Magnuson Park: where Seattle's vaunted public process proved a sham
Is Magnuson Park a squandered vision? For many of the hundreds who worked for years to achieve consensus on a master plan endorsed by citizens and city leaders, the park's ongoing evolution is far from what they had hoped.
Chuck Taylor/via Crosscut Flickr group
An elegant, well-conceived plan for Magnuson Park — inspired by citizens and designed by one of the best parks architects in the nation — was torpedoed by bureaucrats, even though the City Council had approved it.
To be sure, the park and its plan have had some improvements over the past decade of work by the parks department. There are, for instance, more opportunities for theater and the arts now than might have been expected. But what is most striking is the degree of lost opportunity in the changes from a brilliantly conceived design.
To understand what happened, it helps to read what one of the great landscape architects and parks designers had to say about creating parks, Frederick Law Olmsted. He said, "Suppose, that you had been commissioned to build a really grand opera house; ... after the construction work had been completed (it turned out that) it would also be used as a Baptist Tabernacle with a huge organ, a pulpit and dipping pool. Then at intervals thereafter it would be used for a court house, a jail, skating rink, venue for circuses and dog shows? Pardon me if I overwhelm you; it is a matter of chronic anger with me."
Olmsted, who designed parks worldwide, including his team's considerable work in Seattle, believed that Landscape Architecture was an art and the finished product was little different than a painting or a symphony. If alive, he might say that we would not consider overpainting Michelangelo's Sistine ceiling by painting in Dumbo or Mickey Mouse or adding a new movement to Beethoven's "Symphony No.5" to reflect contemporary music. So, too, he believed that parks should be designed by those who understood the art and that tinkering with the conceptual plan by those without similar training or vision was a travesty. Olmsted understood his parks needed to work for the people who use them.
Magnuson Park's development has in fact suffered from just such tinkering with the original plan. It's a story that prompted these words in the private papers of former city councilmember Jeanette Williams, who chaired the citizens' design project, "Seattle's vaunted public process is a sham!"
Strong words. But Williams, a 20-year veteran of the Seattle City Council, was a woman who understood government and those who ran the system.
Magnuson Park is a sad story of how intrigue, bureaucracy, backroom deals, and selfishness cut the heart out of a brilliant conceptual plan. The story starts with the influence of legendary U.S. Sen. Warren Magnuson, for whom the park is named, and ends with local politicians, bureaucrats, and special interest groups selfishly reworking a design their minds never seemed to grasp.
After Williams left public office, she saw the opportunity to turn the sprawling 400-acre former Sand Point Naval Air Station site into a park of international stature. Her interest in this endeavor arose, in part, from her longstanding friendship with Magnuson. Maggie wanted the land to become a public asset as well as a park for Seattle, not a real-estate development intended to create revenue for the city.
Magnuson also believed the University of Washington should have access to part of the property. Likewise, local Muckleshoot Indians had history and interest in the site, as did some federal agencies.
Today, we easily forget that Sand Point was a highly developed naval air base at the peak of World War II with thick concrete runways, hangers for aircraft maintenance a fuel depot, a store, a laundry, even a brig. When the city began take over parts of it in the 1970s, it was not a pristine beach with natural habitat.
Even then, not every one was jumping with joy for what might happen. The fact that Sand Point was a fully developed airport which, with only minor tweaking, could become a center for civilian aviation caused major concern nearby. So did the information that there was interest in a major housing project of primarily low-income housing.
Ultimately, in 1975 a deal was struck with the feds. The agreement, in general, allowed the north part of the site to be reserved for NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). There was commitment to low-income housing using existing housing units, and the rest of 195 acres was given to the City. Nobody got everything they wanted. Later, in 1990, then-Secretary of the Navy Dick Cheney brokered a plan that would give the remaining 151 acres to the city.
The task became what to do with the site. The city bureaucrats, elected officials, public figures, and a wealth of interest groups all had ideas and designs on parts of the property. Ultimately the city developed several in-house, general design concepts.
Meanwhile, Magnuson, who died in 1989, had shared with Williams the idea that the public should have a say in how the park would be created. Rather than a top-down plan, why not find out what people wanted in a park? It was a revolutionary idea. She organized a steering committee with the help and energy of friends like Tom Miller, Inge Strauss, Ann Lennartz, and many more. They ultimately reached out to hundreds of community organizations and interest groups, putting out surveys to elicit on what should be in a new park.
The organizing group collated the data and, with some generous contributions from a few parks patrons, hired landscape architect Richard Haag and Associates to create a design that incorporated as many of the ideas as would fit. Haag was chosen because he had gained international recognition for his holistic approach to landscape design and did much to advance the landscape architectural program at the University of Washington.
