Funding transit yields happiness

Below is my submitted written testimony to the King County Council on sustaining funding for Metro Transit. For more information, please refer to the links below

• Background on Metro Transist Funding
• Submit written testimony online

Thank you for ensuring that public testimony can be submitted online. This is quite helpful for individuals like me who cannot always attend hearings due to work and child care responsibilities. With that, I want to voice my support for sustaining Metro funding through a council vote, rather than turning it to the voters at large.

Like the majority of Metro riders, I depend on it to get to work. While I can drive, I actively make a choice not to do so. Part of this is a financial concern. Another concern is that for the environment. Most of all, I ride Metro for my own happiness. Having driven to work in previous jobs, when I am stuck in traffic, I am stressed. This was not good for interpersonal relationships with family, friends, and even my neighbors. Now, my time on the bus enables me to put aside the stresses of the day, and of traffic. I can choose to engage with my other passengers, read a book, or just relax and look out the window. No matter what I do on the bus, this helps my piece of mind and makes me a better partner, father, neighbor, friend, and resident of our great region.

The proposed cuts to Metro would dramatically limit transportation options for me, and millions of other residents. If just a fraction of them take time on Metro to have a moment of happiness, not funding Metro will lead to an overall decline in the overall well being of hundreds of thousands in the region. I encourage you to represent the residents of King County with your vote to sustain Metro funding and lead us all to a place of greater happiness for us all.

Gov2.0 needs solid product managment

During the recent Gov 2.0 Camp in Los Angeles the notion of jargon came about. I can't help but think about parallels with product management in general.

Let's say you have a product (or service) can do X, Y, Z. It's very tempting to crow about the fact that the product can do X, Y and Z. The reality of the matter is, no one cares about the product (it's not about you, it's about them). All a prospective person who encounters that product cares about is how can it help me kick ass. If it doesn't, they move on to other things.

To facilitate this process, the product manager really needs to know their audience. What are their needs, desires, stressors and the like? More specifically, what are they doing now at and how can you build from it? Think of it as basic marketing, or even basic community organizing. No matter the specific discipline, hopefully the net result is the same -- a deeper understanding of your audience.

It seems to me, government (1.0 and 2.0) is in the same boat. How does government help the average person be better at what they do? Whether it's getting on a bus, or getting a pothole fixed, everyone has a role to play in getting people into flow state of empowerment . While the initial discussion that triggered this post was about jargon, I really see this as effective product management.

Generation We -- wow!

I think this video speaks for itself.

WA school funding and property tax cap?

The Washington State Legislature passed a 1% cap on property taxes that has been signed into law. I'm wondering what impact, if any, this may have on school funding in our area?

The reason I ask is that I saw a recent video pulled together by some friends of mine on California school funding.



While we are not California, I recently learned that they too have a 1% cap on property taxes. To help offset potential revenue shortfalls, they also have a minimum $ amount for schools as well.

Things that I do not know (but probably should)…

• How will the property tax cap it impact school funding, if at all?
• Are there safeguards in place to ensure a minimal level of public school funding like the one in California?
• What role if any will Simple Majority and an all mail in ballot have on the likelihood of school levies and the like passing?

"Death and Life..." a promising start

After finishing Richard Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class, I finally got around to starting The Death and Life of Great American Cities, by Jane Jacobs. For years, I've been wanting to read this classic in urban planning, and community design. I can't believe it's taken me this long.

While it's very easy to read, regardless of one's knowledge of urban planning, I'm only about 100 pages into this book (compared to 200 pages in the latest Harry Potter book). Partly that's because every page or so in Jacobs' book has me thinking about the cities she mentions and how they function (or do not) today. I also find myself taking a closer look at the city in which I live now, in addition to all the communities (online) that I've been a part of over the years. In short, this book has really got my gears spinning when it comes to thinking about community -- and more importantly, designing for community.

Something as simple as looking closely at sidewalks, for example, has me wondering about the parallel in an online community. Where is the proverbial sidewalk in a community of developers? Is it found in a blog? On a forum? In the tags used by others? How do people associate with one another (at different levels of participation) in a way that is meaningful to them, whether they are strong ties, weak ties, or loose ties? How does a community manifested online help people acclimate to the "neighborhood" so to speak?

