Golden Gardens Drive could close temporarily to allow for more outdoor activity

Meghan Walker Ballard

Golden Gardens Drive NW could close temporarily as part of the city’s program to help residents access more active space.

According to Ethan Bergerson from the Seattle Department of Transportation, SDOT and Seattle Parks and Recreation are looking at adding Golden Gardens Drive to their #KeepItMoving streets program, “in order to reduce overcrowding in Golden Gardens by creating more active space for people to walk, bike, skate, and roll.”

SDOT has not yet made a decision about the street closure, and if it happens, Bergerson says it would not be permanent like the Stay Healthy Streets program. Rather, it would look more like the Green Lake Park and Alki Beach road closures, which are temporary while COVID-19 limits outdoor activities.

We’ll update with any new information about the potential closure.

62 thoughts to “Golden Gardens Drive could close temporarily to allow for more outdoor activity”

    1. it was pretty awesome, actually! you could still just get around the slide on foot or bike…85th near there was so much more quiet….

    2. The slide occurred in 2014. During which time, the population of Seattle has increased by 100k people. Growth in the region is even greater. Where have you people been?

  3. I’m all for this. I don’t mind running or biking up or down it in traffic, but certainly don’t feel comfortable doing it with my kid in tow, which is most of the time these days. And it would also help disperse people from the bottleneck stairway (the opposite of what many of these “stay healthy streets” accomplish).

    1. Probably not real bright to bring your kid along if you’re hiking or running up that street.

      Single and NARROW lanes with zero shoulder and mulitiple blind turns.

      In fact, if you’re not using the trail/steps to climb that hill as a pedestrian, you’re being irresponsible.

      That roadway was NOT intended for pedestrian use, which is why there is a trail and steps to give you a safe way up.

      1. Normally, yes. But aren’t we supposed to be avoiding bottlenecks and crowded areas? And it’s fine running the road if you possess common sense — see a car coming, step aside. It’s that easy.

        And I clearly don’t bring my kid along when I run on the road, as I stated as much.

        1. Saying you’re not comfortable is not the same as saying you don’t do it.
          I’ve seen people do it. Many people.

          This city needs to get over itself.

          Pedestrians don’t belong on roads. There are these cool things called sidewalks that are there SPECIFICALLY for pedestrians.

          But this is Ballard, one of the more holier than thou neighborhoods in Seattle. Probably one of the most self entitled areas in the country. You people are convinced you defecate rose bouquets.

          Good riddance.

      2. That street, like every other street, doesn’t come with intent. It is legal for pedestrians to use the street, walking against traffic. Car drivers should be aware and take precautions. Much more likely is that the street was designed for smaller old cars that only hit a maximum speed of 25 mph and also the trail at the top dates back to the Loyal rail line that ended at the top of the hill. To ascribe intent to those is beyond the pale. The trail is too narrow to allow a 6′ separation with no setbacks to move out of the way.

        1. You just proved my point from the above comment.

          Insane self entitlement, even if it means you are putting yourself and others at risk.

          Because you don’t need to be considerate of others. Everyone else should be considerate of YOU.

          1. There is no risk if you do it properly and safely. See a car coming, then step to the side. It’s that easy. I’m not sure what’s so difficult about that concept.

          2. You are absolutely right. People driving their cars have insane self entitlement.

    1. It’s a street that was never intended for pedestrian use.

      The fact that its being closed to traffic for pedestrian use means its closed and is now a sidewalk.

      Enjoy your self entitlement.

      1. Aww, are you going to have to drive around to get to Golden Gardens for a few months? Your comment sounds far more like self-entitlement than any of the others here.

      3. In fact it was originally intended for horses, carriages, bicycles and peds. Until it was co-opted entirely by cars. Get your facts straight.

      4. Intent? Lets talk about the law RCW 46.61.250
        Pedestrians on roadways—Pedestrians and personal delivery devices on highways (as amended by 2019 c 214).
        (1) Where sidewalks are provided it is unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway. Where sidewalks are provided but wheelchair access is not available, ((disabled)) persons with disabilities who require such access may walk or otherwise move along and upon an adjacent roadway until they reach an access point in the sidewalk.
        (2) Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking or otherwise moving along and upon a highway, and any personal delivery device moving along and upon a highway, shall, when practicable, walk or move only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction and upon meeting an oncoming vehicle shall move clear of the roadway.

