Pier 86 Feasibility Study by Framework

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILIT STUDY PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT / APRIL 2016

68 REI TR ILIBISAE YDUT

Acknowledgements PORT OF SEATTLE Stephanie Bowman, Commissioner John Creighton, Commissioner Courtney Gregoire, Commissioner Tom Albro, Commissioner Bill Bryant, Commissioner Fred Felleman, Commissioner Lindsay Wolpa, Staff (Issues and Policy Manager, Office of the Commission) Rosie Courtney, Staff (Cruise Public Affairs & Marketing Manager)

CITY OF SEATTLE Ed Pottharst, Department of Neighborhoods Project Advisor Laurie Ames, Department of Neighborhoods

FISCAL SPONSOR Seattle Parks Foundation

DESIGN TEAM Framework Cultural Placemaking Lesley Bain, FAIA Jenny Kempson Mackenzie Waller

FRIENDS OF ART ON PIER 86 (FAP86) STEERING COMMITTEE Dana Behar Discovery Bay Investments Charles Bookman Queen Anne Community Council; Magnolia District Council; Retired SDOT Traffic Division Director John Coney Uptown Alliance (in fond remembrance) Amy Faulkner Executive Director, The World is Fun; artSEA; Core Team Wall\ Therapy Jessica Gallegos Magnolia Resident and Community Activist Jeff Hawk Queen Anne Resident; Financial Manager, McKinstry Barry Hyman Belltown Resident; Retired UW Professor, Evans School & School of Engineering Jodi Itman ILWU Local 19 Jan Johnson Downtown District Council; Owner, Panama Hotel David Levinson Belltown Community Council; Downtown District Council; Retired Attorney Michele Marchi Magnolia Community Council; Immigration Attorney, Carney & Marchi

Velocity Made Good Perri Howard

Don Miles, FAIA Queen Anne Resident, Uptown Alliance; Architect/Urban Designer

Johnson Architecture and Planning Stevan Johnson, AIA

Ann Priftis Amazon Senior Director, Business Development of Fine Art

Grid Engineering Paul Diedrich, PE

OTHER Thanks to the Seattle Art Museum for use of the Olympic Sculpture Park Pavilion for the first Public Meeting and to the Port of Seattle for use of the Commission Chambers for the second Public Meeting. Thanks to Starbucks, Metropolitan Market and Drip City Coffee for donating refreshments for the public meetings. Thanks to the University of Washington students and faculty for their work in the Pier 86 design studios: Professor Rebecca Cummins and Art 304 students of 2014; Professors Daniel Winterbottom & Luanne Smith and Landscape Architecture 302 students of 2015.

Christopher Ross Belltown Resident; Art Enthusiast Jane Savard Belltown Community Council; Belltown Business Association; Downtown District Council; Attorney, Liberty Mutual Betty Winfield Belltown Resident; Retired University of Missouri Professor, Political Communication

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2. CONTEXT 7 Physical context Art planning context 3. SITE 17 Current use History Zones Technical & Operational Factors 4.

POSSIBLE ART APPROACHES 31

5. MODELS 39 6.

OUTREACH AND INPUT

7. COST PARAMETERS 74 8. NEXT STEPS 80 9. APPENDIX 85

Installation Entitlement Review

University of Washington Student Work Department of Landscape Architecture / LA 302 Photo opposite: Lesley Bain

6 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

The idea of art on Pier 86 has been alive since the grain terminals were built fortysix years ago.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The idea of art on Pier 86 has been alive since the grain terminals were built forty-six years ago. With the many changes along the waterfront since that time, and the high expectations for the Central Waterfront after the removal of the Viaduct, the idea of art on Pier 86 has found new enthusiasm through Friends of Art on Pier 86 and an organized approach to testing feasibility, options and funding. This citizen group has found widespread enthusiasm to explore the potential for art that will maximize Pier 86 as a positive defining element of Seattle’s Elliott Bay waterfront. Information on Friends of Art on Pier 86 can be found on their website at www.fap86.com and Facebook page: www.facebook.com\ fap86. This study is the first of three phases considering art at Seattle’s Pier 86. Phase One examines the feasibility of public art on Pier 86. Phase Two explores, within the approaches deemed feasible, the options that generate public enthusiasm. Phase Three moves to a process for implementation and funding. Friends of Art on Pier 86 received a grant from the Seattle Department of Neighborhoods to study feasibility, with support from the Port of Seattle Photo opposite: Lesley Bain

and fiscal sponsorship from the Seattle Parks Foundation. The feasibility work and this report were funded by that grant. In this Phase One feasibility report, two primary questions are addressed: is art possible at Pier 86, and if so, what is possible? The realm of the possible includes approaches to art, locations and other criteria that will address concerns and generate support and funding. In the simplest of terms, art is certainly possible. We have reviewed the many approaches to art that have sprung up worldwide on industrial facilities, including those that, like Pier 86, are fully operational. (Vancouver, B.C. Granville Island; Quebec City, Quebec and Northam, Western Australia).These approaches and models are discussed in detail in this report. Regarding what would be possible at Pier 86, art is feasible if it 1) does not impact the operations of the facility, and 2) garners the public support and resources to bring it to life.

2 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SUPPORTING THE WORK AT THE FACILITY

zations, benefactors, and even through crowd sourced funding.

The prerequisites for acceptable approaches to art are first and foremost safety, and avoidance of disrupting work at the facility. Approaches to art that would compromise safety to the workers, or to the train and truck drivers on site, will not be acceptable. Art that requires frequent on-site maintenance, such as a planted green wall, would not likely to be implementable because it would add complexities to a busy operation, especially during the summer dry months. Safety and minimal impacts to operations are discussed as principles in this study; individual proposals would need to be scrutinized in detail according to these prerequisites and principles.

A robust effort to engage the public and solicit input showed that there is broad general support for exploring art on Pier 86. Members of Friends of Art on Pier 86 have found strong support from neighborhood and community organizations, and over 60% of survey respondents favored exploring the idea of public art at Pier 86. The items of concern from the public centered on the intrinsic value of the facility as an icon of the working waterfront.

GENERATING ENTHUSIASM AND RESOURCES

In order to make art at Pier 86 a reality, the approach to art must engender popular support and funding to cover costs. Enthusiasm and resources are commingled, because the resources are likely to scale to the level of support from the surrounding neighborhoods, Port, City and County stakeholders, operators, labor, businesses, Native American, the art community and general citizenry. Multiple sources of funding are potentially available from private and public sectors. Similar projects have been funded by agencies, cities, arts organi-

SET CRITERIA THAT ADDRESS CONCERNS

Planning for art on Pier 86 should takes areas of concern seriously. Art approaches and locations that are problematic to sets of stakeholders will face opposition. There are many ways to integrate art at Pier 86, and focusing on the approaches with broad appeal will enhance feasibility. Pier 86 is a powerful site for artistic interpretation, but made much more so by linking it to its cultural heritage and its relationship to the Elliott Bay waterfront. Tapping into the thoughtful arts planning for the Central Waterfront and the Seawall replacement could strengthen Seattle’s waterfront with Pier 86 as the northern anchor, using themes that enhance the site, such as its history, function, relationship to marine and urban ecology, etc.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 3

POTENTIAL STRATEGIES There are several implementation strategies that can be explored as choices so that the approach will align with stakeholders preferences. ONE POSSIBILITY: GO BIG, CAREFULLY

The silos and head house are grand scale opportunities for iconic art. Other cities have created major artworks on similar facilities through paint, light, video or banners. Going big will take the most resources, and would have the most visibility. But with that visibility, it is critical to get it right. The process of selecting themes, parameters, artists, and specific proposals will need to be done on a step-by-step basis, with input on directions that generate enthusiasm on the part of the public and potential sponsors.

THINK BROADLY ABOUT THE POSSIBLE ART APPROACHES AND LOCATIONS

While the grain silos are the obvious high visibility, high impact location for art, it is worth thinking about possibilities outside the fenced area, in the park

Suggested Criteria Art selected for implementation would: • Be a positive defining element of Seattle’s Elliott Bay waterfront • Be conceived as part of the larger thinking about the art along the waterfront • Strengthen the presence of the tradition of a working waterfront • Not hinder the operations of Pier 86 • Base art on themes that resonate, and link Pier 86 to the art planning along Elliott Bay

ANOTHER APPROACH: START SMALL, EXPERIMENT AND GROW

Many opportunities exist for testing art at Pier 86. Incremental approaches may be more manageable from a funding standpoint. As an example, a stream of simple lighting could be tested as an early step. Cues can be taken from work done for Duwamish Revealed.

or near the path. These locations would be perceived more intimately from closer range either as stand-alone art or part of a larger installation. THINK TEMPORAL

Art can be long term and static, or it can be ephemeral. For example, a light festival may occur during holidays on a single night of the year, or several

4 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

nights. Or, banners could be displayed for limited periods, but could be attached to more permanent connections to make installation simpler. One of the challenges in determining the feasibility of art on Pier 86 is that the art itself is not known. With the subjective nature of art, and a multiplicity of approaches, we have learned that the answer to a question—do you support art on Pier 86?—is difficult to answer without knowing the exact art proposed. In this phase we have been careful not to prescribe the art itself, so we looked at the approaches and themes that have generated interest and enthusiasm, and the various concerns of people regarding art at the Pier. There is some consistency across that can inform the work of Phase Two that would explore what, among feasible approaches, would be preferable for art on Pier 86. PROCESS Friends of Art on Pier 86 have led an effective outreach campaign since they self-organized in 2014. With representatives from nearby neighborhoods, businesses and labor, the Steering Committee is fully engaged in representing their communities and constituents, along with the consultant team, liaisons from the Port of Seattle, and advisors from the City’s Department of Neighborhoods. The Steering Committee members who are representatives of neighborhood councils and organi-

zations have reported back monthly to their community groups about what is happening on this project. As part of the work of this phase, public outreach has included a website, social media, fliers, information booths at community events, newspaper articles, radio interviews and community meetings. A Steering Committee member also sits on the Port’s Neighborhood Advisory Committee. We have met with City of Seattle staff, representatives of the Port of Seattle, and toured the facility with Port and operator staff. In addition to a digital presence with Facebook and a website, Friends of Art on Pier 86 have been visible with monthly updates at Neighborhood Advisory Committee meetings, local television and online news media oulets, and community events. An on-line survey gathered over 450 individual responses, with comments. In this survey, nearly 60% were in favor of pursuing public art on Pier 86, 22% wanted to know more details, and 31% had concerns. Two public meetings were part of the Phase One. The first, on September 29, 2015, was held at the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park, with over 60 attendees. Project background and a variety of approaches to art on the Pier, were presented, and small group discussions fostered discussion and feedback. The second meeting, January 20, 2016, at the Port of Seattle, presented the draft of the feasibility study,

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 5

and featured Barrie Mowatt, founder and president of Vancouver B.C. Biennale, and Ammar Mahimwalla, project coordinator, as the keynote speakers to highlight what Vancouver did on their silos. Vancouver Biennale is a non-profit organization that exhibits great art in public, and has presented over 90 outdoor works of art. NEXT STEPS This stage has shown that public art on Pier 86 is feasible, and that there is ample public support for further exploration. With this phase complete, the next steps include: • Obtaining permission to proceed from the Port • Defining the organizational structure to move ahead Management could be taken on by the Port of Seattle, with their expertise in artist procurement and implementation, or it could mean management from an established organization with relevant expertise. A group such as Friends of Art on Pier 86, representing a spectrum of stakeholders, could continue to advise and advocate. • Moving ahead with options that are the most feasible Some approaches to art have little to no impact on the physical structures and operations at Pier 86. Focusing on the approaches that minimize impact will

will improve the likelihood of success. • Creating criteria that will guide the art approach The organization the takes the project the next step can increase confidence in appropriate and engaging art by agreeing on a set of criteria, such as those suggested in this report, with the intent of building public support and momentum for a waterfront that is unique to Seattle and Elliott Bay. • Structuring a thoughtful, transparent public process The high visibility and large scale of potential art work makes a meaningful public process important. A call for artists/selection process, whether local, national or international should carefully take public and stakeholder input into account. • Finding seed funding Initial funds will be needed for the artist call, the selection process and public outreach as well as an honorarium for finalists for their prototypes. • Thinking ahead to longer term funding Art implementation and maintenance will require funds that may be acquired from a number of sources, including the Port of Seattle, local agencies, grants, non-profit organizations and private funds.

