Search Results for: chihuly

As the Seattle Center prepares to sell off a chunk of precious open space to a for-profit, paid-admission Chihuly gallery/gift shop/catering hall, purely for financial reasons, the city might want to take a look at what’s happening in New York City, where in the midst of the Great Recession the city is building a series of innovative, kick-ass playgrounds… as economic development tools!

NPR’s Planet Money has a piece up on NYC’s new Imagination Playground, a $7 million project that reimagines urban play spaces from the cookie-cutter collection of slides, sandboxes and jungle gyms with which we’re all familiar, into a space where kids can use their imaginations to play in a less structured way. And according to NPR, playgrounds like this are popping up all over the city, despite falling tax revenues and tight budgets.

Why? Because when you build family friendly amenities like this, it attracts families with children, raising surrounding property values and drawing customers to nearby businesses. And isn’t that what the Seattle Center is really looking for? More repeat business for its existing tenants to help finance its operations?

Take a few minutes to watch the video above and listen to the Planet Money report below, and then try to tell me that something like this wouldn’t be a more valuable addition to both the city and the Center than the Chihuly proposal. In other words, you know… use your imagination.

[audio:http://horsesass.org/wp-content/uploads/newplaygrounds.mp3]

Cienna’s got the scoop over at Slog:

This week, the bar was raised for eight projects hoping to move into the Seattle Center’s Fun Forest site—raised so high that all but three proposals may be out of the game.

On July 13, the review panel charged with choosing a project sent a letter (.pdf) to the eight proposers requesting more information about the project. The panel is honing in on where the money’s at: how many visitors each project expects to attract and their “financial readiness and sustainability” moving forward. The letter also points out that the chosen proposal “cannot result in a net negative budget impact to Seattle Center.”

The groups now have two weeks to firm up their financial plans, compared to, say, the year and half the Wright family had to put together its proposal for a for-profit, paid-admission, Chihuly-themed gallery/gift-shop/catering hall. But, you know, there was a public process right? So it’s all kosher.

Cienna’s conclusion? “Goldy is right; we are being humored.”

First rule of blogging, Cienna: Goldy is always right. Even when I’m not. If an opinion is not worth being blogged with absolute confidence, it’s probably not worth being blogged at all.

And that’s why I’m so confident in restating my opinion that the best proposal for the remaining two-acre patch of the Fun Forest is, well, the Fun Forest. Extend their contract another year, and the $250,000 in annual revenue it already brings in. That will give the Seattle Center the time to hold a fair bidding process — instead of the PR sham we’ve been witnessing — while giving competing proposals the time to get their financial plans in order.

Lost in the debate over how best to use the remaining two acres of Seattle Center’s Fun Forest is the fact that the site is already home to a popular, rent-paying, job-producing attraction: the, um, Fun Forest.

Yeah sure, I know the hipsters and aging hipsters and yuppies and cultural elitists who dominated last night’s hearing all look down their nose at kitchy amusements and carnival rides, but since the opening days of the 1962 World’s Fair, the Fun Forest has been as much a part of the Seattle Center as the Space Needle that looms above it. And the family owned business that runs it is in no rush leave; they’d love to secure a long term lease, but they’re happy to operate on a year-to-year basis if that’s what works best for the city.

Much was made last night by Chihuly proponents about how their proposal is the only one that won’t require a public subsidy, but even in its reduced footprint, the Fun Forest is already producing about $250,000 a year in rent, taxes and concession fees, while employing 30 people in season. So honestly, what’s the rush?

I know the Fun Forest doesn’t fit into the Master Plan that calls for its removal, but neither does a paid-admission, for-profit glass gallery/gift shop/catering hall. And since it’s already producing revenues while providing residents and tourists a much needed family-friendly amenity, what’s the harm in leaving it in place for another year while we get to have a real public debate about the best use for the site? I mean, it’s not like it’s a vacant lot gathering abandoned cars or homeless encampments. It’s the Fun Forest for chrisakes. Kids love it!

