The new Seattle Center: light on the vision thing
The new master plan for the signature park near the center of the city creates more open space and adds some good amenities, but it keeps the awkward Center House and proposes a living-together arrangement with school football teams.
Seattle Center, which has been trying to come up with a master plan for future development for the past four years, has now unveiled its most ambitious blueprint yet. It's called the Century 21 Master Plan, using a phrase that evokes the 1962 World's Fair. The plan now goes to a series of public hearings and then a vetting by the City Council. First soundings from the council: The plan is not quite ready for prime time.
It's no easy task to produce a coherent plan. The earlier effort, in 2004-05, was stillborn both because it was pretty much just a wish list of powerful tenants at the Center and because Center Director Virginia Anderson was on her way out of that position, and a lame duck at City Hall. The Seattle Center folks regrouped, formed a committee with a few outside-the-Center perspectives, and decided to think a bit more boldly.
Both plans concentrate on "the center of the Center," meaning the neglected heart of the old fairgrounds: the rundown Fun Forest, the funky Center House (an old armory), and the lightly used Memorial Stadium. The 2005 plan was going to replace the Fun Forest with more free attractions and updated things for kids to do, and blow out some walls of Center House and make it a kind of atrium with a big glass roof. Those ideas survive in the 2008 master plan.
What the new plan adds is a proposal (only that, so far) for knocking down Memorial Stadium (firmly guarded by the Seattle School District and veterans' groups). In its place is an awkward compromise. The current stadium bowl would be used for underground parking, with a large lawn on top. East of that would be a new playing field for use by school teams in spring and fall, with a grandstand on the east side that turns into a stagehouse for summer concerts. One drawback of this scheme, which is meant to appease the School District and festival promoters such as Summer Nights/One Reel, is that it presents the blank backside of the grandstand to Fifth Avenue and the new Gates Foundation offices. Not exactly the best way to create a lively streetscape.
Still, the proposal does greatly extend green open space eastward from the large International Fountain and should work pretty well in the summer, when the football field is replaced by a green cover. August Wilson Way is laid out as an east-west walkway just to the south of theater row. (The theaters nixed the idea of a slow-moving streetcar along that route.) There are some attractive-looking sketches of landscaping and botanical displays in the area behind the Horiuchi Mural and west of the Space Needle (now a bleak kind of tourist zone). One nice touch in the play area to replace the Fun Forest is a wading pool that turns into an ice skating rink in winter. Higher quality restaurants are introduced, including one on the roof of Center House, and more retail, office space, and community meeting places are put over near Lower Queen Anne (much depending on KeyArena's future). Total cost is put at $676 million, but the figure is a stab in the dark, not counting private participation and commercialization opportunities.
Don't mistake me for a neutral observer. I was part of a group advocating for a bolder central idea for the Center, turning the interior 30-40 acres into an urban parkland. The key to this, in our group's view, was demolition of Center House, which sits awkwardly in the center of the grounds and whose massive concrete walls block any visual sense of a large, contiguous park. We proposed "editing" Seattle Center to remove some old buildings and uses, giving a clear dominant image and finding a way to give downtown Seattle (starved of parkland) a signature park.
The Century 21 folks took a good look at removing, or moving one block south, Center House, and also designing some new spaces to accommodate uses like Book-It Theater, the Children's Museum, and Center School. Instead, the committee decided to try, one more time, to make the ugly old armory into an attraction, meant to pull people into the heart of the Center. The central atrium will have a performance space, stairstepping down to the lower level like the ungainly Microsoft Auditorium at the Central Library. The east and west walls will have cafes that face inward and out to the grounds, and the south wall will be replaced with glass hangar-like doors that can be flung open in good weather. A bubbleator is revived, carrying people up to rooftop viewing and the destination restaurant. (If you are feeling a sense of straining too hard, so am I.)
If your goal is to rationalize the current users of the Center, to create more opportunities for revenue (and corporate underwriting), and to make the hodge podge of uses work better together by using the green space as a connective tissue, the plan works pretty well. It makes a few more connections to the surrounding neighborhood, but not much. The new parking garage at Memorial Stadium has all kinds of advantages, especially in allowing underground loading from trucks and buses, and it might even become a transit center (Metro buses, a streetcar, and the Monorail), as proposed by King County Executive Ron Sims. The big open lawn will work better for large festivals. And the overall plan, jumbled as it is, retains the populist, pluralist spirit of Seattle Center.
That pluralist spirit also pervades the planning, which combines many architectural firms rather than having one master planner or envisioning an international competition to pick such a firm. The main architecture firm appears to be SRG Partnership, a Portland firm with a Seattle office and best known for laboratory and health-services buildings. The Seattle principals, led by Dennis Forsyth, used to work at NBBJ and were involved with the previous upgrade of KeyArena.
