ALLIED ARTS :: QUALITY OF URBAN LIFE

Letter on the International Fountain Monorail Route

October 8, 2003

Mr. Joel Horn, Executive Director
Seattle Monorail Project
Via: email

Dear Mr. Horn:

We urge you to abandon the "preferred alignmentî of the monorail through the International Fountain park. Much has been written about the Seattle Monorail Project's (SMP) preference to run through the Seattle Center. Public interest has been high; most people have expressed concern. Our intention here is not to rehash those opinions but rather to offer our conclusions and recommendations from our historical perspective as guardians of Seattle's urban environment.

What will be gained or lost if the monorail runs through the Center as proposed? Will the addition of the monorail enhance the quality of the International Fountain and the adjacent green or will it forever change the nature of that public space? Will Seattle be a better place as a result? Will future generations view this alignment in the same light as we view the Alaskan Way Viaduct today or will they cherish it? Is this the only viable alignment or are there other options?

After careful consideration of the preferred alignment's probable affect on the experiential quality of the Seattle Center, it is difficult to argue that the monorail will add value. The public response has been overwhelmingly against the SMP's choice for good reason. The International Fountain and adjacent green play a significant role in the life of our city. People use it on a daily basis for relaxation, family outings and tranquil strolls. Running the monorail through the fountain would destroy the human experience irrevocably. It clearly is not the place for a transportation corridor. The loss of 60 or 70 mature trees and the addition of an elevated structure alone give us pause. On a practical level, the elimination of numerous parking spaces, the displacement of residents and businesses, and the negative impact on historic structures also raises questions.

While these considerations alone would not derail a project that clearly expands the quality of Seattle's metropolitan experience, in this case it cannot be justified. The fact that a viable alternative exists along an existing thoroughfare further erodes the argument for the Seattle Center alignment. We can only conclude, therefore, that the SMP's choice is misguided at best and must be abandoned. We urge you to immediately remove this option from consideration. The fact that the SMP has pursued this option despite its obvious shortcomings raises serious concerns about the criteria used to guide your decisions regarding alignment and station placement. As such, we would like you to provide us with information explaining your criteria so that we can better understand your process and respond appropriately to future concerns.

Sincerely,

David Coleman AIA

David Allen

Co-chairs, Urban Environment Committee, Allied Arts of Seattle

cc. Ross Macfarlane, SMP, Director of Environmental Affairs
Heidi Wills, Seattle City Council
Richard McIver, Seattle City Council
Jan Drago, Seattle City Council
Judy Nicastro, Seattle City Council
Margaret Pageler, Seattle City Council
Jim Compton, Seattle City Council
Peter Steinbrueck, Seattle City Council
Richard Conlin, Seattle City Council
Nick Licata, Seattle City Council