I’m told the Wright family is a bit insulted by the city’s failure to embrace their proposal, and have threatened to pull out if a deal isn’t signed soon. But surely, if Ye Olde Chihuly Shoppe makes such good business sense to them now, it would still make good business sense a year from now, so it’s hard to take such hardball tactics seriously… especially when the guaranteed revenue from their paid admission “museum” isn’t all that much higher than what is already being generated by an attraction that has catered to Seattle families for two generations.

Yeah, I know… it’s hard to take something seriously when it has the word “Fun” in its title. But for all the arguments for and against the Chihuly proposal, I’ve never heard anybody attempt to explain what is so godawful about the status quo.

I suppose I should take some satisfaction in the Wright family’s revised proposal for their Chihuly-themed gallery/gift-shop/catering-space in the old Fun Forest site:

As part of the deal, the Wright family proposes spending $2 million to fund and maintain an “Art Playground” somewhere else on the Seattle Center campus. They would invite local artists to design playground equipment inspired by Seattle Center or the 1962 World’s Fair that was held there. They would select four or five winners, build their designs and maintain the structures for 20 years, according to the proposal.

If that’s not a concession to my calls for a Really Kick-Ass Playground, I don’t know what is, and it’s certainly a smart PR move. The Wrights get their for-profit, paid-admission extension to their Space Needle catering facility, and the city gets a new playground… you know… somewhere else. Not that $2 million buys you an awful lot of playground these days, but it’s a concession nonetheless.

Still, my general response to this and the other Fun Forest proposals can be summed up in three words: What’s the rush?

There is a lot to criticize about the way the Seattle Center first introduced the Chihuly proposal as an all but done deal, and then went about hurriedly soliciting additional proposals in response to the initial public uproar, but the most significant problem with the process is the way that it institutionalizes the frame that the Fun Forest redevelopment is something that absolutely has to happen now.

Yes, I know they’d like to have something in place by the Center’s 5oth anniversary in 2012, but it’s hard to justify such a major, long term development for the sake of a symbolic gesture. Likewise, Center staff have argued that they need the income from the property to help subsidize other attractions, but we’re hardly talking about a massive infusion of cash. The new Chihuly proposal promises at least $350,000 a year rent, but the local, family-run business currently operating amusements on the site has repeatedly offered to pay $250,000 a year on a year-to-year lease.

An additional $100,000 a year in rent… that’s all the Center would sacrifice for the sake of giving the city some breathing room to really think through whether yet another private, paid-admission “museum” is the best use of a couple acres of scarce public park land. Yeah, times are tough right now, and revenue is hard to come by, but that makes this exactly the wrong time to rush through this decision.

The Wrights had a year or more to work behind closed doors to come up with their initial proposal, and then still had to go back to the drawing board to respond to public outcry, yet their competitors for the Fun Forest space only had a few weeks to start from scratch. That’s hardly a fair or efficient process, and if, as expected, the Chihuly project is the ultimate winner, this whole exercise can’t help but come of as anything but a sham.

So my advice to the Seattle Center and the City Council is that this is one case where the “Seattle Way” is the best way toward determining the best use of scarce in-city open space. There’s no rush to clear cut this last remaining swath of the Fun Forest, and no compelling reason to push through this privatization of public land at the depths of an economic crisis. If the Chihuly proposal makes sense now, it will still make sense a year from now; in fact, given another year of feedback and push-back, the proposal might even get better.

So please, let’s take the time to do this thing right.

As in the last fundraiser, this post isn’t pre-approved by Goldy. I’m proud to write here, and I’m proud to give money every fundraiser (and last year when he said there would be a fundraiser that never materialized). It isn’t the only blog I’ve donated money to, but it’s by far the one I’ve donated the most to. Here’s why:

Even with my poor contribution bringing the quality down, HA is one of the best written blogs around. It’s fearless, fun, wonkish and whimsical. Sometimes all in the same day. Sometimes all in the same post. That’s a lot of work for just about every non open thread post, and there’s work keeping up the quality of the blog over several years. We’ve seen plenty of bloggers on the left and on the right bow out in the years that Goldy has been writing here. I value good writing, and contribute accordingly.

