THIS IS THE ARTS BLOG OF MARK WEISS.
FOR THE CAMPAIGN BLOG “MARK WEISS FOR PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL” CLICK HERE. (Or keep reading, for more info “Plastic Alto” v. “Svayambh-PA”…)
“Plastic Alto” is an arts blog, that also covers politics and policy isssues. Of the first 450 posts, 104 were in the category “Plato’s Republic” my term of things that are political. Some of those were about Palo Alto issues, while others were about street music and “Howl”, things that merely have political elements.
When I decided to run for 2012 City Council, I started a separate blog, “Svayambh-PA: Or, the New Residentialist Platform (NRP)” to sort the campaign writings from the arts writings and posts.
At first I was going to make no mention of the campaign on this blog; now I realize I would be better off trying to redirect people from here to there. Neither blog has much of a following, but “Plastic Alto” is much more popular than “Svayambh-PA”, or pops up easier in the search-engines.
I may re-post some of the 104 political articles on “Svayambh-PA”. There are also some article I’ve written for Patch and numerous posts on the comments section of Palo Alto online (the site of the Palo Alto Weekly).
My intention is to make my campaign blog the main tactic to reach voters by November 6.
Search “svayambh” and “Palo Alto” on the leading engines, or link here.
Mark Weiss, at Clear Story, on Monday, July 16, 2012, photo by Buckley Dueker (a photo of the public art piece by Mildred Howard, is on the mast head of “Svayambh-PA”; it’s pronounced SVA like “school of visual arts”, YAM like the tuber and “BH” like “Be Happy”, then PA like Palo Alto)
edit to add, October 27, 2012: For the first time ever, after three months, “Svayambh-PA: Or, The New Residentialist Platform” had more hits than “Plastic Alto”. Generally speaking, the council campaign blog so far has had about one-tenth the traffic of my general blog. So far, with 10 days left until the election, only a small fraction of potential voters have learned about my campaign via my wordpress blog, unfortunately. Although, as Ed Moore used to say, not all the cards have been dealt.
Plastic Alto with Mark Weiss 
varsity v. 27 uni:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=15328
(in august 2011 staff claimed to know nothing about the 2000 downtown theater study, and claimed that the varsity was not viable as a downtown arts venue but also, we learn a year later, arrillaga approached staff about office towers at 27 university — maccarthur park restaurant and historic building — about that same time and STAFF suggested that adding an arts component would perhaps make the public accept this more easily — the theatre element was an AFTERTHOUGHT — although the press reported it as “theatre project” — there is three times more office space than theatre in the 100-page staff report — so staff basically gave lip service to what the public says they want downtown but uses a superficial version of this to help the developer, oligarch, plutocrat and egomaniac try to foist this down our throats,)
or someone should get this sorted.
Posted by Mark Weiss, a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, 0 minutes ago
I also think its bullshit that for Tim and I you say “none” where it says “civic engagement.” I’ve worked on numerous projects over the last 35 years here in Palo Alto (or four years in San Francisco) that inform in ways my take on current Palo Alto issues.
Thirty-five years would mean dating back to Terman SITE Council and Student Body President and Student Council Award thru various projects I’ve worked on for Mayors Yeh, Espinosa, Drekmeier and Beecham — civic engagement is what I do all day long, really.
There’s about 20 things I could list under this category. Ok, “none”. Whatever.
(If you won’t print this verbatim as “bullshit” you can use the grawlix #@&^)
I DREAM OF THEATER … The looming departure of Borders Books from downtown Palo Alto has given some residents hope that the spacious venue could once again serve as a theater. The building at 456 University Ave. housed the Varsity Theatre, a single-screen movie house, between 1927 and 1994 and was converted into a retail location the year after the theater’s closure. City resident Mark Weiss, a long-time advocate of public art, wrote a letter to the City Council this week urging the council to seize the opportunity and consider bringing a new theater to downtown Palo Alto. The venue, he argued, could be a future site for a “a public hall, for entertainment, for a marketplace of ideas, for live music concerts, for live theatre, for lectures, for government outreach, for film programming and high technology showcasing, for up to 900 people at a time.” Palo Alto officials aren’t so sure. Thomas Fehrenbach, the city’s economic development manager, issued a report this week claiming that a performing arts theater for that site “has significant obstacles, especially in light of the constraints and costs of such a retrofit.” He also wrote that given the site’s “limited University Avenue frontage and large size,” it would be a “major challenge” to find a single retailer to occupy the site. The report irked Weiss and local land-use watchdog Winter Dellenbach, who publicly denounced it at this week’s City Council meeting as being filled with “unsubstantiated conclusions and odd assertions.” She particularly disputed Fehrenbach’s assertion that the site’s frontage presents an obstacle to a potential new theater. “Borders was there for 10 years. It wasn’t site failure,” Dellenbach said. “The site is just fine.”