Using data from the citizens' survey, Haag set to work and ultimately created a master plan that gave life and space for a huge number of park uses. He masterfully blended and balanced the divergent uses in a way they could coexist without interfering with each other. Haag understood that there are distinct differences between recreational opportunities and a park.Haag didn’t require acclaim and preferred his plan be called "the citizens' plan."
The citizens steering committee promptly took the draft back to organizations that had contributed ideas. Ultimately the plan was submitted to the city. The effort was a triumph of public process that was brilliant.
Paul Schell, mayor in the late 1990s, appointed a blue ribbon committee chaired by former Mayor Charley Royer, who ably brought the plan to a still larger audience and gained approval with some adjustments. With the blue ribbon endorsement, it was then submitted to the city council. The council looked at the citizens' plan along with those the city had developed and chose — the citizens' plan. Council members adopted a resolution that provided additional design guidance, and, with a few more modifications, approved the plan Nov. 1, 1999. Those who had worked so hard celebrated that they lived in a city where the public would actually get what it wanted.
Rather than becoming just a location for intense activity, the park would bring natural beauty back to the site. Elegant in its simplicity, the plan also incorporated thoughtful details about sight lines, the quality of the beaches for swimming, prevailing winds, the character of the soil, preservation of existing trees, restoration of the wetlands, the best places for parking, recreation, open spaces, and the restoration of natural areas where the urban user could enjoy nature without being beaned by a fly ball from the baseball fields.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 7:43 a.m. Inappropriate
Black hats vs white hats, the damned and the saved, the crass money lenders trying to enter the temple-- this kind of language makes me instantly distrust the author's story, though I know nothing about the issue. A more nuanced approach to explaining the messy politics of balancing competing constituent claims over land use during a recession would make this piece a lot stronger. Conflating commercialism and recreational sports, for instance, seems like a big mistake. Elevating a certain aesthetic instead of recognizing multiple visions of the good life seems snobby. Pretending that land is not scarce in the city makes it easier to label interest groups you disagree with as sinister. But you don't have to dismiss those you disagree with out of hand in order to make a compelling case-- for parks, or for anything else.
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 10:27 a.m. Inappropriate
Too many dogs and dog owners and not enough ballfields for Sand Point and Magnusen Park mark the park's demise.
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate
In an age of massive social entropy great public visions are doomed to drown in a sea of dog poop.
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 11:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Kammerer, If I may point out an error, Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense in 1990, not Secretary of the Navy.
Greg
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 11:13 a.m. Inappropriate
Possibly the worst travesty perpetrated by the Seattle Parks Department and included at Magnuson is the calling of recycled tire wastelands 'playfields' suitable for use in parks... The Seattle Parks Department needs to revisit the dictionary....
Posted Tue, Jul 20, 11:58 a.m. Inappropriate
What is the problem with restaurants in the park? There are some in Central Park, which was designed by Olmsted. Maybe a restaurant for dogs would be appropriate. Also one for soccer moms.
Posted Wed, Jul 21, 10:28 a.m. Inappropriate
cvandyk5@msn.com: I understand that the "field turf" fields do not conform to the platonic ideal of a "playfield." Let me assure you, from a functional standpoint synthetic turf fields are very nice. Grass fields turn to fields of dead grass and mud if they are used in the fall, winter and spring. The old solution that Seattle Parks used before the synthetic turf fields was gravel play fields. They hurt a lot.
This article illustrates one of the biggest problems with any public process - it is very hard to get the general public to give input on plans. In Seattle we often get small groups of concerned citizens working on plans for neighborhoods, parks etc. The broader public has no idea that these planning processes are going on. When the time comes to implement the plans they run into last minute opposition from groups that bring up valid concerns but were never involved in the creation of the plan.
It sounds like the group that created the plan described in the article consisted of people who wanted a naturalistic park for people who want to passively experience nature. This group ignored the needs of people who wanted a more active park with playgrounds, play fields etc. It's not the group's fault - the people who wanted more active uses probably didn't show up to the meetings.
I don't know how to solve this problem. It happens over and over again. As an example, I worked on the Capitol Hill neighborhood plan in the early 90's. One of the main features of the plan was reducing the parking requirements for apartments in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. Our little group of activists thought this was a wonderful idea. After the plan was finished most of the parking provisions were removed - the broader public was very skeptical about the wisdom of reducing parking requirements.
Posted Wed, Jul 21, 1:11 p.m. Inappropriate
sdstarr wrote:
It sounds like the group that created the plan described in the article consisted of people who wanted a naturalistic park for people who want to passively experience nature. This group ignored the needs of people who wanted a more active park with playgrounds, play fields etc. It's not the group's fault - the people who wanted more active uses probably didn't show up to the meetings.
In the mid-seventies organized sports fans, especially adult soccer teams, were not numerous, but they showed up in huge numbers once the final planning for Magnuson was occurring. The original planning for the park was conducted by idealists who did conceive of it as a landscaped, naturalistic setting with some sports activities: the swimming beach, the Navy softball fields (unlit), the tennis courts.
