S eattle Center is winning no awards as a city park. It is a haphazardly designed campus choked with badly placed buildings you have to pay to get into. The most visible and infamous of these is Experience Music Project, a shrine to Paul Allen’s collection of music and science-fiction memorabilia, which has only occasionally been able to transcend its underthought beginnings as a vanity project. Surely, Seattle has learned lessons from its past planning at Seattle Center, right?
Maybe not. An idea for a huge, new, ill-defined pay-to-play tourist attraction—a Dale Chihuly exhibition hall, to sit at the base of the Space Needle—is already in the design stages. It was the idea of a wealthy local family, the Howard Wright family, which owns the Space Needle. The plan calls for a 44,550-square-foot exhibition hall of Chihuly’s glass art, to be placed inside and to extend the current Fun Forest arcade pavilion. The plan does not describe Chihuly’s vision, but it calls for a whopping 21,500 square feet of exhibition space, plus a retail shop and cafe. (By comparison, the Henry Art Gallery has about 14,000 square feet of galleries and the Frye Art Museum about 12,000 square feet.) Admission would be paid, and the venture would be for-profit. The Wrights would pay for construction, and the museum—the Wrights prefer it not be called a museum, and they have a point, since it won’t have curators, but no other word is quite right, either—would be privately run.
Seattle Center is a public/private enterprise that’s been foundering for years. It needs money. That’s the subtext when Seattle Center director Robert Nellams says, “The premier glass artist in the world wants to be part of this project. This is a good thing.” Nellams isn’t pretending to be adding to the cultural life of the city; he’s trying to bring something popular to Seattle Center. And it’s hard to blame him. The Chihuly Bridge of Glass in Tacoma, as well as Union Station in Tacoma—that city has literally thousands of Chihuly glass pieces displayed publicly, for free—are big draws. (Pity Tacoma if Seattle becomes the destination for Chihuly glass.)
But it’s hard to see why the Seattle Design Commission, which reviews all proposals for the use of public lands by private entities, approved the plan. The commission, a 10-
member body made up of architects, engineers, urban planners, and an artist, is supposed to keep both public benefit and design in mind—and to raise questions about both at an early stage, so they can be ironed out before plans go before the mayor and city council.
From 2006 to 2008, about 60 public meetings were held to determine what people wanted from the always-problematic Seattle Center. The response was overwhelming: more open, green space. Of Seattle Center’s 21 remaining public acres (the total acreage of the Center is 74), the Chihuly museum would occupy about two—in a place left green and open in the master plan that was developed in response to those public meetings.
“You should go to the master plan; you’ll see why it’s so counter,” says Dennis Forsyth, the architect who led the Century 21 Master Plan team. “The movement’s been to open up the Center. It’s a park for the city, and you ought to make it inviting for the city. There was a lot of community involvement—and I mean a lot of community involvement—and the consensus was to make it more green. We didn’t take out many buildings, but this was one of them.”
Forsyth wants to be realistic, and he recognizes that Seattle Center needs money. “I don’t want to take a position yea or nay,” he says. “But people should take a look at what they’re doing, and it ought to be done with the same level of sensitivity the master plan was done with.”
The Fun Forest pavilion, he points out, was constructed shortly after the 1990 master plan was published—and it went against that plan, too. “After the 1990 plan, the first thing they did was plop in a building that was not appropriate, and it was that building,” he says.
Lessons learned so far: zero.
The tension at the heart of Seattle Center is that it is a public-private entity. The land is prime civic real estate, but it is not supported by prime civic dollars, leaving the public side in a position of weakness—which is why it needs thoughtful, diplomatic advocates. City council member Sally Bagshaw, also chair of the Parks & Seattle Center Committee, says that if a project is going to run counter to what people said they wanted from the Center, it ought at least to be free and open to the public. Furthermore, how can the city know its options when only one is under discussion? Use of the land on the other side of the current Fun Forest (which is scheduled to shut down entirely after Labor Day) is being opened up for a request-for-proposals, or RFP, process, which means ideas will have to compete on their merits. The privacy of the Chihuly museum process thus far makes it look suspiciously like a fait accompli.
