Could this be the end of the U.W. Rock?

[Lowell_Skoog]

A story in today's Seattle Times describes the "Pacific Interchange," a proposal to increase traffic capacity on the 520 bridge.

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003280662_520bridge29m.html

 

I agree that 520 is a mess that needs fixing, but when I saw the sketch of the proposed design, my initial reaction was "ouch."

 

 

The changes to the arboretum are not pretty, and it sure looks like the new highway might bulldoze the U.W. Rock. I suspect that eliminating the rock is not considered a loss to the highway planners or the U.W. but I'd be sorry to see it go.

[olyclimber]

well, if enough noise was made about the historical value of the UW rock maybe they would build another somewhere close?

[lancegranite]

The UW rock is a Seattle icon, and should be rallied around by all PNW climbers, as nearly all of us have climbed there.

If they want to build an overpass where the rock is, prehaps they can just build a new wall under the freeway ala burnside skate park in Portland or the mtn bike trails in Seattle.

 

The atmosphere would be compromised, but at least the new structure would be dry 24/7 year round.

[Gary_Yngve]

http://www.betterbridge.org/ has lots of details on a SR520 Pacific Interchange proposal. Dunno if it's the same one the newspaper is talking about.

[catbirdseat]

The technology exists to move UW Rock, if necessary. It wouldn't even be all that difficult.

[kix]

The technology exists

 

6 Million Dollar rock?

[willstrickland]

Would the ramp would be elevated enough at that point that it could be constructed over the rock? Then you'd have a sheltered area and possibly some nearby bridge columns to expand the climbing area?

[catbirdseat]

The technology exists

 

6 Million Dollar rock?

Visit www.etalco.com

[Lowell_Skoog]

http://www.betterbridge.org/ has lots of details on a SR520 Pacific Interchange proposal. Dunno if it's the same one the newspaper is talking about.

 

Superficially, it appears to be the same proposal.

 

I'm not going to jump on either side of the issue at this point. There's a lot of NIMBY-ism in Seattle, some justified, some not. I just thought we should become aware of what's going on. I've paid no attention until now.

 

Losing the rock would be sad, but we might not lose it, or maybe this could be an opportunity to create something better there.

[G-spotter]

This would never happen if Seattle had a decent monorail!

[mountainmatt]

[chucK]

Nooooooo! Though I do agree the Montlake and Pacific Ave backups are a nightmare.

 

 

NIMBY-ism seems like a major impetus behind this. The residents of the Montlake Area want to foist their problems on someone else, the University and the Arboretum. Gonna be a big fight I expect. The University is not powerless.

[mattp]

There's a lot of NIMBY-ism in Seattle, some justified, some not.

 

Yup. On the one hand, it is only natural that we are all going to pay closer attention to things in our own neighborhood than a similar project slated to be built accross town somewhere. We are also more likely to be impacted by the project planned for our neighborhood so not only are we likely to know more about it, we are also entitled to have our comments given greater weight than those of someone who lives accross town. On the other hand, there is the selfish motivation to do what protects our property values at the expense of everybody else.

 

From what I know of discussions about this project, the Montlake neighborhood residents are not the only group expressing concerns about this project. Parks and open space advocates, the University, Arboretum supporters, and people on various sides of the build more/less roads debate are among those who are talking about it. Also U Village.

 

On balance, I think it is a good thing if these kinds of stakeholders are involved and not just the Washington Department of Transportation, highway contractors, and the Mayor's office.

[JayB]

Not to mention the fact that I think that there's quite a few heavy hitters that would probably be willing to contribute to the efforts to preserve the rock. Krakauer, Hornbein, and probably quite a few other folks with names that the general public would recognize have probably logged some time there, and might be willing to join an effort to preserve it if it's actually threatened by this proposed plan.

 

I can't see why they couldn't, at the very least, build over it - although that would pretty dramatically degrade the climbing experience there. I'd much rather have it moved than have it coated with the patina of particulate grime that invariably coats all concrete structures close to highways.

[catbirdseat]

There was a push about ten years ago to replace the 520 Bridge. The Montlake people managed to kill it then. It's now to a point where they can't kill it. It's reached a critical point where something must be done soon.

[mattp]

Yeah, the precious UW Rock is very important. I think they should just can the entire project right now.

[mattp]

Catbird - are you sure it was the Montlake residents who on their own were able to kill the project? Might it have been more complicated than that? And might somebody be tempted to point the finger at "nimby's" to try to generate political support for the idea that large projects should not be so heavily scrutinized?

[catbirdseat]

There was a plan to use tolls to pay for the new bridge. They were going to start raising money by imposing tolls on the old bridge immediately, if I recall correctly. The residents sued in court citing a statute that stated that once the bonds on the original bridge were paid off, tolls could not be reimposed. They won.

[chucK]

They should move the UW Rock to Magnuson Park! That would be cool. YIMBY!!

 

Either that or move the freeway to Magnuson. It'd actually be much more direct to U Village if the freeway ran right through Laurelhurst.

[catbirdseat]

They should move the UW Rock to Magnuson Park! That would be cool. YIMBY!!

 

Either that or move the freeway to Magnuson. It'd actually be much more direct to U Village if the freeway ran right through Laurelhurst.

Chuck, where do you think the "Ramps to Nowhere" came from? There was once a plan to do just that.

[chucK]

I think you're confused at to where Laurelhurst is.

[slothrop]

Laurelhurst is marginally more rich than Montlake, so it'd never happen. One of the benefits of the "Better Bridge"-style proposal is that the off-ramp would connect directly with the stadium transit hub (light rail? and buses).

 

I hope they can save the ol' UW Rock. I'd almost be willing to trade constant highway noise for shade and the elimination of the fratboy tailgate cluster during football games. Maybe the pollution would etch the grease off the rock.

[MisterMo]

They should move the UW Rock to Magnuson Park! That would be cool. YIMBY!!

 

Either that or move the freeway to Magnuson. It'd actually be much more direct to U Village if the freeway ran right through Laurelhurst.

Chuck, where do you think the "Ramps to Nowhere" came from? There was once a plan to do just that.

 

Wrong. The Ramps to Nowhere were supposed to connect to the ill-starred and ill fated RH Thompson Expressway...a freeway which would have paved over Montlake and what was then affectionately known as the "CD". The project was killed by citizen opposition.

 

There was a push about ten years ago to replace the 520 Bridge. The Montlake people managed to kill it then. It's now to a point where they can't kill it. It's reached a critical point where something must be done soon.

 

Mebbe so, but is the solution really another zillion dollars worth of car-clogged concrete?

 

 

Interesting thought though, the Laurelhurst option...oughta bring forth an avalanche of wealthy NIMBY's

[catbirdseat]

All I know is I have to cross that suck-ass bridge every day to get to work, and if they don't replace it soon it's going to sink, like the old I-90 bridge.

[Adventurewagen]

Ahhh, Not the UW Rock! I've done more laps there than I'd care to admit. Its my outside mecca away from those nasty plastic holds when I can't drive all the way out to real rock.

 

I usually hate posting here cause of all the flame-retards but I had to throw in a comment on this one after seeing that picture.

 

I'd throw up a portaledge and spend a few nights on the rock if it meant it being up for another day or so, otherwise they can move it to my back yard

 

Then again they'll probably just "look" into what they can do and slap us with another 20 million dollar tax like the monorail. hahaha