And while it’s true that there is good writing elsewhere on the web, another thing I value about HA is the impact it has here in Washington and in the Seattle/King County area. From Brownie to scaring the AG’s office and the proposed Chihuly museum, Goldy has been moving the narrative nationally — but mostly locally — for years. Sometimes he wins and sometimes he doesn’t. This blog has helped push the dialogue and frame the issues better than most elected officials and pundits in the area.

And having seen only a fraction of the work involved, I know that doesn’t come easily. As a poster here, I’ve been privy to various conversations and email exchanges about how to improve the site. And the back end is a lot of work: Despite being one of the least policed comment threads among blogs, just adhering to the minimum standards takes a good deal of work. There’s a whole host of coding and back end work that you (hopefully) never see, but that keep the blog running well.

Finally, we need an alternative to the mainstream media in general. There are things that the Seattle Times does well, including investigative reporting and, um, being on paper. But their editorials are biased toward the powerful, their print edition is tiny, and their online presence is a joke. The rest of the daily papers and TV news in the state are generally worse. While Goldy and the rest of the crew here do a pretty good job holding the Times’ feet to the fire, the best is when we cover stories where the Times and others drop the ball.

This kind of new media, even done right, may not be as expensive as the old was to create, but it’s by no means free. So please join me in giving to Goldy and keeping HA running.

The Podcast opens with a discussion of the proposed Chihuly “museum,” titled Chihuly at the Needle. The panel discusses whether a for-profit gallery of glass art is a suitable use of an urban space that is currently dedicated to family-oriented activities. Goldy outlines his Really Kick Ass Playground alternative, and (perhaps more importantly) suggests a realistic funding mechanism. The panel considers alternative sites for a Chihuly “museum”.

[29:50] The conversation then turns to the political news of the day: the arrest of Charles Alan Wilson for making death threats against Sen. Patty Murray. Was Mr. Wilson a lone nutcase? Or was he inspired by some larger cultural phenomena…like, say, the violent wingnut teabagger movement and their surrogates in hate-talk media (with an assist from the Republican party)? The panel explores the logical outcome of that second possibility.

Goldy was joined by Peace Tree Farm’s N in Seattle, Effin’ Unsound’s & Horsesass’s Carl Ballard, and me.

The show is 47:25, and is available here as an MP3:

[audio:http://www.podcastingliberally.com/podcasts/podcasting_liberally_apr_6_2010.mp3]

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

Say what you want about the Fun Forest — call it seedy, call it run-down, call it a “tired” relic as former Mayor Greg Nickels once derided it — but there’s no disputing that this five acre amusement park at the foot of the Space Needle was a nearly unique urban amenity, and one of downtown Seattle’s rare, family-friendly attractions for almost half a century. And that is why I insist that any plan to replace the Fun Forest must both honor that tradition, and recognize the very real loss its closure represents to the young families who have frequented it for generations.

Backers of a paid-admission Chihuly “museum” conveniently present empty asphalt as the status quo, but the public land they seek to enclose — nearly two-fifths of the Fun Forest site — has been dedicated to amusing children since 1962, and thus their proposal represents a dramatic shift in land use that would upset the balance of the attractions at the Seattle Center, while forever changing its perceived character. I mean, honestly, can one get any more antithetical to an amusement park than a museum of glass, or as my daughter and I have taken to calling it, the “Look, Don’t Touch Museum.”

Chihuly backers argue that there are plenty of other family-friendly attractions at the Center — the Children’s Museum, the Children’s Theater, the Science Center and the various events and festivals that take place there throughout the year — but this myopic accounting fails to see the fun forest for the trees. My daughter and I and our friends didn’t frequent the Center for any one attraction, but for the entire ecosystem of available activities, flitting from one to another as befitted the season and the attention span of our children at whatever particular age.

