Features

In a performance straight out of Alice in Wonderland, Seagate Corporation came before the Civic Arts Commission at our February meeting to deliver a message: “We are here to show you something we do not want you to examine” and “we are asking for your approval which we assure you we do not care about.” And, as if the message were not sufficiently clear, they brought a visual aid in the form of an enormous, expensive, elaborate model of their project and its environs which was designed not to be seen. 

The model of their building, to be built on Center Street, was totally hidden from view by models of existing buildings on Allston Way and Addison Street. The architect indicated details of interest which we could not possibly see by pointing down behind a wall of tall, blank, white buildings. Befuddled, we finally had to get up from our seats and peer over the tops of the old building models to get an uncomfortable glimpse of the new building. 

And by the end of an hour and a half of different versions of the same message, the Berkeley Arts Commission approved the project 6-3.  

Seagate has applied for two extra floors over the usual five story limit as a bonus for providing a minimum of 10,000 square feet of cultural usage, in addition to the two floors they get for a percentage of low cost housing, making a total of nine floors. The role of the Arts Commission was to determine if the cultural use they offer meets the standards set down in the General Plan Policy LU-19 which defines the suitable space as” fine and performing arts facilities...regularly programmed for public events.”  

In Richard Brenneman’s fine article (“Giant Project Leaps Nimbly Over First Legal Hurdle,” Daily Planet, Feb. 27-March 1), he described the cultural use as “performance space for the Berkeley Repertory Theatre.” There is every reason for him to have come away with that impression. The project seems to provide either 12,067 square feet or 10,000 square feet to the Berkeley Rep for rehearsal and storage space in the back of the building. In order to meet the General Plan’s definition of “public events” Berkeley Rep will rent the space out 52 nights a year to other arts groups, plus they themselves will put on open rehearsals or other performances 48 times a year for a total of 100 opportunities for public access. The details will be determined by the Berkeley Rep’s schedule. One of my waggish friends suggested that it would be fair for Seagate to get the rent from the two extra floors for only 100 days a year, and the rent for the other 265 days should go to pay for a proper downtown arts center.  

We need to answer two questions.  

One is how could we have accepted this project when there are so many arts groups that need space, when there are so many artists who haven’t had a chance to build audiences, when there is such a need for a multi- purpose arts center dedicated to presenting all of the arts, sufficiently subsidized to make it truly accessible to the public? 

The other question is what to do about the city making commissions irrelevant by setting up a closed system. No public input allowed, until the project is signed sealed and about to be delivered and then—“Oh my God how can you raise questions at this late date...shades of partial birth abortion.”  

We are told that the developer has complete freedom to choose whatever group he wants to designate for the cultural usage. Then the city staff will work with him for years—in this case 32 months—to shape the proposal to fit the loosest possible interpretation of “public events.” Where does satisfying the needs of the arts community come into this equation?  

If the city isn’t there to represent us and the developer certainly isn’t, then perhaps we should turn to the Cultural Trust, a volunteer organization set up a few years ago to lobby for the arts. When any one of its members hears of a possible opportunity like this one, it could be brought to the attention of the entire group to consider what best would serve the needs of all.  

But back to the real world. At the commission meeting, Seagate offered another small gesture to meet the requirement of “public events”—125 square feet of window space for the display of art in the fire corridor leading to the rehearsal and storage space, a corridor which they point out will be open through the block to Addison Street during the day. They told us that they originally wanted to provide a street-front gallery, but city staff insisted that the city wants only high quality retail stores on street frontage.  

Whoa... over and over we are told that the arts are the economic engine of downtown. We all know what luck they’ve had in attracting interesting businesses to the area. They prefer rehearsal space to a gallery? It certainly is confusing around here.  

It’s painful to know that if the people’s interests had been honored we could be on the road to building a downtown cultural center. Twelve thousand square feet is an enormous amount of space to lose for the public benefit. We could easily have had two performance spaces and a gallery. There could be all kinds of music, discussions, dance, poetry, composer forums, exhibitions, film previews, workshops, performances by all kinds of neighborhood groups, small theater and student productions….. (Does anyone remember seeing the wonderful Berkeley High Independent Theater Production of All of Shakespeare’s Plays in 30 Minutes at the Berkeley Store Gallery years ago?) 

Anyway, our work is cut out for us. We have to define the cultural bonus better and agitate for a more open process within the city bureaucracy. We have to build a downtown art center (with one of the few opportunities for space just removed from the picture) and at the very same time we have to shift our focus away from downtown to support the neighborhoods and the schools where the bubbling up of creativity starts and is often stopped for lack of funds and encouragement.  

Bonnie Hughes is the founder of the Berkeley Store Galleries and the Berkeley Arts Festival, and is a member of the Civic Arts Commission. The views expressed her are her own and do not necessarily reflect the opinons of the other members of the commission.  

›