Seattle's botanical gap
Botanical gardens, one reads in The New York Times, are having an identity crisis. Flower shows, horticultural lectures, and garden-club patrons are no longer able to pay the bills. So the gardens are putting on cooking demonstrations, building model green structures, and even inviting in dogs ($2 per canine). Would that Seattle had such a problem.
As it happens, my wife and I were recently at the Denver Botanic Gardens, a very beautiful, tremendously varied facility on Denver's Capitol Hill. They filled us with envy for such a facility, particularly in Seattle, which has one of the great gardening climates of the world. The extra draw at Denver, one of the country's largest botanic gardens, was a show of a score of major Henry Moore sculptures, gorgeously sited amid pools, on hillocks, and among the blooms.
Such facilities are the legacies of earlier benefactors, the kinds of worthies who normally contributed and laid out major downtown parks. The Denver gardens used to be closer to downtown, but they suffered from constrained space and some vandalism before moving into a handsome residential district. Denver has the nation's best public support for arts and "scientific institutions" such as the botanical gardens, so these facilities are flourishing. (The mechanism is a tenth of a cent of sales tax spread over seven counties, raising $40 million a year in public support.)
Seattle not only lacks such a steady source of public support. Its founding generations, more bent on making money and living in private splendor than endowing public spaces, shamefully neglected downtown open space. Only a later generation and in a later city, Bellevue, now has a botanical garden and a fine downtown park. Seattle might have had such a grand open space at Seattle Center, but decided to commercialize it instead. Perhaps, at the cost of several billion dollars, we will have that park on our central waterfront some day.
In writing about Los Angeles, Mike Davis depicts what he calls "the destruction of public space," a legacy of the way that city has hardened itself against the poor and undesirable people who might inhabit such risky spaces. Fearful of public space, such cities retreat into "spacial and social insulation." It becomes both harder and more expensive to build the kind of democratic, beautiful, inviting-to-children public spaces that were natural expressions of earlier urban dwellers and benefactors.
Still, botanical gardens, suitably updated, might have a chance. They are becoming demonstrations of urban gardening, locally grown food, edible gardens, and relating concerns about the warming planet to what you might do in your own back yard — not to mention networking over cocktails and music. Good ideas for Seattle Center, perhaps, as well as the waterfront. And you can see it happening with all the enriched programs (farmer's market, dancing at dusk) at the Olympic Sculpture Park, which is turning into our own (accidental) botanical garden. Just as in Denver, OSP is also a magnet for new apartments and those seeking walkable density and urban green spaces in their daily lives.












Comments:
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 3:06 p.m. inappropriate
It's not the poor, it's the rule-breakers.
But yes, it's true that Seattle severely lacks downtown green spaces. One of my jobs as a volunteer-then-staffer at the Seattle Commons organization was comparing Seattle to other cities, and we did horribly in terms of downtowns. We've had a lot of success since then, but it's mostly on the periphery rather than in or near the CBD.
As for defense against rule-breakers, our idea of not building spaces they might hang out in isn't working. The effect is that they concentrate in fewer and smaller places. To improve the ratio of law-abiders to public drunks, more acres of park is a big part of the solution. Green space along Alaskan Way will help. So would one or two public parks elsewhere in the CBD. A couple pocket parks would go a long way. The two planned for Westlake (at Stewart and at Virginia) will be good, and now we need a few right in the heart.
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 3:47 p.m. inappropriate
IF you are searching for a real downer, see Mike Davis' Planet of Slums, same issue writ large.
Did you walk, bike or ride to Denver?. How's Blueprint Denver coming?
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 4:04 p.m. inappropriate
The botanic garden in Denver is lovely, true, but it is fenced in AND charges admission. A quick google search reveals most botanic gardens charge admission. Are you advocating a paid-entry kind of green space?
As you point out in your opening paragraph, botanic gardens can't keep their bills paid. The "Identity Crisis" of parks of this nature, in my view, speaks to the need for creative partnerships of private funds in mixed-use public spaces. Seattle Center is not a park; it's comprised of private/public enterprises and always has been.
Coincidentally, have you been to the arboretum recently? It's probably the closest thing to a botanical garden Seattle has (although it's free and not fenced.) I walk there weekly. I love it there-it's always empty.
Posted Tue, Jul 27, 4:46 p.m. inappropriate
Technically speaking, the Arboretum is a botanical garden -- the plant collection is managed by the UW Botanic Gardens, the umbrella organization for the Arboretum and the Center for Urban Horticulture.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwbg/gardens/wpa.shtml
Why it is so underutilized, I have no idea. Thankfully, the proposals to fence it in and charge admission never got anywhere.
I wonder how the Japanese Garden, which is fenced in and does charge admission, is doing.
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 5:41 a.m. inappropriate
The following comment was sent to the editor from Fran Conley:
Following up on your article on city gardens, David take a look at Roanoke Park, 10th Avenue East and Edgar. Over the years, neighbors have transformed it into a fine garden. And they have built new parks along Portage Bay, at Roanoke and near Boston at the south end of the bay, west of Montlake Park. This area, less than 3 miles from downtown, now has an absolutely unique series of linked parks and open spaces, from Roanoke Park with only one short break all the way to the Arboretum.