          1. Goon. Is this your game? Did you see a loon there? Usually they are on the water.

  5. I love the Stay Healthy Streets and ride several regularly with my young children. Golden Gardens Drive NW is a beautiful route to drive, or to walk/run without cars, but I wouldn’t recommend riding down this street on your bike unless you’re very comfortable with very rough roads and potholes (on fairly steep downhill while turning close to 180 degrees).

  6. There are many seniors who live on 32nd Ave NW. This closure will mean increased parking in an area that cannot safely accommodate it. If the rationale is that this is supposed to help with social distancing – this will have a negative/opposite effect. Why not open the huge parking lots below and block every other space? In any case, I am in the park everyday and have not seen a problem with maintaining social distancing. This is unnecessary, and just another way that people who can’t afford to live close in are marginalized.

    1. I am young and healthy and unafraid of Covid. I also live in walking distance and I’m a cyclist. This doesn’t negatively affect me so much. But we need to start thinking holistically, instead of just writing blank checks to serve some broader agenda. This proposal seems like negligence to me.

      1. Reminds me of the 1980’s… “I am young and healthy and straight and unafraid of AIDS.”

        When HIV was a gay virus, straight people ignored it. When COVID was an old person virus, young people ignored it.

        “Because Covid-19 is a new disease, there are no studies about its long-term trajectory for those with more severe symptoms; even the earliest patients to recover in China were only infected a few months ago. But doctors say the novel coronavirus can attach to human cells in many parts of the body and penetrate many major organs, including the heart, kidneys, brain, and even blood vessels.

        “The difficulty is sorting out long-term consequences,” says Joseph Brennan, a cardiologist at the Yale School of Medicine. While some patients may fully recover, he and other experts worry others will suffer long-term damage, including lung scarring, heart damage, and neurological and mental health effects.”

        Until we really understand the long term impact of COVID on our bodies it’s best to be afraid and responsible. First case of HIV was 1959 and we still don’t have a vaccine, close to 20,000 Americans are still killed by AIDS every year. We have 3 months of experience with COVID.

        While young people in America are unafraid, it is reassuring to see younger kids in other countries taking appropriate measures to protect everyone, including themselves.

        1. I think you have misunderstood my point. I was simply saying that it doesn’t really make much difference to me personally if there is increased parking and park traffic in a narrow street with lots of elderly people living on it. Other than I do care about my neighbors and do not want to see them get sick. I am saying that I think we should try to think about this some more, considering all of the various ways that our actions may impact our community. Yes so, in fact, I think my caution is exactly in the spirit of your point. I am not afraid, but I am concerned for my elderly neighbors. Each time that we block a street we are actually sending traffic elsewhere. The people don’t stop coming to the park. This kind of traffic manipulation is a zero sum game and so we are just moving the problems elsewhere. In this case, I think we are moving the problems to where they can potentially cause more harm.

          1. I went through Golden Gardens last night and everyone was parking on Seaview and no one was parking above. I don’t see why that would change or cause any problems.

          2. Exactly. What is the point of closing the lot if everyone is parking on the street just outside of it? I live on the upper street. People are parking here all the time now to take the stairs. But this will surely increase if we block the road. In any case, the real crowds come when it warms up. The season hasn’t even really started.

          3. I see the downside of closing that parking lot. But there are so many benefits to opening up that street to pedestrians and cyclists. With no shoulder and so many turns, it’s not safe for anyone but cars. And in summer I often see cars speeding around the top of this road. If it were closed, then there wouldn’t be a loop for a race track.

    2. Are you suggesting that the area around 32nd and 85th will become inundated with people driving and then walking from there?

      I don’t see that happening all that often. Those that want to drive will still mostly go park along Seaview where it’s a shorter, flatter walk.

      As far as social distancing, the only place that I’ve noticed an issue is on the top set of stairs where everyone has to bottleneck. Often, it’s runners that are going up and down without masks. While I understand the odds of catching COVID from an outdoor transmission are exceedingly rare when just passing by, the odds are inevitably less rare when you cram exercising (heavily exhaling) people together at a bottleneck.

      I also don’t see how this marginalizes anyone. Vehicle access for those that don’t live close will be virtually unchanged — access along Seaview will be uninterrupted. The only burden will be an extra 3 minutes in the car and maybe $.25 of gas. Meanwhile, this opens an alternate walking/biking route into the park.