6 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 7

CONTEXT PHYSICAL CONTEXT: ELLIOTT BAY

Pier 86 stands along Elliott Bay on reclaimed land below the bluffs of Queen Anne hill. The dramatic terrain of the Puget Sound basin, carved by glaciers, thousands of years ago, created the deep water harbor and the hills overlooking the bay. The site was deemed suitable for large ships to dock. Elliott Bay is defined by Alki Point to the south and Magnolia Bluff to the north. The hills around Elliott Bay include Magnolia, Queen Anne, and West Seattle. Original bluffs existed north of Madison Street, but the topography has been substantially reshaped to accommodate urban development. Tideflats were once on the north and south ends of Elliott Bay. To the south, the mouth of the Duwamish River was a large tidal zone, reaching up into what is now Pioneer Square. On the north was a tidal estuary between Magnolia and Queen Anne hills. The Duwamish people and their ancestors have inhabited this area for many centuries. The protected waters that provided a home for Native Americans also proved attractive to European setPhoto opposite: El Tico 86

tlers for transportation and commerce. Ships docked at piers in the deeper harbor area, and railroads were built on pilings above the water where level ground was scarce. As home to a hard working port city, Elliott Bay brought together people and goods from all over the world. The region has a strong history of labor, including the local skirmish with police at Smith Cove during the major Longshoreman’s strike of 1934. Elliott Bay and Seattle’s role as a port city has instilled the regional culture with an openness to commerce, to a variety of people, cultures and ideas. Elliott Bay reveals layers of maritime industry, from a time when rail served freight handling, to trucking and containerized shipping. The scale of the piers along the Central Waterfront became less relevant as containerized freight became the norm, requiring large, flat space for holding areas and cranes. The tideflats were increasingly filled in over time to make room for the city and larger scale industrial uses. The construction of the Lake Washington Ship Canal (1911-1916), provided fill for some 150 acres of Smith Cove tidelands. The newly-created land was

8 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

developed for coal and lumber piers where Piers 90 and 91 currently stand. With the onset of World War II, the north end of Elliott Bay became a hub of the U.S. Navy, and as planning was done for the grain facility, Smith Cove became the home of the Navy Supply Depot.Â The graphic from the Pier 86 promotional brochure shows the piers at Smith Cove and the extent of fill for the Pier 86 grain terminal.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 9

ART AND CULTURAL CONTEXT Pier 86 stands as an icon on Elliott Bay, and a highly visible part of a broader landscape where the land meets the water. Pier 86 also sits within an environment rich in art and thoughtful planning about art. The power of art on Pier 86 would be dramatically reinforced by integration with the context of art and culture along the waterfront. The current context includes the string of parks and trails along the North Waterfront—Olympic Sculpture Park, Myrtle Edwards Park, and Centennial Park. Past Piers 90 and 91, Smith Cove Park is being redesigned and enlarged to play a more effective role in public use of the waterfront. Long separated from the neighborhoods by the railroad tracks, the connectivity of the North Waterfront parks to the neighborhoods has increased with the completion of the Thomas Street Overpass, the Helix Bridge and the Olympic Sculpture Park connection over the tracks and Elliott Way. The Lake to Bay planning effort, outlining an ambitious new connection between the North Waterfront, Seattle Center and South Lake Union, would reinforce the artistic link between the Sculpture Park and the sculptures on the Broad Street Green at the edge of Seattle Center. With these projects, the North Waterfront has become a beloved place for enjoying the shoreline and a variety

of activities--walking, cycling, fishing, and experiencing major art works, where they may be least expected. For example, Adjacent, Against, Upon, by a founding artist of the Earth Art movement, Michael Heizer, stands near the waterfront trail in Myrtle Edwards Park. The presence of industrial uses is not incompatible with the presence of the public, so long as the boundaries are clear. In fact, the presence of industrial uses is important to the public’s knowledge of the working waterfront and brings inherent interest to those who can watch the port activities. With the improved pedestrian connections, the prospect of nearby light rail transit, and the growth of neighborhoods around the Center City, especially neighborhoods like Belltown, Cascade, South Lake Union and Uptown, the importance of the North Waterfront as public space will continue to increase. The cultural and environmental heritage enriches the site’s context. Elliott Bay, Puget Sound, Native American culture, the settlement of Seattle and its immigrant communities; its maritime heritage, the role of labor and industry, production and trade are all topics that can be made more visible within the recent layers of recreation and tourism. The Olympic Sculpture Park has fundamentally changed the waterfront experience and the connection to art and green space along the shore. Its pres-

10 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 11

The rounded shape of Elliott Bay makes it possible to interconnect and relate these different facets of Seattle, effectively creating a “center” around which people can share a sense of identity and orientation. —Waterfront Seattle

Map opposite: UW Special Collections

12 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

ence has set the tone with a high level of quality for public space and art integration along the waterfront. The intent of the Sculpture Park, as described in the design principles approved by City Council, is to be “one link in a chain of culture sites and public parks in north downtown.” The scale of significant sculpture park pieces—Calder’s Eagle and Plensa’s Echo (The Head)—is monumental. It is easy to imagine that the scale of art on Pier 86 would be part of a series of very large scale art works.

WATERFRONT ART PLANNING

The expected removal of the Alaskan Way Viaduct is projected to be transformative for Seattle’s Central Waterfront. As part of the project, the City has set out a thoughtful and ambitious program to integrate and highlight art on a new, Viaduct-free Central waterfront. Two documents are particularly relevant to the idea of art on Pier 86. One piece of the Concept Design and Framework for Seattle’s Central Waterfront in 2012 is A Working Plan for Art on the Central Seattle Waterfront, led by Creative Time, with Mark Dion, Eric Fredericksen and Tomato. A second—The Elliott Bay Seawall Project Art Programming Plan by Haddad|Drugan—laid out a basis for art on the seawall, drawing on themes from the Working Plan document. The concepts and principles of these two documents shown on the next three pages form an excellent basis for considering art and coordinating art on Pier 86.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 13

Ecology, Economy, Community Broad forces are identified in A Working Plan for Art, whose interaction has continually shaped the waterfront.

The Site as Source Considers place through the lens of history, geography, ecology and economy.

A Working WaterfrontÂ Celebrates labor and production uniquely tied to the cultural identity of the waterfront.

360 Degree City Understands the physicality of the waterfront in geographic terms, with individual art works seen in context of other artworks on the waterfront.

A Waterfront as Cultural Think Tank Incubates and tests new ideas, new partnerships.

A Constellation of Site Connects artworks, audiences and neighborhoods, aiding navigation and wayfinding.

Beacons Conceptually and formally linked set of visual artworks that are identifiable from a distance, intended to draw people to the waterfront and provide information about what might be discovered there. In addition to their navigational function, they should be intriguing and memorable place-making elements for the sites where they are located.

14 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Key Excerpts: “A Working Plan for Art on the Central Waterfront”1 “Ports open cities to the sea and in turn to trade, cultural, and material influence, and the effect of continuous exchange... The 360–Degree City creates the ideal conditions for strengthening connections internally, within the city, as well as externally, to the surrounding areas and beyond.” - Page 18

“The idea of a “constellation of sites” suggests constituent geographical sites that add up to a larger organizational idea. The design of the waterfront weaves art opportunities with location, function, materiality, narrative, and experience to create an alternative mapping of Seattle as an urban space.” - Page 20

“The reach of the waterfront redesign extends beyond the defined borders of the project, all around Elliott Bay, to form a Bay Ring.... Informed by the function of the Port, points around the Sound could be linked by the presence of art or art programs in the wider Seattle area, vibrating out regionally, nationally, and internationally.” - Page 18

1 http://waterfrontseattle.org/Media/Default/Library/Other/07122012_ArtPlan.pdf

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 15

PRODUCTIVE

INDUSTRIAL HISTORICAL PREDOMINANTLY LOCALS

EXPERIENTIAL

EVENT WATERFRONT SPECTACLE LOCALS & TOURISTS

ELLIOTT BAY

FANTASTIC

CARNIVAL WATERFRONT WHIMSICAL PREDOMINANTLY TOURISTS

PRODUCTIVE

WORKING HISTORICAL LOCALS & TOURISTS

2,000

1,000

This graphic expands on the idea of waterfront zones identified in Haddad|Druganâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Elliott Bay Seawall Project Art Programming Plan. When the North Waterfront is included, it shows the importance of the working waterfront flanking the Central Waterfront.

2,000

FEET

16 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 17

SITE FACILITIES AND CURRENT USE Pier 86 is a 17-acre facility located on Elliott Bay, north of Seattle’s Central Waterfront. Owned by the Port of Seattle, Pier 86 has been operated by the Louis Dreyfus Corporation since 2000. Louis Dreyfus is a privately owned commodities company with a longterm lease (2034) to operate the facility. Truck and rail access is on the east side of the site; on the water side to the South is a single berth with water depth of 80 feet. Almost all of the site itself is paved and fenced. Adjacent to the west and south sides of the facility is Centennial Park, owned by the Port of Seattle. Pedestrian and bicycle paths run between the land-side operations of Pier 86 and the water-side portion of the facility and connect to Myrtle Edwards Park and the Interbay biking/ walking trail. Pier 86 is currently used for receiving, storing and blending export grain, and transferring grains between trains, trucks and ships. The grains, currently mostly corn and soybeans, come primarily via rail from the Dakotas and Minnesota, and are typically bound for East Asia to be used as animal feed. The Burlington Northern mainline Photo opposite: Bernt Rostad

railroad tracks run just east of the bins (silos) and head house (elevator). Louis Dreyfus operates the two railroad tracks closest to the facility along with the adjacent switching yard where trains cars are separated. Arriving by rail, the grain is lifted by bucket line into the bins. Staff from the US Department of Agriculture sample each bin and rate the products. Grains are filtered and sorted, and grain not suitable for shipping, including the grain dust, leaves by truck to be sold as lower priced product. The grain dust is explosive and an issue for safety. The pier’s 68 concrete storage silos are 28 feet in diameter and 130 feet high. Each silo holds 54,000 bushels and the facility overall has a 3.99-million bushel capacity. The grain elevator (head house), on the south end of the bins, is 145 feet tall. An exterior man-lift (elevator) is being added to the south wall. Two electric-belt conveyor systems transfer grain to a gallery running the full length of the wharf. It is a completely automated facility, designed to efficiently move grain from rail cars first to the silos, then to the hold of the ship. The berth is 600 feet long, and has the

18 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

e a b c d e

Silos from below / Photo: Lesley Bain Loading area / Photo: Lesley Bain Head house / Photo: Lesley Bain Truck access / Photo: Lesley Bain Pier / Photo: Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas Retrieved Dec. 2015

W N KA AY W W B

Y RO

W OLYMPIC SR PL

KIN

KINNEAR PARK

D A

6TH AVE W

OL YM

PIC

AS AL

ALASKAN WAY W

WILLARD AVE W

W PROSPECT ST

W ROY ST PL

AR W

AY W

N KA

TL YR

W HIGHLAND DR

W PROSPECT ST

4TH AVE W

E AV

5TH AVE W

N EN NT CE RK PA

W COMSTOCK ST

5TH AVE W

N RE BU

R ST DE

W LEE ST

6TH AVE W

N VA

ELLIOTT BAY TRL

9TH AVE W

8TH AVE W

W LEE ST

7TH AVE W

16TH AVE W

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 19

TT LIO

R PA

E AV

A B C D E

SILOS LOADING AREA HEAD HOUSE TRUCK ACCESS PIER

ELLIOTT BAY

500

250

500

FEET

20 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

capacity for vessels up to 1400 feet long, although vessels are usually about 750 feet long.

Lighting exists on the bins, the head house, and the conveyor. The conveyor lighting is aimed toward the vessel.

The volume of business varies, but Pier 86 handles about 60 to 100 ships per year, and about 100 million metric tons of corn and soybeans annually. The busy season is September to June. Except during the slack season (July to September), work is done 24/7, in two shifts during busy times. Rain can affect operations, since the cargo can get wet. Loading in the rain is done at the discretion of the ship’s captain.

Under a recently signed revised lease agreement, the maintenance of the facility is the responsibility of Louis Dreyfus. The surface of the bins is the original concrete. The structure has not been painted or coated since it was built in 1969/1970. There are no current plans to wash or paint the exterior of the facility, but spalling in the concrete is repaired as needed. . Washing the exterior may be subject to regulations and permits for storm water quality.

Louis Dreyfus maintains an operational staff of about 17 on site. Longshoremen at the facility are represented by International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 19, and at any given time there are typically 19 land side employees and 5 workers on the pier. Loading supervisors—usually two at a time on the vessel—are with ILWU Local 98. Security is a critical issue. The facility is covered under regulations of the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism provisions, and workers with access to secure areas are required to have identification per TWIC, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential. Both the Coast Guard and Homeland Security are on site; the Coast Guard enforces the perimeter of the facility and manages vessels on the water. Security cameras cannot be blocked, and fencing surrounding the facility is required.

