When talk turns to Dale Chihuly, it somehow immediately becomes stupid (more on the Queen of Nuance’s take on it later today; I need to get involved with putting out a print paper here).
But Seattle artist Christian French devoted himself to honestly expressing his complicated feelings about the Chihuly Museum—without being a jerk, without being anti-glass (it’s a MEDIUM, people, and being against a medium is crazy), without being anti-Dale (he’s just a human, calm down; eye patch jokes aren’t funny), without being inadvertently anti-art (calling something not art because it wasn’t made by the hand of the artist is the equivalent of cultural illiteracy: if you don’t like his art, it might be related to this fact, but it isn’t entirely contained by it, so do some more thinking).
I could not have said it better, so I am posting French’s whole letter here.
The point is: Perfectly reasonable humans can ask critical questions—and in fact SHOULD ASK CRITICAL QUESTIONS—when a private museum is being proposed on a public property right next to another disaster of a private museum.
Jesus. Get a grip, people. When anybody who disagrees with something is called a hater, then, um, GEORGE W. BUSH.
Oh, and for those who discount the Facebook page “Anybody But Chihuly at the Needle” for its unfortunate name—why don’t you go over there and see the number-one complaint of the people who are signed up for it: THEY DISLIKE THE NAME. Big deal. They still, like me, oppose the project as it is now envisioned.
I defer to French to describe how it is envisioned, and why I bristle at it. It’s a long letter, but you’ll be glad you read the whole thing.
As an artist living and working in Seattle, and as someone who has had a long association with the Seattle Center, both as an exhibitor and as a spectator, I was caught by surprise recently when I heard about the nascent proposal to place a Chihuly-centric project on Center grounds. Curious, I attended the extended meeting at the Seattle Center on Tuesday for what I had hoped would be a discussion of the proposal, and arguments for its merits, as well as some justification as to why the long-thought-out proposal for opening up the Center grounds was being suddenly replaced by something billed as a “done deal” in some quarters. Before attending the meeting I had some concerns, namely: that a permanent, static installation of the work of one artist would be the vehicle to create a lucrative tourist attraction that offered little of significance to permanent residents of the region, clogging up public space with boatloads of people herded to what would be billed as an unparalleled aesthetic experience all of whom, assumedly, would pay for the privilege, pause at the café, and shop at the gift shop. As a business plan, this is a winner, but this is being sold as a cultural treasure, which is where my misgivings lie.
I have lived in several urban spaces. In New York, we considered the space between the postal box and the fire hydrant to be open space, so I don’t automatically think a project like this is problematic for spatial reasons. What is being ignored however is the value of space which is flexibility, variety, change. Fixed, permanent things close down conversation, and I think we need to defend variety as a civic virtue. One core definition of what makes a living thing is it’s ability to change and if we want to preserve the vitality of the Seattle Center then any project must embed variety within it. Creating a “shrine” (suited for tourist pilgrimage) for any one person runs the risk of becoming a mausoleum, and I think that would be, well, bad.
At the meeting on Tuesday, I sat through endless testimonials in favor of this project (so fully along that even the moderators seemed to be promoting it). When you subtracted the people for whom there was obvious personal self-interest (do we really need to give public land over to private use to provide jobs for a few construction companies?) there weren’t many people effectively arguing in favor of the merits. Chihuly is generous? That’s nice, but I expect that of any member of our community who becomes successful. Chihuly has influenced, supported, benefitted, employed lots of people and artists over his career? Heck, when I lived on Eastlake, I used to sleep on his shelves, but that’s another story. His value to us as a region, to glass as a medium, and to the future of the Center must rest on what for lack of a better term I will call “meaningfulness”. The business-enterprise-cum-cash-cow that is being proposed here must do more than be attractive, it must offer significant public benefit, and that’s where the waters get murky.
