chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list
List archive
- 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] 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. 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 By the way, look at the marvelous http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_art Frank ________________________________________ Frank T. G. Webb, PhD 1-919-942 6379 tel 1-919-619 3578 cell _______________________________________________ Chpac-staff mailing list |
-
[Chpac-staff] Public Art definition,
Frank Webb, 05/06/2007
-
[Chpac-staff] Public Art,
Janet Kagan, 05/07/2007
-
Re: [Chpac-staff] Public Art,
Frank Webb, 05/07/2007
- [Chpac-staff] Public Art, Janet Kagan, 05/07/2007
-
Re: [Chpac-staff] Public Art,
Lowell Roberts, 05/07/2007
- [Chpac-staff] Public Art, Janet Kagan, 05/07/2007
-
Re: [Chpac-staff] Public Art,
Frank Webb, 05/07/2007
-
[Chpac-staff] Public Art,
Janet Kagan, 05/07/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.