Public art has its place if done correctly
In creating an exciting city, we get what we pay for
It’s easy to be against the city’s decision to spend $7.3 million on art to dress up its 13 new LRT stations. After all, as some Citizen letter writers have noted, the city’s roads are falling apart. Why spend money on art when we could spend it on asphalt?
The short answer is that we need to do more to beautify our often-drab city. Whether the LRT art blowout will do much to contribute to that goal is debatable, but the intention is correct.
Aside from the architecturally interesting major federal buildings, much of Ottawa could be fairly described as utilitarian. When it comes to the everyday things of public life, we value function over form. Our highway sound barriers, major interchanges, sidewalks, boulevards, bus shelters and public spaces are unimaginative, shabby or both.
Take highway sound barriers as an example. In Ottawa, we generally settle for a plain concrete wall or, when we really want to get wild, we add a bit of texture or even a window. Around the world, though, people are changing the shape and design of these ubiquitous barriers, bending them and building designs right into the concrete. The barriers in Phoenix, Ariz., feature Aboriginal symbols and are particularly striking.
In our city, sidewalks in themselves are a bit of a luxury and it’s perfectly all right to repair a concrete sidewalk with asphalt patches. Elsewhere, people use design and different materials to improve both form and function. Google “best streetscapes and sidewalks” to see what’s happening.
Sometimes we get it right, but it’s controversial. When the National Capital Commission replaced its ancient skate shelters with attractive new versions costing $750,000 each, there were the predictable complaints about cost. The shelters ultimately won a major international design award, they look great and they are highly functional.
Back to the LRT art. The first two things one notes about the images the city has released is that most of the pieces seem underwhelming and the prices typically range between $300,000 and $500,000. The merit and monetary worth of art is, however, highly subjective. We won’t be able to fairly evaluate the art until we see the pieces at full size in the context of the stations.
It is the stations themselves that have far greater opportunity to marry striking design and utility. The beauty should be inherent in the design, not something that you add later with a piece of art. From what one can see in the concept drawings, Ottawa architect Ritchard Brisbin has achieved that result. We will soon know for sure.
The art at the stations is meant to be complementary ornamentation that helps differentiate the stations from each other, while reflecting something about Ottawa. That’s worth attempting, even if the result proves uneven.
That said, the city policy that drives art spending doesn’t always produce a useful result. Council’s policy is that one per cent of construction costs of new projects be devoted to art. Over the last five years, this has generated $2.7 million in spending. Anything remarkable come to mind?
The effect of the policy is to disperse small, low-impact art pieces throughout the city, but only in locations where there is new spending. That doesn’t allow for a high-impact piece on a visible, central site.
As a comparison, Chicago’s reflective Cloud Gate sculpture, popularly called the Bean, is an internationally recognized tourist attraction and a magnificent work of art. It cost US$11.5 million. We bought a biggish Ottawa sign that cost $65,000. At least it’s better than a giant rubber duck.
When it comes to making our city more exciting, we only get what we pay for. The La Machine show cost $3.5 million for a four-day production. You could buy quite a bit of asphalt with that, but the show was so spectacular no one is complaining about the price.
The lesson is this: If we want our city to be more than mundane, sometimes we need to do something remarkable, even if it is a bit pricey.