Slog
News & ArtsFriday, April 2, 2010
City Chihuly Cheerleaders Don't Address Why The Project Doesn't Belong on Private Land
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:25 AM
Roughly 80 people attended the Seattle City Council's Parks and Seattle Center Committee meeting last night, with roughly 30 people commenting, mostly in favor of the Chihuly museum project. They love Chihuly and the idea of a Chihuly glass museum. But what they didn't say—and what multiple conversations with Space Needle CEO Ron Sevart haven't revealed—is why a privately-owned and operated project needs to go on public land. Sevart insists that the Space Needle has not, and will not, consider another location for the project (although the Wright family could certainly afford it).
"Our goal is to draw people to Seattle Center," Sevart said in an interview last week.
David Blandford, spokesman for Seattle's Convention and Visitor's Bureau, spoke at the meeting in favor of the proposal, saying it would be a tourist magnet for Seattle. He mentioned that the last spike in tourism happened after the completion of the downtown Public Library (which is a mile from Seattle Center).
A Belltown woman also spoke in favor of the project, saying that she loved running through the Sculpture Park along the waterfront—four blocks from Seattle Center—while marveling about what a great city she lives in. She believes a Chihuly Museum will enhance our city's greatness.
However, both speakers failed to acknowledge that the public has free access to both the Sculpture Park and the Seattle Public Library. The Chihuly museum would cost between $12 and $14 to enter, says Space Needle spokeswoman Mary Bacarella. Severt adds, "Fifty percent of the Chihuly Museum can be accessed by the public without paying admission." The free area? The museum's entrance, cafe (where you buy food), and gift shop (where you buy souvenirs).
But more to the point: There are plenty of other places in the city that would be great for a private Chihuly museum that aren't on publicly-owned land.
The final public speaker last night mentioned the $500,000 in annual lease payments the city would receive for this project. The Fun Forest paid $350,000 annually for the site. It's true that given the city's current financial crisis, the money is attractive. Proponents of the Chihuly museum are quick to point out that the city doesn't have the money to develop this public site, and that if not turned into a museum, it will languish as an asphalt jungle from now to eternity.
But these Chihuly cheerleaders are attempting to create a false sense of urgency, when the city has long recognized that the vision for the Seattle Center will take some time. The Seattle Center Master Plan, which took two years to develop with a hefty amount of public input, is "characterized by reclaiming and unifying open space at the heart of the campus.... [and] charts the direction for Seattle Center’s growth over a 20-year period. It retains flexibility for change and is not intended to be fully funded or constructed in one piece."
1
Without a well-advertised public discussion announced ahead of time--both of these were short notice--and the flagrant back room dealing and bad handling that caused this to suddenly pop out in a "SURPRISE!!!!" fashion on the community, the City Council and Mayor need to tell everyone to fuck off back to the beginning. If Chihuly is the right fit, he'll end up there either way. But the extreme shadiness of the entire operation is going to lead to the city getting sued just like the tunnel lawsuits are gearing up, and the same way the city is getting their asses handed to them in the environmental study lawsuit over the Fort Lawton low-income housing conversion lawsuit.
2
Great post, and a terrific closing paragraph. The fact that proponents are pretending it's not an issue shows their motives pretty clearly.
3
Speaking of cheerleaders, was it a little weird for Cienna to be one of the few people testifing agains the project last night?
4
The Stranger is a for-profit entity owned by Tim Keck, the cheapjack publisher.
Many of its newspaper boxes are on public land. Start paying rent to the city, you fucking hypocritical squatters, or we'll start pissing in them.
Many of its newspaper boxes are on public land. Start paying rent to the city, you fucking hypocritical squatters, or we'll start pissing in them.
5
Isn't there a surface parking lot across the street from the Space Needle? Why don't they just buy that.
6
Cienna - you're wrong. They did answer the question. It's to draw people to Seattle Center. And the Wright's have two interests in doing so. First, they care about the Center and Seattle, as they have shown by their several donations to non-profit budgets. Second, tourists coming to Seattle Center means more people going to the Space Needle, which means more revenue that business owned by the Wrights.
Third, the space is available.
Those are all good reasons.
Now let's do some math. You claim the annual lease payments for the Fun Forest were $350,000. I assume that is correct, but you are also purposefully telling only part of the story to support your point, which is really intellectually and journalistically dishonest. First, the Fun Forest was years behind on their rent, I believe to the tune of $8 million. Second, the Chihuly museum doesn't take up the whole of the Fun Forest space. So the whole story is that the City would make $500,000 more per year from this project in rent alone, and then would also get the remaining 3 acres to be open space, which is the plan.
So to the math - $500,000 in rent. If the Muesum is a success and does 1,000 visitors per day as predicted, at the lower ticket price, that means another $250,000 per year in admissions tax revenue JUST for the museum. Then there are parking fees and the 10% commercial parking tax, and the additional taxes on the other business generated. We're talking another $1 million in DIRECT revenue to the City from this project.
Now add to that the indirect revenue generated from more jobs from the museum, more sales and so more sales tax from nearby businesses, etc, etc.
The alternative - "open space". Whatever that means. It probably means pavement the City has to pay to maintain. This is paid for with money the City doesn't have.
I just left City Hall talking to some of the Council about getting more Police downtown. Guess what, there's no money for even that. But you want to take $1million or more a year out of the City coffers and spend more on pavement. Because you don't like a certain very popular artist and you disagree with the funders who want to donate $15 million to the City.
More...
Third, the space is available.
Those are all good reasons.
Now let's do some math. You claim the annual lease payments for the Fun Forest were $350,000. I assume that is correct, but you are also purposefully telling only part of the story to support your point, which is really intellectually and journalistically dishonest. First, the Fun Forest was years behind on their rent, I believe to the tune of $8 million. Second, the Chihuly museum doesn't take up the whole of the Fun Forest space. So the whole story is that the City would make $500,000 more per year from this project in rent alone, and then would also get the remaining 3 acres to be open space, which is the plan.
So to the math - $500,000 in rent. If the Muesum is a success and does 1,000 visitors per day as predicted, at the lower ticket price, that means another $250,000 per year in admissions tax revenue JUST for the museum. Then there are parking fees and the 10% commercial parking tax, and the additional taxes on the other business generated. We're talking another $1 million in DIRECT revenue to the City from this project.
Now add to that the indirect revenue generated from more jobs from the museum, more sales and so more sales tax from nearby businesses, etc, etc.
The alternative - "open space". Whatever that means. It probably means pavement the City has to pay to maintain. This is paid for with money the City doesn't have.
I just left City Hall talking to some of the Council about getting more Police downtown. Guess what, there's no money for even that. But you want to take $1million or more a year out of the City coffers and spend more on pavement. Because you don't like a certain very popular artist and you disagree with the funders who want to donate $15 million to the City.
7
The closing paragraph has one giant hole it it, the master plan "retains flexibility for change". Well here is a change.
And you make a valid point about the sculpture park and the main library, yes they are free. But the library is free because it is fully publicly supported and the sculpture park is free because it is supported by the similar entrance fee to the SAM. I wish all museums were free and a private enterprise like the Smithsonian Institute, but we are not that lucky. I think they do make a very valid point though when they state that they are offering the city $10M over the life of their proposed lease to the city for use of the site, which could well be returned to the center for much needed improvements within it.
And you make a valid point about the sculpture park and the main library, yes they are free. But the library is free because it is fully publicly supported and the sculpture park is free because it is supported by the similar entrance fee to the SAM. I wish all museums were free and a private enterprise like the Smithsonian Institute, but we are not that lucky. I think they do make a very valid point though when they state that they are offering the city $10M over the life of their proposed lease to the city for use of the site, which could well be returned to the center for much needed improvements within it.
8
The only reason the Wrights want to put this in the Center is because there is already a privately owned tourist attraction immediately adjacent to this site - owned (to absolutely nobody's surprise at this point) by the Wright family.
This is simply a ploy by them to consolidate their holdings and leverage public money for private gain. With two privately owned attractions sitting right next to each other (three really, if one counts EMP/SFM, but the Wrights don't own that, so in fairness it shouldn't be part of this discussion), it increases the likelihood that tourists will pay admission to BOTH, will purchase trinkets at both, will eat food at at least one, meaning the Wrights will stand a good chance of enhancing their revenue stream. And of course, the MORE $$ tourists spend on these privately owned enterprises, the less they're going to have left to spend elsewhere.
Siting a Chihuly museum on private land even a moderate distance from the Center grounds greatly diminishes the likelihood of creating such a synergistic effect, which is why they're not even open to discussing such an option.
This whole scheme has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's best for the City of Seattle or its citizens, and EVERYTHING to do with what's best for the Wright family's bank account.
This is simply a ploy by them to consolidate their holdings and leverage public money for private gain. With two privately owned attractions sitting right next to each other (three really, if one counts EMP/SFM, but the Wrights don't own that, so in fairness it shouldn't be part of this discussion), it increases the likelihood that tourists will pay admission to BOTH, will purchase trinkets at both, will eat food at at least one, meaning the Wrights will stand a good chance of enhancing their revenue stream. And of course, the MORE $$ tourists spend on these privately owned enterprises, the less they're going to have left to spend elsewhere.
Siting a Chihuly museum on private land even a moderate distance from the Center grounds greatly diminishes the likelihood of creating such a synergistic effect, which is why they're not even open to discussing such an option.
This whole scheme has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's best for the City of Seattle or its citizens, and EVERYTHING to do with what's best for the Wright family's bank account.
10
@3, I spoke to publicize a question that I've been asking everyone who's for this project I can get on the phone--why put a private collection on public land? It's an important question that I don't think has been asked enough; certainly no one at this meeting (or the last) asked it.
I also made clear my affiliation with the paper and the paper's position.
I also made clear my affiliation with the paper and the paper's position.
11
Hey Meinert.
