About once a month I check in on my alma mater of Ohio University by reading "The Post", the community newspaper of Athens, Ohio, where OU is located. Recently, I stumbled across an article on The Post's website that immediately piqued my interest. The article was discussing how two local artists had been chosen to display artwork at a new roundabout that had been constructed on Richland Avenue in Athens. But the most interesting part of this article was why these public artworks were included in this project. In 2007, the Athens City Council passed an ordinance requiring city projects costing more than $1 million to spend 1 percent of the total cost of the project on public art. So, of the $4.5 million spent on the Richland Avenue/State Rt. 682 Improvements Project, $40,000 was spent on these artworks. This got me thinking. For a city that is so richly steeped in arts opportunities, why doesn’t Cincinnati have a similar city ordinance? I think a great goal for our city would be to enact a “Percentage for Public Art” program similar to the one found in Athens, Ohio.
Thinking about how the average citizen of the city of Cincinnati would react to such a proposal, I can imagine that many would be opposed to the idea of requiring public art be included in construction projects. They may see this idea as frivolous, as their view might be that art is something personal, something that is not a priority and something that should definitely not be enforced on people by the government.
However, with the help of some of the findings of the “Ripple Effect” research done by ArtsWave, I believe that this proposal could be convincingly communicated to people through the right framing. When doing research on U.S. cities that have enacted “percentage for Public Art” ordinances, I found Raleigh, North Carolina was already describing their goals for their public art project by using language that seemed to come right off the pages of the “Ripple Effect” research report. The mission of their project was “To create and integrate diverse artworks into Raleigh's landscape in order to establish a vibrant visual environment that provides public places with civic distinction, as well as fostering meaningful connections between people and place”. Another section of the website describing Raleigh’s public art program stated: “Public art matters in Raleigh because it is an essential building block for the creation of engaging, imaginative spaces - spaces that enliven our architecture, foster shared community interactions, celebrate our unique stories and history, attract visitor interest, and inspire us to experience the world with new eyes and fresh perception”. Raleigh is doing a great job using the Ripple Effect message of vibrant and connected communities to generate support for public art, showing that this can be an effective tool for Cincinnati to use in their pursuit of a “Percentage for Public Art” program.
In my research, I found many cities that already have percentage for public art programs. A quick summary of some of the programs I found follows:
Raleigh, NC: In 2009, a city ordinance was passed setting aside one half of one percent of municipal construction funds for public art. A Public Art and Design Board was set up to oversee the projects created by this ordinance.
Palm Desert, CA: In 1986, the City of Palm Desert adopted a public art ordinance, requiring developers to place art as part of developments or pay a fee to the Art in Public Places fund. In addition, the ordinance also requires that public buildings participate in the program. The funds are used to purchase art for placement throughout the community.
Albany, CA: The Art in Public Places Ordinance requires that certain public and private construction projects either include a Public Art element or provide an in-lieu fee for public art elsewhere. Any public or private development with a construction cost greater than $300,000 must include a Public Art component equal to 1.75% of the total construction costs. If there is not a possible public space for Public Art at the project site, the development must then make a contribution equal to 1.75% of project costs to the Public Art Fund.
Austin, TX: The City of Austin has an ordinance that 2% of budgets for capital improvement projects should be allocated to commission or purchase art for that site. Austin’s Public Art Collection is found at sites such as the airport, convention center, libraries, parks, police stations, recreation centers and streetscapes.
Denver, CO: The Better Denver program incorporates public art into qualifying construction projects that are part of the Bond Program. One percent (1%) of the design and construction budget of any single City capital improvement project over $1 million must be set aside for the inclusion of art in the new project. Art can be incorporated in any variety of ways in the new project: as a standalone piece, an architectural feature, or incorporated into landscaping.
In order to make a “Percentage for Public Art” program a reality in Cincinnati, the City Council would have to work on the creation of a new city ordinance. This would require members of the Livable Communities Committee, Quality of Life Committee, Strategic Growth Committee, and Major Transportation & Infrastructure Projects Sub-Committee, as well as the Mayor and local Arts leaders. These individuals would have to work together to determine the parameters of the ordinance, including the types of construction projects that would be required to include public art, the percentage of the construction costs that would have to be set aside for public art, how the projects would be overseen and by whom, and what would qualify as “art” for the projects. The cost to this policy action for the city might be hiring someone to oversee the public art projects, with most of the costs of the project being taken on by developers that would be required to include these projects in their construction budgets.
After this policy change, I would hope that Cincinnati would be a more vibrant and exciting place to live and work. Public art in Cincinnati has proven popular before with short-term projects like the flying pigs and “Play Me I’m Yours”. Imagining a version of Cincinnati where these types of projects are a permanent fixture in locations throughout the city is thrilling and creates the hope for a city that embraces art not just in the concert halls, museums, and galleries present here.
Sources:
http://thepost.baker.ohiou.
http://www.raleighnc.gov/arts/content/CityMgrArts/Articles/publicarthistory.html
http://www.cityofpalmdesert.org/Index.aspx?page=496
http://www.albanyca.org/index.aspx?page=389
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/aipp/about.htm
http://www.denvergov.org/AbouttheProgram/tabid/PublicArtComponent/tabid/429721/Default.aspx
--Aaren Schoeny
No comments:
Post a Comment