In today's Seattle Times article "Grand plan to remake Seattle Center fizzles: makeover lacks money, political will; is Chihuly project next best option?", authors Emily Heffter and Susan Kelleher compare statistics on the major tourist attractions in the area. The Museum of Glass in Tacoma had 177,333 visitors in the 2008-9 fiscal year. The Space Needle, 1.5 million in 2009. The Pacific Science Center, 890,000 and the EMP/SF Museum 511,540 in 2009. Because Mayor Mike McGinn doesn't want to put a levy on the Center up to public vote, the plans cannot be seen through and a private option is the only way to go. Chihuly is said to be the only private option on the table right now. Estimates are that the Chihuly Center could draw 400,000 visitors.
Crosscut writer, Knute Berger, uses Glass Quarterly's recent info on the carbon-footprint of glassblowing to provide another reason to question the Chihuly Center proposed for the park at the base of the Space Needle. He cites an estimate of 90 hot shops "in Seattle." According to him, that would be about the equivalent carbon-emissions of 9,000 households. But this information is useless without something else to compare it to. Is that more "households" than other industries? That's like saying, "This toothpaste works 90% better." Better than what? Compared to what? I don't know the answer, maybe glassblowing is the most polluting industry in Seattle, I'm asking.
But Berger states that Seattle glassblowers are making "beautiful baubles for well-heeled collectors." Which makes all glass blowing in town a pointless endeavor anyhow and any carbon-footprint that comes of it seem like a travesty.
And that is why not just any comparison will do, what we choose to compare the carbon-footprint of glass to must be seen as a luxury good to this author. What could that be? What other "luxury goods" are manufactured in Seattle?
Everyone in the industry already knows that glass has to get more energy-efficient, if not for the environment, then simply to stay in business. But the Crosscut article questions Chihuly at the Seattle Center based on an environmental charge, and in doing so, questions all of the Seattle industry. And that is not a bad charge to make: It should be made on every industry. It is also a relevant charge, because if we're questioning the carbon footprint of the artwork, why not move on to the carbon footprint of all the tourists who will come to see the artwork? All the 1.5 million tourists who travel to see the Space Needle. All the jet fuel, the hotel laundry, the restaurant food... and tell me again, how much of Seattle's economy is based on tourism?
March 2010, Knute Berger:
"Seattle city council president Richard Conlin is reportedly enthused about the new Chihuly complex at Seattle Center, calling it an "extraordinary opportunity," but he's also the one leading the charge against carbon emissions, the ones created to make Chihuly's glass works in the first place. The proposed glass house would be a monument to what can be produced if you burn enough fossil fuel in pursuit of a kind of commercial, artistic alchemy, but symbolically at least, doesn't it rather undercut the city's green messaging?"
Berger, K. "Dale Chihuly's big footprint." Crosscut.com. March 15, 2010. http://crosscut.com/2010/03/15/mossback/19672/
No comments:
Post a Comment