Search Results for: chihuly

As Cienna reports over on Slog, the panel tasked with reviewing proposals for redeveloping the Seattle Center’s Fun Forest has recommended a Chihuly Museum as the best use of the 1.6 acre site.

(Sigh.)

The whole selection process was of course a sham intended to mollify opponents of the for-profit glass tchotchke gallery, gift shop and catering hall with the semblance of public input, so that all involved could pat themselves on the back that the Seattle Way was appropriately honored. And like trained monkeys, we all scampered into the public meetings and rode our unicycles on command.

As I wrote back in August:

Last night hundreds of people gathered again to voice our opinions about the best public use of the Fun Forest site at the Seattle Center, and once again we couldn’t help but get the vibe that we were just being humored. Oh, the committee and the Chihuly gift-shop/catering-hall folks at least tried to make a better show of it this time as compared to the insulting propaganda-fest of the first public meeting, but it was still just a show. I didn’t talk to anybody who believed  a decision hasn’t already been made.

The problem is, as much as the committee will ultimately claim that this was a fair and open process, there’s nothing fair or open about taking a year and a half to secretly negotiate the details of the Chihuly proposal, and then publishing an RFP tailored to the same while giving everybody else just six weeks to respond. And so yeah, I kinda resented being there last night playing the role of “Man in Auditorium” in the Seattle Center’s unintentional amateur production of Our Town.

And like most bad theater, it’s not hard to predict how this play ends.

Yup, a complete and total sham.

That said, I suppose I should take a little satisfaction in helping to pressure the Space Needle folks to add to the proposal $1 million for an “artist-designed playground,” plus $50,000 a year for maintenance. But a million bucks doesn’t buy you a lot of playground these days, so it strikes me as an awfully cheap price in exchange for building an 8-foot wall around a couple acres of scarce, in-city park space.

Ah well, money talks, and all that.

This is what a sham looks like, at least through the somewhat inadequate lens of my iPhone’s camera.

Last night hundreds of people gathered again to voice our opinions about the best public use of the Fun Forest site at the Seattle Center, and once again we couldn’t help but get the vibe that we were just being humored. Oh, the committee and the Chihuly gift-shop/catering-hall folks at least tried to make a better show of it this time as compared to the insulting propaganda-fest of the first public meeting, but it was still just a show. I didn’t talk to anybody who believed  a decision hasn’t already been made.

The problem is, as much as the committee will ultimately claim that this was a fair and open process, there’s nothing fair or open about taking a year and a half to secretly negotiate the details of the Chihuly proposal, and then publishing an RFP tailored to the same while giving everybody else just six weeks to respond. And so yeah, I kinda resented being there last night playing the role of “Man in Auditorium” in the Seattle Center’s unintentional amateur production of Our Town.

And like most bad theater, it’s not hard to predict how this play ends.

Last week I constructively proposed three alternate locations that might be better suited to a Chihuly museum than a couple acres of public land designated as open space, and in the comment thread HA readers offered several additional suggestions. But according to The Stranger’s Cienna Madrid, such reasonable conversation is apparently a nonstarter:

[Space Needle CEO Ron] 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).

That’s because far from the “gift” to the city many Chihuly backers claim it to be, this project is first a foremost a for-profit venture, and there is undeniable synergy between the existing Space Needle businesses and what they are describing as “Chihuly at The Needle.”

As I’ve mentioned before, in addition to the overpriced/undercheffed restaurant at the top, the Wrights operate a bustling catering business out of the Skyline banquet facility, and the proposed Chihuly “museum” would instantly become one of the hottest catering halls in the city. But I’m sure the prospect of offering a “discounted” joint admission fee to both the Space Needle and the Chihuly museum would be lucrative as well. Rather than paying $17 for the Needle and $15 for Chihuly, $25 might get you in to see them both… and the Wrights up their average ticket by nearly 50% over what they’re getting now.

Sweet.

