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

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.

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.