So while I bash on the Seattle Weekly for its increasing distance from matters that concern, you know, Seattle, I have to call out that this past Wednesday, they actually delivered a nice bit of Viaduct history. The story confirms a few of the surmises that I had picked up - that the viaduct was originally intended as a bypass, not a route into the city, and that the mid-century years of Seattle history were just a tad murky in regards to record-keeping about large structures being built in their midst.
The article is here, because their web site is miserable for navigation.
And don't think about it as voting "no" - think of it as voting "Future hazy, ask again later".
More later,
Lord Grey’s Lisp: Or, how to write speech impediments (or not)
-
Readers of Dorothy Dunnett might already know where I’m heading with this.
For them, I say “Stop now, if you wish. Nothing new to see, here.” For the
rest ...
5 days ago
