Open Space Seattle:2100

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Thoughts on the Bicycle Master Plan

In our round-up of the Bicycle Master Plan post, we quickly linked to an old DJC op/ed about why Copenhagen was so successful in getting such high ridership numbers on bicycles. There are some amazing facts in that article. 32% of Copenhagen's residents bicycle to work. 32%. We have 1.8%. Weak.

The author, Patricia Chase, notes that there are three big carrots, as to why this is so, plus one big old stick.

First the carrots:
"bicycle planning has the same status as public transport in planning and funding. Bike paths and routes are either clearly marked or separated from vehicular traffic by curbs, bike lanes have their own traffic signals and bikes are prioritized over cars at places where they meet."

I want to linger on her second point for just a moment. When visiting Denmark, I have always thought that this was the single most brilliant thing there.
In the image above, look how there is, from left to right, a steady progression of speeds and mass--fast car, parked cars (providing a barrier and, since the car doors open into the road, less chance of cyclist/door collision) then a dedicated bike lane, then pedestrians. Can we do that in Seattle? I don't see why not.

Other great things include in our Master Plan: striping through intersections
Bicycle queuing and traffic signals (see that green light to the right of the red one?)
and babies!
All images in this post taken from International Sustainablity Solutions, which has great study trips to Copenhagen, Germany and Sweden.

Check out Friends of Seattle

I would point every techno-phile who likes these here weblogs over to Friends of Seattle's new blog.

One hot recent post, was an actual design discussion about how, pardon les french, crappy many of our townhouse projects look in the city. No wonder people aren't happy with them. They turn their backs to the street, create a fence between public and private space and, more often than not, their courtyards are parking lots. Blech! We can, and should, do better.

Also, we have to thank them for linking to our bike master plan post. Check them out.

Seattle with 2 million people

Hometown sustainability hero, Alex Steffen who writes for writes a fascinating post about density today, comparing Seatttle, our fair Emerald City, with London (with stops in Vancouver along the way).

I have to say, I agree with him on most everything that he presents. His arguments for density are sound and well documented. No mention of open space, but the notion that a city can be BOTH dense and have single-family districts is a rare voice of moderation in the density versus neighborhoods debate.

Urban Forests In Peril?

Arriving in the old email box this morning, comes a press release from the Urban Forest Stakeholders, a group of citizens concerned about the health and preservation of Seattle's urban forest. They raise a number of great points in their press release (I point you to the Observations portion). Trees are tremendously (pardon the pun) important in the urban landscape and there are very few green infrastructure elements that can equal the simple, highly-performing tree for stormwater control, shade, cooling etc etc.

That said, we have to ask, are all of the existing trees in the City now going to be preserved in perpetuity? No, probably not. But without the City taking on a long-term plan for its green infrastructure, people will continue to be upset, frustrated and angry at the City as beloved trees are felled.

So that's why we keep on asking, asking, asking . . . and asking for your support.

Media Release

Seattle’s Urban Forest Stakeholders:
Ilze Jones, AIA, FASLA, Principal, Jones & Jones
Kit O'Neill, K. O'Neill Consulting
Cheryl Trivison, Friends of Gas Works Park,
Erin O’Connor, Roanoke Neighborhood Elms Fund, Friends of Roanoke Park
Richard Haag, Professor Emeritus, Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Washington, Principal, Richard Haag Associates
Richard Ellison,
John Barber, Seattle Parks and Open Space Advocates
Michael Oxman, Certified Arborist

Seattle's good intentions are not saving the City's trees. Seattle government has even adopted tree protection guidelines (Parks Policy 060-P5.6.1 June 1, 2001). But over and over mature trees are destroyed. Seattle needs a moratorium on destruction of healthy trees. All public actions should be evaluated for their impact on mature trees. This city has been responsible too many times – and dramatically in Occidental Park this year – for wholesale destruction of healthy mature trees.