Meanwhile, Cienna and I aren’t the only “journalists” weighing in against the project, with Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat bucking his own editorial board, and calling out the proposed Chihuly “museum” for what it really is:

See the problem here, Seattle Center? Your Chihuly gallery is the anti-fireworks. It’s exclusive. The campaign for it is canned.

If we’re going to have a museum, can we at least broaden it beyond the overexposed Chihuly? And with a money-raising effort, make it free to enter, a la the Olympic Sculpture Park?

Or how about, instead, putting in a giant playground? Or even just trees and grass?

A giant playground! Or maybe even a giant, kick-ass one! What a great idea! Now that’s a proposal I could get behind.

Why? Because Seattle is a city desperately in need of more family-friendly amenities, something, apart from Danny, the Seattle Times doesn’t seem to recognize, but which, apparently, the New York Times does:

The Kids and Families Congress is to take place at the Seattle Center, the site of the Space Needle and the 1962 World’s Fair. The center itself has become a topic of debate, over the future of five acres of asphalt at the foot of the needle that for decades has been home to the Fun Forest, an aging amusement park.

The Fun Forest is set to close for good at summer’s end and the site’s private owners have proposed replacing it with a private museum featuring the work of Dale Chihuly, the Northwest glass artist. Critics say that sends a wrong signal about Seattle’s priorities. A private glass museum, some argue, would not necessarily be regarded as family friendly.

“It’s not just symbolic,” said Sally Bagshaw, who is chairwoman of the City Council parks committee. “It’s very much at the heart of what I’m talking about: how do we keep families here? We want to make Seattle a place where people come because it is the best place in the world for your kids.”

And ask any kid what they’d rather visit, a really kick-ass playground or a museum of glass, and I’m guessing most would choose the former.

I’ve got a confession to make: I’m a bit of a cultural elitist. So I want to make it absolutely clear that my opposition to the proposed Chihuly “museum” on the Fun Forest site at the Seattle Center should not be construed as opposition to museums in general or Chihuly in particular. In fact, I think there are strong arguments to make that a “Chihuly Museum” could indeed be a great addition to Seattle, attracting both tourists and their money.

Just not at this particular location.

The Seattle Center is a scarce, kid-friendly attraction near downtown Seattle, and if we’re to have any hope of achieving our density goals over the next few decades we need more near-by amenities for young families, not less. And the several acres of prime parkland the Fun Forest is vacating provides a rare opportunity to create the kinda fun, open and free-admission public space that will draw families to the Center again and again and again.

I fully understand the financial attraction of this proposal to both the Wrights and the cash-strapped Center directors, but a private, for-profit, paid-admission “museum” is simply not the best use of this acreage. Indeed, I’d go so far as to suggest that if your goal is to showcase the work of Dale Chihuly and the Northwest glass art movement he helped spawn and promote, there are equally good, if not better places to build a glass gallery in Seattle.

For example, with the collapse of Washington Mutual, the Seattle Art Museum has struggled to fill vacant space at the former Wamu Center, leaving several floors of the building available to a potential glass art showcase. Situated smack dab in the center of the downtown, a comfortable walk from the cruise terminal and the city’s finest hotels, the Wamu Center could prove an ideal location for a glass museum, capitalizing on its proximity to the Seattle Art Museum to concentrate and increase paid admission to both facilities.

Or, if the glass gallery’s backers really have their heart set on the Seattle Center, there is plenty of under utilized land surrounding the Center proper, including parking lots right across 5th Avenue from the EMP. If backers are being forthright in their claim that the proposed $11 per square foot lease is above market rates, then surely they could obtain an even better deal on a not quite so prime location.

But perhaps the best location for a high-profile, Chihuly-branded glass art showcase — one which would provide the most bang for the buck in terms of anchoring and revitalizing a neighborhood that is much in need of such a boost — would be the empty lot on the east side of Occidental Park, right in the heart of the struggling Pioneer Square neighborhood, and the hub of Seattle’s already existing gallery walk. A Chihuly Museum on this or some other nearby lot might prove the kinda public-private partnership I and others could get behind… and a boon to the entire Seattle arts community. Again, just like with the Wamu Center location, the Chihuly Museum and the surrounding galleries would mutually benefit from their co-location.