Can you show us where the city announced in public that the space from the Fun Forest was going to be available for ANYONE to bid for that space?
Can you show us where the city announced in public that the space from the Fun Forest was going to be available for ANYONE to bid for that space?
12
Stranger staff: see what I wrote at #11. There's your homework under FOIA. Where was this publicized?
13
It seems to me that this was all decided some time ago, with the consent of the city council and mayor. And sure, the $500,000 a year would help now, but we're not going to be in the Great Recession forever, and when good times are here again, we'll have sold out a rare piece of public open space for a shitty museum that is bound to lose money. Is Chihuly really well-known enough by the average tourist to pay an admittance fee? I suspect not.
14
Cienna Madrid, you fail to mention that YOU spoke out against this project at the meeting. As a reporter on this topic, it is entirely inappropriate and unethical for you to take publicly take sides and then couch your opinion as a news story.
What would the public outcry be if a reporter spoke publicly in favor of the Chihuly project and then the next day gave glowing one-sided reviews?
You are a liability to the Stranger. Keep up this kind of reporting and someone is going to take a financial swipe at your paper. It would be well deserved IMHO.
What would the public outcry be if a reporter spoke publicly in favor of the Chihuly project and then the next day gave glowing one-sided reviews?
You are a liability to the Stranger. Keep up this kind of reporting and someone is going to take a financial swipe at your paper. It would be well deserved IMHO.
15
@6, shit, Meinert, think how much money they could raise if they sold off Volunteer Park! Or Discovery Park -- christ, the condo views! Way more than a piddly $500k.
16
@8 I hope the Wrights turn a 100x profit on the Needle in 2011. I seriously could care less, and that's not the story. The story isn't the private on public land story. That's been settled for ages. The stuff happens. Don't approach this with a "screw the corporations" interest.
The big stinky question is the complete lack of transparency and the gotcha!! nature of this all suddenly erupting. Where did the city broadly announce in public that the space from the Fun Forest was going to be available for ANYONE to bid for that land?
The big stinky question is the complete lack of transparency and the gotcha!! nature of this all suddenly erupting. Where did the city broadly announce in public that the space from the Fun Forest was going to be available for ANYONE to bid for that land?
17
Obviously this needs to wait until after we save the fireworks.
Until then, Seattle citizens have been very clear that they want more green space, not more Richie Rich glass exhibitions that cost $14.
Until then, Seattle citizens have been very clear that they want more green space, not more Richie Rich glass exhibitions that cost $14.
19
@11 To your process related question; Seattle Center historically has not opened RFP's to the public when leases ended. The space where the new SIFF offices are going stood empty for almost 20 years before they approached Seattle Center about taking the space. Did you hear about that one? No-because it wasn't open for public discussion. Your issue with "transparency" in this case is misguided, no doubt because of the Stranger's attempt to turn this into a big conspiracy.
20
take a look at the families who visit the seattle center, chihuly cheerleaders. do they look like they can afford a $14 admission to a bunch of GLASS? jesus h. tapdancing christ.
21
I get the feeling the Wrights took a look at the publicly developed Master Plan and thought, let's seize this piece right here by the our needle before it's too late.
22
And as a customer of Meinert's, his Five Point Cafe would be much too close to the Chihuly shop for my comfort. I'm sitting down to my chicken fried steak and a family of fanny-packers in souvenir Chihuly t-shirts walks in fresh from the gift store? No, thank you.
23
@6,
I didn't realize that the number one tourist attraction in this city was hurting so badly for money.
I didn't realize that the number one tourist attraction in this city was hurting so badly for money.
24
@19 If that's the case that's complete and total bullshit that goes against every reasonable standard of open government and fair competition, and is ****BEGGING**** for the city to get taken apart in a legal vivisection.
I actually disagree completely with the Stranger's apparent editorial line here. I could care less in the end if we get Chihuly, a lawn, or a Starbucks. My big problem is that this popped out of nowhere and it's being very strongly implied by multiple parties and sources that there was no level at all--and apparently confirmed by you, whoever you are--that there was no open bidding.
That is MY beef and I think the real story. Me personally? I'd love for something broad and mass appeal to go in if it's the commercial route, which I don't think is Chihuly. But I'd settle for a lawn, too. I think a Starbucks or SBC or some other coffee shop there would be a killer tourist trap, if the City got a percentage of every sale plus the lease.
But again--IF it's transparently bid for and the public gets to weigh in fairly without browncoat type nonsense like we're seeing.
I actually disagree completely with the Stranger's apparent editorial line here. I could care less in the end if we get Chihuly, a lawn, or a Starbucks. My big problem is that this popped out of nowhere and it's being very strongly implied by multiple parties and sources that there was no level at all--and apparently confirmed by you, whoever you are--that there was no open bidding.
That is MY beef and I think the real story. Me personally? I'd love for something broad and mass appeal to go in if it's the commercial route, which I don't think is Chihuly. But I'd settle for a lawn, too. I think a Starbucks or SBC or some other coffee shop there would be a killer tourist trap, if the City got a percentage of every sale plus the lease.
But again--IF it's transparently bid for and the public gets to weigh in fairly without browncoat type nonsense like we're seeing.
26
@6, the math you fail to mention is even clearer to me - the owner of a nearby business is shamelessly advocating for business development, at the expense of anything else.
"..Now add to that the indirect revenue generated from more jobs from the museum, more sales and so more sales tax from nearby businesses, etc, etc."... and perhaps more people will buy drinks at my bar. Just fucking have the balls to say it.
"..Now add to that the indirect revenue generated from more jobs from the museum, more sales and so more sales tax from nearby businesses, etc, etc."... and perhaps more people will buy drinks at my bar. Just fucking have the balls to say it.
27
@25 yes, and the really ironic thing is the the best parts are on the outside where you don't have to pay money to see them.
i e the bridge and the fountains. they are neat.
i e the bridge and the fountains. they are neat.
28
@25 yesss.... and there is an on-going (not as yet reporter elucidated) rumor that there is some bad blood twixt chihuly and the tacoma installation. it would be very enlightening to know what those might be - if true.
i gotta say, what an impressive patch of astroturfing happening right here in the slog comments! there's sure seems to be a great disproportionate wad of cash behind pushing chihuly at the seattle center... hmh.
i gotta say, what an impressive patch of astroturfing happening right here in the slog comments! there's sure seems to be a great disproportionate wad of cash behind pushing chihuly at the seattle center... hmh.
29
Please, not another one-note museum in the Seattle Center. Take the EMP (please). Its a cool building with dusty, tired exhibits. It is depressing. Maybe they should team up to add the Chilhuly museum in there too. Nobody eats in that restaurant - maybe they could go in that space!
31
Maybe after they complete this Chihuly Art Gallery there next project could be one for the art of Thomas Kinkade.
I predict that it will be built and they will see tens of people visiting each day.
I predict that it will be built and they will see tens of people visiting each day.
32
So now the problem is that the museum is a private organization? Guess what - so is pretty much everything else at the Seattle Center, including the Space Needle, Children's Theater, Bumbershoot, the food court in the Center House, the Children's Museum, the Science Museum, the EMP, and the now defunct Fun Forest that the museum would replace.
God it's hard to watch my fellow liberals acting so petulant. It would be one thing if you had an alternative vision for that space, but you don't. You just want to fuck the Chihuly crowd at an expense of $500,000 to the city.
P.S. Including every paranoid control freak like Joe Szilagyi in every decision the city makes is a bad idea.
God it's hard to watch my fellow liberals acting so petulant. It would be one thing if you had an alternative vision for that space, but you don't. You just want to fuck the Chihuly crowd at an expense of $500,000 to the city.
P.S. Including every paranoid control freak like Joe Szilagyi in every decision the city makes is a bad idea.
33
Hey Meinart,
You are the one being intellctually and journalistically dishonest. I am the comptroller at the Fun Forest and we have never been behind in our rent payments to the city. The $8 million number you sited was the amount of the bank loan that Fun Forest ownership privately invested in Seattle Center infrastucture and landscaping demanded by the City of Seattle. Fun Forest did ask to renegotiate our rent agreement with the city but we have never been in arrears.
You are the one being intellctually and journalistically dishonest. I am the comptroller at the Fun Forest and we have never been behind in our rent payments to the city. The $8 million number you sited was the amount of the bank loan that Fun Forest ownership privately invested in Seattle Center infrastucture and landscaping demanded by the City of Seattle. Fun Forest did ask to renegotiate our rent agreement with the city but we have never been in arrears.
34
@28,
Isn't the Tacoma museum technically devoted to glass art in general? Maybe that's the source of bad blood. They didn't devote the entire thing to Chihuly's swelled head.
Isn't the Tacoma museum technically devoted to glass art in general? Maybe that's the source of bad blood. They didn't devote the entire thing to Chihuly's swelled head.
35
Two thoughts:
1. Doesn't EMP/SFM *lose* money? I've been in the building once. ONCE. (And I didn't have to pay for it.)
2. Maybe if they bring the Bubbleator back and let Chihuly retrofit it, and NOT charge admission, I could get on board with this.
But otherwise ... no. This Chihuly "museum" is not a good fit with our Seattle Center. And the process certainly appears to be steamrolled for the Wright family, not for Seattle tax payers.
1. Doesn't EMP/SFM *lose* money? I've been in the building once. ONCE. (And I didn't have to pay for it.)
2. Maybe if they bring the Bubbleator back and let Chihuly retrofit it, and NOT charge admission, I could get on board with this.
But otherwise ... no. This Chihuly "museum" is not a good fit with our Seattle Center. And the process certainly appears to be steamrolled for the Wright family, not for Seattle tax payers.
36
@32 Wanting open bidding on the future use of public land makes me a paranoid control freak? LOL.
38
@6 Thank you for being someone with facts and a brain.
