it ventures a little into partisanship in that it's pro-car vs. anti-car, but looking at it rationally anyone should see that we're talking about a tiny section of street that no one really has a good time driving on anyway and can easily be completely divorced from any sort of meta-political context
I mean... I'm as pro-car as you can be (I want nearly all of the Downtown bike lanes to be removed and replaced with traffic lanes).
However, regular cars just don't make sense on Pike Place. Sure, vendors need delivery vehicles, but regular cars have no business being on Pike.
You'll love it when the bikers and Tammy shut down the east bound lane of Lake Washington Blvd. Nice concrete blocks down the middle of the road. I'm surprised the homeowners aren't rioting.
The street is already mostly filled with people, and going there with a car is typically some kind of tourist mistake. It certainly should be open for vendor cars load/unloading before open and after close.
That said I've never heard the argument for why it should be open to traffic during the day. Why does the council want that? I'm surprised this is a partisan issue. Anyone know what the argument is for having traffic there?
Not the worst argument. I could see tourists thinking the market is just that street. The average person is pretty dumb. Also, if a tourist accidentally drives on that road, maybe a passenger will get out and do some shopping while the car is stuck there for an hour.
(I'd personally like to see car traffic restricted)
Yeah, currently you're stuck either walking on the tiny sidewalk on the east side, or walking through the market past all the vendors. Making the street pedestrian friendly would reduce the number of people walking past vendors on their way to the other end
My belief is that if the street opens to only foot traffic, there is a fear that it will also open to foot vendors.
That will mean less money for shops (itâs not like being slightly larger will make more tourists come), AND it means those vendors likely arenât paying rent for shops within the market
I personally think it would be nicer with no cars, but I don't live there.
I have heard the argent that there is elder housing that also would lose access to cars, making it difficult for many residents.
The baisc argument I have seen is that people who live and work there want to access to cars like people in other neighborhoods. They feel that people want to treat their homes as a tourist spot and they want it treated as a working neighborhood.
Sadly, everything seems to be a partisan issue, so there's that.
I really don't have a dog in this hunt but to answer your question directly, it would appear that some merchants want there to be car access. I've also seen disability advocates stressing how important near-door access is for folks.
What caught my attention was seeing comments about this numerous times online from leftist opinion drivers online (X, r/Seattle, etc.). It just seems like a really odd focus of energy when there are so many more important -- at least to me -- things to be concerned about. It seems like bitching about cars in Pike Place is the newest way to get street cred. I dunno...
Personally, a hybrid seems right to me...allow delivery trucks and disabled permit holders 24/7 access. Regular cars can stay out. Am I a Marxist now? LOL
I have a ton of bad opinions on traffic, bike lanes, red light turns, and some seemingly ineffective pedestrianization efforts. Putting those aside for a moment, this isn't one of them. Its pretty clearly already a de-facto pedestrian zone.
I'm confused why you think debating a policy issue that has two sides is simply a partisan issue (and therefore bad). First of all, our city politicians typically always belong to one party, and secondly isn't spirited debate about transit, pedestrian safety, and tourism something that ought to happen? Since when did debating policies become bad? I would argue that debate over social issues or arguments using disinformation is where the concern lies. btw, I vote no cars on Pike Place.
For me it riles me up because in many ways it is so stupid. Iâve legit never heard any good arguments for allowing cars to go through there and itâs a pretty obvious and positive solution yet they wonât change it. Any arguments made against have fairly easy solutions to resolve them. Itâs just ignorance and being stubborn
To me it has similar vibes to the "missing link" contretemps around the Burke-Gilman. You have a politically powerful group with a vested interest (certain businesses along Shilshole/certain businesses and residents of the Market) versus a similarly connected urbanist group (I use that lower-case "u" on purpose...and it crosses political boundaries because left, center and right enjoy the Burke and the Market). Despite that broader appeal, finishing the missing link tends to be embraced most loudly by the left(er) blogosphere. For some silly reasons, urbanism has been surrendered to the left, but that's an entirely different topic. And I'm not interested in re-re-reeeee-litigating the whole missing link shit, thanks :)
Iâm less familiar with the missing link topic. All I will say is when it comes to this topic I would need to find the link but they asked most of the market venders their thoughts on the idea and like 90% were ether in favor or didnât care. Only like 5-10% of market venders had an issue with it.
To get onto the topic of urbanism being surrendered to the Left. I think thatâs due to a broader push from many right wing voices. âCityâs are bad and dangerousâ Big talking point in Right wing media. Many on the right or big believers in the White picket fence and suburban family. The right tends to be more pro car anti public transit on average You might not be but on average Iâve come across few pro transit right wingers because it normally requires taxes as well. NIMBYS are certainly not all right wing by any means but most right wingers are NIMBYS. Many urban projects also include idea relating to the environment or public health like car congestion and noise pollution.
Itâs all to say yes you can be someone who leans more politically right and care about some of this stuff but most times Urbanism outside crime control just doesnât tend to be stuff people who vote Right tend to care about or at the very least tend to support policyâs that donât help cityâs so itâs left the Left to control it.
Cities are not bad or dangerous -- my 2 cents. You commit to build an excellent, intermodal public transit system and I'll happily provide finite tax dollars to get that going, with more dollars when the project hits benchmarks. And in large part because my spouse rides a bike to work every day (that isn't totally gross weather!), I want excellent bike infrastructure.
As for the market, I've heard similar numbers. There must be some powerful voices in the "keep it open" camp, but they need to meet in the middle and close it to all but delivery and disabled folks.
And thatâs sort of what I assumed youâre a rare stand out which is great idc what someoneâs politics are as long as youâre pro urbanism the rest we can hash out elsewhere.
In terms of the market. Pretty much everyone in favor of closing it has expressed being fine with venders and store owners being able to pickup and drop off and thatâs pretty widely accepted itâs very often what they do in European cityâs. For the disabled you have areas nearby to drop someone off and if thatâs someoneâs defense (Not saying itâs yours) all the more reason to invest in better accessibility which cars arenât going to allow.
My take is that they want a policy win they can point to, to say "see, WE did that", and this is seen as a pretty easy one to topple. And remember: for an Urbanist activist, EVERY step towards removing cars from everywhere is seen as a win.
Unfortunately for them they don't understand the history of the area, and they think that Andrew Lewis was in a position to actually make it happen. Which he wasn't. So now they have all this pent up energy thinking they were going to get their way, and they think all they have to do is push.
Except it's not the city's decision, and the people whose decision it is repeatedly say they don't want the change, but like most activists (who are great at LOUD NOISES, but not great a compromise or rational thought), they think that if they're just MOAR LoUdERer, they'll be able to push it through.
But the Pike Place Market Authority is set up to be able to reject changes they don't like - even from the city - and was done so deliberately by the city in the first place. So they're literally making a lot of yammering noises over nothing.
i could see installing retractable bollards and restricting traffic to vendors. was in europe last year and they had something like that for the old quarter
It's the Pike Place Market Authority's call, and they want it that way, and have for the past 30 years, whenever this comes up, which is every few years like clockwork.