In light of the soon-to-be released draft Urban Forest Management Plan and the aspiration of this city to be counted among the greenest of the green it is time for public officials to set the standard for tree preservation, and be held at least as accountable as private citizens for tree destruction.

· The Seattle Urban Forest Coalition, which drafted an Urban Forest Management Plan in closed meetings, is composed exclusively of city staffers. Although the plan's adoption is scheduled for September, it has not been presented to the citizenry. (A Power Point outline was presented to city council committee members June 13, 2006.)
· This year 17 mature, healthy 35-year-old London Plane trees were destroyed in Occidental Park (citizens took legal action); City is spending $2.3 million to redevelop the park.
· Eleven specimen-quality, 50-year-old Oak trees are scheduled for destruction in City Hall Park. The Parks Department asks to spend $3.4 million to reconstruct the park without these trees. Design is on the board though money has not been allocated.
· The planned realignment of SR520 especially must be evaluated for its tree impacts,
· And the Parks Department plans to destroy more trees: perhaps the city’s largest Weeping Willow, in Dahl Playfield; a mature, healthy cottonwood tree along the Burke Gilman trail; many mature trees to make way for the Zoo’s parking garage; Freeway Park and Denny Park "revitalizations".

A city's Green credentials call for more than techno-talk. It doesn’t matter how “green” our buildings are if our city government is cutting down trees in public parks and rights-of-way. What makes Seattle green are our trees and with trees, it’s not the simple stem count that matters, it’s the mature canopy bringing life to the city. The goals in the draft Urban Forest Master Pan for a healthy “green” city are flawed, since they do not include as the first priority a measure of protection for what we already have. Our first goal should be, as it is in San Francisco's 2006 Urban Forest Plan, to "maintain and conserve the existing urban forest".

The measure of canopy is the number of people it shelters; the measure of a city is the extent of the canopy that is allowed to grace it. Seattle’s average canopy cover is only 18 percent today, a loss of half the canopy measured in 1972. Forty percent is the average urban tree cover recommended by the American Forests conservation organization, which did a study of the Puget Sound region in 1998.

Life thrives in the company of trees, under the canopy and in the canopy. It is the nature of trees to shelter, shade, cleanse and cool the air. A mature canopy: filters 60 to 70 times more pollution than a cluster of small trees; raises property values between 7 and 15 percent; reduces peak stormwater loads on our piped drainage system and absorbs stormwater to reduce erosion and landslides. Studies show that in an inner city neighborhood, the greener the community, the lower the crime rate.

A contiguous canopy is a climate shield. The benefits of trees compound with their numbers. In order for canopy to do that work, to provide high performance, trees must be allowed to grow big—crowns touching, branches rubbing, leaves conversing. We want our trees to loom. Trees root us in the common ground of our lives and connect us to our past—the older the tree the stronger the attachment and the greater the benefits of all kinds.

Since trees have a longevity far in excess of ours, we need stewardship that is trans-generational. We must create a city tree department headed by a city forester. We want not just a tree ethic but an arborist ethic. We want more arborists. We need more than greenwash. There must be a security force to protect our trees. The City offered the rationale for removal that the Occidental Park trees were unhealthy trees. “Hazardous” has been redefined in this city as an excuse to remove inconvenient trees.

There are better ways to fund city parks and city trees than episodic levies. Seattle is named a “Tree City USA” by the Arbor Day Foundation because we spend $3/capita/annum to care for trees. In actuality City Light uses that $1.5 million to top/prune trees under power lines! In other municipalities, support for trees is tied to a tax on stormwater runoff, and stormwater utilities base their charges on a property's impervious area.

To succeed with a master plan for trees in Seattle, we need a change in our attitude—on the part of the public and our elected leadership toward our trees.

First, call a moratorium on cutting down trees to prevent further reduction of our urban forest, especially our contiguous canopy, while we institute more effective vigilance and care of our urban canopy. All city actions that affect mature trees need to be evaluated for their impacts, including upzoning by removing setbacks or watering down incentives for open space.

