Talk:Denny Triangle, Seattle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States / Washington / Seattle (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (marked as Low-importance).


Besides the Denny Regrade neighborhood there is the Denny Regrade itself (the actual regrading). What should it be called?

It should be called the Denny Regrade. I've redirected Denny Regrade to the neighborhood article because there's info on the actual regrading in the neighborhood article, but feel free to un-redirect Denny Regrade and write an article there! --Lukobe 18:37, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

For some reason I'm under the impression that some of the raw material from the Denny Regrade was used as fill down in SoDo where Boeing Field and whatnot are today. I have the 1891 birds-eye-view map of the city and it's fairly apparent that they'd need a lot of fill for Harbor Island and SoDo. Sadly, I have no source for my impression. -- wac(talk contrib) 08:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Harbor Island was filled with dirt from other regrading projects and the dredging of the Duwamish, but not the Denny regrade [1]. I also have this impression, from somewhere that some of SoDo (specifically where the big stadia are now) was filled in with Denny Hill's material, but what I'm finding at HistoryLink doesn't seem to support this. It sounds like dirt from Denny Hill was simply washed into the bay. Disappointing as it is to find out I was wrong about this, I think I'll update the article to reflect it, seeing as it does seem to be a fairly common belief. Eldang 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hrm... on second thoughts, I'm not sure that "some people believe X, but sources don't support it" is exactly encyclopaedic, so I'm going to lay off. However, here are the sources if this is of interest to anyone: [2] [3] [4] (the regrading project in 3 distinct phases). Eldang 20:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

A bogus site[edit] is a bogus site, basically a joke, not to be used as a reference. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)