The plan certainly seems to be driven by the needs of multiple (often very powerful) clients, rather than by a powerful architectural vision. The clear example of the latter would be the Olympic Sculpture Park that SAM opened last year, reflecting the striking vision of Weiss/Manfredi Architects.
Given all the entrenched constituencies at Seattle Center, and Mayor Greg Nickels' aversion to headstrong architects and Paul Schell-like "vision things," it's quite unlikely that the Center would settle on a strong, central theme, particularly one that would involve moving the furniture around. After all, mayor after mayor since Gordon Clinton in the 1960s has tried to pry Memorial Stadium out of the hands of the School District, which holds the lease. And when the Disney Imagineers presented a bold scheme at the end of the Royer administration, they (and nearly the mayor) were ridden out of town.
You could make the case that the city has changed, that the new and more sophisticated population here now really likes bold statements like the Rem Koolhaas Central Library. There won't be many voices in that camp at the City Council, which has been mostly concerned about costs and the annual subsidy of Seattle Center. But as the city enters into one of its favorite topics of debate, one perilously close to those iconic, "soul"-of-the-city wrangles, we will see if those new voices actually clear their throats and speak.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!










Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 13, 10:29 a.m. Inappropriate
The plan also reduces parking by more than 10%, which will force more cars to circle the Center and the nieghborhoods, searching for that elusive open spot. In a plan that pays extensive lip service to environmental responsibility, this is just wrong.
Let's hope the City Council can see through the plan's touchy-feelie language to understand that too many of its specific proposals are expensive boondoggles that will not improve anything.
Posted Thu, Mar 13, 10:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Jobs for Planners, Contractors, Consultants, Architects, Political Contributors: Seattle Center rehab plans are an earmark, gravy train, government contract, and full employment program all wrapped into one huge gift for all of the usual Seattle suspects above mentioned in the subject line. Why not just do a poll of kids under 18 and focus all improvements for educational purposes? Fewer liquor licences and green open spaces and more classrooms, athletic fields, workshop rooms, and school facilities would be a good fit for Seattle Center.
Posted Thu, Mar 13, 2:38 p.m. Inappropriate
One of my favorite things about the Center House is "Whirlygig". Every spring, the space is filled with bouncy houses and mazes for kids to run around in. That's a wonderful thing if you have small kids who've been cooped up all winter.
Whirlygig may not be a "vision", but it is quite a sight.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 11:37 a.m. Inappropriate
I wonder how these planners expect their own tombstones to be treated, how what is "holy" to them might be plowed over by some future developer.
Moreover, if the School Board even touches Memorial Stadium other to repair it, they should shoulder an infamy for as long as people can remember what they did, what they gave up.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 12:53 p.m. Inappropriate
Ditch the stadium. In response to Spike, we owe veterans the memorial, but not the several acres of underused blight, which wouldn't be very useful even if renovated at massive cost. The only conceivable benefit would be if you opened the stadium field as a park during non-game times, and turned the western forest/wall area into just another green space.
Fewer parking spaces means more pollution?! If there's no parking, people won't circle forever. They'll learn their lesson and maybe take the bus next time. We do need more special-event buses though.
Open up the current site of the Northwest Rooms as a green park! That would be a huge addition for LQA.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 1:40 p.m. Inappropriate
But look, mhays is completely unresponsive to the point I made in my earlier post. Enough said. Who cares what it is/means/carries in memory. Tear it down. Let the past fight for itself. Try reading Emerson's "Concord Hymn" and thinking about his injunction.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 1:54 p.m. Inappropriate
It's blight because it's poorly maintained. But it's wasted space because it's used only for games and practices, and it cuts a huge chunk out of what ought to be prime public space, accessible to all, on the way to everything, all the time.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 2:24 p.m. Inappropriate
And my point was, by the way, that Memorial Stadium is different in quality and in kind, made that way by intention of the people who set that bit of land aside from ordinary uses and dedicated it to mem/women who died for our country.
Posted Fri, Mar 14, 3:12 p.m. Inappropriate
The comments above regarding our regions preponderance of inclement weather are I think quite insightful. Use of the Seattle Center should be upgraded for whom exactly? And emphasizing participation during which seasons?
Not every public space should be made into an extremely expensive Olmsted vision of arboreal perfection for the primary (though not exclusive) benefit of adjacent condo owners and apartment dwellers. We already have many fine parks that too few bother to frequent; Discovery Park, Seward Park, Lincoln Park, Madison Park, Magnuson Park, Gas Works Park, UW Arboretum, Golden Gardens...etc. In a similar manner I believe the well intentioned People's Waterfront Coalition seems to downplay the underutilized Myrtle Edwards park with it's wonderful bike and walking path along Elliott Bay while hyping the benefits of a tiny string of 80' deep half-block long cement planter "pocket parks" at great financial cost to city residents, prolonged disruption of business activity and the loss of a 110,000 vehicle per day transportation corridor. I vote we improve the green spaces we have (better trails, easier access for all, more perimeter parking) rather than turn multi-purpose community spaces into not-quite-great green spaces which must compete with other boisterous adjacent activities. Keep Discovery Park and Seward Park primarily places of quiet refuge while enhancing the Seattle Center's ability to host high and medium attendance events. These are important for our communal civic health, just as space for quiet contemplation in a natural setting is for the individual. Both have a treasured history here in the great Pacific Northwest of my childhood.