People seem to split fairly clearly in terms of Chihuly’s work, and his contribution. People love his work, because it is attractive, accessible and in no small measure, collectible. People who don’t like his work find beauty an insufficient metric, have issues with his over-the-top success and fail to see how something they consider a craft is really art. As an artist who has passionately explored beauty in my own work, I appreciate what he attempts to do (it isn’t easy) and while some of his work fails to interest me, I think his enthusiastic and possibly indiscriminate pursuit of beauty can result in truly beautiful work. I think his chandeliers are in their Baroque, ebullient excess, simply gorgeous. And, I would add, something it takes an industry to support. The problem is: it was that industry that came out on Tuesday. It is that industry that came across as a giant bulldozer prepared to overwhelm considered opposition by proclaiming that because Chihuly is X or has done X or whatever – that “he” “deserves” “X”. We got little explanation as to how this project serves to elevate the dialogue about what art is and could be in our region/culture/society. We also got little explanation about why “he” thinks this is such a great opportunity and what “he” thinks is being offered to us. I think this oversight will cost this project, if not in terms of success then in terms of goodwill, and legacy. In the end an interested observer is forced to conclude that this is simply another form of marketing, branding and strategy, one that makes use of facilities conveniently located right next to a certain tall building owned by the people who stand to gain. Since those facilities are public there has to be a better case made for public benefit, beyond vague promises of a good rent. Nowhere here is a real argument for how the rest of Seattle and the region stand to gain on a meaningful level.
One thing struck me while attending the meeting, and it has taken me a while to tease it out, although I tried to take a stab at it in my public comments. Vested interests aside, I could see how people who actually thought that this was a good idea were sincere. I could see how they thought bringing tourist dollars in was a good thing. I could see how they imagined that the space created would be one of aesthetic fulfillment: i.e. that people would find it beautiful, attractive, and worth visiting. I could see them struggle with the idea that anyone would reject such a “gift”. I could see that people sincerely were in favor of this saw it as “Chihuly’s Gift to Seattle” and those opposed see it as “Seattle’s Gift to Chihuly”. Impassioned arguments about the man and his work are, in this matter, red herrings.
We don’t need a “Chihuly Museum” at the Seattle Center (leaving aside that it isn’t wouldn’t be and never was a museum), though some people would like to see one. We don’t need a “Museum of Glass” at the Seattle Center – Tacoma’s is fabulous enough. We may need to generate revenue to support the Center, but then we always have and there’s a larger discussion in that. What we need is a clear articulation of how anything and everything at the Center serves a public good, and I am always in favor when the Arts get celebrated as a public good (I am also always opposed when the Arts get taken advantage of for cynical motivations). To this end, I am forced to ask this question. If a project like this moves forward, how can it be something of true and real value?
As I suggested before, I can imagine a world where Chihuly cares about beauty and cares about offering up to everyone a gift of significance. I have wondered what such a thing would look like, filtered through my own bias. I would have to conclude that unless half the exhibition space was devoted to a rotating project space that allows for other artists to come through and engage multiple mediums, and the region, then the project is in danger of being forever condemned as a vanity exercise. I think that should be avoided. This project has the possibility of taking people already attracted and interested in Art and offering them a rich conversation about how we see the world and reflect back what is beautiful and meaningful in an endless variety of ways. We have several excellent examples here: Suyama Space and Open Satellite being but two, Kohler’s Arts and Industry program (in Wisconsin) being another take. I also suspect that unless some significant portion of this is made free and accessible then down the road people here will feel taken advantage of – again, a legacy worth avoiding. I would suggest that beyond a fixed rent, some respectable portion of revenue be allocated as a give-back: whether it be a funded grant with Artist Trust or Office of Arts and Culture, or whether it be support an annual temporary art installation program on the Center grounds or some other idea (keeping the money at the Center is the cleanest idea). This would allow something we could point to that exists above and beyond the project itself, giving the citizens of Seattle the feeling that we all somehow benefit. I’m sorry, an above-market lease may pencil out well, but it’s like getting socks for Christmas. Not much of a gift.