Once the planning was turned over to SP&R;, the embedded organized sports people turned the plans on their head, envisoning a regional sports center. The off-leash dog area was the first step, followed by plans for a variety of artificial turfed and lit sports fields. The one feature that benefitted was the need for created wetlands to handle the rain and irrigation runoff from the sports fields. Even these, while attracting some interesting wildlife, are open to off-leash dogs, runners, etc..
Due to the large number of hangers, other buildings and open areas left over from the Navy installation, all requiring maintenance for which there was no money, the options were to remove them, like the former commissary, or turn them into revenue generators, including the current and future Children's Hospital parking lot.
As a result the park has become heavily privatized. In recent years there has been increasing pressure for other "active" users in all the parks; skateboarders, frisbee golf, dirt bikes. Parks that were conceived of as having so-called "passive" recreation such as walking, bird-watching, meditation, viewscapes are slowly becoming the city playgrounds I knew in my youth in New York City. This was not inevitable, and some would say is desirable. But when it comes to competing visions the object lesson is to be organized and at the table constantly.
Posted Wed, Jul 21, 2:17 p.m. Inappropriate
This is a well researched and well written piece. It illustrates the ineffectiveness of public process in this town. Mrs. Williams was spot on - public process in Seattle is a sham. Magnuson Park is certainly not an exclusive example of city staff usurping the public will. Ask the folks in Ravenna how it went with their neighborhood plans for Ravenna Park. Same thing - staffers gave them lip service and then did whatever they wanted.
At Magnuson we can put a face on the culprit - Friedli. He has unilaterally imposed his will over the development of the park. Not only did he ignore public process, he ignored the legislative process. And now he's second in command of SP&R; - with an ailing superintendent. This is terrifying news!
The Citizen's Plan was just that - a plan conceived by the people of Northeast Seattle. What a shame it never came to pass. The Navy's gift was not just a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, it was a one-time only opportunity. We could have had a world class park based upon the overreaching vision of a world-renowned park designer in tandem with the community. But instead we have a random hodgepodge driven by a park staffer, brash special interests and a cash strapped city government that will rent space to anyone with a buck. Too bad Seattle- you had your chance.
Posted Wed, Jul 21, 4:02 p.m. Inappropriate
Kent seems to be coming from a traditional neighborhood perspective in his contention that Magnuson Park "belongs" to its immediate neighbors and that people who disagree with the neighbors--despite resembling citizens in that they live in the city, pay taxes, use parks, etc.--are somehow interlopers and their opinions should be dismissed. I would remind him that, like the original park master plan, the amendments to allow additional recreational uses for the park were vetted in public hearings and approved by the City Council.
If I seem unsympathetic to the nature lovers, it might be because Magnuson Park is hardly a pristine natural spot--it's a former Navy airfield that was denuded, filled, and paved. Much of that pavement still lurks a few feet below the grass. Nor is it a marvel of landscape architecture like the Olmsted parks. When compromises are made to open up our parks to the entire community, someone is bound to be unhappy.
Posted Thu, Jul 22, 8:57 a.m. Inappropriate
Mannix,
Just a couple of adjustments that you might want to consider:
1. Before Sand Point was a Navy airfield it WAS a pristine natural spot. Hundreds of acres blanketed with tall fir trees with a lake in its center. It was inhabited by local Native-Americans.
2. The pavement you mention played a role in the Citizen's Plan. It was to be re-purposed to create hills and vales for view spots, kite flying and to control runoff. Imagine sitting on a hill looking at the lake and the Cascades then turning around on the same bench and watching a baseball game. Pretty cool. The other point is that re-purposing the concrete reduces the environmental impact of breaking it up and hauling it a way.
The Citizen's Plan was truly comprehensive.
Posted Thu, Jul 22, 2:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Mannix/Wilbur
Webster defines a park as:
“an area of land, usually in a largely natural state, for the enjoyment of the public, having facilities for rest and recreation, often owned, set apart, and managed by a city, state, or nation.”
I agree.
However, Magnuson Park is a bit of a different animal. It has a number of vastly different uses. There is the shoreline, the team sports area, the wetlands, accommodations for low income housing and non-profits, a motorless seacraft area, an off leash dog run and more. Haag took all of these uses into account when he drew up the Citizen’s Plan. And he added some very creative new uses as well.
It’s becoming clear to me that you are unfamiliar with the Plan. Too bad, as it is a fabulous piece of work. And, as Kent mentions in the article, its genesis also comes from the citizens of NE Seattle individually not just by the community groups. These were the wishes of Senator Magnuson and Mrs. Williams.
