Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Absolutely.

But do we need that art to be at a cost of 1% of a many-hundreds-of-million-dollar project?

No, we do not.

I agree with you on this one. We need to look at the art expenditure on a project by project basis. Alternately, we need to disconnect the art expenditure from the project itself. For example, the city portion of the Combined Sewage Storage Tunnel is $107 million. Will we be putting $1.07 million worth of art inside the sewage tunnel? I think not. So why does the art bought because of the LRT need to be tied to the LRT?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There was considerable public discussion on LRT washrooms in 2015. Cost was certainly a factor.

A connection to the NAC was in the original plan but dropped because of cost considerations.

The proposed Elgin LRT entrance was scrapped to save (the city claimed) $40-million.

Perhaps paring back on rooves and art wouldn't have paid that full cost, but, along with the offer of private money that the city walked away from, the real cost difference would have been quite a bit less than $30-million. And if many of the roads and paths projects associate with the LRT construction had been funded as roads and paths projects, rather than in the LRT envelope, we would have gotten even more genuinely LRT bang for the LRT buck.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I am not sure about Ontario, but Quebec has for many decades had the 1% art spending criteria for any facilities that receive provincial money. This was applied to everything from the Rapibus to the Casino de Hull/du Lac-Leamy to high schools and colleges.

It could be that even in the absence of such a prescription in Ontario, that because of what's done next door the 1% rule has imposed itself as a rule of thumb in some circles.

I honestly do not recall seeing art in the Rapibus stations, so it obviously made a big artistic impression.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Similar to what's being built, only with less pointless superstructure.

Define "pointless structure" and how you would write that as a contractual requirement.

I don't think you seem to get that OC Transpo defines the capabilities they want. The winning bidder can interpret that, however they want in their design proposals.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

On a $1.8-billion global budget? Yes, that's too much. Is there any policy basis for that 1% figure?

Standing convention? And as others have detailed here. It's not even really 1% of the total budget. It's 1% of the city's contribution. This is like budgeting for furniture when you buy a house.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Not even close. I am a big fan, for example, of shelters that truly protect passengers from all of the Ottawa weather extremes.

Unless of course they are stations or places you don't deem worthy.

The Animal Farm approach. Some passengers are more shelter worthy than others.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Some of the excess cost of architectural vanity and pretentiousness could have helped buy better shelter, whether at the infernal bus loops that OC Transpo insists are necessary at transfer stations, or elsewhere on the system.

About the only marginally valid point you have here is that OC Transpo should have had better shelter requirements. You still don't seem to get that OC Transpo does not design the look of the stations. The different bidders had different proposals.

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Fun fact: OC Transpo will almost always claim it isn't "feasible" to install a shelter at a stop when people complain that their stop doesn't have a shelter. Maybe people should start complaining that their stop doesn't have an art, and we can start building arts that double as shelters.

Fun fact: You need to learn how requirements are written for contracts and who writes and who implements them.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the art and the overbuiltness of the transitway are separate issues.

Not when you are whining about overscoping of the Transitway and citing the art as an example of overspending.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't have a problem with the art. I have a problem with setting the art budget as an arbitrary percentage of the capital budget. This forces the city to procure art because it is expensive (lots of bronze) and not because it has artistic merit or enhances the station. They could commission murals by up and coming artists and have millions left for station improvements.

We could just have kids put on finger paint everywhere too. Save millions. Let's take this approach further. Why stop with the art? Just ask for volunteers to build the stations. With a case of beer and some pizza. I am sure the quality will be just the same.

You and uhuniau don't seem to get that art installations are part of city building. Not transit. Would you be complaining if the $7 million was spent on art, but located in parks instead of in front of stations?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So why does the art bought because of the LRT need to be tied to the LRT?

It's a way of making sure that projects in the public domain end up creating somewhat aesthetically attractive places. Otherwise, we'll end up an ugly city (worse than what Ottawa already is). It's not just a policy that applies to transit. But all public buildings in the city.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I honestly do not recall seeing art in the Rapibus stations, so it obviously made a big artistic impression.

You mean stations that are bus shelters?

At least, Gatineau spends more to make everything aesthetically pleasing. Have a look at their posts, traffic lights, signage etc. It's got a common design aesthetic.

Stuff like this is actually taken seriously in Quebec:

https://www.citylab.com/design/2016/03/m...-a-new-signage-system-eventually/476163/

http://www.stm.info/en/about/discover_the_stm_its_history/art-metro

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Gatineau spends more to make everything aesthetically pleasing. Have a look at their posts, traffic lights, signage etc. It's got a common design aesthetic. By your logic, they should spend less and use plain steel posts.

We admittedly have a humongous amount of catching up to do.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We admittedly have a humongous amount of catching up to do.

I am blown away at the details that Gatineau actually looks at in their basic public infrastructure. For a city of a few 100k, it's impressive.

Ottawa is the national capital. And yet here we are arguing that 1% of just the city's contribution is too much. It's embarrassing.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am blown away at the details that Gatineau actually looks at in their basic public infrastructure. For a city of a few 100k, it's impressive.

It's pretty easy to be a City of a couple hundred thousand when you're conjoined to a larger city of more than a million. Ask Mississauga.