“There are two problems,” Bagshaw says. “One, it’s not open to the public, and secondly, if we have something that’s going to be used for private gain, we need to have an RFP—some kind of public process. They need money to run this place, and I really respect that; it’s just that I’ve got another hand up, which is to take care of this public space. It would be a little bit like if we said to somebody that wanted to move up into Volunteer Park, ‘Here, take two acres, enjoy yourself.’ And that doesn’t strike me as quite right without having the public engaged in it and saying, ‘Yeah, that’s what we want.'”
And what about the art content of the proposed museum? The plan calls for a 20-year lease, to be renewed in five-year increments. It is unclear what the displays would be or how often they would change. A distinction is made in the plan between a museum, which “has rotating exhibitions,” and this center: “This will be a permanent installation of Chihuly work.” That makes it sound like the Bridge of Glass in Tacoma, which is unchanging. But the minutes of the design commission meeting also say, “Uncertainty exists as to how often it might change.” The exhibition concept is unspecified.
That worried Norie Sato, the artist on the commission, and the lone vote against the plan at the January meeting where it was introduced. She wants to support arts at Seattle Center, but isn’t ready to jump on board yet.
“I just didn’t know, if you were going to set up a center like this, whether devoting it to a single artist was adequate—civic enough as an opportunity,” Sato says. “My other concern was the way Chihuly was thinking about it; it just wasn’t a big enough idea. It was sort of the attitude ‘I’m just going to put all my stuff in here.’ I didn’t think the whole thing had been thought through well enough, really. If we’re talking about taking public space away, I kind of think we have a responsibility to make it something that isn’t just okay or adequate.
“It’s going to be the biggest display of Chihuly anywhere in the world,” Sato continues. “It’s a really big deal. I think it’s a big change for the Center, and it may be good for the Center. I’m a little skeptical. I try to be supportive, because I think that anything that brings more culture in is a good thing, but we want to make sure it’s accessible—and worth turning away public space for.”
The most disturbing aspect of the planned Chihuly museum is not the idea itself—but the lack of questions that have been asked about it thus far. At a press conference on Tuesday, March 9, at the Space Needle, Chihuly did not take questions. He described his life history, then laid out the plans for the project, which will include “many of the best [glass] installations that I’ve ever done,” a 70-by-10-foot backlit mural on Plexiglas, others of his drawings and paintings, and, in the dining area, some of his own collections of objects. Ron Sevart, CEO of the Space Needle, said the museum is scheduled to open in spring 2011. “It’s gonna happen fast—I know that much,” Chihuly said, then was escorted out. 
This article has been updated since its original publication.
we need more green park space in Seattle!
Why does seattle have some a boner for Chihuly…he’s a one hit wonder, there are much better glass artists around…he’s just got the money to market himself…oh and he’s a complete douche!
I’m just tired of Seattle’s inability to establish and maintain high-quality public spaces. No public waterfront, no great urban park, neglect of Seattle Center. Just abominations like South Lake Union and the sterile emptiness of downtown. Bleah.
The original plans for this area included green space and a fountain zone for people to enjoy when summer comes – Thie glass museum idea is horrible – what a bore and misuse of the space…
@2: Exactly. The emporer has no clothes.
Goldy’s idea of a super-playground is the best I’ve heard so far; there’s not enough of those, and certainly not enough close to downtown.
C’mon, Norie Sato, the more I read about this idea, the worse it sounds. We really do not need a giant vanity warehouse for the Chihuly Glass Factory. Maybe this Liberace Museum will attract a few curious tourists, but no local will go near the place. What an absolute waste.
who will pay $$ to see his work, you can see it free all over town!
worst idea ever!
if they made a huge outdoor park filled with his work that was free to all visitors than i think people would go for it
Well, it might be fun as long as they combine the shooting gallery part of the Fun Forest with the Chihuly dooley.
@6– good link. When our 12 year old was younger we’d go there twice a month at least. The Science Center, the Children’s museum, the Children’s theatre, and the Int’l fountain. More play space for everyone (including grownups) is what’s needed. But if a building must go there, why not move the Children’s museum out of that basement it occupies. On the other hand, cruise passengers from Missouri who shell out $150 for their shore excursions will love the Chihuly crap, I’m sure.
DON’T DO IT
Yup, they need to expand the Fun Forest instead. Turn the area into a giant public playground!
So jaded and silly sounding.
I feel like I am siting in the French Cultural Office when they rejected Monet.
Van Gogh could not sell anything, he burned many painting to keep warm. Smart art appreciation people in those times.