No, we never went to the Seattle Center for the Fun Forest, but we almost never left without blowing a few bucks on a ride or three. Likewise, we never went just to splash in the International Fountain, or just to run through the same tired, old exhibits at the Children’s Museum, or just to wade through the crowds at the Bite of Seattle. We went for the entire experience, of which the Fun Forest was almost always an important part. And I can assure you that without the Fun Forest, or some comparable, fun, family-friendly attraction, we would have visited the Seattle Center (and spent our money there) less often.

And that’s a bit of math the Chihuly backers ignore when they tally up the revenue their gallery/cafe/gift shop would supposedly generate for the Center and the city. The Fun Forest was an attraction that could be visited again and again and again, while the typical Seattle family might pay the hefty admission fees to drag their kids through a glass museum maybe once if that. Afterwards it becomes just another building to walk by on the way to something more interesting and fun… as useful to the typical Center visitor as the empty asphalt the “museum’s” boosters insist is the only alternative.

What almost nobody in this debate is willing to acknowledge is that we are losing something in the closing of the Fun Forest, and while I’m not so quixotic as to fight for retaining the site as is, I’ll fight until the end to save the spirit of what the Fun Forest represents, and to convince the powers that be that we need more public space dedicated toward amusing children, not less. From a child’s perspective, the closure of the Fun Forest, as seedy, run-down, tired and déclassé as it might be, leaves a huge gaping hole in our urban landscape… a void that the proposed glass “museum” simply cannot fill.

So when I tout my proposal for a Really Kick-Ass Playground and the targeted Really Kick-Ass Playground Levy to fund it, this is the spirit in which it is offered. Not a spirit that rejects cultural and art — for as many of the examples I have cited prove, a playground can be just as much a showcase for art as any museum — but a spirit that embraces the notion of play.

We have an opportunity to remake the Fun Forest into the most unique, innovative and fun urban “playground” in the nation… a vision that should not be limited to the usual images evoked by the word I loosely place in quotes. Or, we could decide we want a Seattle Center that’s notably less fun and less family friendly than it has been since its inception, and just get out of the Wright family’s way.

Put to the ballot, even at the cost of a eight or nine bucks a year, I’m pretty damn sure I know which way Seattle would vote.

First the backers of the Chihuly “museum” tried sneaking their proposal under the radar. Then they instinctively tried throwing money at the problem via an expensive, ham-fisted PR campaign. But now that it’s starting to look like their for-profit land-grab may face some serious political opposition, well, it was only a matter of time before the knives started coming out.

For example, over at Slog, commenter justdandy takes issue with Stranger writer Cienna Madrid daring to speak at Thursday’s hearing without mentioning it in her own post covering the event, calling her actions “entirely inappropriate and unethical.” But he doesn’t stop there:

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.

Forget for a moment the sheer absurdity of an anonymous troll pronouncing ethical judgment on anybody else’s lack of transparency, or the fact that, like me, The Stranger routinely practices a brand of advocacy journalism that only an idiot would fail to read in the appropriate context. For whether justdandy’s comment was meant as a veiled threat or mere wishful thinking, it’s still the kinda I-don’t-like-what-you’re-saying-so-I’m-gonna-threaten-your-livelihood bullying that, I warn you, almost always achieves the opposite of its intended effect.

Especially when coming from a well-known baby-killer like justdandy.

There. I said it. Somebody had to. Justdandy is a baby-killer. He kills and mutilates babies.

He’s also, likely, despite his denials, if not a paid shill for the project, then somebody who hopes to profit in some way from it. And if, justdandy, you are offended by my unsupported allegations — if you find my reporting “inappropriate and unethical,” if not downright reckless — if you feel that I have unfairly and maliciously defamed the good reputation of your fake screen name… then I urge you to make yourself a martyr to fake screen names everywhere, and boldly attempt to set the legal standard for fake screen name libel.

