As we continue to mark the Inlander’s 30th anniversary, every week we’ll look back at a different article from years past. This week, we’re rerunning a piece originally published on July 23, 1997 and written by Amy Cannata. Also, watch for our 30 Years of Inlander feature every week in the paper through Oct. 12.
When Walter Kulash, a nationally recognized traffic engineer, came to town two weeks ago as part of Eastern Washington University’s symposium on revitalizing downtown Spokane, he had a simple answer on where to start — scrap plans to build the Lincoln Street Bridge.
Kulash and many city leaders, including former-state Sen. and physician John Moyer, local lawyer and activist Steve Eugster and local architect Rich Hastings, oppose replacing the Post Street Bridge with a new Lincoln Street Bridge because they say it will damage Spokane’s most valuable attraction and resource — the Spokane Falls.
“The most incredible thing to me is that you have a gorge with waterfalls and a roaring river going through Spokane,” says Kulash. “You need to do things that celebrate that feature. The worst thing you can do is to have a high-level bridge.
“It looks to me like no one has a clear idea why the bridge is being built,” he continues, “other than the fact that you can get a lot of money to do it.”
City officials admit that federal money is part of the reason the bridge is being built at the Lincoln Street location, but far from the only one. Air quality and traffic concerns, they say, mandate that a bridge must be built, and if that bridge is built at Lincoln Street, as stated in Spokane’s implementation plan for improving air quality, Spokane will qualify for more than $23 million in federal assistance for the bridge.
The remainder will come from a state loan and local tax revenues.
But while money is an issue, Brad Blegen, the city engineer in charge of the project, says that there are more issues to consider.
“The project goes back to the ’70s. It was first envisioned when the city was dealing with the carbon monoxide issue and trying to get into attainment,” he says. “The other thing, of course, is that the Post Street Bridge is structurally deficient in almost every category — it has too sharp of curvature, is not wide enough to handle four lanes of traffic, and buses can’t run on it. Plus, there are problems with the columns and arches.
“If we are going to replace that bridge, shouldn't we move it to the Lincoln site, where the federal government will be giving money and the bridge will more adequately accommodate the traffic patterns?”
Both the air quality problem and the deterioration of the Post Street Bridge have been behind city staff's plans for a Lincoln Street Bridge since 1978. The plan has been rejected by the City Council three times since then, including one point in the mid ’80s when council members told staff not to bring the proposal to them again. Dick Gow, who was serving on the council at that time, says the bridge was a bad idea then, and it is a bad idea now.
“This is a tremendously expensive project that comes at a time when we can't even fix our streets. We should be using the money on existing infrastructure,” he says. (The local share of the project, which could instead go to fixing pot-holes, is about $6 million.)
“The bridge is in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was in the wrong place at the wrong time in 1987, and, if they build it in 20 years, it will still be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
As to why city staffers have continued to push the bridge, Gow says it is pure inertia, although he thinks other options are available.
“I think this was a case where city staff got stuck in a project regardless of what the policy makers thought. They were going to hold onto it until they got different policy makers,” he says. “You have to realize that politicians come and go and staff remains intact for many years. Obviously, if they don't get a project through with one set of leaders, they'll put it in their back pocket until they can get it through with another.”
In addition to traffic and air quality reasons, Blegen says that the closing of Post Street between Spokane Falls Blvd. and Main Street, for the planned River Park Square Mall's atrium, will divert traffic away from the Post Street Bridge, necessitating a better way to get over the river. (Spokane attorney Steve Eugster filed a lawsuit Friday against the city’s decision to close that block of Post Street, arguing that it does not comply with Spokane's comprehensive plan.)
Meanwhile, developers of River Park Square, which is owned by Spokane’s Cowles family and is scheduled to be financed through a public-private partnership, support the construction of the Lincoln Street Bridge because of the traffic and air quality issues it addresses downtown, developers say.
A key reason that Blegen cites for supporting construction of the new bridge is Spokane’s failure to comply with federal air quality standards. Moving traffic through downtown with less stopping and starting, he says, will reduce automobile emissions and improve downtown's carbon monoxide levels.
