A tortuous course through Seattle Center and Seattle process
More than two years of planning and public hearings for a new skateboard park ended with an unplanned compromise site that is highly problematic. Here's what happened. Still unclear is why it happened.
The Seattle City Council voted on Aug. 6 to remove a building at Seattle Center to make way for a skateboard park, ending a contentious process that lasted two and a half years. But significant questions remain regarding the site selected and the tortuous process itself. Not the least is why the council, after being caught unprepared when a previous site proved untenable, moved within the space of six days to finalize and vote on a new site.
The controversy stems from the city's 2005 sale of a parking lot along Fifth Avenue North, across the street from Seattle Center, to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as a site for the organization's new headquarters. Construction requires removal of an existing skateboard park, known as SeaSk8, as well as the Seattle SuperSonics training facility. Following the sale, the city promised skaters that they would replace the park with a new one elsewhere, also within Seattle Center or in the vicinity. The city set a variety of requirements for the new site, among them that it match SeaSk8's 8,900-square-foot area and that it be available by the time a parking garage that replaces it is completed. (That's scheduled to be finished by next spring.)
These promises resulted in two years of planning and consultation, a process that winnowed more than 20 potential sites down to three. In February, Seattle Center presented the three options to the City Council. The sites identified were a pocket park on North Mercer Street near the theater district, a parking lot on First Avenue, and the Broad Street green between the Space Needle and the Experience Music Project. Of these, the first two were deemed unsuitable due to concerns over safety and accessibility. The Broad Street green was the preferred option of the skateboard community but ran into opposition from other quarters.
As this process neared its finish, however, it was overshadowed by the work of the Century 21 Committee, a board appointed by Mayor Greg Nickels to draft potential plans for the long-term development of the center. Starting last November, the committee considered the various uses of Seattle Center and solicited public input to determine possible courses of action. It released a final report [30 MB PDF] in June, identifying four courses ranging from a do-nothing option to ambitious plans to totally overhaul the center. A major concern identified by the committee was creating increased green space at as adjacent neighborhoods densify.
The Century 21 Committee proffered its own recommendation for a skateboard park, in the courtyard of the Seattle Center Pavilion, a structure with two exhibition spaces on the south side of KeyArena near the intersection of North Thomas Street and Second Avenue North. The site is used by numerous festivals and events throughout the year, including Bumbershoot and Folklife Festival. Michele Scoleri, the executive director of festivals at OneReel, Bumbershoot's umbrella organization, says the site is ideal for the festival's needs and "crucial to Bumbershoot's production." At a meeting of the Parks, Education, Libraries and Labor Committee of the City Council on June 20, Century 21 committee member Bryce Seidl presented the site as an option. At the same meeting, however, center Director Robert Nellams and two staff members raised objections, saying the courtyard would be too small and would restrict emergency access to KeyArena.
It was shortly thereafter that Seattle Center officials first raised the possibility of using the current site of the DuPen Fountain for the skateboard park. The fountain is north of KeyArena and the site encompasses sculptures created for the 1962 World's Fair by the late local artist Ernest DuPen. It was proposed as a possible skateboard park location in late June. Council member Peter Steinbrueck circulated a letter to the council from Dorothy Mann, chair of the Seattle Arts Commission, opposing the proposal. The commission was also the first body to notify DuPen family members of the plan; until that point, in late July, no one had contacted them.
Even in the face of complaints, the DuPen site became the official proposal, and the council moved toward a vote. Some key members, including Steinbrueck and Tom Rasmussen, raised questions over the suitability of the site and the concerns of the arts community. At a council briefing on July 30, members of the DuPen family, along with a representative of the city's Office of Arts and Cultural Affairs and a filmmaker who had made a documentary about the life and work of DuPen, presented their objections. Meanwhile, Seattle Center Director Nellams admitted that the site, at 6,700 square feet, was far smaller than SeaSk8 and thus didn't meet the council's requirements. He admitted that it only came into consideration when the center decided to ignore the council's criteria. Moreover, relocation of the fountain would have incurred a cost of $1.5 million to $2 million.