· Hire a City forester whose primary mission is the cumulative treeness of Seattle.
· Charge the City forester with development of best management practices for our existing trees.
· Charge the City forester with conducting an inventory of every tree in the city, including those in the state’s right of way. Currently there is no record or catalog of removed city park trees or of the category of trees being removed or under consideration for removal by any city or state agency.
· Charge the City forester to double Seattle’s canopy cover with trees chosen for their ability to contribute to a healthy urban environment and creation of canopy.
· Charge the City forester with drafting a tree ordinance that has teeth.
· Perhaps most important at this juncture, include citizens, including certified arborists, in the City’s process to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan, in the drafting and passage of a strong tree ordinance, and in the City’s arboreal decisions.

To start this process we citizens suggest that the city hold an Urban Forest Stakeholders conference, modeled after the bringing together of Northgate Stakeholders, to create a win-win situation for the City.

It is common knowledge that trees are the vital link in the health of the planet. It follows that the health of our city, our citizens is dependent on the health of our tree canopy.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Round-up: Bicycle Master Plan Meeting

Biking from downtown over to the University of Washington's Gould Hall, there was little doubt that tonight's first bicycle master plan meeting would be well attended. The scene at Gould did not disappoint with well over 400 people in attendance. Bicycles were literally hanging from the rails and everyone was excited and eager to vent/share/point/write and tell the folks from Toole Design Group exactly what they wanted to know about bicycling in the city.

After about an hour of milling, sign-ins, etc. the official presentation began. The Mayor has set an agenda of being the number one bicycle city in the country. A headline grabbing goal, to be sure, but a few questions:

First, is that it? If we are to achieve all of the goals of the Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement, we need to do a lot more than increase Seattle's bicycling population a few tenths of a percent. Right now, only 1.8% of commuters bicycle to work. We need to change that number by tens, not tenths, if cycling is to actually add up to an impact on Seattle's contribution to carbon emissions and thus global warming/killing the Puget Sound/stopping the obesity epidemic/etc. Why aren't we trying to be the best in the world? What about Copenhagen? Or traditional Asian cities?

Second, will restriping really accomplish the Mayor's goals? Yes, it is important to educate, advocate and make physical improvements to our streets to make Seattle a more bike friendly city, but there seem to be MUCH larger policy decisions that need to be made. Tough decisions, but ones that really point us toward a new urban vision of bicycle commuting in Seattle. Part of this, is, we believe, what the long-range green infrastructure plan will get us.

Other things to note:

  • Pete Lagerway from SDOT, noted that they have a bike rack program (hear that Dan Savage?) If you call SDOT and request a bike rack, and there is space available to make that happen, they will install one.
  • The Seattle Bicycle Gude Map can be obtained for free, and is distributed at the rate of 15,000 maps per year.
  • The goals of the current planning effort is not about trails (Burke-Gilman, Chief Sealth, etc) but rather is about creating a better street system for cyclist and also to get cyclist to those existing dedicated trails.
  • No Mayor, no Councilmembers attended the meeting that I saw. Please correct me if I am wrong on this . . . but if it is true, what does it say about real support for moving people out of cars?
  • The next meeting will be in December or January and will have Toole Design Group presenting their preliminary recs.
  • Seattle's audience was the largest that the consultants (who do work nationally) had ever seen.
  • When Tammy from Toole asked who had crashed on their bike, a full 70% of the room raised their hands. Shocking. (though the PI says 1/3rd of the room)
Other impressions from the meeting?

