Turn space into multipurpose family area

Editor, The Times:

In The Times’ article “Glass vs. Grass” [page one, March 10], there only seems to be a description of the positive effects of building the glass museum. The article does not mention that Dale Chihuly already has a glass museum in Tacoma. Taking public space for an additional glass museum from the same artist does not seem logical. The public space around the Seattle Center does not need another attraction that requires an admission.

The demolition of the Fun Forest is an opportunity for a more open-space design that would prove ideal for the many festivals and events that Seattle Center hosts each year. This simpler, more open design may not generate revenue, but it would require less to maintain and promote a friendly community atmosphere. If Chihuly wants another glass museum, he doesn’t need to take up the already fairly limited public space at Seattle Center.

The idea for the glass museum may be well-intended, but I think its predicted success is overambitious. Seattle citizens need a more open central area that they can believe would not cost them money.

In the current economy, what sounds more likely for a middle-class family of four on a sunny day: a picnic at Seattle Center, or spending $50 or more just for admission to a museum of glass art?

— Quinn Mazure, Lake Forest Park

Other suggestions for space

What a shame it would be if we take away this wonderful, casual, seemingly public and fun space and turn it into just another commercial space. While I do so appreciate Chihuly as nearly an icon, do we then need to devote this huge space to him? I say the whole world has done that already.

The Center is already filled with so much concrete and so many buildings — but I do love the fountain with the benches all around it. I would like to see green trees and grass and have tables and benches within the area — some under cover as well.

This could come along with a multicultural, varied and almost deli-type food area and there would be no charge to enter the area. Or how about a Ferris wheel a la Paris and London? At least it would be something more welcoming to the whole public with some whimsy and personality.

— Carol Cotter, Edmonds

Praise for Wright family and Chihuly

Hooray for the Wright family for proposing a glass museum honoring Dale Chihuly at Seattle Center! How generous too of Chihuly to offer to share his artistry.

I’ve had the pleasure of visiting the fabulous Phipps Botanical Gardens and Conservatory in Pittsburgh with its beautiful gardens and Chihuly art on display. How wonderful it would be to have a similar attraction in this area. I feel confident the museum will be a great addition to Seattle Center and certainly great consideration will be given to the surrounding environment as well.

Parks are great but do we really want another Central Park along with its crime-laden history, maintenance and security costs in Seattle? I don’t think so.

— Jan England, Renton

Move Thiry house to site

It seems to me if the [Seattle Center] site is to be developed and not used as an open space with trees, that it would be more appropriate to move the Thiry house to the site [“Can this house be saved?” NWWednesday, March 10].

It would not be as intrusive as a 43-foot-tall glass structure; It would be another prime example of’60s architecture on Seattle Center grounds designed by Paul Thiry, “the father of Northwest Modernism.” The Coliseum and The Science Center Pavilion are already there. The Native American motif on the [house’s] stucco walls would be preserved and it could showcase Northwest Art — including works by Dale Chihuly.

It would be a great asset and addition to the architecture on the grounds of Seattle Center.

— Mike G. Hickey, Jr, Seattle