The council backpedalled furiously, removing the DuPen site from consideration on July 31. Immediately thereafter, council member David Della, the chair of the Parks, Education, Libraries and Labor Committee, introduced legislation selecting the Seattle Center Pavilion site. To incorporate the concerns of the center regarding safety and to ensure that the site was large enough, the legislation also called for the demolition of the pavilion building. The legislation was passed on Aug. 6, less than a week after the change of plans – and the same day that a final vote on the DuPen Fountain had been scheduled. The park will not be ready until the 2009, a full year after the promised delivery date.
There are many questions raised by this sudden turn. After a drawn-out process over two and a half years, why did the council move in less than a week to finalize a site without time for deliberation? Why, while appearing to accept the recommendation of the Century 21 Committee, did the council move ahead with a major change to the center and jump ahead of a long planning process? Why did the city summarily reject the Broad Street green site, the preferred option of the skateboarding community?
The last question is perhaps easiest to answer. Though people involved in the process are evasive, it is clear that the Broad Street site ran into opposition from the Space Needle and EMP, as The Stranger reported. At the July 30 council briefing, Nellams commented wryly, "We heard a lot from both [the Space Needle and EMP], as I would imagine many of you did," to a general response of laughter and assent. However, there was clearly concern over the potential reduction of green space at Seattle Center. Jan Levy, the co-chair of the Century 21 Committee, affirms that increasing green and open space was a key issue raised during the public hearings that the committee held. "We got very strong input on green space ... and specifically the Broad Street green," she says. At this point, however, the green is an empty and rather unattractive tract; visitors to the center tend to skirt around it on their way to EMP or other attractions.
Though the Century 21 Committee identified the Seattle Center Pavilion site as an option, it called for the demolition of the building only in the fourth and most ambitious option it presented. The committee suggested that the pocket park near Mercer be converted into a temporary skateboard park to avoid a conflict between the building of a permanent skateboard park and the broader process of redeveloping the center. Now the site will have to be developed and planned for separately, creating headaches as the full redesign of Seattle Center goes forward.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 6:48 a.m. Inappropriate
yet more process: This article, of course, represents yet another mandatory phase in Seattle's indecision-making process. Once officials appear to have made a decision, it's now the press's turn to relentlessly comb through the process for anything unfair or less than ideal, and then start hammering on it incessantly until the decision is undone and a new decision making process is announced. And so the wheel turns.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 8:06 a.m. Inappropriate
would that it were so: I wish we had a press which did anything relentlessly beyond accept press releases as if they were gospel.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 8:27 a.m. Inappropriate
Build it in the Green zone: The skate park is the type of use that the Center should not merely accommodate, but showcase. It's active and appeals to young people, a major goal of the Center's redevelopment. It'll be even more necessary if the Fun Forest--on the hitlist of most Center tinkerers--goes away. In that spirit, it seemed to me that locating on the Broad Street Green was a good idea. That space is a no-man's land that just doesn't work. And if the Fun Forest area is to become open space, as proposed, and connected to an open space amphitheater to replace Memorial Stadium--which I think is a good idea--the green becomes an ideal spot to keep some of the "fun" accessible and visible when the amusement rides are gone.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Better use of this space would be a showcased skatepark where the kids could be the focus of activity for skateboarders and spectators too.
Give the kids a break, this skatepark is LONG OVERDUE. Doesn't density mean that there will be kids living in the city too? Don't they deserve a place to play and hang out?
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
But assuming Seattle Center makes good on providing a new space to replace the Pavilion for the festivals, the process that led to this choice raises two important questions: first, why should any concerned user of Seattle Center bother to comment on the Century 21 Committee's report, when it appears that the Center and the City are going to do what they damn well please? And second, why should Seattle voters support the levy on next year's ballot that is supposed to pay for the C21 Committee's grand plans?
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 12:05 p.m. Inappropriate
There must be something in the water at City Hall - Valium? - that causes this somnambulent result, which also renders council members capable of appalingly bad judgment and simply dumb decisions like even considering for a minute replacing the DuPen Fountain with a skateboard park, a limited appeal attraction, Mossback's comments notwithstanding.
Sometimes I wonder if but what all the worshipping at the altar of consensus isn't praying to a false god. We elect leaders to lead, not study. Sure, you need to know what's going on, but interminable naval gazing does no one any good least of all the poor citizenry who hunger to see things accomplished.
