In Defense of "The Wall"

Public comments on Exit133.com and KevinFreitas.net have been overwhelming against the History Museum's construction of a donor wall that will block access and views to the Bridge of Glass. The wrought iron fence that has been there the last few years blocks only access, so many are worried about blocking the sightlines.

I've hung back for awhile because I haven't seen what all the fuss was about. I don't mean to be a contrarian, but I'd like to say a few words in favor of the donor wall (note: I am not a donor, and my name will not be on the wall).

First, I'd like to point out that a wall is actually preferable to the fence. Given an either/or scenario, the wall is definitely superior. Why? Because the fence looks temporary, like it's blocking an entrance (which it is, of course).

But while I was at the Convention & Visitor Bureau, I remember at least two complaints from tourists that said they couldn't get to the Bridge of Glass "because it was closed off." This is because the tourists could see the Bridge through what appeared to be a gate, not a permanent fence. A wall will leave no doubt: "the entrance is somewhere else, so go find it." I'm assuming a small sign could also be erected to make the point, too.

Now, plenty have said that it's not about whether there is a fence or a wall, it's about pedestrian flow. But I rather like the pedestrian flow as it is now.

I think of the WSHM Arch as a part of the arrival and experience of the Bridge of Glass; without it, there is no Grand Entrance to the Bridge. In fact, the Arch is even more important going the other way; it marks the entrance to downtown from the Museum of Glass, too. Visitors who could skip the arch would arrive mid-street. No crosswalk, poor sightlines (the inviting UWT stairs are not easily visible from that point) and no clear direction.

The first few moments entering downtown are far better if you pass under the Arch.

The donor wall will remove confusion about where the entrance lies; it will also prevent tourists from losing a precious sense of arrival. Diverting pedestrians under the Arch may be inefficient, but I think if you stand around there for a few minutes you'll see that its a worthwhile inefficiency. For many, the Bridge of Glass and the History Museum Arch serve as Tacoma's front door. We should preserve that Grand Entrance.

UPDATE: Derek at Exit133.com has closed comments on his site on all posts regarding the donor wall debate. That was probably wise; comments were flying fast and furious. As I said before, I'm really not sure why the opposition is so strongly against the wall, but it seems an unlikely target.