Local bike advocacy groups include:
Cascade Bicycle Club
Bicycle Alliance of Washington
Critical Mass Seattle

Seattle P-I article here
Seattle Times article here

Bicycle Master Plan Meeting Tonight

Tonight, Gould Hall on the University of Washington Campus. 6:30 - 9:30 pm.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Seward Park is no Folly

Recently, Seward Park has been catching my fancy. When I realized it was a short 10 minute bike ride away, I was sold. It is an amazing place. Formerly an island, then a penninsula once Lake Washington was lowered to make accommodations for the Hiram Chittenden Locks, the park is an amazing mix of ecosystems, ethnic diversity, funny/chubby kids and more than a few boats on the weekends.

In a small piece in this weekend's Pacific magazine, there is a great little interview with Jenni Conrad. Check it out to find out more about the old Bailey penninsula.

Listen on KUOW

If you would like to hear us on KUOW, here is the link to listen to the broadcast. If it becomes broken over time, we were on the 9-10am show of Weekday on Friday, August 18.

More on Vertical Sprawl

A post from Dan Savage on the Stranger's Slog got me thinking today. Notoriously pro-density, the Stranger's editorial content is generally--and how strange for an uber-liberal Seattle weekly--pro-development. Dan writes, while visiting his mother in Mc Henry, Illinois about the relationship between places like McHenry and the cities that are near it:

Cities can either contribute to the sprawl out in places like McHenry County or slow it by growing more dense and building up. But density isn't enough. While dense cities are more environmentally friendly, cities can’t compete with places like McHenry just by shouting, “Hey, we’re better for the environment!” The folks flooding into places like McHenry don’t give a rat’s ass about the environment. Cities can only compete by appealing to peoples' self-interest.

Leaving a place like McHenry for, say, a place like Chicago or Seattle means leaving behind the private fenced yard and the extra bedroom. People are only going to do that if they get something of value in return. Cities have to offer quality housing (affordable and market rate), and the kinds of urban amenities that attract and keep families—things like numerous public parks (large and small), good schools, and the option of living without an automobile. Shared public spaces in dense, family-friendly cities take the place of private spaces, just as shared public transportation can take the place of private automobiles.

I tend to more than simpathize with Savage's analysis of things, but I think it might need a bit of tweaking. If people in the cities are going to continue to care about the environment, we need to make sure that the next generations are able to touch nature. That means not just parks, but those ecological thresholds that are so vibrant: our shorelines, wetlands, bogs etc.

Open Space Seattle 2100 was never against density. The arguments for the efficiencies that we can achieve through more compact, concentrated development are overwhelming. However, what OSS 2100 has always been about is making sure that we are developing responsibly and that we are reserving a seat at our neighborhood table for nature to flourish.

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Mayor Goes Big

In a recent article in the Seattle Times, reporter Bob Young notes that Mayor Nickels has chosen the most ambitious population target for the City, aiming toward a 60% increase in Seattle's current population (575,000). That would add an additional 350,000 people, getting the population to 925,000 people by the year 2040.

That's a lot of people in 34 years.

During the Green Futures Charrette, we were using a million by 2100 as the target. The Mayor has obviously stepped that up a notch.

As upsetting as it might be to many Seattleites, it seems clear that the Mayor's action is clearly rooted in a desire to be progressive in Seattle's development personality as it relates to the region. (Though, we must be honest, from an administrative perspective, this would also increase your tax base. But perhaps that is just a bonus.) During the Cascade Agenda, the conversations that happened people noticed that, as Mike Houck will tell you, "In Liveable Cities Lies the Preservation of the Wild."

With that recognition--that to preserve our farms and forests, we need to focus development into urbanized areas of the region--several organizations have set out to create a more dense Seattle. But Mike points toward a LIVEABLE city, and that seems to be a critical factor in what we have been advocating.

If, yes, we should be inviting more density into the city, and, with our Urban Hubs and Urban Villages, we have already marked the places that will accept much of that growth. But how will liveability be a part of that equation? Where will the places that invite communities to participate in the democratic process be within those new dense spaces? Where will people be able to touch nature?

