Home › Blogs › Berd's blog

View Corridor Protection

Wed, 01/28/2009 - 9:26am — Berd

I like this photo because it shows how further construction on the Isthmus will harm the pedestrian level view corridor, and as shown in this particular case, an important Olympic Mountain vista.

Isthmus

Have a good day.

Comments

Wed, 01/28/2009 - 7:03pm — YLlama

Improve?

I think you meant to write that this photo shows how further construction on the isthmus will improve the pedestrian level view corridor.
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 8:14pm — Laurian

Oh Snap!

No, Berd has it right.
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 11:31pm — Guglielmo

I think

you meant to write something clever.
Wed, 01/28/2009 - 10:50pm — Berd

Improving the View Corridor

Ha, I am curious about why you think that I meant to write that further construction will improve the view corridor. Because Laurian is right, I most certainly intended to state, clearly and unequivocally, that further construction will do further harm to the pedestrian level view corridor. More tall buildings will more completely block the Olympic Mountain vista.

Now I am curious about if you think further construction will improve the view corridor. If you do, then how do you think that further construction will improve the corridor? Do you prefer to look at buildings, which are disproportional to their surroundings, rather than at the mountains and the sea?





—

Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:15pm — hughcosmos

Late to the Discussion

But do you notice the big ugly box that is already built and was already approved by this city of ours? It's called precedence. The isthmus is not a natural geological formation; neither is this city, neither is the house you and I live in. Walk one block into the city from the waters edge and you can't see the Olympics or the water--but you still know they're there. Go to the mountains to be in nature, you can't expect your city to stop growth to protect your view of a natural formation from whatever angle you happen to be looking from. Development's happening, it's the nature of organized society. Do you live in the woods in a lean-to or primitive shelter? If not someone's view was "ruined" when your house was built, but now it's just accepted as part of the neighborhood. I could see protecting it at all costs if the isthmus was a natural place to begin with and undeveloped at all; but it's humanmade and a parking lot for the most part. With Climate Change and Urban Sprawl we HAVE to cram more poeple into our urban centers--closer to ammenities, transit, food source, etc--in order to grow progressively. It doesn't mean we "sell the farm" to whatever developer comes along; it means we engage with the process of making sure those projects reflect our values as citizens-- and I'm guessing we share some of those; like green design elements, natural and native landscaping, affordable housing, mixed commercial residential, maybe mini-parks within a theoretical isthmus development, an artesian well, etc. Smart compromise is the way forward here, not unequivocal opposition. I appreciate your passion Berd, a rare find these days.
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:11pm — YLlama

Of course I'd prefer to look

Of course I'd prefer to look at buildings than mountains. What sort of freak do you take me for?
Thu, 01/29/2009 - 2:26pm — Berd

Welcome to Olyblog / We have Choices

Hi Hugh, welcome to Olyblog.

We have a choice, as a community and as a city, to develop in a way that is intelligent. We have a choice to acknowledge the beauty that exists, and surrounds this "unnatural" human-made artifice of a city. We can choose to allow a high rise structure that will allow regular access only to those with the special financial privilege to afford a high-priced luxury condominium unit. We can choose to allow a building that will obstruct the pedestrian level views that currently exist.

Or we can say that the natural beauty that exists around the city is not for sale. The park idea is, and creating would be, compromise. Do you see and understand how much damage this society is doing to the natural environment? To take serious steps at amelioration would require a massively intensive effort. It would require substantial and meaningful wilderness protection, including much more wilderness buffer between development and sensitive ecological features, like the Puget Sound.

To make efforts to truly remedy the current damages and ongoing harms would make the park option not only compromise, but really the only viable option. Besides, if we are serious about increasing urban density downtown - perhaps adding as many as 10 or 15 thousand residents, then where do we envision that those thousands of people will have space for recreational opportunities (within walking distance?) Consideration of the need for future residents to have space for recreation is crucial to city planning. The isthmus would be a perfect candidate for a park - not for development. There are so many reasons for this.

Another reason includes the fact that the isthmus is in what is a predicted flood zone - given predicted sea-level rise.

I predict that this passage of the developer-led rezone proposal will come back to haunt the city.





—

Thu, 01/29/2009 - 3:44pm — hughcosmos

Park as "Only Viable Option" is Not a Choice

We do have a choice, that is correct; but a park on the isthmus isn't exactly reversing Climate Change or anything, and I don't see it anywhere near the only viable option for the isthmus. And if the sea level does rise, wouldn't your Climate Change reversing park (cost?) then be underwater and wasted?

I do see how much damage this society is doing to the natural environment. And I'm with you in finding ways to begin addressing it right here in Olympia. But I don't see the isthmus as a practical solution to buffer Olympia's negative environmental effects from the natural environment by making it a park. There are two major street arterials using the isthmus.

