From Grand To Grandiose -- Time For Reality Check Of Seattle Commons Plan

EARLY in 1991, what has come to be known as the Seattle Commons was little more than a twinkle in John Hinterberger's eye, and an occasional topic for his then-regular column in the Scene section of The Seattle Times.

In a May 1991 editorial, we wrote that we were among those inspired by Hinterberger's vision of a grand urban park and boulevard linking Lake Union and downtown Seattle.

How things change.

We are still inspired by that vision. But as 1993 begins, Hinterberger's compelling idea (which is similar to park proposals dating to Seattle's early days) has taken on a whole new meaning.

The Seattle Commons is much more than a park; it is a plan for a massive make-over of an entire section of the city.

As the Commons has grown bigger it hasn't necessarily grown better.

In addition to an 85-acre park and boulevard, the Commons draft plan presented to the city last month includes sweeping changes throughout the 470-acre wedge between I-5 and the Seattle Center, Lake Union and Westlake Center.

A powerhouse group of citizen planners proposes a new business-and-residential community housing up to 15,000 people in 20 or so years. They propose routing Mercer Street under a park lid for easy access to South Lake Union, and adding pedestrian and bicycle paths throughout the area.

Park and street improvements (of unknown cost - $100 million? $200 million? More?) would be paid for with a still-uncertain method called community redevelopment financing. It has been used in other states, but never before in Washington. Under the scheme, the city anticipates increased tax revenues as a result of the planned improvements and borrows against those new revenues to pay for the improvements.

The citizen talent that has coalesced around the Seattle Commons idea in the past 18 months and the civic enthusiasm it has generated is awesome. That a plan of such magnitude should be delivered to the city is an impressive feat all by itself.

All the more reason for wider public scrutiny in the months ahead. Now that the draft plan is before the city, a new level of objectivity, even hard-headed skepticism, should be brought to the grandiose Commons concept.

It's no secret that The Seattle Times, a major property owner in the area targeted for wholesale changes by Commons planners, has a business interest in what happens to the area. Count the business folks at The Times as among the skeptics.

Our task in this space is to go beyond one company's business concerns - even our own - and evaluate the project against the best interests of the city and the region.

It's in that context that we raise questions city officials and citizens not yet caught up in the Commons political juggernaut should ask:

-- City priorities. What neighborhoods are most critical to the city's well-being through this decade? Can Seattle have a love affair with the Commons without sucking resources and energy from Rainier Valley, the Central Area, the International District?

-- Impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Will Eastlake become a funnel for traffic headed to the Commons? Will the Regrade, where in-town living is still being tested, wither as the spotlight turns to a more glamorous, better endowed Commons?

-- Impact on business. Does the city have adequate industrial land for businesses relocated from the Commons? (A city study of its industrial land base is about to get under way. Its findings will be important in the debate over the Commons.)

-- Parking. The Commons draft plan is silent on parking. Where will the residents, employees, park visitors, put their automobiles? It's hard to imagine a car-less community, even assuming a great transit system, and new bike and pedestrian paths.

-- Density. Is it realistic to expect that 15,000 people will live in a mixed-use, in-town neighborhood within the next two decades? That's a denser neighborhood than exists anywhere in Seattle today. Its creation assumes a dramatic change in lifestyle and housing preference - by many, not just a few.

-- The financing scheme. Community redevelopment (or tax increment) financing may well be a good tool for this state, but it should be tested with great caution. Is a project on the grand scale of the Commons the best test case?

-- Diversity. Where are the ethnic and minority communities on this grand idea? They should be heard from before they are overwhelmed by the political clout of the Commons.

The Seattle Commons has the unmistakable appeal of a grand idea. There's something quite heady about an urban vision that is both historic and futuristic.

But now that the dreams are on paper, it's time for a reality check. The task ahead is to measure the Commons vision and the plan it has spawned against city priorities and possibilities.

Finding a way to preserve the essence of the Commons - a major new park and boulevard linking downtown to Lake Union - and still meet the needs of the rest of the city may be the best the city can do. And that may be plenty grand enough.