Finally, addressing this comment's subject line; could anyone offer a cogent justification for tearing down the 1200(?) stall Mercer Parking Garage only to sorta replace it's capacity (sans 150 parking places) under the Memorial Stadium footprint at a reported line item cost of $75 million? The Mayor and City Council have been mining a rich vein of campaign cash by stroking the "cars are evil" special interest group, but this seems a little bit beyond the pale even for that crowd. This item probably hopes to fly in under the radar in our one party town and just might unless a crusading Weekly (or online daily ???) could see clear to marry civic service with readership expansion which such stories of questionable public expenditure should garnish.
Thank you to Crosscut for covering the Seattle Center plans in greater detail than the print dailys.
Posted Sat, Mar 15, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Saturday P-I: Today's P-I has a good article on the Memorial Stadium part of this "visionary" plan. It is worth reading and should largely convince the reader that the District would have to be run by totally irrational people for them to swallow the pig in a poke that is being proposed. Of course, I can't recall anyone claiming that intelligence and reason were part of the District processes, so there is lots of hope for the Vandals who are out to steal the stadium property. LOL
Posted Sun, Mar 16, 6:54 p.m. Inappropriate
Finally, the Mercer Garage could be sold for a lot of money, since it's a choice location for apartments and maybe a hotel. That profit would go a long way to pay for the underground garage.
A larger point, if I may. One big problem with converting World's Fair sites, is that they usually have acres of parking around them, which serves as an ugly barrier to the neighborhoods' using the former fairgrounds. The idea now is to move commercial activity right up to the edge of the park/Center, thus adding life, at all hours, to the park. All great urban parks have this feature, and it is an axiom of urban parks that they are only as good as their perimeters are lively. So that's another reason for continuing the Center's admirable recent pattern of replacing ugly parking lots with sympathetic development. The Gates Foundation is exhibit A for this pattern.
Posted Sun, Mar 23, 2:06 p.m. Inappropriate
It would be able to tell the stories of these Sister Cities and direct visitors to related places of interest (such as the garden pavilion from Chongqing, China, at the new Chinese Garden in West Seattle).
What better place for such a facility?
Cutacross
Posted Sun, Mar 23, 3:07 p.m. Inappropriate
No one's buried there, a fitting and somber tribute site could be located in any number of appropriate places in Seattle.
Posted Sat, Mar 29, 1:56 p.m. Inappropriate
The land that was deeded by the Dennys to the Seattle School District is about 9 acres. It includes Memorial Stadium and the parking lot adjoining it. It was deeded to the district as long as they used it for athletic purposes which they do because it is the home football field for Roosevelt, Garfield, Franklin and Ballard (and also serves, for some, as the home field for soccer). These teams would have no where else to play if we didn't have this stadium. So to be honest, the district was here first and then Seattle Center grew up around them.
The head of Seattle Center came to a Board Work Session where he was quite polite and respectful and said the City clearly knew who owns this land. He said the whole area was full of "options and possibilities" and then presented only one.
Century 21's vision would change the configuration of the Stadium from east-west to north-south. It would present only one covered side to the stadium. The parking lot, which generates almost $2M a year for the district (not chump change), would go under the field area and become a "transit hub" with buses going in there and delivery areas.
So the Board had some questions (good ones) like:
-what would the wind be like if you change the configuration to north-south?
-how would we separate fans if it were inclement weather and both sides decided to sit under the covered area?
-why is there only one option?
Now what the district gets out of this is a new stadium which I believe would be great (and no one would be asking for a gold-plated stadium).
However, under this plan, the district loses 4 of its 9 acres. Tell me, is there a real estate agent in this whole area that would think it's a good idea to lose prime acreage in downtown Seattle?
Also, if the parking goes underground and we lose parking spots to delivery area and bus zones, what happens to the revenue the district loses? I'd want a guarantee that the City will make up the difference, forever, any money the district would lose in this change.
The district is not the poor cousin here and no one should think they will allow themselves to be treated as such.
Lastly, no, the district hasn't done really well in maintaining the memorial wall. But keep in mind, it's call Memorial STADIUM, not Memorial Wall, so yes, the whole thing is important.
The district has to, as its main focus, remember the students from the past, the current students AND the students who will use this stadium in the future. I am sure they are willing to be good neighbors for the greater good but a new stadium is not going to buy them off.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.