Ron Edgar, chief of technical services for the Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority, agrees that a new bridge at the Lincoln Street site will improve air quality, but by how much is debatable.
“As opposed to doing nothing, it will have an improvement,” says Edgar. “It is probably not a great big thing; there are other [air pollution control measures] that are doing more.
“It isn’t set in stone that the Lincoln Street Bridge has to be built to solve our air quality problem. But, if you don’t do the bridge, you may have to do some other version of a bridge,” he continues. “This is a transportation control measure and those are expensive. You can't replace it with begging more people to carpool… There are no cheap fixes left out there, I’m afraid.”
Kulash commented at the EWU symposium that Spokane could do more to solve its air quality problem by eliminating one-way streets in downtown, which, he says, add a third onto every downtown driver's travel time.
Chris Hugo, a planner for the city of Spokane, says that Spokane traffic patterns make the bridge necessary for the efficient transportation of people and goods.
“To the opponents, the bridge seems like something that is going to increase capacity,” he says, adding that while bridge capacity will increase, the capacity of the streets north and south of the bridge will not, keeping traffic levels relatively consistent.
In addition, Hugo says that the city can avoid a freeway-through-downtown effect by controlling traffic lights and speeds, which won’t increase on the new bridge.
Hugo says that the city looked at other options, but found that they would be too costly, or cause too much damage. Replacing the Post Street Bridge and closing Post Street would require changes to the west side of Riverfront Park and encroachment on other city properties, he says. Widening the Monroe Street Bridge, he continues, would mean destroying its architectural integrity and the destruction of many historic buildings just north of the Spokane River, since they are built right up to the property line.
Proponents of the bridge also like to point out that the structure is not going to be an ugly monolith, but rather a “legacy bridge.” The one percent for art requirement is planned to encompass Spokane Indian culture and traditions relating to the falls (Spokane tribal members have also been consulted by the opposition). The bridge itself is planned to be sleek and modern in design, with bike lanes and eight-foot wide pedestrian sidewalks with vantage points to view the falls.
Former Mayor Sheri Barnard, who worked on the project back in 1992 and is considering running again for mayor, says one of the key issues in this year’s election will be the Lincoln Street Bridge. She says a lot has changed in the five years since the citizens advisory committee she appointed made its decision to recommend the bridge — the cost has gone up from $24.6 million in 1993 to $36 million — planners are trying to reduce downtown traffic and the project is running into complications, like the Ronald lawsuit.
“I just came from Carl Maxey’s memorial service where it was pointed out that one of his strongest points was that he was never afraid to ask the tough questions. I think it’s time to ask the tough questions.”
Don Barbieri, a local developer and chairman of that citizens’ advisory council, says that the tough questions have already been asked and answered. At first he was skeptical of the city's claims that it could build a bridge that respects pedestrians and the falls, but he is now convinced that the Lincoln Street Bridge is in the best interests of the community.
“I’m very pleased that the city has hired some of the best in the world to come up with a structure that is a visual asset to downtown, not just a functional structure,” he says. “[But] when it gets to crunch time, since budgets are such a large part of any project, design flair can sometimes give way to temporary cash shortage. I hope that doesn't happen.
There is evidence, however, that it may already be happening. One of the bike lanes that city staff point to may be in jeopardy. City engineers announced to the City Council just two weeks ago that they need 200-square feet of Steve and Leslie Ronald’s neighboring property to complete the project as planned. The city refuses to pay the $2.81 million that a jury said the property was worth and is appealing the decision. If Spokane can obtain that property by the time they start building the bridge, engineers will have to make some changes to the bridge plans
“We can remove a bike lane,” says City Attorney Jim Sloane.
“Construction of the bridge will not be held up by the lawsuit but it is a design consideration. And the city knows it is not going to be getting any slack from the Ronalds. A city appraiser once said the entire site was worth only $1, says the Ronalds’ attorney, Mike Maurer. (The appraiser later modified that to $1 per square foot.) The city's highest offer, Maurer adds, was $875,000 even though the Ronalds had already invested more than $1 million on the site and spent more than $100,000 in legal fees.