Cienna - your position boils down to "We don't like Chihuly and the people behind this project so we're going to ignore the benefits, distort the facts, and do whatever we can to drum up opposition to it". This is called propaganda, not activist journalism. It's lame when Fox News does it, and it's just as lame when you do it.
Aim higher.
Cienna - your position boils down to "We don't like Chihuly and the people behind this project so we're going to ignore the benefits, distort the facts, and do whatever we can to drum up opposition to it". This is called propaganda, not activist journalism. It's lame when Fox News does it, and it's just as lame when you do it.
Aim higher.
40
Didn't anybody learn a lesson from Paul Allen's huge eyesore vanity project? Does anybody go to that? Does it enhance the public experience? Is it a good fit for the Seattle Center?
41
@32, Joe speaks for himself, not me. I don't give a damn about process or openness or open space or any of that stuff.
For me, it's all about Chihuly. I hate the fat con artist. It's embarrassing enough to have him and his terrible art associated with this region without building a goddamn shrine for him.
And I hate his supporters. I hate people who think Chihuly glass is beautiful. There's so much beauty in this world that they will never see because they are in love with PURE CHEESE. Chihuly glass art is not only crap from start to finish, it's crap of a very particular sort: it's crap designed to catch the attention of rich philistines, and wanna-be rich philistines. Nothing that has ever been made is more calculated to appeal to the gullible sensibilities of the striving class, the ones who watch PBS and think, "why, yes, that shiny stuff DOES make me feel sophisticated, just like that little Austrian boy singer does". Chihuly is the equivalent of solid-gold bathroom taps, and performs a similar function in the mansions of the tasteless rich, and in the dreams of those who have the tastelessness but are still working on the rich.
Chihuly glass is a class marker: a marker of a class of people who make me want to vomit.
The class of people who should be encouraged to enjoy the Center are the people who are interested in enjoying modestly fun amusements. Not a terrible museum; why not a Ferris wheel, or an old-fashioned wooden rollercoaster? Why, if the Fun Forest sucked so hard, didn't someone try to think of a way to make it better? Why does no one in this city seem to be aware of what a popular public amusement looks like? Why hasn't anyone from the city or the center seen the Tivoli in Copenhagen, for example?
Part of me wants to concede, and admit that Seattle is a city entirely filled with grasping shitheads now, and Chihuly is their master craftsman. Those glowing globs of hideous glass are perfect for Seattle now -- the shiny-suited PR lizards who want everything made in their image. Crap art for crap people. We've got worse civic taste than Phoenix or Houston or Las Goddamn Vegas -- Chihuly's spiritual home. The fat cruise ship mouthbreathers love it to, and will help pay for it.
More...
For me, it's all about Chihuly. I hate the fat con artist. It's embarrassing enough to have him and his terrible art associated with this region without building a goddamn shrine for him.
And I hate his supporters. I hate people who think Chihuly glass is beautiful. There's so much beauty in this world that they will never see because they are in love with PURE CHEESE. Chihuly glass art is not only crap from start to finish, it's crap of a very particular sort: it's crap designed to catch the attention of rich philistines, and wanna-be rich philistines. Nothing that has ever been made is more calculated to appeal to the gullible sensibilities of the striving class, the ones who watch PBS and think, "why, yes, that shiny stuff DOES make me feel sophisticated, just like that little Austrian boy singer does". Chihuly is the equivalent of solid-gold bathroom taps, and performs a similar function in the mansions of the tasteless rich, and in the dreams of those who have the tastelessness but are still working on the rich.
Chihuly glass is a class marker: a marker of a class of people who make me want to vomit.
The class of people who should be encouraged to enjoy the Center are the people who are interested in enjoying modestly fun amusements. Not a terrible museum; why not a Ferris wheel, or an old-fashioned wooden rollercoaster? Why, if the Fun Forest sucked so hard, didn't someone try to think of a way to make it better? Why does no one in this city seem to be aware of what a popular public amusement looks like? Why hasn't anyone from the city or the center seen the Tivoli in Copenhagen, for example?
Part of me wants to concede, and admit that Seattle is a city entirely filled with grasping shitheads now, and Chihuly is their master craftsman. Those glowing globs of hideous glass are perfect for Seattle now -- the shiny-suited PR lizards who want everything made in their image. Crap art for crap people. We've got worse civic taste than Phoenix or Houston or Las Goddamn Vegas -- Chihuly's spiritual home. The fat cruise ship mouthbreathers love it to, and will help pay for it.
42
@36
Your delusions of shady back room dealings makes you paranoid. Your inability to let our delegated reps do their job makes you a control freak.
Hey, I heard a rumor that SDOT is having a closed door meeting to decide on cross-walk paint. Better get down there to remind them that they work for us!
Your delusions of shady back room dealings makes you paranoid. Your inability to let our delegated reps do their job makes you a control freak.
Hey, I heard a rumor that SDOT is having a closed door meeting to decide on cross-walk paint. Better get down there to remind them that they work for us!
43
@42 if there was no public announcement inviting any party to bid on that space, and then Chihuly's project suddenly materializes, what else is it BUT backroom work, shady or otherwise? What if Starbucks wanted to put a store there? What if Allen's EMP wanted to expand there, or the Pacific Science Center, or the SAM? Were they all allowed to possibly outbid the Wrights and Chihuly?
That's my point in a nutshell. How do McGinn and the City Council know that another project won't bring Seattle even more money than the proposed Chihuly museum, without open bidding?
I'm baffled that this is so hard to figure out.
That's my point in a nutshell. How do McGinn and the City Council know that another project won't bring Seattle even more money than the proposed Chihuly museum, without open bidding?
I'm baffled that this is so hard to figure out.
45
@41 "why not a Ferris wheel, or an old-fashioned wooden rollercoaster?"
I'd go one further and put a full-fledged modern amusement park there. I never understood why there isn't a real amusement park anywhere near Seattle already. It would be awesome to look down there at night and see all the lights. And it would make a mint.
They actually enlisted Disney to do this a few decades ago, but it failed due to anti-California populist sentiment. Clearly, the city would need to choose a partner carefully to pull this off.
I'd go one further and put a full-fledged modern amusement park there. I never understood why there isn't a real amusement park anywhere near Seattle already. It would be awesome to look down there at night and see all the lights. And it would make a mint.
They actually enlisted Disney to do this a few decades ago, but it failed due to anti-California populist sentiment. Clearly, the city would need to choose a partner carefully to pull this off.
46
@42,
Did you miss the part a few *weeks* ago when Chihuly said it was a done deal? I'm inclined to think he's full of shit, but it's not out of line to think back room dealings have been going on.
Did you miss the part a few *weeks* ago when Chihuly said it was a done deal? I'm inclined to think he's full of shit, but it's not out of line to think back room dealings have been going on.
49
@47 and pray tell, why would the outcome of "Chihuly" not change if a better offer with more fiscal return for the city of Seattle came in from open bidding?
50
@41's opinion sure seems like that of the Stranger too. And it's sick to think that a supposedly liberal paper, who supports free choice at all its turns would be so against something because it would be supported and developed by people that the paper disagrees with. Be against it editorially, that's fine, but to work against it in such a fashion is journalisticly corrupt.
I have no interest in most of the private organizations at the Center, but obviously some do so let them enjoy it. Just because this art is more of a craft than real artistic work, and it is supported by a for-profit corporation, and those backers are conservative, does not make it wrong, as none of those things in and of themselves are wrong. The Stranger needs to realize there is a differance between a disagreement of opinion and an injustice.
I have no interest in most of the private organizations at the Center, but obviously some do so let them enjoy it. Just because this art is more of a craft than real artistic work, and it is supported by a for-profit corporation, and those backers are conservative, does not make it wrong, as none of those things in and of themselves are wrong. The Stranger needs to realize there is a differance between a disagreement of opinion and an injustice.
51
@8 - The Space Needle, and the Wright family, making money, is good for Seattle. Seems there are a lot of people here who seem to be anti commerce. Guess what people, if businesses don't make money, no one works, and there is no City, no parks, no nothing.
@11 - the City isn't required to do so.
@15 - wow, what an incredibly intelligent argument. Not even worth responding to.
@20 - good question. Answer, yes. The families who go to Bumbershoot, EMP, the Space Needle, the Opera, Events at the Key, the Theaters, etc, etc, etc. Yes, they can afford the ticket. And for the families who can't there is a ton of open space for them to use for free, and a ton of other events at the Center that are also free. And if the Center gets hundreds of thousands dollars more in income per year, expect even more of such cheap or low ticket events. If the Center doesn't get more revenue, expect less. So, I guess you would rather see no museum and less free and inexpensive events. Personally, I'd like to see the Center increase revenues so they can support more low cost family events.
@22 - I love you. And i agree, the Chihuly Museum customers probably aren't 5 Point customers for the most part. And so, @26, it's not that I'm advocating for more 5 Point business, it's that I'm advocating for a financially healthy Seattle Center, which yes, would and does benefit my and several hundred other small businesses. And it also makes my neighborhood in Queen Anne an even better place to live. And I think both are good things for the City.
@33 - Scott, I'm not a journalist so I can't be journalistically dishonest. However, I'll research your numbers. I could be wrong but I seem to recall reading that the reason Fun Forest was losing it's lease was because business was way down and the rent wasn't being paid. Here's one such article - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo… - from this and other articles I am reading it seems like FF couldn't make it's rent. Sorry If I'm wrong. However the new Museum financial benefits are still stronger either way.
@40 - no I guess not. I think Google maps should show where the park would have been so we can all remember what it's like to have a manufactured dissent created by an alternative weekly cost the City a major benefit paid for by someone with money. We now have all the condos, all the small businesses gone and no park. Brilliant!
Some facts about the museum - it'll generate over $1million per year for the City, it's a 20 year lease or rather 4 5 year leases. It's meant to possibly be gone in 20 years so isn't permanent like say EMP. The City doesn't have the money to build or maintain open space there. The museum doesn't take over the whole footprint of the Fun Forest. Some of that will remain open space - paved open space, hopefully useable for outdoor concerts or something.
