70 Replies to “Sunday Open Thread: The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces”

    1. The title says “small urban spaces”, but notice how wide the sidewalks are, the fact that there is a plaza, a water feature, places to sit as well as to stand. These are features which make the dense urban landscape inviting and livable. A ten or twelve foot sidewalk with a few token trees blocking passage doesn’t invite such meeting/lingering places. Jan Gehl’s Cities for People explains it all very nicely.

      It’s unfortunate for the walkable city that when Nordstroms bought The F&N building they demanded car traffic be reinstated in front of the building.

      1. Wide sidewalks don’t deserve the badmouthing they get. They say, “Pedestrians are a priority.” They’re better than no sidewalk or a token sidewalk as an afterthought.

        The most ridiculous wide sidewalks are on Dearborn Street, where hardly anybody walks. But the problem isn’t the sidewalk, it’s the sub-highway street.

      2. I assume the “small” is in comparison to city parks, which are larger than most plazas and sidewalks.

        This was a fantastic film, and I love the whole thing. I wish the Seattle library had a copy of it – I only have a lousy nth generation VHS rip on my computer. A dvd copy is $95 – you can only buy it with a “public performance licence” (i.e. licensed for classroom use). And people sell used VHS copies on Amazon for $150.

        Whyte’s books are totally required reading for anyone interested in how public spaces actually work.

      3. UW has it, though on VHS. You can watch stuff for free in person in the media center at Odegaard Library or you can get borrowing for $30 for 3 mo or $100/year: http://www.lib.washington.edu/services/borrow/visitors

        UW is always a good place to check since they have a huge collection of urban planning materials and you can always read in person. A lot of the buildings like Gould Hall where the Architecture Library is or Suzzallo are also really cool spaces.

      4. I agree with the Nordstrom comment, but here’s a minor correction. When Nordstrom bought the F&N building, traffic had been blocked on Pine Street between 4th and 5th Avenues, which is the street between Westlake Mall and Westlake Park, NOT the street in front of the old F&N building. This makes it even weirder that Nordstrom demanded that Pine Street be re-opened — it wasn’t even in front of their building. They just assumed that having that block closed to auto traffic would cut down on access to their building somehow. In any case, it’s definitely a real shame that happened.

      5. Even when Pine Street was closed, it still looked like a street. It did not look like an inviting pedestrian extension of the park. You never saw people standing in it, just walking through it, because it still looked like a street.

      6. The Ave, empty of cars, except those already parked, and a single giant SUV pulling an illegal u-turn, lurching for a rare free spot. The hundreds of pedestrians? Crammed along narrow walkways. Just another day on the Ave.

      1. Thanks Brent. I clearly need practice with advanced comments from my cell phone.

        The gondola link is here.

        (but I don’t see a broken link in my post)

  3. Does anyone know the history of the Freeway Park and Washington State Convention Center freeway lids? How much they cost, how they were funded, what the political process to get them done looked like?

      1. Thanks, but I should have been more clear. I am looking for information beyond that obtainable from Google. I know some of our readers have been involved in Seattle transit/land use advocacy for a many years and perhaps they have more information about how both projects came together.

    2. Go to the Seattle Times archives *05-30-1976 Page 45*. There’s an article detailing the funding for the original Freeway Park. The project included an office building and the parking garage to the east of the park. Public expenditure for the project was $9.5 million. Some of the public contributors were Forward Thrust, HUD, Metro and federal & state highway funds (where was Kemper Freeman to block that???)

  4. RapidRide Fact: When the engine is turned off, only the front door can open. So if the a B-Line bus is laying over at the BTC for a few minutes with its engine off, and you’re wondering why the driver doesn’t have all the door open for boarding, that’s why. I asked. It’s a minor thing, but I do think it tends to add to the confusion about how and when to pay on RR.

    1. You always have to pay on RapidRide. But paying at the off-board readers between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am doesn’t get you on the bus.
      .

      Speaking of fare confusion, has anyone else seen those whacky “Seattle Free Riders” posters around town? The version I saw referred to the city wanting to charge an extra $20 a year (but it didn’t say whether it was fare, VLF, or what).

      The thing that looks really odd is their offer to pay all fines you get from riding free if you pay $25 to join them. Anarchist collective or just another scam?