Meanwhile the Ronalds are suing the city for $3 million for taking their property by refusing to issue building permits even though they had not purchased the land.
They had planned to build condominiums on the site. The Ronalds, Maurer says, would walk away from their tort case if the city paid them the $2.184 million. Decision made by the jury, but, he continues, the city has not even returned the Ronalds’ phone calls.
Councilwoman Cherie Rodgers says that the City Council was a bit overwhelmed to hear that Spokane needed some of the Ronalds’ property to build the bridge. She says she is not sure whether the council would have chosen to appeal had the members known the site was needed for the bridge.
What frustrates her the most, she says, is that she is sure city engineers knew the property was necessary two months before they told the council — well before the vote to appeal the court decision.
To further complicate the situation, the citizen's advisory committee that recommended the City Council accept the Lincoln Street Bridge proposal in 1992, did so with the qualification (among others) that the city acquire the Ronalds’ property as open space. The council accepted the recommendation along with all of the qualifications. Local activist Steve Eugster has told the city that should it fail to buy that property, he will sue to stop the bridge from being built.
Another citizens’ condition, that the Post Street Bridge be removed, has also not been followed to the letter by the city, which is now planning a pedestrian/bicycle bridge to camouflage utility lines crossing the river. The bridge will connect the Centennial Trail at Veterans Park to Riverfront Park.
While a Post Street pedestrian bridge would certainly be an asset to those traveling by foot over the river, many people say the net effect of the Lincoln Street Bridge is to make walking in downtown Spokane more difficult.
Traffic engineering consultant Kulash and local developer Ron Wells say that the Lincoln-Monroe couplet formed by the bridge will exacerbate an already bad situation, where high-speed, one-way streets are the law of the land in downtown Spokane. Those streets, they say, are pedestrian unfriendly and detrimental to businesses.
“The damage to the Steam Plant neighborhood along the railroad viaduct south of the Davenport Hotel was one a long time ago, when the two-way street was changed into a one-way speedway with new parking,” says Wells of the street neighboring his current project. “It would just become worse with the new bridge. What really needs to happen to make Lincoln work is for it to become a two-way street again and to have parking… Public works engineers and traffic engineers are very skilled at doing a particular mission — moving more cars, more efficiently, faster. That’s not really what we need in the innermost pedestrian core of our city.”
Kulash agrees. He says that many national retailers, including Barnes & Noble (which once considered opening a store in downtown Spokane), have done enough research on the detrimental effects one-way streets have on businesses that they consider only two-way streets when choosing locations.
“The downtown is moving in a direction that calls for two-way streets. It wants to attract specialty shoppers and people coming downtown for entertainment,” Kulash says. “Even daily users get befuddled by one-way streets.”
Occasional users, like shoppers, get so confused that it becomes a major negative factor in going downtown.
In addition, Kulash says that one-way streets, especially major arterials like the planned Monroe-Lincoln couplet, make pedestrians feel like they aren't welcome: “It’s a subtle but noticeable reminder to the pedestrian that you are a second-class user of the streets — that you are priority number two and that cars are the most important.”
Local planning consultant Jim Kolva, however, disagrees that the Lincoln Street Bridge will automatically mean a pedestrian-unfriendly downtown. In fact, he says building the bridge opens up opportunities for downtown to become more pedestrian friendly.
He says he hopes that representatives from city engineering, the Spokane Public Library, the River Park Square Mall project and Spokane Parks will get together to discuss how to make the intersections in question an attractive place for people to walk. He recommends that the city extend Riverfront Park between its current western boundary and City Hall, that a tree-lined median be constructed in the middle of Lincoln Street, and that the portion of Main Street in front of the library be turned into a plaza.
But despite his hopes for the project, Kolva says that there is a danger that the city will just plow through with no thought to the downtown component of the Lincoln Street Bridge project.
“I’m afraid we’re going to get the Travelodge syndrome rather than fight for what is best,” he says. “People could just try to find excuses and ride that bridge to mediocrity.”
