ART PLANFOR THEPRO PARKS2000 LEVY

Carolyn Law, Seattle Arts Commission

2

“Landscapes – both seen in passing and experienced at

leisure – can affect our well-being . . . Experiencing

places with our senses, feeling connected to the land, to

history, and to other people, is integral to the health of

people and the planet.”

Tony Hiss, Creating Places Worth Experiencing,

Landscape Architecture, July 2002

ART PLAN – Executive Summary

FOR THE PRO PARKS 2000 LEVY

Carolyn Law, Seattle Arts Commission

3

BackgroundIn September 2001, the Seattle Arts Commission placed arts

planner Carolyn Law “in residence” at Seattle Parks and

Recreation’s Major Projects and Planning Division. Her

charge was to develop an Art Plan for an important levy, Pro

Parks 2000. This levy charts an astonishing amount of capital

work to be done throughout Seattle’s park system from 2000

to 2006. The levy will generate approximately $1.2 million

One Percent for Art funds.

The goal of the Art Plan was to create a comprehensive vision

for the role of art in Seattle’s growing parks system, a vision

grounded in an understanding of what parks mean to Seattle’s

residents. Additionally, it was crucial to understand the

distinctive nature of an urban park experience, the various

layers of park development that have occurred in Seattle over

time, and the choices available for art in parks. Bringing a

contemporary perspective to these issues played a vital role in

shaping this new opportunity to involve artists in Seattle’s

parks.

In the full Art Plan, these issues and questions are examined

in depth and reveal the path taken to reach the most artisti-

cally dynamic vision possible for these art projects. The Art

Plan provides both the conceptual and practical framework

leading to fulfillment of this vision.

One strength of this Art Plan is that it completely intertwines

the viewpoints and objectives of Seattle Parks and Recreation

and Seattle Arts Commission, and when implemented, will

positively enhance park sites for all users. Linking the visions

of these two departments, for parks and the public art within

them, promises Seattle a legacy of deeply enriching, experien-

tial artworks. This cohesive view will also allow Parks and

Recreation and the Arts Commission to fashion a collabora-

tive approach and process for each public art project that

strengthens each outcome.

During the six-month residency, the arts planner developed

knowledgeable relationships with Parks and Recreation staff

in all divisions. Working side by side with staff, she forged

effective working relationships based on a solid comprehen-

sion of Seattle Parks and Recreation’s mission, goals and

working processes; an informed exchange of vision, shared

ideas and information; conversations with Parks and Recre-

ation Division staff; and numerous site visits, alone and with

staff. The arts planner talked with key stakeholders including

Seattle Parks Foundation; Design Commission; Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4

Commission; City departments, including Department of

Neighborhoods and Seattle Public Utilities; and community

representatives. She also researched the topics of urban parks

and artwork derived from an interest in the natural world,

sited in natural environments or parks.

The residency at Parks and Recreation was essential for

clarifying a vision for the Art Plan. This vision is strongly

informed by several of the central goals for Seattle’s parks,

including:

• support community sharing and building;

• provide welcoming, safe opportunities to play, learn and

contemplate;

• create a respite from the pressures of urban life;

• instill a fundamental understanding of the value of and

connection to nature; and

• inspire people to be good environmental and civic stewards.

These goals complement one of the Seattle Arts Commission

Public Art Program’s primary goals:

• engage artists in actively exploring the City’s cultural iden-

tity and civic values and develop public places through art.

The Art Plan is poised to create an exciting and inspiring

cohesive network of art that will thread its way through the

city, connecting place to place and inspiring conversations

between people and place.

Art Plan: RecommendationsVisionThe primary vision focuses on artists making art within park

settings that provide respite from urban life and an occasion

to reflect on and connect with the natural world. These

artworks will draw their essential concepts, metaphors, and

materials from nature and from the character and patterns of

use in each particular park. These enduring artworks will

create engaging, interactive places (or areas) of deep meaning

and unique imagination that creatively express a purpose and

use — offering all generations a specific experience within

each park.

ComponentsMajor Projects

The majority of Percent for Art funds will be dedicated to the

development of major art projects that address this vision in a

significant and extraordinary fashion. Artworks that draw

their concepts from nature and the specific character of their

unique park environment will be commissioned at selected

parks in sectors throughout the city.

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

General Art Opportunity FundThis program creates a General Arts Fund for smaller scale art

projects. This fund provides flexibility to develop unique,

integrated artworks guided by the plan’s vision, in parks that

vary in character from the Major Project artworks. It allows

the Seattle Arts Commission and Seattle Parks and Recreation

to address shifting priorities, as development continues in the

city, and emerging potential, as parkland is acquired during

the life of the levy. The fund also makes it possible to encour-

age participation among talented emerging artists. General

Art Opportunity Fund projects will also be dispersed

throughout the city.

In-house Parks and Recreation ProjectsAn annual fund for In-house Parks and Recreation Projects

allows Parks and Recreation staff to engage in a new level of

creativity by adding aesthetic components to their projects.

The funds can be used to engage artists from pre-qualified

rosters to work on selected projects.

Writer-in-ResidenceA residency project will bring a writer to Parks and Recre-

ation. The selected writer will develop written work to be

used in myriad ways to enhance the communication of Parks

Department mission and stories, enliven a range of written

materials developed and used by Parks for public and commu-

nity interaction, investigate the life and meaning of parks,

allow Parks and Recreation staff to reflect on the work they do

and more.

ConclusionThe detailed Art Plan, background in urban parks and

Seattle’s parks, sites, budgets and selection methods for the

levy program are described in the following pages. The Art

Plan proposes a course of action encompassing high expecta-

tions and great promise for artists and the city on a scale that

we can rarely tackle. Commitment to stay the course of this

plan will result in Seattle achieving a group of exciting,

cohesive, and fully integrated artwork projects — projects

that will energetically contribute to the personality of our city.

“People come to parks with simple needs: rest,

relaxation, recreation and respite from the city.

Good parks meet these needs, but then also

respond to deeper yearnings, giving us ideas,

hope, and a sense of possibility in our own lives

and communities . . . Parks, in turn, broaden our

own capacity to imagine . . . The key is to offer a

rich variety of experiences that spark the

imagination and illuminate what it means to

be fully alive.”

Steve Coleman, “The Invisible Park”

ART PLAN

FOR THE PRO PARKS 2000 LEVY

Carolyn Law, Seattle Arts Commission

7

OverviewWe are at a unique and unprecedented moment in Seattle’s im-

pressive history of exemplary public art – a moment to think on

a wholly different scale, to reach for a commanding vision to

drive the creation of public art in parks. With $1.2 million in

public art funding through the Pro Parks 2000 Levy, Seattle can

envision and realize inspired public artworks in selected parks

throughout the city within the short time span of six years.

The Pro Parks Art Plan challenges artists to create significant

public artworks – works with an emphasis on art that derives

content and meaning from a full and thoughtful understanding

of urban parks – whose concepts spring from an urban natural

setting and become tangibly embedded in the earth of a chosen

park. These artworks will establish a physical and conceptual

network of art elements strategically located throughout Seattle’s

park system that will leave indelible impressions and enhance

the experience of a variety of parks.

The Pro Parks Art Plan calls for artists to establish uniquely

imaginative artistic zones or places in parks. The art envisioned

by this plan will not exist in isolation but in relation with other

ART PLAN

8

park elements. Each artwork will establish its own pattern of

interactive use that recognizes and complements the purposes

and functions associated with other areas of the park. In ac-

knowledging that urban parks are essentially about a natural

place within the city, the Seattle Arts Commission will ask art-

ists to use nature as a resource and medium, so that the art-

works will enhance people’s ability to relate to and respect the

natural world. By bringing an artistic voice into our parks, we

enliven and enhance them.

The resulting public artworks will enrich people’s lives by con-

necting them more tangibly to parks while also transporting

them beyond their normal frame of reference. This plan envi-

sions artworks that beckon people again and again. Art will spark

the imagination of visitors, inspire thoughts and feelings, and

bring to mind ideas about the balance between humans and

nature. It will strengthen the web of connections among indi-

viduals, communities, and natural elements within our urban

environment. Through the Pro Parks Levy, remarkable public

art and strong contemporary landscape design will welcome

people into parks. Their interactions with places of meaning

will build a heritage for all generations and contribute to a more

deeply rooted sense of community.

WHAT IS AN URBAN PARK?• The life and meaning of urban parks is layered and complex.• They provide people a very different set of possibilities from

other urban public spaces.• Urban parks provide a meaningful connection to the natural

within the built environment .

When we think about parks, it is easy to presume that we under-stand implicitly what parks are, what they mean and how theywork for people. After all, most of us have strong memories andfeelings associated with parks. But we should examine ourassumptions and understandings about parks in order to site art inthem.

While is would be easy to limit the definition of an urban park toa simple notion of green space in a city used for structuredrecreation or passive relaxation, parks are much more layeredand complex. Urban parks are clearly public places, yet theydiffer from other public places in the urban environment, such asdowntown open spaces, plazas and lobbies of office and govern-ment buildings, water treatment or health services facilities. Whilethese other places are mostly occupied with the “business” of workand life, parks are essentially divorced from the task-oriented partof a day or week. They fulfill different needs by providing spacefor recreation, reflection, and restoration. Being in a park or openspace can help us “shift gears,” and create more open space inour consciousness. This might all happen on an unconscious,casual level.

Many urban parks are comprised of diverse elements andcharacteristics rolled together in different configurations. The mainunifying element in parks, however, is the presence of nature.Within that framework, the other elements that exist in any givenpark depend on its size and location. Seattle parks can typicallyinclude a combination of open space, diverse views, visual orphysical access to water, a variety of wooded and landscapedareas, meadows, many kinds of paths, play equipment, picnic

9

Background: The Pro Parks LevyBalancing our desire for parks and open space with other urban

growth issues has been the subject of much discussion in recent

years. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the City of Seattle initiated

a citywide growth management planning effort. Led by the

Department of Neighborhoods, each of 38 Seattle neighbor-

hoods that had been designated as “Urban Villages” developed

a comprehensive plan to absorb growth. Through this planning,

neighborhood groups came to understand which elements of

urban living were of extreme value to residents. High on most

neighborhood lists, if they were not focused on basic needs, was

green, open space. In other words, more parks. The City of Se-

attle, too, was aware that open land was and continues to be a

quickly dwindling commodity. The City responded by propos-

ing a far-reaching park levy that was passed by the voters.

This 2000 Pro Parks Levy is funding acquisitions, de-

velopment, maintenance and programs for parks

citywide. As of 2002, Seattle is already bustling with

activity centered on parks of all sizes and types, and this

work will continue through 2006 and perhaps beyond.

Through this levy, the city can establish a contemporary

citywide legacy for parks, adding a rich layer over earlier

broad visions for our park system.

