The task force was established by the city council at its May 7, 2012 meeting, with membership to include the following: one member of the park advisory commission, one member of the planning commission, one resident representing the Water Hill neighborhood, one resident representing the North Central neighborhood, one resident from the Old Fourth Ward, one resident representing the Broadway/Pontiac neighborhood, two business and property owners from the affected area, and one member of the Huron River Watershed Council.

At its May 21 meeting, the two sponsors of the resolution that created the task force – Ward 1 councilmembers Sabra Briere and Sandi Smith – proposed adding three additional representatives: a member of the city council, someone from the boating/fishing community of river users, a representative from the Huron River Citizens Association. Tony Derezinski (Ward 2), who also serves on AAPAC, then proposed an amendment to add an AAPAC member to the task force. The AAPAC addition was passed by council on a 6-5 vote. [See Chronicle coverage: "Positions Added to North Main Task Force"] Appointments are expected to be made at the council’s June 4 meeting.

At AAPAC’s May 23 meeting, Derezinski told commissioners that “basically, we need someone at the table.”

The task force is charged with delivering a report to the city council more than a year from now – by July 31, 2013 – that describes “a vision to create/complete/enhance pedestrian and bike connection from downtown to Bandemer and Huron River Drive, increase public access to the river-side amenities of existing parks in the North Main-Huron River corridor, ease traffic congestion at Main and Depot at certain times of a day and recommend use of MichCon property at Broadway; …”

Earlier than that – by the end of 2012 – the task force is to make recommendations on the use of the city-owned 721 N. Main parcel.

Brown has served on AAPAC since early 2009, and has chaired the commission’s projects committee. She is a principal of Rizzolo Brown Studio, an Ann Arbor architecture firm.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room of city hall at 301 E. Huron, where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow.

The plan includes five objectives: (1) Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission. (2) Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (a) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (b) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (c) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (d) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (e) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (f) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). (3) By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. (4) By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission. (5) Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The plan was discussed by the commission as part of its March 28, 2012 meeting.

This brief was filed from the city council’s chambers on the second floor of city hall, located at 301 E. Huron. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

From left: Dave Konkle and Tim Jones spoke to the Ann Arbor public art commission about their Whirlydoodle project. Jones invented the device, which is on the table between them and is designed to highlight wind energy. Many others are already installed on light poles and elsewhere throughout downtown Ann Arbor. (Photos by the writer.)

Commissioners approved a $150,000 budget for artwork at the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery – called Argo Cascades. A task force recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city will issue a request for artists to submit a statement of qualification (SOQ), and from those submittals a smaller number of artists will be paid $1,000 each to submit formal proposals.

In a separate vote, commissioners approved issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. They had previously set a budget of $400,000 for that project, which potentially will incorporate multiple locations on and near the reconstructed bridges.

Several other projects were discussed at the April 25 meeting, but no formal action was taken. During public commentary, commissioners heard from Dave Konkle and Tim Jones regarding a large Whirlydoodle installation they hope to build. The devices were invented by Jones as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed – about two dozen are currently placed around the downtown area. A large-scale installation would help people to visualize wind currents and prompt a discussion about alternative energy, he said.

Konkle is the city’s former energy coordinator who now does consulting work for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as energy programs director. He told commissioners that a display of 1,000 Whirlydoodles – possible at the former landfill at Platt and Carpenter – would result in Ann Arbor having more wind generators than any other city in the world, and would bring the city national attention. The two men asked AAPAC to endorse the proposal, but commissioners did not act on it or discuss it in depth at the meeting.

They did discuss the status of a glass sculpture that AAPAC recommended for the lobby of the Justice Center, which awaits city council approval. At their April 2, 2012 meeting, councilmembers postponed a vote on the $150,000 project until their May 7 meeting, hoping to address concerns about access to the lobby. Visitors must pass through a security checkpoint to enter, and some councilmembers hope that the checkpoint can be relocated. AAPAC commissioners talked about the need to decouple the artwork approval from the broader concerns about access to the lobby, so that the art project can move forward.