I await the process server. Either that, or shut the fuck up. Or, maybe — and here’s a novel suggestion — maybe you could use your real name in a public forum when challenging the transparency of others.

But whatever you do, stop killing babies.

In fighting the proposed Chihuly Museum Chihuly-branded glass art gallery, gift shop, cafe and Space Needle-affiliated catering hall on 1.5 acres of Seattle Center land currently occupied by the Fun Forest, it is important to make it clear that we don’t just oppose the proposal, but that we support an alternative that better meets the needs of all Seattleites.

Of course I’m talking about the really kick-ass playground that I’ve proposed here. And here. And here, here, here, here and here.

While many have derided the Fun Forest as a rundown, cheesy, underused eyesore, few would argue a downtown with no grade school, no playgrounds, no ball fields and no basketball court, needs even fewer amenities for young families than we already have. But the pro-Chihuly crowd is quick to argue that there is no money available to build alternative proposals, while the Wright family is prepared to commit $15 million to their for-profit venture, including as much as $500,000 a year in rent.

It’s this or nothing the glassoholics warn us, and thus the city would be crazy to turn down such a “gift.”

But there is money available to build the proposed children’s garden and water feature/skate rink on the north end of the site, as well as the really kick-ass playground I’ve proposed for the south end. All we need to do is ask.

Of course, I’m referring to Seattle taxpayers, who have long been generous with their dollars when its going to something they support, and whom I’m guessing would be more than willing to fork over a few dollars a year each if pitched the kinda family oriented redevelopment I envision.

Now, I’m not talking about a full blown Seattle Center Levy; that might be too expensive and too complicated and too much of a temptation for political mischief to make it to the ballot and past voters in a timely manner. No, I’m talking about a very limited levy aimed solely at redeveloping the Fun Forest into an admission-free, world-class, family-friendly attraction filled with amenities for both children and their parents.

For example, in 2008, 59-percent of Seattle voters approved the Parks and Green Spaces Levy, raising $146 million, and costing the average Seattle homeowner an additional $80.78 per year over the six-year life of the levy. I doubt most voters even understood the specifics of what the levy would pay for; we just like the notion of “parks” and “green space,” and so we voted yes.

Now imagine a Really Kick-Ass Playground Levy that would raise maybe only a tenth of that money. Only 8 bucks a year to build something really, really cool that your kids and your grandkids will use again and again, instead of some elitist, $15 admission “museum” you might visit maybe once, but that would lock up and enclose an acre and a half of precious open space for generations.

I don’t think it would take much to sell this levy to voters.

I know there is a majority of council members who aren’t too enthralled with the Chihuly proposal, if not downright opposed, but nobody’s pitched a way to fund an alternative. Until now.

I’ve received several comments and emails taking issue with, or downright offended by, my characterization of the pro-Chihuly “museum” forces at last night’s public hearing as a bunch of “rich, old, white folk,” as well as the implication I made that the forum was stacked in such a way that most of us on the other side didn’t get a chance to speak.

Well first of all, yeah, my headline was intended to be a little derogatory and hyperbolic. Big deal. So a couple of people of color spoke in favor of the proposal. And the Republicans always manage to get a couple of people of color to speak at their otherwise homogenous conventions.

Don’t take my characterization at face value? Here’s how The Stranger’s Cienna Madrid described the assembled throng:

Last night’s meeting at the Seattle Center on the proposed Chihuly Museum starred nearly 400 men and women in suits, most tied to the Seattle Center, Space Needle, or slick PR firms, all hustling for a project that would benefit the tourist industry, reading their scripts beneath a striped tent-top and bulbed sign that spelled out “Whirligig.”