Former Sen. Moyer says that constructing the bridge at all is accepting mediocrity for Spokane. The Falls, which he says will be obscured by the bridge, are Spokane's claim to fame. Without them, Spokane is just another inland burg. Moyer stresses the importance of the falls to the Spokane Indians and in the founding of Spokane (which was originally called Spokane Falls), in addition to the waterfalls' natural beauty as reasons that a Lincoln Street Bridge must not be constructed.
“What I’d really like to see is that we preserve the river and the falls as what it is, a national monument,” says Moyer. “In doing this, the bridge would most likely be sacrificed.”
Moyer remembers coming to Spokane in the 1950s, when the falls were more a rumor than a reality for most Spokanites.
“When I first came here, on March 17, 1955, you could go downtown and there was a railroad depot and tracks going down the gorge,” he says. “The river was sort of caged in and there were beer bottles floating around. It was a kind of horrible place.”
All that changed though, he says with Expo ‘74: “It was like, ‘Hey, there really is a river here,’” he says, “and they made it really a festive part of the whole celebration.”
Bill Youngs, an EWU professor who wrote The Fair and the Falls, a book about the Spokane Falls and Expo ‘74, says that removing the train trestles that ran over the river downtown was a key component of setting the stage for the big celebration.
“Having studied for years all the efforts that were made to get bridges out of the area of the falls, my sentiments are certainly with the people who want to keep a new bridge from going over the river and falls at this location,” he says.
Moyer agrees. He says that Spokane needs to find a way to give the falls a protected, historic designation — one that will prevent them from being obscured and provide the opportunity to construct ways to enjoy the falls more. Rick Hastings, the local architect who has been working with Moyer on the issue says that the Olmsted brothers had the right idea just after the turn of the century when they suggested Spokane construct a gorge park.
“It is really a setting that needs to be preserved at all costs,” Hastings says. “It’s tough to imagine Spokane making the most of that site with that huge bridge there. That much concrete over an occupied area is hard to pull off in a positive way.”
Hastings says a first project for a “Gorge Park” could be to construct a grand staircase leading from the library down to the base of the falls. He envisions it as a place where people could stop to eat their lunch, relax and maybe even catch a concert. He envisions it as the final legacy left by Expo ‘74, one that would have as much significance to Spokane as the Space Needle has to Seattle.
“Access to the lower falls is important,” he stresses. “We have lots of wonderful ways of looking at the falls from above — from Monroe, from the library — but we’ve just got that one view of it from below and we need to preserve it.”
Youngs, who ties the fact that Spokane was able to attract a world's fair to town to the grandeur of the falls, agrees wholeheartedly that preserving the falls is an issue that should be foremost in the minds of local policy makers. Failing to protect the Spokane Falls, he says, would be a mistake that would cost Spokane businesses moving to town, quality of life for residents and national pride.
“I would argue that in terms of their beauty and their power to incite wonder and awe, they are comparable to the famous wild places in the United States,” he says. “I don't think you could name another city in the country with such a natural splendor right in its midst.”
As for what's next, it depends on who you talk to. From the city’s perspective, this debate has been over for years and this latest flare up is too late: it’s full steam ahead. (It’s worth noting that some city officials have conceded that it’s not too late to stop the project.)
But many of those who oppose the bridge — or simply want more information — know starting an inclusive debate anew won't happen by itself. That’s why opponents are planning an early-September town meeting on the subject at The Met. But they also understand that it won’t do to simply oppose it; they must also offer an alternative solution. Through all the discussion, the early alternative appears to be some kind of reliance on a renovated Post Street Bridge to handle the traffic (after all, city officials say there won't be any “new” traffic on the Lincoln Street Bridge) along with a connection of the lower falls to Riverfront Park to make a kind of Gorge Park — perhaps, as Expo mastermind King Cole once envisioned, in the form of a national monument or park.
One thing is clear about the Lincoln Street Bridge project: It appears to be focusing people’s attention on the “big picture” and long-term health of the city in a way few issues in recent years have. ♦