Exhibit A continues to be the Viaduct. Anyone with an ounce of sense who reads the papers knows that a surface option hasn't got an icecube-in-hell chance of federal or even state approval. Yet wno in elected officialdom in Seattle proper will stand up and demand action while calling B.S. on "the process" as simply a grinding down avoidance of responsibility and the obvious.
In the DuPen Fountain case, the quick switcheroo from that site to the Pavilion begs the question whether that wasn't the preferred site all along. You never go wrong viewing politicians and their motives through a lens of cynicism. And it wouldn't be the first time a "feint left, run right" strategy has been employed to attain a desired result. It might be appropriate to first make sure a pea is in fact under one of the shells before placing a wager on which shell it is.
Some will say it's an appalling idea, but what this town needs is a Robert Moses of its very own. Say what you will about his vision for New York, but at least he had one, not to mention the cojones to implement it. Good, bad, or indifferent, he got things built and got things done. Of course, he pissed a ton of people off in the process, but unlike Seattle politicians, being liked was less important to him than being effective.
An extension of the backlash-knotted wad of fishing line that passes for the Seattle City Council is the sorry state of transportation politics and leadership in King County. A jillion turf fights involving twice that many points of view over what should/shouln't/can/can't/will/won't happen to, perish the thought, solve the region's transportation stalemate.
Wouldn't a Moses-like leader responsible for all regional transportation policy and decisions make far more sense than than what we have now: a bunch of competing and back-biting turf warriors who make the Iraqi Parliament appear to be world-class statesmen by comparison?
Bureaucrats (which is what Seattle politicians are since they won't lead) are like engineers; minutiae fascinate both to the point where they dwell on it losing sight of the fact that the process or the project are supposed to be a means to an end, not the end in and of itself. When the perfect process or the well executed project produce lousy products, what's the point?
When the ultimate sin is not being "nice" to anyone other than those who don't belong to the Democratic Party or parties to the left thereof, how can you expect anything other than what passes for leadership?
The Piper
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 3:04 p.m. Inappropriate
The Arena is COVERED... Enclosed, and could be used year round. The hall is cavornous, and has poor acoustics... so use for concerts tough...
Why not just leave the seats, modify the floor, light and sound the place and let it run!... you could even have consessions, and with doors to control access, keep it safe... even open late hours for kids, etc. Maybe even a second floor above for real high air, etc...
Just saying...
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 3:34 p.m. Inappropriate
Thumbs down on skateboard parks: How can so called 'adults' on the Seattle City Council get jerked around by a bunch of skateboard park zealots? Both groups should skateboard and play together in the nearest HOV lane.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 4:03 p.m. Inappropriate
We live in an adolescent city that doesn't know what it wants or who it is. We say we want leaders to make decisions, but when they do, we carry on like teenagers about how unfair those decisions are, and how they just don't understand us. Well who could possibly understand us? As a group, we are utterly incomprehensible.
We like to blame endless political process on our lefty tendencies, and in some cases that blame is deserved. But whenever the left actually galvanizes behind a decision, suddenly everyone on the right starts calling for impact studies, community meetings, ballot initiatives, and recounts. How many times did we have to vote on the monorail? How many times will we have to vote no to a viaduct rebuild? When if ever will Stefan Sharkanski let go of the 2004 governor's election? Turns out conservatives can be process junkies as well, at least when it suits their purposes.
I suspect that if Jesus Christ himself were elected mayor of Seattle, he'd serve one term before the right dismissed him as a social engineering hippy and the left as a religious nut. And we'd still be arguing about viaduct.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 7:09 p.m. Inappropriate
As for the DuPen family, I'm not sure that the family of an artist who did work in 1962 should be deciding the location of a skateboard park in 2007. I presume the DuPen artwork is notable and valuable, but that simply moving it will not cause the Heavens to open and God to unleash his wrath on the Seattle Center. Power should be applied. They move Picassos don't they?
I'm much in favor of a skateboard park. However, the skateboard parks that I've seen work are located near neighborhoods with kids (the Seattle Center does not immediately come to mind). So I'm skeptical. In any event, power should be applied.
Piper mentioned Robert Mose. I read Robert Caro's biography of the man, The Power Broker a while back, and what was obvious was that Moses in his early years was quite idealistic, tried to be the smartest guy in the building, and tried to work with the powers that be.