Anyway while I’m not good with sound bites, as my previous exegesis demonstrates, here’s what I think this boils down to. Since much of the arguments in favor of this project rise and fall on one man, I will address my question to him. Dale, if you want a project that celebrates Glass, that celebrates Art, that celebrates this region, and that celebrates you, then it has to be about more than simply you and your work. I would love to see you create a beautiful space that we all enjoy. I agree that a significant work by you would draw people from every corner of the globe. If you are the creative person that people make you out to be, and that I see in your work, then give us something that has true creative potential. Give us something that changes over time, that allows for a meaningful conversation, and that people on both sides of this can get behind. Make an allowance that some of the revenue go back to the creative community, so that everyone feels they have a stake. In short, give me a way to support this in good conscience, so I don’t have to keep writing long-winded letters like this one.
Thank you in advance,
Christian W. French
There’s already a glass museum in Tacoma. Why does this region need two glass museums? That’s my big objection.
And …. the crowd goes wild as another drive to the plate …. it’s Joe up to the bat, and a solid connect, and THE BASEBALL IS GOING RIGHT FOR THE CHIHULY!
HOME RUN!
“What is being ignored however is the value of space which is flexibility, variety, change. Fixed, permanent things close down conversation, and I think we need to defend variety as a civic virtue.”
Amen!
I’m glad you posted his letter in its entirety. It’s a really thoughtful response to the proposal and the kind of discussion that should be happening.
However, I’m not sure why people are startled by the idea of a private museum or institution occupying Seattle Center. Isn’t that the norm? Very few of the structures or organizations on the premises are public.
“calling something not art because it wasn’t made by the hand of the artist is the equivalent of cultural illiteracy”
No, it’s not.
How awesome would a Julian Schnabel museum be now if one had been built on the Center grounds twenty years ago? Not very.
And Dale, please build the giant glass Chihuly waterslide for the kids… ok!?
Yeah, Fnarf, it is. And your two thoughts do not connect.
Christian, nice letter, but you have some incorrect facts that should maybe change your conclusion –
1. “some justification as to why the long-thought-out proposal for opening up the Center grounds was being suddenly replaced by something billed as a “done deal” in some quarters.”
There was a process that went into this plan. According to the Center, it was “…vetted in the summer and fall of 2009 with the Parks and Seattle Center Committee of the Seattle City Council and Mayor’s Office, who gave the go-ahead to pursue the proposal. The idea was also presented for review to the Seattle Center Advisory Commission and Century 21 Committee[ who wrote the Master Plan]. The Seattle Design Commission, a citizens review board for urban design projects, reviewed conceptual designs for the exhibition in public meeting held in November 2009 and January 2010.”
Not sudden, not secretive, not backroom.
2. “Before attending the meeting I had some concerns, namely: that a permanent, static installation of the work of one artist would be the vehicle to create a lucrative tourist attraction that offered little of significance to permanent residents of the region, clogging up public space with boatloads of people”
The display of Chihuly’s works won’t be permanent, and could be as short as 5 years. There is a 20 year lease, really 4, 5 year leases. If the show is a flop, expect this to be gone in 5 years. The Wright’s are only putting up $15 million, which is petty compared to the $1 billion Paul Allen put up for the EMP, which IS meant to be permanent. At the very most, this is a 20 year project, unless very popular. Not permanent.
It also won’t be static from what I hear, as the shows inside will be changed.
Your final point that it might clog up public space with boatloads of people – tow comments. First, that would be true only if there is a lot of demand for it. And if there is, then great! Right? Second, It won’t clog up public space any more than Bumbershoot, Folklife, Pride, McCaw Hall, Key Arena, etc, etc.
Again, keep in mind the current Fun Forest is 5 acres. 3.5 acres of this space will be made into open, public space, that will be able to be used for a multiplicity of things per your wishes. And it’s paid for. 1.5 Acres could be a popular art attraction, generating much needed money for the Center and the City. Or it could be 1.5 acres of pavement that generates no money and costs the city money in maintenance.
