Print
Email
The troubled unveiling of plans for a Dale Chihuly museum and garden at Seattle Center may be turning into a larger story: the unraveling of the Center itself. Here's a short "Explainer" on the situation.
Years ago, when the Center was emerging from the 1962 Seattle World's Fair, an economy-minded Seattle City Council, short on funds to run the 73-acre campus, chose to keep anything that could pay some rent, even if the buildings were temporary and ungainly for many new uses. Didn't work, and by the 1980s, the chronic budget shortfalls (around $13 million a year now) draining the city's general fund prompted some more radical thoughts.
Mayor Charles Royer brought in the Disney Imagineers to concoct a solution that would have transformed the Center, commercialized nearly every square inch of it, and conceivably solved the budget problem. Nearly everybody hated the Disney plan, indulging in a bout of California-hating. In his last year in office, Royer brought in Virginia Anderson, a developer, to boot out the Imagineers and produce a more Northwest-friendly plan.
Anderson, a forceful leader, dramatically rebuilt the Center, closed some of the tottering relics of the Fair, added a lot of ethnic programs to broaden the Center's appeal during its special levy campaigns, and became, in effect, a "mayor" of the little city of Seattle Center. She and Mayor Greg Nickels clashed, and in her last year, she convened a master plan task force, aiming at still another levy. This one would have spent $150 million or so in fixing up Center House, a converted armory. In turn, the fix up would lead to higher rents at Center House, thus easing the budget problem.
That plan, not really a plan so much as a public relations salvo to start the levy clock ticking, fizzled. Anderson departed, and a Century 21 task force was convened to redo the plan, this time with more open space. It was a better plan, but meanwhile Seattle Center was now led by Robert Nellams, Anderson's top finance assistant, who is nowhere near as dynamic a community leader as Anderson was.
An excellent story in today's Seattle Times shows what has been happening in the past year, as the recession compounded the Center's best-laid plans. In effect, if the story is accurate, the Center has quietly given up hope on the Century 21 Master Plan, owing to the recession, new Mayor McGinn's lack of interest (or higher priorities for other levies like rail to West Seattle), and the failure of the Plan to ignite much public support. It's back to the commercialization strategy, which led Nellams straight to the Chihuly idea, run by the Space Needle.
Is there another option? One that never seems to come up is to attack the expense side of the equation, rather than trying to build one's way out of the red ink. Seattle Center is now a very program-rich operation, running lots of shows to keep the folks coming and helping the concessionaires — much as a shopping center would do. Maybe it should just get out of that business? Or hire some professionals such as One Reel to do some of that programming?
That idea never seems to come up, because it would lead to layoffs of city workers, and Seattle Center is highly unionized and very able to defend itself by rallying public support. The other idea that remains low profile is raising rents on the many sweet deals at the Center, relics of favors done to various groups by past mayors and city councilmembers. Again, this rarely comes up because the task forces looking at the future of the Center are always dominated by institutions on the campus.
No previous mayor has really wanted a "fresh look" at the Center, fearful of all the political landmines it contains. But Mayor McGinn is definitely a fresh-look guy. The recession casts a lot of grand plans into doubt. And Sally Bagshaw, who chairs the council's parks and Seattle Center committee, has a new paradigm in mind for the Center, one that is more parklike in the core. Smells like a big opportunity to me.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate
“More parklike” is precisely what most of us do not want even though it may be what Brewster wants.
How much more evidence do you want than a 20 year old plan that has given us a more parklike Center and the public has stayed away in droves. It doesn’t help that Nickels got rid of two parking lots and their revenue (which also created a condo and the Gates Foundation which act as disincentives toward the Center's use) nor that the Center has been the dumping ground for every bad idea that has come along; Center School; EMP; and now the Chihuly plan. A closer look here and at the Times website reveals a strong (majority?) sentiment towards keeping the Center as an amusement center for both high and low brow fun and not turning it a mere neighborhood park and a poor one at that.
You want open space then stop plans for an office building on the old Public Safety Building site, stop Paul Allen from building more of his slums along Westlake, maybe look at turning some of those parking lots in the Clise properties south of Denny into parks.
My fear is the recession may give us what most don’t want at the Center, we can only hope it doesn’t cost us an arm and a leg like the Nickels plan.
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 11:59 a.m. Inappropriate
"The recession casts a lot of grand plans into doubt." Glad to hear you say it, but doesn't make it true. True at the moment is more like the opposite even more frantically justified as the way back to "normal." We may know what "is" is, but most a lot of us will be dead and gone before humans understand what "sustainable" is.
On the smaller issue at hand, my two cents is that the old building needs to come down and the space put to usable open space on the cheap as our immediate future unfolds and to clarify matters by making it possible for all to better imagine the full potential between the mural and the needle. We, even Chihuly supporters can do better.
In my neighborhood, people have been buying a large older house and adding a third a story, or rebuilding facsimile, in extremely crass ways, which is what the current Chilhuly proposal brings to mind--potential wasted and not in play again for at least fifty years.
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 12:03 p.m. Inappropriate
Good explainer, though.
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 1:45 p.m. Inappropriate
The footprint of the Fun House building is too large. The roadway between it and Center House is a narrow dead zone. Enlarging the footprint worsens the problem. Visability and access to the amphitheater on the west side should be opened up. The alley way on the south seems like where the trash is taken out. A multi-story building with a smaller footprint would work better. A multi-story building would offer excellent views. A durable Chiluly landmark I must say fits very well with the EMP and Space Needle.
