Comments on: Up High

By: americas got talent

americas got talent — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 05:17:29 +0000

Always very good to see, this was apparent a brilliant post. In concept I desire to write like this too. You would like time to creat that informative and furthermore several effort to produce a brilliant post.

By: cjh

cjh — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:58:16 +0000

Blame not the trees but where the trees where, if that makes any sense.

The old Freeway Park was a grotty, poorly lit and dangerous space. It was also a triumph of modernist landscape architecture (seriously, it was amazing). Now, it is a much blander, less green but safer place.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:30:00 +0000

Good article, [cjh]. I wasn’t aware of the history, just went off the signs they posted in the park. I’m still not sure it’s the trees to blame.

By: cjh

cjh — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:14:50 +0000

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=11685 – This article gives some background on the changes to Freeway Park (it was written shortly before they were made). It was a much broader public safety issue than mumbo jumbo about removing trees and shrubs to drive the homeless out into the open.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:44:50 +0000

[Josh], looks like you're right: new trees. (also noticed while I was there: King Station loses the ugly antenna)

By: dave

dave — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:23:03 +0000

I believe the intent was also to make Freeway Park feel safer for folks to walk through. You may recall there was a rash of attacks, mostly on young women, back in the mid-90’s, in the park. Since then they’ve been working on various ways to make sure people feel safe using it.

By: JoshMahar

JoshMahar — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:42:22 +0000

Come on people, let’s be realistic here. Those trees were just as much of a fabrication of landscape as the grass or any other vegetation on a CEMENT SLAB OVER THE FREEWAY necessarily has to be. This isn’t like some type of nature refuge or something.

I think the idea here was to open Freeway Park up so that people actually use it. For it’s location I would say it is one of the most under-used parks in the city and this is mainly because its meandering pathways and (once) tall vegetation made it feel very secluded, hence the clans of homeless and vagrants who tend to hang out in the coves through there. I know this probably won’t clear up the problem of the homeless but it may help this park gain a little more popularity.

And don’t worry people, the city has an ordinance which states that every tree they remove, they have to plant two more trees elsewhere in the city, so perhaps some cement filled streets throughout the city will get a little more greenery in the next few years.

By: Matt the Engineer

Matt the Engineer — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:57:04 +0000

Actually no. One day there were trees, the next there weren’t. I believe this was about 4 days after they posted signs saying they were going to cut down trees. This was also around the time that Nickels was trying to save a few trees in a school construction project, yet not an ounce of media attention was aimed at Freeway park.

By: wes

wes — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:29:17 +0000

I heard the trees were cut because they weren’t “in-line with the original vision” for the park. Though i can believe the homeless hiding spots and grass theory. Why not replace the stupid grass that no one uses, save the homeless, with thick bushy and tall grassy natives? They wouldn’t need all the sunlight and wouldn’t be as comfy to lie on as middle-america lawn. A little thought process at Parks before the chainsaws come out too much to ask for? I bet they had their hugeass trucks parked up on the sidewalks, blocking all the folks walking down the hill to work, for a few weeks to accomplish the tree slaughter as well.

By: AJ

AJ — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:49:10 +0000

According to the DJC and what I’ve been ferreting out of the ‘net, We’ll see more towers because apparently Seattle is projected to be the #1 city in the country for commercial starts in 2009, although it will be pretty vacant (in-line with the rest of the country, thankfully). Just Seattle, with Bellevue and Tacoma as their own entities from what I can tell.

I suppose we will see more office tower proposals floated and turning dirt in 2009. I bet there will be a final decision from Russell in a few weeks and it could very well hinge on this (even though Tacoma could use some more density).