More...
@11 - the City isn't required to do so.
@15 - wow, what an incredibly intelligent argument. Not even worth responding to.
@20 - good question. Answer, yes. The families who go to Bumbershoot, EMP, the Space Needle, the Opera, Events at the Key, the Theaters, etc, etc, etc. Yes, they can afford the ticket. And for the families who can't there is a ton of open space for them to use for free, and a ton of other events at the Center that are also free. And if the Center gets hundreds of thousands dollars more in income per year, expect even more of such cheap or low ticket events. If the Center doesn't get more revenue, expect less. So, I guess you would rather see no museum and less free and inexpensive events. Personally, I'd like to see the Center increase revenues so they can support more low cost family events.
@22 - I love you. And i agree, the Chihuly Museum customers probably aren't 5 Point customers for the most part. And so, @26, it's not that I'm advocating for more 5 Point business, it's that I'm advocating for a financially healthy Seattle Center, which yes, would and does benefit my and several hundred other small businesses. And it also makes my neighborhood in Queen Anne an even better place to live. And I think both are good things for the City.
@33 - Scott, I'm not a journalist so I can't be journalistically dishonest. However, I'll research your numbers. I could be wrong but I seem to recall reading that the reason Fun Forest was losing it's lease was because business was way down and the rent wasn't being paid. Here's one such article - http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo… - from this and other articles I am reading it seems like FF couldn't make it's rent. Sorry If I'm wrong. However the new Museum financial benefits are still stronger either way.
@40 - no I guess not. I think Google maps should show where the park would have been so we can all remember what it's like to have a manufactured dissent created by an alternative weekly cost the City a major benefit paid for by someone with money. We now have all the condos, all the small businesses gone and no park. Brilliant!
Some facts about the museum - it'll generate over $1million per year for the City, it's a 20 year lease or rather 4 5 year leases. It's meant to possibly be gone in 20 years so isn't permanent like say EMP. The City doesn't have the money to build or maintain open space there. The museum doesn't take over the whole footprint of the Fun Forest. Some of that will remain open space - paved open space, hopefully useable for outdoor concerts or something.
52
@51 So you say it's not required, but that depends on city and state law. More importantly, the shame factor. Wouldn't you as a neighboring business owner to Seattle Center, with your 5-Point Cafe, want the best possible project to be in this space? What if something better than the Chihuly Museum was available?
We'd never know unless everyone got to bid.
We'd never know unless everyone got to bid.
53
@46
Clearly, deals were done, and yes, they were done without inviting input from every dipshit in the city with nothing better to do. So?
Think about it - what good has ever come from a design process that was open to everyone? That's where the Master Plan for Seattle Center came from - a plan that would turn a citywide resource into a neighborhood park without a neighborhood. That's a stupid stupid plan, and I would argue that its stupidity is precisely why we're talking about a Chihuly museum right now.
Our best hope now is that some other rich fucker sitting in smoke-filled backroom comes up with a more compelling alternative for Seattle Center, and that he has enough balls to push it past the inevitable throngs of Seattle naysayers.
Clearly, deals were done, and yes, they were done without inviting input from every dipshit in the city with nothing better to do. So?
Think about it - what good has ever come from a design process that was open to everyone? That's where the Master Plan for Seattle Center came from - a plan that would turn a citywide resource into a neighborhood park without a neighborhood. That's a stupid stupid plan, and I would argue that its stupidity is precisely why we're talking about a Chihuly museum right now.
Our best hope now is that some other rich fucker sitting in smoke-filled backroom comes up with a more compelling alternative for Seattle Center, and that he has enough balls to push it past the inevitable throngs of Seattle naysayers.
54
@53,
It's still a *public* resource. If the Wrights don't want this opened to public scrutiny, let them build on private land.
It's still a *public* resource. If the Wrights don't want this opened to public scrutiny, let them build on private land.
55
@53,
And way to backtrack on your own bullshit. Joe is paranoid for complaining about back room deals? STFU.
And way to backtrack on your own bullshit. Joe is paranoid for complaining about back room deals? STFU.
56
Join the Facebook page: "NO to Chihuly at the Needle" We need to show that the funded PR campaign of the Wright / Chihuly Corporation isn't representative of what the people of Seattle want.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-to-Chih…
http://www.facebook.com/pages/NO-to-Chih…
57
@14, clearly you are not a regular stranger reader, nor did you read my comment @10.
@38, what facts am I distorting again?
No one would oppose a Chihuly museum built on private land. Sally Bagshaw's office (alone) has received 440 emails as of this morning, which are against the project 9 to 1.
@38, what facts am I distorting again?
No one would oppose a Chihuly museum built on private land. Sally Bagshaw's office (alone) has received 440 emails as of this morning, which are against the project 9 to 1.
58
@53 Who the hell ever said anything about opening any design process to the world? I sure as hell don't want the final xyz decisions to be done via true direct democracy, since we'd be voting on the ballot or some damn thing.
1. You take input for the master plan, build it out. That's done. It's canon. It's locked in. Moot point. Already been decided.
2. It's increasingly clear something commercial will go in there to replace the Fun Forest, and that's OK. But if it's something that has the majority of responding Seattle residents up in arms, it may not be the best thing. Yeah, dozens of people showed up to vocally support Dale's work for Seattle Center at the meetings. But you know what? Saying or implying they get more voice in 2010 is nonsense. People are busy and can't just drop their family, work, and life commitments to go stand in a crowd for 4 hours to speak to be heard. An email from a resident has as much representative authority as a resident standing at the microphone speaking. And we have hundreds and hundreds speaking, Sally Bagshaw has said.
3. If it ends up that no better deal that Chihuly comes up in spite of this, we're getting Chihuly. And at that point, great. Now, does that suck for, say his ego, or the Wrights' collective ego? Sure, and it would suck if he was reading these comments and getting dumped on. But ego is secondary to the needs of the city. If he's the best fit, he'll be in here and good for him then.
4. Again, it does come down to money here. And that's fine. But we don't know if a Chihuly Museum is the best fiscal investment and return for Seattle here. A Starbucks may literally be a better choice. Or a remote SAM exhibit. Or something else.
1. You take input for the master plan, build it out. That's done. It's canon. It's locked in. Moot point. Already been decided.
2. It's increasingly clear something commercial will go in there to replace the Fun Forest, and that's OK. But if it's something that has the majority of responding Seattle residents up in arms, it may not be the best thing. Yeah, dozens of people showed up to vocally support Dale's work for Seattle Center at the meetings. But you know what? Saying or implying they get more voice in 2010 is nonsense. People are busy and can't just drop their family, work, and life commitments to go stand in a crowd for 4 hours to speak to be heard. An email from a resident has as much representative authority as a resident standing at the microphone speaking. And we have hundreds and hundreds speaking, Sally Bagshaw has said.
3. If it ends up that no better deal that Chihuly comes up in spite of this, we're getting Chihuly. And at that point, great. Now, does that suck for, say his ego, or the Wrights' collective ego? Sure, and it would suck if he was reading these comments and getting dumped on. But ego is secondary to the needs of the city. If he's the best fit, he'll be in here and good for him then.
4. Again, it does come down to money here. And that's fine. But we don't know if a Chihuly Museum is the best fiscal investment and return for Seattle here. A Starbucks may literally be a better choice. Or a remote SAM exhibit. Or something else.
59
You can be assured of one thing: whatever ends up replacing the Fun Forest -- a Chihuly museum + open space, all open space, or something else -- Seattle will manage to fuck it up.
Just look at Olympic Sculpture Park. Sure, it's much better than more condos and office buildings in the same place, but the layout/landscaping is boring and most of the art is the same. Had this park been created in Berlin or Barcelona or Boston, it would have been much more welcoming, interesting and aesthetically appealing.
Just look at Olympic Sculpture Park. Sure, it's much better than more condos and office buildings in the same place, but the layout/landscaping is boring and most of the art is the same. Had this park been created in Berlin or Barcelona or Boston, it would have been much more welcoming, interesting and aesthetically appealing.
60
@10
Cienna, why didn't you mention your role as an activist on this issue? Why do I have to read about that in the comments? Seriously, how could you leave that out?
Disappointing.
Cienna, why didn't you mention your role as an activist on this issue? Why do I have to read about that in the comments? Seriously, how could you leave that out?
Disappointing.
61
Uh, how is this so under-reported?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
I had to literally rummage around with custom queries in Google News to find this little factoid from March 25th, that the process is already stopped and we're going public bid after all.
Hey guys, how about a fresh post reporting this?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
I had to literally rummage around with custom queries in Google News to find this little factoid from March 25th, that the process is already stopped and we're going public bid after all.
Hey guys, how about a fresh post reporting this?
62
@55
I'm not backtracking - my point is that just because a deal is made in a so called "back room" doesn't mean it's a shitty deal, and it's likely to be better than anything pooped out by a fully transparent, fully democratic process.
@58
Joe - if all you want is an open bid, I think that's reasonable as I've said. I doubt that anything better will come along, but you are right - it doesn't hurt to try.
I'm not backtracking - my point is that just because a deal is made in a so called "back room" doesn't mean it's a shitty deal, and it's likely to be better than anything pooped out by a fully transparent, fully democratic process.
@58
Joe - if all you want is an open bid, I think that's reasonable as I've said. I doubt that anything better will come along, but you are right - it doesn't hurt to try.
63
@57 Nice try, you only let us in on that piece of info when you were called out. IN THE COMMENTS FOLLOWING YOUR ARTICLE. I am simply astounded by your complete lack of journalistic ethics. What the hell is going on at the Stranger?
64
I see the pro-Chihuly PR flacks are out in force. "justdandy" I'm calling you out! Registered at thestranger.com yesterday and four pro-pirate comments later, you're not fooling anybody.