Louis Dreyfus provided written responses to questions regarding the idea of art on the facility: “Much of our leased premises is occupied by buildings and other structures. There is very little un-encumbered surface area. This sometimes makes even the routine movement of people, trucks, rail cars, and other equipment around the site a challenge. Periodic maintenance routines and/or non-routine construction create additional difficulties and require detailed planning and careful execution. The creation of non-essential obstacles or physical, visual, or auditory encumbrances on our leased premises has the potential to restrict our operations and create safety concerns.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 21

Installation of materials on the section of our facility that is over the water is time consuming and difficult. Extensive planning and controls are necessary to mitigate operational, environmental and safety concerns during installation and on a continuing basis. Activities in this area would very likely disrupt our vessel loading operations.”

22 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

HISTORY OF PIER 86 Planning for the Pier 86 grain terminal began in the mid-1960’s in the midst of a building boom for the Port of Seattle. It was a high point in the boom and bust history of the Seattle waterfront. After a lull in activity post World War II, the Port of Seattle focused on a response to changes in technology, especially the move to containerized and automated cargo handling. Grain exports through Seattle in the early 60’s averaged about 750,000 tons annually. The product, primarily wheat, was processed through the Port’s Hanford Street Grain terminal, along the East Waterway of the Duwamish just north of the West Seattle Bridge, built in 1915. The Port of Seattle was well placed to increase grain imports, with the shortest rail connections to the Midwest and proximity to Japan relative to other West Coast ports. According to Frank Kitchell, then Port Commissioner: “With this new facility’s tremendous loading rate and its capability of handling the deep-draft superships, we anticipate a substantially increased tonnage—at least double the current level. The need for a new grain terminal is evident, we have an ideal site and we have chosen a proven competent operator”.1 The site had been owned by the Great Northern Railway, and much of it was underwater. Preparation for the termi1 Port of Seattle Reporter, August 1, 1967

nal required dredging, and a year-long effort to bring in with some 2.8 million cubic yards of granular fill by scow from Maury Island.2 Public response to the plan for a new grain terminal from commentators at the time were initially enthusiastic, especially in terms of the addition of a proposed marine drive to be built by the City. The city vacated street ends from Bay Street to Emerson to the Port and Railway in exchange for land of a reasonable grade, adequately filled and bulkheaded for the proposed parkway.3 The artist’s sketch showed a prominent head house and silos that were considerably lower than the head house, with the marine drive that was seen as a welcome addition as waterfront access for the public. 2 Port of Seattle Reporter, November 1968 3 Seattle Times, October 25, 1970

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 23

a Richard Haag landscape sketch, 1972 b Artistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s sketch of proposed grain terminal and waterfront parkway from promotional brochure, 1966 c Photo of Pier 86 post-construction, Historylink.org, 1970 d Photo of Pier 86 during construction, overhead gallery, Port of Seattle Reporter, January 1970

24 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

“The Port of Seattle has done a magnificent job of combining functionalism with landscape improvement in the design of its proposed new grain-shipment terminal on Elliott Bay south of Smith Cove...” - Ross Cunningham, Seattle Times, March 28, 1966 “The Port’s new grain facility will not be an industrial eyesore, as some people had feared. A 4-lane marine drive will sweep along the shore, extending more than a mile from the northwest section of the terminal down to the north end of Alaskan Way. This drive, to be built by the City of Seattle, will offer visitors an unobstructed view of the grain-loading operations at the pier as well as ship activity on Elliott Bay. It will have view points, walkways and landscaped rest areas. It will be the only strip along the Seattle waterfront where motorists will be able to enjoy a full-view scenic drive. Thus, this new terminal will not only be an enormous economic asset to Seattle, but it will also be a welcome addition to this city’s great waterfront tourist attractions.” - Municipal News, November 24, 1969

The reality of the new structure, once built, received considerable backlash. Herb Robinson’s column in the May 21, 1970 Seattle Times was titled, “Ugly Grain Elevator Far Cry From Artist’s Sketch.” Port Commissioner Frank Kitchell’s response was that “Those drawings that appear in the papers never look the way things are going to turn out.” City critic P. C. Circleman, calling the uproar “the misunderstanding”, dubbed it the waterfront’s “biggest piece of junk”.1 The Sylvan Park, the sweeping marine drive and a proposed water-view restaurant had not materialized, and turned out to be the City’s responsibility, not the Port’s. In a depressed Seattle economy only a few months out from the infamous 1970 billboard reading, “Will the last person leaving please turn the lights out?”, those amenities were not certainties. Nearby neighborhoods, such as Queen Anne and Magnolia, and irate citizens furious over spoiled waterfront views and no mitigating park setting felt duped. Part of the backlash was an increase in public support for protecting the environment along shorelines. The Shoreline Management Act, passed by the State Legislature in 1971 and adopted by voters in 1972, was enacted “to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state’s shorelines”. 1 Seattle Times, November 22, 1970

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 25

Following the uproar over the appearance of the terminal structures, the Port and others offered many solutions. Port Manager J. Eldon Opheim talked of decorating the silos “with attractive colored lighting”1; Seattle architect Fred Basetti suggested painting, “as a bright work of pop art, what an emphasis on its functional should at least be visually entertaining”; another remedy was covering the silos with the state’s fastest growing plants, the fastest growing sycamores.2 In the meantime, the Port Commission even accepted the painting recommendation of beige, off-white, gray and brown colors with authorization to the lessee Cargill to award $33,000 to a contractor.3 Nothing was done.

poplars and pines, and enhancing the entrance road, office building and parking area with London Plane trees, black locust and pines. By 1974, the restaurant proposal was abandoned, and the vehicular parkway was “de-emphasized”. None of the painting or light suggestions happened. In reference to painting the Seattle Times noted, “Some people have told the port they don’t think any color could make the elevator look attractive.”4

Richard Haag’s Landscape Plan for Pier 86 Grain Terminal was followed up by contract drawings for a first phase of landscape plans emphasizing screening of the silos and railroad yard with

Today, some 45 years since the completion of the Pier 86 site, the Port, the city of Seattle and the waterfront plans and planning have all drastically changed. The Pier 86 silos and grain terminal no longer take eastern Washington wheat. In fact, the 21st century city of Seattle and Port emphases have shifted from a largely industrial bay to a mixed-use waterfront of cruise ship traffic, tourism, recreation, as well as industry. The Olympic Sculpture Park transformed a brownfield into a renowned model for an urban sculpture park. With a string of parks lining the north waterfront and better connections to the neighborhoods, the north waterfront is a major asset barely imaginable in 1970. With the plans for a reinvigorated, art-filled Central Waterfront, it is timely to take a fresh look at art on Pier 86.

1 Seattle Times, May 21, 1970 2 Seattle Times, Nov. 22, 1970 3 Seattle Times, April 29, 1970

4 Seattle Times April 29, 1970

Architect Ralph Anderson and Dale Mills of the Allied Arts Committee on Urban Environment prepared a report in December 1970, declaring that the grain terminal “violates every modern concept of urban planning”. In terms of remedying the project, they applauded the Port’s hiring of Richard Haag, one of the city’s finest landscape architects, and encouraged the Port to work with the City to realize the waterfront park.

26 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

c.1900

c.1970

a c. 1900s Shoreline at future location of Pier 86 / Photo: Historylink.org b 1970s: Pier 86 and shoreline / Photo: Washington State Dept. of Ecology Coastal Atlas

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 27

c.1990

2010

d c 1990s: Pier 86 and shoreline. Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas d 2010 Pier 86 and shoreline, Google Maps Retrieved 1/10/2016

250 feet

28 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Photos above: 2006: Pier 86 and shoreline / Washington State Department of Ecology Coastal Atlas

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 29

30 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 31

POSSIBLE ART APPROACHES OVERVIEW

LOCATIONS

There are many possibilities for art at Pier 86—a variety of locations, viewpoints, materials and themes. The intent of this study is to look at the full range of options, and highlight the feasibility of the various approaches to the art. The approach to the art is key to feasibility in that each approach has different ramifications for cost, installation, maintenance and the needs for ongoing curation. The approach to art is also critical in terms of generating public enthusiasm. In order to be successful, the approach to art must resonate as authentic and an enhancement to the site and community.

• Where could the art be located?

Questions that will need to be addressed are listed below. The conclusions are our current understanding based on work done as part of this report, and from community and stakeholder input.

Photo opposite: Lesley Bain

• How would it be viewed/perceived? • What technical issues are involved in each location? CONCLUSIONS

The most obvious place for art with high impact is the long side of the bins, where visibility is highest. The waterside of the bins would be prominent and part of a larger landscape of art along the waterfront. Other locations are also feasible, and art need not be limited to a single location. The more intimate vantage points for pedestrians and cyclists along the waterfront offer a variety of opportunities, and the interplay of the iconic scale of the bins and the personal vantage point offers exciting possibilities. Some locations, while not ruled out, have challenges that would need to be addressed. Because the art location needs to avoid interrupting operations, the easiest locations to place art are located away from areas where people and goods are moving. Areas within the 200-foot Shoreline Zone have additional requirements that make permitting more complicated.

32 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

TECHNICAL AND OPERATIONAL FACTORS FOR PUBLIC ART ON PIER 86 ALL FACETS OF THE FACILITY:

• The approach to art will need to minimize the need to be on site for installation and maintenance. • Timing will be important, The facility is heavily used, on a 24/7 basis, with less usage during July through September. • Coordination with the port and operator will be required to ensure operations are not disrupted. • Security is essential; coordination will be required with Port, Operator, Coast Guard and Homeland Security. • Art work would be accessory to the primary use of the facility, but would need to be consistent with regulatory requirements. • Code and entitlement issues have been reviewed and summarized in the Appendix. Most approaches to art would not likely trigger issues with the zoning code. Per the State Environmental Policy Act, art would need to consider environmental problems such as glare, or affecting water quality. Any art that included construction would be subject to the City’s building code.

PUBLIC ART ON THE EAST SIDE:

• Do not impact or interrupt train operations • Ensure that lighting does not affect train engineers • Ensure motorist safety on Elliott Avenue West; avoid light directed at driver’s eyes • Respect views, aesthetic and glare concerns of Queen Anne residents • Work with neighborhood organizations and property owners for any art visible from the parks, viewpoints or private property • Do not impede access to east side of bins

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 33

PUBLIC ART ON THE SOUTH SIDE:

• Take new exterior man lift into consideration • Do not impact or interrupt train operations • Consider views from the Olympic Sculpture Park and Myrtle Edwards Park

PUBLIC ART ON THE WEST SIDE:

• Coordinate installation and maintenance needs with Port, Operator and security • Areas within 200 feet of the shoreline will need to meet regulations in the Shoreline Urban Industrial Zone (See Code Memo in Appendix). • The connection between the land side facilities and the over-water facilities crosses a public path and is not an ideal situation for the operator. • Using the over-water portion of the site may involve challenges for permitting and in terms of avoiding impact to operations.

PUBLIC ART ON THE NORTH SIDE:

• Do not impact or interrupt train operations • Consider views from the pedestrian bridge and Expedia. Coordinate with Expedia and other stakeholders. Photos: Lesley Bain

• Respect views, aesthetic and glare concerns of Magnolia residents. • Consider views from West Seattle, Washington State Ferries and the ferry passengers, cruise ships, tour boats, recreational and commercial vessels.

34 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

MATERIALS • How is the material attached or applied? Or is the art free-standing? • How would the art be installed? What would the impacts be on operations? • Is it static, or does in change over time? Does it require on-going curation? • How long would the art be intended to stay in place? • What kind of maintenance would be needed, and what would the impact be on the operations? • How costly is each approach? CONCLUSIONS

A variety of materials and methods is feasible for art on Pier 86, and each has a set of characteristics, including cost of implementation, maintenance requirements, durability, etc. Some materials are more practical, which would make them more feasible. Approaches that need a great deal of maintenance may prove too challenging to be feasible on a working facility. For example, a green wall on the silos is not likely to be feasible because of the required level of maintenance.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 35

APPROACHES Aside from the location and material, large-scale projects from around the world have taken a variety of approaches that may be applicable to the opportunities on Pier 86. For example, art can be strikingly bold and colorful, or more subtle and atmospheric. It can have one type of presence during the day, and another characteristic entirely after dark. Art can be static, and left in place for the long term. Or it can change over time, which means that there would need to be mechanisms in place to curate changing work. Art on Pier 86 could take any one or a combination of these approaches. The ramifications of the different approaches will affect what is feasible. For instance, is there an organizational structure and on-going funding that would be needed for temporal or dynamic art? Is a phased approach more feasible in terms of initial cost outlay? These issues would be explored over subsequent phases with stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS

There are many feasible approaches to public art on Pier 86. The approach that will be most implementable is one that dovetails with public enthusiasm and resources. The site is suited for a large scale, bold approach, and that may be the most attractive because of the potential impact. The most costly approaches, such as those done in Quebec City and Buffalo, have a high

impact but need a large and ongoing pool of resources. Static media, such as paint, are more affordable. There are a variety ways to approach public art at Pier 86 that are more incremental and could grow over time. Opportunities exist for close up art for people in the park, and art visible from afar. These art possibilities need not be mutually exclusive, and a project that had an intimate reading from the park and a larger scale piece on the silos could be even more interesting.