During the meeting, two other potential projects were introduced: (1) an art loan program, to select work from individual artists or galleries that would be installed on city-owned property for a temporary period; and (2) a proposal to fund poles in the downtown area that would be used to hang banners over the street. Tony Derezinski, an AAPAC member who also serves on the city council, brought forward the idea for banner poles, to provide an alternative to the current anchors that are affixed to building facades. He described the poles as easels for the banners, which he characterized as artwork. The banners typically are purchased by organizations to promote upcoming events.

Commissioners also received updates on several ongoing projects at their April meeting: (1) the Golden Paintbrush awards, which will be presented in June; (2) a mural at Allmendinger Park; (3) artwork in the proposed city rain garden at Kingsley and First; and (4) signs for the city hall plaza and Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture.

Commissioners also reached a consensus to hold another retreat in May, following up on a four-hour retreat on Feb. 26, 2012, to address the creation of a master plan for public art, among other issues.

Public Art at Argo Cascades

Commissioners were asked to approve a $150,000 budget for artwork at Argo Cascades. The budget includes an artist contract of up to $115,000, as well as $35,000 to cover the following: (1) a 10% contingency; (2) 10% for administration; and (3) honorariums for up to five artists at $1,000 each, to cover the cost of submitting proposals.

Argo Cascades is the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. A task force for the project recommended first issuing a statement of qualifications (SOQ), then narrowing down the candidates to a maximum of five artists who would submit more formal proposals. The task force identified four potential locations for art, including the bridges on either end of the Cascades. The artist who’s eventually selected would have discretion to choose one or more of the locations for the project.

Malverne Winborne, AAPAC member who's on a task force for public art at Argo Cascades.

The task force also recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

Artwork funded through the Percent for Art program is supposed to serve the purpose of the fund providing the source of money. The two options for this project had been Percent for Art funds from water-related or parks-related capital projects. The available funds from the parks Percent for Art fund is significantly smaller – only $5,655.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Task force members are as follows: AAPAC commissioners John Kotarski and Malverne Winborne; Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

The project had been on the agenda for the March 2012 AAPAC meeting, but was tabled because neither of the two commissioners who are on the project’s task force – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended that meeting. Other commissioners felt they needed more information before voting on a budget.

At the April 25 meeting, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said the next steps would include Seagraves working with the task force and the city attorney’s staff to develop the SOQ. When Theresa Reid asked whether the SOQ would be ready for review at AAPAC’s next meeting in late May, Chamberlin said that would be very optimistic, given the length of time it typically takes for legal staff to respond.

Outcome: The $150,000 budget for artwork at Argo Cascades was unanimously approved.

RFP for East Stadium Bridges Art

On the agenda was an item to approve issuing a request for proposals (RFP) for artwork at the East Stadium bridges. [.pdf of draft East Stadium bridges artwork RFP] AAPAC had set a $400,000 budget for the project at its March 2012 meeting.

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that the RFP was still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, but that it wasn’t expected to change significantly. Bob Miller, one of the newer AAPAC members who also serves on the East Stadium bridges public art task force, asked how long the attorney’s office had been reviewing the document. Since February, Seagraves said. Miller asked that Seagraves try to firm up a date by which the legal staff would be finished.

Of the project’s $400,000 budget, a maximum of $360,000 will be available for the artist. The remainder is set aside for contingency costs, honorariums for finalists, and administrative expenses.

Bob Miller, an AAPAC member who serves on the task force for public art at the East Stadium bridges.

Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

The tentative timeline for the project includes a June deadline for responses to the RFP, with up to five finalists selected. Those finalists will be given $2,000 honorariums for a full proposal. A full proposal deadline is set for September, followed by a recommendation from AAPAC and a vote by the city council in November. The project would be implemented in 2013.

Outcome: Commissioners unanimously approved the request for proposals (RFP) for the East Stadium bridges artwork.

Whirlydoodle Project

During time set aside for public commentary, Dave Konkle and Tim Jones spoke to commissioners about their Whirlydoodle project. Konkle, the city’s former energy coordinator who now works for the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority as energy programs director, began by noting that perhaps commissioners had seen the “strange things that have been showing up around town.”

