So Much Attention Now on Memorial Stadium
There is yet ANOTHER Seattle Times' story on Memorial Stadium. It feels very much like full-speed ahead and I have to wonder what the hurry is.
Here's the "new" news:
- The City and the district saw "artistic renderings" LAST YEAR by a company called Populous. But both the City and district reps say, "nothing is set in stone." This "vision and feasibility study" cost $127,000 but it's not clear who paid for it.
- It didn’t hurt that Populous, a global expert in stadium architecture, designed the recent renovation of Seattle Center’s KeyArena, which reopened as Climate Pledge Arena in 2021. Climate Pledge Arena’s developer and operator, Oak View Group, is expected to submit a Memorial Stadium proposal.
- The result, which Populous presented to civic leaders in June 2022, showed a 9,400-seat stadium with room for 1,000 more spectators in premium boxes. With a rough, estimated price tag of $200 million to $250 million, the concept included expanded locker rooms and warmup areas, back-of-house concert spaces, a new SPS athletics management office, a pedestrian and bike connector along the north side of the stadium, roof canopies with solar panels and an open-space lid between the stadium and the International Fountain.
- Theoretically, there could be a triple win for SPS, Seattle Center and a
private partner, Podesta said, with SPS saving money on stadium
operations, students getting a better venue for their sports and events,
Seattle Center gaining a classy asset and a partner making some money.
SPS will only accept a proposal that works well for students, however,
and if no proposal does that, then SPS will move ahead with a basic
rebuild, Podesta said.
Several of the comments at the Times ask about why this was all being discussed last year, with the "vision" presented last year. I have my doubts about any kind of real public engagement.
Some commenters thought the stadium ridiculous for SPS students because not many people attend games. I cannot speak to the numbers but last I saw, the stadium was uncomfortable and ugly. Also, the district owns the land and its use to the students is really not up for discussion.
A couple of commenters opined about selling the land. As I read the agreement with the family that donated the land, SPS could not sell even if it wanted to.
Naturally there were questions about naming the stadium. The RFP says that the word "memorial" has to be in there. Someone did suggest the Jimi Hendrix Memorial Stadium which would tie in nicely with both Experience Music Project AND SPS as Hendrix did attend Garfield High School.
There is a new wrinkle to all of this which I'll put up a separate post for because it's kinda fascinating but here's the premise:
The stadium was built and named years BEFORE the wall came into being. So what is the "memorial?" The stadium? The wall? Or both?
Comments
...but what about SPORTS?! Let's worry about sports!!!! And stadiums!!!!
We really are an ideocracy.
When my friend's kid played, games were either played at their home field, i.e. at the school, or at another team's home field.
When is Memorial Stadium used?
Memorial Stadium is used for playoffs, in addition to smaller fields as well. ( For instance, take a look at Beaver Creek Field ).
As far as SPS sports go in general?
Go look at the Joint Use of Facilities Agreement (JUA) between the Seattle School District (SPS) and the City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Department.
SPS cannot utilize the fields it owns, and this before you factor Memorial Stadium out of the equation.
SPS would be better off if they gave Memorial Stadium to the city; it would save SPS money. That money could then be used in a myriad number of ways to improve the academic outcomes of a wider number of students on a daily basis.
What SPS should really build is a pool. Swimming lessons are going like hotcakes in this town. We need more pools. Maybe SPS could build a natatorium.
They cannot sell or give the land away. That's in the agreement when the district accepted the land. And even if they could sell, personally, I would NEVER trust SPS with that much money.
Anonymous, next time give yourself a name/moniker.
Your thought WAS the initial idea several years back. Keep the stadium but revamp it for more uses.
What SPS doesn't need is one more facility to run (and under-maintain).