chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list
List archive
- From: "Lowell Roberts" <lowellroberts AT nc.rr.com>
- To: "'Frank Webb'" <frankwebb AT nc.rr.com>, "'Janet Kagan'" <jkagan AT nc.rr.com>
- Cc: 'Kate Flory' <kflory AT townofchapelhill.org>, chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [Chpac-staff] Public Art
- Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 10:43:38 -0400
I think Frank’s point is well taken. We may well
succeed in upping the percentage by either agreeing to something less than 2%
or agreeing to phase in the 100% increase, say 1.5%, then 1.75% and finally 2%
(my preference). Holding out for all may result in nothing. I also
think we should be prepared to let the Council adopt the Plan, but delay the
percent-for-art increase into the fiscal year by triggering it to start (in
whatever form) after the appropriate ordinances are adopted. This might
allow the Council to separate plan adoption from the FY08 budget debate. I also think we need to seriously consider a cap. $800K
for a town of 50,000 is a red flag, and since public budgets are more about
politics and policy than finance, a likely trigger for defeat of the
increase. In our talks with private developers, even the most supportive
voiced doubt that they could afford 2% (or even 1% if the development budget is
big). Think about it – Greenbridge will be in the >$50 million
range – that would require at least $1 million of art. That strikes
me as a non-starter. ………………….Lowell From: chpac-staff-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:chpac-staff-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Frank Webb 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. 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 _______________________________________________ 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.