The final breadth of the levy’s impact will be astound-

ing. Seattle Parks and Recreation will renovate many

existing parks and create several major new parks, with

strong contemporary landscape design that exemplifies

the best current understanding of how to create mean-

ingful and functional urban green spaces. The levy also

affords Parks and Recreation the opportunity to shepherd

through to fruition the neighborhood open space initiatives that

constructively build community, to fill parkland gaps equitably,

and to seize unique opportunities to create open space in a city

where land is at a premium.

10

ART PLAN

tables (perhaps with shelters), active recreation areas. While thesevarious elements could exist in isolation, in Seattle’s parks theyusually exist in relation to one other. For example, even if onedoesn’t use the play equipment, play may flavor a large area of apark. Or if people are sitting contemplating a view, their reflectivestance flavors the feeling of that area for others who are walkingby or taking in a larger view from a distance.

Parks contribute a unique quality to urban life, serving an extraor-dinary number of functions. They can play an important role increating a sense of balance, whether one experiences themperipherally when driving past or actively by entering them. Whendriving, merely seeing a stretch of green and sensing an openingin the density has a soothing effect. But it is upon entering urbanparks that people are given a vital chance to follow their feet,eyes, senses, and thoughts of the day. In parks that are morenatural-with a vista, access to water, a walking path, and/or astand of trees–a person can have a deep experience of naturewithin the same city where they take care of daily affairs. Ofprimary importance is the fact that when we step into a park, weare in a predominantly growing rather than a built environment.We are given an opportunity to feel the elements, sense nature,and see and think beyond the confines of the urban grid. Urbanparks constitute a crucial source of respite and outlet from thepressures and realities of daily urban life.

Urban parks are also social places, diversely populated by peopleof different ages and ethnic backgrounds in various socialgroupings. In this sense parks are places that offer the possibilityfor different social interactions than most people encounter in theirdaily lives. There are also fluctuations in the numbers of peopleusing parks, which influence our experiences. At a given time, apark might offer a solitary experience; an hour later, one mightencounter an exuberant level of activity. A park experience isinfluenced by whether one comes alone or with family or friends,and sometimes by who else happens to be there at the same time.Whether visiting a park just once or repeatedly over time, each

WHAT IS AN URBAN PARK?

11

What is Our Current Art Opportunity?• Art can reveal a profound link between the inherent nature

and meaning of a park with the art concepts.

• Art can create extraordinary experiences.

Seattle has been a leader in the field of public art, making major

contributions in the realm of art and artistic place–making in

the built environment. We have wonderful examples of public

artworks that contribute significant ideas and aesthetic quali-

ties to buildings, plazas and urban infrastructure, and clearly

provide different ways to understand and use these “built” sites.

However, most of the art we have placed in parks, though beau-

tiful, does not demonstrate a profound link between the inher-

ent nature and meaning of a park site and the concepts of the

art, nor does it provide new ways of seeing and using the park.

For the Pro Parks program, the Seattle Arts Commission will

challenge artists to articulate their ideas about the natural envi-

ronment and a specific park environment within an urban con-

text, through the creation of an intrinsic experience orchestrated

by an artwork that creates a zone or place within the park. Art-

ists will draw resources and potentially materials from nature to

conceive and build artworks that choreograph an interaction

with the setting. These interactions will reveal something about

the natural world versus the world controlled by human hands.

Importantly, the works would not have meaning in another lo-

cation because they are created in response to their particular

settings. This artwork will have the power to work into the hearts

and minds of park users and strive to be moving and stimulat-

ing.

Pro Parks will provide opportunities and challenges for artists

to create interactive art experiences that stand shoulder-to-shoul-

der with active parks experiences like walking, playing games or

picnicking, and also “essential” or “inspirational” park experi-

ences. These essential experiences might include taking in dis-

tant views and the palpable quiet “heard” from the meadows

and bluffs of Discovery Park, walking in Schmitz Preserve amidst

huge trees with filtered light flickering, seeing downtown Se-

attle rising out of Lake Union from the top of Kite Hill in Gas-

works Park, walking “into” Lake Washington on the marsh trail

hearing the lapping water and feeling the breezes, coming upon

12

ART PLAN

a magnificent old tree in a wooded area or exploring the intrica-

cies of Kubota Gardens.

Art projects created within Pro Parks should have as much pres-

ence, resonance and approachable meaning as the park experi-

ences described. Raising these expectations prompts everyone

to be conscious of the inherent worth and meaning of parks, of

nature, of the senses, and of the rewards of reflection. What bet-

ter opportunity than uniting good design of a park with an artist’s

concepts, interpretations and artwork to elevate the meaning

and experience of these relatively small pieces of earth.

Collectively, these works will weave throughout the entire parks

system, establishing a Seattle Parks and Recreation signature or

legacy that comes from the Pro Parks era. These artworks can

plant the seeds for a distinctive new approach to art in Seattle

parks that can be further developed and flourish beyond the

finite period of the Pro Parks Levy.

incidence contributes to a web of memories. The social dynamicand compiling of individual and collective memories are asinextricably tied to what a park means as how it looks or whatactivities are possible there.

While parks are used for many specific active and passive uses,they also can be the scenes of unexpected interaction that createsnew connections or provokes new thoughts. For example, thesoccer players who just finished their game can wind up inconversation with someone out walking their dog. Or a fatherstarts out on a quiet walk with his child, and they meet others inthe park and start up a quick game of ball or tag. Or you noticethat a group is bird-watching and you join in. These are but a fewexamples of how people using parks are open to changes in whatwas originally planned or what is happening. This possibility ofshifting psychological and physical choices seems to be a veryinteresting part of the fundamental dynamic of urban parks.

As growth spurs physical and cultural changes in the city, wedevelop different civic goals for how parks function. Today’s parkdesigners consider how parks can bring people together andbuild community, provide respite from the crush of contemporarylife, instill a fundamental sense of value of and connection tonature, inspire people to be good environmental stewards, andprovide safe places for recreation and relaxation.

Understanding urban parks’ meaning and importance for citydwellers now and into the future is also informed by reviewingchanges in how parks have been viewed over time. Reassessinggoals for design and use from era to era is as important for parksas it is for architecture and urban planning. It is equally importantto understand the fundamental perception, meaning and uses ofurban parks, and discovering those that cut across time. All of thisgives us a fuller portrait of a park.

WHAT IS AN URBAN PARK?

13

Developing the Conceptual ApproachThe Arts Commission recommends several guiding parameters

for the Pro Parks art projects. These parameters are a response

to the scale and uniqueness of the levy opportunity, the com-

plexity of the design schedules, and a desire to achieve the most

from the available art budget for such a large citywide program.

They include:

• find a meaningful correlation between the possibilities sug-

gested by the park sites and possible approaches to art in parks;

• allow artists to focus on framing their own creative response

to a park, rather than participating in a collaborative effort

with a designer where the artwork becomes more dispersed in

the design;

• place an emphasis on the creation of art by spending One

14

ART PLAN

Percent for Art funds directly on artwork, design time and

materials related to an artwork;

• develop the art projects in parallel to parks design process if

the schedules permit, so artists and designers can share con-

cerns about the design and use of the park, look for any pos-

sible overlaps of design, construction and art that would make

sharing funds possible, and piggyback on community process;

and

• develop the art projects separately from the park and its de-

sign if the design and construction schedule has proceeded

ahead of the art schedule.

WHAT ABOUT SEATTLE’SURBAN PARKS?• A greater wild environment surrounds Seattle, which is visible

from many parks.• The array of park environments within our system is striking.

Seattle is a city of striking topography that is situated in a magnifi-cent surrounding landscape of mountain ranges and bodies ofwater. Much of what we see beyond the city and suburban limits iswild. Perhaps in response to that immense wilderness right athand, Seattle’s planners have had the foresight over the years toprovide outstanding open space, and parks for outdoor recreationand contemplation.

Seattle’s park system was established in 1884. The first Park Bondwas funded in 1906 for development of a Seattle Olmsted Plan,followed by two subsequent bonds during the next four years tobuild out much of the plan. The Olmsted Plan for Seattle, like thefirm’s plans for so many other cities, provided a backbone ofelegant green spaces in the form of boulevards and parks that runthrough the city making classic, restful connections.

Throughout much of the past century the City of Seattle continuedto protect, develop and expand its park system. Park developmentand acquisition work was supported through the federal WorksProgress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps pro-grams, and ongoing Parks Department bond and levy programslike the 1970s FORWARD THRUST program. As a result, Seattlehas an interestingly layered network of different sizes and types ofparks that span the history of the city. As our network of parksbecomes more intricate, our citizens have more choices depend-ing on how they feel, how much time they have, whom they wantto go with and what kind of setting they want to be in.

WHAT IS AN URBAN PARK?

15

The Conceptual ApproachIn developing a conceptual approach to the Pro Parks Art Plan,

the idea of directly addressing nature within the urban context

resonated as opportune and appropriate, as well as timeless. Since

parks are essentially about diverse experiences, it seemed clear

that an artwork should fold into a park’s character and identity

by carving out its own place and meaning coupled with crafting

a unique way to experience the park through the art. This ap-

proach is broad enough to accommodate all the selected parks

and particularly Dexter Pit and Fremont Peaks Parks, the two

sites that cried out to be treated as a whole, as an artwork.

The conceptual approach for this Art Plan emphasizes art, na-

ture and experience. To that end, the bulk of the art funds will

be earmarked for creating major art projects in a small group of

important sites being developed through the levy.

For each project, if there is a design consultant, that consultant

will be asked to do their best planning and design work; the

artist will then respond to the de-

sign, the Art Plan vision and goals

and the particular characteristics

of the park site to develop their

art response to the park. To en-

sure the best possible results, all

the necessary groundwork to en-

able the creation of a seamless op-

portunity for the artists will be es-

tablished by the Arts Commission

and Parks and Recreation project

management staff working to-

gether. This conceptual and prac-

tical approach will allow artists to

conceive artworks that can be ex-

perienced as unique and comple-

mentary components within the

parks.

16

ART PLAN

Recommended Componentsof the Art PlanA principal consideration in devising the components of the

Art Plan was to understand and honor the urban parks in our

system. This understanding had to merge with a way to afford

artists a diverse range of clear, bold opportunities to develop

artworks with exceptional concepts and aesthetics for these parks.

This current opportunity to commission a variety of artworks

should set a strong precedent that could be built upon in the

future.

WHAT ABOUT SEATTLE’S URBAN PARKS?

17

Proudly, Seattle continues to expand upon this inheritance. Thecitizens consistently support efforts to save, protect, and createnew open space and parkland for present and future generations,including the recent Pro Parks levy. Current efforts are fueled bysupport and activity from many quarters-city government anddepartments, citizens-at-large, and neighborhood groups, bothsmall and large.