Rich Haag is a two-time Presidents award winner, he created the UW School of Landscape Architecture, his firm designed Gasworks Park, Merrymore Park and the Bloedel Reserve. Would you prefer Mr. Friedli’s work?
Posted Mon, Jul 26, 8:27 a.m. Inappropriate
Kent, Thanks for bringing a more clear picture of what parks should be in a large metrolpolotan area. As Olmstead implied and I concur, parks today are seen as real estate for all sorts of activities, fodor for everything. Magnuson hads sucumbed to this idea and will end up looking like the "constitiuency" with the most clout will get the most of the park. That definately has happened. For a park to be truly beautiful it has to have a dispropostioned amount of "natural" passive democratic open space. If there is enough of this stuff then all the other things we want can find a place to. Unfortunately the park has taken the opposite course and the "nature" part is what's left over. Ann Lennartz was my dearest friend and certainly wanted for the citizens of Seattle a refuge from all the hub bub of daily life. She understood that the landscape had a great healing power-that makes us whole again. That vision she saw created by Haag, she also saw it lost in the great land grab at Magnuson Park. A few years ago a group tried to hang on to a small part of that vision in creating a "The Wilds at Magnusson Park," it's the small most southern part of the park and it's clinging to life. There must be place in the city where a person can experience the calming effects of natural places, even if you have to "recreate" them. So what will be next for Magnuson...
Posted Mon, Jul 26, 4:10 p.m. Inappropriate
The regional sports vs traditional parks debate is a valid one - as is the concern of local residents from traffic, nighttime sports lighting, and noise.
IIRC, even Charlie Chong was supportive, to some degree, of active sports in the park, impacts appropriately mitigated. The solution isn't calling one side Nimby's and the other establishment hacks, but in respecting all valid concerns and demands.
The City and it's typical corporate hate mongering won't make this a better situation - yet another damn good architect could.
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 10:18 a.m. Inappropriate
Former Parks Department planning chief literally worked himself into an earlier grave trying to fulfill the citizens' vision for Magnuson Park. RIP Fritz. It sounds as though it ain't gonna happen.
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 11:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Forgot to mention his name, but I'm sure the citizens who've labored on behalf of Magnuson Park for more than a quarter of a century well remember Fritz Hedges.
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Jean Godden would say Fritz Hedges name was eponymous.
Posted Thu, Jul 29, 12:37 p.m. Inappropriate
Friedli (and yes, I'm getting personal here) is an incompetent, visionless boob who couldn't grasp the Haag concept of Magnuson Park if both his hands were slathered in minty-fresh Super Glue. He *is* the Mickey Mouse painted on the Sistine ceiling.
But he's got company. You won't need a magnifying glass or a telephoto lens to look up there and spot his arrogant co-conspirators, Greg Nickels and former Parks Director/Nickels lapdog Ken Bounds, the pair not so cleverly disguised as Dumbo and Pluto.
What more can you say about a two-term Mr. Bluster who was dispatched in a mayoral primary? How about "Thanks for firing Department of Neighborhoods Director Jim Diers. Don't let the 30% pro-tunnel vote hit you on your way out?"
Bounds was driven from his cushy position by city-wide rage over everything from sleazy backroom deals (ceding Gas Works Park to One Reel for summer concerts, with cyclone fencing from May thru September) to the willful disregard of Ravenna residents' long-sought wishes, and hard-fought battles, to reclaim Ravenna Creek and a multi-use Lower Ravenna Park. Seriously. Bounds had the unmitigated temerity to reject not only the city-designed option overwhelmingly favored by Ravenna residents, but its 5-1 approval by the Parks Board!
Those are the two former civic goons who now "inform" Friedli's corporate vision of a "public" park. Your Seattle Process at work.
If Jeanette Williams were alive and on the City Council today she'd be tearing Friedli and the Council-entrenched posers of process a new air vent. Absent her presence and tenacious determination we are, unfortunately, left to breathe our own methane.
Posted Thu, Oct 14, 12:27 a.m. Inappropriate
I think Kent is dead wrong about Magnuson. I live close to the park and visit it often with my dog. The park has an amazing mix of use from soccer to rugby to lacrosse to ultimate frisbee to tennis and baseball. How cool is it to see a cricket pitch and players dressed in whites? There is sailing and all manner of indoor sports around the park. There is a wonderful pea patch. There is a fascinating wetland restoration project and interesting pockets for wildlife around the park. There is a great shoreline for recreational boating of all stripes and sizes and swim areas for children and families. There are picnic tables and shelters for small groups and large groups. There is transitional housing and low income housing. There is space for mountaineers and bicyclers. There are book sales, plant sales, antique and art sales. There are runs and festivals and fairs and celebrations and benefits throughout the year. And there are dogs. Big dogs, noble dogs, impish mutts and best friends. Magnuson is one of the finest places in Seattle and I suspect we are very lucky no one followed a master plan in making this happen.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.