, attractive and inviting waterfront that meets the spectrum or interests from tourists to workers and residents. The question then is what is the public's role in this? 1) transportation corridor and access to adjacent property. 2) creating a safe space wher everyone is welcome. In undertaking 2 it's clear that there will need to be excellent design, programming & maintenance. These meetings in march are about how this is done, who does it, and how do design, programming and management interrelate? Street food, parking, PDA's may well be part of the picture.

  • dancooley

    Anyone who's been to Chrissy Field in San Francisco or Chicago's Lakefront has seen firsthand how fantastic a waterfront park can be provided there are places for people to walk, run, ride bikes, rollerblade, watch boats sail by, play volleyball, etc. Put in a beautiful, multi-purpose, accessible park that encourages people to come, stay, and play. Development can and will occur in surrounding areas provided the new park does its job. Let's not over think this and bog this down in a lot of process. Do the simple thing for once!

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    Can Parking Garages Be Beautiful?

    http://sliceofmit.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/park…

    “Parking garages are rarely compared to works of art. Consumers are more likely to think of them as unsightly yet convenient, clunky but inevitable. However a new exhibit at the National Building Museum may flip that thinking, in part, because it showcases the work of architect Harry Wolf ’60.”

  • Anc

    Seattle already has some great street food (Cream Cheese Doggggsss….. *drool*), we just need a ****ton more.

    Okay, some Donner spots could be tolerated. :D

  • Interesting

    Good points about history. Baltimore has the National Aquarium which is very nice and modern shopping wouldn't seem to fit in here. Miami has an area for music performances and tacky shopping. Chicago has Celebration Park with great sculpture. I love walking the park end to end and it would be great to see it extended as far as possible. Build in transportation so people can get in and out for city events — Bring back the streetcar!

  • morning fizzy

    So you admit there is free parking!

    “Private entities can provide free parking if they want but they should be taxed so they are discouraged from providing free parking.”

  • dltooley

    I agree. Imagine a world without corporatists engaging in hate politics in order to preserve their 'bonus'?

  • morning fizzy

    I'm not familiar with the Lakefront but from the pictures I can't see why you would even bring it up. It looks like a huge beach with a ten lane highway separating it from the neighborhood. It looks like it much longer stretch and there is a huge area on the land side that includes a lake and a park. The land is flat rather than a steep slope.

    Was this ever a working port? Is it deep water?

    Santa Monica is also very nice. Maybe we should make our waterfront look like Santa Monica.

  • joshuadf

    Seattle Center has validated parking (and an IMAX theater) where you can already do nearly all those things. What we're missing is the transit down the waterfront.

    Oh, and note that events at Seattle Center induce massive backups on Denny and Mercer because of all the cars getting from the I-5 “free” way to the “free” parking. But don't worry, we can widen the road and build a larger underpass for at Aurora and Mercer for about $390m (including both phases).

    Hmm. How about if people lived closer by and we didn't have to spend all that money on wider roads, underpass replacement, and parking garages? Or had decent transit options? (Hint: try to get to the U-District from Seattle Center on a weekend after an event. The MT 30 stops running at 9pm on Saturday and 6pm on Sunday.)

  • Chris Stefan

    Fizzy,
    No because even if a private lot owner or business wants to provide parking to someone without a separate charge, the lot owner or business is still paying for the parking. This adds to their expenses which is taken in the form of either higher prices or lower profits.

  • http://yrihf.com/ jabailo

    I noticed that Fed Way is trying to get a 30 story condo built in its “downtown”.

  • dockster

    Bless everyone who suggests the obvious best use for the Seattle waterfront, which is a big waterfront park. But just remember, this is Seattle, so you also have to specifically demand a BIG SANDY BEACH GENTLY SLOPING INTO THE WATER as the focal point of the park. Although this would be a given anywhere else in the country, the pasty skinned Seattle planning elite wouldn't go to a beach if they lived in Miami, and they can't imagine why anyone else would want to either, which is why we ended up with that abomination at waterfront sculpture park with a 50' beach and a 1000' pier (which any sane person would have done the other way around). The Seattle waterfront is a natural beach, they dug it out to put in the row of piers and wharves, and there's no reason it can't go back, which BTW is what nature is trying to do on its own by breaking down the artificial sea wall. Why in the world are Seattle taxpayers being asked to pay for a new sea wall to preserve the private property of downtown wharf owners whose wharves shouldn't be there in the first place? If the private owners can't afford their sea wall to maintain their wharves, the wharves should be condemned so the property can revert back to beachfront that everyone can enjoy. The Mayor lives in West Seattle so he couldn't care less whether anyone else in the city has a beach. But for the rest of us who live in town and who think a sandy beach is about the only natural and legitimate thing to do with a waterfront, lets get out the torches and pitch forks and run this planning elite cabal off the end of their beloved piers, or at least maybe off to Portland where all they have is a muddy riverfront. If mother nature and the majority of downtown residents had their way, there would be an Alki beach in the middle of downtown Seattle. It might not be Santa Monica, but Vancouver BC for sure, and that's light years ahead of where we are now in terms of downtown fun and livability.