The glass is amazing, any real collection on display would be a giant draw.
Do it at Settle Center, needs some thought. But to just jeer and act stupid about the idea – what drugs are you all on?
Anything to add color to Seattle sounds spectacular, and yes I would pay to see it, and yes I would bring visitors. Awesome.
This idea sucks big ass donkey balls. Don’t blow it again with the Center. Leave the EMP, Space Needle, ACT, McCaw, PNB and the fountain. Kill the rest, give us something locals can use. Please. Shit, put a road throught the middle of it to ease East-West travel. But surrounding the road should be grass and trees and benches for dirty old men to leer at the ladies from.
Real artists want to work. I propose making a structurally sound skeletal grid of rooms that we could turn into an endless ant maze of corridors/chambers/installations. For my whole life, before I knew it existed, I wanted to create my own version of Dead House. For the cost of materials, thousands of artists would add to a project like this. A living, breathing organism … always under construction, unsettling, exciting. Like the Motel piece, pushed forward into Borges’ Library of Babel. I’d do the whole thing myself for free.
Alex Ruhe.
Oh but it’s tho artsy. (sarcasm)
i like the idea as a not for profit based idea; keep entry fee to bare minimum so all or nearly all can enjoy. i am local and do appreciate Dale’s work and would pay to see it and bring visiting guests if i feel it is wonderful enough, but given that the space is public/private then the private part of the wealthy family should be so happy to send monies made back to the center given that they have already profited from this public/private relationship!
Why didn’t you idiots vote for the commons if you wanted more green space? A little late to rant and wet your pants over this. Sounds like this project would bring some revenue to the City of Seattle and all the other Seattle Center plans have no funding.
gillettebret is an idiot.
how vain of chihuly to want in on this jack-offery.
and how preposterous of the powers that be to even consider building what basically amounts to a freaking shrine to a living and exceptionally mediocre (at best) craftsman. that’s right, craftsman.
please, a show of hands from everybody who is sick to death of chihuly’s old-hat, emotionally void, snob-baubles.
so why wasn’t there an RFQ for this project, like all other public projects?
this thing reeks of back door ass grabbing.
Why aren’t you whining about the SONICS? Whiney-whiney dimwits.
Hey 44, where’s YOUR museum?
I like Goldy’s kick-ass playground idea too. With LOTS of restrooms (fuck you Pike Place Market; I should’ve dumped my shitty Depends in your courtyard).
Except for the ACT and McCaw, Seattle Center is for the kids and the tourists. It’s always been that way – it was built for the world’s fair!
Tourists are annoying but they bring in money. All the more reason to focus their attention in one area that’s removed from the locals.
But the kids are important. As long as this Chihuly building brings in money or jobs or both and doesn’t take away from the kid’s enjoyment of the Seattle Center, then it’s fine with me.
I don’t know what city you all are living in, but Seattle has incredible parks and more green space then I could ever go to. Try living in Boston or Philly or Baltimore etc…
And whoa… Wanda Fooka, if you aren’t joking, what the hell are you talking about!
Most people go to the Seattle Center for scheduled events. If you live nearby, I suppose you’d enjoy more green space, but just head over to the Discovery Park.
Every city has a Chihuly, too bad we’re stuck with The Chihuly
Every city has haters and whiners, but Seattle seems to have a large population of them. In Seattle, we’re supposed frown on success and hate successful people. Oh my, oh my!
Of course he’s overblown. Of course he’s past his prime. Of course young hipsters think he’s square and suburban.
But you know what? A museum filled with lesbian smearing their feces on Bush photos would only be filled with penniless losers like yourselves. Sorry, but tax payers do not need to take it up the arse on this project, we need something that will bring in crowds.
There is a public waterfront in Seattle, and ACT is downtown. The Intiman and the Rep are at the Seattle Center.
Seattle already has plenty of green spaces. What it needs is either more parking at them (only 75 spaces at Carkeek per its site info) or more bus routes that go to them.
Unfortunately, many of Seattle’s existing parks are treated as though they are the private front yards of the wealthy homeowners who are their immediate neighbors not public spaces that belong to all Seattlites.
I support the idea of gradually transforming Seattle Center to more of a cultural mecca rather than a place for Belltown dogs to chase frisbees. A new museam there is a good idea. Whether or not it should be devoted to Chihuly is another conversation altogether.
