Good, thoughful piece.

About the Center House, it's great as-is, with seismic upgrades being the only major need.

Except for the Space Needle, which owns the land it sits on and requires access/egress over Public land,the great majority of land is public.

With the Center having to earn it's keep and still provide public use/benefits, having to find compatible tenants has been the task of decades.
They come and go and the landlord Center has to pick up the tab for finding and accommodating new uses that generate enough rental income to justify their presence.

Openspace is very precious to Seattleites, so balancing the income generators with the non-income producing spaces, is the task at hand...again!

Rather than cluttering the Center grounds with more individual structures with disparate functions and smaller spaces between, why not pursue a larger building, either by adaptive reuse or replacement of existing structures or build new, consolidate uses, thus preserving significant openspace.
A composite building can be designed to give each function it's own identity and have a complementary exterior that contributes to the character of the Center grounds, without blocking views or sunlight.

It is possible for Seattleites to get their cake and eat it too.

Art

You were quite right to point out the realities of funding for each proposal. The big Dale museum and KEXP seem to be the only viable options. I think radio is a bigger draw than what you may think and am rooting for KEXP!

I think the Chihuly Museum will be like EMP: people will go to it at first, but then the novelty will wear off and it will be all tourists. We'll be talking about how little money it is making in 10 years.

Sorry, I can't get excited about the radio station. KCTS occupies a huge lot on the corner of the Center and contributes nothing in the way of activity. Radio stations are like TV stations: they can go anywhere and do their job. They should do what KCTS should've -- find a location in a commercial zone, away from an urban center.

I am a KEXP member, but I wasn't too keen on their proposal until I was reminded of something. KEXP has a large number of live, in-studio performances every year (check out the Live at KEXP CDs). I think a studio where the public could watch those performances for free is an interesting idea.

I would really like to have a nice Garden in place of the Fun forest and the Mural Stage. That area could be opened up for something really special. It could be similar to but different from the Arboretum or the garden at the Zoo. Cities seldom get more green space- so let’s have one.

This is all make it up on the fly, cocktail napkin, helter skelter, spaghetti on the wall, shotgun, how can we fool them today stuff. First, modernize the Memorial Stadium by opening it up and see what naturally flows through the whole site.

What I do believe, is that another Chihuly site will be money loser when the glass art fad is gone. Yup, I do think it is a fad. As I understand it, the Tacoma site is money loser. Another art museum on the site with multiple exhibits is an idea, but not something dedicated to whom I see as an unreformed self promoter. If we are to have an exhibit of some sort, how about the Kinsey brothers, or Curtis along with others who have recorded our history. They sometimes get exhibit time in other museums, but as artists they stand alone and above. And, they are truly local; newbie’s to the city, along with our current Mayor, might get an understanding about who we are and why we are.

Many of the ideas seem viable, but due to the short time span to get listed they all seem a little half baked. Perhaps with a bit more time these ideas can develop better and get better support.

I am in my late 50’s and I see a need to have a place for children to waste their money on fun things…. Leaving the fun forest as it is may not attract the teenagers, but families looking for tamer rides for younger children may find it inviting.

My greatest fear is that if we open the area up more to shrubs, trees and grass, we will experienced a population that is not conducive to families. But, that would be my favorite idea. There seem to be too many smooth talkers hustling their positions, and many of them generate a lack of trust on my part.

I'd like to read the 5-page submission omitted and get a full look at the others with artist renderings and such.

We like a lot of ideas being tossed around, A display of historic NW photos sounds great, but The Museum of History might be a better place for Kinsey's photos. The glass art is hardly a fad. Glass art has been around for centuries and even the Pilchuck Glass School, near Stanwood, opened back in 1971.

Knute, I'm afraid you've drunk the Chihuly/Wright kool-aid, spiked with a little bit of apathy toward the importance of Seattle Center. Here are some things to consider:

1) The $500,000 financial contribution of the Chihuly/Wright proposal amounts to only 1.5% of Seattle Center's $34 million annual budget. Seattle Center will not live or die if it does or doesn't receive this rent income, so the financial piece is just not significant.

