Quote:
Originally Posted by casper
My point again is "Why is the transit authority spending resources on this". Yes, you can outsource things that are not core to your business. My guess is that from an engineering and safety perspective they properly managed it and from an internal financial controls perspective they probably properly managed it. Doing that would require resources being allocated to drive it. Which of the these scenarios do thing is likely:
Scenario 1 - Fully outsource.
-------------------------------
Translink contracts someone to do art. Here is the budget. Pick what ever art you like, erect the art anywhere you like, we don't care. Our engineering people who maintain the drawing for our site don't care where you put the Art or if it is reflected on their drawings or not. Our communication people don't care what you do. Permits, we don't worry about that. Our safety people are ok with brining in cranes and don't want to provide oversight for work carried out on Translink property. Our security people don't need to be engaged or aware, just go do it.
Scenario 2 - It is Managed
----------------------------
Someone at translink allocates a budget. The communication people have a say in it. The engineering people determine the impact installing a poodle on a platform will have and add it their drawings. They probably spend some time figuring out if they need a permit and what safety precautions are needed. The safety people do a hazard assessment on the installation work. The security people are engaged. Procurement people spend time administering contracts.
If Scenario 1 is true then the organisation is completely miss-managed. If Scenario 2 is true then it is well managed but is exercising poor judgment in deciding to do this project over others that impact transporation. Perhaps it is somewhere between the two. You simply can not do a project like this without consuming internal resources.
|
It is scenario 2. How is it not? I don't understand what you are getting at. And how is scenario 2 in anyway compatible with giving the space away. Translink has done pretty much all the actual work, all that needs to be done is pay the artist.
Translink is commissioning the art. It is on their property, they are responsible for it, so they pay for it.
What community group would want to raise a lot of money to have what is basically an expensive asset, on someone else's property. The insurance would be a nightmare.
What this comes down to is people didn't get the poodle. At least if you were from outside Main (I've heard a lot of Main Street residents loving it). Translink spends money on art like cars in glass cases on a wall or photographs of Canada Line construction at waterfront, and it is awesome. A poodle on a stick and translink is wasting money.
The important thing is that Art does make our city better. Art in/around stations make the station more human, more part of the community, more pleasant, and as a result, more safe.
Someone has to pay for it. It is better that the land owners who are responsible for their property and maintenance get to chose the art they think is most appropriate for their property.
You think a poodle on a stick is bad, what if Translink turned their property over and got a devil with a giant — back?
Prev
Linear Mode