If they keep it next to the EMP, then we can at least have the creative diarrhea section of the Seattle Center in one area. As long as it’s not too contagious. It “goes” with the giant exhibition kitch already there for decades. I honestly believe that when Gehry got the gig to design the EMP, he quickly realized how fucking spineless Seattlelites are and what little design sense they have, and then like any egomaniac exhibition-style architect quickly deduced “Hey, I can do *ANYTHING I WANT* and they will have no sense nor the balls to stop me.” GD exhibition architecture! (My pop worked for Ghery as an intern, so I my data for him being an egomaniac is completely infallible.)
Now, you fucking spineless whiners, if you want a park there, if you’d prefer a Chihuly head shop instead, or anything other than a pay-to-enter museum for a (not even dead yet?!?) white guy, get off your GD computers and go out and actually *DO* something.
Please just give us a nice lawn. And keep the crappy glass somewhere else. Having visited the Tacoma sites, they were nice, but I wouldn’t pay to see them again.
Oh yeah, you’re right, the ACT is downtown, I spoke too soon. I’ve never been to any of the big theatre houses.
I was talking about that area facing queen anne hill. There’s a one-screen cinema and the theatre… I saw some old movies at that cinema and I always liked the walkways around that part of the Seattle Center.
Of course, I forgot about Bumbershoot, Folk Life, Bite of Seattle etc.. I don’t see how the Chihuly building will interfere with those events so again, I’m fine with it.
Anyway, I grew up in Seattle and I never expected Seattle Center to be a cultural mecca. That would be cool if it was, I just think it’s unrealistic to expect that.
When I lived in Seattle I never had a car and I made it to all kinds of park when the weather was nice. I spent time at Gasworks, Cal Anderson, Volunteer, Seward, Discovery, Greenlake, Carkeek, Victor Steinbrueck, Madison…
As for parks being the private front yards of wealthy landowners, yeah, some of the parks on lake washington are like that, but I was never told to leave when I hung out there!
What’s all this talk about losers and people being penniless? There are people out there looking for jobs and hurting for money.
Just went to Tacoma to see The Chihuly Bridge of Glass and his installation in Union Station again. The Union Station installation has been the same since 1996 (or before) and is looking tired. The Bridge hasn’t changed since its opening in 2001/02. Unless there are some dynamic and changing installations this proposed venue will also become tired. On top of all of this, I question the process.
To claim that Chihuly is an artist or a craftsman is to talk about the Dale Chihuly that lived twenty years ago. Since then he has realized he is on to a formula that millionaires who know nothing about art will pay massive bucks for. He has not touched any glass that bears his name in ages, he has staff for all those messy details. These “designs” are lame variations on a concept that has been boring for years now. This is corporate design. This is a big Exxon sign in the middle of the Seattle Center. If it has to come to pass, I would prefer that all the the Chihuly stuff be installed inside the EMP so I would never have to look at it.
Bertstad wins the jealous sourpuss award for today! Let’s gripe and be as negative as possible because that accomplishes so much.
Why so many people in Seattle think that their “input” matters so much? People don’t get to vote on everything, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s a GOOD thing. A lot of people who live here are complete idiots. (Notice how many Seattleites think EVERYTHING “sucks”.)
Gee, instead of a Chihuly exhibit maybe they should build another doggie poop and piss park for moron dog owners, because Lord knows we don’t have enough of those.
I happen to hate Chilhuly’s work, the colors, the shapes, but am evidently very much in the minority. I think his appeal is a case of the weird and different, the ultra odd cute, becoming the beloved of the body democratic whose bad taste, as far as I can tell, is boundless. Thus Chihuly really belongs into a kind of “Believe it or not” Museum for items of that kind. At the heart of the taste for this sort of thing, are the Nordic dwarfs that used to adorn the lawns in Norway and Germany, Garten Zwerge, artsy craftsy… Best as I can tell, what is proposed at Seattle Center is a commercial venture to enhance the value of the manufacturer’s product. My guess is that the fickle public will soon tire of its gimmicky nature.
Chihuly needs to fashion himself a glass eye, and see his way to the door.
It’s dismaying to see council member Bagshaw actually considering giving up two acres of public open space for another building of any sort at Seattle Center. It also strains credulity to think that a pavilion dedicated to Chihuly glass at Seattle Center is appropriate, aesthetically or programmatically. As to the sponsor, the Space Needle already is one cash cow in the park; isn’t there a limit on these?