Many of Seattle’s parks have a distinctive character from parks inother cities. They are places where the combination of the visiblesurroundings, the sequence of the patterns of use, the landscapeand the living things in the park conspire to clearly put the visitorin relation to nature on many levels. While Seattle’s setting is notas viscerally wild as that of cities in Alaska, neither is it as reinedin as with cities like New York, Chicago or even San Francisco.Our parks are not simply about open space recreation becausethey are connected in many ways to our greater surroundings. Thehandiwork of humans cannot totally obscure this more untamedenvironment we are situated in. As a result, there is a constantawareness of being part of a larger natural world. This is anunderlying component of the consciousness of this city.

In a number of Seattle’s parks, people can move into areas wheretheir view is directed well beyond the park’s boundaries to the vastlandscape surrounding the city. A view can skip across the builtworld to the natural world, providing mental and visual material toput the park in a larger context. A majority of people may not goto these distant places, but they are not far from mind becausethey are a part of our everyday visual reference. For example, ona vast scale we can easily be reminded of the power of naturewhen we see the volcanic peaks of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker, orthe mountain ranges to the east and west. In a park, we canencounter or catch a view of Puget Sound, with the coldness of itswater and the drama of the waves and tides. People can focus a

18

The Primary Focus –Major Art Projects Sited ArtworksThe VisionThe sites for the art projects will be parks, throughout the

city, that provide respite from urban life and an occasion to

reflect on and connect with the natural world at a micro and

macro level. The artworks will draw their essential concepts,

metaphors and materials from nature, as well as the character

and patterns of use in each particular park. These enduring

artworks will create engaging, interactive places (or areas) of

deep meaning, and unique imagination offering all genera-

tions of people a specific experience within each park.

The goals for Major Art Projects are:

• use nature as a primary resource and potential

medium;

• create an artwork for each selected park that pro-

vides a unique and/or extraordinary interactive ex-

perience within the park setting;

• place the artwork in relation to other activities in

each park;

• use the characteristics of a particular park’s set-

ting as a departure point and intrinsically tie the

art concept to the park so completely that the art-

work would not be meaningful in another setting;

• first consider art concepts and experience, and

second, to integrate any functional aspects imagi-

natively;

• take a multi-sensory approach whenever possible;

• create artworks that are so compelling that people

will be drawn to them time and again, returning

to share them with others; and

• have each artwork make a strong contribution to

a cohesive series of artworks that encourage re-

flection on and experience of the natural world.

ART PLAN

WHAT ABOUT SEATTLE’S URBAN PARKS?

19

large-scale natural issue down to a smaller natural setting bybeing aware of issues concerning our wild salmon and its habitatneeds within the city limits. On a more human scale, we can lookat plants and insects in parks that are part of the indigenousecosystem, or walk next to creeks that feed Puget Sound andprovide links to the salmon’s cycle. Both perspectives, the distantand the near, provide an opportunity to consider the intertwineddynamic of humans and the micro and macro environment.

Seattle’s parks have a fascinating array of environments, fromwooded to marshy to meadow-like areas. This mix within thephysical dimensions of our parks lets us focus in on the living,growing and natural forces taking place. Our attention can turn tothe plants and trees, animal and insect life, light, wind, rain,temperature, etc. The incredible diversity within our parks givesample opportunity to consider how it feels, physically and men-tally, to be in a natural environment. In many of our parks, sights,smells and sounds can be taken in that give you a visceral sense ofhow a natural area differs from a neighborhood full of housesand apartments, the neighborhood business districts or downtown.

The Other Components of the Art PlanWhile the Major Art Projects provide an opportunity for artists

to develop works that connect people with nature, some of

Seattle’s urban parks provide different types of opportunities

for artists. Therefore three additional programs are recom-

mended: General Art Opportunity Fund, In-house Parks and

Recreation Projects and Writer-in-Residence.

There are many differences in function within the wide variety

of park types. Some of the more urban, less natural, parks play

a significant role in providing open space within a neighbor-

hood. A smaller park’s “neighborhood” can be defined as a few

surrounding blocks or a portion of the larger neighborhood area,

depending on the location and size of the park. As opposed to

the parks considered for the Major Art Projects, most of these

parks are more closely linked with their surrounding built envi-

ronment than they are with the natural world. These smaller

parks typically have a more limited set of uses (small play areas,

some benches, etc.) and areas of hardscape mixed with a more

limited amount of green space or landscaping. It is important

to include some of these small urban parks within this Art Plan.

There also is a desire to provide some flexibility within the over-

all Art Plan in anticipation of certain changes and developments,

such as providing for art in a new park that might come into

being during the life of the Pro Parks Levy. Flexibility could also

be important for recognizing a developing park project that

20

ART PLAN

appears to have a greater impact than was initially anticipated,

or being able to respond to an unexpected opportunity that

arises in an underserved area of the city.

Finally, we wanted to create a mixture of projects of different

scales and budgets in order to provide opportunities for the wid-

est possible range of artists, from accomplished to emerging

public artists.

To that end, the following additional components were devel-

oped and incorporated into the final Pro Parks Art Plan.

General Art Opportunity Fund:• provides built-in flexibility to allow the Art Plan to take ad-

vantage of unforeseen opportunities that arise;

• allows for additional art projects, in smaller urban parks, that

realize important aspects of the vision and goals for the major

projects; and

• allows for the development of projects for emerging artists.

Artworks in several parks that constitute an important oppor-

tunity for the city or a local community will be commissioned

within the General Art Opportunity Fund. The focus would

be on smaller urban parks of particular significance to a smaller

geographic area of the city.

WHAT ABOUT SEATTLE’S URBAN PARKS?

21

WHAT IS ART IN A PARK?

“... the human imagination is no less vivid orpowerful than before. The contemporary worksderive a great poignancy from a purpose similar tothat of their antecedents: to reveal the world to usanew, to combine symbolic form with the landscapein the creation of differentiated and evocativeplaces... At their best, (these artworks) are carefullyconstructed physical environments for the sensuousapprehension of form, while at the same time theyseek to reveal the extraordinary in both the land-scape and the human spirit.”

Earthworks And Beyond, John Beardsley

Art within a park setting or natural setting can take manyconceptual and physical forms. It can fulfill a functional need, bean aesthetic addition to the setting, reveal the social or naturalhistory, and be didactic, educational or experiential. Artworks’materials can range from the natural to those that stand incontrast to the natural setting or show the hand of man. Artworkscan forge an historical association to the landscape by linking tothe vast history of built forms on the land.

In the Seattle area we have a good variety of artworks sited inparks. A wide array of sculptures are sited in park settings,among them Michael Heizer’s Adjacent, Against, Upon in MyrtleEdwards Park on Seattle’s waterfront, and Isamu Noguchi’s BlackSun sculpture overlooking the city in Volunteer Park. There areexamples of artwork that is aesthetic as well as functional, suchas Chuck Greening’s entry to Wallingford’s Meridian Park andhis sundial in Gasworks Park. We also have examples of artistsworking with an entire site, dating from the late 1970s to thepresent time. Most are remediations of an infrastructure orindustrial site such as a storm water retention site such as HerbertBayers’ Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks Park in Kent, Lorna

Annual Art Fund For In-house Parksand Recreation Projects:• allows Parks and Recreation staff to make an annual determi-

nation about which in-house projects could use a small infu-

sion of art or artisanship that would elevate the overall aes-

thetic of the park design;

• provides an annual allotment of dollars for staff to utilize King

County’s Artist-Made Building Parts Roster or a similar Se-

attle Arts Commission roster for parks project enhancements;

and

• allows in-house staff to demonstrate to consultants how to

parlay portions of the construction budget into artistic and

aesthetic enhancements.

Seattle Parks and Recreation is charged with numerous design

projects handled by in-house landscape architecture staff. While

on a smaller scale, this fund offers in-house staff the opportunity to

add aesthetic elements to a site design, similar to projects with out-

side design consultants that get One Percent for Art funds.

22

Writer-in-Residence:• provides a residency project, of a duration to be determined,

for a writer to explore the meaning of parks through written

pieces (this could include an exploration of Seattle Parks and

Recreation – the staff and the work they undertake – as well

as community uses of and feelings about parks);

• offers the opportunity to develop creative

writing material that can generate fresh ways

to connect people to the experience of parks

(this material could be used in a myriad of

ways by Parks and Recreation to enhance

their work); and

• will explore a variety of publishing and dis-

tribution methods.

From this writer’s exploration of the Parks and

Recreation system, the written material pro-

duced will help communicate the mission of

Parks and Recreation and the diverse mean-

ing of parks to the citizens. This store of writ-

ten material could be used by staff over a pe-

riod of years to enliven materials for commu-

nity outreach and interaction, to broaden the

discussion about the life and meaning of parks

among staff and with community members,

to insert into Parks written material, on kiosks

in parks settings, and for other undiscovered

uses.

Choosing the Art SitesThe selected sites for art projects are diverse, in size, location

and character, yet share several key attributes. Each Major Art

Project site has a clear potential for an artwork that can inspire

a conversation between people and their natural surroundings.

At the same time, each has the potential to create an artistic

WHAT ABOUT SEATTLE’S URBAN PARKS?

23

experience that addresses the immediate, as well as the distant

surroundings outside the park’s physical boundaries. And, each

site has something that is, subjectively, “extra”. For the General

Art Opportunity Project sites, considering the relative impor-

tance to the surrounding area is crucial, as well as establishing

that there is a meaningful opportunity for an artist.

Site selection for art projects grew from continuing discussions

between the arts planner and the web of people participating

from the beginning of the planning process. In evaluating the

four possible approaches, consideration was given to which ap-

proach would offer the Arts Commission and Seattle Parks and

Recreation the best opportunity to:

• further develop the budding partnership unfolding through

the planning process and collaborate on the development and

implementation of the artwork;

• bring to fruition a Pro Parks Levy Art in Parks legacy that

evidences “big picture thinking” and has the power to stand

alongside other important urban design legacies;

• grasp what truly is a one-of-a-kind moment in the city’s devel-

opment of parks and potentially for the merging of art in ur-

ban parks;

• make the most exhilarating match between possible artwork

concepts applied to a park system with the potential afforded

by the available sites; and

• deliver comprehensible artistic experiences within a park set-

ting that resonates with the diverse public.

Jordan’s Waterworks Garden, part of a wastewater treatmentplant in Renton or Robert Morris’ Untitled gravel pit reclamationproject in Kent. Some sculptures interact with natural forces suchas the wind (Doug Hollis’ Sound Garden at the National Oceano-graphic and Atmospheric Administration and R. Allen Jensen’sStroke at Greenlake), or a natural setting such as a shoreline(George Trakas’ Berth Haven at NOAA). So we have somehistory. With this Art Plan we can move forward with a meaning-ful and dynamic approach for this moment.

