DOCSLIB.ORG

P>Patch Rejuvenation Initiative Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
P>Patch Rejuvenation Initiative Plan SEATTLE PARK DISTRICT 2Ä2CVEJ 4GLWXGPCVKQP +PKVKCVKXG2NCP SEATTLE PARKS AND RECREATION %QXGT2JQVQ2KECTFQ(CTO5GCVVNGUHKTUV2Ä2CVEJDWKNVKP #EMPQYNGFIOGPVU OWNER Seattle Parks and Recreation Jesús Aguirre, Superintendent Kathleen Conner Pamela Kliment STAKEHOLDERS Seattle Department of Neighborhoods Kathy Nyland, Director Julie Bryan Kenya Fredie Karen Gordon Vanesa Gutierrez Marsha Holbrook Rich Macdonald Sandy Pernitz Lisa Uemoto Bunly Yun P-Patch Garden Leadership Team members P-Patch Gardeners FUTURE PARTNERS Seattle City Light Seattle Department of Transportation Seattle Public Utilities CONSULTANT TEAM Barker Landscape Architects, P.S. John Barker, Nicolas Morin, Brenda Snyder, Jessi Barnes, Peter Cromwell Mountains to Sound GIS Matt Dressler Karen Braitmayer, FAIA Karen Braitmayer, Ronda King 5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[^ 6CDNGQH%QPVGPVU Acknowledgments 3 Executive Summary 7 Chapter 1: Rejuvenation Plan 9 Introduction 10 Guiding Policies 12 Project Methodology 14 Chapter 2: Review of Existing Data & Development of Assessment Matrix 17 Review of Existing Data & Development of Assessment Matrix 18 Site Evaluations & Community Engagement 24 Chapter 3: Top Ten Site Selection 27 Top Ten Site Selection 28 Estelle Street P-Patch 30 New Holly Power Garden 32 Angel Morgan P-Patch 34 Th istle P-Patch 36 Squire Park P-Patch 38 Hawkins P-Patch 40 Th omas St. Gardens P-Patch 42 ^5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[ Jackson Park P-Patch 44 Ravenna P-Patch 46 Evanston P-Patch 48 Chapter 4: Top Five Site Selections & Schematic Designs 51 Estelle Street P-Patch 52 Jackson Park P-Patch 54 New Holly Power Garden 56 Squire Park P-Patch 58 Th omas Street P-Patch 60 Chapter 5: Conclusions, Summary of Findings & Next Steps 63 Appendix A: Assessment Matrix 66 Appendix B: Project Map 76 Appendix C: Survey Results 79 Appendix D: Site Evaluation Sheets 93 5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[^ 'ZGEWVKXG5WOOCT[ The internationally recognized P-Patch Community database to provide a systematic tool for prioritizing Gardening Program at the Seattle Department of improvements, an evaluation process to rate the level Neighborhoods is well established. The oldest gardens of need for each garden and early schematic designs were built in the seventies, and there are currently more for the fi rst round of garden upgrades. under construction. The opportunity to participate in community gardening is available to residents in The results of this effort are an updated inventory of all city neighborhoods with approximately 88 sites all Seattle P-Patches, a matrix to serve as a reference located in a variety of settings. The gardens range in for future efforts, and various details and methods size and amenities. All provide for basic gardening for retrofi tting a range of gardens with updated needs, and many extend beyond that with resources infrastructure and improved accessibility. for education, community building, and providing produce for local food banks. Recent approval of the Seattle Park District provides funding to repair and update infrastructure and improve accessibility at P-Patch sites. This document, along with associated inventory, evaluation, and planning efforts, is intended to help prioritize where best to apply Seattle Park District funds for the purpose of renovating Seattle’s P-Patches on city-owned lands. This project will provide an updated review of all P-Patch sites for the purposes of developing a management tool to guide future improvements and implement standards in all of the gardens regardless of land ownership. The gardens are as varied and diverse as the city itself. Sites present a range of challenges and opportunities. Although some gardens were built by professional contractors, the vast majority are designed and established by grassroots efforts. Virtually all maintenance is handled by the gardeners themselves. This project follows a methodology of gathering all existing resources and data for the gardens into a comprehensive database. The team then refi ned the 5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[^ 2JQVQ$TCFPGT)CTFGPU CHAPTER 1 4GLWXGPCVKQP 2NCP %JCRVGT 5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[^ +PVTQFWEVKQP In 2014, Seattle