Two Whirlydoodles mounted on a pole in a surface parking lot near the Blake Transit Center in downtown Ann Arbor.

Jones described the Whirlydoodles as miniature wind generators, with LED lights that vary in color depending on wind speed. The project has a lot of scientific value not just for kids, but also for adults, he said. A large-scale installation would be a spectacular way to visualize wind currents and prompt a discussion about alternative energy.

Konkle said when Jones brought the project to him, he thought it was cool. They decided it would be fun if the Whirlydoodles just started to appear around town, he said. When they approached Susan Pollay, the DDA’s executive director, she was enthusiastic about putting them up in the DDA district, Konkle reported.

Now, they’d like to do a large-scale installation of 1,000 or more Whirlydoodles on a hillside, Konkle said, where you could literally see the wind currents as they activate the devices. He noted that they had submitted an application to AAPAC for a project on the city’s closed landfill at Platt and Carpenter roads, on the south side of Ann Arbor facing the Swift Run dog park. [.pdf of Whirlydoodle project application]

They estimate the project will cost about $100,000. Konkle said that Big George’s, a local appliance store, has committed to contributing $10,000 and now they’re looking for additional funding. He said he realized there were obstacles. They’ve tried to understand the city’s Percent for Art funding rules, he said, and it’s hard to see how the project would be eligible, given the constraints on the types of projects that can be funded.

So instead of funding, Konkle said it would make their job easier if AAPAC would endorse the project, even without funding. That endorsement would help them raise money from other sources. He concluded by saying that the project would result in Ann Arbor having more wind generators than any other city in the world, and it would bring the city national attention. It’s “whimsical, serious and fun,” he said.

Whirlydoodle Project: Commission Discussion

There was no action taken regarding the request, and minimal discussion among commissioners. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin observed that the commission had never been asked to endorse a project in this way.

Justice Center Artwork

Commissioners discussed recent city council action on a recommended art installation at the city’s new Justice Center. At their April 2, 2011 meeting, councilmembers postponed a vote on the use of $150,000 for a public art project in the lobby of the new building at the northeast corner of Huron Street and Fifth Avenue in downtown Ann Arbor. The Justice Center, next to city hall, houses the 15th District Court and the Ann Arbor police department. The postponement was for one month, until the council’s May 7 meeting.

A rendering of Ed Carpenter's proposed "Radius" sculpture in the southwest corner of Ann Arbor's Justice Center lobby. This image was revised from earlier drawings by the artist to include more glass, at the request of a selection task force. (Links to larger image)

Because it houses the district court, the Justice Center features airport-style security measures at the entrance, and visitors must surrender electronic devices like cameras and cellphones to be locked in cubicles during their visit to the building. Councilmembers cited concerns about accessibility by the public to the artwork, and some expressed interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the building’s lobby. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion among councilmembers.

AAPAC, at its Jan. 25, 2012 meeting, had unanimously recommended selecting Ed Carpenter of Portland, Oregon for the $150,000 project. A task force had recommended the selection of Carpenter’s proposal – a sculpture called “Radius” – from three finalists.

Carpenter plans to create a hanging sculpture of dichroic glass, aluminum, stainless steel and lighting, including LED spot and flood lighting. Among the reasons for recommending Radius, the task force cited the sculpture’s metaphor: That the activities in the Justice Center have a “rippling” effect throughout the community, which echoes the water sculpture by Herbert Dreiseitl that’s located in the plaza outside the building.

At AAPAC’s April 25 meeting, Marsha Chamberlin said she’s talked with several people and her understanding is that the security checkpoint is the main concern – councilmembers still support the art installation, she said. Tony Derezinski, a Ward 2 city councilmember who also serves on AAPAC, reported that almost everyone on council said they weren’t against the project, but wanted the area to be more accessible to the public. He noted that he has an artificial hip, and it’s not wonderful going through security.