While Seattle has artworks that are aesthetically pleasing in theirlocations and in some ways change our perceptions of thelandscape, most artworks in Seattle’s parks are not closely linkedto their sites, nor do they evolve from the natural landscape. Withthe exception of several pieces located at NOAA adjacent to SandPoint Magnuson Park, which grew out of an awareness of thenatural dimensions of the area and make connections to it virtuallyno Seattle artworks are fundamentally linked to the ideas andmaterials of nature.

Since urban parks are human products, and human use is mostlygiven the highest priority, it is easy for us to forget one of thestrongest arguments for creating and protecting urban greenspaces. That is, they are growing places inhabited by plants andcreatures that are part of the balance of life. Experiencing thiscounterbalance of urban living makes life in the city richer. Art ina park can provide similar counterbalance — something simulta-neously tangible and intangible that goes beyond what is pro-vided through landscape design and programmed uses. In manyways, artwork can sit at that pivotal balancing point between themanmade landscape and our understanding of what the landitself is and holds. Art can heighten the gestalt relationshipbetween humans and nature found in a park.

Examples of Artworkthat Draw a Parallel to theVision for the ArtUnder the Pro Parks Art Plan

As stated earlier in the plan, every artwork created for the

parks under this plan is intended to find a meaningful correla-

tion between the possibilities suggested by the park site and

possible approaches to art in that park.

Another intention is to allow artists to focus on framing their

own creative response to a park, rather than participating in a

collaborative effort with a designer where the artwork be-

comes more dispersed within the design.

These examples are meant to illustrate the broad range of

responses artists have had when working in the landscape. In

all of these, the artist has determined their response to a

particular landscape setting. This is similar to what is being

described in this plan. The primary difference is that these

artworks will of necessity be in a dialogue with an urban park

setting, which is a unique landscape within a larger contextual

environment of a city.

24

EXAMPLES OF ARTWORK

ROBERT IRWIN, Two Running Violet V Forms, 1983

25

Creating a Place Within a Setting• Place the artwork in relation to other activities in each

park.• Create an artwork for each selected park that provides a

unique and/or extraordinary interactive experiencewithin the park setting.

MAYA LIN, Wave Field, 1995

LITA ALBUQUERQUE, Spine of the Earth, 1980

DAVID NASH, 9 Charred Steps, 1988-89

YAGI, The Time of Nawa–The Hollowness of Nawa, 1999

26

EXAMPLES OF ARTWORK

Creating a Multi-sensory Natural Place• Use nature as a primary resource and potential medium.• Take a multi-sensory approach whenever possible.

DOUG HOLLIS, Sound Garden, 1983 GEORGE TRAKAS, Berth Haven, 1983

MARY MISS, Greenwood Pond Double Site, 1989-96 and DETAIL

27

Enhancing an Existing Setting• Use the characteristics of a particular park’s setting as a departure point

and intrinsically tie the art concept to the park so completely that theartwork would not be meaningful in another setting.

ANDREW GOLDSWORTHY,Stone River

BONANNO, Tendencies in Funic Sculpture, 1983

PATRICIA JOHANSON, Fair Park Lagoon, 1982

MAGDALENA ABDAKONOWICZ, Negev, 1987

ELLEN SOLLOD, In the Grove, 2001

28

EXAMPLES OF ARTWORK

The Park is the Art• Have each artwork make a strong contribution to a cohesive series of artworks that encourage reflection on and expe-

rience of the natural world.

NILS-UDO, Romantic Landscape, 1997 CHARLES JENCKS, Snail Mound & Snake Mound

BAYER. Mill Creek Canyon Earthworks, 1979-82

29

The Concept Creates a Place• First consider art concepts and experience, and second,

to integrate any functional aspects imaginatively.• Create artworks that are so compelling that people will

be drawn to them time and again, returning to sharethem with others.

AGNES DENES, Tree Mountain, a Living Time Capsule –10,000 trees, 10,000 people, 400 years, 1996

DAVID NASH, Ash Dome, 1977

ALAN SONFIST, Circles of Time, 1989

30

PROPOSED SITES

Proposed Site List

Major Art Projects:Mineral Springs Park

Sand Point Magnuson Park

Dexter Pit Park*

I-5 Open Space in Eastlake

South Lake Union

Jefferson

Lincoln Park Annex

Westcrest Park

Ravenna Park (Project developed prior to the Art Plan,

currently underway)

*Site recommended for an artist-led concept.

General Art Opportunity Fund Projects

Lake City Civic Core Park

Bergen Place Park

Boren/Pike/Pine Park

Powell Barnett Park

Pratt Park

Rainier Beach Public Plaza

(The only confirmed site is Pratt Park.)

BONANNO, Bridge of Humlebaekken BAYER, Earth Mound, 1955

31

City of SeattleThis map of shows the locations of the two

project category groups for the Pro Parks Art

Plan.

From the very beginning of the work on the art

plan, there was a desire to disperse the art

projects throughout the city for the benefit of

all citizens. An added advantage of locating art

in parks from north to south, and east to west

is that people who are interested in traveling to

see various works of art will in effect be travel-

ing the city.

Whether Seattle residents or visitors to the city,

touring the artworks in Seattle parks will

introduce people to both new experiences in

various urban parks and the diverse neighbor-

hoods in the city. When combined, people will

experience the richness of the urban and

natural life in the city.

32

PROPOSED SITES

DEXTER PIT PARKLocated in the Central West Sector

The site is between Dexter Avenue and Aurora Avenue North, southeast of theAurora Bridge on the northeastern slope of Queen Anne.

Sited along a busy car and bicycle commuter road and an access road toAurora, the park site is located in a small residential neighborhood sandwichedbetween Aurora and Lake Union. While the total area of the neighborhood issmall, multi-family housing is increasingly replacing single family houses,raising the overall population density substantially. The area has littleimmediate access to public open space.

This park site is a unique piece of land topographically - resembling half agreen bowl. As such it potentially offers a sense of refuge at the bottom whileaffording a way to access the spectacular view to the east of Lake Union, thecity and Cascade Mountains from the top of its slope.

Developing this site as a piece of landscape artwork or an earthwork willcreate a place of distinctive beauty for the city and neighborhood thatmaximizes the potential impact of this small site in relation to its immediateand distant surroundings.

I-5 OPEN SPACELocated in the Central East Sector

The site is under an elevated portion of the I-5 freeway, at East Howe Streetand Franklin Avenue East.

The use of this site will continue Seattle’s trend towards capturing atypical parkspace within the urban landscape – land that seems impervious to develop-ment for public access and use and yet can creatively be turned into a publicamenity. The site will be developed to re-establish a connection between thetwo neighborhoods that were cut off when the freeway was originally built, toprovide open space and an off-leash area for dogs.

Physically, the grade drops off quite dramatically from north to south and eastto west. The forest of concrete freeway columns dominates the site, creatingan extraordinarily unique urban location. To the west, there are views of LakeUnion, the downtown skyline and the western sky with the changing sunsetlight. This site also has great potential for a creative use of light for the darkhours to dramatize the space as well as contribute to security lighting.

This is an exciting but very challenging site for both designer and artist.

33

JEFFERSON PARKLocated in the Southeast Sector

The site is a new portion of an existing park site, 50 acres withinthe total 137-acre park. The site is bounded by Beacon Ave. Son the east, a 3-par golf course, the Veterans Affairs MedicalCenter and Asa Mercer Middle School on the south, 15th and 16th

Avenues South on the west, and South Spokane Street on thenorth.

This is a very important new park site that will join the largermulti-use parks in the system such as Magnuson/Sand Point,Lincoln and Green Lake that are destination parks for the city.The finished park will provide an array of spaces for diverseactivities along with spectacular views of the surrounding water,mountains and city from various locations. The diverse uses willblend to create a dynamic place.

The full park design will be realized when the current openwater reservoirs are transformed. One will be retired, filled inand returned to open land and the other will be covered,providing additional usable open space on the lid.

There are many potential locations for an integrated artwork atthis site. There is also the possibility of an artist workingintegrally with the design of a section of the park as it is phasedin. Since the park will be developed over a period ofapproximately six years, there is time to step back and wait forthe clearest opportunities for an artist’s involvement.

34

PROPOSED SITES

LINCOLN PARKANNEXLocated in the Southwest SectorThe site is on the east side of the road at 8011Fauntleroy Way SW.

This unassuming site, across the street from thenortheast corner of Lincoln Park, is a quiet, lovelyspot. The land slopes up from the road to a highpoint that gives a feeling of looking back over thewestern edge of the city to Puget Sound and theOlympic Mountains.

The current modifications to the site enhance itsviewpoint qualities in a subtle way, leaving thegreater part of the site an open, sloping meadow.At the bottom of the hill, down to the road, therewill be a community P-Patch developed near thecurrent tennis courts.

An artwork located in relationship to the crest ofthe hill would complement the vista point createdthrough the landscape design and set up aninteresting dialogue and choice for park users.

35

MAGNUSON/SAND POINT PARKLocated in the Northeast Sector

This large site is a former naval base with an entrance located at 6500 SandPoint Way Northeast. The park’s eastern perimeter is bounded by LakeWashington.

This park is slowly developing into a premier multi-use site that will houseactive and passive park activities as well as community and cultural activities.Like its former life as a diverse military base, it will ultimately become adiverse “community base”.

The current configuration of the park combines the access that was developedearlier to Lake Washington for swimmers and boaters, active athletic uses, asystem of walking paths, and an extensive off-leash area for dogs. With thenew round of development, active sports activities will have new clusteredfacilities, a major wetland area will be “restored” through the landscape designwork, various military buildings will be refurbished for a myriad of uses, alarge community garden will be built near a children’s play area – amongother uses.

The park abuts land on the north edge that houses the National Oceanographicand Atmospheric Administration, where five major public art pieces weredeveloped within the shoreline zone in the 1980s. For this current art project, apotential site area being considered is the transition zone between the activesports fields and the quiet wetland area.

36

PROPOSED SITES

SOUTH LAKEUNION PARKLocated in the Central West Sector

The site is located on the southwest edge of LakeUnion which is at the northern edge of thedowntown. The park site will be between thewater and Valley Street to the west of the Centerfor Wooden Boats.

The city has desired a park at this location to allowpublic access to Lake Union at the northern-mostedge of downtown. The neighborhood directlysouth of the park site will undergo significantchanges in the next decade, clearly extending thereach of the downtown core area.

After years of waiting, the park is coming tofruition. The Master Plan for the park calls for amix of uses that focus on the maritime heritage ofthe city – original inhabitants, history of aworking waterfront, and the city’s on-goingrelationship to various bodies of water thatdescribe the city as much as the land, amongseveral other concerns.