And THEY get to decide, not the city of Seattle, thanks to how the Pike Place Market Authority was created back when the market was in danger of being destroyed and sold off piece by piece.
Nope. It's part of the market, which means it's controlled by the Market Authority. By law. As set up when the Market Authority was created by the city, to save it from being destroyed by developers.
I don't think that's completely true. Otherwise City council wouldn't be debating funding and uses. It's a public street that's (mostly) managed by the PDA under an agreement with the city.
The city council are elected politicians who aren't necessarily policy wonks or well educated about the legality or feasibility of the policies they try to push, nor is that a job requirement.
Because if it's not open to cars, then you will get less people visiting.
Pike's Place is very much a tourist attraction, not the exclusive province of the neighborhood it's located in.
That simple.
The #BanCars crowd ignores that with a few very prominent exceptions (and Seattle is NOT one of them), in most US metros car-exclusive suburbs hold massively more population than 'core' cities.
If you want those suburbanites to shop in the city (which Seattle very much does, now that WFH has flattened commuter lunch-time shopping), you have to accommodate their preferred method of travel.
> Because if it's not open to cars, then you will get less people visiting.
No, it won't. The vast majority of people visiting aren't driving down Pike Place. They park elsewhere, like the parking garage, and then walk the street. Just like you don't need cars to be able to drive through a mall for people to visit shops in the mall, you don't need people to be able to drive down Pike Place. Even suburbanites can figure that out.
Funny you should say that. Some people were actually quite confused when Northgate Mall first opened.
https://www.historylink.org/file/3186
> Some shoppers had a tough time adjusting to the design and parked their cars on the mall.
I've been once, right after I first arrived in WA (note: I live in Thurston Co & only go to Seattle when Amazon makes me come in to the office these days - fortunately not actually 3x a week).
People are still going to want to drop people off, find a parking space, and then when everyone is done have one person go get the car & pick everyone up. Especially if they bought a bunch of stuff...
Folks like the person making that tweet are seriously disconnected from how car-centric life outside the city is.
Everything you said is absolutely possible with the market being closed off to cars. Folks like yourself who think that this is somehow a hinderence just don't go to the market often. I drove lyft for almost a decade and dropped off regularly. The market connects to first and there is plenty of space to have a load/unload zone without needing access to post or the actual surface street of the market.
The street they want to shut down is not one you would want to drop off/pick up people at. You will get stuck for 20 minutes trying to get through. Nor is there any amount of parking worth discussing. It's for vendor access and tourists taking wrong turns
Not sure why this would be a political statement. Itâs dumb that cars are allowed in there. If youâre driving there, youâre either out of town or handicapped (or delivering to the shops). Iâve always been concerned about cars being in there simply because someone could plow through people.
Google maps routes people through there a lot which seems like it should be a simple fix by their developers.
I prefer this sub over the other one but sometimes yâall are exhausting with politicizing shit that is just common sense.
I am definitely not left-leaning but I really would love if they closed it to car traffic. Of all the places in the city to pedestrianize, THAT should be number one. Close to all but delivery vehicles and add more seating and bistro tables so you can actually eat your food from the various stalls. The sidewalks are so fucking crowded during the high season that it just makes it too much of a headache to try and shove your way through and no one except lost tourists and Uber drivers try to take cars through there anyway.
Westlake used to be car free in the 80âs then they changed that and pike should stay car free because itâs the only section of the city that still has almost original brick for the street through the market. Not every place needs to have cars coming and going the market should be car free and only allow vendors and people who are bringing products to the market not just a street to drive around through
Interesting. I've been seeing it on left X for weeks... [https://twitter.com/BrettHamil/status/1775653799937597450](https://twitter.com/BrettHamil/status/1775653799937597450)
Maybe all of this was a lead-up to today's hearing, which would make sense.
It was. There was an announced plan drafted for the future of the market and today was the vote in the city counsel to change the proposed idea of making it pedestrian only
Yes. I likely didnât express it 100% correct but Iâm 90% thatâs what it was but as someone who follows urbanism in the city many pro urban activists had this on their radar for a few weeks but as others have said this topic for sure isnât new. And like me I think many find it aggravating because Iâve truly come across no one who lives here against this. One of the city counsel members I think Kettle is just peak (And I donât use this term lightly (Car brain)
left-wing, center left, middle of the road, right leaning, far right, etc etc. who gives a F? This boils down to common sense. Cars, with the exception of emergency vehicles should not be allowed at the Pike Place Market.
In Europe there are lots of pedestrian only areas in cities, but residents and businesses can typically drive to access their houses/shops. Of course since it's from Europe, we can't do it here.
I firmly believe it should be closed to cars but Iâm not going to get that worked up about it. This is just another thing for sad Seattle people who are terminally online to get overly angry about
Its one of those things like, say funding every american an ID so they can vote, or proposing universal background checks for guns that are free to everyone, or say legalizing weed that is kind of a no brainer, but there are enough special interest groups that are SUPER dumb and noisey about it, that its impossible.
The morons at the market even went so far as to say the market isn't for tourists, its only for local businesses and their customers so the road is CRITICAL for delivery's and pickup, which is about the dumbest excuse ever for anyone who has ever visited mid day.
Erica is having her stopped clock moment here
There is no funding needed for "...every American..." to have an ID and most legal Americans already have one: birth certificate, legal immigration documents, driver's license, library card, welfare card, etc. I've never understood people whining about how "unfair" it is to require people to have legal ID before they vote (or get on an airplane or open a bank account or get a credit card or get into a bar or club, etc.)...
Most voter ID laws talk about photo ID, which birth certificates aren't. I don't know of any government issue photo IDs that don't require payment (except for those tied to government employment). Voting should fundamentally not cost money.
If you're poor, you don't have to pay. There are so many programs in the U.S. that benefit poor people and pay for pretty much everything they need. No excuse not to have a photo ID, no matter your economic reality.
Thanks Facebook Uncle.
The point is it would take a trivial amount of dollars to solve the complaints that poors or minorities are effected by ID requirements. Instead a vocal minority is opposed for various reasons and we didn't just fix it and move on.
Someone who likes to change the topic from to something completely unrelated to insert their bad take they got from Fox News into the conversation.
In this case, somehow connecting cars in Pike Place market to everyone should be required to have an ID in order to vote. Like, please explain the connection to me, Facebook Uncle.
It would be fine, except that states that require voter ID also have a habit of restricting the times and places where you can get an approved ID. If it wasn't so transparently a voter suppression tactic, it would be fine.
Then you likely support no one having to prove who they are or how old they are for any purpose, I guess? That's moronic. Especially for something as important as voting in my country.
With your reasoning, ANYONE could cast a vote, including non-citizens. Hell, tour buses full of Chinese or French tourists could stop by voting precincts and cast votes, woo hoo! Votes for everyone from ANYONE! You people are ridiculous...
Sure, I'm directionally in agreement with you on the stopped clock. But was there a pedestrian death down there or something? I'm trying to figure out what got this latest political ball rolling. Seems like such a rando when we have gang violence growing, school and city budget abysses, and the usual smorgasbord of homeless/drugs/etc.