voters approved the Seattle Park District, which provides funding to perform major maintenance improvements in P-Patches. Seattle has approximately eighty-eight (88) P-Patch community gardens located throughout the city on Park, City Light, Public Utility and private property. This report assesses the condition of P-Patch community gardens within the city, identifi es major maintenance needs and prioritizes P-Patch sites to be renovated. Infrastructure repairs are high priorities. This program is intended to satisfy the Park District Investment Initiative 2.6: Fund the renewal of existing P-Patch gardens, update aging garden infrastructure, increase accessibility, and expand essential services. This initiative fosters community building and recognizes both the importance of P-Patches as community spaces and the support needed to sustain them for everyone, including under-served and under-represented communities. The purpose of this study is to identify major maintenance needs and prioritize the P-Patch sites to be renovated from 2016 to 2021. In addition, a complete scope and budget has been developed for selected, highest priority projects, and schematic designs have been developed for the top fi ve P-Patches that will undergo renovation projects this year. This document will also function as a framework for a regular cycle of asset management at city-owned P-Patches. ^5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[ %JCRVGT )WKFKPI2QNKEKGU The methodology for this project was shaped by SEATTLE P-PATCH PROGRAM GOALS several city and federal policies that help in meeting the city’s goals for the P-Patch program and of • Growing community racial and cultural inclusion. The initial, broad • Nurturing civic engagement analysis efforts include a study of race and income demographics at a neighborhood scale to identify • Practicing organic gardening techniques P-Patches in under-served communities. Many of the • Fostering an environmental ethic and gardens that were determined to have the highest need connecting nature to people’s lives for improvement were located in areas of the city with high immigrant populations, limited English speaking • Improving access to local, organic and community members and /or low to median income culturally appropriate food levels. During the schematic design process for the • Transforming the appearance and top sites, the Department of Neighborhoods P-Patch revitalizing the spirit of P-Patch staff members organized meetings with interpreters neighborhoods present with individual garden groups to help gather feedback that could not be captured otherwise and to • Developing self-reliance and improving help prioritize improvements within each garden. All nutrition through education and hands-on suggested improvements follow P-Patch standards experience and help to provide better access to this city program. • Feeding the hungry PROJECT GOALS • Preserving heirloom fl owers, herbs and vegetables • Rejuvenate all P-Patches to meet minimum • Fostering understanding between P-Patch standards and the program’s generations and cultures through gardening accessibility standards where possible. and cooking • Prioritize sites with low capacity that are POLICIES in neighborhoods with high populations of low-income households, youth, seniors, • Americans with Disabilities Act immigrants, refugees and people of color. • Seattle Parks and Recreation and • Generate an updated, accessible database to Department of Neighborhoods P-Patch help guide future maintenance. program construction standards • Provide recommendations on maintenance • City of Seattle Inclusive Outreach & projects at each site. Public Engagement Policy - This policy is • Describe and score each site. designed to increase access to information, ^5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[ %JCRVGT resources and civic processes by people of color, immigrant and refugee communities through the implementation of racially and culturally inclusive outreach and public engagement processes. It acknowledges the challenges that people of color, immigrant and refugee communities experience in accessing City government and participating in public process, and it affi rms that a healthy democracy requires outreach and public engagement that takes into account our community’s racial, cultural and socio-economic complexity. The Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI) Toolkit