Moderators Bill Block, Seattle Center Advisory Commission chair, and Seattle Center director Robert Nellums kicked off the meeting with a stump speech on how the Chihuly Museum would benefit the Center. City Council Members Sally Bagshaw, chair of the parks and Seattle Center committee, and Jean Godden, an alternate member of the committee, were also there to hear testimony.

But that testimony was stacked. This was more of a circus than a public meeting.

The Seattle Center brought its own public comment sign up sheet with them and the first hour of comment was wholly devoted to blowing Chihuly’s glass—the audience heard from the CEO of the Space Needle, a Seattle Center Advisory Board member, Seattle Center business managers and financial officers, and a hotel concierge representative. […] Less than 10 people in two hours spoke against this project.

Cienna was wrong on one point; she left before I did, and about two and a half hours into the meeting I finally had my two minutes to speak; not that there were many folks left in the Center House to hear it. It’s also true that about an hour into the proceedings the moderators started pulling names from the middle and back of the sign up sheets, so as to present a more diverse selection of speakers. But my post from the scene, laboriously typed out on my iPhone between 7:00 and 7:30 PM, was an accurate report at the time.

So what were the main arguments for the proposal?

A.) Dale Chihuly is a great guy who gives stuff to schools, and thus deserves this tribute.

Well, maybe he is, and I’ve got no reason to doubt the character assessment of the hundreds of friends (and two or three PR firms) he had there wearing “Yes for Chihuly at the Needle” stickers. But I’m guessing there are a lot of great guys in Seattle, and we can’t offer all of them the opportunity to lease scarce downtown parkland at $11 a square foot. Chihuly is a widely admired, world renowned artist whose talent and fame have made him an extremely wealthy man, so not only don’t I find the “great guy” argument all that convincing, I find it hard to muster any sympathy for him or the Wrights should they feel snubbed by the proposal’s less than enthusiastic public reception.

B.) Seattle would be crazy to turn down a “gift” like the proposed Chihuly “museum.”

The word “gift” was used repeatedly by speakers supporting the proposal, as was the word “museum,” when in fact, neither of these two words are really accurate.

Let’s be clear, the private, for-profit facility the Wrights have proposed is neither a “gift” nor a “museum,” Chihuly or otherwise. Museums have permanent collections; the Wrights’ glass house would not. Even the “$50 million worth of glass art” Chihuly has pledged will merely be displayed on loan, and may be removed entirely once his initial five year contract is up. The Wrights’ lease on the other hand, would continue for another 25 years at least.

What this is, is a gallery, gift shop and catering hall, conveniently located at the foot of the Space Needle where the Wrights could easily cart the food over from their existing catering business. Hell, for all we know, the $50 million worth of glass that Chihuly promises will be just as for sale as tchotchkes in the gift shop. And if Chihuly were to pull out at the end of a five-year contract, what we would be left with is a glorified Fireworks… a nice enough shop, but one which you can already find in malls throughout the region.

C.) The economic prosperity of the Seattle Center, indeed the entire region, depends on building this “museum”

Again and again the subject of money was raised, with the pro-“museum” speakers pointing out how desperate the Center is for revenue while in the depths of our current economic downturn. And while that may be true, I don’t think it pollyanna-ish to suggest that our economy won’t stay in the dumps forever.

Proponents argue that the $11/square foot the Wrights are willing to pay is above market rates for the Center, and that we should be grateful for the half million dollars a year that would generate. But the Fun Forest was already paying $350,000 a year, so it’s not like we’re looking at that much of an increase. And besides, this is public parkland we’re talking about. Since when do we evaluate its value by rental revenue per square foot?

No doubt if this proposal is rejected, that portion of the Fun Forest will remain vacant for a couple years as the economy recovers and the city raises the revenues to implement the master plan. But the alternative to being patient is selling off a 1.5 acre chunk of the Center for at least several decades, if not in perpetuity. So… what’s the rush?

D.) The proposed Chihuly “museum” would prove a tremendous upgrade to the Center’s current, “scary” facilities.