Don’t create a false choice between the Chihuly exhibit and some other great idea, unless the other idea comes complete with at least a funding source. And then explain why you want the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would be generated by the Chihuly idea to not materialize for other City priorities.
@6 ftw – apropos for Seattle too.
@7, Schnabel is another “artist” who doesn’t make his own stuff. So I think they do connect.
We may not agree on art subjects very often, and your knowledge obviously far outstrips mine on most subjects, but that doesn’t make me “illiterate”. Unless you’re saying that 99.99% of the population is similarly illiterate, in which case the “culturally” part comes into question.
First, the EMP cost $240 Million, all in. And I am pretty sure that includes the collectibles inside, as well as the building. NOT a Billion.
Second, Cultural Illiteracy means being unaware of culture, being ignorant of culture.
It does not have anything to do with the ongoing argument as to whether “art” made by employees and subcontractors is equal to “art” made by the hand of an artist. The incursion of commerce, and business practices, into the making of fine art is a legitimate subject of discussion, and there are real, discernable differences between the kinds of art being made by art factories like those run by Chihuly, Koons, and Hirst, versus art being made by artists like Jeffrey Mitchell, or Andy Goldsworthy, or Martin Puryear, who insist on touching every piece of it themselves.
Not to defend Fnarf or anything.
Third- Bravo, Christian.
This is excellent. Christian is much more generous towards Chihuly than I am, but that is a matter of taste, I guess. I believe the entire Northwest region has enough Chihuly to go around, ten times over. I don’t think Chihuly is a terrible person, eye-patch or no, I have nothing against the medium of glass, and I don’t believe Chihuly is less the artist because his “hand” doesn’t make the work. I simply dislike the man’s self-propagated work, by means of money and influence, all over the Pacific Northwest. I wouldn’t want to see one person’s self-validated mark being made over and over and over again, all over an entire city/region, no matter who that person was.
Christian, thanks for taking the time to write this diplomatic assessment; it is very important that this was said, in this way, at this time. Your letter will forever be connected to the Chihuly monument as the voice of reason from someone who genuinely cares about the cultural lifespan of our city.
When talk turns to Dale Chihuly, it somehow immediately becomes stupid
Jen Graves FTW.
@10
Warhol is yet another artist who didn’t make his own stuff. If that disqualifies him from your admiration, fine, but this discussion should be about more than Fnarf’s personal sense of aesthetics and style.
Fnarf, you know I love you. Some days, though, you just make-a no sense-a.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Schnabel. Whether he touched all of his works with his Schnabelly hands is not one of them.
Now come on and let’s hug.
My only question is what stake does Meinert have in this. I know he owns several local business’ that I am sure have the potential to benefit from this in an abstract sort of way but his constant shilling for this project just strikes me as odd. That is unless Chihuly is hiring the Blue Scholars to play the opening party for his Curio shop.
I hate the purist argument that the artist must physically create the artwork they produce in order for the artwork in question to be given the title “art”. Hands-on creating is an important part of most artist’s process, to be sure, but to invalidate entire bodies of art based on method of production is to be culturally illiterate.
The old masters routinely employed apprentices, but you don’t see anyone arguing the artistic legitimacy of their work. Mural artists are another example I can think of.
That said, I don’t really like Chihuly or Kincade or whoever else–I just think mythologizing an artist’s hands is silly.
Jen, I just looked again at your facebook post about this and actually thought there were many SMART responses. Especially Emily’s and Eric’s. Maybe post that conversation here?
I’ve been pretty vocal about Chihuly not blowing his own glass, so I’ll guess I’m being one of the “culturally illiterate”.
I defend my statement. Yes, yes, some types of art are not created by their own hand. Architects don’t build their own designs. Large sculptures are often built to the design of the artist by someone else. A good photographer demands an equally good model. There are lots of forms of art that require help of one sort or another.
