| « Photos ~ Calm fall morning on the water | Home | Never afraid of scrapping a bit » |
Latest Entries
On the Set at the Toyota Commercial Filming
Dick Stein Reading The Tacomiad (and other fab audio!)
Photos ~ Frost Park Chalk Off #30
Sat. October 14, 2006, 12:24pm PDT
Brick wall now with more glass? [update]
An article in today's TNT outlines a supposed compromise in the WSHS donor wall debate. The new idea would call for adding "a glass panel" to the proposed wall.
Link Jason Hagey's article in today's TNT
I truly hope the city understands that there's no compromise in something that is meant first to route traffic toward the history museum's front door and only second to honor the donors that helped save Union Station. Adding a larger, glass covered view hole adds insult to injury when considering this opportunity to open up a great pedestrian avenue in our city. A true compromise would honor donors and enhance pedestrian access.
Tell me what you really think
Donors and museum attendance aside, who just plain wants to be able to walk freely where the fence was and the wall may go? Take the poll or, as always, comments are welcome.
Thanks Erik!
Update (2006-10-15 2:55pm)
Director of the WSHM David Nicandri has an editorial out in today's Trib. It's good to hear some elaboration from his perspective concerning the donor wall. The tone certainly leaves something to desire. The "rumors" we've been putting out here on the blogosphere both in posts and comments are merely an openly participatory conversation between folks that care a great deal about Tacoma and our downtown. I'm not a big fan of name calling but I'll certainly voice my opinion and try to bring about supporting ideas and/or examples to make my case.
I found out about the wall by seeing some activity at the site and asking a construction worker about it. Then it was a wall. It became a donor wall from info over at Exit133. From there, Councilmember Anderson inquired about it and the stop work order was issued. If she learned about it from a blog or by passing it on the street it's information that troubled her considering some past tacit agreement concerning any obstructions on the site. We voice our opinions here online because we can. Whether we do so here, in emails or phone calls, while sitting in a coffee shop, or during the City Council's public comment period, it's all conversation important to keeping involved in our city.
There's nothing easy about increased participation mainly because opinions will inevitably clash. I would always wager that open participation at any point in any process is valuable if it helps those making final decisions in making better informed ones.
Comments (18) | To Top
10/14/2006 @ 1:15pm
I wish they would take down the wall, and open up that space. IT would make life better for all. WSHS doesn't need to force people by their door, it's popular (and large enough) anyways.
by Dave
10/14/2006 @ 3:33pm
Here's apparently the proposal from museum:
"The original design included a small opening in the wall through which viewers could see the bridge of glass. Nicandri described a new design that expands the size of the opening and covers it with glass."
Unfortunately, the proposal doesn't help much the problems that the wall creates.
Pedestrian Access
The brick wall with a glass window would still block all direct pedestrian access to the Bridge of Glass. No help there.
Security
One of the objections to the brick wall by the city was the lack of ability to view and monitor the area by police. The "brick wall with a window" proposal would still produce the same problem. A person in a police car on the street would still not be able to monitor the area on the other side of the wall which creates a crime problems especially for people considering going to the Foss Waterway late at night.
Navigation Problems
A window in the brick wall would still not allow people from cars and the other side of street to able to view the bridge of glass for navigational purposes to see and locate the bridge. The window would only help for people right near the wall.
In the end, the window only serves to frustrate pedestrians who would like to access the bridge of glass but are forced to take a 200 ft detour.
(Nice graphic Kevin, it shows well the pedestrian block that the wall is requiring pedestrians to take the extended red route instead of the direct (green) one)
by Erik
10/14/2006 @ 4:22pm
And it's a big freakin' question mark asking "Why the heck would it make sense to route people intentionally this way rather than straight through?"
by KevinFreitas
10/14/2006 @ 6:29pm
My concerns, contrary to some others I’ve heard and read, are not so much about pedestrian access (although ideally this would be opened up, as suggested here and at Exit133.com), but rather the view blockage that would be created by a wall (with or without a moat). Views from Pac Ave to the east are priceless. Folks shouldn’t have to walk up to a peep-show-like viewing portal to see the bridge and the MOG…that’s just plain silly. Nicandri’s new design that includes a larger aperture with glass is also substandard: I assume this would be thick Lucite, rather than glass. Not only would this still impede views to the east, but how long would it look nice? Think “bus shelter.” This kind of material gets scuffed up quickly, and soon looks more ghetto than a brick wall. Good luck getting a decent view of the bridge/MOG/tideflats through that. I also agree with Erik’s comment re security above.
