3 ms·
That's not especially meaningful -- if there's a hipster-reactionary position to be taken on construction projects, the Stranger will take it. The Stranger has
by timr 12y ago
That's not especially meaningful -- if there's a hipster-reactionary position to be taken on construction projects, the Stranger will take it.
The Stranger has a long history of fighting losing fights to keep things more-or-less the same -- unless the alternative is trendy and/or guaranteed not to impact Capitol Hill. For example, they'd prefer that the viaduct be replaced with a "surface boulevard" that has a fraction of the throughput, thus all but guaranteeing decades of gridlock in downtown Seattle (which they like because it "discourages driving", because they heard that San Francisco did it...and most importantly, because it doesn't affect their lives either way).
Meanwhile, they complain constantly about light rail on the hill, but they campaigned heavily for the monorail-to-nowhere. Why? Because it was a monorail (cool!), and the construction wouldn't affect their favorite neighborhood (even better!)
Point being, it's not difficult to pull an article from the Stranger predicting doom for a major urban planning initiative. That's practically their stock in trade.
- pyrocat 12y agoYou apparently really don't like the Stranger, but that article is incredibly well researched and reasoned. Lots of valid points that are vindicated in retrospect. The only other notable papers in Seattle (Times + Weekly) do a piss poor job of covering government accountability.
- timr 12y agoI like the Stranger fine as an alt-weekly, but I give them basically no credence on matters like this. It isn't especially challenging to come up with ways that big projects might fail. The point is, they'll whistle past the graveyard (Monorail!) or dwell on every conceivable negative outcome (Tunnel!) depending on which approach serves their purpose.