Posted by Mark Weiss , a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, 1 hour ago
I still want to get the official story from 7th floor and 5th floor staff on whether they think they made a good faith effort to poll concert industry sources on the viability of working with the owner of 456 University to create a downtown arts venue there and how that influenced staff as they proceeded shortly thereafter to add an arts element to the 27 University discussions. Repeat: original Arrillaga proposal was for office tower only and staff suggested making this more palatable to the public with a public benefit of arts, to use Theatreworks as the patsy or poster child or alluring sideshow.
Here is some PA Weekly reporting on 456:
I DREAM OF THEATER … The looming departure of Borders Books from downtown Palo Alto has given some residents hope that the spacious venue could once again serve as a theater. The building at 456 University Ave. housed the Varsity Theatre, a single-screen movie house, between 1927 and 1994 and was converted into a retail location the year after the theater’s closure. City resident Mark Weiss, a long-time advocate of public art, wrote a letter to the City Council this week urging the council to seize the opportunity and consider bringing a new theater to downtown Palo Alto. The venue, he argued, could be a future site for a “a public hall, for entertainment, for a marketplace of ideas, for live music concerts, for live theatre, for lectures, for government outreach, for film programming and high technology showcasing, for up to 900 people at a time.” Palo Alto officials aren’t so sure. Thomas Fehrenbach, the city’s economic development manager, issued a report this week claiming that a performing arts theater for that site “has significant obstacles, especially in light of the constraints and costs of such a retrofit.” He also wrote that given the site’s “limited University Avenue frontage and large size,” it would be a “major challenge” to find a single retailer to occupy the site. The report irked Weiss and local land-use watchdog Winter Dellenbach, who publicly denounced it at this week’s City Council meeting as being filled with “unsubstantiated conclusions and odd assertions.” She particularly disputed Fehrenbach’s assertion that the site’s frontage presents an obstacle to a potential new theater. “Borders was there for 10 years. It wasn’t site failure,” Dellenbach said. “The site is just fine.”
Report Objectionable Content
Posted by Mark Weiss , a resident of the Downtown North neighborhood, 4 minutes ago
Adina Levin – could you please elaborate and or provide a source for your statement on the relative value of working versus living near public transportation.
I think $100 MM for transit improvement sounds great for people selling cement or renting jack-hammers — not sure how it benefits us or truly addresses the issues versus being pork.
Also, on the thread of bicycling (and possible pork) — albeit distinct from 27 Uni — I’d like to see an economist break down the value of the million dollar bike bridge proposed over 101 — does that save many car-trips versus carbon footprint of building the thing?
Another point of fact: there is nothing in the 100-page staff report re Arrillaga towers proposal that says in writing that he is actually required to donate the building to Stanford; in terms of planned giving and relationships between donors and institutions there are various ways to make a gift; it’s really between JA and Stanford, and then the IRS, but we should, in my opinion, try to assess this without assuming there is philanthropy involved.
Some people have suggested that maybe we can construct a monument to JA independent of this project to filter out how much of this is a swansong by a great man versus what anybody actually wants or needs. I heard it said that the height is non-negotiable, meaning JA will not agree to anything short of the 161-feet. Maybe that’s the height necessary to see 27 Uni from JA’s 100-acre estate up near Foothills Park.
I have as much problem with the process here as the proposed product, the secretiveness, the convoluted nature, the kowtowing.
Last, I think, as referenced above, it is a useful tool to figuring out what’s going on here in Palo Alto ongoing to look at how commissioners got appointed, who voted for them — you can even read the various applications on file for background, ideology, sophistication of thinking, the effort put in. And also the list of which council members are also either investors or developers themselves is interesting.
I think leadership– council, commissioners and staff — should listen to residents first and developers last — yet I sense the opposite is what’s going on.
There is a zeitgeist of people wanting change — not sure how that impacts Nov. 6 election or if things will get worse before they get better.
Lisen it turns out that City staff and maybe council was already working with John Arrillaga about his office tower proposal when they were reacting to the grass roots interest in 456 University. My understanding is that staff suggested to Arrillaga that adding an arts element — a home for Theatreworks — would make the massive 260,000 sq feet office space, 161-ft high towers – project more palatable and salable to residents. I for one definitely — when six months later the press announced the proposal — thought quite naively that if the Tower proposal fell thru that the billionaire might back the citizens initiative for 456. In actuality, it looks more like — and it is unclear how much was deliberate or coincidence — leadership was influenced by the above –as you describe — but chose to use the sentiment for their own ends and basically adverse to what people like me — many people – would want.
Some of the same staff people are working on 456 Uni, 27 Uni, Cubberley – -and whatever arts elements could potentially be involved therein.
It would be great to shed some daylight here.