That’s just three locations, off the top of my head, that might be well suited to a Chihuly Museum without snatching precious open space from public use. And if this project, as it has been presented, is at least as much about art as it is about commerce, then I would hope its backers would take my constructive proposal seriously.

The folks at The Stranger have been doing yeoman’s work exposing the process by which the proposed Chihuly “museum” is being foisted upon the city, and the ham-fisted public relations campaign by which the backers are attempting to fake some glass-roots street cred. What we’ve learned so far:

The committee considering bids for the Fun Forest site appears likely to be stacked in favor of the Chihuly proposal:

The problem is, certain members of the Seattle Center Advisory Commission and the Century 21 Committee have already publicly spoken out in favor of the Chihuly Museum project. For example, Jan Levy spoke for the Chihuly Museum at Tuesday’s meeting and she is Century 21 Committee co-chair; her fellow co-chair is Jeffrey Wright, owner of the Space Needle. Wright is financially backing the Chihuly Museum. Levy also serves on the Seattle Center Advisory Commission.Robert Nellums, director of the Seattle Center, also spoke in favor of the project at Tuesday’s public meeting—even though he was moderating the meeting. Representatives from Seattle International Film Festival, the Pacific Northwest Ballet, Intiman Theater, and other vested Seattle Center interests all stumped for the Chihuly Museum.

And speaking of Space Needle/Chihuly “museum” owner Jeffrey Wright, it turns out that he’s a big contributor to Republican candidates and causes — over $50,000 worth in recent years. Not that this in itself says anything about the virtues of a Chihuly museum, but as Dominic Holden astutely points out:

The company behind the Space Needle is the entity that wants to build and would profit from the Chihuly glass museum. Asked if Wright would personally make money from the Chihuly museum, Space Needle spokeswoman Mary Bacarella says, “Well he’s the owner. It’s a for-profit [business].”

[…] Building the Chihuly museum would help line the pockets of someone who donates heavily to political causes and candidates that clash with most Seattle residents. And now he’s trying to use public land, owned by those people, to make his profits.

I guess this is what many of the project’s well-heeled backers meant when they repeatedly referred to it as “a gift.”

And while “museum” backers both dis the notion of open space being essential to the Seattle Center while insisting that no other proposals for the site have been made, Cienna Madrid reports otherwise:

John Sutherland, an administrator at the University of Washington, submitted a proposal to Seattle Center director Robert Nellums in 2007. Sutherland proposed demolishing the covered pavilion and creating a greenbelt/picnic area, adding new rides in the kids area, and introducing six new major amusement park rides, including a roller coaster. Sutherland’s plan also called for a kid’s public playground and a water play area.

When Sutherland was submitting his proposal, the Seattle Center master planning process (formally called the Century 21 Master Plan) was just beginning. He attended “at least 60 different meetings,” he says, during which officials and the public made it clear that what the people wanted was more green space. In the end, Sutherland says, Nellums told him that the proposal was not going to happen. “And I thought that was fair,” says Sutherland. “Even though my proposal incorporated green space, I thought we lost fair and square. It wasn’t what the people wanted.”

So when Sutherland made his family-friendly proposal, the Century 21 Committee, which Wright co-chaired, dismissed it as not providing enough green space. And now Wright himself is proposing constructing a for-profit, paid-admission gallery/gift shop/cafe/catering hall on the site. Huh.

Oh. And from the Credit Where Credit Is Due Department, after credulously reporting “overwhelming support” for the project the morning after the sham hearing, the Seattle Times at least comes back with a report on the expensive PR offensive the backers have launched:

Representatives of the Space Needle went two hours early to a public meeting about their proposed Dale Chihuly exhibit at Seattle Center to make sure their supporters would be first on the list to speak.