Also, unless this park is very ingeniously designed, it won't and couldn't be an even environmentally neutral body of land. I mean do we tear down and dispose of the existing structures and parking lots (landfill)? Then we truck in a tons of topsoil to replenish the previously covered isthmus grade, truck in more irrigation, plants, sod, mature trees, playground equipment, build trails, and don't forget to build enough parking for all of the people from Too-Far-to-Walk-or-Bike World and want to drive to visit the park. About as environmentally friendly as a golf course. And isn't there another park right next door, by the lake?

Olympia has a lot of parkspace within walking distance, even more with a bicycle; also Woodland and Chehalis trails and the coming Westbay Trail make for a pretty awesome urban trail system. Downtown Olympia should be as dense as possible and as multiple mode friendly as possible; we don't have to try and turn current paved land back into virgin forest to begin to address Climate Change.

I agree the Council's decision was a shitty one, lame reasons from all who voted in favor; we should now turn our attention to making sure whatever does happen on the isthmus more reflects the kind of development we would like to see when we have to develop land--thereby creating better precedence for future projects.

I'm not pro-development; I'm pro-smart land use. When it comes to untouched wilderness, Berd, I'm with you. More and better protection at all costs. But when it comes to urban land within the GTEC (Growth and Transportation Efficiency Center, i.e. designated urban area), and the isthmus is, a park seems like a giant waste of a step in the general direction of backwards.

Appreciate the welcome. Also, how come I can't get paragraph spaces to show up in postings?

Thu, 01/29/2009 - 5:14pm — Rick

Turn on the "rich-text editor" under the text box.


Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
—

Beware the terrible simplifiers.
Jacob Burckhardt
Sat, 01/31/2009 - 12:38pm — Berd

Park v. Condo

On the protection of wilderness I am glad that we agree. The environment and ecosystems within the environment are all interconnected. What we do in another part of the world can come back to haunt us.

As far as the flooding is concerned, however, it is quite clear that the flooding argument goes much more strongly against the erection of a high-rise luxury condominium than it does against a park. Parks can be designed specifically to be flood tolerant. And there's no need for irrigation. Make it a wilderness park, with only native plants, with no need for irrigation. This is a simplified rebuttal and explanation. Sorry

As far as the arterial routes on the isthmus, I also agree with you that these are a problem. But the future I see does not so much include widespread reliance on personal automobiles for regular transportation purposes. Also, there are ways to condense the traffic into one of the two routes and divert them at the Western portion of the isthmus peninsula so that they can continue serving the same traffic routes that they do today.

Another reason for an expanded inner-city park is walk-ability - not bike-ability. Not everyone can, or wants to, ride a bike. Having a park within walking distance for downtown residents will be important. And it will also provide a place so that people are less likely to feel the need to drive to distant wilderness recreation spots, which, in the overall scheme of life, are better left alone.

I am sure there are a lot of people who would like to see New York City's Central Park turned over to private interests to build condos. But that wouldn't be right.

The same principles are at work here. We need a truly novel and wonderful public park for downtown Olympia that everyone can feel part of.





—

Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:55pm — epjmcginley

my two cents

I asked a friend the other day; what did we think it would look like when the corporations failed?

Starbucks closing? Sounds good to me. Now let's do something about McDonald's profits.

Housing developments idled? Now let's stop them from cutting down more trees.

Tri-Vo (or developer du jour) brought down in a flaming ball of malfeasance and malfinance?...oops, that hasn't happened....yet.

We need to stop fighting yesterdays battles, and start looking toward building a future for ourselves. I am by no means diminishing Berd's post, on the contrary I found it to aptly address the issue in a sound fashion. I also applaud the ability of Hugh to find common ground and soundly defend a position that makes sense on many levels. I do suggest however, that there is no fucking way that the 'isthmus' is going to be developed as planned. At this point, look around you, the economic and political and ecological landscape is going to be completely remade in the next decade. Only the wisest most efficiently managed industries and endeavors will survive the event that is upon us. It is not a recession or a depression, great or otherwise, but a great collapse. The Great Collapse. 

Resist where we must, but for gods' sake let's commit ourselves to our own development, not opposing the misguided and doomed efforts of yesterdays ideas.

Fri, 02/20/2009 - 8:57pm — epjmcginley

Seems George Soros agrees with my above comments...

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.

Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union. He said the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September marked a turning point in the functioning of the market system. "We witnessed the collapse of the financial system,"

Soros said at a Columbia University dinner. "It was placed on life support, and it's still on life support. There's no sign that we are anywhere near a bottom."