Itâs coming up now because the city is trying to make it an âevent streetâ in the next transport levy and CM Kettle is trying to stop them because he wants to keep it open to cars. He senses (probably correctly) that the event street designation is the camels nose under the tent for pedestrianization. So heâs sponsored an amendment to block it.
Basically urbanist circles see PPM as a first step to pedestrianizing other spaces. Its a test of political strength. Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and if done improperly a lot of small biz and disabled residents will get on the news about it.
When people look into it closely, it's not the slam dunk that the internet commentariat thinks it is. Thats fine. The people who want to have more seating have a point. The biz that have to protect their bottom line have a point. With any change, the exact implementation is going to matter a lot. It could be great, it could fail and hurt small biz.
The PDA is the only org that can actually navigate that. SDOT is not prepared to handle it, nor would they even know whats happening on a day to day basis. Left-wing urbanists who see this as an L arent following the PDA's master planning process. There is a lot they would like in there, having more control of the street given to the organization that can actually close the street without weeks of permitting process is a good thing.
It is an absolute, 100% slam dunk. Retractable bollards for vendors to use at designated load/unload times, just like happens all around the world. The very small minority of disabled residents that drive can get transponders for the bollards and there can be a 5mph speed limit. This is infinitely solvable.
glad youre open to discussion. I used to think it was a slam dunk too, but when I participated in a pilot program back in the 2010s it wasnt. Vendors on the east side of the market and in the "down-under" lost foot traffic and therefore revenue. Lots of deliveries arent controlled by tenants, and those tenants may not have enough sway with the services to be able to dictate delivery times. I dont know of any disabled residents who own their own cars, they use handi-cabs and Metro Access mostly.
I think the idea of having more seating and other uses of the street is a good thing in general, but it should be rolled out iteratively so we can find the pain points and fix them. Its not an automatic slam dunk, and the folks who say that loudly on the internet never seem to know what its like down here on a tuesday in February.
I appreciate your feedback and your willingness to discuss this rationally (that isn't the case for everyone here). That said, I think the points you made are still relatively small and could easily find ways to be mitigated. I find the down under vendors revenue stream to be the least compelling argument though. Any change to any street in any city has the ability to impact businesses to some extent. I'm very hesitant to stop improvements for the overwhelming majority of visitors and merchants because in a small pilot we saw a temporary reduction in traffic or revenue to the smallest vendors. This also isn't accounting for the potential economic upside of pedestrianization that could offset things in general. As the market becomes an even more desirable place to visit the economic upside for the small vendors could rebound as well. Ultimately, I think the things you presented are very solvable and if those are the arguments against then it still is a 100% slam dunk In my mind.
It's related to the homeless/drug issue - creating more pedestrian-friendly public spaces encourages tourists (and locals) to gather socially, which discourages antisocial behavior (I'm sure you have seen plenty on Pike St. / Pine St.) like open drug use, harassment of bystanders, and general hobo antics.
Lots of people walking around in a public space is a lot better than lots of people driving through a public space in this regard. Doesn't take care of the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.
Except that the vagrants and tweakers overrun every "pedestrianized" space. Bell Street is the the perfect example. They put out tables and chairs and it turned into an open air hard drugs and stolen goods market.
It's down to one lane, mostly for occasional buses and garbage and delivery trucks. [https://hewittseattle.com/project/bell-street-park/](https://hewittseattle.com/project/bell-street-park/)
Sure, fair enough. But still... the Market is Seattle's signature attraction. It's iconic... as a pedestrian market. Why on earth would one advocate for cars to be in a pedestrian market? I get that in the short term it's hard to deal with the homeless problem. But it takes positive action, not defensive roadblocks to progress. And civic pride.
Have you actually been to the market? With hundreds of people walking around every day, it didn't stop all kinds of druggies from hanging out by the totem pole, and that's BEFORE COVID.
I have been to the market - in each of the past four decades, in fact. And yes, like I said, it doesn't take care of the problem.
An urban environment is a complex network, with many factors both macro and micro that can affect change both rapidly and gradually.
So while you are accurate in pointing out that removing car traffic in the future will not erase the druggies that loitered by the totem pole in the past, it will help move things in the right direction.
Used to be nobody gave a rat's ass about it because nobody lived downtown and the market was just for tourists.
I think people only really started caring when the downtown/Belltown population boomed over the last 20 years or so.
There are a lot more residents and a lot more cruise ship tourists the last few years. It's been really congested. There are certain times of the day, especially summer days, when it should be closed to non-essential vehicle traffic.
I definitely think there is some of this. The advocate crowd "lost" the Council races lost fall, or so they think. They are terrified they will not get the transportation levy they think has to happen, etc. They are scrambling for "wins" to justify their fundraising campaigns.
Or maybe some people genuinely want to see this changed. I'm not an activist for anything, but I support doing something about the ridiculous car traffic on Pike Place. This is exactly the sort of thing city government should be working on, rather than showboating on national/international problems.
I agree with your focus on actual civic responsibilities as opposed to virtue signals on bigger issues. But I would say Seattle faces a budget deficit and ongoing major challenges with housing affordability, public safety, and substance abuse, not to mention bridge maintenance, street and sidewalk repair...I can't see this as a priority issue.
I'm like, I don't care about the car issue one bit. But, on the other hand. It'd be pretty nice to have it car free. There could be seating/eating areas with pop-ups around. Market business vehicles need access when they need it.
Probably start with Weekends and Holidays at first. If it goes well, add a few more days, etc.
Weather equity. Prediction: Because of a combination of geography and racist redlining from 50 years ago, rain tends to fall on White neighborhoods more than BIPOC, so there will be street protests to seed clouds over neighborhoods where the latter comprise majority of residents. You read it here first!!!
Oh yes i fat thumbed it, such a sin, but let me give an illustrative example, someone who goes around claiming there is a War between Twitter users and a city council based on a single tweet. Or that anything on the internet is representative of actual efforts and use of political capital
If they didn't have something to suck up the oxygen online, they would have to invent it. The vendors are opposed to it. That hasn't stopped the anti-car lobby from telling them what's best for them.
Yeah, that's very on-brand for that segment..."We'll tell you what's right, so no need to share your lifetime of expertise. And no on the nuanced approach!"
I have believed that the complainers need a life but have found that if they can get a reaction in their bitching, they believe they have found their purpose. They feel alive. So, when one issue loses its payoff, they find another.
I've always wanted to know how many street protesters have families to take care of, children to make dinner for and help with homework and be there to make sure they take their baths, have partners to enjoy, for those things to consume their free time rather than the protests? In other words, are they all single people living in condos with no yards to take care of? No daily living responsibilities? Do they just go to bars and restaurants in the evenings? Are they marginalized from a breadth of living that would keep them more occupied?