They filled in the first 60-or-so speaking slots. It was clear from the handwriting that some people had signed up multiple people…

Yup. That’s why the respectable folk got to speak at 6:30 PM, while I didn’t get to the podium until almost 9.

Heard enough? The folks at Slog have conveniently compiled a list of phone numbers and email addresses of Seattle City Council members and other players for you to contact and voice your opinion. Or you can conveniently mass email them here.

The Seattle Times has twice editorialized in favor of a sham process to placate opponents of the proposed Chihuly “museum,” and that’s exactly what we’re getting at the public hearing tonight at the Seattle Center.

The hearing didn’t start until 6:30 p.m. but Center employees, the arts board member crowd, and other surrogates of the Wrights and Chihully were lined up at 3:30 to sign up for all the speaking slots. An hour into the hearing only one person had spoken against the proposal, and yet according to City Councilmember Sally Bagshaw, emails and phone calls are running 10 to 1 against.

Go figure.

As for me, I’m the 201 person signed in, so I doubt I’ll get the chance to voice my opinion. But I suppose that’s what folks here mean by “process.”

This week’s open thread’s are apparently random stuff related to me going to the Seattle Center. It’s kind of shameful to admit as a writer for HA, but I went to the Chihuly exhibit. I have always felt about it the same way I felt about Safeco and Century Link Field: I didn’t like how they were created, but now that they’re there, I’m not going to boycott them in protest or anything. I feel a similar way about some of the bars/restaurants/coffee shops whose owners were dicks about the $15 minimum wage or sick leave/safe leave.*

It’s quite impressive. I would certainly go again.

[Read more…]

As promised, here’s a thread about the Seattle Mayor’s race. For the first time that I can remember, I’m undecided on who to vote for in a big race like this. I got my ballot and filled most of it out, but still haven’t filled either mayoral bubble. I’m definitely leaning toward McGinn, but I like both of them quite a bit. Four years ago, when Ed Murray was considering a write in campaign, I wrote that I would support him if he ran because I liked him the best, but that I hoped he didn’t because he would probably take more votes away from McGinn than Mallahan and that I was worried that a self-funded person who was the more conservative would be able to win when he really shouldn’t. He didn’t run, and I eventually volunteered for McGinn’s election.

I really wasn’t particularly impressed with McGinn, but figured at least he wasn’t running a self-funded campaign on “TAXEZ BAD ME SMASH” and (after the post went up) unsure about abortion rights like Mallahan. I mean McGinn was saying the right things about transit and bikes, but everybody says the right things about them around election time, but usually they don’t do anything. He was also talking mostly about things that aren’t really the Mayor’s prerogative: education, broadband, and transit, and usually when people talk about those sorts of things and then get elected, they then ignore them.

Since then, they’ve both done things that I give high marks to. I’ve been surprised that I liked most of McGinn’s tenure as mayor (there are exceptions, like foot dragging on police reform and the Chihuly garden). He pushed a mostly reluctant City Council to put a doubling of the Families and Education Levy on the ballot, and it passed handily. There’s high speed Internet coming to much of the city.* He has also kept social services funded despite the recession and a tax cut from the council right before he took office.

Meanwhile, Ed Murray has cemented his already impressive legacy, passing marriage equality and shepherding it to a vote with a positive result. While he did preside over the loss of the Democrats’ caucus, I don’t really blame him for it. Rodney Tom hates Seattle and Tim Sheldon hates Seattle and gay people (to the extent he knows there’s a difference). So if the problem with him is that he’s from Seattle and gay, well that would be a dumb reason to be upset with him. Given the restraints, he has mostly kept the rest of the caucus from caving to the worst aspects of the GOP.