As I work my way through this, I'll continue to post some reflections on this great read.

mini- seattle center update

doh, i've been a bad blogger over here :( i'll post some updates shortly.

in the mean time, for all 5 or however many of my readers, if you are interested in checking out the latest on seattle center's redesign, there are some meetings this week (the first was last night) :(

i'll try to make thursday's meeting. if anyone wants to meet up, leave a comment

Be part of shaping the future of Seattle Center

during a series of community meetings, April 16 � 19. Share your ideas for the Seattle Center campus with the Century 21 Committee, a citizen group appointed by Mayor Greg Nickels to help chart the course of Seattle Center for the next 20 years. View the design possibilities inspired by input from other meetings and let us know what you think before the committee makes recommendations later this year.

Community Meetings
Monday, April 16, 7 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Rainier Community Center, 4600 38th Ave. S
www.seattle.gov/parks/centers/Rainier/directions.htm

Tuesday, April 17, 6 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Shaw Room on the Seattle Center campus
www.seattlecenter.com

Wednesday, April 18, 7 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Youngstown Cultural Arts Center, 4408 Delridge Way SW
http://youngstownarts.org/contact_us/driving_directions

Thursday, April 19, 6 p.m. - 7:30 p.m.
Greenwood Library, 8016 Greenwood Ave. N
www.spl.org/default.asp?pageID=branch_open_directions&branchID=12

more info at -- http://www.seattlecenter.com/news/detail.asp?ME_MediaNum=1026

Getting into the flow of campaigns

The year 2007 is barely two months old and we are well into the thick of things when it comes to presidential politics for 2008. With candidates announcing their intention of running, or that they are actually running just about every week, it certainly makes for interesting times. And by judging by the websites and presence online for each of these prospective candidates, we've come quite a long way from the "early days" of online fundraising a la Howard Dean. Unfortunately, it also seems that not much ahs changed with regards to people "getting it."

Recently I ran across a few posts by Zack Exley on this topic. In his first post, he talks about the role of authenticity. Specifically:

Building a “genuine relationship” with your supporter base online doesn’t mean simply writing the same boring emails, but writing them yourself. No, it means writing to your supporters from the campaign trail in the same way that you might write to your spouse (without the smoochy stuff) or to a close friend: tell them the exciting things you experienced that day, what they made you think of, a joke you heard, and what occurred to you is really at stake. Some emails could be four pages, and some could be four sentences. Maybe sometimes you should just send a picture you snapped yourself.

In another post Zack continues on this theme of writing one's own emails to would be supporters:

If you can spend six hours per day on high-dollar fundraising, you can take 15 minutes to jot out a note to your supporters.

These posts are echoed by Eve Fairbanks (via Personal Democracy Forum) where she says:

assimilating Internet tactics doesn’t mean you have to assimilate Internet culture, too

As I wade through all of this in my spare time, I am struck by the juxtaposition of reasoning for people in New Hampshire wanting to keep their early primary. Every time the Presidential election rolls around, the state of New Hampshire gears up for the onslaught of cameras and visits by Presidential hopefuls. While there is something likely to be said for the "I shook so and so's hand" the common theme conveyed by a recent ABC News report was that this hands-on, personable campaigning is the way it's supposed to be.

"It's the way politics should be," New Hampshire resident William Juch said of the onslaught. "These people should come and present themselves."

Put another way, I would suggest that this is a more authentic approach as people are able to look a candidate in the eye, talk with them face to face, and perhaps even challenge them as one would a peer. In other words, the interactions with a candidate provide a sense of feedback to those engaged in the process. Sounds a bit like flow now, doesn't it?

survey in need of usability

Kudos to the City of Seattle (and partners) for launching the Seattle Civic Engagement Project. In terms of what it's up to, so far it seems to want to broaden the outreach methods of current engagement. Specifically:

Partners are encouraged to expand their current methods of communication by creating opportunities to talk about issues with friends, family, and colleagues, to listen respectfully to their opinions and to contribute their own. Then members are asked to complete a simple web 'Opinionnaire,' designed to determine levels of agreement or disagreement around the issues. This process is not a scientific poll, but is instead an opportunity to connect with others and engage people in the important community functions of civic conversation and dialogue. The results of these surveys will be shared with partners, public officials, and the media.

