Public Art Conference Archive—2003

Session Summary: Public Art and Private Development
Friday, June 6, 2003 2:15–5:30 p.m.

Presenters:
Eloise Damrosch, Regional Arts and Cultural Council, Portland, OR
Julie Silliman, Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Rex Gulbranson,Glendale Arts Commission, Glendale, AZ

Session Notes by Cheryl Snow, Arts Action Alliance of Clackamas County, Oregon City, OR

Overview
With facilitation by Eloise, each presenter spoke briefly about how the public art programs in their jurisdictions interact with private developers, followed by a short Q&A with the audience. Presentations occupied approximately 45 minutes total. Balance of session time was devoted to an extensive walking tour of public art and architecture inPortland’s Pearl District, narrated by Eloise.

Presentation Key Points

Rex Gulbranson
Rex presented an overview of the art in private development collection of Tempe, Arizona, 63 artworks completed since 1991 with an investment value of $3.5 million.

• Program was originally justified as a “beautification” tool, with ordinance applying to office & retail projects in excess of 50,000 square feet. The investment is derived by a formula. For 2003, the formula resulted in 36 cents per square foot.
• With any development, developers are given 4 options to comply with ordinance:
• a public art project
• a community arts program
• a cultural space/facility
• contribution to the Municipal Art Fund

Rex reported that almost all developers choose the on-site art option as they perceive art as an enhancement of their property values.

• Artist-designed site features may include building enhancements, landscape art and sculpture.
• Certificate of occupancy is dependent upon artist selection and completion of plan for integrating art into the development.
• “Tempe Beautification Awards” have become prestigious, desirable accolades (Tempe’s Academy Awards!) and now serve as useful peer-motivation tools to encourage developers’ participation.

Learn more about Tempe's program on their website http://www.tempe.gov/arts/Publicart-private.asp.

Julie Silliman

• The Los Angeles program is part of the city’s Community Redevelopment Agency and has operated in “blighted” neighborhoods for past 25 years.
• Program’s primary thrust is to enhance economic growth.
• Developers may create cultural facilities in lieu of siting public artwork.
• With on-site art, a “take-back” percentage of 40% is used for a Cultural Trust Fund within the agency. Because of LA’s density, the Trust Fund enables “spreading the wealth” to less across diverse neighborhoods.
• BUT–developer budgets are “tricky” and, among other challenges, maintenance is unresolved issue.
• Program administration challenges include: staff changes, project management, partnering with local arts organizations, “big-box” development.
• Complex permit problems add to developer lack of interest

Learn more about the CRA's program on their website http://www.crala.org/artsprogram.html.

Eloise Damrosch

• No percent-for-art requirement exists in Portland re: private development, although a floor-area ratio bonus (zoning) is a motivation tool.
• Currently working on educating planning department staff to be allies.
• Minimum developers provide is 25% with the formula, but most choose to do an on-site option instead.
• Developer is required to bring their plan (and proposed artist) to RACC’s Public Art Committee

Learn more about RACC's Floor Area Ratio Bonus Program on their website www.racc.org

To read detailed descriptions of all of the public art work seen on this tour, including project budgets and locations, read the the public art fact sheets in the public art section of the Regional Arts & Culture Council's website, www.racc.org.