Derezinski also observed that the council is deliberating on the fiscal year 2013 budget now. “That’s always a tender time, when the city is making decisions,” he said.

Connie Brown expressed concern that the rug is being pulled out from under the project for a reason that wasn’t previously voiced by councilmembers. She said she’d like to figure out a way for those kinds of issues to be raised earlier in the process, so that the project isn’t delayed at this point.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin.

Derezinski replied that there should be some deference shown to the judgments of “sub-entities” to the council, including AAPAC. But it takes a while to build confidence that things are working well, he noted, and for a long time the criteria for art selection wasn’t known or understood well by the council. He also said that for artwork, there would likely always be some second-guessing of decisions.

There was some uncertainty among commissioners about how much information council had received prior to April 2 about the Carpenter piece or the selection process. Theresa Reid observed that there needs to be a specific process that each project follows, and documentation for when the steps – such as informing city council – have been completed.

Cathy Gendron said her understanding is that the council is reconsidering the artwork, not just postponing it because of the security issue. She wondered if there was a way that AAPAC could ensure that the selection moved forward. Derezinski offered to talk with mayor John Hieftje. He said there’s no doubt that councilmembers like the project.

Chamberlin felt like there were two separate issues: (1) the selection of the artwork itself, and (2) access and security in the Justice Center lobby. The second issue is not one that AAPAC can influence, she said, adding that the lobby isn’t the most hospitable environment.

Reid advocated to decouple those two issues, and wondered whether commissioners should contact councilmembers directly to express that view. Derezinski suggested that Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, raise that point through staff channels, but he also indicated that t it might be good for commissioners to speak during public commentary at the May 7 meeting. He said his main concern is the timeline for the contract with the artist.

Bob Miller expressed similar concerns, and asked Seagraves whether there are any financial obligations with the artist at this point. Seagraves replied that there’s not yet a contract with the artist, because the council hasn’t approved the project. The original plan was for the work to be installed in December of 2012.

Chamberlin asked Seagraves to update her on his discussions with city staff. She said that if the item is on the May 7 council agenda, it’s important for AAPAC to have a written statement prepared in support of it.

Art Loan Program

As an item of new business, AAPAC commissioner Bob Miller proposed starting an art loan program, selecting work from individual artists or galleries to be installed on city-owned property for a period of 2-5 years. He suggested that the artists or galleries would pay for installation, insurance, maintenance and other costs, while the city would provide the location and possibly build a base for sculptures, for example. [.pdf of art loan proposal]

Miller said he modeled his proposal on a similar program that’s been successful in Sante Fe, New Mexico. It would be a great opportunity to bring more art to the public at little or no cost to the city, he said, adding that he didn’t see a downside but welcomed feedback.

Theresa Reid expressed support for the concept, and suggested forming a task force to develop a full proposal. Marsha Chamberlin agreed that a task force could address issues related to such a program. For example, the city has in the past been reluctant to accept donated art because of liability concerns, she said. Chamberlin noted that both Canton and Brighton run art loan programs.

Cathy Gendron also supported the idea, but observed that it appeared to conflict with a different program the commission has previously discussed – buying art outright, directly from artists or galleries. But perhaps a loan program is a better alternative to the city buying art, she said.

Miller didn’t think the two approaches were conflicting. Artwork that the city borrowed would likely be from artists who aren’t at the same level as artists that the city would buy from, he said.

Outcome: Commissioners voted unanimously to form a task force, chaired by Bob Miller, to develop a more detailed proposal for an art loan program.

Tony Derezinski, an Ann Arbor city councilmember who also serves on the Ann Arbor public art commission.

Poles for Street Banners

Tony Derezinski, an AAPAC member who also serves on city council, brought forward a proposal to fund poles in the downtown area that would be used to hang banners over the street. He introduced the item by noting that banners hang across downtown streets about 40 weeks out of the year, primarily on Main Street, East Liberty and South University. The banners have been hung on anchors affixed to buildings, but with strong winds, those anchors are pulled and can damage the building’s facade.