      1. Yes. In the 20 years that I have lived in the neighborhood I have definitely seen 32nd and 85th become way more congested. We have also had a serious arson and increased car break ins. This is all because of traffic coming from the park, especially during the summer time. And this was during periods where all lower parking lots were open. There is a very good chance that this kind of traffic concentration will result in even more similar problems. Yes, there is parking on Seaview that is true, but how is that different than using the standard parking lots? It’s a public street so people should be able to park there, but I don’t think it’s fair to funnel people through a residential neighborhood when there are less impactful options. Also, there are other considerations. What about elderly and handicapped access to the dog park? How will these people continue to walk their service animals off leash? In fact, we should have bus service to the park and we do not. By blocking this road off and reducing general parking, we are simply making the beach less accessible and less inclusive.

        1. I’ve tried to read through all of these comments..
          I live in the marina, Golden Gardens Drive is how I commute to and Holman Rd shopping. There have been closures of the road before for repairs but when has been closed it added over 3 miles to my commute, I then shopped more in crowded Ballard.
          It has been my observation that Golden Gardens Park is pretty close to capacity for Social Distancing. So if the intent is to add to those enjoying the park Parking will still be an issue as the three lots (closed now) will remain closed and due to parking restrictions at the top of the hill parking there will become a problem in the neighborhood (think about what it is like on the 4th of July), but the 272 steps UP will be a deterrant and the huffing at the top spreading vapor.
          As it is today it is dangerous, there are a lot of people who park on the street (over the white line) essentially making a one way street in the lot to the east of the train underpass, or is it overpass?

          1. Well, we will be diverting traffic from the mostly non-residential Goldens Gardens drive and Seaview drive all the way down 32nd avenue and into the now lessor trafficked 65th street. Increasing traffic through miles of streets and hundreds of homes with a thousand neighbors. All of these people now enjoy walking and jogging across 32nd avenue, but this diversion will essentially turn this lightly trafficked arterial into another 85th street. I don’t see how this would be safe without installing some more traffic lights. So basically yes. Seems like a zero sum game to me. We are just introducing problems where none existed before. Marginally improving one neighborhood at the great expense of the other, and significantly increasing the carbon footprint to boot.

      2. How is severely reducing parking and making the walk to the beach much farther not marginalizing people? It’s all in the name of social distancing, but the net effect is to funnel people past my elderly neighbors.

      1. Ya maybe. I’m not sure. But seniors like to go outside too. My 80 plus year old neighbor walks her dog around the block everyday. Foot traffic is already massively increased with the current parking changes. Other seniors and immunocompromised people can choose not to go to the park, but these people cannot realistically choose not to go outside in their own neighborhood. I think this is a bit different than other street closures in that it puts a lot of pressure on this neighborhood because the park is a major destination. Greenlake way for example is not immediately adjacent to a neighborhood. If they want to do this they should also consider closing some adjoining streets. Otherwise it just seems unfair to me.

        1. I should say that, to date, people have been very courteous. They have been considerate of space and have been careful to social distance. But it’s not summer time yet. In the summer time, the park becomes regional. I must clean garbage from in front of my house daily. The city does not do this for me. Partiers regularly cavort past my house at 3am. We have no resident parking zone, as other similar neighborhoods do, and so it basically becomes an additional parking lot.

          1. I’m not trying to rain on everybody’s parade. :) I can drive around or walk more. Pedestrian streets are awesome. There should be more of them permanently. Like Ballard ave for sure should become an outdoor place like in Europe. I just wanted to voice my concern that this is not going to do what is intended. Is there not some way to do this without turning my street into a parking lot? If this is truly going to save lives I would say “ok, how can protest?” But it just seems like it’s all so other people have their fun playground at my neighborhoods’ expense, and that’s not fair.

    1. Long time ago, trump said it would be gone by summer, everyone laughed, it turned out to be true. Covid is gone, no one cares anymore.

      1. All hail the infallible super genius Trump for curing COVID! Now let’s celebrate with shots of bleach, UV lightbulbs up our butts and mocking of the liberal snowflakes that wear mask! I’ve also got a hankerin’ for some hydroxychloroquine now that I think about it…

  8. That’s it? I must have a strong point because there is no discussion. Just down votes. I’m not even saying ‘don’t make a pedestrian street’. I just want people to think about the impact and who might be negatively affected. Maybe there could be an outcome that works for everyone? Yes I do have elderly neighbors. No they don’t use social media. By closing the parking lot we are just moving it into the adjoining neighborhood and so this doesn’t even achieve the original objective. Is that not a reasonable point? I don’t understand. I tried to delete my misunderstood comment about being unafraid – I’m unafraid but not insensitive to other people’s concerns. I regret using that language. AIDS is a terrible disease. I actually had personal friends who died of it, but it’s really a straw man argument here. It has very little to do with this topic. I don’t use social media much either. Is this really all it is now? Just trolling and gaslighting?

