Top of the News

Chosen and ranked by Crosscut editors. Click date for previous days.

Mouse over headline for description.

more top of the news

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


Mudville »

Apr 23, 2007 8:00 AM | last updated Apr 25, 2007 8:16 AM
Norman Foster design sketch

An early sketch of Seattle's new Civic Square. (Foster+Partners)

Advertisement
Advertisement

A big-time architect tackles Seattle's lack of a decent gathering place

Seattle has a reputation for doing a lousy job with public plazas. Can Norman Foster and $300 million change that?

By O. Casey Corr

For all the vast sums spent in recent years on public buildings – more than $1.5 billion on stadiums, a downtown library, two music halls, a new federal courthouse, and a new city hall – Seattle still lacks a there there.

In times more optimistic about our sports teams, the issue used to be framed as: Where do we go to celebrate when the Mariners win the World Series?

Okay, we need to lower our expectations. Winning can just be a nice day at the ballpark, right? But the question remains. Where does Seattle gather for big civic celebrations? The Pike Place Market is too small. Seattle Center is too far from downtown. Ditto for the University of Washington's Red Square. Westlake Park is clumsy, unless you're partial to the papal balcony look.

Now we're on course to solve that dilemma. Across Fourth Avenue from City Hall, Seattle is getting a $300 million Civic Square to be designed by one of the world's most renowned architects, Norman Foster. Among his achievements: London City Hall, a giant cone of glass and metal; the headquarters of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank; and the renovated Trafalgar Square in London.

This is a big deal. That money and name should have generated considerable attention in a town that went nuts over the design development and opening of the downtown public library. (And while it's true that patrons may get lost inside the Rem Koolhaas building, it's a spectacular place to be lost and a wonderful thing to look at, night or day.) But the dailies have given little attention to the announcement of Foster's selection. The first public presentation of his ideas at City Hall last Thursday drew at best a few citizens.

How come? First, public interest may be low because Seattle has a lousy record with public plazas. They tend to be cold and lifeless (especially the King County buildings') or unrealized because of so many compromises and political warring (Westlake). Second, the Foster project is the third and biggest piece of the as-yet-disappointing Civic Center Master Plan, adopted in 1998, which gave us the new the Justice Center ($92 million) and the new City Hall ($72 million).

Though the Justice Center and City Hall are handsome structures with fine details, they don't work as well together as hoped. A planned faux creek running under Fifth Avenue to link the two buildings, for example, was abandoned. City Hall provides some interesting spaces, especially a glass walkway and the council chambers, but the place has a high-end generic feel, like an office for a prosperous law firm or a new lobby for Swedish Hospital. Little about the place says Seattle, and the message sent to the average citizen is not encouraging. The Fourth Avenue entrance is a bit disorienting. The public might own the place, but if they want to find the chambers, it's a choice of walking up a severe flight of stairs or hunting for an elevator.

The west side of the new City Hall presents other problems – a maze of interior stair cases, empty spaces inside a red glass area and an outdoor plaza that works poorly. The entire area seems unfinished, as if it awaits completion of Civic Square, which is not till 2011. By then, we'll see how City Hall flows into the plaza, a space that will include a 400-foot office-residential tower, a light-rail connection, a "water feature," retail or other uses to animate the area, a "people's pavilion," and an amphitheater. More than 55 percent of the site will be dedicated to open space. The lead developer is Triad Development. Architects are Foster+Partners and GGLO of Seattle.

Based on presentations last week by the design team, there's reason to be optimistic about Civic Square. This won't be a park. It's a built thing. The goal is something lively, urban, congested, and even fun. The designers want a space that serves many functions, not just as Seattle's one big celebration venue, but also a gathering place for a surrounding neighborhood. Ironically, the model for what not to do is the old Public Safety Building, which once occupied the site. For now, the site is a very big hole with lots of possibilities.

Update: The city says its cost for the $300 milllion project is about $25 million, of which $19.8 million is the estimated value of the land set aside by the city as open space.

  • O. Casey Corr writes the Mudville blog for Crosscut. He is a Seattle-based writer and consultant who previously worked for The Seattle Times and Seattle Post-Intelligencer. He also worked as a senior advisor to Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels and ran for Seattle City Council in 2005. You can e-mail him at casey.corr@crosscut.com.
Comments
office hours
Report a violationPosted by: frankbruno on Apr 23, 2007 11:03 AM
I've always thought that one of the biggest challenges to that part of town is that it's primarily filled with financial and government offices that empty out during evenings and weekends.

Westlake may be clumsy, but at least it's surrounded by shopping and entertainment centers, like Union Square in SF. Things that generate foot traffic.