Groups like the Main Street Area Association and the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority are working on this issue, he said. One idea is for the Percent for Art program to fund poles from which banners can be hung. The poles could be considered as permanent easels for the banners, which he characterized as art.

The proposal submitted by Derezinski states that the city estimates a cost of $12,000 per pole. [.pdf of pole proposal]

Connie Brown pointed out that most banners promote upcoming events. Derezinski again stated that the banners are artwork.

AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin suggested that they table the discussion until a more specific proposal is presented.

Communications

Several opportunities arose during the meeting for commissioners and the public art administrator to give updates and raise topics for discussion. There was also opportunity for public commentary. The only public commentary at the April 25 meeting regarded the Whirlydoodle project, reported above.

Communications: Golden Paintbrush Awards

During his administrator’s report, Aaron Seagraves told commissioners that five nominations had been received for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. He said he would set up an online poll for commissioners to vote, with the awards to be presented at a June meeting of the Ann Arbor city council.

Later in the meeting, Cathy Gendron of the commission’s PR committee reported that the committee is going to rethink the awards in terms of staging them in a different way to better highlight the artists.

Communications: Kingsley Rain Garden

A task force has been formed for public art in a proposed rain garden at the corner of Kingsley and First. Members include: AAPAC commissioner Connie Rizzolo-Brown; Claudette Stern and John Walters of METAL, a design and fabrication studio on Felch Street; Patrick Judd of Conservation Design Forum, which is under contract with the city to build the rain garden; Jerry Hancock, Ann Arbor’s stormwater and floodplain programs coordinator; and David Murabito of Beal Properties, also located on Felch.

During his administrator’s report, Aaron Seagraves noted that the group has met once and brainstormed about project criteria. They plan to meet again in the first half of May.

By way of background, the city recently bought 215 and 219 W. Kingsley – land that’s located in a floodplain. A boarded-up house is located on the corner lot; the adjacent lot is vacant. The city received a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to demolish the house and stabilize the site, in part by building a rain garden there.

The overall project cost is about $280,000 – the city will pay for 25% of that, or about $70,000. Because the city’s portion will come from the city’s stormwater fund, the public art component can use pooled Percent for Art funds captured from stormwater projects. A balance of about $27,000 is available in stormwater Percent for Art funds. [.pdf of rain garden project form] AAPAC approved the art portion of the project at its November 2011 meeting.

Communications: Dreiseitl Signs

At their March 28, 2012 meeting, commissioners had discussed the need for descriptive signs for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall. On April 25, Aaron Seagraves reported that Quinn Evans Architects – the Ann Arbor firm that designed the new municipal center, which includes a renovated city hall, the adjacent new Justice Center building, and the front plaza area – is being asked by the city to design a railing for the north side of the pedestrian bridge over the rain garden in front of city hall. Quinn Evans has offered to include a sign platform as well, and to design the signs, he said.

Commissioners had several questions about the effort, including whether the Percent for Art program would be covering the cost of the signs. Several commissioners stressed the need to coordinate the information on the signs for the Dreiseitl sculpture with the signs for the overall project, which would include information about the stormwater management aspects of the building and rain garden.

When Seagraves reported that a sign committee exists, consisting of city staff members, commissioners proposed that Cathy Gendron attend those meetings as a representative of AAPAC. An update will be included as an agenda item on AAPAC’s May 23 meeting.

Communications: Allmendinger Park Mural

Aaron Seagraves, during his administrator’s report, told commissioners that the Ann Arbor city council hasn’t yet formally accepted a $7,000 contribution from the Ann Arbor Area Community Foundation to help pay for a mural at Allmendinger Park. That will likely be an agenda item for the council at one of its May meetings, he said. After the contribution is accepted, the city can move ahead on a contract with the artist who’s been selected for the project – Mary Thiefels of Treetown Murals.

The total budget for the project is $12,000, with $5,000 coming from the Percent for Art program. AAPAC had approved the selection of Thiefels for this project at their January 2012 meeting. It will be the first mural in a program that’s intended to eventually add multiple murals throughout the city each year.