  • dancooley

    That's Lake Shore Drive (LSD) in the pictures you've seen. The Lakefront has beaches, softball/soccer fields, volleyball, wading pools and ponds, and the Lincoln Park Zoo all running for miles between the Lake and Chicago's dense urban neighborhoods to the West. LSD runs through it but it actually isn't as disruptive as it might appear from pictures. My point is that Chicago did something pretty remarkable with that land by balancing the need for the LSD to run through it against the desire to create a place that hundreds of thousands of people use every day in the Spring, Summer, and Fall to hang out, play, and commute to/from work. Seems like a useful analog for what Seattle could do with this opportunity.

  • Ira

    What the Central Waterfront needs? How about a beautiful 1920's line of antique mahogany and white ash streetcars, a line that would attract people to the Central Waterfront for the mere purpose of riding these streetcars?
    A line that would carry 400,000+ riders per year?
    Oh, that's already been done? Then how about bringing it back and extending it?

  • hmmmm

    Myth busting:

    1) “The Viaduct cut off the waterfront from downtown”. False. Before the Viaduct, rail was the barrier between downtown and the water. It was an industrial area. Alaska street used to be called “Railroad Ave”. Before that, there was no distiction between the waterfront and the bottom floors of the buildings on 1st Ave.

    2) “Development will bring amenities”. False. Only by propping up the RE market through actual or effective subsidies, such as tax breaks for “mixed use” (total BS concept for anyone who has one of those “service jobs), zoning changes (which result in immediate property value increases), and the cleaning up of undireable elements (anyone making less the 80k a year, unless they communte from Kent). See also: SLU, Fremont, and Belltown.

    3) “blah blah Job creation.” False. Destroying good wage industrial jobs (e.g. T-46) and replacing them with low wage service jobs actually decreases jobs, when one considers the negative multiflier effect. Downtown is not in a bubble, at least in this respect.

    If you wanted to bring the Seattle waterfront back to it's natural state, you would have to clear out everything sitting on that fill, all along Western Avenue. Good luck with that.

  • dockster

    Its the damdest thing, its like everyone from Seattle is from somewhere else, except for everyone in the planning cabal who seem like they've never set foot anywhere else. Lakeshore drive in Chicago is the greatest, as is the closer example of English Bay/Jerico in Vancouver. And what we have in Seattle is a mile and a half of parking lots and mostly decript rat infested piers, but nary a peep from anyone to do anything about it other than getting rid of the overhead freeway, which I guess would be great, but is frankly the least reason this waterfront area can't be made to live up to the Chicago/Vancouver example.

  • harrywolf

    Thanks Jabailo,
    Harry Wolf
    http://www.wolfarc.com

  • BA1959

    The central waterfront lost it's “working” functions more than a generation or two ago. We just don't load small ships from piers with sheds now.

    What might a working waterfront be then? Perhaps significantly more small boat moorage, boat services and repair, ferries and cruise ships of all sizes, and direct sales of fish. Probably lots of opportunities exist with a some creative thinking

  • oiseaux

    A.) Ever been to Golden Gardens?

    B.) The Mayor lives in Greenwood, not West Seattle.

    C.) Two of the largest and most visited beaches in Vancouver are not downtown. Kits Beach is in Kitsalano and English Bay Beach is in the West End. Neither are part of a downtown waterfront.

  • Wells

    The main flaw in current designs for rebuilding Alaskan Way is its 4-lane configuration. The Deep-bore displaces 40,000 vehicles daily, about 2500 an hour, onto Alaskan Way and Mercer. This is thru-traffic that 1) means 4 lanes may not be enough, and 2) is not divided from motorists looking to park. Motorists trying to get through mixing/merging with motorists looking to park will be confusing and cause accidents.

    Early Alaskan Way designs incorporated a 2-lane frontage road on the east side, separated from 4-lane Alaskan Way with islands. The frontage road lines up nicely with Railroad Avenue and the arrangement makes reinstalling the streetcar line possible. Trolleybus lines could run east/west using the frontage road near Coleman dock to turn around.

    Such an arrangement precludes any development of land beneath the AWV. Old buildings facing west will get facelifts and there are a couple parking lots that could be developed. Anyway, the main detractor of the Seattle Waterfront is the AWV.

  • Wells

    “Gosh Wells, we never thought about managing traffic on the new Alaskan Way! Gosh, 13 stoplights between Pike and King Streets and another 6 to 10 through Lower Belltown and SoDo. Maybe 3000 cars an hour trying to get through Alaskan Way while other motorists trying to park somewhere between there and Western and are forced to cruise back into bumper-to-bumper traffic on Alaskan Way! Oh, now we see why a frontage road makes sense. But, why should we think about it when it's much easier to consider you a radical and your warnings nonsense? Ignorance is bliss.”