"Cities are what's going to get us out of this mess ... and what makes cities livable is art."
That was the take-home message, summarized by Cascade Land Conservancy President Gene Duvernoy, following a discussion Thursday on art and the environment at the Seattle Art Museum's Olympic Sculpture Park.
Built on nine acres of restored urban green space, the Olympic Sculpture Park was a fitting backdrop for a dialogue on shared interests between the arts community and environmentalists. Panelists including moderator and political journalist Michael Kinsley, Pacific Northwest Ballet Artistic Director Peter Boal, University of Washington College of Architecture Dean Daniel Friedman, arts and environment advocate Maggie Walker, and Northwest artist trio SuttonBeresCuller spoke about the importance of creating green space and building vibrant urban communities.
The discussion opened with Kinsley attempting to engage the panelists in a debate about how art and the environment are in fundamental conflict -- because, he explained, environmentalists want to leave the landscape as-is, while the purpose of art is to use creativity to transform that landscape -- but no one took the bait.
Instead, Walker challenged the idea that environmentalism must be anti-human, saying, "if we are really going to embrace a full sense of our place in nature ... we need to have great cities, we need to have great wooded lands, we need to have great farmlands, we need to have great buildings, and we need to steward it all."
Civic partnerships between artists, organizations, and individual citizens can play an important role in that, the SuttonBeresCuller trio added. "Art can act like a catalyst; it opens up new ways of approaching the use of space and the use of technology. And the audience cross-pollinates: artists working with environmental issues, environmental organizations or companies manufacturing those goods are working with the artists."
A perfect example of marrying the two comes in the form of SuttonBeresCuller's latest project, the Mini-Mart City Park, which will turn an abandoned gas station into a green space and art installation. And certainly the Olympic Sculpture Park itself, with its history as a toxic dump, is another great reincarnation story.
As the panel moved to a Q&A with the audience, Friedman praised the discussion for "really centraliz[ing] the importance that art has in helping us experience ... our own world."
And Walker, when asked how to make environmental stewardship less of an abstract idea, emphasized the value of the art community's involvement in the issue: "I love the fact that artists are starting to tackle this -- it's really important that they are examining this, making it accessible, and making us all aware of what the issues are."
With Kinsley's argument defeated, the panel discussion closed with parting thoughts about engaging both the arts and environmental communities in creating vibrant, livable cities. And the audience filed out the glass doors of the pavilion onto a reclaimed wasteland brought to life with beautiful works of art -- both natural and man-made.
Learning how to count to 350
This Halloween, cut flesh for the climate
Comments
View as Threaded
Delay And Deny Posted 3:59 am
19 Jul 2008
My plan calls for carving up the Olde Townes into smaller exurbs. I say "Seattle" should be at least three distinct exurbs -- North, Central and South. Each is its own "livable" suburb. Each needs its own government.
We need to free ourselves from the SuperCentrists like Bloomberg and Nickles, who impose their principles on us exurbians.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:31 am
19 Jul 2008
Actually, with most rail systems, if you compare the cost of construction and upkeep to the cost it that would be needed to construct and maintain the additional roadway needed to handle the capacity if the population didn't ride the trains, the cost is less with the rail systems.
In other words, lower taxes.
Also, not to mention the personal expense saved on gas and car maintenance, and in some cases, not having to own a vehicle at all.
Not to mention the lower taxes as a result of less public medical expenses needed due to the reduction in air pollution, and the reduction in car-related accidents and fatalities, which greatly exceed those of rail systems, even on a per-person basis.
Also, since rail systems encourage close, urban-type developments, as opposed to suburban developments, less taxpayer money is spent on increasingly lengthy roads, sewars, waterlines, electricty and other services.
It also means less coverage is required for police, fire, medical, schools and other services, thus saving money from the reduced need to build, employ, and maintain more fire stations, hospitals, police stations, schools, etc.
And businesses, residences, and retail complexes along rail lines often see increases in property values greater than their road/vehicle-only equivalents.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:11 am
20 Jul 2008
The difference being that roads work and trains don't in today's multipoint network. Yes, I can optimize a single route, but only if people are forced to live along it. The automobile provides far more downstream efficiencies and benefits by allowing for short trips, ring trips, intra-community trips that a "choo choo" doesn't allow.
It's like saying, that yes, if I were playing football, and the defense were all sitting on the sidelines, I could run 100 yards to the other end and make a touchdown. It would be the simplest and most efficient play. But is that ever the case?
Permalink
Matt G Posted 5:27 am
21 Jul 2008
If you add rail back into the equation you won't destroy this web (nobody is proposing we remove all roads), you'll just encourage density along the rail line.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:21 am
21 Jul 2008
It's not much different with roads and cars.
If no public transit exists, then you're forced to drive, even if you'd rather not.
Many people in America are essentially "forced" to drive, simply because there are no other options available to 'em in their area.
It works both ways.
The automobile provides far more downstream efficiencies and benefits by allowing for short trips, ring trips, intra-community trips that a "choo choo" doesn't allow.
Those sort of trips wouldn't be nearly as common or necessary if most of the transportation network was based on mass transit.
The reason why ring trips, intra-community trips, and short drives down to the doughnut shop are necessary are because the cities are built around a car culture.
If cars were no longer used, everything would be built closer together, within walk or bike distance of the nearest mass transit station.
Ya wouldn't need a car to go to the doughnut shop, if was just a quick drive down the street.
Permalink