- Imagine the Seattle Center with a really kick-ass playground like the ‘rainbow nest dome’ at the Takino Hillside Park in Sapporo-shi, Japan.
I’m not generally a big fan of proper ledes, so let me just get it out of the way by saying that $1 million is not nearly enough money to build a Really Kick-Ass Playground, so if Mayor Mike McGinn wants to truly earn the praise the Seattle Times just lavished on him for his Seattle Center plan, he’ll find a way to dramatically multiply those proposed playground dollars through additional public and private funds.
See, despite Meinert’s relentless contention in the comment threads that all those who oppose Ye Olde Chihuly Shoppe know zip about the Seattle Center, and have zero appreciation for either art or commerce, my opposition, from my very first post on the matter, has always been rooted in my dismay at replacing one of Seattle’s uniquely family-friendly amenities with one that most definitely is not:
- Yerba Gardens features 130,000 sq ft of outdoor space, including a playground, amphitheater, carousel, skating rink and water feature… all on a rooftop in San Francisco.
Personally, my preference would be to keep the Fun Forest, as tacky and cheesy and déclassé as it might be. But if the economics don’t support it, do we really have to convert the space into yet another hangout for latte-sipping yuppies? I mean, Chihuly is great and all that, but he already has a fantastic museum in nearby Tacoma, plus several excellent public installations throughout Seattle. But what we don’t have in our city, as evidenced by the hordes of young families who already crowd the Center in good and bad weather alike, are enough great spaces for children to be children.
So here’s a rather simple idea: rather than converting the Fun Forest into yet another high-priced museum (for the cost of our combined tickets to the EMP, for example, my daughter could have gone on 15 rides), why not convert the space into the nation’s most kick-ass public playground?
… Seattle’s a great city, but it isn’t exactly family-friendly, and we sure as hell don’t make it any family-friendlier by replacing an amusement park with yet another museum. A kick-ass playground is what this city really needs — a huge, outrageous, jaw-dropping, eye-popping, whimsical, indoor/outdoor play zone. And the Seattle Center’s dingy old Fun Forest is the perfect place to build it.
- The Fruit and Scent Playground, Liljeholmen, Sweden, proves that innovative playgrounds and public art aren’t mutually exclusive.
That’s what I envision for the Seattle Center, and frankly, a million dollars just won’t buy it.
So while I’m somewhat gratified that a playground made it’s way into the mayor’s proposal, I’m not about to give up the fight for the playground: the Really Kick-Ass Playground that ultimately would prove a bigger amenity (and bigger attraction) for Seattle families than a paid-admission glass exhibit ever could.
One million dollars for construction and another for maintenance is a good start, and it’s the least the Wright family can do in exchange for enclosing an acre and a half of public park land for private gain. But while it’s not nearly enough to build anything more than your typical neighborhood playground (that’s about what the new Seward Park playground cost), it is enough of a start to attract matching grants from prominent Seattle-area businesses and civic leaders. Indeed, if the Seattle Times thinks a playground is such a good idea, perhaps they could join me in cheerleading the effort… maybe even kick in a sizable contribution of their own?
For whatever you think of the Fun Forest or Chihuly, there’s no getting around that the mayor’s plan, as-is, represents a net loss for families with young children, in a city that already sports one of the lowest rates of households with children in the nation.
- I’m not even sure what this space is, but it sure does look fun.
This is an opportunity to build something special—something at least as much a work of art and imagination as anything that comes out of Chihuly’s workshop—something that’s not just some climbing toys, a see-saw and a slide or two, but a destination. And if the Chihuly “museum” backers can’t see that, then I’d say they’re the ones lacking an appreciation for art and commerce.
That last pic has to be a Yayoi Kusama installation.
Ok, but only if we take the funds from Slog’s favorite programs like gay youth spaces and the bums.
How about a compromise: glass playground.
Thank you for this. There’s so much interesting stuff going on in other parts of the world that the No Fun Police here in Seattle would never dream of, or allow. We have to make it sophistamacated for the white wine and cheese crowd. You could also add the big blue construction blocks at the Imagination Playground in NYC.
You want amazing playgrounds? Look at The City Museum in St. Louis – http://www.citymuseum.org
multi-story, art-created, includes a bar, events center, circus school. Something any city should aspire to.