But blowing glass? No. Chihuly may give all the input and instruction he wants, but a large part of the credit must go to the actual hand that blows the glass. And he gives none. He is the Kinkade of the glass world.
@16 I share your question. I didn’t really care up to this point, but since it appears that he is going to leave very lengthy rebuttals in the comments for every Slog post on this topic, I am becoming curious. On the surface, his argument seems centered around the revenue that the city would take in from the museum, but considering his vehemence, is that all there is to it? Mr. Meinert, would you care to elaborate on your motivations?
I certainly do. As far as I’m concerned, the copyright lawsuit constituted a unpardonable assault on the freedom of speech. It was all the more atrocious as, of all people, an artist should have known better.
@14, when Warhol started to farm out his silkscreens, that’s about the time he started to suck, just repeating his ideas for cash. And the argument he fostered, about the nature of “what is art?” and so on, is so very, very 1960s. It’s not relevant today. And even if it was, it’s a conversation that Chihuly is not and has not ever been a part of. Chihuly’s glass is resolutely mute on this and all other topics. It says nothing about anything, not even “beauty”. Talk about cultural illiterates.
Also, this discussion IS about my personal sense of aesthetics. That’s all I have to offer to the discussion. I am not an art historian, and this is not a doctoral dissertation. I’m just a resident of Seattle telling you what I think. You get to disagree if you want. Maybe your argument is better than mine; I hope it is, because better arguments make for better civics. My argument is pretty simple: Dale Chihuly is shit.
@15, I know, I’m a crabby old bastard. But you’re wrong; Schnabel’s methodology is indeed one very strong reason to hate his work. Not the only one, to be sure. About the only way I can understand Schnabel at all is in the context of “ripping off rich old New York art patrons with this hopeless garbage is a fine way to expose the bullshit of the 80s, the bullshit of New York, the bullshit of the modern art marketplace”. Which is cute, but not very pleasing.
It’s also a hundred million times more valuable than anything Chihuly has ever done.
But sure, hugs? I’ll never turn down a hug. You’re right, I’ve had a splitting headache all day long. This is feeding my desire to beat the fat pirate’s brains out against the sidewalk. It’s not the eyepatch; it’s the paint-spattered clothes he wears everywhere he goes.
@17,
Did the old masters sue their apprentices when they tried to create their own work?
I disagree. Eye-patch jokes ARE funny.
@16 and 20 – to be clear, I have no direct ties to the Wrights or to the Center. And I don’t stand to benefit financially if this Chihuly thing is built. I do however care deeply about Seattle and it’s future. I want Seattle to be a great city, and I think this project will add to it. I also want to see Seattle take advantage and benefit from it’s successful citizens and families. When people make money here, they should be encouraged to reinvest it into big projects and culture in a way that benefits others (and themselves even). But we seem to have an attitude here that discourages popular success and hates on anyone who makes money. We also constantly diss popular culture in a way that makes little sense to me.
And given that the Center is already almost doubling it’s open space, I believe the Chihuly project will add to the Center more than having more open space will – for two reasons, first it will get more use, and second it will generate much needed money for the City and for nearby businesses, both of whom desperately need it. The return on investment for the City on this project is pretty great.
And yes, I do own or am partners in several nearby businesses, only a few of them retail, and none which I think will be impacted either way by this project. The nearest business I have an interest in is the 5 Point. We do benefit a lot from some events at Seattle Center, like say KISS, Bumbershoot and WWE, but not so much from others like the Opera, Billy Joel and probably a Chihuly exhibit.