You can read more about it at Seattle's Brainstorm.

This sounds pretty neat, however I have some serious usability concerns with how it's all put together. First off, the videos linked from the survey page crashed one of my computers. I tried running it on a different computer with a different OS, and it white washed the screen to launch the QuickTime app. Now granted, I'm not a guru of any kind when it comes to video integration for a website, but I don't think the experience should be jarring. Embedded videos a la YouTube, SoapBox, etc provide for a much more user friendly experience.

Aside from just the video itself, burying the links in the right column seem to de-emphasize their value. If it is important for people to review, make it easy to access. Given how many websites are designed today, things in the right nav are not always reviewed as they tend to be equated with ads. Do you really want to have valuable content associated in a space commonly associated with ad space?

In terms of the survey itself, I'm concerned that the length and organization of the survey will hinder useful information. First of all, there are eight demographic questions that do not seem to relate with the specific topic (transportation). If the questions were to end the survey early, (say if you lived in Nebraska) that would be one thing, but instead they take up way too much of the focus of a would be survey respondent. I would be curious to see what the drop out rate is for survey completion -- how many people start the survey and never finish? With eight demographic questions and at least twenty-two topic specific questions, that seems like a rather large investment of time and energy for a rather complex and polarized issue. Additionally, the issue of transportation is rather complex. It seems that the survey is intended for those who already know a fair amount of the issues at hand. If this is indeed the intention, ignore my next comment, however if people want a broad dialogue, shouldn't it be as accessible as possible for the broadest audiences? I realize that time and time again Seattle is ranked among the brightest and most literate of cities, however there's something to be said for simplicity (note to self -- follow own advice).

Though it is promising to see more and more groups embrace technology, there's a lot more that can be done. I believe that the dialogue that folks are hoping for would be better served by better utilizing blogs, video clips (three to five minutes long) and podcasts (also short in duration). Additionally, tying the content to offline dialogues (formal and informal) would likely do wonders for this initiative. A discussion board may be fruitful provided that expectations are set early on in the process. Wikis would be an interesting addition to this process, however, that is not something to take on lightly given how polarized the debate on transportation has become in the region.

Ultimately though, the means of discussion (how it's transmitted, and the messages being transmitted) really need to be relevant to those not currently involved. Who is the audience that folks are attempting to reach with this current implementation? What else competes for your audiences attention, and how are those "competitors" doing? The more information you know about your audience, the better the chances for success.

Related -- see Kathy Sierra's recent post on the intersections of marketing and learning. I would suggest that those points raised are quite apt for things of a civic nature as well.

Voting part 2

Just a quick little update from my whole ballot fiasco. Seems that my address is officially changed in the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division as I received mail from them regarding the upcoming special election regarding the viaduct. Whether or not I get my new voter registration card and ballot, we'll see.

Are you a friend of Seattle?

For those that know me, I try to be involved on a civic level best I can. Whether it's through volunteering, politics, or other civic type events, I'm just passionate about community broadly defined. That's why I'm really psyched with all of the work that some of my friends have been doing with Friends of Seattle. Here's a bit about them in their own words.

Friends of Seattle is a membership-based advocacy group whose mission is to inspire elected officials and our fellow voters to support a more urban, livable, and sustainable city. We propose policy reforms, lobby elected officials, and support political campaigns.

I had the pleasure of attending their big kickoff tonight, and it was great. With over 200 ppl in attendance, and several electeds and press, it was great to see. It's hard to believe that FoS is so new, starting up just this past year.

As exciting as it was to see so many people, what was perhaps most inspiring was that there is a tangible sense of action associated with FoS. Instead of just talking about it, here's a group of folks getting together to try and do something about it. Whether or not people agree with the issues of FoS, I think we can all take a cue from them (I know I have) to get more involved with our communities in a meaningful way. In a representative democracy, isn't that's what's needed and expected -- an active and engaged electorate?