Fnarf @4,
The Imagination Playground is great. Previously posted twice on it, here and here, over at HA.
As long as they make space above the entrance for a big picture of Harry Potter firmly grasping about 18 inches of upward-jutting broomstick, I’m sure everyone will love it.
Seattle is neck and neck with San Francisco and Washington DC for having the fewest children and the most child-free households. It’s something I like about this city. So fuck you, Goldy. I would rather have a shitty glass museum than another brat magnet that will make the Seattle Center more unpleasant than it is already.
@3 coming soon, Shards of Glass, the kid-friendly addition to the Children’s Museum …
@4 and @6 for what matters most. Although we could always let the kids roam free in the partially built building lots south of Denny too …
Oh, God! Another post from this insufferable windbag, who, showing signs of dementia, can never succinctly express his point.
@8 Ooh, look at the indignation! You’re absolutely right, everything we do in Seattle should be explicitly geared toward childless douches. Seriously, what’s with the hating on families? Better that they live here in the city, contributing to a vibrant community, than out contributing to suburban and exurban sprawl so you can be surrounded by people as lonely and miserable as you.
@8 – Better to give them a playground than to have them in our quiet brunches, shrieking their awful little heads off.
For me, it’s not just about the kids, though kids are all right. It’s about being amazing. Seattle needs things that are amazing, not things that are obvious and comfortable. Chilhuly glass is the striving of middle class wealth in crystalline form. That’s not amazing, it’s embarrassing. A boring playground is just a playground. But a playground that makes even grownups — especially grownups — stop and go “wow, that’s incredible” makes the emotional capacity of the city increase. It’s the opposite of downtown Redmond.
I’m not suggesting that the city doesn’t need to think about supporting the young families who live here, but Seattle Center is currently home to a children’s theater, a children’s museum, and a kid-focused science museum. It also has one of the country’s best all-ages participatory music venues, a brand new skatepark, and plenty of green space dotted with a fountain that always seems to be a prime frolicking ground for kids and touchable, climbable public art.
With that in mind, it’s hard for me to see how you combine the apparent failure of one of the city’s “few uniquely family-friendly amenities” (Fun Forest) and the fact that Seattle is a city with the “lowest rates of households with children in the nation” to conclude that what the city (and Seattle Center) needs right now is an expensive destination playground.
@13: I see your point about wanting amazement at Seattle Center. But let’s not pretend that wanting to spend millions of dollars on a destination is “for the kids”, when “the kids” would probably be happier and better served by a less pretty space aimed more at fostering imaginative play than their parents’ sense of adventurous aesthetics.
(I freely admit that I know very little about this topic, but found Rebecca Mead’s story about evolving NYC playground design pretty interesting:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/… )
I still think the Bubbleator would be cool if added back in.
I concur with Goldy. You should see the places in Europe (the Netherlands for example). Great places for kids AND parents. It would be a major draw for the Center to have such a place especially for weary tourist parents who need to let their kids run loose.
“brat magnet”? When I see that I think, “That person was probably a brat when he was a kid.”
We were ALL children once, lest you forget.
Keep the kids out of my neighborhood, please.
Hey Goldy – if you care about kids so much, then lead the charge to save and improve the kids attractions that already exist and are BLEEDING money at the center – Children’s Museum, Theater and Science Center.
Then explain how a crappy Fun Forest that charges three bucks per two minute ride is better for families than a free $1M playground with 20 years of impovments and care throw in for another $1M.
It’s not a net loss – it’s a gain.
The minute you put up YOUR $2M is when I think you get a vote.
“I’m not even sure what this space is, but it sure does look fun.”
That’s an installation in a museum. Yes, a museum, which you seem to think is a no-fun, no-kid, family-unfriendly zone. Now, I’m against the Chihuly shrine on principal and on aesthetics, but please don’t assume that all museums are stuffy, adults-only places; you’ve just proven with that photo that they aren’t.
ink @20,
Who ever said I’m opposed to museums, other than Meinert? I’m opposed to a kid-friendly attraction being replaced by a kid-unfriendly one.