I guess I'm just a little afraid that we're going to spend $300M and end up with a big concrete plaza that will be desolate and a little scary on evenings and weekends. In other words, another Freeway Park.
RE: office hours
Report a violationPosted by: TypeOne on Apr 23, 2007 9:19 PM
Good point. At the same time, politicos are trying to turn Occidental Park and City Hall Park (south of the KC Courthouse, known as Muscatel Meadows by local workers) comfortable and attractive places to gather. I'm all for open spaces, but we have seen who occupies them in this end of town.
What, exactly, is the need here?
Future presentations?
Report a violationPosted by: LauraD on Apr 23, 2007 1:05 PM
I had no idea that there was a presentation last Thursday. Do you know where there is a schedule of these presentations? I am apparently one of the few that would be interested in going to see these presentations.
Community involvement; please.
Report a violationPosted by: R on Beacon Hill on Apr 23, 2007 5:10 PM
I'm on any number of City Hall email lists, and I have no recollection at all of receiving any announcement of last Thursday's event. It's been my observation in recent years that community outreach at the City is at best a haphazard affair and not a high priority of decision-makers. There's any number of steps the City could be taking to apprise people of this plaza design process, and it appears that they've missed most of them. Too bad, but, alas, not unexpected.
My question
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Apr 23, 2007 5:59 PM
I hope GGLO takes the lead. They know how to create good urban spaces -- look what they did with University Village.
Does Foster have any proven experience with urban design? (That's a question.)
RE: My question
Report a violationPosted by: seapug on Apr 24, 2007 2:04 AM
yes he has proven urban design experience, foster is one of the most highly regarded design firms in the world. u-village is nice but just about anything foster does will blow it out of the water. they have a link to fosters webpage, why don't you take a look at it the answer to your question is right there. also i doubt it will be lifeless, since it will have a good amount of retail, office, residential a 20 hour lightrail station a civic plaza and as most of his buildings do will draw people from all over the region it's in to look at it. why do seattlites complain about everything. you could give em $100 bill and they'd get mad if it had a tiny stain on it
Vanity runs amok
Report a violationPosted by: Geof Logan on Apr 24, 2007 1:09 AM
Editor's Pick “Now we're on course to solve that dilemma”.

Uh, what dilemma?

Not having a “quality civic space” across from City Hall is a “dilemma”?

According to whom? One wonders how Seattle managed to thrive and succeed for so long without this mythic and seemingly unattainable “civic space”.

No dilemma for Triad, Foster and all the others feeding at the public trough, apparently.

And I thought we were over that whole “world class” thing, growing out of our “civic” inferiority complex. Silly me. Guess we need still another $300 million of therapy to boost our “civic” self esteem.

A few sessions with a Freudian would be cheaper, and probably more effective.

David Brewster just wrote about the big plans for one of our other, already existing "civic" spaces - Seattle Center. He mentions that not only is Center funding unavailable without still another levy, there's indeed no money for any other green space acquisition at all.

I know where we can find some of that funding.

I used to live in New York. It doesn’t have a “decent” civic space any where near it’s muni complex. It’s a mile or so up the street. It’s called “Central Park”. Spent a lot of time there at civic protests, memorials and celebrations. Often saw the Mayor and City Assembly members there, along with hundreds of thousands of citizens. In fact it proved so popular they had to limit the size and number of public events.

Its lack of proximity to NYC’s City Hall hasn’t prevented the Park from being a great civic gathering space. Works just fine.

As would a redesigned Center, with far more bang for the buck. Remember the moving Seattle Center 9/11 memorial services, with the International Fountain full of flowers? Thousands gathered from across the City. Doesn’t get more “civic” than that.

We're paying for fire station upgrades (already over budget), street and infrastructure repair, parks operations and maintenance, etc, all with levies. Not from the general fund.

But somehow we can spend 300 mil for still another “civic space". Guess we’re going to keep doing it ‘til we get it right, regardless of the cost.

Provincial vanity runs amok while Mayor and Council continue to cut basic needs. And we question why our city is increasingly unaffordable with ever higher taxes and declining services?

The real Seattle “civic dilemma” is keeping our city affordable and our services “world class” in the face of higher taxes and scarce public revenues wasted on seemingly endless vanity projects.

And figuring out just what in the hell are we thinking in setting our “civic” priorities.

We don't need yet another new civic plaza half as much as we need civic fiscal responsibility.
"What Race of Brainless Aliens From Which Planet Are Paying for This?"
Report a violationPosted by: Stuka on Apr 24, 2007 3:17 AM
...he asked rhetorically. Sadly, the answer may be Seattlites from the Planet Earth.

Will home prices go down because of this civic gathering place?
Will schools get better because of this civic gathering place?
Will civilians even bother to gather in this civic gathering place?
For $300M one would expect something substantial.
A civic gathering place should cost approximately the cost of the land plus some common area maintenance. I'd call this not a civic gathering place but a public boondoggle, and I kind of like civic gathering places.
More 'civic' frivolity
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Apr 24, 2007 12:00 PM
Seattle does not need a downtown civic plaza that would in all probability ban initiative signature gatherers while welcoming autophobe rallies, homeless feeding programs, global warming zealot pow-wows, city employee escapes, and needle exchange opportunities.
cost
Report a violationPosted by: mhays on Apr 24, 2007 1:04 PM
Don't you people read?