The park site will be built in phases. Currently theplan would be to have an artwork be realized inthe first phase. Because of the complexity of thesite and phasing of the construction, during theinitial design phase, the ground will be laid for anartist’s work by identifying a hierarchy ofpotential areas an artist might focus on. Thislocation might afford an artist the opportunity towork near the shore and/or into the water whichcould significantly enhance the public’s perceptionof the site and surroundings.

37

WESTCREST PARKLocated In the South West Sector

This park’s entrance is located at 9000 8th AvenueSW.

At this time, the park is receiving attention fromboth a changing community and Parks andRecreation. This attention will surely turn thishidden park gem into a community and city asset.

Within the boundaries of the park are largedeciduous and evergreen forests in the easternhalf, a centrally located open meadow thatprovides a stunning viewpoint, and veryinteresting, large overgrown “natural bowl” onthe west edge. This “bowl” is presentlyunapproachable because of considerableundergrowth. The site also includes a reservoir inthe northwest quadrant that is slated for hard lidin the near future. This would provide moreusable park land once completed.

Development of an off-leash dog area and achildren’s play area has brought more activity topark, contributing to a greater sense of safetywithin the park. A good system of trails throughwoods are currently used by park users and forstudy of Northwest ecology by school groups, ause that will likely be expanded as the parkdevelops in the future.

There are several opportunities to develop art inthis park. An obvious area is the viewpoint, butthe bowl and trail system are also interesting.

38

PROPOSED SITES

MINERAL SPRINGSPARKLocated in the North West Sector

This park is located at 10556 Meridian Avenue North at theintersection of North 105th and North 107th Streets, a shortdistance west of I-5. It is a triangular shaped park with thebase on the east edge. The northern street is a busy arterial.To the south is a residential neighborhood. The site is a formerresidence with acreage, so the landscaping reflects a pre-existing diversity of large trees that are unusual for a park site.

This park has traditionally been a single-use park – a nine-holedisc golf course established in the late 1980s. The holes wereset up within the existing landscape. As the only such course,the park draws people from a large geographic area.

Under the Pro Parks Levy, the neighborhood will furtherdevelop this park by working with unused land that runs northto south along the eastern perimeter. The neighborhood’sdesire is to create a variety of uses. These new uses will co-exist with the disc golf course. The neighborhood has beenvery proactive in engaging a landscape designer who willcreate a design that emphasizes the use of landforms tosuggest different gathering spaces along a path, indigenousplants, and a seasonal “wet spot” that reflects past springs inthe area. The earthen mounds are derived from theintersecting circles of an eternal knot representing patterns ofconnections and cycles. The mounds are intended to definefunctional spaces where the interiors are maintained and theedges are wild.

This project clearly affords an artist the opportunity to workcreatively in relation to the landscape design concepts behindthe current schematic design.

39

40

PROPOSED SITES

Project Site Budget Other Pro Parks Arts SpecialName Information Funding Schedule Commission Considerations

Sources Schedule

Com

pelli

ng a

rtist

Com

pelli

ng C

ity/

citize

n op

portu

nity

Uniq

ue co

ntrib

utio

n

Good

site

View

Othe

r qua

lities

Com

patib

le w

ithbu

dget

/ sc

hedu

ling

Cons

isten

t w/

Park

& SA

C m

issio

ns

“Ico

n” p

oten

tial

Has a

dditi

onal

fund

ing

sour

ces

DexterPit Park

W Sector, between Dexter Ave and Aurora,south of Aurora Bridge. Sited along busy urbanbicycle route. While the neighborhood itself issmall, it is high density and site has potential tobe used by a diverse group of people and seenby drivers.

$77,000 Pro Parksdevelopment

money$610,000

Unscheduled Artistselection

2005

Site should be artist-lead design effort incollaboration with alandscape designerchosen by artist. ThePro Parks developmentmoney could be usedfor implementation.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

I-5 OpenSpace

W/E Sectors, site under freeway at E. Howe St.& Franklin Ave. E. Development createsneighborhood open space, a stairway to connectCapital Hill to Eastlake, and an off-leash area

$115,000 In negotiationwith

WashingtonState Dept.

ofTransportation

Artistselection

early 2003

Absolutely unique sitewith equally uniquepotential for creativedevelopment. Wouldcontinue Seattle’s trendtowards capturing spacein the urban landscapeand turning it into apublic amenity. Willserve as a nationalexample.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

JeffersonPark

SE sector, bounded by Beacon Ave. S. on theeast, 3-par golf course and the V.A. Hospital onthe couth, 15th Ave. S. on the west and S.Spokane St. on the north. A major new parkbeing developed in conjunction with SPU workon two reservoirs. Park will be a city drawwhen completed. Expansive views of cityskyline and Olympics from several locations.Diverse uses blending to create dynamic place.

$150,000 SPU 2004-06 Artistselection

2005

Very important parksite. Will be asimportant as parkssuch as Sand Point,Lincoln and Seward forexample. There are anumber of very goodsite possibilities. Also anopportunity for an artistto design a piece of thepark as art.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

41

Project Site Budget Other Pro Parks Arts SpecialName Information Funding Schedule Commission Considerations

Sources Schedule

Com

pelli

ng a

rtist

Com

pelli

ng C

ity/

citize

n op

portu

nity

Uniq

ue co

ntrib

utio

n

Good

site

View

Othe

r qua

lities

Com

patib

le w

ithbu

dget

/ sc

hedu

ling

Cons

isten

t w/

Park

& SA

C m

issio

ns

“Ico

n” p

oten

tial

Has a

dditi

onal

fund

ing

sour

ces

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

LincolnAnnexPark

SW Sector, 8011 Fauntleroy Wy. SW. A quietpark site with a stunning view to the Olympicsand Lincoln Park.

$55,000 Pro Parks workcomplete

summer 2002,art schedule

separate

Artist selection

2005

An artwork will enhancethis lovely site andpotentially create adraw.

SandPointMagnusonPark

NW Sector, 6500 Sand Point Way NE. A majorcity park development adding sports fields and awetland open space along with otherdevelopments within park. Heavy city-widedraw which uses all areas of the park.

$125,000 Unknown Unscheduled Artist selection

2005

Transition edge betweensports and wetlandsopen space is veryinteresting potentialsite.

SouthLakeUnionPark

W Sector, along SW edge of Lake Union, north ofValley. Very important site in relation todowntown, acts as northern terminus. Mixedfocus on maritime history and activity and accessto shoreline.

$138,459 Grants,Vulcan

2002-06 Artistselection

early 2003

Exciting potential for anartwork in more passiveareas that front thewater. Site provideswonderful views of thecity to the north.Proximity to water isvery important to thefeel of the site.

MineralSpringsPark

W Sector. 10556 Meridian Ave. N. FormerlyNorth Seattle Park, a location for disc golf. Oldfarm site with diverse and distinctive group oftrees. Community is developing eastern edge asa well designed passive linear park setting tocomplement the active disc golf area.

$92,305 Pro Parksdevelopment

money$710,000

Design 2002,construction

2003

Artistselection

early 2003

Active communitymember who has a clearvision of developing astrong, creativelandscape design thatincorporates diverse artelements. Communityhas sponsored an artplan. Park draws largecity-wide crowd to playdisc golf, which has amassociation thatmaintains their part ofthe park. Uniqueopportunity in thislocation of the city.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

42

PROPOSED SITES

Project Site Budget Other Pro Parks Arts SpecialName Information Funding Schedule Commission Considerations

Sources Schedule

Com

pelli

ng a

rtist

Com

pelli

ng C

ity/

citize

n op

portu

nity

Uniq

ue co

ntrib

utio

n

Good

site

View

Othe

r qua

lities

Com

patib

le w

ithbu

dget

/ sc

hedu

ling

Cons

isten

t w/

Park

& SA

C m

issio

ns

“Ico

n” p

oten

tial

Has a

dditi

onal

fund

ing

sour

ces

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

WestcrestPark

SW Sector, 9000 8th Ave. SW. Majorundeveloped city asset that includes deciduousand evergreen forest on the east half, an openmeadow with a stunning viewpoint andovergrown bowl on the west edge. Currentlyreceiving attention from community and Parks.Site includes a reservoir in NW corner that isslated for hard lid in the future. Development ofoff-leash dog area has brought more activityinto park. Trails through woods used to studyNW ecology.

$125,000 Currentproject

constructioncomplete

2002

Artistselection2003 or

2004

An undeveloped cityasset, recently gettingattention.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■PrattPark

E Sector, Bounded by Yesler on the N., WonderBread Plant and Pratt Art Center on the S.

$38,500 Current DONgrant w/anotherpossible

N/A Fall 2002 Important park site forlarger neighborhood.Recent Parks work hasinfused new life intopark. Artwork couldbecome a landmark.

BergenPlace

NW Sector, 5420 22nd Ave. NW, in the heart ofBallard’s business district. Prominent andimportant location

$38,500 July 2002-end of 2003

Undetermined Underdeveloped site ofsignificance to thelarger neighborhoodand people usingBallard’s businessdistrict. Should becarefully designed tocreate a beautiful,useful park.

RainerBeachPublicPlaza

SW Sector, NW corner of Rainier and Henderson,sited near C.C. and School. Small site at a veryimportant intersection within the community

$38,500 PotentiallySeattleSchoolDistrict

Planning Fall2002,

Design 2003

First half2003

Artwork could make avery importantcontribution to theexperience and visibilityof this site. Majorredevelopment takingplace with therenovation of school.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

43

Project Site Budget Other Pro Parks Arts SpecialName Information Funding Schedule Commission Considerations

Sources Schedule

Com

pelli

ng a

rtist

Com

pelli

ng C

ity/

citize

n op

portu

nity

Uniq

ue co

ntrib

utio

n

Good

site

View

Othe

r qua

lities

Com

patib

le w

ithbu

dget

/ sc

hedu

ling

Cons

isten

t w/

Park

& SA

C m

issio

ns

“Ico

n” p

oten

tial

Has a

dditi

onal

fund

ing

sour

ces

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■Boren/Pike/PinePark

E Sector, 2 part park located E & W of Borenbetween Pine and Pike, includes 4 ColumnsPark, W. edge of the Pike/Pine neighborhood

$38,500 Originalschedule:DesignSummer2002-winter 03,construction04. Projecton holdpendingnegotiationswith WDOTover landuse issues.

Undetermined Unique perspectiveoffered by view of city.Great potential as apass through, drive bylocation for largenumber of people

LakeCity CivicCore

NW Sector, 12526 27th Ave. NE, located in thecenter of a site that includes a library,community center and existing park. Thelibrary is being expanded and will include aNeighborhood Service Center and a parkingstructure. The park will be on the lid of thegarage and connect to other park. There is aproposed connection from this area to the mainbusiness district via a path.

$38,500 Planninghas begunfor the site.