65
@32:
I think it needs pointing out that NONE of the entities you cite, with the exception of the Center House food court vendors, are PRIVATE in the sense I think you mean, but are in fact non-profit organizations, including EMP. They aren't owned BY any individual or corporation, and as 501(c)3 tax exempt entities they are legally mandated to provide cultural and educational activities to serve the public interest, and they certainly aren't putting what excess income they do make into the hands of private individuals.
A tax-exempt non-profit organization is something very different from a privately owned corporation, even one attempting to disguise itself under the rubric of a "museum", which, in the mind of most people at least, implies it serves some public need or benefit, which is really not the case here.
Setting aside the broader question of whether or not Chihuly's craftwork constitutes "art", the sole purpose of this enterprise is to make money for its owners, period. If the Wrights truly were interested in doing this to serve "the public interest", then why aren't they setting up a non-profit corporation to maintain and display the collection? Even Paul Allen went that far.
Meinert, if the Wrights are so good at making $$, why do they need the subsidy of using public land in order to do so? Again, the ONLY reason they want this site is in order to leverage a piece of property they own (and yes, they DO own the land on which the Space Needle sits) right next to it. You can be damned sure that, if the Space Needle were located elsewhere than Seattle Center, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the Wrights would have no interest whatsoever in that particular parcel.
As they say in the real-estate biz, "it's all about location, location, location"...
More...
I think it needs pointing out that NONE of the entities you cite, with the exception of the Center House food court vendors, are PRIVATE in the sense I think you mean, but are in fact non-profit organizations, including EMP. They aren't owned BY any individual or corporation, and as 501(c)3 tax exempt entities they are legally mandated to provide cultural and educational activities to serve the public interest, and they certainly aren't putting what excess income they do make into the hands of private individuals.
A tax-exempt non-profit organization is something very different from a privately owned corporation, even one attempting to disguise itself under the rubric of a "museum", which, in the mind of most people at least, implies it serves some public need or benefit, which is really not the case here.
Setting aside the broader question of whether or not Chihuly's craftwork constitutes "art", the sole purpose of this enterprise is to make money for its owners, period. If the Wrights truly were interested in doing this to serve "the public interest", then why aren't they setting up a non-profit corporation to maintain and display the collection? Even Paul Allen went that far.
Meinert, if the Wrights are so good at making $$, why do they need the subsidy of using public land in order to do so? Again, the ONLY reason they want this site is in order to leverage a piece of property they own (and yes, they DO own the land on which the Space Needle sits) right next to it. You can be damned sure that, if the Space Needle were located elsewhere than Seattle Center, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, because the Wrights would have no interest whatsoever in that particular parcel.
As they say in the real-estate biz, "it's all about location, location, location"...
66
The city will seek public bids to compete with a proposed 44,000-square-foot exhibit of Dale Chihuly glass art at Seattle Center.
Criticism over the lack of public input about the project forced the decision, Seattle Center spokeswoman Deborah Daoust said Thursday. "Now it seems that there's been enough said in the media and enough negative thoughts floating in the atmosphere that we felt that the public process needs to be broadened," Daoust said.
Details of a bidding process have not been worked out.
I'm not a Chihuly-hater so I don't think a museum showcasing his glass is inherently evil, but there should be other ideas and bids.
On the other hand, this being Seattle, a city which took ten years to decide to install five public toilets, the public process will not only be broadened but lengthened. It will probably take five years to work out the details of the bidding process and then another five-ten years to actually decide on something. And then, whatever is ultimately chosen is going to suck.
Criticism over the lack of public input about the project forced the decision, Seattle Center spokeswoman Deborah Daoust said Thursday. "Now it seems that there's been enough said in the media and enough negative thoughts floating in the atmosphere that we felt that the public process needs to be broadened," Daoust said.
Details of a bidding process have not been worked out.
I'm not a Chihuly-hater so I don't think a museum showcasing his glass is inherently evil, but there should be other ideas and bids.
On the other hand, this being Seattle, a city which took ten years to decide to install five public toilets, the public process will not only be broadened but lengthened. It will probably take five years to work out the details of the bidding process and then another five-ten years to actually decide on something. And then, whatever is ultimately chosen is going to suck.
67
I've started to receive responses to my original e-mail asking the mayor and council to reconsider. Mayor McGinn, Jean Godden and Tim Burgess have all responded to me with thoughtful answers. I think we're really being heard!
68
@51
Meinert, Fnarf's point @15 is intelligent and you ought to respond to it.
When you start putting a price tag on the public resources of the city's legacy and selling them off, where does it end? You could carve out a few acres of land on any of our parks and imagine a private way to exploit and commercialize it that could net the city $1 million per year here, and $1 million per year there. You could argue, "What is the city getting now for paying to maintain this corner of Cal Anderson park when it could be bringing in a million per year? Think of all the things the city could do with another $1 million per year!"
And then your rhetoric really does a flip when you presume that the $1 million per year is already in the budget and accuse Chihuly factory outlet store opponents of wanting to take $1 million per year out of the budget. Bravo, sir.
You also said …"open space". Whatever that means.
Seriously? You do not know what open space means? Because if in all honesty you don't know what open space means and what the value of it is, I will be happy explain it to you. But I think you do know.
Meinert, Fnarf's point @15 is intelligent and you ought to respond to it.
When you start putting a price tag on the public resources of the city's legacy and selling them off, where does it end? You could carve out a few acres of land on any of our parks and imagine a private way to exploit and commercialize it that could net the city $1 million per year here, and $1 million per year there. You could argue, "What is the city getting now for paying to maintain this corner of Cal Anderson park when it could be bringing in a million per year? Think of all the things the city could do with another $1 million per year!"
And then your rhetoric really does a flip when you presume that the $1 million per year is already in the budget and accuse Chihuly factory outlet store opponents of wanting to take $1 million per year out of the budget. Bravo, sir.
You also said …"open space". Whatever that means.
Seriously? You do not know what open space means? Because if in all honesty you don't know what open space means and what the value of it is, I will be happy explain it to you. But I think you do know.
70
I believe Seattle Public Schools has under used property within walking distance of the proposed site. I am surprised SPS and the proponants of the glass exhibition haven't considered these properties as potenial lease sites. It would be advantageous to both parties from a revenue standpoint to the SPS and the exhibition's desire to support the community.
71
@67, I've also started receiving responses back. Only one councilperson has been completely non-committal & generic (the 'thanks for your input & I'll take it under advisement' sorta thing) while a couple have spoken about their own concerns with the project.
The mayor, however, was about as wishy-washy and spineless as possible. After I wrote back, pointing out that his initial response didn't addressed my direct concerns about the Chihuly Museum proposal, I received "The mayor is not supporting this project, but he's not saying no either."
At the same time, he's willing to let a new bidding process and public opinion (especially public opinion) direct what happens. He's perfectly willing to toss aside the master plan if something that works (financially) and isn't publicly condemned comes out before the next phase is funded. As was rhetorically asked in the email I received, "...should we simply say no to every proposed project that doesn't line up perfectly with the Plan, while the Plan gathers dust for lack of funding?"
The mayor purports to understand that this recession won't last forever, but it's clear the present budget is very much in the forefront of his mind. I fully expect a number of short-term decisions to be made that may not be in the city's best long-term interests.
The mayor, however, was about as wishy-washy and spineless as possible. After I wrote back, pointing out that his initial response didn't addressed my direct concerns about the Chihuly Museum proposal, I received "The mayor is not supporting this project, but he's not saying no either."
At the same time, he's willing to let a new bidding process and public opinion (especially public opinion) direct what happens. He's perfectly willing to toss aside the master plan if something that works (financially) and isn't publicly condemned comes out before the next phase is funded. As was rhetorically asked in the email I received, "...should we simply say no to every proposed project that doesn't line up perfectly with the Plan, while the Plan gathers dust for lack of funding?"
The mayor purports to understand that this recession won't last forever, but it's clear the present budget is very much in the forefront of his mind. I fully expect a number of short-term decisions to be made that may not be in the city's best long-term interests.
72
If this is underreported, I wonder why my email inbox has all those nice emails from City Council in response to it ...
73
Since the Belltown woman wants to compare the proposed Chihuly museum to the Sculpture Park let me make my own comparison.
The Waterfront Streetcar was shut down to make way for the Sculpture Park. The Fun Forest has to move for the Chihuly Museum. This smacks of cultural elitism.
The Waterfront Streetcar was shut down to make way for the Sculpture Park. The Fun Forest has to move for the Chihuly Museum. This smacks of cultural elitism.
74
The under utilized enclosed space already identified on the master plan would make a fine home for whatever bullshit the Space Needle wants to put there.
Know what is going on in Fisher Plaza over the next couple weeks?
Not a fucking thing.
Northwest rooms have a schedule full of NOTHING.
Lastly, turn the responsibility for the enclosed spaces to the new Public Facilities District.
Know what is going on in Fisher Plaza over the next couple weeks?
Not a fucking thing.
Northwest rooms have a schedule full of NOTHING.
Lastly, turn the responsibility for the enclosed spaces to the new Public Facilities District.
75
@57 Exactly, Cienna. You only admitted your participation in a post after someone called you out. Why weren't you more up front about your opinions? You have lost credibility by omitting your role.
@64, Cienna Madrid is the only flack here writing an opinion while being paid, but thank you for taking the time to read all my posts. Hopefully you will see my point that a "journalist" has no business reporting on a subject that she is actively involved in. Fair enough?
@64, Cienna Madrid is the only flack here writing an opinion while being paid, but thank you for taking the time to read all my posts. Hopefully you will see my point that a "journalist" has no business reporting on a subject that she is actively involved in. Fair enough?
77
Cienna, you seem to be reporting on this proposal, and at the same time, (based on your other blog posts), speaking as an activist against this proposal. I don't think that is ultimately good for creating an honest civil debate. IMHO.