The $300,000,000 figure is NOT a public expense. That's a total project cost including the tower, etc.

As for the park/plaza, it'll be open to everyone, including signature gatherers.
Portland's done it
Report a violationPosted by: jdubman on Apr 24, 2007 1:43 PM
Editor's Pick This article expresses very well Seattle's lack of a great -- or even good -- gathering place. The new sculpture park is great, but it's not really central, not super transit-connected and more of an outdoor museum than a civic plaza. Westlake is the closest thing to it, but the "park" is a pretty measly little triangle and looks though it were designed as an afterthought from leftover space when a street was removed. Even something as modest as Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square functions beautifully. What have they done right there? Dare we hope Seattle's forthcoming civic plaza will at least match that?

I had no idea Foster + Partners were involved in the new civic plaza, or that there was a public meeting on this, despite being on many email lists and reading lots of local news. Norman Foster is a master and I wouldn't have missed this had I knew about it!
Does Foster have any demonstrated record of successful urban design?
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Apr 24, 2007 10:44 PM
I ask again.

Yes, he is a big name and that always impresses the yokels.

But what has he delivered?
RE: Does Foster have any demonstrated record of successful urban design?
Report a violationPosted by: seapug on Apr 25, 2007 1:49 AM
i say again look at the webpage, he's delivered a hell of a lot more then gglo could even ponder. why do seattleites think everything is evil, why can't they just be like any other city and let the city build a world class building that many other cities would be envious to have
RE: Does Foster have any demonstrated record of successful urban design?
Report a violationPosted by: Matt on Apr 25, 2007 10:23 AM
Because we're cheap. For our liberal image, when it comes down to money we generally play out as fiscal conservatives. Notice the lack of comments once the price dropped from $300M to $5.2M.
RE: Does Foster have any demonstrated record of successful urban design?
Report a violationPosted by: David Sucher on Apr 25, 2007 11:09 AM
The standard of "world class" doesn't help us. I believe that what we want is an inviting place which fosters (in a subtle way) human interaction. "World class" is both irrelevant and also, actually, meaningless.

He may very well be able to produce. But it's not as difficult as people make it out to be as there are so many good examples from which to learn.
Don't try too hard to be cool
Report a violationPosted by: edmcg on Apr 26, 2007 3:18 PM
"biggest piece of the as-yet-disappointing Civic Center Master Plan, adopted in 1998, which gave us the new the Justice Center ($92 million) and the new City Hall ($72 million)."

As someone who gre up in and moved out here from NYC, I think this is a REALLY whiny article. I think the Justice Center and City Hall are very nice buildings. Certain people's love affair with "Starchitects" such as Koolhaus (Seattle Central Library) and Gehry (EMP) have created overpriced, fadish flops. Seattle has a lot going forward, but like some hipster who buys overpriced eyewear at Market Optical, it really does try to be "cool" and it comes off being very obvious about its insecurity. And really, from everything I have seen, this city has great local architectural talent, why try to imitate somewhere

As for the public plaza here, given the proclivity of people in this city to protest anything, it would be a good thing if it could be used by marchers to stay off the streets. However, how about just keeping it a city plaza, and not tart it up with condos or retail. Just make it functional and attractive to normal people so it does not become "shopping cart central".
....
Report a violationPosted by: seapug on Apr 30, 2007 10:56 AM
i'm normal and i'm sure i will find it to be functional and attractive. emp is currently a flop, but i think that as the seattle center changes and the neighborhoods around it change it will be more sucessfull. there's no way the library is a flop that place is always packed. would you say that cities like new york and london are insecure because they have a lot of buildings designed by these starchitects. all it is is a sign that seattle is recognising it'sself as a world class city and that the world is recognising it as an emerging world class city
I like the Idea
Report a violationPosted by: JoshMahar on Feb 29, 2008 6:11 PM
Unlike most whiney people around here I think this is a fantastic idea. I am very excited to see what they do with it. I also think it will give public rallies a much better place for meeting and well, rallying. These days most of our rallies are at Westlake, which is so commercial and tourists, and...crappy. Having a gathering place outside of City Hall has a whole lot more symbolic meaning and I think it will serve its function well.

I just don't get how people are complaining about a PUBLIC space, mainly being funded by others, instead of just another big, private building to block out the sun and sky.
Advertisement
Advertisement

Sign up for Crosscut's free weekday newsletter e-mail.
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


About Crosscut »
Crosscut Seattle is an online newspaper for the Pacific Northwest, including Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. It's a guide to local and regional news, a place to report and discuss news, and a platform for new tools to convey news.

• More about Crosscut

Contact Crosscut

Tools

Sign up for Crosscut's daily newsletter
About Crosscut
Advertising Info
Crosscut's list of RSS feeds.

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement