Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallsy's Toupee
Any comments on this from the SSP peanut gallery?
|
i can't speak for any gallery but i can share my own thoughts as they were presented to council last year:
"
Mayor Mandel and Councilors,
Firstly, I would like to commend council and administration on pursuing policies to provide and encourage Art in Public Areas.
Having said that, I would also like to advise you that Policy Number C546 entitled “Percent for Art Private Sector” is fundamentally flawed in furthering this objective.
The City of Edmonton encourages support for the Food Bank. It doesn’t impose an industry specific 1% tax on Grocery Stores.
The City of Edmonton encourages greater use of Public Transit. It doesn’t impose an industry specific 1% tax on Automobile Dealerships.
The City of Edmonton encourages greater use of its parks and river valley. It doesn’t impose an industry specific 1% tax on Sporting Goods or Bicycle Stores and Ski Shops.
The City of Edmonton encourages literacy programs and library use. It doesn’t impose an industry specific 1% tax on Book Stores and newspapers.
I could go on but I hope the point has been made that if the City of Edmonton is prepared to consider imposing a blanket 1% tax for Public Art on the development industry, I believe that it is not to support a commendable objective but because we are an “easy target”. The City of Edmonton is the first to complain about senior levels of government downloading their responsibilities but this document could well be considered a blue print for that very practice.
Furthermore, it is also my belief that the implementation of this policy as presently drafted will not contribute to a higher quality urban environment for Edmontonians and will not further its professed goals.
The policy as presently drafted, is the third draft I have had an opportunity to review. The first draft was reviewed in July of 2008 and there were significant concerns communicated at that time in regard to what was drafted and how it would apply.
Anticipated changes to that draft were circulated in point form in April of 2009 and included some recognition of the industry’s initial concerns but these were received in point form only and while some concerns were recognized, they were as yet still unresolved.
The third draft – the one before you this morning – was only received on the 17th of August and is a large step backwards from the direction it was previously anticipated that would be taken. Instead, I had an opportunity to attend a single industry group meeting with the planning department two days ago to once again relay specific concerns with the objective, the mechanics and the lack of consultation being incorporated.
Despite that, it was apparently still decided to present the policy as currently drafted without industry support. It is a decision that displays a lack of respect that I find particularly frustrating and ironic in that the industry you have been unable to secure support from - an industry that you are proposing to impose a substantial discriminatory tax on – is the very industry that on an everyday basis year after year is probably one of the largest supporters of the arts in the City of Edmonton.
From my perspective, while this policy is intended to provide and encourage art in public areas, in many areas it will do exactly the opposite.
Firstly, there seems to be an underlying assumption that all developers have a secret printing press and that “just another 1%” is simply there for the asking. Well their proformas must look a lot different than mine. Our margins aren’t 100%. Our margins are more typically in the 8-10% range which means that 1% of construction costs (if they represent ¾ of the overall development cost) is roughly 7 – 10% of our margins, not “just another 1%”.
Secondly, the policy does not consider the importance of architecture and the choice of building materials and finishes and landscape design (both hard and soft surfaces) on our urban environment. This is a policy that will potentially see building materials and finishes compromised to save money that could well be spent on public art that would not even become part of the projects paying for it.
This is a policy that does not respective the talent and creativity and design capability of some of the continent’s most respected architects and interior designers and landscape and urban designers – it will exclude water features and fountains and public spaces and 40’ sculptured backlit building features because they were not “designed by an artist”.
This is a policy that considers the dollar value on an appraisal to be more important that the actual art being purchased.
This is a policy that fails to recognize the potential of acquiring substantial pieces of art on loan.
This is a policy that will not do what it is intended to do."
i might be able to comment on the recent executive committee presentation but despite taking the time to review previous drafts (albeit at the last minute
) and despite taking time to make a presentation to executive committee last year and despite being what just might be considered a "stakeholder", i was not part of the current resurrection of this policy. as a result, it's hard for me to comment on the current resurrection but based on what i do know i am not "displeased" with the reported result.
Prev
Linear Mode