      1. 1. Why do you have to use the front doors between 7pm and 6am?
        2. What happens if i tap the reader between those hours? Do I just walk on the bus and say I paid?

      2. 1. Metro’s budget doesn’t cover fare inspectors during those hours, so you have to pay at the front door while boarding. (Exiting at the rear doors is okay, since it isn’t in the RFA.)
        2. I’m curious as to whether the readers shut down during those hours. But if you do tap, it won’t hurt, but you’ll have to tap again when boarding. For those using e-purse, it just treats the second tap like a transfer.

      3. 2. If the reader is actually working, it will take your money. If you’re paying with an e-purse, that starts your two hour transfer. If you’re paying with a pass, it doesn’t really matter.

      4. While it was not cost-effective to have a fare inspection team just for the A line at night, I wonder at what point it will become cost-effective to have a night team rotating among the routes (and maybe switching routes sometime during the course of the night).

        The 7 pm – 6 am rules just really need to all go away by next October.

      5. I think consistency is important. But when every RR bus laying over at the BTC during the day has the back doors closed (when the engine is off), people won’t know the reason, and it will just add to the confusion.

        Also, it’s simply not true that using the front doors between 7pm and 6am on RR corresponds to the hours the fare inspectors work. It’s my understanding fare inspectors don’t work weekends, yet drivers don’t open just the front door on those two days.

      6. Even if Metro can’t afford to have fare inspectors work nights and weekends, I think it’s important to have them occasionally work these times if just to give riders the impression they are always working, and may board the bus any time and any day.

    2. When the bus is in “Night Park” mode, you can open the rear doors. I sat at BTC the other morning on a layover with my engine off and all 3 doors open. That said, they snap shut when you switch from park to run mode. Given that, some drivers may prefer to leave only the front door open since it doesn’t close when you switch modes. There is also the issue of letting cold air in…

      1. My understanding is that the front doors are air-operated and the rear electric. So it makes sense that the rear doors would stop opening when power is cut to the interior accessories.

  5. I created a word cloud of Norman’s STB comments over the past year here. No major surprises, but it was a fun exercise.

  6. Word from Metro is that they are seriously considering various ways to incentivize ORCA use, including a cash surcharge. Write your county councilmembers early and often to give them the backbone to support this.

    One minor thing not on the table is requiring use of loaded ORCA product in order to get the reduced fare. The twelve agencies participating in the RRFP program agreed to accept each others’ RRFPs regardless of the medium. Still, if the cash surcharge becomes a reality, I think the vast majority of RRFP users will cease fumbling change.

    1. You really don’t need a cash surcharge – just offer discounts for loading cash onto an ORCA card – at least $20-$40 at a time should do it. I’d also like to see a way for people to dump their change into a Coinstar machine and get a voucher they can use to add funds to their ORCA card online. Much better than bringing their plastic baggie with them to the fare box.

      I’ve been pleasantly surprised with RapidRide so far – I get a regular load of 4 or 5 cash fumblers coupled with 10-20 ORCA users at one particular stop. Getting rid of all the individual ORCA taps seems to save more time than getting rid of cash payment for the few that use it. In short – off-bus payment at crowded stops seems to be more important than the “War on cash”. Heck, I’m not even that bent out of shape about paper transfers these days. Sound Transit should get into a room with the RapidRide people and brainstorm ways to do off-bus payment in the tunnel side-by-side with Link. THAT would make a huge difference once we do away with the RFA.

      1. VBD,

        There are a couple of big differences between a cash surcharge and an e-purse bulk rebate. The bulk rebate is revenue-negative, unless it comes with a general fare increase. The bulk rebate is also subtle.

        The cash surcharge is about as unsubtle a device as the agencies could use to get cash fumblers to use ORCA. That is the point of it.

        I appreciate your point about off-board payment at the busiest stops. While there are almost 10,000 stops, picking the hundred busiest (including every one in the Central Business District) could make a world of difference.

        Of course, we’ll still be stuck with trolleys with lifts on 3rd Ave for four more years! It would be cool if the city could loan the county some of the VLF funds to expedite the fleet replacement, as that will quickly become the biggest source of bus traffic jams after the fare payment system is smoothed out. The phrase “past the end of their useful life” should mean something in terms of transit capital improvement priorities.

      2. Oh, and on paper transfers…

        I saw the fare inspectors walk two nonpayers off the train at MBS this afternoon. One had a wadded up Metro paper transfer, and insisted it should count as PoP.