Politics, being what it is, however, whether in New York City or Seattle, meant that this early power was ephemeral power and built on dependant political relationships that were unstable. This became so frustrating that he worked to put himself in position to be appointed to positions of organizational power. Eventually, over the decades, he held overlapping directorships (I forget the exact titles) so that he was in charge of parks, roads and also in charge of the Tri-Borough Authority, so had tolling revenue that he could direct.
Because he could actually deliver the goods -- bridges and parks and freeways -- politicians were willing to have him build infrastructure that they could take credit for. In these cases, Moses applied his power and it was politically good.
Overlapping directorships made Moses politically untouchable and "sustainably" powerful. Over the years he worked with several mayors of different stripes to get roads and bridges and parks built. If I recall correctly, he began in the 20's when the automobile was just starting to become available to the general public and lasted through the 60's. Towards the end, many hated his vision for the City, but he did get things done.
What's relevant to this discussion is that Moses could quickly make decisions that stuck. When he received the go-ahead from a mayor or a legislature, he swiftly went to work to implement. He didn't waste time. His goal was to build. He had concentrated the power in to build infrastructure in himself and everyone knew it. Contrast that with the byzantine RTID -Sound Transit "governence" structure, sub-area equity, 50-year bonding schemes, and a most-cost planning discipline from Hell. Power is diffuse, it ain't being applied.
In the case of the Tri-Borough Bridge, Moses' goal was to build and to toll so that he could build some more. He played political hardball with several mayors and with FDR too. Aside from Nickels, everyone else in Seattle seems weak and ineffectual. We need people to lead, but to be smart about how they lead and how they exercise power. The City Council needs to better understand the levers of power, positions of power, and the relationships that produce power. Otherwise they're no more effective than critics like us whining about the Seattle process.
So politicians and bureaucrats! Lend me your ears! Please be ambitious! Please have big goals! Please have a vision! Please build! Please apply power!
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 2:27 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, the replacement siting process did take over two and a half years. I hope that the timeline of decisions/process summarized below provides some basis for this timeline and helps clarify when decisions were made and why (from my perspective).
The sale of the Lot 2 property occurred in February 2005. The City Council was very forward thinking and including language in the ordinance approving the sale that "it is the City's intent that the existing Skateboard park on Lot 2 be relocated to a site that is in the same general area of the city as Seattle Center." In Spring of 2005 the Seattle Center looked at potential sites on the Seattle Center campus. In April 2005 the Seattle Parks and Recreation selected the 545 Elliot Avenue property as the preferred site for the replacement. The SPAC endorsed the site with conditions for site improvements (amenities, sound buffers, access renovations, etc.). In the Fall of 2005, the City Council requested that additional focus be placed on identifying a replacement site in the direct vicinity of Lot 2 to more properly meet the intent of the stated approval objective of "...existing Skateboard park on Lot 2 be relocated to a site that is in the same general area of the city as Seattle Center" and served the displaced community. They even went as far as hiring a consultant to conduct an independent assessment of skatepark sites (public and private) within a one-mile radius of Lot 2 to further investigate potential sites. This report ranked the Elliot site highest (using bonus criteria that the SPAC felt were arbitrary and biased). Further investigation of the costs for the replacement park at the Elliot site were $2.6MM, much higher than the allotted replacement budget.
In November 2006, the City Council applied further pressure on the Seattle Center to identify a replacement site on the Seattle Center campus by adopting a budget proviso on the Seattle Center Lot 2 sale funds. Presumably, the proviso was at least in part driven by the significant costs associated with the Elliot site and data compiled by the SPAC indicating the need for the skatepark to be located in the urban hub (rather than pushed outside) with the highest density of users. The budget proviso effectively forced the Seattle Center to dig deeper to identify potential replacement sites. This digging led Seattle Center to identify 3 sites: First Avenue North Surface Parking Lot, Mercer Street park, and the Broad Street Green. Using objective siting criteria that have been effectively used for other skateparks in the region and beyond and used as the basis for the Seattle Citywide Skatepark Master Plan siting process, the SPAC evaluated these three sites. Based on these criteria, the Broad Street Green site ranked much higher than the other two sites (for a host of reasons).
During the SPACs siting evaluation, we reached out and met with the City Council, Seattle Center, Space Needle, Pacific Science Center, EMP and Vulcan to communicate the types of designs that we envisioned and to understand concerns with the Broad Street Green site. Based on these discussions it became very clear that a number of tenants had significant concerns with the Broad Street Green site and that pushing for this site would cause indefinite further delays and likely not reach consensus by these tenants.
