Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chpac-staff - [Chpac-staff] Public Art

chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Janet Kagan <jkagan AT nc.rr.com>
  • To: Frank Webb <frankwebb AT nc.rr.com>
  • Cc: 'Kate Flory' <kflory AT townofchapelhill.org>, chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Chpac-staff] Public Art
  • Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 09:07:02 -0400

Frank

This is an important point.  That said, we need to keep reminding taxpayers that the REAL cost of the artworks at TOC was as follows:

Curved Bench at Chapel Hill Transit
Total Budget: $180,000
Contribution from Town of Chapel Hill: $18,000
Contribution from State of NC: $18,000
Contribution from Federal DOT: $144,000

Wall at Chapel Hill Public Works
Total Budget: $240,000
Contribution from Town of Chapel Hill: $240,000

Total Art Budget at TOC: $258,000 not $450,000

Regarding the Downtown Initiative, please "spread the word" that RAM Development Company is responsible for the funding of all public art on Lot 5, which means that they will be contributing the one percent of the total cost of the project, whether it is $500,000, $750,000, or $850,000.  The Town is not  making a financial contribution to public art on Lot 5.

Janet




On May 7, 2007, at 8:43 AM, Frank Webb wrote:

I guess my point is not to roll anything back (we have achieved one percent) but also not to fail in requesting more by asking for too much. After all, one percent is a solid foundation. It would be better to seek 1.5 percent and get it than to ask for two percent and get nothing. A focus of criticism seems to be the TOC project that brought in $400K for art that at 2 percent would have been $800K, a figure that could persuade a lot of people to be negative. The fact is that such capital sums (on public buildings) are rare so by offering to cap the total (e.g along the lines of NYC as mentioned below), we would appear to be offering a significant concession whereas in fact it would rarely make a difference.

 


From: Janet Kagan [mailto:jkagan AT nc.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 8:31 AM
To: Frank Webb
Cc: chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org; 'Kate Flory'
Subject: Public Art

 

Frank et al

 

Thank you for this link; the bibliography is wonderful.  

 

I would caution us to be careful about limiting the amount of the percent in our ordinance.  California recently prohibited allocating more than $100,000 per public art commission, which is a dangerous precedent for the field (although local municipalities may continue to administer their ordinance as adopted.)  As noted in the Contextual Plan, there are hundreds of percent for art ordinances across America and more are being drafted every month.  It would be a pity of Chapel Hill rolled-back all the hard work we as a Commission have achieved since 2002.

 

Janet

 

 

 

 

On May 6, 2007, at 1:16 PM, Frank Webb wrote:



CHPAC

 

I hope this email reaches you all. I got the address from Kate’s email and assume it is a group list

 

Apropos our discussion yesterday about what is public art, here is a link to the Wikipedia entry. Not the final authority, no doubt, but an interesting essay nonetheless. There is an interesting paragraph on “Percent for Art” which includes a formula that might be a model for a Chapel Hill compromise. “New York City has a law that requires that no less than 1% of the first twenty million dollars, plus no less than one half of 1% of the amount exceeding twenty million dollars be allocated for art work in any public building that is owned by the city. The maximum allocation for any site is $400,000.”

 

By the way, look at the marvelous Oldenburg piece on the right

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art

 

Frank

________________________________________

Frank T. G. Webb, PhD

1-919-942 6379 tel

1-919-619 3578 cell

frankwebb AT nc.rr.com

 

_______________________________________________

Chpac-staff mailing list

 






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page