The other amusing little thing is that I randomly overheard Councilman Steinbrueck refer to the President of Friends of Seattle, Gary Manca, as a future candidate for City Council. With Gary's welcoming remarks, all I have to say is "Run, Gary, run!" :-)

First date scenario at a new Seattle Center

One of the items I discussed with volunteers the other night at the Seattle Center public meeting specific to this first date notion, really it's the notion of allowing people to just "be" however they choose. Right now, Seattle Center seems to be primarily a place to do stuff. Whether it's seeing a show, attending an event, or the like, it does not seem to be a place that fosters the notion of just "being" present in the place at a given time. I suggested that it might be worthwhile to consider fostering this notion of just being. Also I suggested that it would be interesting to allow for all sorts of "user flows" from being to doing.

An example of one scenario for a first date at the Center would involve people who wish to see a paid performance (at the Intiman, Rep, etc). They could first go to the Center and walk through any number of interesting paths on the campus. They could stick to the pre-made paths connecting buildings, or they could forge their own path that uses some of the well-traveled ones, and some not so well travelled. Additionally, they could sit by the fountain to watch mini-Bellagioesque shows, or they could wander by the skate park to watch people perform gravity defying tricks. In actuality, there's any number of things the would be first daters could see at the Center. They don't have to "do" much, but rather it's being present with others in this shared space at the Center. If they got a little hungry or thirsty prior to the show, they could pop into any number of restaurants that meet budgets (financial or time) of all sizes. Perhaps a cafe could be at the Intiman courtyard? Afterwards, they would attend their ticketed performance. The evening at the Center could be finished off at a little desert place for coffee, munchies, or drinks where they could further engage about the performance they just saw.

Of course, this is just one way in which a "first date" could be at Seattle Center. honestly, I'm not the best to ask as it's been awhile since I've had a first date :P Others feel free to chime in.

Houses vs Homes or Seattle Center Planning v2

Phew, catching up on a few blog posts here. In addition to my whole ballot fiascoes last week, I attended another open house for Seattle Center's 21st Century planning process. This time it was held at the Langston Hughes Arts Center. It was a gorgeous building, and fewer people showed up. Perhaps it was the time of day, perhaps it was the location, regardless, it seemed like that less people were present. Admittedly I got there about 30 minutes into it but still, not as many as I would have liked to have seen.

The format was essentially the same, and I had a great discussion with several of the volunteers around the notion of fun, flow, play and games. Mostly we were talking about what makes for an engaging experience and I shared some of my thoughts with regards to how elements of good game design / flow could be applied on a wider scale to say, planning for the Seattle Center :-) We also discussed the notion of what "a first date experience" could feel like at a revamped Seattle Center. I'll get into that first date bit in another thread. For now, I just want to provide some general thoughts and reflections.

I also found it interesting that a lot of the people there (volunteers or attendees) were architects. Really it's not too surprising when much of the focus of the topic areas are on buildings such as the Center House, Key Arena, memorial Stadium, etc. The notion of open space also is quite prominent, and closely related in my opinion, to the overall notion of buildings.

While having tangible discussion points is a great way to help focus people on direct and concrete feedback, in some ways I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse. In my day to day job of being a product manager, I try not to focus on the specific implementations much, and rather, I want to ensure that the best overall experience is what is ultimately realized. By focusing on the buildings, or programs that occur in the physical spaces, it feels to me that we're diving straight to the implementation. A risk that can arise from this is having all of these great buildings/programs/open space but there isn't that really ties them together in a meaningful way. In many ways, it's the difference between a great house and a great home; a house is really just an object, but a home is a feeling. I want Seattle Center to foster great feelings.

Ok, so how does one go about that? Personally, I would start back at the goals of Seattle Center. One of the goals listed says "The nation's best gathering place." Finding out what this means to people in the region seems to be a good place to start. Where do people currently gather? People, in this case are defined as those in the target audience of Seattle Center. Likely this is a mix of people from the region as well as tourists. It would be helpful (perhaps it is already known?) to determine where they currently gather. Of course, finding out where they gather is just part of the equation. The more interesting part, in my opinion, is why they gather where they gather. Is it because it's convenient? Is it because that's where their friends are? Perhaps it's a cost thing, or maybe their options are limited so it's the default choice. Regardless, taking a closer look at how targeted audience members interpret "gathering place" within the context of their current lives will help shine light on what to build and how to get there.