These are the questions that we're asking, and it's what we hope the proposed Green Infrastructure Plan will begin to answer.

Bike Master Plan

The City of Seattle is currently developing its very first Bicycle Master Plan (shocking, isn't it!). The City has hired Toole Design Group from Maryland, who are one of the best at what they do--planning for pedestrian and non-motorized transportation modes.

There will be a meeting for public feedback at the University of Washington's Gould Hall on August 29th from 6:30 to 9:30pm. The schedule is posted at the website. Also on the website on the right hand side is a link to an online survey about bicycle transportation in Seattle. If you ride a bicycle in Seattle (whether on the road or on the sidewalk), please fill out the survey.

KUOW here we come

Tomorrow morning, Brice and Mike Houck, from Portland's Urban Greenspace Institute, will be on the 9am hour of Weekday on KUOW. Tune in.

Monday, August 14, 2006

No to I-933

Initiative 933, which will be showing up on November's ballot, is bad. Bad, bad, bad. Tell your friends about it. Write opinion pieces, shake your neighbors out of their stupor. It is not a good thing.

More from the Eco-system Services Files

Via World Changing editor (and fellow Seattle-ite) Alex Steffen, Bob Costanza's research team at UVM will create a eco-system services metric that can be tuned to any place on the planet. Very nifty. From talking with folks who are much more GIS savvy than I, their issue with previous systems, like American Forests' CITYGreen, was that it was not "robust" enough for hardcore, science-based geographers. This promises to remedy that.

Two from Michael Oxman

On the Parks and Open Space Advocates Yahoo! Group today, Michael Oxman sent on two very interesting links to two studies. The first is from American Forests, which was looking at regional forest cover changes in the Puget Sound. Though there is some dust on the report, it is pretty interesting.

The second article is from Stormwater magazine, but again features American Forests, this time showcasing their CITYGreen GIS software. This technology allows municipalities--in the article it is San Diego and the Carolinas--to quatify the eco-systems services that their local green infrastructures provide.

Our Op/Ed In the Times

We're happy to report that The Seattle Times published our Op/Ed on the front page of Sunday's Opinion section. Read it here.

Parks Agrees to SEPA Review

<>We just received this from the Friends of Gas Works Park. They're pretty happy.


August 14, 2006

Parks Department agrees to comply with State Law

Friends of Gas Works Park announces that the City has agreed to comply with the State Environmental Act (SEPA) before One Reel Productions can hold concerts at Gas Works Park. Friends filed a community-funded lawsuit against the City and One Reel Productions in February. Concerns were that these concerts would damage the soil remediation process, cause noise and traffic impacts to the adjacent communities and commercialize, restrict and preempt free use of the park.

On June 27, 2006 King County Superior Court Judge Dean Lum denied the city’s Summary Judgment motion that sought to dismiss the Friends of Gas Works Park’s lawsuit. Judge Lum ruled that Friends has standing to pursue its lawsuit and that the City’s activities are not categorically exempt under SEPA pursuant to any of the exemptions claimed by the City.

Though Judge Lum’s ruling stopped short of ordering the City to comply with SEPA the City has now conceded that it must comply. That concession spares Friends from returning to court to seek an order to that effect from Judge Lum. Friends expects that the City will prepare an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) to fulfill its obligations under SEPA.

Though Friends was the plaintiff, citizens throughout Seattle contributed to the legal fund. Friends of Gas Works Park, a nonprofit 501 3(c) organization, received the Cultural Landscape Foundation National Stewardship Excellence Award for 2004. Attorney for Friends of Gas Works Park is David Bricklin of the law firm, Bricklin Newman Dold.

The Parks Department failed to engage in any public process before announcing that One Reel would hold the summer concerts at Gas Works Park in 2006. Mitigation and negotiations between community representatives, Parks Department and One Reel were unproductive and Parks ended the process when One Reel postponed the move to 2007.