      3. Another thing is that discounts for loading an ORCA card don’t provide any incentive at point-of-use. If someone’s at home and leaving for the bus stop, and they can’t find their card, they might just say, “whatever, it costs the same either way”. With a discount at point-of-use, that doesn’t happen.

        I definitely agree with you about off-board payment. That’s more of an issue for popular stops, though. What’s annoying is at a small stop, where you have 1-2 people boarding. If they use cash, and the driver won’t leave until they’ve paid, then you can end up with a 10+ second delay compared to ORCA. That adds up.

      2. Rather than Centennial Station, they should retrofit the tracks going to Downtown Olympia and extend it there. It would be so useful!

    2. Sounder will still have a niche in Kent/Auburn/Puyallup, assuming we haven’t added a Link line in the Kent Valley by then. But I doubt Link will ever get to Lakewood. It’s an open question whether the suburban expansion of the 1990s that went into overdrive in the 00s will slow down or stop. Currently the only thing being built is in-city apartments. What you’ll more likely see is streetcars or even rapid-streetcars in Tacoma city, with central Link only going to downtown Tacoma.

      1. Er, I draw a distinction between the suburban ring up to the early 90s, which includes Kent and Federal Way, and the exurban ring beyond that which includes Auburn and Puyallup. I think Kent will be a growth/densification area, but not south and east of it. I’m not as familiar with Lakewood, how much of it is close-in to Tacoma vs exurban.

      2. I forsee a stop in Fife in the Central Link southern extension. I just don’t see them “allowing” it to pass through their city without stopping there. It’ll make a great Park & Ride for a hundred or so people in the surrounding Fife/Milton area.

      3. I think in the future, Sounder should be extended somehow to the Olympia Area and that Link should have a separate network in Pierce County e.g. Tacoma, Lakewood, University Place, Parkland, etc.

      4. If Link goes to Tacoma it would certainly have a station in Fife because it would be way too long a distance without it. But there’s no concrete plan to send Link to Tacoma, just the wish of Pierce County for it to do so. But we don’t know if Link will even get to Federal Way.

      5. Lots of people in Thurston County like the idea of extending Sounder to Centennial Station. The question is if they are willing to pay what it would cost to extend service.

        I’d be real curious how a vote to annex the urban growth area in Thurston County to Sound Transit polls and how much revenue it would generate. At the very least the money could be used for better Express service to Pierce and King Counties.

        The demand is probably there to support a Seattle and an Airport express along with increasing frequency on the current Olympia Express service.

      6. I think an extension of Link down to Tacoma is a near certainty in the next 20 years. It should be relatively economical compared to the rest of the system, since it will be running elevated along the freeway with few stations, and would get pretty high ridership, since it wouldn’t take that much longer from Seattle to Tacoma than the 590s but would go far more frequently and serve many more destinations.

  9. The innovative thing about Whyte was that as a sociologist, he immersed himself in his subject. He lived in it, and spent weeks, months, observing before making any grand analyses.

    Seattle Transitistas would do well to study Whyte’s techniques and philosophies, before making broad speculative designs of systems that “people really want” or setting ideas in stone, untested by real world experiences, culled over long periods of observation.

  10. Regarding the Capitol Hill reorganization in 2016, we’ve talked a lot about what we’d like Metro to do, but what is Metro most likely to do? They are planning a reorganization because they’ve said so, but they haven’t said anything about what it would be. So which routes is Metro most willing to change, and how willing will it be to take buses off established streets?

    It seems to me that if Metro is in a minimal mood, it’s the 10, 11, and 60 that are most likely to change. Metro has said it’s not too keen to move the 11 to Madison because that’s not near a Link station, but I give it a 50/50 chance due to the advantages of a straight route and serving the ferry terminal, plus Seattle now moving toward endorsing a Madison HCT.

    Re the 10, Metro did get some neighorbood opposition to moving it to John, but they may be persuaded that it’s worth it to go directly past a Link station. That would remove all bus service on Pine east of Broadway though, so it would depend on how much Metro is willing to endure opposition for that. Unless it could retire the 14N and shift the hours to Pine, then it could both move the 10 and keep some residual service on Pine.