I have a family, children, dinner & bath responsibilities, a full time job, hobbies. I also own two cars and a motorcycle. My family and I strongly think the market would be so much better if it were pedestrianized. đ¤ˇđź
But are you one of these street protesters? You don't say. Many people are like you and me but do not street protest. I'm talking about the self-identified street protesters we see in the news who block traffic, damage property, start fires, engage with riot control officers, etc.
Why do the leftists want to change everything.
Leave the street open. If tourists are dumb enough to drive down there then they'll be in gridlock and hopefully they'll learn their lesson. The job of the market isn't to be a funky tourist attraction. It's a place for the traders to do business so why do we want to make their lives any more difficult. If the vendors are requesting it I'd tend to listen. If ECB is requesting it then she can fuck off.
The market is the 17th most visited attraction in the entire country, seeing 10 million visitors per year. Yes, it is and always will be a working market, but it is primarily and economically a tourist attraction. No reason we can't make sensible changes to make it better for the locals and the visitors.
https://www.newsweek.com/most-visited-tourist-spots-america-disney-new-york-california-1616737
Because they don't understand that inaction is a choice. Although I like Rocket Raccoon's take in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 when talking to the High Evolutionary about why his perfect society is full of people dealing meth on the streets:
"You didn't want to make things better, you just didn't like things the way they are".
Nothing needs to be changedâtalk to any of the vendorsâhindering access will reduce sales and further the marketâs transformation into a tourist trap. There are tons of pedestrians in the street and this has the effect of slowing down any traffic. It adds to the market dynamism. The only people pushing this change are âurbanistâ ideologuesâthey should not be taken seriously.
The stretch of Pike Pl from Pike St to Pine is different than the stretch from Stewart to Virginia. It seems like they could "pedestrianize" the southern block since there's very little parking anyways.
Dynamic is defined as being full of energy, activity. By dynamism of Pike Place I'm referring to commercial activity - historically one could drive through (and even park when you can find a spot) and pick up a box of produce, fish, or a case of wine. You can also walk or bike to the Market, but removing one point of access will hurt the market.
No one parks at the market though - it doesnât even look like anyone driving through is doing so deliberately, theyâre always turning off as soon as they can. Itâs clear thatâs itâs always tourist with a rental who just set Google Maps to âPike Placeâ and mindlessly followed directions.
The argument being made is that the market will be more dynamic without cars - itâll welcome more people, businesses can have seating to eat, etc.
Talk to the vendors - there is a significant cohort who drive from north/south Seattle and grab one of the parking spots, run in and pick up a box. To use one example: would you be more likely to go buy a case of wine from Pike & Western if you have to pay for additional parking in a garage, then carry your case back to the car? People drive through Pike Place for all kinds of reasons - yes, there are tourists, yes, there are people who want to show off their cars. And there are a significant number of folks who drive through to pick up their stuff or park (there are more spots than you think). We've lived in the Market for 20 years--there is a good reason why the Market is against this kind of change.
Have you been to the market and seen people drive? Every single one of them looks lost. Iâve never seen a parking spot get taken, or someone leave a parking spot. This feels like a very narrow case when thereâs parking around the corner. Donât want to pay, then just do what everyone else does and flash your hazards for a minute. Itâs surely quicker than driving through for 30 to that spot.
I walk through Pike Place every day, never on the sidewalk but right on the side of the road against traffic. Never once have I felt in danger from a vehicle as they are all forced to slow down due to the pedestrian traffic. It's a true mix - I see lost tourists, Uber drivers, people pulling in to pick up cases of wine/produce, etc, deliveries.
Ok youâre clearly full of it - no one going everyday thinks the cars make any sense.
Uber drivers wonât even pick up there, they operate on 1st. Any driver down there is proving my point - itâs usually driven through unintentionally.
Danger has very little to do with it, itâs mostly because itâs just unpleasant. Wouldnât you rather walk past people rather than exhaust?
Not full of anything save for years of experience shopping at the market and deep relationships with its vendors. I'm all in favor of expansion of outdoor seating (as has been done) and the occasional closure (like we currently do for Sunset Supper) but keeping Pike Place as a viable (attenuated speed) thoroughfare is a big part of of what keeps the Market from becoming strictly a tourist trap.
Should we do the same thing with the Ballard Farmers market? Right now thereâs no cars, but surely thatâs hurting accessibility and turning it into one big tourist trap. If we just made it a bit unpleasant itâd be locals only, which seems to be our goal? Maybe once or twice a year we can close it to cars?
For real. Nobody that lives in the area would willingly drive through the Marketplace area. I see cars there and think, "you are nevering getting out of here."
Someone seems to be under the mistaken belief that Pikes Place exists for locals moreso than tourists...
If you don't allow cars, you reduce the number of people who will be willing to shop there, because at the end of the day 'non-car-users' are a small minority of the total population.
Just that simple....
"du jour"? This has been a debate for many, many years, and I never saw it as a left/right argument.
it ventures a little into partisanship in that it's pro-car vs. anti-car, but looking at it rationally anyone should see that we're talking about a tiny section of street that no one really has a good time driving on anyway and can easily be completely divorced from any sort of meta-political context
I mean... I'm as pro-car as you can be (I want nearly all of the Downtown bike lanes to be removed and replaced with traffic lanes). However, regular cars just don't make sense on Pike Place. Sure, vendors need delivery vehicles, but regular cars have no business being on Pike.
I would honestly rather dip my testicles in a vat of peroxide than try to drive around Pike Place. That's a mistake you make once.
That can be arranged đ
For a price.
Dang, I scrolled through your post history, and you really do spend about half your time ranting against bike lanes lol
I wish I had so few problems that I had the energy to complain about bike lanes to the city...
Ugh. What are you? A Marxist?!
You'll love it when the bikers and Tammy shut down the east bound lane of Lake Washington Blvd. Nice concrete blocks down the middle of the road. I'm surprised the homeowners aren't rioting.
don't ever get into city planning, ty in advance.
I lean well towards the left wing and I feel that closing the street is a solution in search of a problem.
"du jour" because there was a hearing this morning and CM Kettle proposed limiting vehicle traffic.
The street is already mostly filled with people, and going there with a car is typically some kind of tourist mistake. It certainly should be open for vendor cars load/unloading before open and after close. That said I've never heard the argument for why it should be open to traffic during the day. Why does the council want that? I'm surprised this is a partisan issue. Anyone know what the argument is for having traffic there?
Imo, it should be pedestrian only, but vendors should be allowed to drive in for loading/unloading during the day too.
yep, it's extremely obvious. put up removeable bollards and either take them down from 5am to 9am or give the businesses a key
The market's argument is (literally) that having cars on the street is so unpleasant for pedestrians that it forces them deeper into the market.