Finally, there are social issues. There’s some discussion that they’re off the table. And I agree neither of them is going to try zone abortion clinics out of the city or deny gay employees benefits, for example. They’re certainly closer on most of the defining social issues of the day than they are apart. But I have to say it’s been nice that Seattle has had four years where strippers and all ages music weren’t regularly being attacked from the mayor’s office. I hope that will be true of the next four years with Murray, but it’ll almost definitely be true with another four years of McGinn.

So that leaves two candidates I like quite a bit, and a campaign I’m the opposite of happy with, especially on Murray’s side. I don’t like all the third party money and I think it has been unnecessarily negative, and often not factual. Murray has courted the anti-transit and anti-bike people despite his record in the legislature being pretty good on those issues. Part of the reason I’ve been reluctant to decide is that it seems like everyone who has taken a side thinks that their flawed but pretty good lefty candidate is awesome and the other, flawed but pretty good lefty candidate is shit, and I’d rather not take that up. But I can’t really put off the decision any longer, and I’m going to have to fill in a bubble.

[Read more…]

Joel Connelly snarks on McGinn’s anti-violence stuff. But I think it’s good. Mostly on the teach kids not to be violent aspect.

“Weapons to Words” will ask Seattle schoolchildren to come up with a short quotation about gun violence. The best of their quotations, on what a violence-free future means to them, will be inscribed on plaques made from the 760 weapons collected earlier this year in the gun buyback program. Schnitzer Steel is making the plagues. Chihuly Studio is “shaping the aesthetics” in the words of Leslie Jackson Chihuly, its president.

“The plaques will be placed across Seattle so they can leave a lasting legacy,” McGinn said.

Sounds like a good idea. Teach kids to think about what a violence free world would look like. And it’s a nice metaphor to use the returned guns for that. It seems like a win-win. Except that it gives Rush Limbaugh a sad, so he doesn’t win.

When he got back to the office, McGinn found himself a politician doubly blessed. The “Weapons to Words” program was promptly lampooned over the air by that rhinoceros of right-wing talk radio, Rush Limbaugh. Liberal Seattle doesn’t boast many of the followers Limbaugh calls “Ditto Heads.”

If this was a bad idea, the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t like it wouldn’t improve it. But the fact that it’s a decent lesson for children that he’s upset about means that it’s really icing on the cake.

And the fact that Limbaugh is upset about it is probably all you need to about if compromise is possible. Taking guns that people voluntarily turned in, and making them into quotes about not being violent is too much for these fuckers.

– RIP Richard McIver.

– Telling women to get a gun is not rape prevention

– Can we close the gun show loophole please?

– David Brooks was wrong, wrong wrong on Iraq. Good thing they gave him the New York Times slot.

– Chihuly Broken Promises

– You Suck at Constitutionality Tim Eyman!

Even though I’m a curmudgeonly urban dweller who doesn’t want kids, I’m glad the city put in a playground in Westlake Park.

The year-round play area will include a soft, rubber-like surfacing and a Geode by Goric. This large, netted spherical structure and a collection of large domes will be surrounded by a fence with bench seating in some areas. The design and elements involved were selected specifically with sightlines and function in mind, as the structures do not obstruct views to the retail spaces and through the park. The Geode is designed to be used by children up to 12 years old.

As long time readers of this blog know, when the Fun Forest left Goldy agitated for it to be replaced with a kick ass playground. And while Seattle got the Chihuly museum, well, the reasons to support more playgrounds and more amenities for children are generally true. Making the city more accommodating to all sorts of people, not just those of us who are young and childless, is a worthwhile goal.

This afternoon, for the first time since it opened, I walked by the new Chihuly exhibit. I wasn’t going to pay $19 to get in* so I can’t speak to the exhibit itself. Still, walking by I was struck by having to walk by it. Where once you could cut through the fun forest, the area is now fenced off.

That’s been true for some time, of course, but with the construction fencing down, and seeing Seattle Center how it’s going to be for the foreseeable future, now is as good as any time to reflect what we lost.