2) Seattle Center should not be divorced from its context, which is the confluence of SLU, Uptown, and Belltown. Each of these neighborhoods -- the most dense in Washington State -- is park poor. Speaking of being park poor, Portland OR, a city of the same population and footprint as Seattle, his twice the amount of park space.

4) The heart of Seattle Center in rainy Seattle is and must be the Center House. As long as we keep the Arcade Pavilion we will slowly strangle the Center House. Whether or not it's a historic landmark (why did we let that happen?) it needs to be a vibrant center. Right now it's a grim, dreary place where the merchants continually complain of slow business and declining foot traffic. As the Century 21 Master Plan wisely points out the removal of the Arcade Pavilion is central to the success of the Center House. If we allow the Chihuly/Wright proposal (and the others, as well) to retain that building we'll continue to strangle the success of the Center House.

Knute, you're ready to consign Seattle Center to tchotchkes and baubles since, as you wrote in your last article on this topic, you believe that's its origin and destiny. Well, since 1962 we've grown up. We're a world class city now (or trying to be) and we're bigger than baubles. I think the outrage shown about the Chihuly/Wright proposal suggests Seattle wants more out of Seattle Center. We're ready to grow up and have a world class public space at Seattle Center. That why some of us are hoping the city will look beyond the present economic downturn and give Seattle the world-class Center it deserves.

RevSandy: If people move to a dense downtown district without a big park, well, they shouldn't expect one. The unique amenity for the neighborhoods you mention is Seattle Center, and no one thinks it can't be improved for the city, region, and nearby residents. But I am against viewing it first and foremost as something for South lake Union, Belltown or Queen Anne.

I have not drunk Chihuly Kool-aid (I'm a Mossback Nectar guy). I think there are all kinds of good reasons for folks to oppose it. But it is an appropriate use with funding, and my hunch is that it will be popular, albeit pricey. One positive aspect of their current scheme, though it seems a bit too much like an after-thought: the playground. The Center needs a great, free playground and I hope it gets one, whether as part of the Chihuly idea, or yours. As someone who took my kids to the Center a lot, it's an obvious, missing thing and I'm glad the Wrights propose to fund one.

There are other green space opportunities at the Center, main the redevelopment of the Memorial Stadium area. I worry we'll try to do too much there, but there are examples of how use and green space can work well together, like Chicago's Millennium park's amphitheater. I don't think the South Fun Forest is make-or-break on greening the center, or on making it more cafe-friendly.

I agree Center House often feels like a tomb. Now there's a building that could be converted to a museum.

A recent proposal for the north side playground area was in the newspaper. Basketball court, maze, vegetable patch, kiosk or two. On cue, oohs and aahs resound, but on closer look, the asphalt remains. Kids just love asphalt, especially on hot summer days. Never get hot asphalt in a skin cut or scape because it's cancerous. Kids love getting cancer. Oh, cancer is just the most fun. Imagine the wonder they'll experience as the scrape doesn't heal and the cancer spread. Thank the Wright Family for caring!

I speak for Seattle, the Chief that is!

A space devoted to our oldest heritage, the name of this city. A space devoted to Chief Seattle and his people.

If anyone need ideas for how this might look ... visit the UBC Anthropology Museum in Vancouver or even better the long house and totem poles on the front yard of the Royal Museum in Victoria.

I do not see this as necessarily being an expensive proposition.

A minimalist approach might start with creating a hill with a small plaza at its top. The center piece of the plaza would be the statue of Chief Seattle, moved from its current role tourists wanting pictures with Chief Seattle and the Space Needle.

The sides of the hill would provide natural amphitheaters for small concerts. A spiral trail up the hill, with benches in a northwest style would be fun both for kids running up and down the trail and for parents or lovers sitting with the sun or rain in their faces.