Aside from my general interest in making Seattle a better place to live (I’m pretty invested in this town and plan on staying here for a while), I also hate the type of coverage I’ve seen on this project on Slog, and the type of Seattle attitude that it represents. I love Slog, but dislike seeing it turned into a place that is anti something just to be anti, or cool, or whatever. Or to stop something just to show it has power. And watching the coverage Dom and Cienna have given this issue makes me cringe. I really like both writers, and enjoy a lot of their work. Dom’s article on Tom Carr in the last election was one of the best pieces of political profile writing I’ve read in a long time. But this anti at all cost (including the facts) pisses me off. The intentional misinformation threatens to take away the cred of a publication that I rely on to support many issues I work on. I would hate to see that happen. And, being a long timer here, I remember when The Stranger pulled a similar campaign against the Commons and I’ll never forget the negative impact that had on this city. This anti Chihuly campaign reminds me a lot of that anti-commons campaign, though it’s success would have much less of a negative impact, it would have the same sort of negative impact for sure.
Shorter Meinart: I want to build a 30-foot tall golden Honey Bucket right here. Many people will come, so you have to like it! Also, if you don’t want me to build it, you have to build something else there, instead. Right now.
@23 I don’t like the guy, I don’t like his work, I wasn’t defending him, etc.
@25, I’m not dissing popular culture at all. I’d like to see an expanded, full-fledged amusement park there myself — an Eye (huge Ferris wheel) and a wooden rollercoaster and lots of food carts. You know, something kids and ordinary people might be interested in.
Chihuly isn’t that popular; he’s created a myth around himself, but it’s all PR (from his own PR department).
Shorter Meinart again: I have been here for, like, ages. I know everything that went to down. So, all your thoughts are bunk!
Personally, I’ve seen way better glass art in Venice and by other glass artists in Seattle, but it’s still a very bad idea to build this thing.
@21: agreed.
@25: “But we seem to have an attitude here that discourages popular success and hates on anyone who makes money.”
Bingo.
I don’t think I’d be arguing for this stupid museum except for the fact that the arguments against it are so petty, petulant, and ignorant.
All this anti-money, anti-commerce, anti-private/public partnership bullshit is narrow-minded, self-defeating, and damaging to the city. Moreover, it makes the left look like spiteful insecure losers who feel threatened by anyone who is more successful than they are. Grow the fuck up.
The only honest arguments I’ve heard against the museum are that it is likely to fail, or that we can do better. (I suppose Fnarf has an honest take on this as well, even though I think the public’s general opinion of Chihuly is more pertinent than his.)
The rest is just spiteful crap.
@29 Shorter Montdidier – I think I’m clever because I can misrepresent opposing arguments with paraphrases that completely miss the point. And I have a small cock.
@21, @31 “the copyright lawsuit constituted a unpardonable assault … an artist should have known better.”
Right, because artists have absolutely no interest in copyright protection.
@25: The greatness of Seattle has nothing, and will never have anything, to do with a bunch of luridly-colored glass. That’s a terrible rationale for this project.
I caution blog responders to retain sight of the real issue here. The aesthetic considerations are a moot point before the political and business “leadership” of our community. Of key importance is the process by which this “gift” materialized.
Through a totally obscure public process and murky transparency, the Space Needle Corporation/Chihuly Inc proposal for a Chihuly Restaurant, Shop and Exhibit space at Seattle Center was sprung upon us as a new day dawning. We woke to discover the open green space at Seattle Center was not assured for the public as we had assumed. And in its place, we are presented a vague proposal of city ownership/ brokerage of private use for a FOR-profit commercial vanity venture…a business deal that benefits a single artist, a privately owned and operated facility charging elevated admission fees to all who care to enter.
This is the issue upon which we all must focus. It has little to do with whether or not Chihuly touches his glass objects.
I just wish they’d build something at the Seattle Center I’d actually want to go to. Perhaps even more than once. Can anyone really imagine paying money to visit a big room full of Chihuly glass, and then being like, “Man, I’m comin’ back here next weekend! This shit is AWESOME!”
The Seattle waterfront is already such lame-ass touristy bullshit that no one who lives here ever visits–must the Seattle Center be the same?
@36, “obscure public process” and “murky transparency”. NOT true. Read the many previous comments explaining how this came about. Object if you want, but at least do it honestly.