    The 43 and 49 seem the least likely to change. The 43 because it has some unique riders from Montlake to Capitol Hill, and because 23rd is a not a great transfer point. Plus it goes directly past the Link station. The 49 because it has so many college, Pine Street, and Broadway riders. I thnk the 49 is more redundant and easier to delete than the 43 (if a north-south route from UW to Rainier or Beacon were added), but I have a feeling Metro will not be eager to drop the 49.

    What do others think, how does Metro feel about these routes?

    10 and 11 are the most likely. Metro hasn’t been too keen to move the 11 to Madison because it’s not near a Link station, but the advantages of a fully-straight route and serving the ferry terminal probably give it a 50/50 chance. Plus the fact that Seattle is leaning toward a Madison HCT corridor.

    For the 10, I did hear Metro say there was neighborhood opposition to moving the 10 to John, but the fact that John is a Link entrance may persuade Metro that the residents will like it when they see it.

    1. No-one at Metro cares about 2016. They are trying to get through the next two years.

      1. There are three reasons I expect to see some changes.

        The first, of course, is the budget. (Really, the second two are just special cases of this.) To the extent that any service in Capitol Hill is less productive than it should or could be, Metro has every incentive to restructure it. Even if U-Link isn’t the main motivator, I’m sure that it’s at the back of their minds. The “nightmare” scenario is changing a route (sending the 10 down Madison, for example), and then changing it again (sending it down John) once U-Link opens.

        Thus, I would expect to see more route/segment deletions (e.g. the 14N, service on 19th Ave, etc.), and fewer routing changes.

        The second is the FHSC. Metro has a semi-official commitment to provide service on 12th Ave. And, since Metro doesn’t have money pouring out their ears, they’ll want to restructure service to avoid running buses parallel with the streetcar. At the very least, this means having the 9 head up 12th, rather than Broadway. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the 49 connected with this route as well (skipping the segment south of John), since avoiding the overlap would save Metro quite a bit of money.

        The second is Seattle’s newfound ability to install new trolley wire. Consider the 12, for example. I think you’ve shown, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the tail of the 12 is useless. But without that tail, you can’t serve Madison St with trolleys between 15th and 19th. That sucks! But if Seattle is able to pay for extending the Madison St wire to 23rd, and connecting it to the N-S wire there, then you can delete the 19th Ave tail and have every run of the 12 go to 23rd. That could save some money.

    2. As Bruce implied, the first and foremost goal is staying solvent.

      First, I think we can realistically expect to see the deletion of any service that’s even close to redundant with U-Link. That means far less bus service between CHS and downtown. Right now, there’s the 43, the 49, and (almost) the 10, 11, and 14. That number will probably shrink to one or two routes.

      Second, the TMP corridors are clearly relevant here. Corridors 3 and 7 pass right by CHS. Corridor 3 is pretty much begging for a reorganization of the 49/9/36, and Corridor 7 could lead to a reorganization of the 8 and 43. Corridor 6 is also interesting because it’s far enough away from CHS to be meaningfully different. And it’s just as interesting to notice what isn’t on there: no Pike/Pine, no Olive/Bellevue.

      It’s not a given that Metro will run bus routes directly corresponding to the corridors (though, despite Martin’s post, I think the authors of the TMP clearly *want* the corridors to be bus routes). But Metro would be silly not to take advantage of the capital improvements that will be directed to these corridors. That means consolidating service on John/Denny and Madison (instead of Pike/Pine, Olive, and Bellevue) and on 23rd (instead of MLK). And it means creating a transfer point at 23rd and John/Madison, which is the intersection between corridors 5, 6, and 7. It’s not the nicest area now, but at the current pace of development, by the time U-Link comes online, it will be.

      More concretely, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some changes like these:

      – The 11 would become all-Madison.
      – The 43 would take Madison into downtown, rather than John.
      – The 49, 9, and 36 would be subsumed into a Corridor 3 route.
      – The 8 would split at 23rd, with the northern (E-W) half becoming the Corridor 7 route.
      – The 14 is gone.
      – The 10 would become the local circulator for West Capitol Hill. It would head north at Bellevue (like the 14/43), pass by CHS, and take John to 15th.

      The end result would be a system in which almost every route in Capitol Hill spent most of its time on a bus priority corridor. That means that Metro can provide more service for less money.