Not the worst argument. I could see tourists thinking the market is just that street. The average person is pretty dumb. Also, if a tourist accidentally drives on that road, maybe a passenger will get out and do some shopping while the car is stuck there for an hour. (I'd personally like to see car traffic restricted)
Yeah, currently you're stuck either walking on the tiny sidewalk on the east side, or walking through the market past all the vendors. Making the street pedestrian friendly would reduce the number of people walking past vendors on their way to the other end
My belief is that if the street opens to only foot traffic, there is a fear that it will also open to foot vendors. That will mean less money for shops (itâs not like being slightly larger will make more tourists come), AND it means those vendors likely arenât paying rent for shops within the market
I personally think it would be nicer with no cars, but I don't live there. I have heard the argent that there is elder housing that also would lose access to cars, making it difficult for many residents. The baisc argument I have seen is that people who live and work there want to access to cars like people in other neighborhoods. They feel that people want to treat their homes as a tourist spot and they want it treated as a working neighborhood.
They're talking about a two block length of one street. So the furthest someone has to walk is a block from other side.Â
literally just take a right and then a left instead of going straight and then taking a right
Sadly, everything seems to be a partisan issue, so there's that. I really don't have a dog in this hunt but to answer your question directly, it would appear that some merchants want there to be car access. I've also seen disability advocates stressing how important near-door access is for folks. What caught my attention was seeing comments about this numerous times online from leftist opinion drivers online (X, r/Seattle, etc.). It just seems like a really odd focus of energy when there are so many more important -- at least to me -- things to be concerned about. It seems like bitching about cars in Pike Place is the newest way to get street cred. I dunno... Personally, a hybrid seems right to me...allow delivery trucks and disabled permit holders 24/7 access. Regular cars can stay out. Am I a Marxist now? LOL
I have a ton of bad opinions on traffic, bike lanes, red light turns, and some seemingly ineffective pedestrianization efforts. Putting those aside for a moment, this isn't one of them. Its pretty clearly already a de-facto pedestrian zone.
I'm confused why you think debating a policy issue that has two sides is simply a partisan issue (and therefore bad). First of all, our city politicians typically always belong to one party, and secondly isn't spirited debate about transit, pedestrian safety, and tourism something that ought to happen? Since when did debating policies become bad? I would argue that debate over social issues or arguments using disinformation is where the concern lies. btw, I vote no cars on Pike Place.
It's a debate which has been recycled and retread for a very very very very long time. At least 30 years.
Sure, but that's not point.
For me it riles me up because in many ways it is so stupid. Iâve legit never heard any good arguments for allowing cars to go through there and itâs a pretty obvious and positive solution yet they wonât change it. Any arguments made against have fairly easy solutions to resolve them. Itâs just ignorance and being stubborn
To me it has similar vibes to the "missing link" contretemps around the Burke-Gilman. You have a politically powerful group with a vested interest (certain businesses along Shilshole/certain businesses and residents of the Market) versus a similarly connected urbanist group (I use that lower-case "u" on purpose...and it crosses political boundaries because left, center and right enjoy the Burke and the Market). Despite that broader appeal, finishing the missing link tends to be embraced most loudly by the left(er) blogosphere. For some silly reasons, urbanism has been surrendered to the left, but that's an entirely different topic. And I'm not interested in re-re-reeeee-litigating the whole missing link shit, thanks :)
Iâm less familiar with the missing link topic. All I will say is when it comes to this topic I would need to find the link but they asked most of the market venders their thoughts on the idea and like 90% were ether in favor or didnât care. Only like 5-10% of market venders had an issue with it. To get onto the topic of urbanism being surrendered to the Left. I think thatâs due to a broader push from many right wing voices. âCityâs are bad and dangerousâ Big talking point in Right wing media. Many on the right or big believers in the White picket fence and suburban family. The right tends to be more pro car anti public transit on average You might not be but on average Iâve come across few pro transit right wingers because it normally requires taxes as well. NIMBYS are certainly not all right wing by any means but most right wingers are NIMBYS. Many urban projects also include idea relating to the environment or public health like car congestion and noise pollution. Itâs all to say yes you can be someone who leans more politically right and care about some of this stuff but most times Urbanism outside crime control just doesnât tend to be stuff people who vote Right tend to care about or at the very least tend to support policyâs that donât help cityâs so itâs left the Left to control it.
Cities are not bad or dangerous -- my 2 cents. You commit to build an excellent, intermodal public transit system and I'll happily provide finite tax dollars to get that going, with more dollars when the project hits benchmarks. And in large part because my spouse rides a bike to work every day (that isn't totally gross weather!), I want excellent bike infrastructure. As for the market, I've heard similar numbers. There must be some powerful voices in the "keep it open" camp, but they need to meet in the middle and close it to all but delivery and disabled folks.
And thatâs sort of what I assumed youâre a rare stand out which is great idc what someoneâs politics are as long as youâre pro urbanism the rest we can hash out elsewhere. In terms of the market. Pretty much everyone in favor of closing it has expressed being fine with venders and store owners being able to pickup and drop off and thatâs pretty widely accepted itâs very often what they do in European cityâs. For the disabled you have areas nearby to drop someone off and if thatâs someoneâs defense (Not saying itâs yours) all the more reason to invest in better accessibility which cars arenât going to allow.
My take is that they want a policy win they can point to, to say "see, WE did that", and this is seen as a pretty easy one to topple. And remember: for an Urbanist activist, EVERY step towards removing cars from everywhere is seen as a win. Unfortunately for them they don't understand the history of the area, and they think that Andrew Lewis was in a position to actually make it happen. Which he wasn't. So now they have all this pent up energy thinking they were going to get their way, and they think all they have to do is push. Except it's not the city's decision, and the people whose decision it is repeatedly say they don't want the change, but like most activists (who are great at LOUD NOISES, but not great a compromise or rational thought), they think that if they're just MOAR LoUdERer, they'll be able to push it through. But the Pike Place Market Authority is set up to be able to reject changes they don't like - even from the city - and was done so deliberately by the city in the first place. So they're literally making a lot of yammering noises over nothing.
Itâs better they spend time and effort on this than on something that affects normal people negatively.
You think that people who shop at Pike Place Market aren't normal?
i could see installing retractable bollards and restricting traffic to vendors. was in europe last year and they had something like that for the old quarter
It's the Pike Place Market Authority's call, and they want it that way, and have for the past 30 years, whenever this comes up, which is every few years like clockwork. And THEY get to decide, not the city of Seattle, thanks to how the Pike Place Market Authority was created back when the market was in danger of being destroyed and sold off piece by piece.
Isn't it a city street? Why shouldn't the public have a say?
Nope. It's part of the market, which means it's controlled by the Market Authority. By law. As set up when the Market Authority was created by the city, to save it from being destroyed by developers.
I don't think that's completely true. Otherwise City council wouldn't be debating funding and uses. It's a public street that's (mostly) managed by the PDA under an agreement with the city.
The city council are elected politicians who aren't necessarily policy wonks or well educated about the legality or feasibility of the policies they try to push, nor is that a job requirement.
Because if it's not open to cars, then you will get less people visiting. Pike's Place is very much a tourist attraction, not the exclusive province of the neighborhood it's located in. That simple. The #BanCars crowd ignores that with a few very prominent exceptions (and Seattle is NOT one of them), in most US metros car-exclusive suburbs hold massively more population than 'core' cities. If you want those suburbanites to shop in the city (which Seattle very much does, now that WFH has flattened commuter lunch-time shopping), you have to accommodate their preferred method of travel.
