Among the many responses to this post (thanks, everybody!), is Yoko Ott‘s dissection of the money involved, as well as an alternative plan for a botanical garden at Seattle Center, leaving aside the fact that there is a perfectly lovely botanical garden in Volunteer Park. I’m posting her comment here, because she is indeed good at math.
One point you keep reiterating repeatedly is the $500K in lease revenue Regina. The (more important) public-private debate aside, it’s the math I’ve been interested in. Generally speaking, I see the point, $500K/yr certainly seems better than nothing. However at that rate it sure seems like SC is on the loosing side of negotiating a fair market lease rate. Granted, I’m not a real estate agent, so I’m taking a guess here. But really, that $500K at 44K total sq. ft is about $11.25/sq ft. Being somewhat familiar with commercial lease rates I say the park has some wiggle room to leverage a more competitive rate to really bolster its income. I mean if this IS about earning the public $500K a year as you mention, and the trouble-shooting thought process is to go to the private sector–why not think the way the private sector does and NOT operate far below market value?? Which brings me to the fact that if one spreads the anticipated $20M initial TI investment, (that is cost to build the museum), across the max 20-year lease that’s 1M a year JUST to build it. Add to that annual rent and operating costs (not to mention inflation) divided by their projected annual attendance and it seems like a risky solvent venture–let alone a profit buster. (Did they talk to Mr. Allen?) So what if Mr. Wright saved some cash and gifted the park 10M in 20 $500K annual installments and the City figured out how to build the damn green space–and hey here’s an idea, a part of it could include a botanical garden, with you guessed it, a Chihuly exhibit. Charge admission to it, it would be a fair trade off.
I used to work on the Seattle Center ground in an accounting and financial role. Tax revenues will not sustain the Center. Taxes are not a dependable source of revenue (politicians change, the economy fluctuates, taxpayer moods vary, etc.).
The economic viability of the venues and events depends on visitors. Those visitors, both local and out of town, purchase admission tickets, buy goods and services, become members, and make charitable donations.
The question all of us should be asking is, “What will attract visitors to the Center?”
If open space is the answer, tear down the Pacific Science Center and replace it with grass fields. If open space is the answer, remove the Space Needle and plant a tree.
If, like some of the previous comments suggest, maximizing income is the objective, put up multilevel office buildings or sell the property. While we are at it, let’s make sure the Wright family just gives us $10 million as a gift.
The passion I’ve seen on both sides of the debate concerning the proposed Chihuly museum is good. It means people care about the Seattle Center. I, too, care about the Seattle Center. I worked at the Pacific Science Center, gave my high school graduation speech at the Opera House, had season tickets to the Rep, refereed football games at Memorial Stadium, reffed basketball games at KeyArena, and ate too much food at the Food Court.
But passion without rational thought and economic reasoning leads to poor decisions. The Seattle Center needs a variety of venues and events that attract a wide variety of visitors. The Chihuly museum would be a good addition to the Seattle Center; an addition that is economically viable that also enhances the character of the Center.
” Tax revenues will not sustain the Center.”
Huh?
Tax reveunes somehow sustained putting a man on the moon, building the interstate highway system, public universities, eliminating polio from the USA, building the Smithsonian Instutition, funding the NEH and NEA, building public housing, public schools, public skateparks, public pools, aquariums, zoos, museums, and giving Sol Hashemi a show at 4 Culture…
IF the people of Seattle are given a reasonably presented, well planned proposal for a public amenity at this space in the Seattle Center, included in a bond issue that provides for parks and public space around Seattle, history shows that they usually will vote for it- assuming it does not improperly benefit private developers.
Its true, the City of Seattle has treated the Seattle Center like a forgotten stepchild- but, nonetheless, it has not been sold off to developers to build condos on yet- there is still a small shred of support from the City.
What is needed is vision, not resignation.