(Ed Wilkinson-Latham) Last Saturday’s New York Times featured an article about the ongoing civic debate over Seattle’s Alaska Way viaduct. Their discussion so closely tracked our own longstanding debates around the fate of the Gardiner expressway you could cut and paste one for the other and entire paragraphs could as easily describe the same issues hereabouts. “Is the Alaskan Way Viaduct overlooking Elliott Bay on the western edge of downtown just an elevated relic, another old road that needs to be replaced? Or is it something more, a symbol whose fate will help shape not only this city but the rest of urban – and New Urbanist – America?” See what I mean? One thing that didn’t track however was the passion, intelligence and political acumen of politicians on both sides of the issue struggling to sort out a way of solving the problem. Everyone seems to want to get rid of an eyesore that ruins the city’s mountain views and cuts off access to the ocean. (Also, according to the Times, a “2001 earthquake exposed the viaduct’s vulnerability.”) In 2009, the city, led by mayor Greg Nickel, signed off on plans for a 1.7 mile tunnel that would replace the aging viaduct. It might have looked like a fait accompli, but the fight was only beginning. Later that year, Nickel lost re-election to current Seattle mayor Mike McGinn (a former big wig at The Sierra Club). Nickel wants to nix the tunnel, substituting it with a “surface boulevard and new public transit options.” McGinn had based his campaign around opposition to the tunnel (not unlike David Miller’s first mayoral run and its fight against the island airport bridge). As the vote approached, however, and the contest narrowed, he hedged, offering that he wouldn’t necessarily stand in the tunnel’s way. Nickels, meanwhile, stuck to his guns: “My calculus was that this is the kind of thing that it’s O.K. to lose an election over.” Now in power, McGinn is campaigning four-square against the tunnel. “I never said I wouldn’t fight the tunnel,” he told the Times. “To clarify: I always said I would fight paying cost overruns on the tunnel.” This is grown-up hardball politics about a big issue. Everyone’s fighting to get something done. Seattle will join Boston’s infamous Big Dig tunnel project as a vast experiment in renewing the cityscape by eliminating an outmoded and decidedly ugly means of transporting cars. There are important issues around how Seattle should redress this problem. That said, the willingness of Seattle’s political elites to address an issue that defines the very nature of the urban experience, one that requires a broad and expansive vision of urban living is, in a sense, its own reward. Compare that to Toronto’s not so tiny, not so perfect mayor. He seldom opens his mouth save to play small ball. When initially asked last Thursday about the contentious hiring of his associate Gordon Chong (to petition the province for more subway funds), Ford said: “I’m here to talk about graffiti and cleaning up the city and that’s what I’m gong to talk about, with all due respect. I’m going to talk about what I want to talk about.” Ain’t that the truth. Last week, a reader commenting on Eye Weekly‘s efforts at being evenhanded in their coverage of his worship wrote that those who would oppose Ford need to amend their views to fit with the current pox on civic ambition: “…progressives should hang tough against Ford’s more destructive ideas but focus as much as possible on the micro, citizen based anti-bureaucratic initiatives, which he will support, stuff like allowing park committees to have pizza ovens in parks.” Seattle knocks down an urban monstrosity, gets an unobstructed view of the mountains, and re-engages with its waterfront. We get pizza ovens. Thin gruel thy name is Toronto.