Gatineau's Rapibus stations are more aesthetically pleasing but they're still the same basic structure as Transitway Stations in the end.

[Truenorth00]

The 1% target for public arts is an evolving standard in most developed countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_for_Art

This is quite prevalent in the US and Europe. Canada is actually behind here.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The 1% target for public arts is an evolving standard in most developed countries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percent_for_Art

This is quite prevalent in the US and Europe. Canada is actually behind here.

The Quebec policy actually dates back to 1961.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's pretty easy to be a City of a couple hundred thousand when you're conjoined to a larger city of more than a million. Ask Mississauga.

I don't fully understand the relevancy of this comment as there is no "spillover" whatsoever at the municipal level between Ottawa and Gatineau.

Yes Gatineau benefits from being right next to the capital from "in lieu" payments for federal buildings as well as federal jobs for its residents, but this is a "Canada" advantage, not an "Ottawa" advantage, and the City of Ottawa arguably benefits even more from this stuff than Gatineau does.

In terms of city beautification unless I am mistaken Gatineau does not receive anything for city-owned property from the feds (NCC) except maybe for the short strip of Rue Laurier that is part of Confederation Boulevard.

Overall I agree our location is a blessing for the most part, but there are also downsides given that if Ottawa wasn't there, there is a lot of stuff that a more stand-alone city of 300k would normally have located within it and that we don't, and would contribute to both civic coffers, prestige, etc.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not when you are whining about overscoping of the Transitway and citing the art as an example of overspending.



We could just have kids put on finger paint everywhere too. Save millions. Let's take this approach further. Why stop with the art? Just ask for volunteers to build the stations. With a case of beer and some pizza. I am sure the quality will be just the same.

You and uhuniau don't seem to get that art installations are part of city building. Not transit. Would you be complaining if the $7 million was spent on art, but located in parks instead of in front of stations?

I didn't cite the art as an example of overspending. My art comment was in response to your comment of what better use $7 million could be spent on and I offered some suggestions.

If you think art and structural engineering are exactly the same thing then there isn't much I can say.

How is city building enhanced by attaching an arbitrary funding amount to public art? How is city building enhanced by only putting public art in places that are getting new infrastructure? 1% for art leads to mediocrity because selection committees can only choose art of a specific amount. It is the complete and total opposite of city building.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I didn't cite the art as an example of overspending.

My mistake. Your complaint was that a bit of glass was "grandiose".

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you think art and structural engineering are exactly the same thing then there isn't much I can say.

Can you backup your 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 strawman and point out where I equated art and structural engineering?

Originally Posted by acottawa

How is city building enhanced by attaching an arbitrary funding amount to public art?

How is it not?

Especially when compared to the alternative on here: no spending on public art.

Originally Posted by acottawa

How is city building enhanced by only putting public art in places that are getting new infrastructure?

There's no requirement to limit art installations to places that are getting new infrastructure. The only requirement is that any new or substantial infrastructure effort set aside 1% for some beautification through art.

Originally Posted by acottawa

1% for art leads to mediocrity because selection committees can only choose art of a specific amount.

I am sure you'd be totally supportive if the budget was 5% or 10% right? After all, you don't want mediocrity.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is the complete and total opposite of city building.

Only to people who think all public infrastructure should be a cardboard box.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

My mistake. Your complaint was that a bit of glass was "grandiose".



Can you backup your 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 strawman and point out where I equated art and structural engineering?



How is it not?

Especially when compared to the alternative on here: no spending on public art.



There's no requirement to limit art installations to places that are getting new infrastructure. The only requirement is that any new or substantial infrastructure effort set aside 1% for some beautification through art.



I am sure you'd be totally supportive if the budget was 5% or 10% right? After all, you don't want mediocrity.



Only to people who think all public infrastructure should be a cardboard box.

In most of Canada, including non-federal Ottawa, I think you could go some distance on the aesthetic public realm front while safely remaining on the good side of the ostentatious radar.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

I honestly do not recall seeing art in the Rapibus stations, so it obviously made a big artistic impression.

Because the each station has a history put in the station that tells a story about how life was in that area where the station was put in.

I do read it when I get off the bus since i find it very interesting.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Because the each station has a history put in the station that tells a story about how life was in that area where the station was put in.

I do read it when I get off the bus since i find it very interesting.

Yes we have that in all our Rapibus stations, plus actual public art in or near several of them: La Cité, Les Promenades and Montcalm spring to mind immediately, but there may be more.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

Because the each station has a history put in the station that tells a story about how life was in that area where the station was put in.

I do read it when I get off the bus since i find it very interesting.

"If we cut spending on those history panels, we could build a subway under Montreal Rd. What a waste." - Uhuniau probably....

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Can you backup your 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 strawman and point out where I equated art and structural engineering?

uh...

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Let's take this approach further. Why stop with the art? Just ask for volunteers to build the stations. With a case of beer and some pizza. I am sure the quality will be just the same.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How is it not?

Especially when compared to the alternative on here: no spending on public art.

Yes, you're absoloutly right, the only two options available to public entities building infrastructure are to spend 1% of the total cost of the project and spending zero. There are no other possible options. What a complete f***ing 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 I am for thinking they could put out an RFP, see what is proposed, and pick one that best fits the situation.