Best laid plans -- a rant of voter registration

Recently Public Radio International's This American Life had a series of stories who talked about the best laid plans of individuals not turning out as they wished. I have a similar situation with regards to voting in Seattle, WA. Apologies in advance for what is in part, a rant.

Apparently for whatever reason I have not received my ballot in the mail despite trying to get it delivered to my residence. Granted, I am not really a fan of the all mail in ballot but for a whole variety of other reasons regarding work, location of polls and the like, I get it (or at least try) delivered to my residence.

On at least two different occasions, I have tried to change my mailing address, however for any number of reasons I do not seem to get my ballot in the mail. The first was several months ago where a local nonprofit was helping to register voters (in addition to helping voters who moved change their address which was my situation. ) By the time the next election showed up, I did not receive a ballot. I contacted the nonprofit and was assured that the forms were mailed in, and I was directed to call the vote hotline (206-296-VOTE). I called them and then proceeded to ensure that my mailing information was changed. Regardless, I still did not receive a ballot and I ended up going to the Board of Elections. There, I also made sure to fill out a form to verify my address was changed, and I marked myself as permanent absentee. I also received a ballot for that particular election cycle. All was good, or so I thought. Turns out, with this latest election regarding school levies, I still did not receive a ballot at home.

Thinking that it may have been delayed in the mail, I waited for a week or so. Now with the election less than a week away though, I needed to do something to ensure I vote. Just last week, I finally had the chance to go down to the Board of Elections (again) to try and sort this all out. While I had the option of calling, I personally prefer face to face interactions to address problems. Also, I was not convinced I could get resolution via the phone as that didn't seem to work in the past. Anyway, I get to their office with about 15 minutes prior to them closing, given a hectic day at work, and lack of parking around the building where the board of elections is housed. I arrive and indicate that I did not receive my ballot and I am directed to fill out a form. Instantly my guard is up given my last experience with this and I make it clear that I do not want a repeat of my prior situation (filling out a form and not getting a ballot in the next cycle.) The gentleman who is talking with me explains how that should not have happened (duh) and proceeds to investigate why that may have been the case. It turns out that following my last attempt to change my registration, my residence and method of voting should have been ok. Unfortunately, it also appeared that a voter registration card came back to them from the post office and I was then removed from permanent absentee voting. It was unclear if the voter registration card was from the last time I filled out a form at their office, or if it was from the first time I filled out the address change and the timing just overlapped. Regardless, somehow my voter registration card with my current address was returned to the board of elections and I was removed from the list of people to receive an absentee ballot. I was instructed to talk with the post office to find out why my voter registration card was not delivered. Crazy, huh?

While the gentleman at the board of elections showed me the timeline of things associated with my account, I found this a little strange that my card would be returned. First off, I haven't stopped my mail at all. Also, I live literally across the street from the post office. I see them every day arriving to work when I leave for work. I know their schedules intimately from when the trucks show up and who all drives what car. That they could not deliver a voter registration card to me seems a little strange given that I seem to get a lot of other mail -- bills, advertisements or other.

In addition to finding it strange that I was flagged not to receive an absentee ballot, I was also concerned about all of the other folks who would not necessarily (or who could not) take the time to go and talk to someone about not receiving a ballot. From my experiences working as a poll worker (in Chicago, granted) I know how the access to vote, or the perceived access, was one of many ways in which a voter could be disenfranchised. I expressed my concerns as to the overall process and the worker at the Board of Elections ( I really should have got his name) then went on to explain that I was not technically removed from the polls, but rather I would no longer receive a ballot in the mail as it was automatically done when voter registration cards were returned. He explained that was fairly common (?!) and people could still vote at their polling location. I did not know that, and was glad to learn that I was at least still registered. He also went on to explain that I would be eligible to vote on a provisional ballot. He also said I could have called all of this in and they would have attempted to get me a new ballot prior to the election. There were other specifics, but by this time, I was still stuck on the fact that this whole process was rather silly. Wanting more time to read through all of my options, and finding out the specifics, I inquired as to where I could find more information hoping that I could get a pamphlet or something. Instead, I was directed to the website, and was then also instructed that this information could be obtained via email or on the phone. After checking the website I found no mention of these alternatives.

