The fifty story "old" SeaFirst building at 1001 Fourth Avenue will soon be sold to a Texas-based developer, the Puget Sound Business Journal reports today. No big deal, another $100 million real estate deal in downtown Seattle. The important question is, will this sale imperil the celebrated Henry Moore sculpture Vertebrae - the most important work of internationally-recognized public art in Seattle since it was unveiled here over thirty years ago.

Vertebrae has long done for Seattle what, it seems, the ambitions of many community leaders could not: put Seattle "on the map" artistically. Gracing the public plaza directly across from the Rem Koolhaas' designed Seattle Public Library, it is a quiet element of what, these days, can only be called "old" Seattle.

And let's get this straight, I am NO fan of that library building - to me it is evocative of Leni Riefenstahl on a bad acid trip. Its Hippie-Nazi styling cues almost perfectly sum up the state of affairs in Seattle today.
And that's why Vertrebrae, just across the street, is important. It reminds us all what the modernist perspective can be when an element of good taste is involved. The Hines real estate group, though Texas-based, is not a stranger to these parts. They have been landlord to properties in Bellevue and Kirkland. We will be looking forward to their assurance that Vertebrae stays in place along Fourth Avenue.
Can I tell you that you cannot sell that painting in your living room?
Posted by: Righton on April 22, 2005 02:38 PMYou are obviously entitled to your own interpretation of what represents beauty, but you seem to equate "celebrated" and "recognized" with "good taste," in the case of Vertrebrae. By that definition, and like it or not, the new Central Library while not purely an art object is also in good taste as it has been both widely celebrated and recognized for its design. Personally, I really like it and hope it will serve as a symbol of our fine City for many years.
The other point, to echo Righton's post above: what happened to the defense of property rights? I have nothing against people asking for the new owner to leave the statue where it is, but under what (conservative) theory do you assert they have any such an obligation?
Posted by: Regret on April 22, 2005 04:25 PMPhhhbbbtt.... uninformed hack comments.
Posted by: bmvaughn on April 23, 2005 07:16 AM