Entering into a discussion where my support of the Chihuly exhibit by the Needle is labeled as "cheerleading", is automatically dismissive of the opinion that you are supposedly soliciting. So rather than enter into that self defeating argument, I'll pose a question of my own:
Why is the editorial board of The Stranger is so strongly against this?
Entering into a discussion where my support of the Chihuly exhibit by the Needle is labeled as "cheerleading", is automatically dismissive of the opinion that you are supposedly soliciting. So rather than enter into that self defeating argument, I'll pose a question of my own:
Why is the editorial board of The Stranger is so strongly against this?
78
I've received various mails this afternoon from Jean Godden, Tom Rasmussen, and Mike McGinn, as others are. I don't think everyone is getting wholly canned mails, since the replies all addressed my specifically worded concerns--you couldn't can this stuff. Some of the Council's or the Mayor's (or their staff's) attention is here on and on their mail.
Also, April in the Mayor's office said it was OK to pass this on, so, in addition the open bidding process they're sorting out the details on:
"I have directed Robert Nellams, Director of Seattle Center, to issue a request for proposals to find out what ideas community members have for the space."
Any attempts to rush or sneak this through that either intentionally or inadvertantly got going are now getting derailed. It may have all been with the best of intentions--or not--but it's clearly pissed off a lot of people and our guys downtown have listened.
Also, April in the Mayor's office said it was OK to pass this on, so, in addition the open bidding process they're sorting out the details on:
"I have directed Robert Nellams, Director of Seattle Center, to issue a request for proposals to find out what ideas community members have for the space."
Any attempts to rush or sneak this through that either intentionally or inadvertantly got going are now getting derailed. It may have all been with the best of intentions--or not--but it's clearly pissed off a lot of people and our guys downtown have listened.
79
@Free Lunch #61 It's been a long time (besides when I stupidly stick my nose into http://soundpolitics.com) that I've gotten flamed on a corner of the web populated by supposed "like minded people". Strange days. But yeah.
@senotonein #71 I didn't get that tone from McGinn at all. He's worried about the numbers, but he's essentially the city's CEO. That's his ultimate job--no numbers, everything starts to fall apart. He seems to be willing to support whatever the most people prefer, as long as it keeps Seattle Center operational. That's the right way for him to be taking it. There's no other option he really even has, since we're not in the overall black right now.
@volcanic #77 I get the feeling that A) some of them don't like Chihuly; B) some of them are seeing it as a classist thing which is fine, given the editorial role the Stranger fills; C) some of them like myself and others flipped over the closed nature of the show; and D) a combination of all of them. A news source is allowed to take a position, and their staff allowed to speak up. Reporters certainly don't have to exempt themselves from the political process. We're entitled to call bullshit if they abuse that, though. Like we do to Fox or the Seattle Times constantly.
@senotonein #71 I didn't get that tone from McGinn at all. He's worried about the numbers, but he's essentially the city's CEO. That's his ultimate job--no numbers, everything starts to fall apart. He seems to be willing to support whatever the most people prefer, as long as it keeps Seattle Center operational. That's the right way for him to be taking it. There's no other option he really even has, since we're not in the overall black right now.
@volcanic #77 I get the feeling that A) some of them don't like Chihuly; B) some of them are seeing it as a classist thing which is fine, given the editorial role the Stranger fills; C) some of them like myself and others flipped over the closed nature of the show; and D) a combination of all of them. A news source is allowed to take a position, and their staff allowed to speak up. Reporters certainly don't have to exempt themselves from the political process. We're entitled to call bullshit if they abuse that, though. Like we do to Fox or the Seattle Times constantly.
80
@69
My response is @62.
Honestly, I really hope something better comes along than GRASS or GLASS, but I fear this city will once again be fucked over by its warring factions, fetish for process, rampant paranoia, and stubborn opinions, all of which have been on proud display here at Slog.
My response is @62.
Honestly, I really hope something better comes along than GRASS or GLASS, but I fear this city will once again be fucked over by its warring factions, fetish for process, rampant paranoia, and stubborn opinions, all of which have been on proud display here at Slog.
82
@65 "I think it needs pointing out that NONE of the entities you cite, with the exception of the Center House food court vendors, are PRIVATE in the sense I think you mean"
WRONG. Of the entities I mentioned, the Space Needle, food court, and now defunct Fun Forest are ALL FOR PROFIT. Renters I didn't mention include the Seattle Storm, Michael Franti and Spearhead (who I saw at Key Arena this week), Avatar the movie (saw it in 3d at the IMAX), the lovably cheesy Frontier Gallery, Warren Miller Productions (played last year at McCaw Hall), the balloon man, that dude with the Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix marionettes, and an abundance of other interesting private for-profit enterprises that distinguish Seattle Center, just barely, from the bleakness of East Berlin circa 1987.
P.S. Please tell me that's NOT an anarchy tattoo on your arm.
WRONG. Of the entities I mentioned, the Space Needle, food court, and now defunct Fun Forest are ALL FOR PROFIT. Renters I didn't mention include the Seattle Storm, Michael Franti and Spearhead (who I saw at Key Arena this week), Avatar the movie (saw it in 3d at the IMAX), the lovably cheesy Frontier Gallery, Warren Miller Productions (played last year at McCaw Hall), the balloon man, that dude with the Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix marionettes, and an abundance of other interesting private for-profit enterprises that distinguish Seattle Center, just barely, from the bleakness of East Berlin circa 1987.
P.S. Please tell me that's NOT an anarchy tattoo on your arm.
83
justdandy and seandr seem just a little too invested in this debate, I wonder who they work for. For them to attack Cienna for having opinions is a little over the top.
The supporters of the Chiluly museum at Seattle Center want to minimize people's concerns. Here are a few of mine.
--there was no public process about a beloved public space. We only get one chance to decide on how to use this space for the next 50 years.
--this continues the trend towards privatizing the Seattle Center for the well to do.
--personally, I love the Museum of Glass in Tacoma. It has some amazing displays. But it doesn't kiss Chiluly's ass, so I guess he needs his own museum in Seattle. This will hurt Tacoma, and I guess you can say who cares, but that doesn't make you very nice.
--the argument that this is free infrastructure, you can't even afford a park is shortsighted. Just because economic times are tough doesn't mean we should not make wise decisions about our future. If we want inner Seattle to be as dense as it should, we need great parks like Seattle Center. And we need to review each decision wisely.
Now go ahead and flame me too for a fetish for process, rampant paranoia, and stubborn opinions. But attacking people with questions seems a odd way to try and convince people this is a good thing to do.
The supporters of the Chiluly museum at Seattle Center want to minimize people's concerns. Here are a few of mine.
--there was no public process about a beloved public space. We only get one chance to decide on how to use this space for the next 50 years.
--this continues the trend towards privatizing the Seattle Center for the well to do.
--personally, I love the Museum of Glass in Tacoma. It has some amazing displays. But it doesn't kiss Chiluly's ass, so I guess he needs his own museum in Seattle. This will hurt Tacoma, and I guess you can say who cares, but that doesn't make you very nice.
--the argument that this is free infrastructure, you can't even afford a park is shortsighted. Just because economic times are tough doesn't mean we should not make wise decisions about our future. If we want inner Seattle to be as dense as it should, we need great parks like Seattle Center. And we need to review each decision wisely.
Now go ahead and flame me too for a fetish for process, rampant paranoia, and stubborn opinions. But attacking people with questions seems a odd way to try and convince people this is a good thing to do.
84
westside - thanks for being civil. And I agree the people attacking Cienna have gone to far. Cienna and Dom, I think your arguments are incredibly biased and the reporting is one-sided, but hacks you're not. We can and should have better dialogue.
Westside - a few answers to your point.
Public process is going to happen, so that argument is over.
This museum will be a lot nicer than the Tacoma space. And the lease is not forever on this space, it's for 20 years and the building is only $15 mil. The Wright's can make their money back and a nice profit over that time, and then something else can happen in that space when and if the City can afford it. In the next 20 years there will be no shortage of places for the City to spend money elsewhere.
Could there be something better in this space? maybe, but this is pretty nice and it's paid for. I don't get the hate for this idea. But either way, nice we got the fireworks back.
Westside - a few answers to your point.
Public process is going to happen, so that argument is over.
This museum will be a lot nicer than the Tacoma space. And the lease is not forever on this space, it's for 20 years and the building is only $15 mil. The Wright's can make their money back and a nice profit over that time, and then something else can happen in that space when and if the City can afford it. In the next 20 years there will be no shortage of places for the City to spend money elsewhere.
Could there be something better in this space? maybe, but this is pretty nice and it's paid for. I don't get the hate for this idea. But either way, nice we got the fireworks back.
85
Cienna's grasp of journalistic ethics is about as sloppy as Erica C. Barnett's grasp of wine bottles.
Sorry, this is a fireable offense at most 'newspapers', not stating you're an activist for a cause you're reporting on.
Sorry, this is a fireable offense at most 'newspapers', not stating you're an activist for a cause you're reporting on.
86
@83 the Stranger's lopsided reporting on this issue is largely framing the debate on this blog and others. I am not being paid for my opinion on this issue; but I am in support of this project and it pisses me off the way the Stranger is presenting it.
I was at both Tuesday's and Thursday's meetings. I witnessed Cienna Madrid hanging with Sally Bagshaw and her aids on Thursday during the meeting, I witnessed her speak out against the project that night, too.
As a "journalist", for her to call her opposition "cheerleaders" and "paid participants" while she is clearly in Bagshaw's camp is hypocritical and unethical. For her to claim people in favor of the project were "bribed" is slanderous and she needs to be called on her bullshit.
I was at both Tuesday's and Thursday's meetings. I witnessed Cienna Madrid hanging with Sally Bagshaw and her aids on Thursday during the meeting, I witnessed her speak out against the project that night, too.