Opening up the north acres of the fun center is important too, whatever is built there. For this reason and because Seattle Center still has a major problem of access from downtown, I still propose extending a single-track monorail line through the 'eye' of EMP and abruptly descend into a cut/cover tunnel and relocate the station underground. All-weather access and the north side becomes visable and more accessable. Duh.
A single-track station can be accessed from both sides - the basement of Center House, the Fischer Pavillion and whatever is built on the Fun House side, plus an elevator and stairway. This Blacklisted single-track line eventually 'circles' around Seattle Center with stations at Key Arena, 'atop' Mercer Street parking garage, and 5th Ave/Memorial Stadium site. A double-track station at KOMO Plaza makes trips between all stations simple.
On the downtown end of this Circulator Monorail,(@), several single-track 'loop' extensions are possible with the same ideal result. Single-track monorail is low-cost and low-visual/physical impact. I'm currently surveying a new downtown route that will require 6 monorail cars to run at under 5-minute intervals; damn good access to Seattle Center from Westlake Mall, Central Library, International District, sports arenas, Coleman Dock, Pike Place Market and Belltown. Regional monorail lines can extend from this inner-city Circulator. Maybe the Wrights would like the idea?
Posted Thu, Mar 18, 7:40 p.m. Inappropriate
Thanks for the historical summary. I've always been puzzled by the lack of a big amusement park anywhere near this city, so it's interesting to hear about the Disney plans that never materialized.
A world class amusement park (privately run, not necessarily Disney, and paying rent to the city) is the most promising idea I've heard. I'm not convinced that anyone will schlep to the center for "open space".
Posted Fri, Mar 19, 7:18 a.m. Inappropriate
David, you have completely missed what's really going on with the Center. It is a big shell game driven by city policies that are attempting to bypass legislative mandates and let developers off the hook.
Posted Tue, Mar 23, 10:04 a.m. Inappropriate
Three best things that have happened recently at Seattle Center: 1. Vera Project 2. Skateboard park 3. Happy hour at Center House Bistro.
Posted Wed, Mar 24, 10:49 a.m. Inappropriate
The Seattle Center serves a broader cross-section of Seattle area residents and visitors to the city than any place that could be named in the city. Where else can you go and encounter a series like Festal - year-round ethnic cultural festivals produced by community leaders - that is free to the public. I understand the Chihuly debate, but I'm more interested in hearing some exploration of how the proposal might be devised to serve some public benefit if it is located on public land. How about free admission to the museum with proof of Seattle residence or a free admission day for each public event that happens at the Center throughout the year. With the cuts in arts education it would be nice to give kids and families more access to art. More park space? No. We have plenty of parks. The Center should be supported by the Mayor and the City Council so that it can move forward as a great entertainment and gathering place for community! Mayor McGinn I encourage you to pursue a deeper understanding of the role Seattle Center plays in nurturing and growing community.
Posted Mon, Mar 29, 1:52 p.m. Inappropriate
A decent review of history 1962 forward, but leaves off the history as what prompted Century 21 folks to choose that area, and the precedents set by the existing attractions intentionally made part of the party.
Throughout the history of Seattle Parks, this city has encouraged private enterprise on public park space. At one time, Leschi Park featured a 6 story casino and hotel.
Century 21 was cited there because there was already a gathering of attractions, including: The Opera House built in 1924 (AKA McCaw Hall) which was paid for by private funding from a saloon owner; Mercer Hall, AKA the ICE arena, complete with pipe organ; Memorial Stadium, built 1951 and shared by SPS football and track teams, and 12 acres of public sports fields. The rest was considered Urban Renewal.
When no bank would fund the Space Needle, five families came forward and paid to build it. The City condemned Public land (it was originally a fire alarm response center) and sold it to the group.
Point being, since the 1920's, it has never an area of open space parks.
It should also be noted that Seattle Citizens voted DOWN the Commons project twice. THAT would have offered a huge amount of open space. It was voted down TWICE. The Seattle Center pre and post fair has NEVER been about open space, it has been about attractions, and a mix of public and private vendors generating more than 5,000 events annually and revenue for the city.
Even still, there are 17 acres of open space in the mix. The building, already paid for by tax dollars, would not add a lot of good open space to the mix... it is hemmed in on all sides by halls and attractions.
The most recent plan calls for a mini forest and field, has no funding, and would be underutilized 355 days a year. The forest would need fencing to protect it from abuse as a public restroom after dark (I have spent many evenings working across from this area, and public urination after concerts and sporting events is already a problem in other wooded areas of the center.)
Lastly, the plans as shown by the Wrights actually MEETS many of the criteria OF THAT NEW PLAN, and does so without cost to the city or the center:
• The campus should be designed to draw people into the center of the grounds.
• The Center should be a leader in sustainable design and operations.
• A mix of activities and amenities should be inviting to the diversity of Seattle Center users.
• New design should emphasize flexibility, vibrancy, legibility and artistic expression.
As to process... This did not occur in the dark, and how much more money for public process shall we spend to hear all the wonderful ideas that have no funding, and open space wants in debating less than 2 acres? After all, if open space trumps culture and revenue, then why not bulldoze the old Nile Temple? That space would at least face the stage of the Mural, and open up to the public a large grand west entrance!
IF you would take time to report on what the Chihuly folks are offering, you can read about outreach classes for kids, free and reduced admission days, and all the usual we demand of such institutions.
The pavilion as envisioned would add a terrific draw to the Center. It is NOT an elitist attraction, in fact, just the opposite: It shares art that would be otherwise locked up within the confines of a mansion or private office. For those who cannot get to Las Vegas and the Beliagio, or Kew Gardens, or the Canals of Venice, this would provide access to the a terrific collection at for the price of a movie and some popcorn.
I guess pragmatism has no room in the process, and process trumps logic.