This site will besignificant oncecompletely developed.The community center isstill deficient but shouldbe worked on in the f

44

PROPOSED SITES

General Art Opportunity Fund Sites

Schedule

2003 2004 2005

Mineral Springs Park Westcrest Park Jefferson Park

South Lake Union Lincoln Annex Magnuson/Sand Point

I-5 Open Space Dexter Pit

45

ART PLAN - Implementation

FOR THE PRO PARKS 2000 LEVY

Carolyn Law, Seattle Arts Commission

Framework for Relationship BetweenSeattle Arts Commission and SeattleParks and RecreationBackgroundWhile the Seattle Arts Commission and Seattle Parks and

Recreation have worked together in the past on public art

projects, there had been little groundwork laid for a true

partnership. At this point, because of the scale of the Pro

Parks Levy and the One Percent for Art funds generated, the

two departments agreed to focus on building such a relation-

ship. To foster the bond, the arts planner was placed in-

residence at Parks and Recreation. This crucial step has

resulted in a very encouraging outcome.

The planning phase has established a well-developed, respect-

ful communication link between the Arts Commission and

Parks and Recreation. In order to see the Art Plan through,

this link will be safe-guarded, kept alive and lively. Seattle

Parks and Recreation has come to rely on the planner to keep

the lines and layers of communication flowing, to act as a

much needed on-the-spot art resource internally and exter-

nally, to follow-up on issues and ideas related to projects, to

initiate discussions, to investigate possibilities– in other

words, to be the “Pro Parks Plus art guru” within the Plan-

ning and Development Division of Parks and Recreation.

Having the planner in-residence at Parks and Recreation

greatly facilitated this communication, and administrators at

both departments were fully committed to supporting this

joint planning venture. Seattle Parks and Recreation has been

generously responsive and accessible to the planner. Since the

planning phase has turned out so well, everyone agrees on the

need to continue housing the Art Commission representative

at Parks and Recreation for the implementation phase of the

Pro Parks Art Plan.

Art Plan ImplementationThe goal during this Art Plan’s implementation is to have the

Arts Commission and Parks and Recreation become lifetime

partners in the service of artists working in parks in ways that

enhance the missions of the two agencies and the character

and meaning of parks for the community.

With the completion of the planning process, an Arts Com-

mission project manager will be put in place to implement

the Art Plan. This project manager will continue to be housed

at Parks and Recreation. The larger share of keeping commu-

nication going about the Art Plan and the projects as they

begin among all the important parties will, of necessity, be

placed on the shoulders of the Art Plan Project manager,

because the Arts Commission will house the Art Plan’s con-

cepts and be the keeper of the Art Plan’s history as it unfolds.

This responsibility is of no small consequence to the final

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

46

outcome of the art projects and must be done conscientiously.

Currently it is expected that the arts planner will serve in the

capacity of project manager for the Art Plan.

It is imperative that the Art Plan project manager continues to

be expansive in communicating with various members of

Seattle Parks and Recreation. To narrow the focus down to

only key administrators and Pro Parks project managers

would be a mistake. Keeping as many people in the commu-

nication loop as possible during all phases of implementing

the Art Plan will not only ensure that the projects are excel-

lent but also changes the culture of Parks and Recreation in

relation to artists working on their turf.

As the relationship between the departments matures, Parks

and Recreation personnel will become more knowledgeable

about how the Arts Commission’s processes works, how artists

work, and ultimately, how art and parks can merge and create

exponentially more possibilities for park users and the city

park system. As Parks and Recreation becomes more well-

versed in the role art and artists can play in parks, two things

should happen. They will be able to join the Arts Commis-

sion in being an advocate for public art, expressing a vision

and understanding of artists working in parks to the larger

community. If Parks and Recreation chooses, they will be able

to promote an internal discussion about the potential for art

in parks. By doing so they can become full contributors to the

thinking that defines the direction of future opportunities.

Educating and Informing Seattle Arts Commissionand Seattle Parks and Recreation StaffsAs the planning phase is wrapped up, it is important for the

Pro Parks project manager for the art projects to begin a

diligent education of Parks and Recreation staff about the Art

Plan’s vision, goals and implementation process. Obviously,

this information must be delivered to all Pro Parks project

management staff. But it is equally important to reach out to

those working in administration, the various geographic areas

of the city park system, maintenance, communications, etc.

With an enormous number of projects taking place simulta-

neously, everyone needs to share language to describe the

47

vision, goals and processes of the Art Plan and be able to walk

community members through imagining the new art that will

be in the parks. Everyone involved needs to be aware that

building an understanding within the departments and the

community broadens the possibilities and the degree of

success for the art and artists. This level and kind of commu-

nication has other potentials. It can clarify what essential parts

of the park should be handled through the creative design

work of the consultants taking place under the stewardship of

Parks and Recreation and what part the art can play in the

park. Also any level of conceptual discussion revolving around

what parks mean to people, how they work, what experiences

do you want to foster within parks, etc. expands the culture of

understanding.

Therefore the planner recommends that in regard to Parks

and Recreation, the Art Plan project manager:

• update upper level management and the superintendent on

the progress of the Art Plan on a regular basis;

• attend the project management and Pro Parks Steering and

Oversight Committee meetings;

• occasionally attend Division meetings to update staff on

developments; and

• establish an on-going relationship with Maintenance to

regular updates about projects in development and discuss

ideas and issues related to regular maintenance procedures of

art in parks.

WorkplanProcessThere are both large and small work issues that should be

addressed. Using the standard tool of a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) is a very good method to clarify this

partnership as we prepare to move forward with implement-

ing the projects in the Art Plan. Typically, the Arts Commis-

sion develops a MOU that outlines all the details of how two

parties work together to accomplish a stated goal on a project

by project basis. Since we will have approximately 20 art

projects developed under this Art Plan, laying the ground-

work for a working partnership between the two departments

should be thoughtfully attended to at the outset of the imple-

mentation phase.

The Art Plan project manager must develop broad relation-

ships with the Pro Parks and Community Centers project

management staff. Ideally, these relationships will also become

defined by a sense of partnership, as both project managers

will be guiding the art project to completion. Project manage-

ment will involve handling communication to the design

consultants, the community, and the artist and fostering a

“team” sensibility. Obviously the Art Plan project manager is

solely responsible for the details of the artist’s contract, design

phase and implementation, but in the broader sense, if both

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

48

the Arts Commission and Parks Department project managers

are on the same page in terms of thinking and use of descrip-

tive language, the chances of an exceptional outcome increase

many fold.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)This plan recommends that this document be developed at

the outset for these projects rather than reacting to the need as

a project comes on-line. Agreeing on the tenets of an under-

standing will further cement the positive work that took place

during the planning process. The MOU for these projects will

be based on the standard language of such a document, but

with attention to details that apply here. The MOU will be

crafted by the head of the Arts Commission’s Public and

Community Arts Division, the Art Plan project manager, the

Director of the Planning and Development Division and the

head of Pro Parks Project Management of Parks and Recre-

ation.

Language About Art Projects in RequestsFor Qualifications (RFQ) and ContractsFor Design ConsultantsStandard language will be developed jointly by the Art Plan

project manager and the appropriate Parks and Recreation

representatives for inclusion in the project Request for Quali-

fications (RFQ) and contracts. This language will clearly

indicate that design consultants will be interfacing with a

project artist and what will be required in terms of time and

intent. Several versions will be written to cover issues with

different types of art projects, so appropriate paperwork can

be drawn up quickly for each RFQ or contract by Parks and

Recreation project managers.

Following is an example of possible contract language:

The Pro Parks Art Plan specifies that an artist will be commis-

sioned to create art for a site selected within the park. The

artwork will define an experience that will impact the area of

the chosen site in the park. The artist will respond to the

landscape design, the park’s character and the patterns of use

in the entire park.

The consultant will meet with the artist two to three times to:

• share information and ideas (the consultant will orient the

artist to the landscape design and the artist will share art

concepts);

• confer on any aspects of the art project that fulfill some

aspect of the design and therefore could capture or share

dollars from the construction budget; and

• determine if any part of the art concept could be included

in the construction documents and determine who is

responsible for the inclusion of any agreed-upon details and

how they will be carried out.

49

Relationship withParks MaintenanceHistoryThe Seattle Arts Commission and Seattle Parks and Recre-

ation have some history of working together on art issues.

They have developed a Memorandum of Understanding

that outlines individual responsibilities for the maintenance

of the current commissioned and donated artworks on park

sites. There is also an established policy covering the accep-

tance and placement of donated artworks for park sites.

With this new set of projects coming on line, it is recom-

mended that the Art Plan project manager establish a

strong relationship with people in the Maintenance Divi-

sion. This will enable the maintenance staff to become

familiar with the range of art that could possibly be sited in

the parks and to share their invaluable knowledge regarding

general and specific maintenance and siting issues with the

Art Plan project manager. This information could then

become part of the orientation of the selected artists. Also, a

communication channel would be established allowing

maintenance staff to offer insightful suggestions to artists

about the use and care of park sites that might be applicable

during the design phase, etc.

It is recommended that a representative of Maintenance be an

active member of the Arts Commission’s review group estab-

lished for the Pro Parks artists’ designs.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)For the Pro Parks Art Plan, it has been decided that a new

MOU regarding the long term care of artworks will be drafted

and formally agreed upon before we begin the implementa-

tion phase of the Pro Parks art projects.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

50

Site Selection Process for Parks andArtwork SitesEstablishing a Decision Making GroupThe final selection of park sites for two of three components

of the Art Plan that involve sites is critically important. Any

review of necessary changes to or final selection of sites must

be dealt with formally with the goals of the Art Plan in

mind in order to benefit the final outcome of the One

Percent for Art projects.

The initial list of park sites was carefully compiled to allow

the vision and goals of the Art Plan to flourish. Any revisit-

ing of site choices for the Major Art Projects and the final

selection of sites in the more flexible category of General

Opportunity Fund Projects must be done thoughtfully, but

also boldly. Therefore it is necessary to set in place a strong,

consistent mechanism that will handle review of any

changes or problems with sites, selection of any alternate

park sites for the Major Art Projects, and final site selection

for the General Opportunity Fund sites.

A small, representative group will be established to be on

call for such actions. The representatives need to be familiar

with either the park system, the Pro Parks Levy and Levy

Art Plan and/or public art. Their recommendation on site

changes and additions will be taken to Parks and Recreation

Superintendent for discussion and approval.

It is recommended that the Pro Parks site selection group

(name to be determined), making the choices for the major

and general opportunity fund projects, be comprised of the

following representatives:

Parks and Recreation:

• head of Pro Parks project management;

• a member of the new centralized Parks Department Review

body; and

• a representative from maintenance.

Seattle Arts Commission:

• Public and Community Arts Program Director;

• Art Plan project manager; and

• Arts Commissioner from the Public Art Advisory Committee.