One speaker even suggested that his wife and young children were “afraid” to go the Seattle Center in its current state, but that the Chihuly “museum” would help turn this around. Really. A guy who thinks the Center is too scary and unsafe a place to bring his young kids has the balls to tell us what to do with its redevelopment.

The I’m-a-suburban-white-guy-who-fears-my-kids-might-run-into-some-hippies-and/or-dark-skinned-people bullshit aside, the proposal doesn’t really provide much of an upgrade at all. In fact it keeps the existing, bland brick building where the indoor amusements are currently housed, although it promises to green it up a bit by growing ivy on the walls or something. Now that’s what I call the making of a world class museum.

So yeah, while I eventually got my chance to speak, I stand by my on-the-ground characterization of last night’s meeting, and the cultural elite who packed the hall. In fact, I’m tempted to merely dismiss them as a PR orchestrated hiss. But that will have to wait for another post.

UPDATE:
The Stranger has more on what they’ve dubbed “Glastroturf,” including the $25 gift certificates folks are being promised for joining the PR-firm-organized “Chihuly at the Space Needle” Facebook group. Really.

Anyway, you can email the mayor and the council by clicking here, or click through to the Stranger’s post for a list of all their email addresses and phone numbers, and let them know where you stand on selling off Seattle Center land for a for-profit gallery, gift shop and catering hall.

The Seattle Times editorial board has, of course, come out in favor of handing over a couple acres of the Seattle Center to a wealthy local family to build a for profit museum. Much more on this editorial later, but…

Seattle Center officials should have opened to all comers the possibility of siting a project on the south side of the Fun Forest. That would have made Chihuly’s glass house a cleaner proposition.

The way forward now is to seek proposals for other privately funded ideas. Exhaust the possibilities, sate the process hounds, then proceed with this promising upgrade.

Honestly, how fucking condescending can they get?

The same ed board that pees its pants over sunshine and open government advises to simply make a charade of it when it comes to a private deal with one of Frank Blethen’s Rainier Club drinking partners.

I think with these two paragraphs the Times has pretty much written itself off as a serious contributor to this particular conversation.

Oy…

From McGinn’s perspective, Chihuly’s “glass house” spells revenue. He says that the $500,000 in annual lease payments could be enough to operate the city’s libraries for a week, or to hire five police officers or seven crime-victim advocates.

Well, by that measure, why not just sell off the real estate entirely? If leasing the Fun Forest property to a for-profit, pay-per-view museum can raise enough money to hire five police officers, just think how many police officers we could hire if started selling off chunks of the Seattle Center to developers of high-priced condos?

And years from now, when there’s no more money from the sale to subsidize basic public services, and there’s no more Seattle Center land to sell off, well, that’s future generations’ problem.

When I talk about a really kick–ass playground to replace the Seattle Center’s Fun Forest, instead of the pay-per-view Chihuly museum that’s been proposed, of course I’m thinking of a space mostly aimed at kids. But I emphasize the “mostly.”

This is an opportunity to let our imaginations run wild and build something appealing to kids of all ages. Yeah, sure, we could build just another museum. Or we could build a public “playground” that could ultimately prove just as iconic as the Space Needle itself.

Unless, you know, Seattle just isn’t up to the challenge.

The Wright family, the people who constructed and own the Space Needle, want to build a private, pay-per-view Chihuly Museum at the foot of the Needle on public land where the Fun Forest used to be. Personally, I can think of some much better uses for a couple acres of land the Seattle Center master plan had envisioned as open space.

Yeah, I suppose we could just plop a pay-per-view Chihuly Museum and Gift Shop in the space where the Fun Forest used to be, and maybe extract a few extra bucks from tourists who stray too far from the cruise ship terminal. Or, we could build our kids a really kick-ass playground our region’s families would use again and again and again.

Again, nothing against Chihuly in particular, or museums in general, but Seattle needs more family-friendly attractions, not less, and a glass museum just doesn’t fit that bill.