    1. peterb – you are right, this forum is now filled with “Just trolling and gaslighting” people.
      If you want some real discussions with your neighbors then head over to NextDoor and start a discussion there.
      MyBallard is anonymous so people say what they want.

    2. Be thankful you haven’t already been swarmed and called a NIMBY for not just laying down and accepting what Seattle says is happening.

      1. I’m not even saying don’t do it. I’m just pointing out that it makes no sense to close the parking lot if you are effectively just moving it to a community full of seniors. Close the road fine, but also open the parking lot. Otherwise it’s just a false premise.

    3. You make good points but you are too much in the “good is the enemy of perfect” camp for my taste.

      I agree with you, we should have buses running to the park. I agree we should increase access (as King County opens up that will likely include reopening the parking lot). Why not build on the good part rather than try to tear the whole thing down?

      1. Ok. Point taken. I appreciate your civil opinion.

        I do want to build on the good. Let’s start by opening the giant parking lots that have adequate social distancing room, are equipped with restrooms, adequate garbage cans, handicap parking, emergency services access. Then let’s make more pedestrian streets?

        I don’t see how this is a tear down.

    4. well Peter, in my more than 40 years of living here… I have recently (meaning the last few years and not pandemic related) seen Golden Gardens become way too overpopulated. The stand of trees that was signed as a set aside for native birds because it was their historical resting site- well that is filled with young men blasting music and resting in hammocks. I welcome anything that makes the park less attractive to people and more inclusive to other forms of life. Where is Emmett Watson? heck, where is the P.I.? My problem is that I find the issue of providing access to handicapped/elderly to be a false issue. People use it when they want the parks to open up all trails to motor bikes or other powered equipment. On the other hand i agree with you about the parking. Lots of people are still crowding and they simply park outside the lot. You have a great point about the parking but not about the driving. Driving is not an inherent right and is not required to enjoy life. Millions of people who lived before the 1950’s had a pleasant old age without the benefits of spewing noxious gas into the atmosphere! I think that elderly people will mostly be fine.

      1. I agree in part, but unfortunately, this is not the paradigm we are currently in. We were never offered the option of keeping population constant or living small. The choices we were presented were either urban sprawl or urban density. There was no other possible direction.

        Even the newcomers did not have a choice because they had to go where the jobs were. The drivers cannot afford to walk to the store or the park. They must commute long distances from cheap track home developments with no sidewalks.

        This is because in our sickened society, we can’t imagine any other measure of success aside from growth and maximum profit. We could have reused our empty cities and historic buildings, but it was much faster and cheaper to build a high density megalopolis. One that was justified with the false narratives of inclusion and equality. This was was how we filled our coffers and grew the bureaucracy with greasy hands. (False because the cities are more segregated now than ever.)

        I agree with some of your points, but I can’t stop the machine. I would simply be crushed like so many others. Like my middle income friends who used to be a part of this community, but who have been driven away. Steamrolled by the big development firms and their army of lawyers. Lawyers and bureaucrats who all know the rules inside and out, and use them to advantage.

        So yes, call them false issues if you like, but it’s all I can do. I can only point out the hypocrisy. I can only play by their rules. (Just me in my little farmhouse sandwiched by new megahouses.)

        I don’t know much about Emmet Watson, and I’ve only been here since the 1980s. But I would be a hypocrite to agree with an ideology such as “Keep the Bastards Out”. No, I can’t agree with that.

        I’m happy to have my neighbors or city visitors use my front sidewalk as their jogging path. (Please don’t be offended if I ever block it while trying to get my groceries into my house. It’s not personal.) I would also point out that the beach culture that you are lamenting is now more safe than ever.

        You may recall it was getting pretty sketchy down there. This is in large part due to the influx of new Ballardites. The people from the midwest, or wherever, who are now protecting and taking pride in their new home. ( Not burning it down with fireworks and stacks of chairs. :\ ) So maybe the hammock guys are not so bad after all?

        Ya I’m fine with sharing, but please try to be considerate. Please consider that closing the street down without opening the parking lot might cause more problems than it solves.

        2. Lest we forget, we are talking about closing down a road and I was referring to keeping the population in the park at reasonable levels. Parks do close when they are full. I’ve seen it at National, State and even city of Seattle parks. This suggestion doesn’t require any new infrastructure, doesn’t cost anything more than signage and can be easily reversed. It also might be a way for the city to delay road repairs. I’ll leave your other comments for discussion over a coffee.

    1. I think the idea is that they can drive around. But without any handicap parking they will need to walk a long ways along Seaview.

Leave a Reply