Sites for Major Art ProjectsInherent in working on an Art Plan of this nature and scale

with a long time frame is the possibility of changes that

impact the initial site list. If a site change is required, the goal

is to select an alternate site that will make an equal or greater

contribution to the overall vision of the Pro Park Art Plan.

Any alternate choice should be made after looking carefully at

any art projects that are underway, any significant changes to

the Pro Parks project list, and assessment of any completed

Pro Parks work and its impact on the park system and com-

munities. That is, alternate sites should be selected with

knowledgeable consideration for the status of the parks system

and art projects at that time coupled with the Art Plan’s

vision, goals and criteria.

51

For some of these projects, while not required, it may be

necessary to develop parameters for siting artworks within a

park. If so, the parameters should be structured to support

the ability of an artist to create an artwork guided by the

vision and goals of the Art Plan.

Sites for General Art Opportunity Fund ProjectsThe site list for this category is intentionally left open-ended,

although there is an initial list of sites that will be evaluated as

they come on line. As such, there will likely be a need for the

decision making body to meet to make on-going determina-

tions on sites over the next few years.

The site selection process for this component of the Art Plan

will take into account the implementation schedule and

design direction of projects on the initial list assembled

during the planning phase of the Art Plan. It will also address

any new acquisitions or projects being funded through the

Pro Parks Levy General Art Opportunity Fund that are of

significance and perhaps present a better opportunity then the

original group of sites. As well, any sites that have been

reevaluated as to their importance will be considered. The

decision making body will review the Art Plan’s vision, goals

and criteria of the Pro Parks Art Plan for that category of

project, and couple this with consideration of the success and

impact of any Pro Park art projects that are under develop-

ment or are complete.

Process for Developing the Scope forthe Writer-in-ResidenceThis project is an exciting experiment. While it is easy to

imagine what a photographer-in-residence might produce and

how images could be used, the Arts Commission and Parks

Department are open to developing an initial scope for this

opportunity for a writer. Once a writer is selected, it could be

helpful at the outset of the residency to include the writer in a

discussion refining the residency goals and possible ways the

writer’s work could be used. It is hoped that this residency

will take place towards the beginning of the implementation

of the Art Plan.

For this component, it is important to spend the initial

planning time to develop an outline of the goals and aspira-

tions of the residency and to determine the type of writer we

seek. The Art Plan recommends that a one-time group be

convened to take on this task. The group would be comprised

of:

• Art Plan Project Manager;

• Arts Commission Public and Community Art Program

Director;

• Parks Department P.R./Communication writer;

• Arts Commission Communications Director; and

• representatives of Richard Hugo House and possibly The

Washington Center for the Book.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

52

This group will understand the workings of Seattle Parks and

Recreation and past Arts Commission projects that dealt with

writers. They will then brainstorm approaches to writing that

might be most effective within this context and opportunity,

and how writing could be used within Parks and Recreation.

An outline for the residency will be developed from this

group’s work.

Artist Selection Process:Major Art ProjectsThe Pro Parks Art Plan projects have a specialized and chal-

lenging scope. They are clearly for artists who have a strong

conceptual framework and substantial experience creating

work that fits the vision and opportunity. Based on the

planner’s research to date, these projects need to be broadly

promoted in order to reach the smaller number of artists who

have the background to take them on.

Call For ArtistsThe development of the prospectus is critical. Descriptions of

all the essential aspects of the projects will have to be clear and

strong. The prospectus will include descriptive and informa-

tive language about:

• Seattle’s park system;

• the Art Plan’s vision and goals;

• the art opportunity as an invitation to make art and also to

engage the public in a public space; and

• site descriptions for a particular call.

In addition, the prospectus should be imbued with a sense of

the unique opportunity these projects provide for artists and

the city.

Artists will be asked to submit twenty slides of representative

work, a letter of interest, resume and references. Rather than

the usual letter of interest, artists will be asked to write re-

53

sponses to a short list of questions that are designed to give a

panel more comprehensive background information and a

sense of how this opportunity is interpreted and understood.

It is recommended that the Arts Commission use a national

call for these projects and also invite select regional, national

and international artists to apply. In order to expand the reach

of the prospectus, the Arts Commission staff and the Pro

Parks Project Manager should investigate and contact various

resources to increase the size of both the mailing list and the

list of artists invited to apply.

Selection ProcessIn most cases, two to three projects will be grouped for a

selection process because of Pro Parks project schedules,

efficiency, and generating interest in the artist community.

For each round, the selection process will include an initial

panel meeting to develop a short list of artists to be inter-

viewed, and a second panel meeting to interview artists and

make the final selections. Additionally each panel will be

asked to develop a list of strong candidates who were not

selected so they can be invited to apply for a subsequent

round of projects.

Selection PanelsThe composition of the selection panels is critical. Equally

important is a careful, thorough panel orientation that brings

every member to a full understanding of the nature of the Art

Plan and the particular projects under their purview.

It is recommended that there be a “standing core group” of at

least two people for the panel that would participate in all the

Major Art Projects selection processes. A strong argument can

be made that this practice will help ensure that the intent of

the Plan is carried through over the course of the four to five

years of levy work. The panelists who serve through all the

selection processes would contribute to establishing the sense

of cohesiveness and history that we aspire to in the working

processes of the Art Plan, as well as in the final group of

artworks.

The panel for the Major Art Projects will be composed of the

following members:

• two artists with far-reaching outdoor site experience in

public art (preferably natural sites) and strong conceptual

skills;

• an arts professional experienced with artists working in a

natural context;

• a landscape design professional with either solid experience

or strong theoretical foundation in highly creative natural

urban park design; and

• a community member with extensive urban park system

involvement.

Panel OrientationThe selection panels will receive an in-depth orientation.

Prior to gathering, each member should read the Art Plan and

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

54

also pertinent resource and source materials provided by the

Arts Commission. The panel orientation will include:

• a discussion about the Art Plan and support material held

with the panel, facilitated by the director of the Public Art

Program and the Art Plan project manager, to establish a

mutual understanding of its content, vision, and goals (this

discussion should include Seattle Parks and Recreation

Superintendent and other Parks and Recreation representa-

tives);

• a slide presentation and discussion of artworks that are

similar to work we would be striving to commission in order

to clarify what is unique about these projects; and

• comprehensive site visits of all major art project sites.

Artist OrientationIt is critical to spend time orienting the selected artists

through a process similar to that used for the selection panel

members. The goals of an orientation are:

• ensure the artists clearly understand the vision and goals of

the Art Plan and their creative opportunity;

• describe the physical and maintenance parameters for

working in a public park system and working in Parks and

Recreation in particular;

• orient the artists to their particular park and site; and

• explain the process for concept to final design development

of the artwork and the approval process.

Community ProcessTo ensure that any community associated with an artwork site

participates in the implementation of an Art Plan project,

either a general community meeting or a meeting of a repre-

sentative group for the park site will be undertaken to present

the Art Plan and discuss the various qualities and particulars

of a site. The community will be encouraged to share their

feelings and understanding of the park site with the Art

Commission in order to develop a more detailed description

of the art opportunity that builds on the vision and goals of

the Art Plan. All pertinent site information would be incor-

porated into the call for artists.

For the artist selection process, the community will be invited

to designate one-two representatives to act as advisors to the

selection panel for their project. At this time, the representa-

tives would be asked to help in orienting the panel and

providing appropriate comments on the artists applicants as

the selection process enfolds.

Following artist selection, the artist will meet with the com-

munity to share backgrounds and insights about and hopes

for the site. The artist will meet at agreed upon benchmarks

with a designated group that represents the park to share the

artwork concept as it is developed and to elicit comments. If

desirable, the artist would make a presentation to a broader

community group.

55

Artist Selection Process:General Art Opportunity Fund ProjectsCall For ArtistsIt is recommended that these projects use one of the Arts

Commission rosters when appropriate for the timing and

scope of a project. If the roster does not have enough qualified

artists for a particular opportunity, the Art Plan project

manager and the Public and Community Art Program Man-

ager will discuss the option of having a regional open call to

either select artists or develop another small roster.

To promote these projects, either a letter to roster artists or a

prospectus for an open call will clearly and strongly describe

the objectives and background information of the projects,

just as we will do for the Major Art Projects. The prospectus

will include descriptive and informative language about:

• Seattle’s park system;

• the Art Plan’s vision and goals;

• how these projects fit into the overall group of art projects;

• how these projects are about artists making art but art

creates a unique experience within the park; and

• site descriptions for a particular call.

If there is an open call, artists will be asked to submit 15 to 20

appropriate, representative slides of their strongest work with

a letter of interest and resume. If a roster is used, artists will

submit a letter of interest.

Selection ProcessFor each round, the selection process will have two parts: an

initial panel meeting to develop a short list of artists to be

interviewed or to develop proposals, and a second panel

meeting to interview artists or review proposals and then

make the final artist selection.

The determination of whether to conduct an interview

process or a proposal based process for final artist selection

will be made by the Arts Commission after reviewing the

opportunity for an artist at a particular site.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

56

Selection PanelThe composition of the panel is important. Equally impor-

tant is a thorough panel orientation that brings every member

to a full understanding of the nature of the Art Plan and the

particular projects under their purview.

If a roster is not used, the panel for the General Art Opportu-

nity Fund Projects will be composed of the following mem-

bers:

• an artist with outdoor site experience in public art and

strong conceptual skills;

• Parks and Recreation Project Manager;

• a landscape design or urban planning professional with

experience designing smaller urban parks; and

• a community member with broad urban park system

involvement.

If a roster is used, the selection panel will be composed of the

following members:

• a community member who can represent the larger commu-

nity;

• either the landscape designer for the park site or a designer

or urban planning professional with experience designing

smaller urban parks; and

• Parks and Recreation Project Manager.

Panel OrientationAs with the Major Art Projects, General Art Opportunity

Fund Project panels will get a thorough orientation. Panelists

will be asked to read the Art Plan and any pertinent resource

and support material supplied prior to the first meeting. The

panel orientation will include:

• a discussion about the Art Plan and support material,

facilitated by the director of the Public Art Program and the

Art Plan project manager, to establish a mutual

understanding of its content, vision, and goals (this

discussion will be attended by key Parks Department

representatives including the Superintendent);

• a slide presentation and discussion of artworks that are

similar to work we would be striving to commission in order

to clarify what is unique about these projects; and

• comprehensive site visits of all Major Art Project sites.