I haven’t seen mention of the fact that a wall would be a much more attractive target for tagging (i.e., graffiti) than the previous fence. Despite the fact that the fence impeded pedestrian flow, I thought it looked OK, and at least kept the viewshed open (see http://www.erikemery.com/2006/10/in-defense-of-wall.html for a different perspective).
by Rich
10/15/2006 @ 1:17am
At the risk of being labeled as someone who has absolutely no tact...
Nah... the hell with it. Lemmie just say it straight out.
I think that putting a re-designed brick wall (with a bigger window in it) in the way of pedestrians is THE DUMBEST IDEA I EVER HEARD OF.
Of course it's only a proposal. It's only one person's idea of how the matter might be addressed, it's merely part of the negotiation process.
And the city after all still has that stop work order in place so naturally they'll see the folley in such an indigestible design, right? Uhh.. right? Yeah, sure, of course, lol.
by Steve Hurley
10/15/2006 @ 9:17am
As long as the city doesn't truly see this as a compromise we'll be OK. If this idea somehow appeases their security related concerns then they'll be reading this completely wrong.
Maybe the city should look at this from a monetary perspective since they'll likely have to help pay for any changes in design. Don't build the wall means don't pay any money! Let the WSHS hang the plaques on any number of the other perfectly suitable walls nearby. Win for the city's pocket books, a win for the donors, and a win for views and pedestrian access downtown.
by KevinFreitas
10/15/2006 @ 9:37am
Kevin, the problem with the above map that you've created is that the "red route" doglegs back to the right again, but this is inaccurate of how most people will experience the Bridge.
The inconvenience of the wall affects only pedestrians who are crossing the Bridge of Glass with a specific goal in mind that is to the right (Union Station or Tacoma Art Museum, for example, or an office building).
Most tourists who cross the Bridge of Glass are going to arrive on Pacific and *then* decide where to go. This is why funneling them through the Arch is important: it is the gateway to the City. As the map illustrates, when you go through the Arch, you are facing the UWT Staircase, the crosswalk is right in front of you, and you have many options. Putting tourists out in the middle of Pac Ave where the green route ends just won't feel right.
I understand that some Tacomans want to save the 25 seconds it takes to go through the arch since we don't need that sense of arrival. But I believe it is incredibly important to the tourist. It is important for us, too, but that's a whole other thing.
I think we need to take down the fence, put up the wall, and let tourists "arrive."
by Erik Hanberg
10/15/2006 @ 10:09am
"But I believe it is incredibly important to the tourist."
I guess one can discuss whether it is aesthetically more pleasing for people to arrive at an angle to the bridge of glass or directly on.
From newcomers the city I have spoken to, they have experienced the previous wall with some confusion and frustration as they were able to see the bridge but not walk to it.
What is changing now is that the city has expressed their intention to make the Foss Waterway a successful place for retail businesses and appealing to residents.
Adding a couple hundred feet to the path to get to the Foss Waterway further isolates the area which has already had a number of business close down because of lack of pedestrian traffic.
Single entities may attempt to route traffic with pedestrian obstacles.
One of the cities' tasks needs to be to look at the large picture of the flow of pedestrians in downtown and make make the city as walkable as possible.
by Erik B.
10/15/2006 @ 11:02am
"From newcomers the city I have spoken to, they have experienced the previous wall with some confusion and frustration as they were able to see the bridge but not walk to it."
I think that's why a wall is better than a fence: it makes it clear there is another way. And arriving from the side of the bridge gives you a view of it, where from head-on, it just looks like ... a walkway.
by Erik Hanberg
10/15/2006 @ 11:03am
The wall is lame. The brige belongs the the people and the museum is wrong to force me to walk past their obnoxious cafe/advertising. To the wall I say: FOAD!
by RR Anderson
10/15/2006 @ 2:32pm
I'm all about options. When I visit a city that's filled with one-way streets I tend to get somewhat confused or even miss where I'm going entirely because I have to follow a given path to where I'm going. If a city is full of two-way streets, it's one less thing to think about and one less mistake I could make.