Funding for operations at the Seattle Center has come to this?!!
If the city council can’t find a way to avoid this scratch-the-devil’s-back deal, at least it could mitigate the impact. Erickson’s Museum of Glass in Tacoma went underground to great effect, providing public open space on top with dramatically lighted viewing spaces inside, and a similar solution could be found here. A green lid would provide the open space the Century 21 master plan actually calls for while the for-pay operation could generate a generous stream of revenue to split eighty–twenty with the Center.
If money and vanity weren’t the motivating concerns here, a better idea would be just more public open space. A kiosk under a tree could give directions to regional must-sees: Mt. Rainier, the Puyallup fairgrounds, the Chihuly Bridge of Glass in Tacoma.
Jen Graves, you’re wrong! The most disturbing thing about the proposed Chihuly shrine at Seattle Center IS the idea itself.
Chihuly blows. I liked it at first, as a teenager, newly exposed, who had just moved to Seattle from a farm in the midwest. But it all looks exactly the same and it’s as common as stop signs around here. Blergh. Totally lame waste of Seattle Center real estate.
it makes sense. give Seattle Center to the tourists. they can ride the monorail and feel egalitarian….
it makes sense. give Seattle Center to the tourists. they can ride the monorail and feel egalitarian….
Great Idea, Alex. #19
And, put it up on Stilts.
Leave it Open under — for a Dry whatever.
Now, an exhibition hall or museum of glass artworks and antiques would be way cool, but one dedicated to Chihuly? Please. He’s such an obnoxious, self-centered fuck. Why encourage him by giving him his own “museum”?
Anything that veers from the approved masterplan MUST go through public hearing process as extensive as the one for the masterplan. Futher, it should be put to a vote, and that vote should include the option of a revitalized Fun Forest. If you are going to ignore the recommendations adopted in the masterplan, then the entire issue needs to be reopened for debate.
Below are some direct concepts lifted verbatim from the masterplan which further proves the point that this proposal does not fit.
“Open space at Seattle is the green canvas; the free, public space that is the connective
tissue of Seattle Center. The Century 21 Master Plan adds 10 acres of public open
space, connecting the people and activities that were once isolated at its edges.”
“Five acres of valuable real estate returns to the public realm in January 2010. A
significant space on the campus that is now most frequently an empty asphalt
lot for carnival rides becomes an active, fun destination for children and families
throughout the hours of the day and the days of the year.”
“Surrounding the Space Needle will be a landscape expressing the abundance
and sustainability of the earth, a naturally forested area, a structured urban
forest, sustainable gardens and botanical terraces.”
I also disagree with the proposal for the following reasons:
1) This isn’t family or locals oriented, thus moving the Seattle Center further away from its mission. (See the second concept from the masterplan above.)
2) Chihuly’s art can be found in numerous sites around the city already.
3) The market is limited, and there is already a glass museum in Tacoma. I believe it is impossible to prove the market feasibility of this project. Publish the business plan! If Chihuly wants a museum, perhaps he should consider working with SAM. Do I need to remind the council that the EMP did not meet projections and continues to struggle?
4) The project is not active. This aspect of any operation was something very important to the council and Mayor at the time and shows up in the masterplan concepts above.
5) A “museum” dedicated to the art of one man on public property is ridiculous in a region where other, more critically acclaimed, artists reside. This is not a museum, rather it is nothing more than a showroom for a private enterprise. If you want a museum, it MUST showcase all artists.
6) Any comments from Century 21 should be considered invalid since Jeff Wright is the Co-Chair of the committee. There is an obvious conflict of interest which I will ensure becomes public.
I agree that public-private partnerships are a valid way to generate revenue to sustain the Seattle Center budget. I also continue to believe that a revitalized Fun Forest would serve a larger and local demographic that could include open space, interactive elements, and generate far more revenue than a one-man museum.
The Council should also take note that or the 257 comments posted to The Seattle Times article (9:50am – Wednesday), 233 clearly oppose the idea. That’s over 90%! Further, many mention they would rather keep the existing or revitalize the Fun Forest.
First of all you haven’t seen the museum yet it might be super cool. And if your bitchen about green space we live in the Northwest hello? Quit being lazy and take a hike