Chicago Mergers in the Arts

On Wednesday, January 19th, Lois Weisberg--Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) in Chicago--announced her retirement from the position that she has held since 1989. Mayor Richard M. Daley appointed her to the position after she had served for six years as the Executive Director of then Mayor Harold Washington's Office of Special Events (MOSE). Weisberg has been a champion for the arts playing a major role in such initiatives as the "Cows on Parade" citywide public art display, the World Music Festival, the Chicago Cultural Center, Millenium Park, and countless other projects. At the age of 85, she has decided to end her tenure with the DCA because of this month's merger between her department and MOSE. Weisberg said, "My intimate knowledge of the inner workings of (the Mayor's Office of Special Events) from the time I served as its Executive Director during the Harold Washington administration coupled with my years as Commissioner of the Department of Cultural Affairs makes it impossible for me to assume the leadership of this merged entity."

First, what's the difference between these two entities? According to the City of Chicago's website, the DCA's mission is to "promote ongoing celebration of the arts, serve the individuals and institutions who create and sustain them, and market the city’s abundant cultural resources to a worldwide audience." It offers more than 2,000 free arts events--exhibitions, performances, and programs--each year at venues throughout the city. On the other hand, MOSE "provides Chicagoans and visitors with year-round family style entertainment, by producing and promoting free festivals and city-wide holiday celebrations," such as the Taste of Chicago, the Air & Water Show, and more. While the missions of the two departments are similar, they are quite different. The DCA is more focused on initiatives that offer the public access to free public art and that preserve the city's culture. MOSE focuses on providing entertainment and tourist attractions.

So, why the merger? The merger is part of Daley's plan to eliminate costs and close a supposed $655 million budget gap. The merger has been under scrutiny, and it is apparent that Weisberg is not in favor of the change. She has also vocalized her opposition to the proposed privatization of the Taste of Chicago and other summer festivals like the Blues Festival and the Jazz Festival. The Chicago Sun-Times reported that, over the past three years, the city had lost about $7 million on these admission fee-free music festivals. In response, MOSE released a Request for Proposal for private companies to bid and make plans to privatize the festivals. Only one company submitted a bid.

Celebrate Chicago LLC is comprised of the Illinois Restaurant Association, JAM Productions, and AEG Live. Their plan proposes to charge a $20 admission fee to the Taste of Chicago as well as up to a $65 concert fee for the “big name” music acts. The festival began in 1980 and while attendees must pay for food and drinks as they wish to consume, admission to the musical acts has always been free of charge. One may assume that the biggest draw for millions of people each year, other than the food, is the free concerts. Mayor Daley is opposed to charging for the event. He thinks that the festival, which was originally focused on food, should return to that focus and move away from its most recent concentration on music. He thinks that in order to cut costs, the big name acts should be eliminated and live music should be provided by local acts.

The selection committee is reviewing Celebrate Chicago’s proposal and has not made a decision about whether or not they will accept the bid. MOSE’s Executive Director said that if the private sector could not deliver an adequate bid, the summer festivals would face huge cuts in order to save as many events as possible. So the city has a choice to make. To privatize the city’s most heavily attended events of the summer or not? How will this decision affect attendance, city support, and tourism? Will it change the quality and nature of the music we typically hear at these festivals? How will it impact the Mayor’s budget and that of the DCA/MOSE?

This policy discussion will continue under the city's new leadership come May. Mayor Daley has certainly influenced the Chicago arts and culture scene since assuming his post, but will the next Mayor prioritize the arts in the same way? Will he or she support the privatization of the Taste of Chicago and other summer festivals? Will the DCA/MSOE get the financial and human resources support it needs to continue its impact on the city? That remains to be seen.

Sources:

City's Culture Guru Leaving Amid Rift with Daley

More on the Chicago arts department Merger

Lone bid for Taste of Chicago charges admission

City of Chicago

Policy Proposal: Affordable Live/Work Housing for Artists

Artists bring vitality to a community. Their creative work infuses energy and culture into a community’s day-to-day happenings. Through their art form, artists connect people with enriching experiences. Unfortunately, all too often, artists do not earn fair financial compensation for their extraordinary artistic efforts. Many artists struggle to provide for themselves and their families. This is true in cities across the nation, including Cincinnati. Research from The Arts Ripple Effect tells us that people across the Cincinnati region believe that the arts create economic vibrancy in the area and bring people of a community together. Without the artists to provide these opportunities, we have no art.

What can Cincinnati do to support, retain, and attract artists?

My proposal: create affordable live/work housing for local artists. The project would involve renovating an abandoned or rundown building, designing spaces to accommodate an artist’s life and work, and overseeing the management of the building and tenants. The housing should be located downtown or in Over the Rhine as these areas host numerous arts and cultural organizations, giving the artists convenient access to the arts scene. Artists would be chosen to live in the housing based on household income and their contribution to the arts community.

In her study of artist housing policies in U.S. cities, Elizabeth Strom found that cities throughout the country are using artist housing policy to revitalize their neighborhoods. Other motivating factors for setting such policy include meeting the housing needs of local artists and attracting artists to the city. These cities—which range from Las Vegas to Wichita to Minneapolis—are investing in the cultural capital of their community because artists add unique value to a city. Strom writes,

“City officials gamble that these small investments will have clear ripple effects: that a few dozen artists will make these spaces less marginal and that several years or decades later, their investment in artist housing will have paid off in new, private investment in the surroundings” (375).

The coordination and financing of these housing projects usually involves many stakeholders, committees, and funding streams. Cincinnati would need to create a policy network that includes representatives from arts organizations and members of the following city divisions: the City Council, City Planning and Buildings, Community Development, Economic Development, and the Cincinnati Metropolitan Housing Authority. The city council needs to first convene these people to begin discussions and planning. At the appropriate time, the council needs to officially approve the proposal and designate city spending for the project. Generally, for projects like these, funding comes from a mix of federal, state, city, foundation, and private money.

The city could also enlist the help of Artspace, a nonprofit that has been developing live/work and commercial and studio spaces for artists since 1979. Currently, Artspace is in the preliminary stages of developing 36 units of affordable artist housing near the Central Business District of neighboring Hamilton, OH (pictures below). Through the collaboration, Artspace conducted a Artist Market Study, created to reach 7,500 artists within a 50-mile radius of Hamilton. The survey supported the need for affordable live/work space for artists and their families. As Cincinnati does fall within the 50-mile radius of Hamilton, we can postulate that a similar need may exist in Cincinnati. A partnership with Artspace would allow the project to apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credit to cut costs. The organization’s ntation of this project. Based on the costs of past Artspace projects, I would estimate that the creation of artist housing in Cincinnati would cost between $10 and $15 million.

This project would benefit not only artists but also the community at large. It will help retain and attract artists, which can help revitalize a community’s vibrancy and economy. As a city with a high-quality and diverse arts scene, Cincinnati should take this step to support its cultural capital and provide it the opportunity to grow.

Policy Proposal: Percentage for Public Art!

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.edu/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=32504&TM=38887.31

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