36 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

THEMES

ARTIST SELECTION PROCESS

Pier 86 is a powerful opportunity to connect to the history, culture, and environment of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterfront. Much of the feedback (supportive and concerned) focused on the facility as an important part of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s maritime industrial culture. There are multiple ways that art could highlight and express the context of its site, focusing on themes such as history, industrial activities, environmental or ecological context, its geographic or geological place, or the regions ethnographic context. These themes can be portrayed in abstract or more literal imagery.

The feasibility work included consideration of the artist selection process, because the method of selecting an artist will be important to ensuring the quality and appropriateness of art. The selection process is also a way to generate enthusiasm by engaging the public in the process, especially if large scale work moves forward for Pier 86.

CONCLUSIONS

In determining the approach to art, a theme tied to the overall Seattle waterfront, highlighting the specifics characteristics, qualities and values of the site, is likely to resonate with the public and stakeholders. Such themes may include the marine industrial waterfront, history, ecology, ethnography or geography.

The artists call can be put out for local artists, or extend to national and international artists. The San Francisco project, Bayview Rise, called for artists from the West Coast, and was awarded to Seattle-based artists Haddad|Drugan. Vancouver engaged Brazilian brothers Os Gemeos to paint a colorful mural on their concrete silos on Granville Island. Os Gemos became internationally known for their artwork on the airplane used during the 2014 soccer World Cup. While internationally known artists can bring excitement to the artist selection, the decision needs to be balanced with the idea of keeping the art rooted in our local culture, and highlighting artists that are our own. Another important decision in artist selection is the process itself. Especially for large scale work, people need to be satisfied that the work will be appropriate to the site and of the highest quality. We recommend that a short list of artists be selected for the quality of their

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 37

work, and as potentially good matches for the approach and scale of their work. The short list of artists would be paid a stipend to create a proposal for art at Pier 86, and these proposals could be part of a highly inclusive public process. The intent of this selection process would be to encourage a range of excellent proposals, and to find artists and approaches that the public would be enthusiastic about. Some artist calls clarify the duration of the installation. Again, this may vary depending on the type of project installed.

38 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 39

MODELSÂ Â As part of the feasibility study, models from around the world were assessed in order to better understand the possibilities for Pier 86 and to take advantage of lessons learned.

Photo opposite: Joe Wolf

40 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

THEME:

BAYVIEW RISE

The artists created graphic imagery that references stories related to the neighborhood’s industry, infrastructure and ecology. The site was once a bird sanctuary and has a large image of a bird rising.

An illuminated mural for Port Pier 92, weaves together iconic imagery reflecting the Bayview neighborhood’s changing economy, ecology, and community. Its large-scale graphics make its primary images visible from a distance, while views up close reveal the abstract patterns from which those images are composed. The artwork is conceived as a gateway into Bayview Hunters Point and are visible and changing from day to night. The project launched in August, 2013.

STATIC /TEMPORARY:

An interesting mix of static paint with light that offers varied reads of the mural. Long-term temporary installation, expected to be in a place for a minimum of 5 years. The artwork is reversible in that it may be painted over or removed. Nightly, dusk to dawn

SITE/CONTEXT

Inactive former grain elevator at Pier 90, south of AT&T Park, in San Francisco. Pier 90 was built in 1918; operations were discontinued after the 1989 earthquake. The silos and shaft are windowless concrete. The main tower receiving the art installation is 187 feet tall by 72 feet wide. ARTIST:

Haddad | Drugan MEDIA:

Paint and light. The west wall is painted black, overlaid with colorful geometric patterns. Floodlights shift between different colors, changing the read of the mural as the light changes.

COST:

$250,000 SOURCE OF FUNDS:

The funding is seen as an investment from the port’s beautification fund for the southern waterfront, which draws on the port’s rental income in the area. OF NOTE:

This is part of a larger regional effort, with some $1.5 million in spending for amenities. Bayview Mural recognized as one of the best public artworks in the country by Americans for the Arts The artist selection process was open to West Coast artists.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 41

RESOURCES: Portâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s description of the project and the art selection process: www.sfport.com/Modules/ShowDocument. aspx?documentID=6586 San Francisco Arts Commission summary story and award announcement: www.sfartscommission.org/pubartcollection/ pubart-press-releases/2015/06/25/bayviewmural-recognized-as-one-of-the-best-publicartworks-in-the-country-by-americans-for-thearts/ SFGate article: www.sfgate.com/bayarea/place/article/ Big-bold-mural-adds-zip-to-Bayviewwaterfront-5267594.php Port of San Francisco Policy for Southern Waterfront Beautification www.sfport.com/ftp/uploadedfiles/ meetings/supporting/2007/ Item7bSoWaterfrontBeautificationPolicy.pdf Port of SF Capital Projects Budget detail Middle item on page two details $1.5M in spending over several years for beautification items, one of which is this art project. www.onesanfrancisco.org/wp-content/ uploads/Agenda-Items-5-6-Port-CapitalBudget-Overview-.pdf

42 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

VANCOUVER, BC

STATIC OR TEMPORARY:

GIANTS: PUBLIC ART ON SILOS

Static: The installation has an estimated lifetime of 7-10 years.

The art is installed on an active industrial facility operated by Ocean Concrete on the north shore of Granville Island. Ocean Concrete is one of Vancouver's largest suppliers of commercial and residential ready-mix concrete. The project was commissioned as part of Vancouver Biennale. The Vancouver Biennale is a non-profit charitable organization that exhibits great art in public space, creating a catalyst for learning, community engagement, dialogue, and social action. The art was installed in August and September, 2014. SITE

The art covers all sides of six cement storage silos, each one measuring 70 x 35 feet. (Total coverage is 23,000 sq. ft.) Granville Island is a waterfront arts/ theater/market district, similar to Seattle’s Pike Place Market. ARTISTS:

COST:

$125,000 The artists, famous Brazilian graffiti artists and twin brothers Gustavo and Otavio Pandolfo, donated their time. FUNDING:

Crowd funded, with about 50% coming from outside Canada. OF NOTE:

This artwork has inspired the musical piece Biennale Snapshots – A Composition In 5 Movements which was premiered by the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra in Sept. 2015. “The six massive silos that dominate the Ocean Concrete plant on Granville Island have now shed 50 years of grime and muck.” --Vancouver Sun, Aug. 9, 2014

MEDIUM:

“Love it or hate it – one Yaletown resident who complained about the project ended up donating $1,000 after seeing the art progress “--September 4, 2014

Painted mural. Spray painted (1400 cans of spray paint) with a base coat and varnish coating.

Ocean Concrete was so inspired by the art that they have painted their trucks with contemporary related designs.

OSGEMENOS, Brazilian street artists

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 43

RESOURCES: Video featuring Vice-President of Ocean Concrete www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFwrG6e1trg Love it or Hate it article www.pressreader.com/canada/metro-canadavancouver/20140905/281526519245680/ TextView Van City Buzz, August 11, 2014 www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/08/granvilleisland-silos-becoming-huge-piece-public-art/

top: Photo G.S. Matthews bottom: Photo Adam Foster

44 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

NORTHAM, WESTERN AUSTRALIA SILO AND GRAIN ELEVATOR ART PROJECT

This art installation is on a working silo and grain elevator at the Avon Grain Receival Site owned by CBH Group, a grain growers’ cooperative and Australia’s largest grain exporter. The art installation was a project of FORM, a cultural non-profit organization, and part of the PUBLIC street art program/ festival, an urban art ideas festival which focuses on how culture and innovation contributes to stronger and more well-rounded communities. WHEN:

Completed in 2015 SITE

Northam, Western Australia is a small town about an hour’s drive east of Perth. The structure consists of 8 silos; each silo is 36’ wide and 132’ high. There are 5100 square yards of painted surface. STATIC/TEMPORARY:

Static / Paint ARTISTS:

Alex Brewer, aka HENSE (Atlanta, Georgia based). Did mural at Facebook Headquarters in Frank Gehry designed building. Phlegm, graffiti artist based in UK

THEME:

Inspired by the hot air balloons which the district is famous for. COST:

The total project cost was $86,000 USD. FUNDING:

Approximately thirty percent ($25,000) was from CBH, the property owner and operator. The remainder ($61,000) was funded through contributions to FORM from partners including: local government, state government arts department, commercial/corporate partners, developers and in kind support. OF NOTE:

Hugely positive response from the community in the regional town where the silos were situated. “Since the silo project was started, FORM has been inundated with more than 200 suggestions for other big public artworks throughout the Wheatbelt. Their longterm goal is to create an “art trail”, where people from the city could take a day’s drive to various towns in the Wheatbelt and see some internationally-renowned artists’ works.” --ABC News www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/phlegmhense-silo-art-transforms-grain-silos-in-wawheatbelt/6355030

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 45

COST:

Artist Fees; Artist/staff travel and accommodation; Paint; Food Materials; Safety gear; Elevated Work Platform (EWP) equipment and repairs Lighting towers; Operators for the EWP; Fuel for the EWP; Documentation INSTALLATION DETAILS:

Duration 16 days (average 12 hours per day); 400 man hours 190 gallons of paint and 200 spray cans; Access by 125â&#x20AC;&#x2122; knuckle-boom lifts Accommodation (two and a half weeks for four people) was a major expense. Artist fees and expenses (food, accommodation, travel, safety gear, materials and equipment) were the next largest expense. Materials were a significant expense and it would be worth seeking a paint sponsor to offset this cost. EWPs are pricey, but not the largest expense. RESOURCES: Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=_quFkQDmavk Photo: www.photon.101medialablimit.netdna-cdn. com/hypebeast.com/image/2015/05/ hense-giant-mural-on-grain-silos-in-westernaustralia-4.jpg?w=1024

Photos: Design Boom Andy Butler, May 2015

46 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

ROSARIO, ARGENTINA

MEDIUM:

MUSEO DE ARTE CONTEMPORÁNEO DE ROSARIO, ARGENTINA

Paint

This contemporary art museum, with the largest collection in Argentina, is housed in the former Davis Grain Silos on the banks of the Parana River. The colorful paint on the silos marks the presence of the museum. The art was completed with the museum’s opening in November, 2004.

The art is static but replaced every several years

SITE

The building consists of a ten-story tower and eight grain silos. The silos have an operating history dating to the early 1900’s, but was no longer in use as a grain facility. Seven of the stories in the tower contain exhibition rooms. A glass elevator exists for public use. A second phase would reuse the silos. Rosario, Argentine, on the Parana River, on the border between Argentina’s Santa Fe & Entre Rios Providence. Argentina’s 3rd largest city. ART APPROACH

The silos are painted, and expected to be repainted every several years, with the new design selected through a national competition. ARTISTS

Rosario Prieto Cintia, original design Martin Marcos Aguero, current design

STATIC/TEMPORARY:

COST

not known. FUNDING:

The Municipality of Rosario and the Foundation Castagnino Museum. OF NOTE

The grain silos are a mainstay of economic & civic pride for residents of Rosario. The competition for artists has generated wide interest, with 173 proposals. RESOURCES: Museum website www.macromuseo.org.ar

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 47

above: Photo Hernan Cabrera below: Photo Armando Madoery

48 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

OMAHA, NEBRASKA

THEME:

STORED POTENTIAL

Related to agriculture and transportation

Stored Potential was a large-scale temporary installation of banners on a highly visible abandoned grain facility. The project was done in two phases, each commissioning and installing 13 banners on the silos. Emerging Terrain, a small non profit urban design group developed the project. They asked local artists to create and submit artwork with an agriculture-related theme, suitable for blowing up into removable banners to be draped down the sides of the silos. SITE

The long-abandoned grain elevator complex is highly visible from I-80, located midway between downtown Omaha and the expanding suburban area to the west. With nearly two dozen structurally robust silos, the facility was considered to costly to demolish, and were generally considered an eyesore. 2010. Taken down 2014 ARTISTS:

26 local artists, one per banner MEDIUM:

20â&#x20AC;&#x2122; x 80â&#x20AC;&#x2122; woven poly-mesh panels which were securely fastened to the individual silos.