Yerba Buena in S.F. is the gold standard. A kick ass playground makes the city way, way cooler. And tell me the stoner childless hipsters don’t love their playgrounds. (They often get stuck at the swings in Volunteer Park while trying to find Bruce Lee, for example). A state of the art playground below the space needle has the potential to be a global draw. And for sure we have the creative types to make it happen. Just the design proposals Seattle could generate in a month would make for a better gallery exhibit than every chunk of Chihuly in town. Seriously, who doesn’t love a fascinating playground? Do the kid haters actually discourage places to play? I’d guess Seattle would get on board for a project like this in a big, big way.
The problem is that creating a Really Kick-Ass Playground there would be bold, creative, visually appealing and fun. And that’s not the Seattle Way. Seattle is not San Francisco.
Ok, kid haters (seriously, what did you all DO as children? Hate yourselves? All the other kids too?) the thing about family friendly destinations is that families go there. And then when they’re done they descend en masse upon whatever nearby restaurants have highchairs and cheese quesadillas on the menu. Which means, duh, that you know where they are. Thus making avoiding them that much easier. If all the kids stuff shuts down, the parents aren’t going to just keep their kids indoors, out of your hair. Nope, we’ll be in all kinds of places you don’t want us, even more than now. So it is seriously in your best interest to support public spaces for kids and families. And just avoid any restaurant that serves quesadillas, m’kay?
Goldy – I realize you’ve been brought on to the Stranger to write pieces that rile people up, but at least try, in even a small way, to get your facts right. Especially when you characterize my points. You’ll be much more interesting.
That said – I agree with your sentiment about raising more money from the private sector for the playground, and with Fnarf that we should try to be amazing. I have a young daughter, and definitely want her to grow up in a city that is interesting for kids. Though I do agree with @14 that the Center already has some great things for kids, plus even more like the International Childrens Festival (now Giant Magnet), and the City has some other great programs at places like the Symphony and public pools.
I do think your idea would have a better chance to get accomplished if you could actually write about it more succinctly without attacking people you should be collaborating with. But then, you’re probably not actually interested in doing the hard work it takes to make your ideas happen. If you are, I’d be into supporting that. I think it’s a good idea. Let me know.
Dave @25,
I’ve been writing about this on HA since March. I have maybe a couple dozen posts on the matter, many pretty damn thoughtful (for example, this), and some even succinct (though admittedly, succinct is not my schtick). And yet once again, you attempt to brush of my commentary by telling me to get my “facts right.”
And then you lecture me about attacking people. Huh?
Here’s the thing: I’m a writer. Not a politician, not a businessman, not a philanthropist, not a schmoozer, not an organizer, and hardly much of an activist. I’m a writer. Which means, I write. That’s how I try to make a difference.
And just because you don’t think what I do is “hard work,” doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Goldy, while I agree in principle about the museum… these playgrounds aren’t going to be the hit you foresee them being. First they too cater to a niche: families with young children… which excludes pretty much everyone else. Second, it requires an investment from parents that similar places don’t: Parking at Seattle Center costs money and does the gas to get there and back, whereas going to the park down the street and using their playground doesn’t cost a thing. How many parents will make the extra investment and how often? Probably not many and not often.
You won’t see parents coming to Seattle Center more than once every so often, meaning most of the time such a playground’s not going to see a lot of traffic (notice how sparsely populated the parks in your pictures are)… which defeats the purpose of investing in such a development to begin with: You want to build something that will draw people en masse back to Seattle Center on a regular basis and make the Center relevant again. A million dollar playground probably won’t, any more than the Chihuly museum will.
I just heard a sonic WHOMP so had to check out this thread. @26 did it.
Gomez @27,
That is an issue that I address in my HA post, “In Defense of Fun,” in which I argue that the Fun Forest was part of an eco-system of attractions that the Chihuly proposal would disrupt.
Read the whole thing, and tell me if it doesn’t make some sense.
Furthermore, what I’ve been arguing for all along is the imagination to create a playground that’s not just a playground, but a unique must-see destination in itself. Just like we built a downtown library that’s become a tourist destination.
Agreed…and thanks for leading the charge. I think lots people are having trouble getting past the words “big playground.” Seattle, just look towards the generically named but mind-blowingly awesome City Museum (http://www.citymuseum.org) in Saint Louis for insight on how something like this should be done. I visited the City Museum last year as an adult and it was truly one of the most fun and inspiring experiences of my life! Think less “big playground” and more “immersive and interactive psychedelic art project.”