While I appreciate all of these options (searching the web, calling the board of elections, talking to my local post office, going to the board of elections, going to my polling place, emailing, etc) I must say that this whole thing is ridiculous. Why does this election system seems so stacked against the voter? Shouldn't I be drop dead simple for a citizen of the United States to be able to vote? I was initially going to say "registered" citizen…but then I realized that act of registration is rather silly in and of itself. We all have Social Security numbers. We all pay taxes. Somehow with all of that the government is able to find us. Why can't local boards of elections then find us for the elections that happen in our area? Why do we even need to register at all?

Aside from this notion of registration, I'm also wondering about the so called benefits of vote-by-mail. Though the benefits regarding voter participation with mail in voting seem are favorable, my experiences thus far, gives me all the more reason to oppose it. Aside from decreasing the significance shared experiences for a community, any system that is this fragile -- e.g. the reg card is returned by a dependent system, voter no longer receives the ballot, and information is not readily or consistently available as to their options -- certainly seems to hinder and/or discourage people from voting. The cynic in me says this is purposeful, but I may have been watching too many episodes of the X-Files or something.

Anyway, critiquing the system of voting in and of itself will not change much. Can it be better? Of course. Ultimately though, no matter how good the system is, if people are not actually motivated or inspired to vote, we will never have the active and engaged citizenry that the Founders envisioned so many years ago. Now, if there were only more flow like principles designed into civic action :-)

Forums for a civic process -- Seattle Center

Forums for Seattle Center? This should be interesting. It's nice to see that the Forum has some starter content. I also like that there are basic guidelines posted, though I would have made the guidelines a "sticky" post in ideas forum, rather than it being a standalone post in a different forum. While we're talking about suggestions, I also would have waited on the blog post until all of the forum topics as outlined in the welcome message were live. Anyway, I could go on about community building via blogs or forums, but that is way too close to my day job :P

Tech / community strategy aside, it is encouraging to see outreach through a variety of means -- open house sessions, blogs, and now forums. I do wonder how all of this is going to work from a macro level. For example, there are meetings posted (as a pdf) on the 21st Century page of Seattle Center. This schedule lists a "Public Forum for Organizations" on January 30th. The blog, in reference to the same meeting, says that it is a proposal deadline for anyone (individuals and organizations) to submit a one page summary vision for air time with the committee. Based on the content recently posted in the Forums and on the blog post talking about the meeting, it is clear that the public meeting on the 30th was not solely for organizations as originally stated on the schedule. How does an inconsistency such as this get resolved with the venues (blogs, forums, website) present? Is there a definitive place for all of the information? Better yet, is there a way to ensure consistency of information across venues?

Something else to consider...the Forums seem to imply that they exist for capturing other ideas / summaries not already raised (in meetings or elsewhere) while having content for people to discuss. If that is the case, I'm unclear as to why there was a deadline for proposals in the first place if it would all happen online anyway. Granted, I'm not privy to any of the inner workings of the overall plan, so this may make a lot more sense than what I've seen so far.

Of course, I realize that what Seattle Center is undertaking with the blog , and now forums, is still a work in progress. While there are things I would personally change with what I've seen, ultimately I am excited that folks at the Seattle Center are bringing innovation and leadership to a new civic process for the 21st Century. I look forward to working with folks to bring about even more amazing things for all of us.

First public meeting for Seattle Center redesign

Wednesday night I attended the first public hearing for reimagining Seattle Center for the next 20 years. Though I was skeptical at first, being one of the few dozen or so folks there not affiliated with the work thus far, and not to mention me being one of the few individuals under the age of 40, I liked what I saw.

Just to recap how the public hearing was organized, when you first enter the Lopez and Fidalgo rooms at Seattle Center there is someone there to greet you as you sign in. They give you a quick overview of how the evening will proceed -- there are stations throughout the room for public comment, volunteers who have helped with the process thus far will be at each station to talk with you about your ideas, a brief presentation will occur halfway through the evening, and the overall goal is to gather as much public input as possible. Essentially this was how Collaborate! was organized, though this iteration put forward by Seattle Center seemed to take it up a notch.