Friends of Gas Works Park is one of several citizen groups working to change the way the Parks Department implements projects affecting neighborhoods. Since Friends filed its petition in February, Council Member David Della has asked the Office of City Auditor to review and evaluate the Seattle Parks and Recreation community involvement processes.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The Green Factor

via ASLA's The Dirt via the DJC via DPD comes one pretty cool new tool: the Seattle Green Factor. Based on European models, the tool ensures that open space/landscape requirements in the city code also create target levels of ecological performance. From the press release:

The green factor will encourage the planting of layers of vegetation and larger trees in areas visible to the public and in the public rights-of-way directly adjacent to the property. There are additional bonuses for using rainwater harvesting and/or low-water use plantings. Use of larger trees, tree preservation, green roofs and even green walls is encouraged by this proposal.

Vertical Sprawl

We've been meaning to post this one for a few days now . . . one of the big themes that came out of the charrette, that is constantly discussed when we talk about liveability and which is a hot-button topic for a LOT of neighborhoods in the city is the idea of density.

Right now, the city has made plans to increase the vertical limits of buildings in the urban core and also have raised height limits on Broadway in Capitol Hill. All of these efforts are to create more housing, development (and yes, additional tax revenue, sure) for the city as it becomes a magnet for the region. Thus the hub and spoke model of urban development continues, but, many hope, the spokes are conduits to the city, rather than to the next farm or forest waiting to be bulldozed.

Seattle seems to be one of those places where this subject is particularly pointed and the New York Times picks right up on that with a nice article on Sunday about "vertical sprawl."

Over at the Stranger, Erica C. Barnett counters that vertical sprawl is a conflation and perversion of two separate issues. Plus there is a dastardly comments stream with Mr. X and Cressona going head-to-head in a density grudge match. Kind of like reality TV, it is hard to look away.


Stormwater: Community Amenity

via Planetizen via Smart Growth Online: Seattle gets a hearty "WHOOP WHOOP," as the kids would say, from Lynn Richards as she details how stormwater can become a community amenity. She says:

. . . you see that this neighborhood has additional features that aren't as common. For example, the street trees are surrounded by native grasses. At one café, the tables are arranged around a waterfall that is fed by rain water from the roof and empties into a small pond filled with water-loving plants. The roofs of the higher buildings are partially or entirely covered with grasses and flowers. Buildings are set back three feet from the sidewalk and, every 15 feet, there is a small patch of native grasses fed by downspouts from the roof. The main retail street enters a roundabout, the center of which is a large grassy area filled with wildflowers. While calming traffic and adding to the overall attractiveness of this neighborhood, the roundabout retains and filters stormwater from the surrounding streets. Curb cutouts filled with grasses also serve to calm traffic and absorb and filter stormwater.

Specific to Seattle, Richards highlights a favorite here at OSS 2100: High Point. With a landscape designed in part by SvR Design, Mithun (and others?), High Point is setting precedents around the city. Here is what Richards has to say:

High Point Redevelopment, Seattle, Washington. A new 1,600-unit, mixed-income development will replace 716 subsidized housing units on 120 acres in the West Seattle neighborhood. The site's previous infrastructure directed polluted street, sidewalk, parking area, and building runoff through a series of underground pipes directly into the creek, damaging the ecosystem and reducing local salmon populations. Now, narrow streets, sidewalks, and a traditional grid system make it easier for people to get around the neighborhood while also reducing stormwater runoff through site design. Water-specific strategies are actively incorporated to further mitigate runoff. In place of curbs and gutters, swales and check dams are shaped into the land alongside the street. These wide, landscaped swales buffer pedestrians from traffic, as well as slow, filter, and direct street runoff into a detention pond that doubles as a park area. Parking areas are constructed with pervious gravel cover, and sidewalks with porous pavement. Together with the housing units, these features create a comprehensive system that will cover all 120 acres of the site.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Understanding Forest Structures From Space

This post on The Sierra Club's blog, the Compass, is just what us eco-friendly, technophiles love to see. A really cutting-edge technology--in this case the Laser Vegetation Imaging Sensor (LVIS)--that is being used for some exciting ecological work--looking at the forest structure to find irov-billed woodpecker habitat. So cool!