      1. First let me say the city identifying corridors in the TMP isn’t the city saying “oh by the way why don’t you drop all in-city transit service that doesn’t happen to run on one of these corridors”. It is simply identifying those corridors most worthy of investment along with some smaller scale improvements like eliminating turns on/off of 3rd between Stewart and Yesler.

        FWIW the Pike/Pine corridor is identified as a priority corridor in the Center City section of the draft TMP. See page 3-25:

        Strategy CC2.4: Implement speed and reliability projects to
        enhance operations on four priority center city bus corridors:
        Pike/Pine, Yesler/James/Jefferson, Jackson, and Queen
        Anne/SPU.

        Also see the map on page 3-26.

        I very much doubt we will see service eliminated from Pike/Pine or service frequencies low enough to take the corridor off of the frequent service network. IOW service levels will be no lower than what is currently seen on the 3/4 between downtown and 23rd.

        As for how Metro might restructure Capitol Hill service once U-Link or North Link opens the Rapid Trolley Network study done by Metro as part of the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement (unfortunately killed when the Governor didn’t come through with the promised funding) provides some clues. You’ll notice at least some of the routes in some of the scenarios correspond to the Draft TMP corridors. While there are some changes such as moving corridor 3 to 12th between Boren and John and a heavy emphasis on Madison in the TMP it isn’t too hard to guess how things will fit together.

        My guesses:
        -Eliminate routes 14N and 43, re-allocate service hours to other routes.
        -The 9/36/49 would be combined into a corridor 3 route.
        -The 11 would be moved to all-Madison, and combined with the Madison portion of the 12. The 19th Ave tail would eliminated or used for layover.
        -The 2 would be moved to Madison west of 12th. It would be used to provide local service on Madison. Passing wire would be needed to avoid delaying BRT service.
        -The 8 would be split. The E/W portion becomes the corridor 7 route.
        -The 4 would be eliminated. The 3 would be re-routed via 9th and Yesler.
        -The 60 is re-routed to Boren and SLU North of Yesler.

        Some possible issues:
        -What to do about layover space near 23rd and Madison since you have the E/W portion of the 8, the N/S portion of the 8, and half the corridor 6 coaches terminating there.
        -What to do with the 60 North of Beacon Hill station as it becomes very redundant with Link, the FHSC, and corridor 3 service. Sending it to SLU via Boren seems like the best option as it fills a hole (First Hill to SLU) in the network and puts the layover point somewhere the city wants coaches to layover.

      2. I pretty much agree with everything you said. Really, the only way your guesses differed from mine is whether Metro will reroute the 10 to cross Link. Whether or not they do that probably depends on how much ridership they expect to see between 15th and points north, versus between Pike/Pine and downtown. So I’m more than willing to believe that it will stay.

        I really don’t think the 8 will ever terminate at 23rd and Madison/John, though. I would guess either that that 8N and 8S would stay connected, or that the 8S would head downtown via Madison. (That way, with 5-minute service on Madison, you have 15-minute service to each of three destinations: the U-District, Mount Baker via MLK, and Madison Park.) Metro just isn’t going to run a bus between Mt. Baker and a Safeway.

    3. It will be interesting to see how Metro responds to the TMP, especially the fact that it “weighs in” on some things Metro was thinking the opposite about. I wonder how soon Metro will mention the TMP in one of its findings.

  11. We just watched this video in my Environmental Design class at Berkeley. When it got to the part where he says that the best way to get people to sit in a park is if you give them somewhere to sit, everyone laughed, but it’s totally an issue. So many plazas in Seattle are designed specifically so there won’t be anywhere comfortable to sit, so that homeless people don’t sit there, without thinking about the fact that no one at all will go to a plaza that doesn’t have any seating!

  12. How do other cities handle situations where a streetcar goes a short distance and turns, serving half of the first street and half of the second? The First Hill streetcar will serve the west part of Jackson and the middle part of 10th-Broadway-Rainier. These are the densest parts but it leaves several messy edges affecting north Capitol Hill, 23rd/Jackson, Leschi, Mt Baker, and north Rainier.

