« October 2008 | Main | December 2008 »
Reno AAA Ballpark Under Construction, November 26, 2008
One thing I’m trying to do here is document the progress that can be made by good timing both culturally and financially, of projects which are financed by the public for the public good. Consider this one in a series of ballpark construction pictures in Reno, provided (and I hope they don’t mind), courtesy of the developers and OxBlue, which makes what appear to be great construction site cameras.
I notice every time I’m operating a vehicle in and around Downtown Reno that Reno is still using the old-style parking meters that require the driver to feed in an unending stream of coins in order to stave off parking tickets.
| Traditional Parking Meter | Image: Nate Enyedi |
Occasionally I notice in the news that the parking rates are going up in Reno, and whenever I see news items like that I hope that I will find that Reno is also planning to install newer parking meters that a lot of cities have had for a while now. But so far I haven’t seen an indication that Reno is planning to update its parking meters.
| A More Modern Parking Meter |
The modern parking meters take credit cards, bills, and coins, and they allow the driver at the time of purchase to select an amount of parking time. The machines then print out a ticket with its own adhesive that the driver puts on the car window. The sticker is usually good anywhere in the city with a meter for the amount of time originally purchased, even if the car is moved. One parking meter can serve an entire block.
Parking meters become considerably less annoying, and slightly higher parking rates the same, when keeping one’s car parked on the street stops being a battle on two fronts (coin and machine), and instead turns into a routine, predictable transaction. Small changes in how people interact with the urban landscape can make a big difference in the long run, not to mention the efficiency that could be gained from having less machines to service.
Sydney, NSW’s Elevated Rail & Auto Conduit along Circular Quay, CBD
Usually I agree with Seattle’s Only Newspaper(tm), The Stranger. The Stranger is the world’s best alt-weekly from where I’m sitting (which happens to be Seattle at the moment) Their blog, SLOG, makes for great reading most times of day or night and can lead to a dangerous sucking sound around the productive hours of your day if you don’t watch yourself.
The Stranger also takes an active interest in urban planning, having attracted a fair number of people who write well on the topic. Sadly, one of the things that makes The Stranger so much fun when they’re right, their shrill and sarcastic tone, is the thing that makes them so annoying when they’re wrong. And the thing they’re wrong about is State House Speaker Frank Chopp’s plan for replacing the SR-99 Viaduct roadway which runs along downtown Seattle’s waterfront. (Follow this link to get an overview of all the alternatives.)
Existing SR-99 Viaduct
The SR-99 Viaduct, an elevated roadway running right along Seattle’s waterfront, may well be in danger of collapsing when the “big one” earthquake hits, whenever that happens. Designed and built in the 1950’s, this shoulderless, not particularly attractive road isn’t easy for anyone to love, and it’s especially hard for the car-haters over at El Extranjero to love, which is why they don’t love it. Seattle is not exactly embroiled in a civic debate about the topic despite what The Stranger would like to believe or promote believing, but the topic does have its share of ahderents to various points of view who utilize the media to have some kind of public conversation, er, shouting match about the topic. And despite The Stranger’s strong advocacy on the subject, Chopp was re-elected despite the plan he’s proposing – in a pretty liberal district in Seattle.
Chopp’s proposal - is it pie in the sky?
Chopp is proposing to replace the existing viaduct structure with a new viaduct structure much like it, only walled in. Sort of like a big box on legs sitting above the ground below. Inside the box is where the cars travel north and south, and under the box would be retail uses. The renderings of the thing call for it to be faced with interesting materials and have hanging vines and flowers and other things to make it not look like a giant concrete box. The Stranger points out that these decorative elements are not paid for up front in Chopp’s funding plan. They would be financed through a tax overlay on the waterfront district.
Opponents of this and any other highway that could replace the existing highway are generally in favor of what is called the “surface option”. The surface option would take SR-99 and run the traffic onto the ground, on a 4-lane boulevard, which would have nice wide sidewalks, and possibly some sort of streetcar (streetcars along Seattle’s waterfront are a different blog post entirely).
The Surface Option – minus buses, tractor trailers, or ferry commuters
One glaring problem with the surface option is that it doesn’t account for all the functions the existing roadway performs. The Stranger argues correctly that sans viaduct, Seattle will figure out other ways to get around, but they also paint a rosy picture of how much easier it’s going to be on everyone when the viaduct is finally gone for good, which simply doesn’t pass the sniff test. SR-99 serves buses, ferry traffic, and a whole lot of tractor trailers – none of which is pictured in any of the surface option’s renderings.
Finally, it seems to me that if Chopp’s proposal were a rail conduit instead of a highway, The Stranger would have no problem with it. Instead, they’d be exhorting the opponents to consider the positive benefits such a structure might have, and they would argue that in a dense city, man-made structures fit into the landscape because the city is full of people, and people have needs that are served by such things. So I exhort them to do the same in this case. If this roadway will not serve auto traffic well, then tell us how that is the case. If it is detrimental to pedestrian access to the waterfront, tell us how that is the case. Frankly, I’ve always considered the key barrier between Seattle’s downtown and waterfront to be the big hill on which downtown is built that rises above the waterfront. Neither boulevard nor elevated highway will fix that.
Image located on www.downtownmakeover.com
All takedown requests honored promptly
Not a bad design for 10 N Virginia, it's _almost_ there. The innovative shape in that building is the inverse arch topped rectangle - what should happen is that shape should come at a 45 degree angle south and west and be called out as the shape it is, facing the rink. The rest of the building should be squared up behind it. This would likely increase overall square footage as well as add a more distinctive or "iconic" look.