STATIC/TEMPORARY:

The banners were static and had a limited lifetime, they were removed in 2014. COST

Unknown FUNDING:

Project founders included the Peter Kiewit Foundation and the Weitz Family Foundation. Project sponsors included a wide variety of funders including businesses, banks, and individuals. OF NOTE

The project was seen by approximately 76,000 commuters daily. From press at the time of the removal of the banners, people seemed disappointed to see the project end. The project was done in two phases. Phase 1 was themed around Land Use, Food and Agriculture, and installation was celebrated with a harvest dinner on an 800-foot long dining table. The theme of Phase 2 was Transportation, and the idea of linking people, ideas and goods. Both phases led to related planning initiatives. 500 submissions were received and 13

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 49

were chosen in the beginning, but they later added another set for a total of 26. With the prospect of the end of the project, donors looked into costs to keep the project up. The cost to clean the banners would have been $30,000 and to rehang $200,000. RESOURCES: Emerging Terrain website www.emergingterrain.org/archives/projects/ stored-potential-2 Stored Potential: The Art of Omaha’s Grain Elevators, Web Urbanist www.weburbanist.com/2011/10/02/storedpotential-the-art-of-omahas-grain-elevators/ Banners’ creators are gone, and soon grain elevators’ art will be, too, Omaha.com, June 3, 2014 www.omaha.com/news/metro/bannerscreators-are-gone-and-soon-grain-elevatorsart-will/article_678b4995-45dc-526b-b2313ed5a6d7ecd3.html

50 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

STATIC/TEMPORARY:

THIS LAND

Static; expected duration not known

This Land is a “mega mural” on a former grain facility that was repurposed for indoor rock climbing. The project was conceived by local artist Rick Sennett, who had been working across the State of Oklahoma along Route 66 where he had already completed three large murals. Project originated in 2011 and was given the “green light” by the Oklahoma City Arts Council in 2012 and completed in December, 2014.

COST:

Project valued at approximately $300,000. However all labor, paint and equipment were donated. Large portions of the actual remaining costs were raised by Kickstarter (approx $18,000); Oklahoma City (&10,000); and other art and equipment partners. Most of the art was completed using rock climbing harnesses and by hanging from window washing ropes.

SITE

The site is in Oklahoma City, near Interstate 40. The silos measured 100 feet tall by approximately 128 feet wide on a single side. ARTIST:

Rick Sennett

OF NOTE:

The project was approved by Oklahoma City Arts Council. They wanted corporate logos removed, which led the primary sponsor to withdraw. Rocktown Climbing Gym’s lease was not renewed for 2016, and the business had to close its doors.

MEDIUM:

Paint

RESOURCES:

THEME:

Artist website www.siloartproject.com/ Silo Art Project Takes Public Art to New Heights, CNN, May 6, 2013 www.ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-968475

Local imagery: American bison, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher and Indian Paintbrush

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 51

52 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

QUEBEC CITY, QUEBEC

ART APPROACH:

IMAGE MILL (LEMOULIN A IMAGES) AND AURORA BOREALIS

Programmable light and sound installation. Uses 27 massive projectors in towers along the waterfront ;with 329 speakers (50 sub-woofers), 238 light fixtures and required 15 light and sound technicians. Every summer, the content is changed at least 20%.

An ambitious public art project that uses the working Bunge grain silos as a canvas for a major sound and light show. It originated in 2008 as the flagship event in the celebration of Quebec Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 400th anniversary, and was expected to run for that year only. Because of its success, it continues to run with new material entitled Aurora Borealis. The current show is expected to have a five year run. The show is played summers nightly, sundown to midnight, with a modified version after early September.

ARTIST:

Robert Lepage | Ambiances Design Productions THEME:

Originally, historic; Currently, environment, geography

SITE:

COST:

The grain terminal is located on the eastern side of the Bassin Louise in Quebec City, Quebec. With a capacity of 225,000 metric tons of storage space, the silos are used to store wheat, barley, corn and soybeans. Over 3.4 million tons of grain are handled annually with a capability of loading up to 5,000 tons an hour.

4.7 million Canadian Dollars for the first installation (per Wikipedia)

Eighty-one (81) working silos were built in 1913. The silos measure 1,968 feet wide and rises 98 feet tall above the Portâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Louise Basin. The surface area is the equivalent of 25 IMAX screens. Some 3,000 seats are available on the docks of the Port of Quebec at the Espace 400, and bleachers on the opposite shore of the St. Lawrence river.

FUNDING:

Original funding for the 400th anniversary celebrations came from the Canadian government, Province of Quebec, and the City of Qeubec. Continuation of the project may have had City funds, since it required a vote of Municipal Council of Quebec. OF NOTE:

For the original 400th anniversary celebration, the City of Quebec asked the Societe du 400e anniversaire de Quebec with mobilizing local resourc-

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 53

es, generating public enthusiasm, and leaving a legacy in Quebec City. The project has had notable benefits, with hundreds of thousands of spectators, economy-boosting spending, considerable media coverage, and multiple invaluable intangible spin-offs. Designers used green technologies that require little maintenance; all lights are LED. The success of Quebec inspired the Buffalo project: “It was jaw-dropping. It told a story informed by history. There was a narrative and not just meaningless technical virtuosity,” said Tielman, who leads the Campaign for Greater Buffalo History, Architecture & Culture. REFERENCES City Quebec 400th Anniversary website: www.ville.quebec.qc.ca Casting City in New Light, The Buffalo News, May 4, 2013: www.buffalonews.com/20130504/ casting_city_in_new_light.html Artist’s website: www.lacaserne.net

Photo top two: John Sanchez Photo bottom: Martin Pilote

54 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

BUFFALO, NY

ART APPROACH

CITY OF LIGHT

Medium: Programmable lighting installation; a 360 degree visual experience. Intended to be enjoyed from the boardwalk at Canal side and from the Outer Harbor. The projections are on thirty 110’ tall silos.

This permanent light display was inspired by the success of Quebec City’s “Image Mill”. Buffalo, the birthplace of the modern grain elevator and once the world’s largest grain port, is using their historic grain elevators “in a spectacular new light”. The project is part of an effort to revitalize Buffalo’s Outer and Inner Harbor with a visual master plan developed in 2012 to enhance Buffalo’s “nightscape”, its waterfront and downtown. The project opened November, 2015, and is on display every evening year-found, from nightfall until 11:00.

THEME:

Four seasons COST:

Approximately $3 million early phase. Full project expected to be about $20 million

SITE

FUNDING:

Abandoned grain silos in public ownership, the Connecting Terminal Grain Elevator, in Buffalo’s Erie Canal Harbor. The Connecting Terminal was built in 1915. The height of Buffalo’s grain trade was the 1920’s through the 40’s, with nearly 50 grain elevators in use; only a few are currently operational. The context, called Silo City, is used for art installations, architectural gatherings, music events and the backdrop for theatrical performances, drawing thousands in the process. Part of the larger intent is to revitalize the area as a center for design, living and working.

Largely funded through New York Power Authority

ARTIST:

Ambiances Design Productions

OF NOTE:

“Part of his plan involves making Silo City a center for design, a place where art and commerce collide. He imagines a buzzing mini-metropolis where students, artists, and designers live and work. He also imagines that the silos could host design and architectural conferences where “ideas could be bounced off design students who actually live in housing on site.”1 Goals include making the best possible use of a public space and unique can1 (Rick Smith, Rigidized Metals, quoted in FastCompany, March, 19, 2014)

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 55

vas, contributing to the revitalization of Buffalo’s Waterfront through art, increasing public appreciation of Buffalo’s industrial heritage, pairing a vibrant cultural experience with nighttime entertainment, and providing a dynamic, artistic, world-class attraction. “Lighting Buffalo’s grain elevators, which have such a rich history, has long been part of Governor Cuomo and ECHDC’s larger vision for the redevelopment of Buffalo’s waterfront.” —ECHDC Chairman Robert Gioia. “The evolving light show on the Connecting Terminal will transform the structure into a contemplative artistic lighting installation and keep visitors coming back to the site to share the experience with friends and family while enjoying their time on the waterfront.” The Connecting Terminal grain elevator presents the ideal urban situation to receive a significant visual intervention. Its location and position provides a direct visual link to Canalside across the water. It anchors one of the water gateways into the Buffalo River and will act as a luminous beacon fronting Lake Erie. The lighting installation operates year round from dusk until 11 pm and is permanently installed on the grain elevator. Multiple schemes based on a narrative theme will be programmed and displayed.

Photos: Robert Kirkham, Buffalo News, Nov 2, 2015

Kinetic light is made up of five layers of lighting, with detailed specifications that can be found at www.canalsidebuffalo.com/grainelevator/technology/ RESOURCES Canalside Buffalo website https://www.canalsidebuffalo.com/ Governor Cuomo Announces Lighting of Buffalo Grain Elevator, NY State Economic Development website, 11/4/2015 https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governorcuomo-announces-lighting-buffalo-grainelevator

56 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON ILLUMINATED GHOSTS

This temporary light projection project is part of an arts festival, Duwamish Revealed, intended to highlight Seattle’s only river. The art is an at-scale representations of old-growth trees native to the Duwamish River basin, which is projected onto the exterior of industrial buildings along the river. It is on display fall of 2015 into winter, 2016. SITE/CONTEXT

The Duwamish River is highly industrialized and remarkably invisible to many people that live in the region. The projections are on industrial buildings along the river. ART APPROACH

Projected light; stencil

COST:

Not Available SOURCE OF FUNDS:

Through Duwamish Revealed, public NEA and private funds OF NOTE:

Duwamish Revealed is a project of the Environmental Coalition of South Seattle (ECOSS), in partnership with Artistic Directors Nicole Kistler and Sarah Kavage. The Illuminated Ghosts was started in 2014 as part of 4Culture’s Site Specific art program. COMMUNITY AND AGENCY PARTNERS:

ARTIST:

• Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition / Technical Advisory Group

Nicole Kistler

• Port of Seattle

MEDIA:

• Olympic Sculpture Park / Seattle Art Museum

Projected light, with art image THEME:

History, ecology, environment; Making visible what used to exist on the site

• Duwamish Longhouse & Cultural Center • The Project Room

STATIC /TEMPORARY:

• South Park Information & Resource Center (SPIARC) and the Promotoras

Temporary, static

• King County

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 57

• Feet First • Equinox Studios • Jack Straw Productions • Georgetown Merchants Association • South Park Neighborhood Association • Welcome to Our Native Land • Seattle City Light • South Park Arts • South Seattle College • Shoreline Community College RESOURCES: Duwamish Revealed website www.duwamishrevealed.com/ City Arts, December 28, 2015 www.cityartsonline.com/articles/livingmemory

Photo courtesy Bruce Clayton Tom

58 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA MURAL ARTS PROGRAM

This project is a highly successful mural program, and has relevance in terms of community based art. Mural Arts was first established in 1984 as part of the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network’s effort to eradicate the city’s graffiti crisis. Artist Jane Golden was hired to reach out to graffiti writers and redirect their energies to constructive public art projects. In addition to addressing the problem of graffiti, Mural Arts’ collective mural-making processes proved to be a powerful tool for generating dialogue, building relationships, empowering communities, and sparking economic revitalization. In 1996, the Anti-Graffiti Network was reorganized and the Mural Arts Program became its own entity. Soon after, the nonprofit Philadelphia Mural Arts Advocates was established to raise additional funds for the program, making Mural Arts a unique public/private partnership. Philly has 3,600 murals and counting. Annually, Mural Arts creates more than 50 new public art projects. Projects explore numerous themes, target diverse constituents, and result in outcomes ranging from corridor revitalization to youth leadership.

OF NOTE:

• Mural Arts creates between 50 and 100 public art projects annually in direct collaboration with more than 10,000 individuals. • Approximately 1,000 young people are enrolled in Mural Arts’ Art Education program annually. • The organization also engages approximately 1,000 vulnerable adults in programs led through collaborations with SCI Graterford Prison, the Philadelphia Prison System, Philadelphia’s Youth Violence Reduction Partnership, and the Department of Behavioral Health and Intellectual Disability. • Mural Arts offers walking, bicycle, and trolley tours to more than 15,000 people annually. • More than 50,000 subscribers followed the work online, and through its bi-annual magazine, Off the Wall. • Every year, Mural Arts employs approximately 150 artists and teaching artists, contributing nearly two million dollars to Philadelphia’s creative economy through artist wages. • Philadelphia’s largest mural, How Philly Moves, measures nearly 85,000 square feet and extends along a parking garage at the Philadelphia International Airport. It

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 59

is the second largest mural in the world. • Mural Arts regularly receives inquiries from municipalities around the country and the world seeking to replicate its model.

