Wrong problem. Wrong solution: The Wall Debate (22. October 2006, 23:11 by Derek Young) ~ All We Have to Do Is Listen
City Councilmember, Julie Anderson, has publicly entered “The Wall” discussion with an opinion piece in the News Tribune.
...the museum’s position is that the old iron fence must be replaced with a solid wall in order to mount honorary plaques and complete the long-awaited Century Park. The city logically concludes that the museum can simply re-orient proposed wall.
Wrong problem. Wrong solution.
Let’s solve the right problems. I suspect that the city’s problem is not the degree of the barrier’s transparency any more than the museum’s problem is finding a place to hang donor plaques.
There’s a lot more to the article than just this quote. To be honest, I really like it… The article advocates for a reasonable debate where both sides listen to one another, identify the true problems and objectives, and find appropriate outcomes. Will this advice be heard?
Link to The News Tribune
Previously on Exit133
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
So I guess the real question is, Who gets to decide what the real problem is?
1 | Posted by Steve Hurley | Oct 22, 11:35 PM
Anderson writes a good piece which is trying to get away from the technicalities of the easement and to what would be the best result.
It was also nice to see David Boe, a architect and member of the Tacoma Planning Commission weigh in against the wall in a recent letter to the editor in the TNT:
The Chihuly Bridge of Glass is the prime pedestrian connection from Pacific Avenue to the Thea Foss Waterway. A fence should never have been allowed across the access/axis point along Pacific Avenue in the first place.
To reinforce the urban design connections of downtown Tacoma, the entry to the bridge should actually be celebrated with an urban marker that announces this access location – another Chihuly lollipop perhaps.
If nothing else, Boe confirms with his credentials and position what most people experience.
He also backs up the security concerns of the City of Tacoma:
Also, what about the pedestrian security issues of blocking off the end of the bridge?
Has the lesson not been learned that clear visibility and direct access to a major arterial actually improves pedestrian safety and sense of security?
In the end, we come back to the issue of how can a donor wall be built (for the Museum) which allows pedestrian access (for residents and visitors) and an open view of the area (for safety).
To me it seems as though a great compromise would be an archway rather than a wall. This would still provide a viable structure upon which to place the honorary plaques, wile still allowing open access to the bridge.
Additionally, this would bring more attention to said plaques than a wall. The motivation to bring attention to this entry point to the Foss would complement the need for these plaques rather nicely.
3 | Posted by Nick | Oct 23, 12:59 PM
Julie Anderson has listed three criteria in her article she believes are needed to solve the wall impass
1) Avoid pedestrian barriers
2) Honor past Union Station donors
3) Encourage history museum attendance.
The parties continue to struggle to try to work out an acceptable alternative design.
Given the design experience of the online community, this may be a chance to offer an alternative that Anderson and others are looking for.
Kevin has called for various design proposals which he will post.
Here’s a chance to propose our own alternatives.
It appears the museum is willing to look at different design proposals accoring to today’s article in the Tacoma Weekly.
It looks like’s Anderson’s call for a comprise and another design is getting some traction.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
6 | Posted by RR Anderson | Oct 26, 01:43 PM
Commenting is closed for this article.