As a "journalist", for her to call her opposition "cheerleaders" and "paid participants" while she is clearly in Bagshaw's camp is hypocritical and unethical. For her to claim people in favor of the project were "bribed" is slanderous and she needs to be called on her bullshit.
87
This was posted yesterday on Seattle Center's city.gov site:
Q: "How will private development of the southeast area of the Fun Forest affect public space at Seattle Center?"
A: "It won’t have an effect on public space at Seattle Center. The site of the proposed Chihuly Glass Exhibition was never public space. It has been leased to Fun Forest Amusements, LLC, a private, family-owned company, since 1963. What the Center gains as a result of the Fun Forest departure is three new acres of open, activated public space.
Complete Q & A at: http://centerspotlight.seattle.gov/2010/…
Q: "How will private development of the southeast area of the Fun Forest affect public space at Seattle Center?"
A: "It won’t have an effect on public space at Seattle Center. The site of the proposed Chihuly Glass Exhibition was never public space. It has been leased to Fun Forest Amusements, LLC, a private, family-owned company, since 1963. What the Center gains as a result of the Fun Forest departure is three new acres of open, activated public space.
Complete Q & A at: http://centerspotlight.seattle.gov/2010/…
88
Let me be clear, I'm not attacking Cienna for being an advocate. We could do without the name calling.
But I would rather not see this debate descend into hurling talking points at each other. The "glass-tro-Turf" tag is clever, and the turnout on Tuesday was a surprise to the committee and the haste to move the venue probably disrupted efforts to have smooth and balanced speaking assignment. It wasn't a sinister plot by the Chihuly exhibit supports to silence the opposition. And the Thursday meeting seemed far more civil. Everyone who wanted to speak got a turn. And at the end when Cienna didn't see her opinion voiced she took a turn at the microphone.
I don't think I'm trying to create a "false sense of urgency" to make a decision on the project. I feel a sense of urgency of preventing the two sides of the argument framing the debate that locks them into their separate echo chambers. I don't like it when it happens nationally, and I don't want to see it happen locally. I think Seattle is better than that. Perhaps I am naive.
Joe Szilyagi is correct. This reaction, has a lot to do with the process. Springing it out as a done deal was a mistake. So opening up the process is good. Sally Bagshaw did a good job of facilitating an open process at the meeting. But lets have an open minded process as well, where we debate the merits of whatever proposals arise. Not an open process to buy time to stop one specific proposal.
But I would rather not see this debate descend into hurling talking points at each other. The "glass-tro-Turf" tag is clever, and the turnout on Tuesday was a surprise to the committee and the haste to move the venue probably disrupted efforts to have smooth and balanced speaking assignment. It wasn't a sinister plot by the Chihuly exhibit supports to silence the opposition. And the Thursday meeting seemed far more civil. Everyone who wanted to speak got a turn. And at the end when Cienna didn't see her opinion voiced she took a turn at the microphone.
I don't think I'm trying to create a "false sense of urgency" to make a decision on the project. I feel a sense of urgency of preventing the two sides of the argument framing the debate that locks them into their separate echo chambers. I don't like it when it happens nationally, and I don't want to see it happen locally. I think Seattle is better than that. Perhaps I am naive.
Joe Szilyagi is correct. This reaction, has a lot to do with the process. Springing it out as a done deal was a mistake. So opening up the process is good. Sally Bagshaw did a good job of facilitating an open process at the meeting. But lets have an open minded process as well, where we debate the merits of whatever proposals arise. Not an open process to buy time to stop one specific proposal.
90
@Justdandy and meinert, you guys willing to answer this question?
If another privately funded project was projected to bring in more money and annual visitor headcount to the city than the Chihuly project, would you be willing to support that other project instead? Is it about what's best for Seattle Center and the city, or is it about the Chihuly project?
If another privately funded project was projected to bring in more money and annual visitor headcount to the city than the Chihuly project, would you be willing to support that other project instead? Is it about what's best for Seattle Center and the city, or is it about the Chihuly project?
91
Joe - depends on the project. First, though I'm not a fan of glass art in general, Chihuly is local and has a great draw. I think his work fits in with some aesthetic of Seattle Center - the Space Needle, EMP, McCaw Hall etc. It's not just about headcount. If say, we were talking about a Madonna museum, I wouldn't be so excited.
But, if it was something that didn't clash with the Space Needle, EMP, Center House, etc, and generally supported other aspects of the Center, I'd be happy to support it, sure. Especially if it was art or music based and had a local focus, even better.
To be clear, I have no ties to Chihuly, or the Wrights, etc.
But, if it was something that didn't clash with the Space Needle, EMP, Center House, etc, and generally supported other aspects of the Center, I'd be happy to support it, sure. Especially if it was art or music based and had a local focus, even better.
To be clear, I have no ties to Chihuly, or the Wrights, etc.
92
Joe,
If the outcome of this public debate and RFP process results in another project that generates more money AND adds cultural vibrancy that is unique to the PNW, than I would absolutely support it.
Chihuly isn't necessarily my cup of tea, but I have great respect for how he has transformed the paradigm of glass craft into an art and his doing so has made Seattle THE place for glass. I think this is something unique to Seattle, something worth celebrating. Further, Chihuly has the established track record of his shows around the world bringing in tons of people. To me, it seems like an obvious choice, considering it isn't going to cost the public anything and the multiple 5 year lease setup doesn't make this a permanent thing if it doesn't work.
That said, I think it's great people are so interested in this issue, and if we ultimately end up with something else that meets the financially viable criteria and the Fun Forest area doesn't sit as a black abyss for the next 20 years than it's a win-win for all.
If the outcome of this public debate and RFP process results in another project that generates more money AND adds cultural vibrancy that is unique to the PNW, than I would absolutely support it.
Chihuly isn't necessarily my cup of tea, but I have great respect for how he has transformed the paradigm of glass craft into an art and his doing so has made Seattle THE place for glass. I think this is something unique to Seattle, something worth celebrating. Further, Chihuly has the established track record of his shows around the world bringing in tons of people. To me, it seems like an obvious choice, considering it isn't going to cost the public anything and the multiple 5 year lease setup doesn't make this a permanent thing if it doesn't work.
That said, I think it's great people are so interested in this issue, and if we ultimately end up with something else that meets the financially viable criteria and the Fun Forest area doesn't sit as a black abyss for the next 20 years than it's a win-win for all.
93
@82:
As has been mentioned numerous times, the Space Needle does NOT, repeat NOT sit on the Seattle Center grounds, it's on private property adjacent to the grounds, not the same thing, at least so far as your argument is concerned, because the Center has no control over what happens on that property.
As for the other privately owned entities you cite (and nice job there tossing in a few that you neglected to include in your previous post; as if I was supposed to address things in my response which you failed to address yourself), all of those are lease tenants who don't own the buildings in which they operate(d). In addition, those buildings were designed specifically to be re-purposed for a multiplicity of uses, which would simply be impossible to do with this building, as proposed.
So let's say in 20 or 15 years (or whenever the the initial flood of lookie-loos dwindles to a trickle and the Wrights decide their brilliant scheme isn't pulling in sufficient income to meet operating expenses) the Wrights give up on the museum; to whom does the building revert? It's a question I haven't seen addressed as-yet, or perhaps I missed it, but who will actually OWN this edifice? The Wrights? If so, are they going to cough up 100% of the dough to build the thing? The Center? If so, is the public going to be expected to contribute to its construction? And if the former, what happens if the Center decides they want the land for another purpose some years down the road? Will there be a big legal cluster-fuck involved? And if the latter, what the fuck is the Center going to do with a ginormous glass pavilion designed for a specific purpose, if that purpose goes away?
Aside from being a complete and utter usurpation of the 2008 Master Plan, which will have the effect of opening the genii's bottle to all sorts of other "modifications", there are still too many unanswered questions in my mind to allow this proposal to move forward.
If the Wrights were willing to donate their collection to a non-profit and have that entity run the museum, as Allen did with EMP/SFM, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this proposal. But as a for-profit venture, with the creation of what will essentially be a one-use only infrastructure not very adaptable to future non-Chihuly museum uses, the only modest income for the Center ($500K representing approximately 14% of its 2009 operating budget of roughly $35 mm), combined with the potential for the wholesale dismantlement of the Center Master Plan, makes this proposal a bad investment for the City, IMO.
More...
As has been mentioned numerous times, the Space Needle does NOT, repeat NOT sit on the Seattle Center grounds, it's on private property adjacent to the grounds, not the same thing, at least so far as your argument is concerned, because the Center has no control over what happens on that property.
As for the other privately owned entities you cite (and nice job there tossing in a few that you neglected to include in your previous post; as if I was supposed to address things in my response which you failed to address yourself), all of those are lease tenants who don't own the buildings in which they operate(d). In addition, those buildings were designed specifically to be re-purposed for a multiplicity of uses, which would simply be impossible to do with this building, as proposed.
So let's say in 20 or 15 years (or whenever the the initial flood of lookie-loos dwindles to a trickle and the Wrights decide their brilliant scheme isn't pulling in sufficient income to meet operating expenses) the Wrights give up on the museum; to whom does the building revert? It's a question I haven't seen addressed as-yet, or perhaps I missed it, but who will actually OWN this edifice? The Wrights? If so, are they going to cough up 100% of the dough to build the thing? The Center? If so, is the public going to be expected to contribute to its construction? And if the former, what happens if the Center decides they want the land for another purpose some years down the road? Will there be a big legal cluster-fuck involved? And if the latter, what the fuck is the Center going to do with a ginormous glass pavilion designed for a specific purpose, if that purpose goes away?
Aside from being a complete and utter usurpation of the 2008 Master Plan, which will have the effect of opening the genii's bottle to all sorts of other "modifications", there are still too many unanswered questions in my mind to allow this proposal to move forward.