Communications: Master Plan, Retreat

At several points throughout the April 25 meeting, commissioners raised issues that they felt needed further discussion – including work to develop a master plan for public art, adjustments to the way that minutes are kept, how projects are developed and tracked, and what items to include in monthly meeting agendas.

They reached a consensus to hold another retreat in May, with a date to be determined. They most recently held a four-hour retreat on Feb. 26, 2012. In a follow-up email to The Chronicle, Aaron Seagraves reported that a tentative date for the retreat is Saturday, May 19.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: John Kotarski, Wiltrud Simbuerger.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

Regular voluntary subscriptions support a percentage of The Chronicle’s artful coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

Argo Cascades is the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. A task force for the project recommended first issuing a statement of qualifications (SOQ), then narrowing down the candidates to a maximum of five artists who would submit more formal proposals. The task force identified four potential locations for art, including the bridges on either end of the Cascades. The artist who’s eventually selected would have discretion to choose one or more of the locations for the project.

The task force also recommended that the artwork have a “water” theme, and use the bulk of $155,561 that has accumulated from the city’s Percent for Art funds from water-related capital projects. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Task force members are: AAPAC commissioners John Kotarski and Malverne Winborne; Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair  Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

The project had been on the agenda for the March 2012 AAPAC meeting, but was tabled because neither of the two commissioners who are on the project’s task force – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended that meeting. Other commissioners felt they needed more information before voting on a budget.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Of that $400,000, a maximum of $360,000 will be available for the artist. The remainder is set aside for contingency costs, honorariums for finalists, and administrative expenses. Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, noted that the draft RFP is still being reviewed by the city attorney’s office, but he hoped that they would make minimal changes and that the RFP could be issued soon.

Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

The tentative timeline for the project includes a June deadline for responses to the RFP, with up to five finalists selected. Those five finalists will be given $2,000 honorariums for a full proposal. A full proposal deadline is set for September, followed by a recommendation from AAPAC and a vote by the city council in November. The project would be implemented in 2013.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Rose White Park, adjacent to East Stadium Boulevard, is one location being considered for public art in a $400,000 budget approved by public art commissioners for the East Stadium bridges project. The blue tarp on the fence in the background serves to separate the park from the bridge construction. (Photos by the writer.)

A task force had recommended that the project be well-funded, because the location would be a highly visible landmark marking an entrance into the city – it’s near Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center, for example. No artist has been selected yet, nor has a request for proposals been issued – that’s under review by the city attorney’s staff.

The artist would have a large role in selecting locations for the artwork. Places for art might include the underpass and staircases at South State Street; the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium Boulevard; or the bridges themselves, spanning over railroad tracks and South State Street. Any final project and budget would require the city council’s approval.

The commission postponed action on a proposal related to artwork at Argo Cascades, the new Huron River bypass near Argo Pond. Neither of the two commissioners who serve on a task force for the project – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended the AAPAC meeting, and other commissioners felt more information was needed before moving forward.

Final touches were put on an annual public art plan for FY 2013, describing projects that AAPAC intends to work on between July 1, 2012 and June 30, 2013. [.pdf of FY 2013 annual public art plan] In addition to specific art projects like those for the East Stadium bridges and a mural at Allmendinger Park, the two-page document calls for developing a master plan for public art to guide future decision-making through 2016.

During the meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – noted that nominations are being accepted through April 13 for the Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. A nomination form can be downloaded from the commission’s website.

The March 28 meeting was attended by three people who were not affiliated with the commission, including Jack Urban, a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission. He noted that unlike Ann Arbor, the Kalamazoo public art commission does not have a funding source. So the group is looking to establish itself and seek financial support, he said.

Art Budget for East Stadium Bridges

On the agenda was an item to set the budget for artwork at the East Stadium bridges – currently being rebuilt by the city of Ann Arbor. AAPAC had voted to form a task force for the project at its September 2011 meeting, citing its importance as a gateway to the city. The bridges are located near Michigan Stadium on a major east-west artery.

