Seattle Center May Get Only A Minimum Facelift

Public pressure more than a year ago made clear that Seattle Center would not become a Puget Sound version of Disneyland.

Now city officials are beginning to hint that the 27-year-old Center will not become anything soon but a fixed-up, repainted version of itself, despite years of proposals, meetings and hearings and $600,000 spent on redevelopment ideas.

Simple repair and refurbishing, known as Plan A, is the least-expensive of five redevelopment options being studied by citizens and Center officials, who are preparing to publish an evaluation of the choices early next month.

Plan A would leave intact much of what is already at the Center and would cost about $44 million if done today.

Cost estimates for the four other plans being considered range from $103 million to $215 million, and several involve a major overhaul of the Center, including rerouting the monorail, building a new Center House and, in one instance, converting the entire site into a park ringed with buildings - a sort of miniature version of New York's Central Park.

Though it will be months before the mayor and City Council select a plan, the sentiment in both offices is to do little more than necessary right now to keep the Seattle Center popular.

``The momentum towards major expenditures on physical projects has been undercut by the Center's successful programs,'' said Councilman Jim Street. ``We've come to understand that programs are what makes the

Center a success, not the buildings there.''

A majority of the council echo Street's preference for the basics rather than dramatic changes at the Center.

Newly appointed Councilwoman Sue Donaldson, who won votes when she interviewed for the job by suggesting a go-slow approach at the Center, argues that the city has more pressing needs.

``To be honest,'' she said, ``I haven't reviewed all the plans. But I'm very concerned about the expense. We can develop a vision for the Center that we implement over time.

``But I put public safety, education and human services on a higher level. I would delay anything we do until we can afford it. I would be very concerned if we had to cut other services to do this.''

That kind of thinking has gained momentum on the council since the day in May 1988 when Mayor Charles Royer introduced a $335 million plan for Seattle Center developed by consultants from Walt Disney Imagineering Inc.

The Disney proposal immediately ran into resistance on the council and in the community.

Among other things, council members objected to the price tag. Citizens and groups that use the Center feared the plan would turn it into a pricey, plasticized version of Disneyland.

Out of the Disney proposal, though, came a process by which the city and citizen groups began devising a plan to renovate the Center.

Two lower-cost alternatives to the Disney plan were prepared, along with a plan to simply refurbish the aging structures.

A group of local architects and architectural students volunteered their time and came up with a fourth proposal. And Peter Staten, the architecture writer for The Weekly newspaper, came up with his own plan.

All five plans are being dissected in a series of community workshops that will lead to the release, on March 5, of a draft environmental-impact statement. The next workshop is this evening at 7:30 (see schedule).

The five plans give the mayor and council the option of doing almost anything they want with the Center.

Staten's plan, known as Alternative E, is deemed the most expensive of the proposals.

For an estimated $215 million, it calls for tearing down the Center House and Memorial Stadium, rerouting the monorail and turning the Center into 46 acres of open space surrounded by theaters, an office, retail and residential complex, a hotel, a children's complex and a family entertainment center.

Alternative D, proposed by the local architects, would leave Memorial Stadium where it is but change almost everything else.

At an estimated cost of $190 million, it calls for relocating the monorail station, turning the Center House into a conservatory and building a new Center House on Fifth Avenue North. The Fun Forest would be moved to the old Metro bus-barn site, across Fifth Avenue from the Center, to share land with a parking lot and a four-story office building.

At a cost of $187 million, Plan C would bring an air of ``heightened formality'' to Seattle Center.

Center House would stay but Memorial Stadium would disappear, giving way to an exhibition hall and performing-arts center. The plan would emphasize cultural activities and the performing arts.

Plan B is kind of a lower-cost version of Plan C. The monorail station, Center House and stadium would stay where they are but the south and west sides of the stadium would be opened up and used for other things.

Existing buildings would be renovated and two theaters would be added. The Fun Forest would be moved to the former Metro bus-barn site, which it would share with a teen dance center.

Most of those plans contain something individual City Council members want but not the affordability they want collectively.

Councilwoman Dolores Sibonga, whose Parks Committee last year agreed to study all five proposals, says there seems to be little sentiment on the council for going beyond fixing the place up.

``Whether there are changes beyond that, well, I would doubt it,'' she said.

And that is Plan A. Over five to seven years, the buildings' mechanical and electrical systems would be modernized. Barriers to the disabled would be removed, the grounds would be upgraded, curtains and roofs would be replaced and new exterior finishes would be put on all buildings.

While city officials and community activists may disagree on what Seattle Center should look like a decade from now, there seems little argument that the existing structures need repair.

Virginia Anderson, director of the Center, believes that, at the very least, the basic repairs and upgrades must be made, and that cosmetic improvements are needed just to keep the Center inviting.

Center officials also believe that despite council doubts now, it is important for the city to work on the master plan so there's a blueprint for development over the next 10 to 20 years.

``Right now we are just trying to get a consensus on a vision of what the Center should be,'' said spokeswoman Janet Pelz. ``There's no funding strategy as yet. . .

``It could take 20 years. It could take longer than anyone envisions.''

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's ahead for the Center

---------------------------

-- Tonight: Public workshop on the future of Memorial Stadium and possible sites for a new concert hall. Center House, conference room H, 7:30 p.m.

-- Feb. 13: Public workshop on financial, revenue and expense projections for the five renovation plans. Center House, conference room A, 7:30 p.m.

-- Feb. 20: Public workshop on uses for the former bus-barn site on the southeast corner of Fifth Avenue North and Mercer Street; programs for teen-agers. Conference room H, 7:30 p.m.

-- Feb. 26: Open House and informational displays of redevelop ment proposals. Conference room H, noon to 6:30 p.m.

-- March 5: Draft environmental-impact statement to be published, followed by a series of public review sessions in March. Public comment open until April 3.

-- June 1: Final impact statement due.

-- June 25: Tentative date for City Council to adopt a Seattle Center master plan.