I remember the debate on the subject. The city decided that, whatever was there, it had to be something that produced revenue, due to the economy, limited park space and city budget constraints. The public could help decide what went there, but it had something revenue producing, like a glass museum or ticket-based bumper cars fun land.
When it was up for discussion what should go there, citizens would say "We should have a free kids park there."
And a city official would say "We can't do that, because it has to be be revenue producing."
And a citizen would say "Why don't we have a free park there?"
And the city official would say, "It has to be revenue producing."
And a citizen would then say "We should have a free park for kids there."
Zoom to the end, and the city installed a Chihuly glass museum.
For those who've never been to Seattle Center, it is a beautiful huge outdoor city-owned park in downtown that contains the Space Needle, monorail, opera house, museums, basketball and soccer stadiums, restaurants, the glass museum and more. Anyone can walk around in it, and it has large green lawns and trails and fountain for free use, strolling, frisbee strolling and picnicking, but if you're going to attend the opera or eat at restaurant you have to pay. There's nothing abnormal about the Chihuly museum having a fee.