was used to facilitate this endeavor. • Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) - Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED, pronounced “sep-ted”) seeks to deter criminal behavior through design of the built environment. Proper design, use and management of the built environment can lead to reductions in the incidence and fear of crime, while improving Seattle Park District community vitality and overall quality of life. These design principles stem from the traditional “eyes on the street” concept, which holds that urban areas are safer when more people are present. %JCRVGT 5GCVVNG2CTM&KUVTKEV2Ä2CVEJ4GLWXGPCVKQP+PKVKCVKXG2NCP/C[^ 2TQLGEV/GVJQFQNQI[ REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA & CREATION A fi eld evaluation form was generated for site visits, OF AN ASSESSMENT MATRIX and a team member visited and evaluated each garden. Team members used
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Parks and Recreation
    PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and Recreation Overview of Facilities and Programs The Department of Parks and Recreation manages 400 parks and open areas in its approximately 6,200 acres of property throughout the City, works with the public to be good stewards of the park system, and provides safe and welcoming opportunities for the public to play, learn, contemplate, and build community. The park system comprises about 10% of the City’s land area; it includes 485 buildings, 224 parks, 185 athletic fields, 122 children's play areas, 24 community centers, 151 outdoor tennis courts, 22 miles of boulevards, an indoor tennis center, two outdoor and eight indoor swimming pools, four golf courses, studios, boat ramps, moorage, fishing piers, trails, camps, viewpoints and open spaces, a rock climbing site, a conservatory, a classical Japanese garden, and a waterfront aquarium. The development of this system is guided by the Seattle Parks & Recreation Plan 2000, the 38 neighborhood plans, the Joint Athletic Facilities Development Program with the Seattle School District, the 1999 Seattle Center and Community Centers Levy, the 2000 Parks Levy, and DPR’s annual update to the Major Maintenance Plan. 2000 Parks Levy In November 2000, Seattle voters approved a $198.2 million levy lid lift for Parks and Recreation. The levy closely follows the plan forged by the Pro Parks 2000 Citizens Planning Committee. The levy is designed to fund more than 100 projects to improve maintenance and enhance programming of existing parks, including the Woodland Park Zoo; acquire, develop and maintain new neighborhood parks, green spaces, playfields, trails and boulevards; and add out-of-school and senior activities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Native Plant Press
    Native Plant Press January 2020 The Native Plant Press The Newsletter of the Central Puget Sound Chapter of WNPS Volume 21 No. 11 January 2020 Holiday Party Recap On Sunday, December 8th, the Central Puget Sound Chapter held our annual holiday party. The event was a potluck, and the fare was wide-ranging and excellent. The native plant-focused silent auction offered several hand-made wreaths, numerous potted natives from tiny succulents to gangly shrubs, plant-themed books and ephemera, and a couple of experiences. The selection occasioned some intense bidding wars, with Franja Bryant and Sharon Baker arriving at a compromise in their battle over the Native Garden Tea Party. A highlight of the party was the presentation of awards to Member, Steward and Professional of the Year. Each year, nominations are submitted by members and the recipients are chosen by the CPS Board. Stewart Wechsler (left) was chosen Member of the Year. Stewart is a Botany Fellow for the chapter and for many years has offered well-attended plant ID sessions before our westside meetings. In addition, he often fields the many botanical questions that we receive from the public. David Perasso (center) is our Steward of the Year. David is a Native Plant Steward at Martha Washington Park on Lake Washington and has been working to restore the historic oak/camas prairie ecosystem at the site. The site is now at the stage where David was able to host a First Nation camas harvest recently. He is also an active volunteer at our native plant nursery, providing vital expertise in the identification and propagation of natives.