If the Wrights were willing to donate their collection to a non-profit and have that entity run the museum, as Allen did with EMP/SFM, I'd be a lot more comfortable with this proposal. But as a for-profit venture, with the creation of what will essentially be a one-use only infrastructure not very adaptable to future non-Chihuly museum uses, the only modest income for the Center ($500K representing approximately 14% of its 2009 operating budget of roughly $35 mm), combined with the potential for the wholesale dismantlement of the Center Master Plan, makes this proposal a bad investment for the City, IMO.
94
Comte - I in no way want to become a spokesperson for this idea but there is so much misinformation coming in these comments I feel someone needs to respond.
You say: "In addition, those buildings were designed specifically to be re-purposed for a multiplicity of uses, which would simply be impossible to do with this building, as proposed."
The museum will be in the building that is currently an arcade. From what I've read and discussed with people, this building will be redone with funds from the Wrights, and then leased to them for the Chihuly exhibit. The lease is of the property and building. It is 4, 5 years leases, and the whole thing returns to the City in 20 years (or the lease could be continued at the City's option). Many things could be done with this building in 20 years. More than can be done with the current building, which is not in any way designed to be re-purposed, whatever that means. Many other buildings on the Center grounds, the Imax theater, The Science Center, MCaw Hall, etc, etc, are not built to be "re-purposed". Most of the buildings on grounds would take a large capital investment to be re-purposed. Ask Vera. They did that with one space. Not impossible to take a shell and turn it into a music and youth venue, but not cheap. The same will be true of the Chihuly museum building I'm sure.
To answer your other questions, the museum building reverts to Seattle Center when the lease expires. As to who pays for the build out, it sounds like the Wrights to the tune of $15 million. Normally the Center, as any landlord, would cover some improvements. I can't say for sure that they aren't, and with a $500,000 per year lease, I wouldn't be surprised if the Center was covering some costs. That would be normal. But possibly the Center is not. Hopefully someone from the Center could cover this question.
The "Master Plan" allows for flexibility. And taking into consideration the whole of the Fun Forest space, much of it will become open space, the rest, space where a building now exists, will become the museum. Hardly a "complete and utter usurpation of the 2008 Master Plan". Flexibility allows for plans to be changed based on the current situation. The current situation being that the City is broke, with no change in sight, and someone wanting to invest in the Center.
If you knew anything about how the "non-profit" at the EMP has been run since its inception, you might not be wanting something similar to run this museum (although EMP seems to be a bit better these days). But the Fun Forest space in question is now run by a for-profit company, so we wouldn't see a change there. If the Fun Forest were allowed to keep their lease, would your objections be the same?
The Center is a 74 acre campus, with 17 acres of open space. It will be getting more open space with the Fun Forest going away, not less. Of that 74 acres, the Museum would take up only about 4% of it, but would, according to Comte, generate 14% of the Center's revenue. It would also generate more money through admissions tax to the City, Sales tax to the State, and more of the same via more sales to neighboring small businesses. Sounds like a great investment for the City! Any businessperson would take it without blinking, especially since there is NO investment, the Wrights are paying for it.
More...
You say: "In addition, those buildings were designed specifically to be re-purposed for a multiplicity of uses, which would simply be impossible to do with this building, as proposed."
The museum will be in the building that is currently an arcade. From what I've read and discussed with people, this building will be redone with funds from the Wrights, and then leased to them for the Chihuly exhibit. The lease is of the property and building. It is 4, 5 years leases, and the whole thing returns to the City in 20 years (or the lease could be continued at the City's option). Many things could be done with this building in 20 years. More than can be done with the current building, which is not in any way designed to be re-purposed, whatever that means. Many other buildings on the Center grounds, the Imax theater, The Science Center, MCaw Hall, etc, etc, are not built to be "re-purposed". Most of the buildings on grounds would take a large capital investment to be re-purposed. Ask Vera. They did that with one space. Not impossible to take a shell and turn it into a music and youth venue, but not cheap. The same will be true of the Chihuly museum building I'm sure.
To answer your other questions, the museum building reverts to Seattle Center when the lease expires. As to who pays for the build out, it sounds like the Wrights to the tune of $15 million. Normally the Center, as any landlord, would cover some improvements. I can't say for sure that they aren't, and with a $500,000 per year lease, I wouldn't be surprised if the Center was covering some costs. That would be normal. But possibly the Center is not. Hopefully someone from the Center could cover this question.
The "Master Plan" allows for flexibility. And taking into consideration the whole of the Fun Forest space, much of it will become open space, the rest, space where a building now exists, will become the museum. Hardly a "complete and utter usurpation of the 2008 Master Plan". Flexibility allows for plans to be changed based on the current situation. The current situation being that the City is broke, with no change in sight, and someone wanting to invest in the Center.
If you knew anything about how the "non-profit" at the EMP has been run since its inception, you might not be wanting something similar to run this museum (although EMP seems to be a bit better these days). But the Fun Forest space in question is now run by a for-profit company, so we wouldn't see a change there. If the Fun Forest were allowed to keep their lease, would your objections be the same?
The Center is a 74 acre campus, with 17 acres of open space. It will be getting more open space with the Fun Forest going away, not less. Of that 74 acres, the Museum would take up only about 4% of it, but would, according to Comte, generate 14% of the Center's revenue. It would also generate more money through admissions tax to the City, Sales tax to the State, and more of the same via more sales to neighboring small businesses. Sounds like a great investment for the City! Any businessperson would take it without blinking, especially since there is NO investment, the Wrights are paying for it.
95
Oops, wrong again. I meant that the new space will take up 1.5% of the Seattle Center, so 14% of the Center's budget would be paid by 1.5% of it's space. Pretty sweet.
96
Funny, I don't recall IMAX technology being around in 1962 when the U.S. Science Pavilion, now known as the Pacific Science Center, was constructed. And when was the last time you were inside PSC? It's basically a series of very large, very open interconnected rooms that could easily be repurposed for other uses should the Science Center ever go belly-up. Same goes for most of the other buildings you cite (McCaw/Opera House being, perhaps the sole exception), as was essentially every other space left over from the World's Fair. In fact, the only building on the site that predates the Century 21 exposition is the Center House itself, which was formerly the National Guard Armory. So, yes, in point of fact, most of the buildings on the Center grounds HAVE been repurposed, and of those that haven't, that's simply because there's been no need to repurpose them.
And yes, there have been lots of environmental and structural regulations enacted post-Fair that makes doing so rather costly, but certainly not impossible. Heck even the venerated Space Needle has seen it's share of major re-mods over the years (that mid-tier section, for example). The point is, these structures were intentionally designed to be somewhat malleable, which is one of the reasons they've lasted nearly 50 years now. But, from what I've seen of the Wright's proposed design for the Chihuly museum, the same cannot be said for this structure.
Assuming the Fun Forest could pay their bills on-time, no I wouldn't have any inherent objections, except that removal of the Fun Forest has been part of the Master Plan for quite some time. So, rather than maintaining a status quo as you suggest, siting the Chihuly museum on the same location would, IMO, be a step backwards. And at least one isn't required to pay $14 for the privilege of walking through the Fun Forest, which is itself a point in its favor.
And of course, any BUSINESS would jump at this opportunity, which is precisely what the Wrights are attempting. But, I, and the other citizens of this city shouldn't have to always weigh our decisions based on business considerations; what's good for business (or in this case one particular business) isn't necessarily good for everyone else, and if the choice is between making a sweetheart deal with the Wrights in order to allow them to earn millions of dollars, versus knocking down the Fun Forest and turning that plot of land into a big, grassy open space that everyone can enjoy without paying admission, well, it's really not something I have to consider for very long before making up my mind.
Oh, and -
"It would also generate more money through admissions tax to the City, Sales tax to the State, and more of the same via more sales to neighboring small businesses."
Thank you for finally coming out and saying what I imagine many of us have suspected: that your interest in this stems primarily from the prospect of increasing business at your own nearby establishments. Hey, you're a businessman too, I get that. But, like, you're not biased or anything, right?
More...
And yes, there have been lots of environmental and structural regulations enacted post-Fair that makes doing so rather costly, but certainly not impossible. Heck even the venerated Space Needle has seen it's share of major re-mods over the years (that mid-tier section, for example). The point is, these structures were intentionally designed to be somewhat malleable, which is one of the reasons they've lasted nearly 50 years now. But, from what I've seen of the Wright's proposed design for the Chihuly museum, the same cannot be said for this structure.
Assuming the Fun Forest could pay their bills on-time, no I wouldn't have any inherent objections, except that removal of the Fun Forest has been part of the Master Plan for quite some time. So, rather than maintaining a status quo as you suggest, siting the Chihuly museum on the same location would, IMO, be a step backwards. And at least one isn't required to pay $14 for the privilege of walking through the Fun Forest, which is itself a point in its favor.
And of course, any BUSINESS would jump at this opportunity, which is precisely what the Wrights are attempting. But, I, and the other citizens of this city shouldn't have to always weigh our decisions based on business considerations; what's good for business (or in this case one particular business) isn't necessarily good for everyone else, and if the choice is between making a sweetheart deal with the Wrights in order to allow them to earn millions of dollars, versus knocking down the Fun Forest and turning that plot of land into a big, grassy open space that everyone can enjoy without paying admission, well, it's really not something I have to consider for very long before making up my mind.
Oh, and -
"It would also generate more money through admissions tax to the City, Sales tax to the State, and more of the same via more sales to neighboring small businesses."
Thank you for finally coming out and saying what I imagine many of us have suspected: that your interest in this stems primarily from the prospect of increasing business at your own nearby establishments. Hey, you're a businessman too, I get that. But, like, you're not biased or anything, right?
97
Comte- my understanding is that the choice now is the Chihuly exhibit plan or the acre stays as a slab of asphalt. There is no established funding for moving forward on converting it to open space.
Meinart doesn't have a bias, only an opinion. Just like you.
Meinart doesn't have a bias, only an opinion. Just like you.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (97) RSS