“Oh, and for those who discount the Facebook page “Anybody But Chihuly at the Needle” for its unfortunate name—why don’t you go over there and see the number-one complaint of the people who are signed up for it: THEY DISLIKE THE NAME. Big deal. They still, like me, oppose the project as it is now envisioned.”
Remember that many FB pages are for people who enjoy criticizing, so it’s no surprise that the name “isn’t good enough” either.
Hey Beth Sellers and all the rest of ya who don’t know how Seattle Centers works – Take the time to read this:
http://centerspotlight.seattle.gov/2010/…
There is no murky process at work. And, BTW does the Science Center charge elevated admissions fees? They are $14 a ticket.
Does the Fun Forest charge elevated fees? Yeah – $3 per two minute or less ride. Do the math.
And, Chihuly haters – other people do like the work. A lot. Why do you think it’s so popular? Oh, I get it – millions of people are stupid and you are the only arbiter of good taste….
Jen, thanks for moving the conversation a step in the right direction posting Christian’s letter. The posts by Dom and Cienna were Fox-worthy; dismissive of opinions other than their own, and activist opinion disguised as reporting.
Christian put a lot of thoughtful ideas out there and I look forward to letting them sink in.
Bitchihulyceum. Yawn.
A Chihuly Museum is a four-star marketing plan. Love or hate the guy, people outside of Seattle generally think he’s pretty amazing, and I have no doubt that a permanent installation of his works will bring more people/money to Seattle.
However nothing I’ve read convinces me that creating a new building at SC is the best way to do this. Why not utilize and remodel an existing building or site in Belltown or Pioneer Square? And Isn’t SAM’s longterm plan to expand within the tower? So why not have a permanent Chihuly room there? (That said, why *doesn’t* SAM ever launch Chihuly exhibitions?) I realize the goal is to bring people to Seattle Center, but people who go there simply for the Space Needle are (nearly) the same people who’ll go there for a Chihuly Museum. An additional building seems excessive. Perhaps I just need further convincing.
The truth is, despite the relative artistic merits of the proposed museum it is the only proposal on the table that is being funded by non-public funds. If you need a more merit based space in the existing building in question I would suggest you get out your checkbook. The fact that the Merill Foundation is funding this idea in its entirety is the reason it is moving forward. The space was not open space before hand and will likely not become open space in the future. In essence many people need to make peace with the fact that you can’t/won’t personally fund the creation of another expansive lawn to smoke weed on and play Frisbee.
@43 The proposal uses an existing building and will not create a new building.
Wow, @45. I guess I’ve just been completely oblivious to that ginormous glass atrium setting right next to the Space Needle all these years.
How I’ve managed to not break my nose on it time and again, I’ll never know.
@46 your link is broken. The initial reports I read said that they would use the existing Fun Forest Building rather than buy a new one. Upon further investigation I have found that you are correct and I am not. My point still stands however. Unless the public is willing to fund a renovation to ‘open space’ cries for creation of said space are at best hypocritical. Unless Comte is willing to pony up $25 million for the design, demo, and rebuild.
Fnarf: Your comments about Warhol are so backwards as to almost seem Warholian. Warhol became less interesting when his work became about money? Have you seen his dollar bills? Do you simply prefer his advertisement drawings of shoes? Sir, you must begin again on this subject. Do not feel bad. You cannot be an expert on everything, sir. Goodness.
Well, maybe @47, but I’m going to want a sweetheart long-term rental deal that goes totally in my favor, a reduction of City B&O and admissions taxes, government subsidies for raising capital for construction (at below market interest rates, naturally), plus I get to charge whatever I want to get in, plus I get kick-backs from the food and souvenir concessions, and when I’m done, the City has to buy back any “improvements” I make to existing infrastructure as well as any new infrastructure.
And a pony.
Otherwise, fuck-off.
nice Christian!
That project really needed an expansion of clarity, creativity and conscience, and you did exactly that.