    [Show full text]
  • Food Forests: Their Services and Sustainability
    Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development ISSN: 2152-0801 online https://foodsystemsjournal.org Food forests: Their services and sustainability Stefanie Albrecht a * Leuphana University Lüneburg Arnim Wiek b Arizona State University Submitted July 29, 2020 / Revised October 22, 2020, and February 8, 2021 / Accepted Febuary 8, 2021 / Published online July 10, 2021 Citation: Albrecht, S., & Wiek, A (2021). Food forests: Their services and sustainability. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 10(3), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2021.103.014 Copyright © 2021 by the Authors. Published by the Lyson Center for Civic Agriculture and Food Systems. Open access under CC-BY license. Abstract detailed insights on 14 exemplary food forests in Industrialized food systems use unsustainable Europe, North America, and South America, practices leading to climate change, natural gained through site visits and interviews. We resource depletion, economic disparities across the present and illustrate the main services that food value chain, and detrimental impacts on public forests provide and assess their sustainability. The health. In contrast, alternative food solutions such findings indicate that the majority of food forests as food forests have the potential to provide perform well on social-cultural and environmental healthy food, sufficient livelihoods, environmental criteria by building capacity, providing food, services, and spaces for recreation, education, and enhancing biodiversity, and regenerating soil, community building. This study compiles evidence among others. However, for broader impact, food from more than 200 food forests worldwide, with forests need to go beyond the provision of social- cultural and environmental services and enhance a * Corresponding author: Stefanie Albrecht, Doctoral student, their economic viability.
    [Show full text]
  • 3242 Eastlake Commercial Condominium SEATTLE CBD
    3242 Eastlake Commercial Condominium SEATTLE CBD CAPITOL HILL LIGHT CAPITOL HILL RAIL STATION SOUTH LAKE UNION LAKE UNION EASTLAKE UNIVERSITY OF 3242 FREMONT WASHINGTON Eastlake Commercial Condominium U DISTRICT WALLINGFORD ROOSEVELT OFFERING Paragon Real Estate Advisors is proud to exclusively offer for sale the Eastlake Commercial Condominium. This 2,830 square foot space is currently occupied by the 4.7 star Sebi’s Bistro, a popular polish restaurant. The property is a short walk to the University of Washington and all the great amenities that Eastlake has to offer. This commercial space is located in one of Eastlake’s most significant buildings. The property was remodeled in the 1920’s by Frederick Anhalt and is believed to be Anhalt’s first building. The property is now know as the Martello Condominiums. This A+ location offers an investor the opportunity to own a commercial space with a great NNN tenant. NAME Eastlake Commercial Condominium ADDRESS 3242 Eastlake Ave E, Seattle WA 98102 BUILT 1916/1990 SQUARE FEET 2,830 Total Net Rentable PRICE $1,099,950 PRICE PER FOOT $388.67 CURRENT GRM/CAP 13.42/6.09% MARKET GRM/CAP 10.09/7.46% This information has been secured from sources we believe to be reliable, but we make no representations or warranties, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the information. References to square footage or age are approximate. Buyer must verify all information and bears all risk for inaccuracies. INVESTMENT HIGHLIGHTS A+ location One of Eastlake’s most significant buildings Frederick Anhalt’s first building 2,830 net rentable square feet $23 NNN lease 6.09% Cap rate Highly visible corner location 3 story, stucco clad building Steep gable roofs and distinctive Norman French appearance Located on major bus routes Close to the CBD and the University of WA 3242 Eastlake Commercial Condominium LOCATION HIGHLIGHTS For the past few decades, it’s been like one long episode of “Extreme Makeover: Neighborhood Edition” in Eastlake.