They describe the technology thus:
The instrument uses lasers that send pulses of energy to the Earth's surface. Photons of light from the lasers bounce off leaves, branches and the ground and reflect back to the instrument. By analyzing these returned signals, scientists receive a direct measurement of the height of the forest's leaf covered tree tops, the ground level below and everything in between.

"LVIS is aiding this search effort far beyond what aircraft photos or satellite images can provide in the way of just a two-dimensional rendering of what's below," said Woody Turner, Program Scientist at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
All of this info comes from NASA, which, thanks to our friends in the other Washington, no longer is interested in the Earth.

ENN Gives Nickels Props

For climate protection. Congrats, Greg!

Concrete the Drains?

Water leaks right through concrete? No more impervious concrete surfaces increasing stormwater runoff? Carrying pollutants into streams? Washing smolt down the tube? Yes, says Living on Earth.

They went to Mexico City, but we have our very own example here at High Point. Go check it out!

San Diego?

Yes, San Diego. They're talking big green infrastructure moves with their canyons, setting aside up to "several thousand acres" to protect the natural functions of those water courses.

What is our Story

In an article for Planetizen, the planner Leonardo Vazquez discusses how New Urbanism and the pro-property rights movement have used narrative (dare we say myths?) to "sell" their planning idea.

If we are to sell our story . . . the notion that Green Infrastructure is a critical, strategic and, getting back to the root of the word, vital resource that needs to be planned for in Seattle, what is the plot that we need to build? Is it the Olmsted legacy? Mayor Nickels' leadership on the climate change front? The diminishment of "urban livability" (not a very uplifting story)? Or the salmon and orcas that are endangered in the Sound?

What is the story about Seattle that you tell your kids (or that you will)? How do we package the narrative?

People for Puget Sound Speaker Series

Going to do a little blogging blitzkreig here, so to start off, something that arrived in the old email box today, PPS's speaker series. If the Puget Sound is going to get healthy, cities are going to have to be part of that solution, from encouraging more walkable communities to protecting the riparian corridors that snake across the city, it is the cities where most of us live and, in our daily decisions, it is where we hurt the Sound most. So let's figure out how to fix it. Here are the details


Fall 2007

Sept. 7 Sound Stories
Brenda Peterson
novelist and nature writer
event description
Oct. 5
All Wet and Happy That Way Jeff Renner
KING 5 News
event description
Nov. 2
Commercial Shellfishing Culture
in Washington State
Bill Dewey
Taylor Shellfish Company
event description
Dec. 7
King of Fish
and the Environmental History
of Puget Sound Rivers
David Montgomery
University of Washington
event description

Winter/Spring 2007

Feb. 1
Sea Otter Reproduction
at the Seattle Aquarium
C.J. Casson
Curator of Life Sciences
event description
March 1
Discovering the Roots of Northwest Cuisine
Cynthia Nims
Food author
event description
April 5
Listening to the Birds:
What seabirds are telling us about Puget Sound
Julia Parrish
University of Washington
event description
May 3
Illegal in Six Southern States:
Tales of fish sex
Milton Love
University of California Santa Barbara
event description

$6 People For Puget Sound members
$8 non-members
$40 season pass (8 programs) People For Puget Sound members
$55 season pass non-members

For more information and registration, contact Lynne Jordan by phone at (206) 382-7007 or email at

15th Anniversary Special: In consideration of a monthly contribution of $15 per month, you will receive 1 free season's pass to the speaker series. Sign up here to make your monthly contribution. Be sure to write "Speaker Series Special" in the comments. Or just give us a call at (206) 382-7007 to sign up over the phone.