So the state plans to ruin it. Much of it is to be taken to expand SR 520.
--Fran Conley
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 6:40 a.m. inappropriate
Atlanta's botanic garden was so crowded on Mothers Day 2010, we had to stand in line to get in. It's fenced and charges admission, but so what? It has two amazing orchid houses (low elevation and high), a whimsical children's garden, an elevated walk through the tree canopies, permanent and rotating sculpture exhibits, edible gardens, open spaces, indoor spaces, surprising twists and turns - and hundreds of volunteers. Where, oh where, would Seattle find room for flowers? It needs all its open space for adult sports fields, golf (both dimpled and frisbee), off-leash dogs, and other "special uses." How about Myrtle Edwards, connected as it is to the new and improved waterfront?
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 9:11 a.m. inappropriate
At one point Freeway Park was supposed to supply some of that downtown green space. I know that it's become a kind of 800 pound gorilla (observed but not talked about) but I think it still has the potential to be a great public area. The last time my partner and I went to an event at Town Hall we were early, and went for a walk through a few of the 'rooms' at the park -- it's still a great hardscape, and could be something truly special with some thoughtful attention.
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 11:04 a.m. inappropriate
Nice to see you advocating Fenced Gardens so they pay their way... and for the record, Denver charges about what Chihuly will.
A few more gardens of note along with the Washington Park Arboretum
depts.washington.edu - (206) 543-8800
How about the 4 acres of Chittenden Locks & Carl English Botanical Gardens
www.cityofseattle.net - (206) 783-7059
and the Volunteer Park Conservatory
www.cityofseattle.net - (206) 322-4112
and the Kruckeberg Botanical Garden
www.kruckeberg.org - (206) 546-1281
and the Elizabeth C Miller Botanical Gardens
www.millergarden.org - (206) 362-8612
And the Rose Gardens at the Zoo AND the UW? And the lovely garden block a few blocks west of Highland Park...
As for Open Space in or near Downtown: Kinner Park, South Lake Union, Myrtle Edwards, Denny (Seattle's First Park!), and 17 acres of the Seattle Center are all considered open space... We COULD have had the commons, but Seattle Residents voted it down twice. Interesting that we also voted against Safeco Field (directly and indirectly), yet GOT that, but somehow did NOT get the Commons. Ah, Seattle Process.
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 11:13 a.m. inappropriate
Walking around the new South Lake Union on two recent Seattle Architectural Foundation tours, I was struck be the absence of green around all the new development. Concrete pads under buildings adjoin paved alleys with no green space between. Some buildings feature a little green "art," but most of them make no provision for relief from all the buildings and pavement. I wonder why the Department of Planning and Development didn't require more greenspace around the new buildings. The new park at south Lake Union near the new site for MOHAI will help, and a park and pea patch in the interior is already a great relief, but the area needs much more in the way of parks. Someone recently suggested that we make a park of Seattle Center. With so little in the way of parks in the district, that seems like a good idea. We seem to forget during our rainy winters how much relief from summer's hot pavement green trees provide. Why is our city government still so indifferent to the benefits of parks and open spaces?
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 12:13 p.m. inappropriate
I wouldn't want greenspace around MOST buildings. This is a core city, not a suburb, and good urban design calls for buildings right up to the sidewalks (considered a given by most planners, thankfully). In some districts, many buildings have publicly accessible pocket parks. In others, more such parks would be nice. (When a development gets to build a larger building due to adding a park, that park is required to be open to the public...something not always known by the public, or by security guards.)
Posted Wed, Jul 28, 7:34 p.m. inappropriate
mhays, I believe what Erin was referring to was having some street trees or other greenery close to the buildings rather than necessarily between the building and sidewalk. Of course one of the design problems in Seattle is narrow sidewalks quite unlike many in cities you claim to like such as Paris and NY. I have to agree with Erin that running building walls to the sidewalks (without proximate greenery) does not, in general, provide a visual/sensory experience that I or many others enjoy. Hardscape tends to be monotonous in known texture, and the heat it retains and radiates often makes for unpleasant walking in the summer.
Having just returned from a month long cross country trip with visits to multiple large cities, I would have to say that I now find Seattle one of the least vegetated cities I have encountered. In addition, many of our trees appear miniaturized in comparison to what's available in the midwest and back east. Chicago, for example, appears to be moving more and more of its wiring underground which allows for more tree planting and growth in many center city areas. I wish we had the smarts to do the same instead of adding building interior pocket park greenery to our treeless concrete jungle. "Good urban design" is very much in the eye of the beholder, and we have spent the last few years learning rather painfully just how off beam many of our "experts" really are.
I concur with Mr Brewster that a botanical garden of the type in Denver or Atlanta would be a wonderful asset to this city-even if we had to pay a smallish fee to visit it. We have one of the premier gardening climates in the world. Why we don't make better use of it is just another example of our short sightedness.
Posted Thu, Jul 29, 9:52 a.m. inappropriate
I also thought that having "buildings come right up to the sidewalks" was an idea that had long ago been discredited. It tends to create windy canyons of tall buildings with no sunlight and feelings of constriction. That's why I am puzzled that our Department of Planning and Development continues to allow the creation of inhuman streetscapes in our very latest and most expensive business development.