    [Show full text]
  • West Seattle Wayfinding Project: Rolling Community Meeting August 28, 2010
    West Seattle Wayfinding Project: Rolling Community Meeting August 28, 2010 Questions to think about while on the tour: • Is this location appropriate for pedestrian wayfinding purposes? • What are the nearby points of interest? • What should be highlighted about this area? • How well does the potential kiosk location fit in with the surrounding environment? • Is there a linkage between the potential kiosk location and local transit service? • Where in the right-of-way should the kiosk be installed so that it does not impede pedestrian movement? Kiosk Locations Wildwood Place (Kiosk #2) • Location: SW Wildwood Place and 45th Ave SW • Possible installation site on wide right-of-way, northwest corner of intersection Notes: Kiosk installation site has already been finalized and sketched for permitting purposes. 1 Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal (Kiosk #3) • Location: Fauntleroy Way SW near Ferry Terminal • Possible installation site at bottom of stairs, corner of Fauntleroy and SW Director St Notes: Due to construction around ferry terminal, kiosk installation is put on hold indefinitely. Lincoln Park (Kiosk #4) • Location: Fauntleroy Way SW near 47th Ave SW • Possible installation site on Fauntleroy at SW Webster St and 47th Ave SW, on corner of grass patch near Route 54 bus stop Notes: Kiosk installation site has already been finalized and sketched for permitting purposes. 2 Morgan Junction (Kiosk #5) • Location: East side of California Ave SW, north side of Fauntleroy Way SW • Possible installation site on asphalt rectangle near bike rack Notes:
    [Show full text]
  • Development Site in Seattle's Wallingford Neighborhood
    DEVELOPMENT SITE IN SEATTLE’S WALLINGFORD NEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENT OVERVIEW 906 N 46th Street Seattle, Washington Property Highlights • The property is centrally located at the junction of three • 10 minutes to Downtown Seattle of the most desirable neighborhoods in Seattle: Phinney • Major employers within 10 minutes: University of Ridge, Fremont and Green Lake. Home prices in these Washington, Google, Amazon, Tableau, Facebook, Pemco neighborhoods range from $678,000 to $785,000, all Insurance and Nordstrom. above the city average of $626,000. • Site sits at the intersection of major bus line; Rapid Ride • 0.11 acres or 5,000 SF, tax parcel 952110-1310 runs both north and south on Aurora Avenue and the 44 • Zoned C1-40 runs east and west on 46th/45th Avenue. Employment • One of the largest employers in the • New Seattle development to add state of Washington 30,000+ jobs • 30,000+ full-time employees • 1,900+ full-time employees • 3 minutes from site • 2 minutes from site • Largest private employer in the Seattle • Business intelligence and analytics Metro area software headquarters in Seattle • 25,000+ full-time employees • 1,200+ full-time employees • 2 minutes from site • 2 minutes from site • Running shoe/apparel headquartered • One of ten office locations in North next to Gas Works Park America with a focus on IT support • 1,000+ full-time employees • 1,000+ full-time employees • 2 minutes from site • 2 minutes from site Dining and Retail Nearby Attractions Zoning C1-40 (Commercial 1) Wallingford district is within minutes of The 90-acre Woodland Park lies just north An auto-oriented, primarily retail/ many of Seattle's most popular attractions of Wallingford’s northern border, and service commercial area that serves and shopping areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Seattle Parks and Recreation: Off-Leash Areas
    Seattle Parks and Recreation: Off-Leash Areas SEARCH: Seattle.gov This Department Parks Centers & Pools Activities Reservations & Permits Projects & Planning A - Z Index Parks A-Z Park List Search for a Park General Parks Information: (206)684-4075 | Contact Us Search Parks by Feature Animal Control Fields & Athletic Animal Control officers are Facilities charged with providing a safe, healthy and caring environment Gardens where animals and people can Children's Play Areas co-exist. To carry out their mission, Animal Control staff help Trails to educate dog owners and Off-Leash Areas actively enforce Seattle's leash, scoop and license laws. Officers Park History patrol in Seattle parks to ensure the safe and appropriate use of both the off-leash and on-leash areas. Fines for off-leash, license and scooping violations range from $50 to $150, and can be $500 at a beach. Please obey the law! Dogs are not allowed at organized athletic fields, beaches, or children's play areas in Seattle parks, per the Seattle Municipal Code. Seattle Parks and Recreation welcomes you to explore and enjoy most parks (on a leash), and we offer 11 exciting exceptions! At these designated off-leash areas, you are free to run, roll over, meet new friends, work out, play with your owners and socialize with your canine friends. » Off-Leash Area Rules Dr. Jose Rizal Park 1008 12th Ave. S (Map It) Genesee Park and Playfield 4316 S Genesee St. (Map It) Golden Gardens Park 8498 Seaview Pl. NW (Map It) I-5 Colonnade Beneath I-5, south of E Howe St.