The idea could easily be expanded, still at very little expense, by working with the Burke Museum and the SAM to create an exhibit space for some of the more durable items from their impressive collections.

A more ambitious variation on this theme would be to surround the statue with a playground made of durable objects in the coastal tradition. These might include dugoutlong boats for kids to sit in, whale sculptures like those by Bill Holm in front of the Burke , and the sort of log based play structures popular in many playgrounds. Totem poles or large moon faces by Marvin Oliver would also add to the excitement of a unique "Seattle" attraction. Maybe we could have a variation on Bill Reids' raven and clam as well. I suspect local artists would be very willing to compete for that prize commission!

Alongside all this? A long house, perhaps with a branch of Ivar's Salmon House, but mainly to host resident carvers and other artists working in the Northwest tradition.

Or we could devote the space to Chihuly and sell plastic replicas of his work to the tourists.

Steve Schwartz
cross posted at:
The-Ave.US

Re: Comment on KCTS being at the Center ....

This is a great comment. If KCTS is AT Seattle Center, why isn't it OF the center?

Programming tied into the Rep, the Opera, and the museums would be a natural. Same goes for the the weekly festals. I would very much like to see Rep and Intiman plays televised, even on a tasting basis.

Between creative use of the web and being at the Center, KCTS programming would be partipatory. How expensive would it be to have some sort of exhibit(s) that show KCTS in action and allow public input? Thse could be de rigeur at places like the Food Circus, Sci9ence Center, and concert venues. A web site based on these kiosks could become very popular!

For that matter, since KCTS is adjacent to the much deabted Fun Forest, why not plan for some sort of interaction between that space and the station?

Kudos for the even-handed evaluations. As you point out, there are things to like. For sure, there’s a diversity of interests here, underlain by competing visions.
The 2008 Master Plan prioritizes increasing open space. Far and away, the best plan to do that is Center Park from FROG. It is realistic about acquiring land now, when it is available; far-sighted in recognizing the needs for green space to serve the growing neighborhoods, including workforce neighbors; and generous in its concern for creating space that suits a diversity of users and functions. Center House, conveniently “right in the middle” and, under the master plan, updated to be more attractive, would provide amenities and shelter. This proposal expands the Center as a green refuge from the city and as a desirable everyday destination. The Center’s capacity to handle huge, regional events (specifically live music) would be enhanced. If modeled on Bryant Park, another attractive feature would be lower-keyed design. People-oriented, versatile, environmentally friendly. Helps give the Center a center.
The Open Platform design from Think-Activate was an intriguing surprise among the proposals. Part open gathering space, part active program space, part ecological demonstration space, all in linked modules, it engages the master plan in its own way. To judge from the images in the proposal and the illustrations of T-A’s previous work, formally it would be a distinctive outdoor space highlighting ecologically savvy gardens with walkways and attractive, human-scaled design. It would read as a particular place. Active programming would be an occasional component. The Pavilion would stay as a partner, diminishing open space at the Center overall. There’s a significant conceptual contrast here with FROG’s more general-purpose, unscripted park space. It raises questions about boutique spaces at the Center—How many? Where? What about? Why? One of the master plan goals is to integrate and unify the park.
The main attraction of the Chihuly proposal would be financial—predictable revenues for Center operations from the rent. But the project seems crassly commercial at heart, as well as a clunker thematically. Why should Chihuly have pride of place at Seattle Center? (Except for the Gehry building itself, the same probably should have been asked of EMP at the time it was proposed.) A cynic would have no trouble seeing this proposal as a folly of vanity and money. The pitch to Dubuque springs to mind even now: A Ticket To The World-Class Chihuly Museum Bundled With A Ride Up The World-Class Space Needle.
There is no reason to suppose that a thoughtful and very generous million dollar donation to fund a children’s playground at the Center would be refused at any time.