I know thinking of privately owned silly amusement park rides as a public amenity is over the top. But it’s more of one than a walled off courtyard. And I know there are plenty of areas in Seattle Center that are walled off. I’ve been to enough plays and concerts there. I know with the Science Center, the Children’s Museum and the Children’s Theater, (not to mention plenty of open space) Seattle Center is still more family friendly than much of the rest of the urban core. But it still feels like the loss of a public good.

[Read more…]

The Podcast returns from a long vacation hibernation incarceration a coma the dead to tackle the big political issues of the day last many months. And freshen the sidebar.

The discussion starts with bold analyses of the recent election: the panel re-litigates The Tunnel (long after the topic is hip, relevant, or even interesting), and contemplates the meaning of the pro-tunnel vote for Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn. The discussion meanders into a referendum on Seattle itself (whereupon, Goldy briefly attempts to re-litigate the Chihuly Museum, long after the topic is hip, relevant, or even interesting).

Circling back to the election, the panel ponders the piss-poor performance of King County Councilmember Jane “37.9%” Hague, and the remarkable candidacy of challenger Richard Mitchell. Catalyzed by another lame-ass Seattle Times editorial, the Podcast closes on the topic of public employees, education and (of course) Seattle schools.

Goldy (The Stranger) was joined by Seattlepi.com’s Joel Connelly, and Horsesass’ Carl Ballard and me.

The show is 30:15, and is available here as an MP3.

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_aug_30_2011.mp3]

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the Podcasting Liberally site.]

Kudos, Seattle Times: I didn’t think Civil Disagreements could get sillier. So, it’s a bit surprising that ostensible liberal Joni Balter and ostensible guy who can grow a mustache Ryan Blethen are the new faces of the thing (I guess, maybe Lynn and Bruce are on vacation). Anyhoo, here’s their first, (I guess) one. It’s super current.

Ryan, I was happy to see the Seattle City Council decided to replace the old ticky tacky Fun Forest with the new Dale Chihuly glass art pavillion [sic] at Seattle Center. I know you feel much [sic] differently. Let me make my case.

I know the vote happened on Monday, and this is a weekly feature. So, yes, this is the first time they can talk about the vote that happened. But wouldn’t people who believe they influence the debate want to talk about something before it happened? We’ve known it’s going to happen for quite some time. In fairness, I just wrote about the NLRB’s Boeing decision, so timeliness isn’t everything, but on the other hand fuck Joni Balther and Pedostach (PS, new sitcom: Balter and Pedostach, Cop show, maybe, should be a good pitch meeting). And, yes, now that you mention it, I do have questionable facial hair.

To me, Seattle Center is neither a greensward-like Central Park, nor a place completely frozen in time. The Fun Forest was truly enjoyable while it lasted. But as an attraction, the fun and the forest were slipping; rent became a problem. The whole center needs an upgrade. In the old days, the Center was an eclectic collection of venues and it remains so today. Chihuly glass adds to the ballet, opera, theater, EMP, the fountain and everything else.

Look, it was fun, it was enjoyable, it was great for children. But it’s no glass whatever. Anyway, here’s my favorite paragraph:

I really like Chihuly and am not bothered by the fact that he shows and — gasp, sells — his stuff in Vegas, Venice and many other places. He is a one-of-a-kind talent who has trained many disciples.

Gasp. Straw men feel so offended that he sells his art in Venice! And he’s super unique, but has many, many, many people who he’s trained to be just like him.

Anyway, then Ryan Blethen says Joni is right, but he’ll be sad. Civil Disagreements, folks.

Imagine on a beautiful day like today, taking your kids to play in an amazing playground like the one highlighted above. Or, imagine taking your kids to a glass museum.

You choose.

UPDATE:
Oh, and by the way, NYC’s Imagination Playground also serves to illustrate how ridiculous and unfair the Seattle Center’s “process” really is. The Chihuly proposers had a year and a half to put together the details of their project, while every else had just a few weeks. The Imagination Playground took five years from conception to completion.