    [Show full text]
  • FAQ for Non Food Concession 2021.Pdf
    Seattle Parks and Recreation Frequently Asked Questions Non-Food Concessions 2021 Do I Need a Permit for Commercial Use of Park Land? Yes. All commercial activity conducted in a Seattle park site must be permitted through Seattle Parks and Recreation. Vendors applying for a non-food concession permit must provide a service opportunity that complements Seattle Park’s mission of healthy parks, healthy people, and strong communities. Examples of commercial use under the terms of this permit: Stand Up Paddleboard or kayak rentals, henna or face-painting, and bicycle rentals. Concession applications will not be accepted for marketing or promotional activities in City of Seattle parks. Additionally, SPR does not generally permit sales of commercial goods or merchandise at parks unless as part of a special event. How much does it cost to conduct business at Seattle Parks and Recreation? For each park you operate in, there is a $75.00 permit fee. Additionally, there is a monthly concessions fee specific to each park. Leasehold Excise Tax also applies to park concessions. The current WA State Leasehold Excise Tax rate is 12.84% of gross sales. Peak Season Peak Full Memorial Day Season Weekend- May 1- Labor Day September Weekend 30 Pro-Rated Peak Full Season Monthly Fees: Non-Food Vending Season Cost Cost Rates Tier 1-Waterfront Park*, Victor Steinbrueck, Occidental**, $1997 $3000 $600 Peak Westlake** $250 Off-Peak*** $1997 $3000 $600 Peak Tier 2-Alki Beach Park, Adams Boat Launch $100 Off-Peak $999 $1500 $300 Peak Tier 3- Golden Gardens Park, Magnuson Park $100 Off-Peak Tier 4-City Hall Park, Carkeek Park, Delridge Playground, $416 $625 $125 Peak Denny Park, Jefferson Park, Lincoln Park, Lower Woodland $75 Off-Peak Playfield, Madison Beach Park, Mount Baker Beach Park, Pritchard Beach Park, North Acres Park, Seward Park, Volunteer Park, Other *In 2021, Waterfront Park is administered by the Friends of the Waterfront.
    [Show full text]
  • New Or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location
    New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location City Light 8307 Utility Relocation due to This project will relocate, replace 23,979 SR 99 / Battery St. Alaskan Way Tunnel and and protect City Light facilities Seawall Project affected by the replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Seawall with a new seawall and transportation facility. *Amounts in thousands of dollars 2007-2012 Proposed Capital Improvement Program -921- New or Expanded Capital Facilities Proj.# Project Title Capacity 2007* Location Fleets & Facilities A1GM101 Animal Shelter 600 square feet of expanded 250 2061 15th Ave. W customer service space. A34200-2 Civic Center Plan - Seattle This project will provide for 0 600 4th Ave. Municipal Tower, Airport renovation of 750,000 square feet Way Center, and Other of office space within Seattle Projects Municipal Tower, 18,000 square feet of retail space at the new City Hall, and renovation of more than 276,000 square feet of work space and evidence storage at Airport Way Center. A1FL303 Emergency Community This project will create several 0 Various Locations Disaster Supplies emergency community disaster caches stocked with emergency shelter supplies for about 1,000 people each. A1FL302 Emergency Fire This project will fund hardened 0 Various Locations Suppression Water Supply hydrants to be installed at several reservoirs and at water storage tanks; several dry hydrants will be placed into fresh and salt-water sources. A1FL301 Emergency Operations This project will fund a new 0 300 5th Ave. Center 16,684-square-foot facility - approximately 9,200 square feet larger than the existing Emergency Operations Center.