COST:

• The average cost to produce a mural is $25,000 to $30,000. • The average mural requires 30 gallons of paint at an average cost of $60 per gallon.

• The average mural requires 30 gallons of paint at an average cost of $60 per gallon.

• The most expensive mural paint color is Cobalt Blue at $160 per gallon.

• Designed by Dutch artists Haas & Hahn, Philly Painting spans four blocks of Germantown Avenue, weaving a geometric design of abstract color across more that 50 adjacent storefronts.

• The most expensive mural the program has created is Philly Painting, at about $500,000.

• The most unusual location for a mural is on the side of an industrial-sized gas tank at the Sunoco refinery called Philadelphia on a Half Tank by Paul Santoleri. • Mural Arts matches every public dollar invested in its work with $1.50 in private contributions. Approximately 10% of income comes from sources outside of Philadelphia.

• Costs associated with commissioning a new public art project typically range from $50,000 to $200,000. SOURCE OF FUNDS:

In 1996, the Philadelphia Anti-Graffiti Network was merged into the Philadelphia Recreation Department and the Mural Arts Program was elevated as an independent entity. The Philadelphia Mural Arts Advocates was founded as a nonprofit corporation to raise funds for the Mural Arts Program. Mural Arts also collaborates with corporations to initiate new community-engaged projects. Previous commissioning partners have included Citizen’s Bank, Liberty Property Trust, Dow Chemical Company, Shake Shack, Philadelphia Phillies, Philadelphia Eagles, and many others.

60 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Benefits of Public Art “It is impossible to have a society that is civil and educated without public art. It lifts up humanity and challenges the individual who encounters it to think differently about the world.”1 - Darren Walker, Vice President, Rockefeller Foundation “But the value of the arts extends beyond the direct economic impact. When Gallup and the Knight Foundation set out to answer the question ‘What attaches people to their communities?’ In a three-year study, researchers found that the key reasons cited by residents for loving their cities were entertainment and social offerings, how welcoming the city is and its aesthetics — in other words, the arts and culture.”2 “Whatever the form, public art instills meaning—a greater sense of identity and understandings of where we live, work, and visit—creating memorable experiences for all.”3 - Americans for the Arts 1 www.forbes.com/2009/05/05/state-of-the-city-opinions-george-rickey-public-art.html 2 www.westerncity.com/Western-City/May-2013/How-the-Arts/ 3 www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/public-art

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 61

Half Tank, Philadelphia Artist: Paul Santoleri

Ocean Commotion, Vancouver Artists: Cheryl Hamilton and Michael Vandermeer of ie creative Located in the observation area in front of the painted silos on Granville Island, intended to illustrate the function of the concrete plant and to delight.

62 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 63

OUTREACH AND INPUT Public outreach has been an important part of the Friends of Art on Pier 86 Steering Committee’s role and this phase of work. The Steering Committee created an informative website and Facebook page, and has been at tables with flyers at numerous neighborhood events such as farmers markets. Steering Committee members sit on the Seattle Allied Arts Committee, the Port’s Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and are members of the Queen Anne Community Council, Magnolia District Council, Belltown Community Council, Uptown Alliance, ILWU Local 19, Belltown Business Association, and Downtown District Council, representing over 100,000 residents. Specific Steering Committee members have represented Daybreak and the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation. The project has been featured in radio, television, web and newspaper coverage. Two studios at the University of Washington offered art and landscape students the opportunity to explore the idea of art on Pier 86. Two public meetings have been held to both inform and gather input from community members. Outreach for these meetings included newspaper articles and op-eds, radio interviews, blogs,and emails via the City’s neighborhood lists and website. Photo opposite: James Brooks

The first meeting, held at the Seattle Art Museum’s Olympic Sculpture Park on September 29,2015, included a presentation on possibilities for art, and round table discussions, and input. The second public meeting, held at the Port of Seattle on January 20, 2016, presented the Feasibility Study and brought in Barrie Mowatt, who founded the Vancouver Biennalle. An open house format offered time for exchange of ideas, and the draft report was made available on the project website. An on-line survey regarding art on Pier 86 garnered over 450 responses. The majority of respondents favored exploring art on Pier 86, with over 60% interested in pursuing the idea. Another 21% wanted to know more. 29.2% of respondents expressed concern about art on the Pier. Many people left comments on the survey regarding ideas, opportunities and concerns. The art could enliven the waterfront, highlight the working waterfront, improve the experience at the park at grade level and help expand the feel of the waterfront to the north. Other people felt that the silos were best left as they are. With the completion of the Draft Feasibility Study, Friends of Art on Pier 86 made presentations to a number of groups including neighborhood groups and the ILWU. Written responses from groups are included in the Appendix.

64 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SURVEY RESPONSE New Summary Report - 14 January 2016 WHAT ARE YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THE SILOS AT PIER 86? What are your impressions of the silos at Pier 86? (check all that apply) 100

60.3% 60

32.3%

31.8% 30

16.1%

4.7% 0

A necessary part of the working waterfront

interesting, but unattractive

It could be a lot better

What Silos?

Value

Percent

Count

A necessary part of the working waterfront

60.3%

269

interesting, but unattractive

31.8%

142

It could be a lot better

32.3%

144

What Silos?

4.7%

Other - Please Describte

16.1%

72 Total

Responses "Other - Please Describte" Left Blank A beautiful and striking architectural feature

Other - Please Describte

446 Count 381 1

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 65

SURVEY RESPONSE WHAT OPPORTUNITIES DO YOU SEE WITH ART ON PIER 86? What opportunities do you see with art on Pier 86? (check all that apply) 100

53.9% 49.6% 50

44.2% 40

36.6%

25.9%

Enhance the image of the City

Enhance Seattle's working maritime waterfront

Provide a link to the Sculpture Park

Enhance Centennial Park

Value

Percent

Count

Enhance the image of the City

53.9%

227

Enhance Seattle's working maritime waterfront

49.6%

209

Provide a link to the Sculpture Park

44.2%

186

Enhance Centennial Park

36.6%

154

Other - Please describe

25.9%

109 Total

Responses "Other - Please describe " Left Blank

Other - Please describe

421 Count 346

A waste of money that could be used better

Add art but don't mess with the silos

Add color to the waterfront

Art on the silos could be an enhancement if done carefully and with the correct design.

66 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SURVEY RESPONSE IN GENERAL, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE IDEA OF ART ON THE PIER 86 STRUCTURES?

I have concerns 21.6%

There are real opportunities - worth pursuing 58.1%

I'd like to know more 20.3%

Value

Percent

Count

There are real opportunities - worth pursuing

65.8%

223

I'd like to know more

23.0%

I have concerns

24.5%

83 Total

Responses "I have concerns" Left Blank

339 Count 292

As long as it's a maritime theme

Concerns on what type of art

Dislike murals etc

Doesn't seem to be needed

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 67

SURVEY RESPONSE WHAT IS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? 2. What is your neighborhood? 100

39.5% 40

18%

11.5%

11% 8.7%

5.6% 3.3%

Uptown

3.3% Belltown

Queen Anne

West Seattle

Magnolia

From another Seattle Neighborhood write in

From outside Seattle - write in

From elsewhere write in

Value

Percent

Count

Statistics

Uptown

3.3%

Sum

8.0

Belltown

11.5%

Max

8.0

Queen Anne

11.0%

West Seattle

5.6%

Magnolia

8.7%

From another Seattle Neighborhood - write in

39.5%

154

From outside Seattle - write in

18.0%

From elsewhere - write in

3.3%

13 Total

Responses "From another Seattle Neighborhood - write in" Left Blank 8th & Virginia St - downtown

390 Count 300 1

68 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SURVEY RESPONSE WHAT IS YOUR PRIMARY VIEW OF THE GRAIN SILOS AND ELEVATOR? 3. What is your primary view of the grain silos and elevator? 100

46%

25.6% 23.5% 19.4%

12.7% 10

Car/Bus/Train along Elliott

Queen Anne Hill

Across from Elliott Bay

Centennial Park

Value

Percent

Count

Car/Bus/Train along Elliott

46.0%

178

Queen Anne Hill

12.7%

Across from Elliott Bay

19.4%

Centennial Park

25.6%

Other - Write In

23.5%

91 Total

Responses "Other - Write In" Left Blank

Other - Write In

387 Count 365

All of the above

Bicycling along the trail

Bike

Biking and walking and ferry trips.

view from pier 66

walk in Myrtle Edwards Park; from Magnolia bluffs

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 69

walking and bicycling

1 1

walking the waterfront SURVEY RESPONSE

HAVE YOU EVER VISITED CENTENNIAL / MYRTLE EDWARDS PARK? 4. Have you every visited Centennial/Myrtle Edwards Park?

no 15.5%

yes 84.5%

Value

Percent

Count

yes

84.5%

365

15.5%

67 Total

432

5. Would you like to know more about the progress of the feasibility study of public art on Pier86?

70 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

SURVEY RESPONSE WHAT ARE YOUR IMPRESSIONS OF THE SILOS AT PIER 86? What are your impressions of the silos at Pier 86? (check all that apply) 100

60.3% 60

32.3%

31.8% 30

16.1%

4.7% 0

A necessary part of the working waterfront

interesting, but unattractive

It could be a lot better

What Silos?

Value

Percent

Count

A necessary part of the working waterfront

60.3%

269

interesting, but unattractive

31.8%

142

It could be a lot better

32.3%

144

What Silos?

4.7%

Other - Please Describte

16.1%

72 Total

446

Other - Please Describte

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 71

SURVEY RESPONSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE PROGRESS OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF PUBLIC ART ON PIER 86? 5. Would you like to know more about the progress of the feasibility study of public art on Pier86? 100

49.2%

39.8% 40

17.1%

15.4%

No, thank you

Yes, send me email updates

I'm interested in a presentation on the project

I would like to get involved in the effort

Please write in email address

Value

Percent

Count

Statistics

No, thank you

49.2%

204

Sum

179.0

Yes, send me email updates

39.8%

165

Average

0.4

I'm interested in a presentation on the project

15.4%

StdDev

10.5

I would like to get involved in the effort

6.0%

Max

100.0

Please write in email address

17.1%

71 Total

Responses "Please write in email address" Left Blank

415 Count 382

100percentawesome@gmail.com

79picara@gmail.com

Brianmichaelyoung@gmail.com

Carrievrichards@gmail.com

72 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 73

COMMENTS AND CONCERNS Over the course of the feasibility study, we received literally hundreds of comments via the survey, public meeting input, and meetings with neighborhood and other groups. While the range of opinions was wide, there were consistent themes to both the enthusiasm for art on Pier 86, and concerns. Beauty is highly subjective, and some people find the industrial facilities inherently beautiful and feel that art is unnecessary. Others feel that Pier 86 would greatly benefit by artistic treatment, and, at a minimum, that maintenance is long overdue. Many comments expressed enthusiasm for the Pier as a canvas for art, and the ability of art to connect people to the waterfront. The numbers from the survey indicate that this is the majority opinion, and comments show a variety of thoughts on kinds of art and location. We want to take careful note of expressed concerns so that art proposals would be as sensitive as possible to areas of concern. Comments expressing concern centered on three issues. First, a number of people believe that the working waterfront should be left alone, rather than â&#x20AC;&#x153;dressed upâ&#x20AC;? with art. This is the most common objection to the project. A successful approach to art would need to address this concern. Photo opposite: Andrew Smith

A major finding of the study is that art on Pier 86 should honor the industrial nature of the facility. We recommend that a criteria for any art approach would support the industrial character of the facility. There are approaches to art that would minimize touching the structure itself, such as the light projection done at the Lafarge plant during Duwamish Revealed. Duwamish Revealed is an interesting precedent that was very respectful of the industrial nature of its site. It is also noted that the ILWU Local 19 is supportive of art that would enhance the presence of the working waterfront. Another concern centered on the use of public money for art. While this is an issue for public art in general, funding for art would likely be from multiple sources, public and private. The third area of concern is that people were asked for an opinion about art, but could not respond thoughtfully without knowing what the exact art would be. In order to address this concern, the Feasibility Study recommends a transparent and robust public process so that people will have the opportunity to weigh in on art that could be large in scale and prominently viewed. The comments, positive and negative, have been a major source of direction in this study and the recommended next steps.