Pedestrian traffic is the same way. Why, if the path is potentially there for folks to pass where the wall may go, shouldn't they be able to? What if they are walking from the north from one of the current downtown hotels and give up, frustrated that they don't know how to get over to the bridge. Different people come at this area from different angles and they should have as many options that they reasonably can. One option is not a choice, but a mandate. When it stems from the perceived notion that the history museum will lose patronage is bogus and against the strong, positive spirit of this city.
by KevinFreitas
10/17/2006 @ 9:24pm
I think the building of the wall, if it occurs, is unfortunate. However, I am actually impressed with the creativity of the idea of changing the brick to glass. This addresses some of the conerns re: the view and security issues, but not access. Somehow the building of the wall and the re-directed pedestrian pathway lends a feeling of being manipulated. It would be interesting to hear from the new "Creative Cities Team' on this issue.
by Jennifer
10/18/2006 @ 6:27am
Thanks for your comment, Jennifer. I think the glass may help at least the view issue and possibly security but only if it's of a more generous size than that view slot in the original design.
by KevinFreitas
10/18/2006 @ 7:12am
Why can't we place the names od the SOS supporters on pavers instead of a wall.
AND the museum might increase foot traffic to the restaurant by adding a back entrance.
by Andrew
10/18/2006 @ 10:27am
I agree, Andrew. There a plenty of ways to both increase traffic to the cafe and museum (how 'bout doors for both on Pacific?) and honor donors all without needlessly blocking pedestrian traffic. It's too bad Nicandri doesn't want to seriously entertain other such ideas. If he does, someone prove me wrong.
by KevinFreitas
10/18/2006 @ 1:28pm
Here's a letter to the editor in the TNT today by archetect and Tacoma Planning Commissioner David Boe confirming that the opinions against the wall are very well founded:
"Two urban design wrongs don’t make a right
DAVIE BOE; Tacoma
Published: October 18th, 2006 01:00 AM
Re: “Rumors undermine Century Park plan” (David Nicandri Viewpoint, 10-15).
The Chihuly Bridge of Glass is the prime pedestrian connection from Pacific Avenue to the Thea Foss Waterway. A fence should never have been allowed across the access/axis point along Pacific Avenue in the first place.
To reinforce the urban design connections of downtown Tacoma, the entry to the bridge should actually be celebrated with an urban marker that announces this access location – another Chihuly lollipop perhaps.
Nicandri’s noting a double standard being applied to the Washington State History Museum’s project since the Museum of Glass side of the bridge has a “discursive path to the waterway” is akin to stating that two urban design mistakes make a correct connection.
While I applaud the concept of the pocket park and commemorative feature, it should be designed in conjunction with an open entry point to the bridge. If comparisons are to be made to other parks for design validation, then let’s look at how pedestrian bridges terminate in quality urban cities (such as the Pont des Arts in Paris and the Millennium Bridge in London).
Also, what about the pedestrian security issues of blocking off the end of the bridge? Do we really want to create another space in our downtown that is “intimate and separate from a noisy street”? Has the lesson not been learned that clear visibility and direct access to a major arterial actually improves pedestrian safety and sense of security?"
(Boe is an architect and a member of the Tacoma Planning Commission.)
by Erik
10/19/2006 @ 6:16am
I took some out of town guests to the history museum last week and we seemed to be the only people there. I wonder if Nicandri doesn't have bigger problems to focus on than the wall. And yes, we checked out the mess that is there now--black plastic and cyclone fencing blocking access to the Chihuly Bridge. Not very pedestrian friendly. I hope this is settled soon.
by Jennifer T.
10/19/2006 @ 10:49am
I thought they were proposing to make the whole wall out of glass! You know like the glass donor plaque on the wall in the MOG, with the donors names etched. That probably wouldn't last too long in an outdoor urban setting, though. Simply enlarging the opening seems a lame attempt at appeasing those opposed rather than seeking a truly, creative, enlightened solution.
The WSHS has wonderful exhibits and an incredible gift shop, but needs some ubercool fairy dust if its going to keep up with what's surrounding it.
by Jennifer