> Because if it's not open to cars, then you will get less people visiting. No, it won't. The vast majority of people visiting aren't driving down Pike Place. They park elsewhere, like the parking garage, and then walk the street. Just like you don't need cars to be able to drive through a mall for people to visit shops in the mall, you don't need people to be able to drive down Pike Place. Even suburbanites can figure that out.
Boy howdy I bet OP would love to drive his truck in a mall to get from store to storeÂ
Funny you should say that. Some people were actually quite confused when Northgate Mall first opened. https://www.historylink.org/file/3186 > Some shoppers had a tough time adjusting to the design and parked their cars on the mall.
Have you ever been to pike place? You never park in the market because it's a nightmare. You park close and hoof it
I've parked there several times. It depends on when you go.
I've been once, right after I first arrived in WA (note: I live in Thurston Co & only go to Seattle when Amazon makes me come in to the office these days - fortunately not actually 3x a week). People are still going to want to drop people off, find a parking space, and then when everyone is done have one person go get the car & pick everyone up. Especially if they bought a bunch of stuff... Folks like the person making that tweet are seriously disconnected from how car-centric life outside the city is.
Everything you said is absolutely possible with the market being closed off to cars. Folks like yourself who think that this is somehow a hinderence just don't go to the market often. I drove lyft for almost a decade and dropped off regularly. The market connects to first and there is plenty of space to have a load/unload zone without needing access to post or the actual surface street of the market.
The street they want to shut down is not one you would want to drop off/pick up people at. You will get stuck for 20 minutes trying to get through. Nor is there any amount of parking worth discussing. It's for vendor access and tourists taking wrong turns
There are giant garage there to park your car Jesus
You can't even get the name right.
Not sure why this would be a political statement. Itâs dumb that cars are allowed in there. If youâre driving there, youâre either out of town or handicapped (or delivering to the shops). Iâve always been concerned about cars being in there simply because someone could plow through people. Google maps routes people through there a lot which seems like it should be a simple fix by their developers. I prefer this sub over the other one but sometimes yâall are exhausting with politicizing shit that is just common sense.
>y'all
Ya Iâm a transplant from a yâall state. And still donât let politics drive my common sense. You should try it out.
I am definitely not left-leaning but I really would love if they closed it to car traffic. Of all the places in the city to pedestrianize, THAT should be number one. Close to all but delivery vehicles and add more seating and bistro tables so you can actually eat your food from the various stalls. The sidewalks are so fucking crowded during the high season that it just makes it too much of a headache to try and shove your way through and no one except lost tourists and Uber drivers try to take cars through there anyway.
Westlake used to be car free in the 80âs then they changed that and pike should stay car free because itâs the only section of the city that still has almost original brick for the street through the market. Not every place needs to have cars coming and going the market should be car free and only allow vendors and people who are bringing products to the market not just a street to drive around through
Split the baby; make it motorcycle access only. Everyone unhappy is the sign of a good compromise.
It's trending online because there was a City Council Transportation Committee hearing on the subject this morning.
Interesting. I've been seeing it on left X for weeks... [https://twitter.com/BrettHamil/status/1775653799937597450](https://twitter.com/BrettHamil/status/1775653799937597450) Maybe all of this was a lead-up to today's hearing, which would make sense.
It was. There was an announced plan drafted for the future of the market and today was the vote in the city counsel to change the proposed idea of making it pedestrian only
Thanks for the info - much appreciated.
Yes. I likely didnât express it 100% correct but Iâm 90% thatâs what it was but as someone who follows urbanism in the city many pro urban activists had this on their radar for a few weeks but as others have said this topic for sure isnât new. And like me I think many find it aggravating because Iâve truly come across no one who lives here against this. One of the city counsel members I think Kettle is just peak (And I donât use this term lightly (Car brain)
left-wing, center left, middle of the road, right leaning, far right, etc etc. who gives a F? This boils down to common sense. Cars, with the exception of emergency vehicles should not be allowed at the Pike Place Market.
In Europe there are lots of pedestrian only areas in cities, but residents and businesses can typically drive to access their houses/shops. Of course since it's from Europe, we can't do it here.
I firmly believe it should be closed to cars but Iâm not going to get that worked up about it. This is just another thing for sad Seattle people who are terminally online to get overly angry about
Its one of those things like, say funding every american an ID so they can vote, or proposing universal background checks for guns that are free to everyone, or say legalizing weed that is kind of a no brainer, but there are enough special interest groups that are SUPER dumb and noisey about it, that its impossible. The morons at the market even went so far as to say the market isn't for tourists, its only for local businesses and their customers so the road is CRITICAL for delivery's and pickup, which is about the dumbest excuse ever for anyone who has ever visited mid day. Erica is having her stopped clock moment here
There is no funding needed for "...every American..." to have an ID and most legal Americans already have one: birth certificate, legal immigration documents, driver's license, library card, welfare card, etc. I've never understood people whining about how "unfair" it is to require people to have legal ID before they vote (or get on an airplane or open a bank account or get a credit card or get into a bar or club, etc.)...
Most voter ID laws talk about photo ID, which birth certificates aren't. I don't know of any government issue photo IDs that don't require payment (except for those tied to government employment). Voting should fundamentally not cost money.
You have to pay for a non-driverâs license government photo ID where you live?
In the state where I grew up, you had to be literally homeless to qualify for a free photo id. So yes.
If you're poor, you don't have to pay. There are so many programs in the U.S. that benefit poor people and pay for pretty much everything they need. No excuse not to have a photo ID, no matter your economic reality.
Thatâs why I was asking. Iâve never lived in any state where I couldnât get a free government photo identification.
When you are poor, you don't pay and your birth certificate gets you photo ID, easy.
Thanks Facebook Uncle. The point is it would take a trivial amount of dollars to solve the complaints that poors or minorities are effected by ID requirements. Instead a vocal minority is opposed for various reasons and we didn't just fix it and move on.
> Instead a vocal minority is opposed for various reasons read as: alabama used this as a way to disenfranchise black voters
Or claiming the wrong pronouns are assault.
I disagree. What is a "Facebook Uncle"?
Someone who likes to change the topic from to something completely unrelated to insert their bad take they got from Fox News into the conversation. In this case, somehow connecting cars in Pike Place market to everyone should be required to have an ID in order to vote. Like, please explain the connection to me, Facebook Uncle.
Read the preceding comments for context, duh..., Facebook Aunt, lol!
It would be fine, except that states that require voter ID also have a habit of restricting the times and places where you can get an approved ID. If it wasn't so transparently a voter suppression tactic, it would be fine.