74 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

COST PARAMETERS How much would art cost on Pier 86? Until more is known about the specific artwork, an exact answer is premature. But in looking at numerous models, there are categories for costs, and a range of price tags for existing models. It is also interesting to note where the funding came from, with sources including City, Port and other agency funding, and crowd-sourced monies. Some have been grass roots efforts with large amounts of donated time, others have been major civic projects that have created economic benefits for the region. Costs to be considered include artist fees, artist/staff travel and accommodation; administrative costs for organizing agency, materials and installation costs. Documenting the project installation is a cost that may be desirable. If art requires curation, there are ongoing costs for new content and administration. Other possible, variable costs include insurance, permitting, and a public engagement process.

ORDER OF MAGNITUDE COSTING FOR VARIOUS ART APPROACHES The following is an order of magnitude look at costs by approach to art for planning purposes. Artists fees, management fees and costs for public process are not included, but would be required regardless of the approach to art. As a rule of thumb, artists fees are typically about 20% of the total budget. Management and oversight of the selection process would likely be about 10% of the project cost. Public process costs vary dramatically, but because of the high visibility of the site, and the expectation of public process in Seattle, this cost could be significant. The public process, if done well, can be a beneficial part of community building and connection to the arts and the waterfront.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 75

LIGHTING: SIMPLE

PAINT

Equipment:

Painting equipment; lift

Equipment:

Flood lights, gel (like at McCaw Hall)

Infrastructure: Water source, power (or generator)

Infrastructure: Power, waterproof housing for lights

Art:

Paint and related items (brushes, cleanup etc)

Simple, static projection or maybe simple control system

Maintenance/Operation: Similar projects Lighting equipment often specify project ongoing power duration; would need and maintenance. repainting at end of Artwork changeable project. over time. Relatively Inexpensive: Maintenance:

Allow $300,000 • Oklahoma $330,000 for 12,800 sf1 • Vancouver $126,000 for 23,500 sf, no artist fees2

1 http://okc.net/2013/05/08/silo-art-project-okc-kickstart/) 2 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/25/ granville-island-vancouver-biennale_n_5711535.html

Inexpensive:

Allow $100,000

76 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

BANNERS

Equipment:

LIGHTING: ICONIC, WITH SOUND

Lift

Infrastructure: Physical attachments to the silos Art:

Banner material (fabric or vinyl)

Relatively Inexpensive:

Allow $300,000

Could be Film/Video Loop, Digital, or Electronic Equipment:

Infrastructure: Power, waterproof housing for lights, connections, computer controls, wi-fi On-going curation and organization to support changing art. Art:

Pressure washer and related equipment; lift

Infrastructure: Water source, power (or generator) Art:

Stencil, likely created by graphic software

Maintenance/Operation:

Reverse graffiti has a limited lifespan

Relatively inexpensive:

3-D mapping; animated, film

Maintenance/Operation:

REVERSE GRAFFITI

Equipment:

Lighting fixtures, speakers, computers

Allow $200,000

On-going curation and organization to support changing art.

Expensive:

Allow $3 million

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 77

COSTS FOR MODEL PROJECTS

NORTHAM, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

We include cost parameters for several relevant completed projects. Costs are not always “apples to apples” comparisons, and factors may vary between these model projects and Pier 86. However, they are helpful in understanding the range of costs. The mural projects are relatively inexpensive compared to the major lighting shows, especially at the scale of Buffalo and Quebec City.

Painted mural 45,900 sf of painted surface. Cost: $86,000 USD.

VANCOUVER, GRANVILLE ISLAND

Painted mural Cost: $126,000 (paint $46,000) Partly crowd-funded. $70,335 raised through indiegogo; well over their $20,000 goal. 463 people contributed. VANCOUVER, GRANVILLE ISLAND

Freestanding sculpture, Oceancommotion Cost: $300,000 Freestanding sculptures could be placed in the park between the facility and the water. This relevant example (photo page 61) is a 12’ x 8’ x 5’ piece in front of the painted silos in Vancouver. OKLAHOMA CITY

Painted mural Cost: Approximately $300,000. Note that all labor, paint and equipment were donated. Large portions of the actual remaining costs were raised by Kickstarter (over $18,000); Oklahoma City ($10,000); and other art and equipment partners.

SAN FRANCISCO, BAYVIEW RISING

Mural and Lighting 23,500 sf Cost: $250,000, through the Port’s Southern Waterfront Beautification funds. QUEBEC CITY

Nightly light and sound show on working grain silos. Cost: $3.1 million project. Required hundreds of hours for programming; 25 projectors in towers along the waterfront, over 300 speakers. Shows change.1 BUFFALO, NEW YORK

Light show, permanent, no sound; non-working Cost: $2.9 million First part of a more ambitious long term $20 million project. Funded by the waterfront agency, Erie Canal Harbor Development Corporation. Silos used for art gatherings, theater performances with crowds in the thousands. Art is intended to enliven the waterfront.2

1 http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo/ flourish-of-colors-and-patterns-on-grain-elevatorbrightens-canalside-20151102 2 http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/ downtown-waterfront/connecting-terminal-grainelevator-will-provide-canvas-for-waterfront-light-showin-2015-20140811

78 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Economic Benefits of Public Art It should also be noted that there is another side to the equation, with economic benefits attributed to relevant large scale public art. These economic benefits are not always easy to determine, but public art, and larger scale or coordinated public art zones, can benefit both local citizens and create economic benefits. “Two-thirds (65%) of American adult travelers say they included a cultural, arts, heritage, or historic activity or event while on a trip of 50 miles or more, one-way, in the past year. This equates to 92.7 million cultural travelers.” Travel Industry Association of America http://www.pps.org/blog/how-art-economically-benefitscities/

79 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Photos from Public Meeting #1

80 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

NEXT STEPS START WITH PERMISSION TO PROCEED

Because the Port is the owner of Pier 86, it is critical to have the authorization of the Port for the project to move ahead with a resolution. The Port will also need to, at a minimum, allocate staff time to support the efforts involved in the next steps and coordinate with the terminal operator, Louis Dreyfus. DEFINE THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE TO MOVE AHEAD

For art to be a reality on Pier 86, there will need to be a management structure to select an artist team and lead the subsequent effort to fund and install the art. One scenario would be to procure project management services through an organization that specializes in arts management. Those services would include writing the call for artists, leading the selection process and acting as a liaison between the Port, citizen’s advisory group and other stakeholders. Another option would be for the Port to take ownership of the effort through their professional art curatorial staff. The Port has expertise in public art administration and implementation, with

good examples at quite large scale at Sea Tac Airport. A committee of citizens/neighbors could be involved in advocacy and possibly fund raising. This group could include representatives of the nearby neighborhood groups, labor, businesses, arts organizations, City and Port staff. It could be a continuation of the Friends of Art on Pier 86 group, with membership that will cover all the necessary representation. This group may also handle future programming, stewardship and promotion as a “Friends of ” group. NARROW THE OPTIONS TO THE MOST FEASIBLE

While there are many intriguing locations for incorporating art at Pier 86, some locations are more challenging in terms of permitting, impact on operations, and relationship to existing structures. Narrowing the potential locations to the easiest and least controversial will make a smoother and more feasible process going forward. The same is true of the approaches to art. Those with the little or no impact on the facilities will be more acceptable to the Port and the terminal operator. Note that over time, with success of any initial work, it may be possible to reconsider more ambitious locations and art approaches. • From a permitting perspective, this study recommends eliminating the

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 81

area over the water as a location for art. Water quality issues may require complicated permitting from multiple local, State and Federal agencies which would entail cost, time and a level of persistence that would not be necessary in other locations. • From the Port perspective, this study notes that it will be easiest if the project narrows the initial approaches to art to those that do not impact on the structures and operation of the facility. CREATE CRITERIA THAT WILL GUIDE THE ART APPROACH

One of the challenges of determining the feasibility of art on Pier 86 is the “chicken or egg” nature of decisions--how do we know if we are supportive of the art before we know what the art is? The study found directions that generated public enthusiasm, and issues where the public expressed concerns. The organizing entity could put together a set of criteria to guide the direction of art, using the criteria suggested in the Feasibility Report as a starting point. • The study recommends creating a set of criteria that narrows the focus of proposed art to approaches that highlight the connections to people, place and history, and avoid impacts to localized neighbors. result in the highest caliber, place-appropriate art.

Photos from Public Meeting #2 Top: Richard Beckerman, COO Seattle Art Museum & Barrie Mowatt, President Vancouver Biennale

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 82

STRUCTURE A THOUGHTFUL AND TRANSPARENT PUBLIC PROCESS

THINK AHEAD TO LONGER TERM FUNDING

Success for art on Pier 86 would include structuring a public process for artist and art selection that would create enthusiasm, dispel concerns and result in the highest caliber, place-appropriate art.

Look for possible grants that could be potential sources for implementation such as Bloomberg; Our Town; Southwest Airlines, and ArtsPlace.

• Because potential art is highly visible and large scale, the process for selecting the art must inspire confidence in the quality and appropriateness of the installation. To this end, this study recommends that a process be devised that will select not just an artist (or artists), but will also include proposals that can be publicly visible, and vetted by stakeholders prior to implementation. The recommended approach would have a call for artists, that would select a short list of artists who would receive honoraria to produce proposals public to view. FIND SEED FUNDING

Funding will be required for a next phase. A potentially fruitful step would be to find funding for arts management services for a process that would select a limited number of artists that would receive an honorarium to create proposals for art at Pier 86. Seed funding for this phase could come from a combination of the Port, grant funding, private funds or even crowd funds.

Private businesses are a potential source of funding, especially those nearby, or with a commitment to the region. In addition to adjoining the Centennial Park, the grain terminal is adjacent (to the north) to a large corporate campus soon to be occupied by Expedia Corporation. Expedia has announced ambitious plans for a major phased development that will transform the campus both physically and visually. Announced goals include enhancing campus open space and the public pedestrian pathway. Certainly, Expedia’s integration into the north end of Elliott Bay includes an opportunity to add to the art, landscape and quality of the public connections of trails along the waterfront. The impending redevelopment just to the north of the grain terminal adds to the urgency of artistically reshaping Seattle’s waterfront. Other local companies to ask may include Amazon, Boeing, Microsoft, and Google. There may also be interest from non-profit organizations and upcoming activities. The Centennial of the Lake Washington Ship Canal project has been mentioned as a possibility.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 83

Photos from Public Meeting #2 Top Left: Betty Winfield and Port Commissioner Stephanie Bowman Top Right: Lisa Herbold, Seattle City Council

84 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

Public art is available to everyone, a democratic and shared representation of place and values.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 85

APPENDIX

Photo opposite: Lesley Bain

86 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX: PIER 86 ART INSTALLATION ENTITLEMENT REVIEW

PIER 86 ART INSTALLATION ENTITLEMENT REVIEW 25 November 2015

EXISTING CONDITIONS Property Owner:

Port of Seattle

Terminal Operator:

Louis Dreyfus Corporation

Construction Complete: 1970 Site:

16 acres, paved and fenced. Bins:

68 Bins (Silos): Concrete, 4 bins deep, by 17 wide, 130’ high, 28’ diameter;

hold 54,000 bushels each. Concrete construction with steel reinforcing; internal pilasters Storage Gallery:

Conveyor above Bins: Steel structure and trusses, 222’ above grade

Workhouse:

Structure to the south of Bins: Cement Plaster, 232’ above grade

Transfer Gallery:

Conveyor to Pier 86: Steel structure, 222’ above grade, 186’ above Pier 86

Pier 86:

1,400 foot length, with dolphins (pilings).

ZONING & SHORELINES REGULATIONS Zoning:

IC-45, 45’ height limit with a special exception to 65’ per the Seattle Land Use Code’. Assume Pier 86 Grain Terminal is non-conforming as to height and cannot be expanded

Uses

Agricultural Storage Assume art is accessory to the primary function of Pier 86 Grain Terminal

Height Limits:

45’ height limit with a special exception to 65’ per the Seattle Land Use Code’. Assume Pier 86 Grain Terminal is non-conforming as to height and current height cannot be exceeded

Setbacks:

No setbacks required in IC-45 zone

Shoreline District;

UI (Urban Industrial) district per the Seattle Shoreline Master Program. Site is considered uplands due to presence of Myrtle Edwards trail extension.

Shoreline regulations: Applicable to any structure or construction within 200 ft of the shoreline over approximately $6,000 in value. Per 1971 site plan and Google Earth, most of the Pier 86 Grain Terminal, including the Bins and the Workhouse, appears to be outside the Shoreline District 200’ setback. Only the Shops and Office/Lab (as well as the Transfer Gallery and the Pier itself, of course) appear to be within the Shorelines District.