See next post for remainder of my thoughts.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 2:29 p.m. Inappropriate
As the Broad Street Green concerns were being voiced, the Century 21 Committee (C21C) was also in the midst of their planning process. The C21C identified the Pavilion terrace (courtyard directly adjacent) as their preferred option for a long-term skatepark site. The SPAC evaluated this site using the identified siting criteria. Due to a number of reasons, this site did not rank as high as the Broad Street Green site. However, understanding the significant opposition to the Broad Street Green site and the small likelihood that another site on the campus would be identified, the SPAC endorsed this site with some suggestions for improving the site conditions. As steam started to build for this site, the Seattle Center did some research and identified that this site would not work due to ingress/egress requirements for the Key Arena and concurrent uses by the Pavilion building.
Upon continued applied pressure from the PELL Committee, the Seattle Center dug deeper and indicated that the DuPen fountain area could be a potential site. The SPAC had several issues with the site, including but not limited to, the loss of the fountain area and associated art, the loss of approximately 25% of skateable square footage, and the isolated nature of the site. The SPAC was told by the Seattle Center on numerous occassions that they were doing the appropriate outreach to the affected stakeholders and that this site had the most consensus to date. Under this impression and, again, understanding the significant opposition to the Broad Street Green site and the now complete impossibility that another site on the campus would be identified, the SPAC endorsed this site with suggestions for site improvements (the one saving grace for this site was having the VERA Project as an immediate neighbor).
From what we could tell from the political fallout on the DuPen site, Seattle Center did not conduct the appropriate outreach. As with each site, numerous groups came out against this site and contacted City Councilmembers noting their concerns and that they were not adequately involved in the decision making process. These concerns, as well as the evaluation conducted by the SPAC, presumably drove some City Councilmembers outside of the PELL Committee to request more time to get up to speed on the replacement process and issues. This is where the media (the Stranger covered this issue throughout the process - kudos!) finally decided to get involved with the siting issue and give the issue some press (both negative and positive depending on the target audience). From what I can tell, this larger City Councilmember involvement and evaluation process led the majority to feel that removal of the Pavilion building now (rather than waiting a number of years as proposed under the C21C master planning process) and constructing the skatepark at that site was more feasible than selecting the tenant opposed Broad Street Green site.
Although the SPAC feels that the Broad Street Green site was the best option on the table, we were not on the receiving end of the opposition to this site raised by the corporate tenants, which presumably was very strong. Alternatively, the Pavilion site was endorsed by the C21C which was comprised of a variety of Seattle Center stakeholders. Given this endorsement, as well as the understanding that no new additional sites would be identified on the Seattle Center campus, I believe that the City Council saw the Pavilion site as the best, and perhaps, only option that would create consensus and get a skatepark built on a defined timeline. The process had run its course and this decision did not require more time.
Some may think that this much process to build a skatepark is madness. I wholeheartedly agree.
See last and final post for remainder of my response.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 2:30 p.m. Inappropriate
It is unfortunate that a ~9,000 sf skatepark that will be heavily used by a wide range of users, including youth and families, could not find a suitable home on the 74 acre Seattle Center campus until the City Council adopted a budget proviso. Perhaps that should be the focus of continued discussion.
Through all my work on this, it is my opinion that the drawn out site selection process was not driven by a City Council with directionless planning. Rather, the process was driven by the need for the park to remain in the urban core, a limited number of available sites identified by the Seattle Center, and a large number of stakeholders with varying opinions and strong political lobbying power. The PELL Committee, led by David Della, consistently sought after and integrated feedback from the various stakeholders to attempt to find a site that was a win-win for the largest group of stakeholders. We would have no skatepark and the displaced community would have been forced to continue to skate illegally in the urban core without the City Councils support.
Now let's get this skatepark built so kids and families have a place to recreate legally and safely in the City's largest open public space.
P.S. Future author's of skatepark related issues should attempt to contact someone from the skatepark advocacy effort (i.e., SPAC) to get their read on the issues. This siting process was fueled by an organized skateboarding advocacy effort, yet no advocates or skateboarders were interviewed for this story. For more information on skatepark advocacy in Seattle please go to www.seattleskateparks.org.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.