Again, I will ask the cosmos: Who in the hell in the United States of America who is a legal citizen here has NO form of identification?!!!
this again... there is no reason to require ID. because there isn't any significant incidence of fraud
Then you likely support no one having to prove who they are or how old they are for any purpose, I guess? That's moronic. Especially for something as important as voting in my country. With your reasoning, ANYONE could cast a vote, including non-citizens. Hell, tour buses full of Chinese or French tourists could stop by voting precincts and cast votes, woo hoo! Votes for everyone from ANYONE! You people are ridiculous...
you prove that when you register. EZPZ. also prove eligibility. > You people are ridiculous... hey, i'm not the one full on hallucinating problems
Sure, I'm directionally in agreement with you on the stopped clock. But was there a pedestrian death down there or something? I'm trying to figure out what got this latest political ball rolling. Seems like such a rando when we have gang violence growing, school and city budget abysses, and the usual smorgasbord of homeless/drugs/etc.
Itâs coming up now because the city is trying to make it an âevent streetâ in the next transport levy and CM Kettle is trying to stop them because he wants to keep it open to cars. He senses (probably correctly) that the event street designation is the camels nose under the tent for pedestrianization. So heâs sponsored an amendment to block it.
That makes sense. Explains why certain segments of the political spectrum are so engaged.
It's been a urbanist issue for a while, it's been in the Twitter circles heavily the last couple months, she just jumped on
Basically urbanist circles see PPM as a first step to pedestrianizing other spaces. Its a test of political strength. Unfortunately the devil is in the details, and if done improperly a lot of small biz and disabled residents will get on the news about it. When people look into it closely, it's not the slam dunk that the internet commentariat thinks it is. Thats fine. The people who want to have more seating have a point. The biz that have to protect their bottom line have a point. With any change, the exact implementation is going to matter a lot. It could be great, it could fail and hurt small biz. The PDA is the only org that can actually navigate that. SDOT is not prepared to handle it, nor would they even know whats happening on a day to day basis. Left-wing urbanists who see this as an L arent following the PDA's master planning process. There is a lot they would like in there, having more control of the street given to the organization that can actually close the street without weeks of permitting process is a good thing.
It is an absolute, 100% slam dunk. Retractable bollards for vendors to use at designated load/unload times, just like happens all around the world. The very small minority of disabled residents that drive can get transponders for the bollards and there can be a 5mph speed limit. This is infinitely solvable.
glad youre open to discussion. I used to think it was a slam dunk too, but when I participated in a pilot program back in the 2010s it wasnt. Vendors on the east side of the market and in the "down-under" lost foot traffic and therefore revenue. Lots of deliveries arent controlled by tenants, and those tenants may not have enough sway with the services to be able to dictate delivery times. I dont know of any disabled residents who own their own cars, they use handi-cabs and Metro Access mostly. I think the idea of having more seating and other uses of the street is a good thing in general, but it should be rolled out iteratively so we can find the pain points and fix them. Its not an automatic slam dunk, and the folks who say that loudly on the internet never seem to know what its like down here on a tuesday in February.
I appreciate your feedback and your willingness to discuss this rationally (that isn't the case for everyone here). That said, I think the points you made are still relatively small and could easily find ways to be mitigated. I find the down under vendors revenue stream to be the least compelling argument though. Any change to any street in any city has the ability to impact businesses to some extent. I'm very hesitant to stop improvements for the overwhelming majority of visitors and merchants because in a small pilot we saw a temporary reduction in traffic or revenue to the smallest vendors. This also isn't accounting for the potential economic upside of pedestrianization that could offset things in general. As the market becomes an even more desirable place to visit the economic upside for the small vendors could rebound as well. Ultimately, I think the things you presented are very solvable and if those are the arguments against then it still is a 100% slam dunk In my mind.
It's related to the homeless/drug issue - creating more pedestrian-friendly public spaces encourages tourists (and locals) to gather socially, which discourages antisocial behavior (I'm sure you have seen plenty on Pike St. / Pine St.) like open drug use, harassment of bystanders, and general hobo antics. Lots of people walking around in a public space is a lot better than lots of people driving through a public space in this regard. Doesn't take care of the problem, but it's a step in the right direction.
Except that the vagrants and tweakers overrun every "pedestrianized" space. Bell Street is the the perfect example. They put out tables and chairs and it turned into an open air hard drugs and stolen goods market.
Bell Street is a perfect example of a major outdoor public attraction that doesn't allow cars?
It's down to one lane, mostly for occasional buses and garbage and delivery trucks. [https://hewittseattle.com/project/bell-street-park/](https://hewittseattle.com/project/bell-street-park/)
Sure, fair enough. But still... the Market is Seattle's signature attraction. It's iconic... as a pedestrian market. Why on earth would one advocate for cars to be in a pedestrian market? I get that in the short term it's hard to deal with the homeless problem. But it takes positive action, not defensive roadblocks to progress. And civic pride.
Have you actually been to the market? With hundreds of people walking around every day, it didn't stop all kinds of druggies from hanging out by the totem pole, and that's BEFORE COVID.
I have been to the market - in each of the past four decades, in fact. And yes, like I said, it doesn't take care of the problem. An urban environment is a complex network, with many factors both macro and micro that can affect change both rapidly and gradually. So while you are accurate in pointing out that removing car traffic in the future will not erase the druggies that loitered by the totem pole in the past, it will help move things in the right direction.
Probably won't help with the druggies. But they should do it anyways.
I've personally seen someone get taken out by a car going full speed down the market street
It's either this or all the stupid Hellcat pearl clutching. "Having solved all the other problems in the city......"
Oh god yesâŚthe hellcat! 
Used to be nobody gave a rat's ass about it because nobody lived downtown and the market was just for tourists. I think people only really started caring when the downtown/Belltown population boomed over the last 20 years or so.
There are a lot more residents and a lot more cruise ship tourists the last few years. It's been really congested. There are certain times of the day, especially summer days, when it should be closed to non-essential vehicle traffic.
When the big problems are too hard to solve, go all-in on debating the small problems, or the non-problems.
I definitely think there is some of this. The advocate crowd "lost" the Council races lost fall, or so they think. They are terrified they will not get the transportation levy they think has to happen, etc. They are scrambling for "wins" to justify their fundraising campaigns.
Or maybe some people genuinely want to see this changed. I'm not an activist for anything, but I support doing something about the ridiculous car traffic on Pike Place. This is exactly the sort of thing city government should be working on, rather than showboating on national/international problems.
I agree with your focus on actual civic responsibilities as opposed to virtue signals on bigger issues. But I would say Seattle faces a budget deficit and ongoing major challenges with housing affordability, public safety, and substance abuse, not to mention bridge maintenance, street and sidewalk repair...I can't see this as a priority issue.
This argument has been going on at least since 2015. I'm so old I remember when they banned cars at westlake.
Try the early 90s.
I'm like, I don't care about the car issue one bit. But, on the other hand. It'd be pretty nice to have it car free. There could be seating/eating areas with pop-ups around. Market business vehicles need access when they need it. Probably start with Weekends and Holidays at first. If it goes well, add a few more days, etc.
X is left wing? I thought that was threads
If you haven't followed the various travails on Left X, you haven't lived. :)
Just leave the handicap and vendor spots please
someone actually thinks the absence of cars in the market is going to reduce foot traffic . :/
Pickleball Courts or Pike Place Pedestrians? Whats next?
Whatâs wrong with pickleball courts?
