Post navigation

Prev: (01/25/17) | Next: (01/28/17)

Capitol Hill Community Post | Threatened?: Seattle’s Volunteer Park

From Doug Bayley Co-founder, Volunteer Park Trust

A response to the Cultural Landscape Foundation’s letter of January 17th, 2017

I am alarmed at the tone and content of the conversation around the SAAM expansion project because it stops the conversation rather than furthering it and because the consequences of stopping the project are significant and do not take into account the reality on the ground.2

The most major change to the Olmsted design for Volunteer Park was the construction of the Seattle Art Museum, gifted to the city of Seattle in 1933. Several challenges currently exist: the museum needs serious renovation, including an expansion to the east, the four-acre reservoir is currently non-functional; the water tower has seismic issues and ground toxicity; and a new, relocated amphitheater is in the schematic design phase. The Landmark Board, Friends of Seattle’s Olmsted Parks (FSOP), Volunteer Park Trust, Seattle Parks Foundation, Seattle Asian Art Museum (SAAM), the Friends of the Conservatory’s sponsored Sustainability Coalition have joined Seattle Parks & Recreation to help manage these restorations using city funds, grants and private donations. SAAM has presented a renovation plan, including a 3,500 square foot extension, that will bring it into the 21st century and fulfill it’s mission for exhibiting Asian art and culture as well as public education.

Public process is complicated, especially when it concerns a nationally recognized and landmarked historic park. While many people approve of the interior renovations and service access changes to SAAM, the extension on the East side has provoked some to protest the loss of 3,500 square feet of adjoining park land. Since the fall of 2015, architects and park groups have met to develop designs for interior and exterior improvements for presentation to the public. Many changes have been proposed, discussed and accepted as a result of these meetings. Public meetings began in late summer 2016. But, despite multiple opportunities for input, there are complaints that the public has not been brought into the process earlier. By late fall it became clear there was loud minority who objected any expansion in the park whatsoever.

In fact, the Olmsted’s vision for Volunteer Park was to be a civic center for passive recreation and culture. In its 100 year history, there have been many changes to the park, reflecting changing public taste and a changing world. The museum has enhanced the park since it opened eight decades ago. Its cultural importance has grown along with it’s internationally recognized collection. Much of this collection cannot be shown for lack of space, air conditioning and humidity control.

The museum lacks space for it’s thriving education programs, visiting exhibitions and important art restoration. The question that those opposed to the expansion ask is whether the expansion onto park land is justified and appropriate. The answer, in this case, is yes.

Despite pastoral pictures accompanying the Cultural Landscape’s letter, the site behind the museum is desolate, wet and shady. The original Olmsted plan has already been compromised by the museum building. There have been concerns about loss of views, danger to major trees, and connections to the park on both sides of the truncated East lawn. The SAAM review process considered these potential problems, taken many ideas from professional architects and park groups the plan includes many of these changes in the current proposal.

People visit parks for more than fresh air. But, change in the park has been ongoing and is inevitable as we adapt to a changing world. The Seattle Asian Art Museum is a vital and important cultural hub. Volunteer Park is a neighborhood park and also a city and regional cultural treasure. The museum gives much more than it takes from the community. There will be many opportunities for more discussion. I would like people to consider adding to the conversation instead of stopping it. The larger picture of Volunteer Park with revitalized features and healthy institutions needs to happen and needs involvement and vision in a open minded conversation.

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
john
john
7 years ago

A conversation is exactly what’s needed. I’d like to ask if putting an expansion — a large expansion — underground would be a win-win in preserving park land and adding plenty of museum space? Also, how is an art restoration lab a necessity for the museum and resulting loss of park space? Couldn’t the windowless restoration lab be essentially anywhere? During the public review process, were there any options for expansion considered besides the extension you refer to? I’m not aware of any, but I would like to know what options were considered and why the public rejected them.

Sheilan
Sheilan
7 years ago

Turns out Knute Berger of Crosscut doesn’t agree with you. He just stated today:

“Conceptually, the new SAAM restores and updates a landmark building and enhances its use. But it should not, and need not, do so at the expense of our protected heritage park. Such landscapes, whether city parks or national parks, are too often regarded as white boards ripe for scribbling. They are rare public cultural commodities, places that should be immune from wrecking balls and encroachments. In this case, we have two treasures that should be able to mutually thrive. If it takes hitting the pause button to get it done right, so be it.

See more:

Art buffs vs. park preservationists — can we all get along
http://crosscut.com/2017/01/art-buffs-vs-park-preservationists-can-we-all-get-along/