57

Artist OrientationThe General Art Opportunity Fund Project artists will also

receive a full orientation. The goals of the orientation are to:

• ensure the artists clearly understand the vision and goals of

the Art Plan and their creative opportunity;

• describe the physical and maintenance parameters for

working in a public park system and working in the Seattle

Park department in particular;

• orient the artists to their particular park and site; and

• explain the concept development and approval process.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

58

Community ProcessA process similar to that for the Major Art Projects will be

used for this component. To ensure that any community

associated with an artwork site participates in the implemen-

tation of an Art Plan project, either a general community

meeting or a meeting of a representative group for the park

site will be undertaken to present the Art Plan and discuss the

various qualities and particulars of a site. The community

will be encouraged to share their feelings and understanding

of the park site with the Art Commission in order to develop

a more detailed description of the art opportunity that builds

on the vision and goals of the Art Plan. All pertinent site

information would be incorporated into the call for artists.

For the artist selection process, the community will be invited

to designate one-two representatives to participate on the

selection panel for their project. These community members

should be selected for their ability to represent and work for

the larger community.

Following artist selection, the artist will meet with the com-

munity to share backgrounds and insights about and hopes

for the site. The artist will meet at agreed upon benchmarks

with a designated group that represents the park to share the

artwork concept as it is developed and to elicit comments. If

desirable, the artist would make a presentation to a broader

community group.

Art Project Review ProcessArt Concept ReviewFor the Major Art Projects, it is recommended to conduct

more design reviews than is standard Arts Commission

procedure, due to the scope of the projects. They will be

reviewed at the following benchmarks:

• response to site and initial concepts;

• concept review;

• mid-point final design development; and

• final design.

For the General Art Opportunity Fund Projects, the schedule

and benchmarks for review will follow standard Arts Com-

mission procedure, which includes a review of concepts and

final design.

Additional Recommendation: If there are several artists

working in the same general timeframe, the presentations will

be grouped whenever possible. This will be beneficial to the

artists, designers and staff and will also streamline the review

process for the reviewing body.

Review GroupThe Arts Commission wishes to create the most efficient

review process possible given the number of projects being

done through the Art Plan. The review of projects will be

most effective (and efficient) if the Arts Commission and

Parks Department work together as a team in the review

process, sharing comments and insights with each other and

the artists while at the same table.

Therefore, it is

recommended that

standing representa-

tives from Parks and

Recreation join the

Public Art Advisory

Committee, meeting

together to review

all the projects

under this Art Plan.

Seattle Parks and

Recreation represen-

tatives should be:

• Parks and Recre-

ation Pro Parks Project Manager;

• member of Parks and Recreation’s new project review body;

and

• Parks Department representative from Maintenance.

It is highly recommended that every effort be made to keep

this review group intact for the duration of the Art Plan

projects. The accrued history will be very important in the

review of the complete group of projects, helping to establish

a strong sense of cohesiveness that is a critical goal of this Art

Plan.

59

Criteria for Selection of a Project forthe Major Art Projects and GeneralOpportunity FundThese criteria were developed in the planning process and

guided the site selection for the Art Plan’s major art projects.

They will also be used if some unforeseen developments occur

that necessitate changes in the site list of Major Art Projects

and in the on-going determination of the General Art Oppor-

tunity Fund sites.

As a group, the projects:

• allow the Seattle Arts Commission and Seattle Parks and

Recreation to establish and successfully contribute a coher-

ent vision of art in parks developed through the Levy to the

city;

• attract people to the variety of sites within the city specifi-

cally to experience the art because the artworks establish a

unique sense of place and provide exciting, memorable

experiences;

• are distributed throughout the city in a thoughtful, equi-

table way. (Consider Seattle Parks Gap Analysis informa-

tion.);

• contribute to an overall perception of art being woven into

the fabric of the Parks and Recreation system; and

• are distinctive from the artwork being created for projects

implemented with the Neighborhood Matching Fund

Grants.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

60

Each project:

• provides a compelling artistic opportunity for an artist;

• provides an artistic opportunity that is meaningful to the

citizens;

• makes a unique contribution to the group of projects;

• gives the artist an opportune site within a park or the entire

site to create a significant place for people to have an experi-

ence or interact;

• enhances some special aspect of the park (i.e., a view) or

quality (i.e., a transition zone or some interesting topo-

graphic feature);

• can be successful within existing budget and scheduling

constraints;

• has the potential to meet the vision and goals of the Art

Plan;

• has the potential to become a citywide and/or sector-wide

“icon”; and

• has other possible funding sources to partner with the One

Percent for Art money, or, demonstrates how the One

Percent for Art money can act as “seed money.”

Art Plan—Initial ConceptualApprochesBoth Seattle Parks and Recreation and the Seattle Arts Com-

mission recognized the two important aspects of this levy -

the One Percent for Art funds generated and developing a

thoughtful plan for the use of those funds. To support the

development of a comprehensive Art Plan with a new vision

for art in parks, the Arts Commission and Parks and Recre-

ation joined hands, marking the beginning of an auspicious

partnership. The Arts Commission placed arts planner

Carolyn Law “in residence” at Parks and Recreation, to

conduct the research and build the relationships needed to

develop this Arts Plan.

Over a six-month period, Carolyn Law developed knowledge-

able relationships with Ken Bounds, Seattle Parks and

Recreation’s superintendent, and staff in the administration,

planning, development, acquisition, landscape architecture,

major maintenance, and project management divisions.

Working side by side with staff, she forged relationships based

on a comprehension of the mission, goals and working

processes of Parks and Recreation; shared ideas, information

and visions with Seattle Parks and Recreation Division staff;

and made numerous site visits alone and with staff. The arts

planner talked with key stakeholders including the Seattle

Parks Foundation; the Design Commission; the Planning

Commission; Seattle departments, including Department of

61

Neighborhoods and Seattle Public Utilities; and community

representatives. She researched the topics of urban parks and

artwork derived from an interest in the natural world, sited in

natural environments or parks.

In addition to her thorough study of the levy sites through

design drawings, maps, descriptions, and photographs, Law

conducted site visits to almost every levy site as well as to

other park sites throughout the city. She visited some sites on

her own, and others in the company of key people from Parks

and Recreation and Arts Commission. The experiential

knowledge gained in these site visits greatly enhanced her

understanding of the park system and informed every aspect

of this Art Plan’s development. She began winnowing down

the formidable list of levy sites to a shorter list of parks that

were especially suited for art projects because of a notable

characteristic, be it physical siting, location in the city, view,

mix of uses, access, potential to become a destination, etc.

From that point forward, the Plan’s site list and conceptual

approach developed hand in hand.

The residency greatly helped to demonstrate both the immen-

sity and scale of the levy’s impact, and the rare promise of the

opportunity for public art. Through observation, conversa-

tion, and research, the arts planner explored the options and

framed several key questions. The answers to these questions

provided a solid foundation for making choices and guided

the Plan’s eventual vision and goals. The answers also in-

APPENDIX

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

62

formed decisions about the final components and site choices

of the Art Plan.

Other important issues guiding a conceptual approach came

out of an initial discussion with Parks and Recreation Super-

intendent Ken Bounds, held to establish any additional

guidelines for this opportunity. For the art projects, he enthu-

siastically supported thinking on an expansive scale and

pushing the ideas about art in parks in a thought-provoking

new direction. It was also very important to him for future

generations to be able to look back and see a clear connection

to the Pro Parks period of park development, through the

resulting artworks and the approach to park design. He also

supported the possibility of working with park sites beyond

those listed in the levy, in keeping with the citywide nature of

the levy, if a strong supporting rationale could be provided.

Next, Law developed four possible conceptual approaches for

consideration, based on her research. By this point she had

conducted site research including the site visits and conversa-

tions with key people in both departments about what sites

had interesting potential. She had also exchanged ideas and

information with many people associated with

the levy and the city. (Of particular importance

were conversations with Ken Bounds and Erin

Devoto from Parks and Recreation, the Seattle

Design Commission and the Arts Commission

Public Art Advisory Committee.) The concep-

tual approaches also reflected her extensive

research on urban parks, landscape design and

planning, historical cultural expressions within

the landscape, and artists working with the

environment or in outdoor, park-like settings.

These four draft conceptual approaches were

presented to the Arts Commission Public Art

Committee and key Parks and Recreation

people:

63

1. Art Makes a Connection tothe Natural WorldParks provide a respite from urban life and allow people to be

in a more natural environment. Art that connects to the

natural world can establish a unique zone within the park that

defines an opportunity to experience the non-urban, natural

world of the park in an extraordinary way. This experiential

art area can be located in relationship to other park experi-

ences and patterns of use like walking a path, picnicking,

using a play area, taking in a view, etc. Sites in a park with

some particular quality or characteristic, such as a view or a

special wooded area or meadow, will be sought out.

2. Art Broadens a “Community Park”ExperienceUrban parks can have an impact on an entire neighborhood,

not just the immediate surroundings. Art can add an experi-

ence that is clearly unique from standard design or program-

ming. A successful art experience can intertwine with the

activities and design of the park, enhancing the overall experi-

ence of the open space.

3. The Park is ArtIn some parks, an artist can work as the lead designer of the

entire site or a large piece of a site. The artist would be the

primary designer, selecting the landscape architect as a partner

in the process. The artist will design the park as an artwork

with a strong concept, aesthetic and sense of experience to

support a set of pre-determined functional uses that match

the potential of the site.

4. Art Creates A Unique ExperienceWithin a ParkArtwork can add a distinctive layer of meaning to a park and

provide a variety of imaginative interactive uses that bring a

new idea, experience and use into the setting. For this con-

cept, a range of park types are selected, of varying sizes, from

natural to urban, reflecting the mix of the whole parks system.

ART PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

64

Site Selection ProcessThe arts planner narrowed the site list down to a short list of

the strongest candidates that met the Art Plan’s site criteria.

The list included the most important major parks being

developed through the levy as well as other parks located

throughout the city which demonstrated an alignment with

the project criteria but also had that “subjective” promise of

something extra.

The short list of possible sites was placed alongside the

blended conceptual approach to see if the proposed central

concept for the Art Plan was a good match with the sites.

Then a question was asked to key decision-makers: Did the

conceptual approach, matched with the most interesting sites,

inspire confidence that the resulting artwork would fulfill the

Art Plan’s vision and goals? The planner’s recommendation,

which was accepted, was that it did.

The following initial conceptual approaches were developed

to examine the range of possibilities available. Once devel-

oped these were further developed and then examined for

strengths and weaknesses.

During the course of the levy, the same key decision-makers

who were involved during the development of the Art Plan

will determine sites for this category of project. The Pro Parks

Art Plan Project Manager will be responsible for on-going

research and evaluation of sites on the list and any new sites

that arise during the next two to three years. From this work,

the project manager will make recommendations to the new

review body (formerly CORE, reconfigured in 2002) for

Parks and Recreation and the Arts Commission (Director of

Public and Community Art and the Public Art Committee of

the Arts Commission) for discussion and approval. Decisions

will continue to be guided by the vision, goals and criteria of

the Art Plan and also consider the impact and status of art

projects that have been completed or are underway.