    There are three general strategies for this: let the buses overlap the streetcar, terminate at the nearest streetcar stop, or turn different direction at the streetcar stop to absorb another tail. But in this case, the streetcar’s Jackson segment and Broadway segment are just a mile each. If you simply terminate the buses at the streetcar stop, or combine two tails (as in a 14/27 route), then a lot of people will have to transfer twice within the space of a mile (at 14/Jackson and 5th/Jackson, or at Bwy/Denny and 14th/Jackson, or Bwy/Denny and Pine or Madison). It would be less noticeable in the center of downtown because a lot of people would be going every which way, but at Jackson and Broadway a lot of people are going straight east-west or north-south.

    Are there other cities with a similar situation, and how do they handle it? Or do other cities not have this problem because they don’t have streetcars going a mile and turning for another mile, outside the downtown core?

  13. OK this is an open thread so I guess this is where I post this. I got slapped today on the bus. Route 101 to Seattle. First trip of the day. I was sitting in the middle of the bus. A guy came on and started cursing out the driver because he wanted the heat on. He would not stop. Finially I had enough of the profanity and said watch your mouth idiot. He kept wanting to fight me. I refused. He slapped me right in the face. He threated to drag me off the bus. HE got off at the next stop really angry. I was just tired of people likethat who abuse others.

  14. An idea for the 8 and 14-south in 2016.

    (1) Electrify the 8-north from Seattle Center to 23rd.
    (2) Truncate the 8-south at Capitol Hill station and MLK/Jackson, and extend it west on Jackson to Intl Dist stn. (Delete MLK from Jackson to Rainier Beach.)
    (3) Turn the 14-south into a shuttle from Mt Baker to Mt Baker stn, possibly attaching it to another route like the 38. (Delete 31st, Jackson, and downtown.)
    (4) Extend the 48 to Rainier Beach as it used to be.
    (5) Delete the 43. (Assumes frequent service on the 23rd, Denny, and Madison corridors.)

    Features:
    – Serves the hilliest part of MLK around Madison where it’s hardest to reach the 48.
    – Delete the flatter part of MLK south of Jackson, where the 48 is an easy 4-block walk away.
    – Overlapping service from Capitol Hill stn to 23rd makes it easier to delete the 43.
    – 15-minute frequency on Jackson to to MLK (28th) allows truncation of 14.
    – Most of 31st remains within walking distance of the 8-south, 14-shuttle, and/or 48.
    – The 8-south’s Yesler detour can be eliminated or retained. If retained, it will look more like it belongs there and less like a detour. But if we keep it, we can’t truncate the 14.
    – New service from MLK to Intl Dist station.
    – Leaves 23rd & Jackson feeling less left out when the First Hill streetcar bypasses it.

    1. (2) Truncate the 8-south at Capitol Hill station and MLK/Jackson, and extend it west on Jackson to Intl Dist stn. (Delete MLK from Jackson to Rainier Beach.)

      At that point, why not just keep the routes connected?

      Overlapping service from Capitol Hill stn to 23rd makes it easier to delete the 43.

      That corridor currently has 15 minute service (because the 8 and 43 are scheduled to come at pretty much the exact same time). So deleting the 43 would have no impact on headways except for deleting the direct connection to downtown, which your plan also does.

      Most of 31st remains within walking distance of the 8-south, 14-shuttle, and/or 48.

      Walking distance to the 14 shuttle doesn’t count — who’s going to walk 10 minutes to wait 10 minutes to take a bus 2 minutes to a train station? And south of Jackson, you don’t have the 8 anymore. So at that point, you’re stuck with an 8-block walk — and that’s assuming you were right on 31st, not to the east of it.

      I think it’s fair to say that between the 48, 8, and 14, there are too many distinct corridors in an (approx) 8-block radius. But I think the answer is to only delete one of the corridors, not two.

      New service from MLK to Intl Dist station.

      We have that, it’s called Link. :)

      1. Running the 8S to Capitol Hill Station does solve the problem of what to do with the North end of the route. However I don’t see it being restructured to replace the 14S on Jackson. If for no other reason than the 14 is an ETB route and the 8S most likely will stay a diesel route.

        I could see splitting the 8S at Mt. Baker TC as the bus empties there and the demand is very different on either side of MBTC.

        On a map the 48, 8, and 14 look fairly close together but terrain makes that less the case than it otherwise might be. MLK is down a steep hill from 23rd North of Cherry. 31st is up a steep hill from MLK between Jackson and McClellan.

  15. I watched this video in a grad school class about storytelling and policy. It is an absolute favorite of mine for both content and delivery. Thank you!

Comments are closed.