Mercerdale Park is ‘perfect place’ for MICA

Mercerdale is the kind of park that is located and optimized for gathering — and there is no better place to provide our community a tremendous cultural asset designed to bring people together to enjoy the arts, while simultaneously enjoying the park. Located adjacent to the part of the park that folks now use to gather, MICA will be a wonderful addition to the other park buildings we already have at Mercerdale.

Throughout the world, great community parks have great buildings. This is a perfect place, time and opportunity for such an addition to Mercer Island’s Mercerdale Park.

Ken Glass

Ten reasons MICA is wrong for Mercerdale

In his July 14, 2015, letter, Mr. Hill paints an incomplete picture of Mercer Island Center for the Arts’ (MICA) impact on Mercerdale Park.

First, Mr. Hill ignores the 1998 Master Plan approved by the City Council in 1998. Goal 2, c, states: “Retain publicly-owned parks and open spaces in perpetuity.”

Second, Mr. Hill states building MICA’s cultural center will eliminate “the eyesore of the derelict recycling center.” That area is “derelict” only because the city has not yet restored the parkland which previously occupied that site.

Third, Mr. Hill doesn’t indicate: A) whether MICA will pay the city to lease the parkland; and B) whether taxpayers will fund any portion of MICA’s building project if its $20 million funding goal isn’t met or if it goes over budget. (Is there a public or private building project which doesn’t go over budget?)

Fourth, Mr. Hill omits where MICA employees and theater, cultural, class and other attendees will park, if streets will be closed, if there will be parking charges, or if other alternatives have been arranged.

Fifth, Mr. Hill states, “It (MICA) will provide seniors with stimulating creative outlets and camaraderie.” That language is similar to words used prior to the Island’s Community Center’s construction. That Center still serves seniors as well as many others mentioned by Mr. Hill.

Sixth, Mr. Hill exudes, “It’s (Mercerdale Park) where we’ll stage outdoor performances and where our audiences can sit and stroll and relax.” This implies MICA will intrude well beyond the foot path of the Park. It also ignores the fact that Luther Burbank has an outdoor theater with seating as well as ample parking facilities.

Seventh, Mr. Hill claims MICA will stabilize the hillside, manage water runoff, and improve trails and stairs in the woodland behind its structure. Is this included in its $20 million budget? Or is the city, along with MICA, paying for this project in the Island’s own parkland?

Eighth, Mr. Hill mentions how MICA will fulfill Islanders’ cultural needs. Yet he cites no demographics to demonstrate that Islanders might prefer to seek cultural venues that can afford high-priced artists, entertainers, productions and events in close-by Seattle and Bellevue.

Ninth, Mr. Hill doesn’t state whether MICA and/or the city will provide public toilet facilities for Farmers Market and park users adjacent to MICA’s structure.

Tenth, on the one hand, Mr. Hill states MICA will not tread on Mercerdale Park’s foot path. Yet, if one reads Mr. Hill’s letter carefully, including Sixth above, it appears MICA’s footprint will extend well into the park.

Mercerdale Park is not New York’s huge Central Park. It is a precious, tiny gem of green relief in an increasingly dense Island center. MICA can seek other Island locations. But Mercerdale cannot. Let’s adhere to the 1998 Master Plan and “Retain publicly-owned parks and open spaces in perpetuity.”

Jean Majury