    [Show full text]
  • The Artists' View of Seattle
    WHERE DOES SEATTLE’S CREATIVE COMMUNITY GO FOR INSPIRATION? Allow us to introduce some of our city’s resident artists, who share with you, in their own words, some of their favorite places and why they choose to make Seattle their home. Known as one of the nation’s cultural centers, Seattle has more arts-related businesses and organizations per capita than any other metropolitan area in the United States, according to a recent study by Americans for the Arts. Our city pulses with the creative energies of thousands of artists who call this their home. In this guide, twenty-four painters, sculptors, writers, poets, dancers, photographers, glass artists, musicians, filmmakers, actors and more tell you about their favorite places and experiences. James Turrell’s Light Reign, Henry Art Gallery ©Lara Swimmer 2 3 BYRON AU YONG Composer WOULD YOU SHARE SOME SPECIAL CHILDHOOD MEMORIES ABOUT WHAT BROUGHT YOU TO SEATTLE? GROWING UP IN SEATTLE? I moved into my particular building because it’s across the street from Uptown I performed in musical theater as a kid at a venue in the Seattle Center. I was Espresso. One of the real draws of Seattle for me was the quality of the coffee, I nine years old, and I got paid! I did all kinds of shows, and I also performed with must say. the Civic Light Opera. I was also in the Northwest Boy Choir and we sang this Northwest Medley, and there was a song to Ivar’s restaurant in it. When I was HOW DOES BEING A NON-DRIVER IMPACT YOUR VIEW OF THE CITY? growing up, Ivar’s had spokespeople who were dressed up in clam costumes with My favorite part about walking is that you come across things that you would pass black leggings.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form
    NPS Form 10-900-b OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form This form is used for documenting property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (formerly 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. ___X___ New Submission ________ Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Seattle’s Olmsted Parks and Boulevards (1903–68) B. Associated Historic Contexts None C. Form Prepared by: name/title: Chrisanne Beckner, MS, and Natalie K. Perrin, MS organization: Historical Research Associates, Inc. (HRA) street & number: 1904 Third Ave., Suite 240 city/state/zip: Seattle, WA 98101 e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] telephone: (503) 247-1319 date: December 15, 2016 D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR 60 and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. _______________________________ ______________________ _________________________ Signature of certifying official Title Date _____________________________________ State or Federal Agency or Tribal government I hereby certify that this multiple property documentation form has been approved by the National Register as a basis for evaluating related properties for listing in the National Register.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Seattle Edward B
    City of Seattle Edward B. Murray, Mayor Finance and Administrative Services Fred Podesta, Director July 25, 2016 The Honorable Tim Burgess Seattle City Hall 501 5th Ave. Seattle, WA 98124 Councilmember Burgess, Attached is an annual report of all real property under City ownership. The annual review supports strategic management of the City’s real estate holdings. Because City needs change over time, the annual review helps create opportunities to find the best municipal use of each property or put it back into the private sector to avoid holding properties without an adopted municipal purpose. Each January, FAS initiates the annual review process. City departments with jurisdiction over real property assure that all recent acquisitions and/or dispositions are accurately represented, and provide current information about each property’s current use, and future use, if identified. Each property is classified based on its level of utilization -- from Fully Utilized Municipal Use to Surplus. In addition, in 2015 and 2016, in conjunction with CBO, OPI, and OH, FAS has been reviewing properties with the HALA recommendation on using surplus property for housing. The attached list has a new column that groups excess, surplus, underutilized and interim use properties into categories to help differentiate the potential for various sites. Below is a matrix which explains the categorization: Category Description Difficult building site Small, steep and/or irregular parcels with limited development opportunity Future Use Identified use in the future
    [Show full text]