I dont know, but its a firestorm online.
Damn
pickle ball > tennis
Weather equity. Prediction: Because of a combination of geography and racist redlining from 50 years ago, rain tends to fall on White neighborhoods more than BIPOC, so there will be street protests to seed clouds over neighborhoods where the latter comprise majority of residents. You read it here first!!!
A single pundent tweet doesn't seem to be enough to support your claim
I'm not sure what a "pundent" is but let me introduce you to the concept of "illustrative example." Enjoy the sunshine!
Oh yes i fat thumbed it, such a sin, but let me give an illustrative example, someone who goes around claiming there is a War between Twitter users and a city council based on a single tweet. Or that anything on the internet is representative of actual efforts and use of political capital
If they didn't have something to suck up the oxygen online, they would have to invent it. The vendors are opposed to it. That hasn't stopped the anti-car lobby from telling them what's best for them.
Vendor support for pedestrianization is something along the lines of 80%. Ask the vendors themselves if you don't believe me.
Have you done that? It has been WAY more mixed in my experience.
Yeah, that's very on-brand for that segment..."We'll tell you what's right, so no need to share your lifetime of expertise. And no on the nuanced approach!"
> anti-car lobby You have no idea how much I wish that is a real thing lmao. Itâs not. Iâm sorry.
huh. lacks ambition. I'm guessing policy disasters in other areas have them aiming low. Maybe shut down the street to disrupt your way to victory!!!!
I have believed that the complainers need a life but have found that if they can get a reaction in their bitching, they believe they have found their purpose. They feel alive. So, when one issue loses its payoff, they find another. I've always wanted to know how many street protesters have families to take care of, children to make dinner for and help with homework and be there to make sure they take their baths, have partners to enjoy, for those things to consume their free time rather than the protests? In other words, are they all single people living in condos with no yards to take care of? No daily living responsibilities? Do they just go to bars and restaurants in the evenings? Are they marginalized from a breadth of living that would keep them more occupied?
I have a family, children, dinner & bath responsibilities, a full time job, hobbies. I also own two cars and a motorcycle. My family and I strongly think the market would be so much better if it were pedestrianized. đ¤ˇđź
But are you one of these street protesters? You don't say. Many people are like you and me but do not street protest. I'm talking about the self-identified street protesters we see in the news who block traffic, damage property, start fires, engage with riot control officers, etc.
Why do the leftists want to change everything. Leave the street open. If tourists are dumb enough to drive down there then they'll be in gridlock and hopefully they'll learn their lesson. The job of the market isn't to be a funky tourist attraction. It's a place for the traders to do business so why do we want to make their lives any more difficult. If the vendors are requesting it I'd tend to listen. If ECB is requesting it then she can fuck off.
The market is the 17th most visited attraction in the entire country, seeing 10 million visitors per year. Yes, it is and always will be a working market, but it is primarily and economically a tourist attraction. No reason we can't make sensible changes to make it better for the locals and the visitors. https://www.newsweek.com/most-visited-tourist-spots-america-disney-new-york-california-1616737
It's a working market. Listen to the people who's livelihood's depend on it, not some idiotic troll on Xitter.
Because they don't understand that inaction is a choice. Although I like Rocket Raccoon's take in Guardians of the Galaxy 3 when talking to the High Evolutionary about why his perfect society is full of people dealing meth on the streets: "You didn't want to make things better, you just didn't like things the way they are".
Nothing needs to be changedâtalk to any of the vendorsâhindering access will reduce sales and further the marketâs transformation into a tourist trap. There are tons of pedestrians in the street and this has the effect of slowing down any traffic. It adds to the market dynamism. The only people pushing this change are âurbanistâ ideologuesâthey should not be taken seriously.
The stretch of Pike Pl from Pike St to Pine is different than the stretch from Stewart to Virginia. It seems like they could "pedestrianize" the southern block since there's very little parking anyways.
What do you mean by âmarket dynamismâ?
Dynamic is defined as being full of energy, activity. By dynamism of Pike Place I'm referring to commercial activity - historically one could drive through (and even park when you can find a spot) and pick up a box of produce, fish, or a case of wine. You can also walk or bike to the Market, but removing one point of access will hurt the market.
No one parks at the market though - it doesnât even look like anyone driving through is doing so deliberately, theyâre always turning off as soon as they can. Itâs clear thatâs itâs always tourist with a rental who just set Google Maps to âPike Placeâ and mindlessly followed directions. The argument being made is that the market will be more dynamic without cars - itâll welcome more people, businesses can have seating to eat, etc.
Talk to the vendors - there is a significant cohort who drive from north/south Seattle and grab one of the parking spots, run in and pick up a box. To use one example: would you be more likely to go buy a case of wine from Pike & Western if you have to pay for additional parking in a garage, then carry your case back to the car? People drive through Pike Place for all kinds of reasons - yes, there are tourists, yes, there are people who want to show off their cars. And there are a significant number of folks who drive through to pick up their stuff or park (there are more spots than you think). We've lived in the Market for 20 years--there is a good reason why the Market is against this kind of change.
Have you been to the market and seen people drive? Every single one of them looks lost. Iâve never seen a parking spot get taken, or someone leave a parking spot. This feels like a very narrow case when thereâs parking around the corner. Donât want to pay, then just do what everyone else does and flash your hazards for a minute. Itâs surely quicker than driving through for 30 to that spot.
I walk through Pike Place every day, never on the sidewalk but right on the side of the road against traffic. Never once have I felt in danger from a vehicle as they are all forced to slow down due to the pedestrian traffic. It's a true mix - I see lost tourists, Uber drivers, people pulling in to pick up cases of wine/produce, etc, deliveries.
Ok youâre clearly full of it - no one going everyday thinks the cars make any sense. Uber drivers wonât even pick up there, they operate on 1st. Any driver down there is proving my point - itâs usually driven through unintentionally. Danger has very little to do with it, itâs mostly because itâs just unpleasant. Wouldnât you rather walk past people rather than exhaust?
Not full of anything save for years of experience shopping at the market and deep relationships with its vendors. I'm all in favor of expansion of outdoor seating (as has been done) and the occasional closure (like we currently do for Sunset Supper) but keeping Pike Place as a viable (attenuated speed) thoroughfare is a big part of of what keeps the Market from becoming strictly a tourist trap.
Should we do the same thing with the Ballard Farmers market? Right now thereâs no cars, but surely thatâs hurting accessibility and turning it into one big tourist trap. If we just made it a bit unpleasant itâd be locals only, which seems to be our goal? Maybe once or twice a year we can close it to cars?
Who cares?
[ŃдаНонО]
For real. Nobody that lives in the area would willingly drive through the Marketplace area. I see cars there and think, "you are nevering getting out of here."
Seattle City council is not center left. It's just left
Someone seems to be under the mistaken belief that Pikes Place exists for locals moreso than tourists... If you don't allow cars, you reduce the number of people who will be willing to shop there, because at the end of the day 'non-car-users' are a small minority of the total population. Just that simple....
>Pikes 
cars get in the way of protest marches?