2 ms·
That's not a great example, because Seattle spent kajillions of dollars on a ridiculous tunnel under the city to replace the viaduct AND THEN built a second gro
by lazyasciiart 3y ago
That's not a great example, because Seattle spent kajillions of dollars on a ridiculous tunnel under the city to replace the viaduct AND THEN built a second ground-level highway on the newly available delightful waterfront space. Seattle's way of getting rid of the viaduct is a colossal waste of money and years of work for a terrible shitty result that is 1000% car based. A giant failure.
- sushisource 3y agoI don't think it's a _complete_ waste. It's better than it was before, but, it's absolutely true it could've been done much, much better than what we got.