The Turnaround in the 70s
In the 70s Seattle went from being a city that feared and distrusted City Hall to an uneasy ability to work with the City.
At the beginning of the 70s, Seattleites were realizing their town was scripted to follow other American cities down a path of being bulldozed into rubble by ‘urban renewal’ schemes and ending as a core of skyscrapers surrounded by parking lots, fed by freeways, and immediately ringed by industries (but none so prosperous as to compete with Boeing for workers) which could pollute without interference from pesky neighboring citizens. Zoning instituted in the 50s, combined with City Hall and the businessmen of the time, had put a straight-jacket on Seattle.
In the early 70s a struggle started, to reclaim City Hall, by reformers appalled by the open and ongoing racism and sexism of City Light and the police and fire departments, and the release of the list kept by the police ‘red squad’ which included many prominent and well-to-do Seattleites. The battle lines were clearly drawn and in a few years a reform mayor and city council were able to begin drawing up a revised land-use code for the city.
During this time, however, the Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square continued to decline. A citizens initiative was needed to claim funding and force the renovation of the Market, and Pioneer Square gained protection as a historical district.
Seattle parks had been declining too, with the city in 1970 proposing to give Washington Park to the U of W, which would have been allowed to rename the park “U of W Arboretum” and put up fences to keep the public out. This proposal was shot down in the 70s and a new park added to the city on Lake Union, the Gasworks Park. Streetends on Lake Union and Portage Bay were reclaimed by neighborhoods to become small parks and Seattleites became reacquainted with their water.
George Benson was elected to the City Council in 1974 and began lobbying for a historic streetcar. In a fortunate coincidence, Mayor Wes Uhlman and Councilmember Bruce Chapman had been considering a streetcar on First Avenue to connect the Pike Place Market with Pioneer Square, and, when this appeared impractical, swung their support to a waterfront streetcar. For the details of this process I can do no better than to direct you to the link on our sidebar for George Benson’s story of the streetcar.
Thus, in little over a decade, City Hall had changed from an institution determined to wreck and discard historic Seattle to an institution determined to nurture and save our historic assets. In the case of the streetcar the City, the businesses, the streetcar volunteers, and the citizens eager to vote those public officials into office all played a part.
8 comments
I have written at length to all the city council for the last three years about this issue. I would be happy to share what I know.
So far no one seems to care. We need to get this movement started.
In short, city officials are concerned the viaduct construction will mess with the trolley for the next 10 years. What they seem to miss is that by extending the Benson Trolley line NORTH from Pier 70 to Pier 91 is the possible cash cow of OPM (other peoples money – i.e. tourist dolllars).
Five years ago Amgen and the Port of Seattle BOTH offered the city money to possibly cover the cost of extending the line north. For whatever reason that memo got lost. Amgin currently spends big money to PAY for a private charter service to run shuttles all day long to Pier 86 from downtown as Metro service is inconsistent (the 33 and 24 – rarely on time – ever) and several blocks away. (ask the 800 plus employees of Holland America how consistently poor the connection is to get them to the Sounder on time)
Extending the tracks north would connect to the new ship pier via city owned land through Myrtle Edwards Park. It would allow more than 60 percent of the 211 cruise ship visitors access to downtown without impacting surface streets. A green transportation solution as compared to the taxis, motorcoaches and private vehicles. Out of town visitors and ship crews would pay for the line within a few years, let alone daily commuters to Amgin and offices along Elliott.
There may even be grant money available as it would offer a green way to bring tourists to the city proper.
Running the line north through Myrtle Edwards, you would be on city land most of the route. Some of the new line would be on Port of Seattle land. A Temporary Trolley barn could be constructed under the Magnolia viaduct on City or Port property. The entire life of the Benson Trolley, with 200,000 pax a year, used a “temp” barn. At least under the viaduct it would be out of sight.
The new line could run from Pier 91 all the way to 5th and Jackson until the Viaduct is ready to come down. Then you could end the line during construction at the WSF Ferry line to maximize interline transportation options. If that is too close to construction, you could end it at Ivar’s Station, or at the Hill Climb for access to the Market, or even at Pier 66 to keep the line out of “harms way”.
Imagine a green, historic, fun way to allow the more than 550,000 weekend visitors and crews access to our ID, Pioneer Square, Pike Place or just the sculpture park… Not to mention the potential to be used year round by Amgin and all the lower Queen Anne residents and work force, all without adding another cab or bus to the streets.
I bet you could even do it for less than the 52 million it cost for the Westlake Line.
It is such a simple obvious solution that SDOT seems to be too busy to do, and the city council folks in transportation seem to enjoy responding by saying thanks for your time, but we have more important issues, or SDOT did not invent it so how could it be a good idea.
I have written the Mayor, all the city council, SDOT and others. So far the only response has been from a consultant who used to work with the city. That person said I am on the right road, keep pushing. So here I am. Anyone up for a pragmatic transportation solution?
I agree with everything you have said.
I think what we need now is publicity to generate a public outcry. I am not sure what the next step should be.
Great comment, Hackenflack. Is Amgen that futuristic structure near the grain terminals? I don’t live in Seattle, so my ability to scope out the businesses along the line is limited. Also, now that I think of it, the line would be on the water side of the BNSF mainline there, so getting passengers across at some points would be non-trivial. Still, there’s a lot of potential.
I know there was a lot of talk about this about four years ago, but nothing ever came of it, mostly because of the Viaduct issue. Here’s one article with a map:
http://www.seattlepi.com/transportation/217355_samtrolley24.html
I think that if the Waterfront Streetcar is to be saved, it will likely take a citizen movement to preserve it, advocating and building business connections to raise fund, ala San Fran’s F Market & Wharves line.
Hackenflack, you seem to be pretty good with a keyboard- would you like to make your comment into a post?- if so, drop me an e-mail (tscott-at-sinclair-dot-net) and I’ll forward it to our bloghostess to give you authorization to post.
NJL, thanks for the link, that’s an information rich story.
//the line would be on the water side of the BNSF mainline there, so getting passengers across at some points would be non-trivial//
There’s already a pedestrian overpass at W. Prospect, and I believe one of the car overpasses has a pedestrian path. Building others would be an option as well.
There’s another benefit – Interbay is poised to become the next medium-tall building urban center. article here.
I’ve sketched out the line proposed above here, as well as an additional extension to Interbay (and no, I don’t know if my extension is even physically possible, just an idea).
Leave a Comment