At each station, Seattle Center provided a backgrounder of the topic area (transit, events, specific buildings, etc) being discussed at that station. A map of the center, with the related parts highlighted as appropriate, were presented alongside any conceptual images that may exist. In the case of a revised theater district on Mercer Street, concept images of a revamped Intiman and Reparatory theaters were presented. Additionally at each station there were questions posted on a large sheet (about 10 feet high and 4 feet wide) for people to place note cards as responses to the questions. Participants could also take a dot to voice support for an existing comment if they so chose. The questions typically followed the same pattern -- what draws you currently, what would you change, and other.

In terms of the volunteers at each station, not only were they intimately knowledgeable about the topic area at hand, but they would help flesh out suggestions from participants. Sometimes the volunteers would actually write down the ideas described by the participants themselves. While this may seem to be antithetical to the notion of having the people submit their own words into the process, from what I was able to see / overhear, the volunteers were very good at ensuring that the words captured on the cards accurately reflected the intent of the participant. This leads me to believe this method of data collection was not so much as to serve as a filter as it was to help capture the ideas of people who might not be able to write for whatever reason. To some degree this may have also been used to help standardize the handwriting so it would be easier for people to read.

All in all, I liked the event. That being said, there is always room for improvement. First and foremost, food and beverages should be available at meetings of this nature. Given the time of day (5:30 - 8:00 pm) this might help keep people engaged and alert. Also, it would be great to have (and this may be in the works already) each of the "stations" appear as separate blog posts to engage people online. Following on the theme of technology, what about having interactive kiosks with webcams and or sound recording (think podcasts) for people to give their feedback and thoughts about the work thus far? A recent PBS documentary did something similar to this. In a way it's similar to the work of StoryCorps or Densho. These means of recording (video or audio) could be something stationary or it could be more mobile to get a wider range of participants. Also, folks may want to consider posting the video footage and still pics of the event online. Using existing services like Soapbox, YouTube, Flickr or the like would be fine to help implement it quicker, and also it enables it to be spread throughout a wide variety of blogs (mine, for example, but hopefully some with more traffic -- lol)

Anyway, thanks to all the volunteers who helped last night. And thanks to all who planned the first public hearing. Even though I get the sense that the next meeting will be similar, I look forward to attending. Don't worry, I won't try to skew the data towards things I already voiced support for -- multi-seasonal amphitheater for more intimate music and entertainment performances, a farmers market, more walkable, more bikeable, transit hub, etc. Instead, I hope to have more ideas fleshed out around this notion of helping to make Seattle Center a "first date kind of place." (My thanks go out to Karen Keist who helped me think of it during our discussion of open space at the center). I should have more ideas around what this actually looks like at the next meeting.

For additional coverage, check out Seattle Center's blog, or the KOMO-TV Report

Equivalent to 18 sell-out Seahawks games

I'm reading through some backgrounder information (pdf) about revamping Seattle Center for this day and age and came across an amazing stat.

Each year serving more than three times the annual number of visitors as Safeco Field and the equivalent of 18 sell-out regular football seasons at Qwest Field, Seattle Center is the state's top attraction.

I knew it drew in lots of people, but that's pretty impressive. To me, that just underscores the importance of holistic and regional transit solutions around that area. Unfortunately, with what is currently being discussed with regards to the viaduct vs the tunnel, I'm not hopeful that a regional solutions are even on the table.

Seattle Center is blogging too!

Blogs are popping up all over the place ;-) Seattle Center is the latest to get into it. I think this is a great way of opening things up, especially as folks are focused on revamping Seattle Center.

Loosely related, on a whim some colleagues and I started talking about the notion of revamping the center for this day and age. To my surprise, I was pleased to learn that folks are talking about this right now. While it seems like I won't be actively serving on the committee (as there's been a blue ribbon group meeting for awhile already) there looks to be some options for plugging in nonetheless. Granted, the existing ways do not seem to be all that compelling in terms of really getting input into the process, however it is a start. Looks like I'll need to buckle down with folks to actually engage in a meaningful way about changes facing this civic institution.