JOHNSON ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 87

APPENDIX: PIER 86 ART INSTALLATION ENTITLEMENT REVIEW Shorelines height :

35 feet, with exceptions for the function of water-dependent uses or the servicing of vessels. Director may authorize up to 55 feet in the Ballard/Interbay Northend Manufacturing and Industrial Center based on criteria in 23.60A.486.B.2. Assume 35’ height limit for any freestanding art in Shorelines area

Shorelines Setbacks:

60 feet from Ordinary Mean High Water (OMHW) for uses that are not waterdependent or water-related with some exceptions for water-dependent uses 23.60A.486.B.2. Assume 60’ setback from water’s edge for any freestanding art

View corridors:

Measured from Elliott Ave. W. and are a minimum of 35% of the width of the lot, unless water-related uses occupy more than 50% of the dry land area of the lot. Assume no infringement of view corridors

NOISE Exterior sound level limits. Industrial to Industrial property: 70 dB(A). The allowable noise level where residences are receiving properties is reduced by 10 dB(A) between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. (Seattle Land Use Code Section 25,08.410-420)

LIGHT AND GLARE Exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent uses. Direct light source should not be visible above the horizontal. Interior lighting in parking garages shall be shielded, to minimize nighttime glare affecting nearby uses. Exterior lighting on poles shall be permitted up to a maximum height of thirty (30) feet from finished grade. In MR/RC and HR/RC zones, exterior lighting on poles shall be permitted up to a height of forty (40) feet from finished grade, provided that ratio of watts to area is at least twenty (20) percent below the maximum exterior lighting level permitted by the Energy Code (Seattle Land Use Code Section 23.46.020 )

SIGN REGULATIONS It is unlikely that any art project at Pier 86 would be considered a sign if there is not an incorporated commercial message. Definitions—23.84A.036 Sign" means any medium, including structural and component parts, that is used or intended to be used to attract attention to the subject matter for advertising, identification or informative purposes.

SEPA Lead Agency:

SEPA thresholds are established by Seattle regulations. Port of Seattle is the likely lead agency for environmental review under SEPA.

Construction Impacts: Construction impacts reviewed separately from long-term impacts Earthwork:

Maximum of 500 Cubic Yards of grading allowed below SEPA threshold.

Storm Water:

Applicable if work is done within 200 feet of the shoreline. Direct discharge of surface runoff acceptable after bio-filtration

JOHNSON ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING

88 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX: PIER 86 ART INSTALLATION ENTITLEMENT REVIEW Animals:

Note any impact on water birds, eagles, heron, and fish. Could art enhance habitat?

Energy and Natural Resources: Some energy required for lights. Possibility for solar or wind generation? Environmental Health: Any potential health hazards Noise:

SEE ABOVE. Sound art would need to indicate type, level, and hours.

Land and Shoreline Use: Need to be compatible with land use and shoreline regulations Housing:

N/A

Aesthetic:

Consideration of views from public locations that might be altered or obstructed

Light & Glare:

SEE ABOVE. Light will be reviewed through SEPA. What type of light would proposal produce? What time of day? Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?

Recreation:

Consideration of any recreational resources that might be altered or affected.

Historic and cultural preservation:

The buildings are 45 years old as of this year, but unlikely to be designated as landmarks.

Transportation: Likely not applicable Public services: Likely not applicable Utilities: Likely not applicable

SEATTLE BUILDING CODE 2012 SBC applies. Chapter 1 Section 106 Building Permits Required. All construction to comply with Code whether or not permit is required. 106.2.1 Minor repairs may be exempted from permits as determined by building official. This section uses cost of $6,000, but notes that the minor repair exception is determined by building official. Assume that painting and roofing are typically excluded from permitting requirements Chapter 2 Definitions Art—There is no definition of “Art” in the IBC or SBC. (One would hope not!) Chapter 3 Uses U, Agricultural Building Chapter 7 Types of Construction Assume noncombustible construction. Assume new construction/attachments would need to be noncombustible.

JOHNSON ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 89

APPENDIX: PIER 86 ART INSTALLATION ENTITLEMENT REVIEW Chapter 16 Structural Design Applies to any attachments to buildings, free-standing vertical elements and/or overhanging public rights of way. Signs Seattle makes a distinction between art and murals on buildings and signs. Seattle’s zoning code notes that signs are regulated by the provisions of Chapter 32 of the Building Code, Title 22, This provision covers encroachments into the public right of way. Note that the BNRR tracks run in Alaskan Way, which is a public R.O.W. and the Myrtle Edwards/Elliott Bay park and trail is considered a public R.O.W. under certain circumstances.

SEATTLE ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE Under the Seattle energy code, electrical usage is limited by calculation of watts per square foot for the entire facility. The trigger for the amount of additional lighting to trigger energy code compliance would be a calculation based on current usage rates.

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (TSA) Work on an art installation could require approval under current TSA regulations. These include: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT) seeks to safeguard the world's trade industry from terrorists, maintaining the economic health of the U.S. and its neighbors. The partnership develops and adopts measures that add security but do not have a chilling effect on trade, a difficult balancing act. The Pier is a Transportation Worker Identification Credential facility, also known as TWIC, TWIC is required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act for workers who need access to secure areas of the nation’s maritime facilities and vessels. TSA conducts a background check to determine a person’s eligibility and issues the credential. U.S. citizens and immigrants in certain immigration categories may apply for the credential. Most mariners licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard also require a credential.

JOHNSON ARCHITECTURE + PLANNING

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 90

APPENDIX: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT WORK DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LA 302 / WINTER 2015 TERMINAL 86 ILLUMINATED CONCEPTUAL DANIEL WINTERBOTTOM AND LUANN SMITH, INSTRUCTORS

DIAGRAM

An interactive icon that celebrates the natural, urban & industrial landscape of Seattle.

AryunaPoselenova KasiaKeeley Liang Huang

Andrew Prindle, Jena Gerry, MarizolPark

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 91

APPENDIX: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT WORK DEPARTMENT OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LA 302 / WINTER 2015 DANIEL WINTERBOTTOM AND LUANN SMITH, INSTRUCTORS Aaron Beattie Thuong Nguyen Louie Cocci

Perspective looking west toward Puget Sound Dominique Alviar Evan Boyd Marta Olson

NIGHT PROJECTION link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZwS-N0_j7E#t=163

Looking southeast from the waterfront

YutongZhu Hayden Tauscher Rich Freitas

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 92

APPENDIX: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STUDENT WORK DEPARTMENT OF ART / ART 304/FALL 2014 PROFESSOR REBECCA CUMMINS Tonya Hewitt “Elliot Bay”

Jessica Taylor “Elliot Bay”

93 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: MAGNOLIA COMMUNITY COUNCIL

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 94

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: BELLTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 95

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: QUEEN ANNE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

QUEEN ANNE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1818 1st Avenue W Seattle, WA 98119 March 8, 2016

Mr. John Creighton President, Port of Seattle Commission Pier 69 P.O. Box 1209 Seattle, WA 98111 Dear Mr. Creighton: The Queen Anne Community Council has been briefed on and discussed the draft feasibility study concerning adding public art at the grain terminal at Pier 86. Pending a specific art proposal, the Council has not taken a position for or against, but based on our discussions, Council members have strong opinions on the matter. First and foremost, the Council finds that cosmetic maintenance of the industrial facility including beautification is long overdue. The exterior has not been washed or painted in 45 years. Metal panels visible to the public show extensive rust. We understand from the feasibility study that under its lease with the port, Louis Dreyfus Co. is directly responsible for maintenance of the site including the structures. Our primary position is for the grain terminal to be maintained at a standard that protects the facility and integrates it into the landscape of our community. Second, from our perspective-neighbors as represented by the Community Council-the grain terminal is an integral part of our community. It is also an integral part of Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s waterfront which is being revitalized, with art, in important ways. Major art installations have been installed nearby at the Sculpture Park and in Myrtle Edwards Park; the Lake to Bay Trail will include public art; and, there is an extensive art plan for Seattleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new central waterfront. In our view, the Port has a duty to be a good neighbor and that includes maintaining and even beautifying those portions of the grain terminal that are part and parcel of the Seattle waterfront. The grain terminal sits astride a heavily used park facility and is adjacent and within sight of major public art installations and upland Queen Anne residential neighborhoods. The City is investing heavily in beautifying the area as part of improving mobility, tourism and economic devilment and the port needs to do its part as well to help create and establish an iconic public waterfront. Fortunately, the Port of Seattle has extensive experience with public art at the airport and even elsewhere along the waterfront. The maintenance and beautification that we advocate

would be a shift in emphasis (and possibly resource allocation). It would not be an entirely new endeavor.

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 96

Third, the Council finds that art done right can add to the community and may even become a new civic icon near a rapidly growing section of the city. Conversely, art that does not integrate well with the site or the neighborhood can become a public nuisance. Public art can be large scale or small. The installation can be permanent or temporary. The Community Council supports the findings in the feasibility study that public art at the grain terminal should: · · · ·

Become a positive, defining element of the northern waterfront; Be conceived as part of the larger thinking about art alone the waterfront; Strengthen the presence of the tradition of Seattle’s working waterfront; Not hinder the industrial operations at the grain terminal.

Because some Queen Anne residents look directly at the facility, art that tends towards the subtle or art that is temporal in nature is more likely to garner community interest and support. In particular, glare, noise and garishness will be the primary concerns. We urge that the professional art staff at the Port of Seattle keep these concerns in mind—and also that the Port Commission resolve to work with our Council, and other neighborhood groups, along the way. We further propose that when and if a project-specific proposal is made, the lead agent should make and publish a “threshold” environmental determination of the proposed project environmental impact on the affected physical and aesthetic environments of its neighbors. Sincerely, Ellen Monrad Chair, Queen Anne Community Council CC: Port Commissioners Tom Albro, Stephanie Bowman, John Creighton, Fred Felleman, Courtney Gregoire Port staff: Ted Fick, Lindsay Wolpat, Rosis Courtney, Lindsay Pulsifer NAC members City Council: Sally Bagshaw, Lisa Herbold FAP86: Betty Winfield Ed Pottharst

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 97

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: BELLTOWN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

belltown community council March 21, 2016 Betty Winfield, Chair Friends of Art on Pier 86 81 Clay Street, #324 Seattle, WA 98121 Dear Ms. Winfield and Friends of Art on Pier 86:

The Belltown Community Council appreciated your presentation last month on the Pier 86 proposed art project and its feasibility study. We were very impressed with the depth of the study and the understanding of all impacts on our community. We were especially pleased with the significant outreach undertaken by the project team.

The Belltown Community Council is pleased to support the project and continued study of potential artistic development of the Pier 86 site. Art is a critical to the fabric of any community and this project will be a positive addition to Belltown and the Greater Seattle area.

Sincerely.

Dean McColgan President Belltown Community Council

cc:

Port Commissioner Tom Albro

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 98

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: UPTOWN ALLIANCE

Uptown Alliance March 10, 2016 Betty Winfield, Chair Friends of Art on Pier 86 81 Clay Street, #324 Seattle, WA 98121 Dear Ms. Winfield and Friends of Art on Pier 86: The Uptown Alliance is pleased to submit this letter of support for the study of potential artistic treatments of the industrial structures at Pier 86. The Uptown Alliance has long been a supporter of better connecting our community to the waterfront, and we believe that this project has the potential to extend the arts and culture identity of the Uptown neighborhood to Pier 86 and the waterfront. This project would also expand the presence of public art on the waterfront further north from the Olympic Sculpture Park and would strengthen the conceptual framework for civic art that has been advanced as part of the Lake2Bay design effort. As you know, the Uptown Alliance has been pursuing the formal designation of Uptown as an Arts and Culture District through the City’s Office of Arts and Culture. This effort builds upon one of the primary themes that arose from our Urban Design Framework process, which was to enhance and celebrate Uptown’s Arts and Culture identity. We hope that any artful treatment of the Pier 86 terminal can help to complement that vision. It is important to the Uptown Alliance that the Pier 86 facility remains an operable and fully-functioning part of Seattle’s working waterfront heritage. Any art treatment of the facility should enhance its working environment, identity, and image. We echo the design team’s findings that the community is interested in art that is placebased and that can heighten the presence of our working waterfront. The Uptown Alliance supports the broad community outreach that FAP86 has undertaken as part of the feasibility study, and we urge them to continue this outreach in future phases of the project. Thank you, Katie Idziorek Co-President, Uptown Alliance katherineidziorek@gmail.com

A STEWARD OF THE QUEEN ANNE PLAN

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 99

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION

PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY / 100

APPENDIX: LETTERS FROM ORGANIZATIONS: MAGNOLIA/QUEEN ANNE DISTRICT COUNCIL

68 REI TR ILIBISAE YDUT 101 / PIER 86 ART FEASIBILITY STUDY