A request for proposals (RFP) from artists is under review by the city’s legal staff and is expected to be issued in the coming weeks. Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, retail, and university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium and the Crisler Center); (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the fence along Rose White Park, which is adjacent to East Stadium; the end of White Street, which intersects with East Stadium; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

Two AAPAC commissioners – Wiltrud Simbuerger  and Bob Miller – serve on a task force for the project. Other task force members are Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of community relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

Wiltrud Simbuerger is an AAPAC commissioner who also serves on the task force for art at the East Stadium bridges.

Simbuerger and Miller said the task force felt strongly that because the location would be a highly visible landmark marking an entrance into the city, the project should be well-funded. About $100,000 is available from the Percent for Art money directly taken from the bridges project. That’s included in a balance of $529,251 that has accumulated for public art from streets-related capital projects. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

Simbuerger originally proposed $350,000, but Miller suggested that even more should be allocated. He made a formal motion for a $400,000 budget.

Commissioners discussed other possible projects that might be coming in the near future, including artwork for the North Main corridor and downtown Main Street. About $1.13 million of Percent for Art funds are currently unencumbered, and more funding will be added to that from upcoming capital projects. For example, Seagraves said that another $109,000 in Percent for Art funding is estimated to come from street projects alone in the next fiscal year.

Theresa Reid calculated that if $400,000 was allocated for the bridges artwork, plus estimated funding for other projects that are already in the works – including the mural program, and art for the Kingsley rain garden and Argo Cascades – that still leaves about $600,000 of the $1.13 million for other as-yet-unidentified projects. “I think that’s healthy,” she said. “We could do a lot with that.”

Outcome: The five commissioners present at the March 28 meeting unanimously voted to set a $400,000 budget for artwork at East Stadium bridges. The final budget and artist contract require approval by the city council.

Argo Cascades Art Proposal

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, introduced the agenda item regarding art at Argo Cascades, the new Huron River bypass near the Argo Pond canoe livery. Commissioners were asked to recommend approval of developing an art project for the Cascades, as well as a budget.

No specific location has been identified for the work. A task force recommended instead to issue a request for proposals (RFP) and get input on the location from the artist who’s eventually selected for this project. About $175,000 is available for the project from money that has accumulated in the city’s Percent for Art fund. That money includes $155,561 from water-related capital projects and $19,655 from capital projects in the parks system. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Aaron Seagraves, Ann Arbor's public art administrator.

Neither of the two commissioners who are on a task force for the project – Malverne Winborne and John Kotarski – attended the AAPAC meeting. Other task force members are: Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair  Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

Seagraves told commissioners that originally two parks – Argo and Gallup – were considered for a river art project. But a renovation of the Gallup livery has been pushed back, he said, so the focus is now on Argo.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said she found it hard to vote without a better understanding of the vision for the project. Connie Brown agreed, saying that in contrast, it had been clear what the task force for the East Stadium bridges project had envisioned.

Seagraves brought up another issue. If funds from the water-related capital projects are used, then the artwork’s theme must also be water-related. Parks funding doesn’t come with a thematic constraint, as long as it’s used in the parks. The task force needs to give direction on that, he said.

Other commissioners also felt they needed more information before voting on a budget. Marsha Chamberlin suggested tabling the item.

Outcome: The five commissioners at the March 28 meeting voted unanimously to table action on the Argo Cascades project.

Annual Public Art Plan

The city’s public art ordinance requires that AAPAC submit an annual plan to the city council by April 1, outlining public art projects anticipated for the coming fiscal year. The commission has been working on a public art plan for the city’s fiscal year 2013 – from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. The plan had been the topic of a four-hour retreat in late February.

About an hour was spent at the March 28 meeting thrashing through a draft of the plan, which had been proposed by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin based on previous discussions. Much of the conversation involved word-smithing of the various objectives.

The final plan includes a list of five objectives for the next fiscal year:

1. Develop a master plan for 2013-2016 that will create community engagement and expedite work of the commission.
2. Advance the following projects that are underway, meeting all deadlines. All the projects have task force oversight, approved budgets, and are in various stages of completion. The projects are: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center by November 2012 ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels, to be completed by September 2012 ($12,000); (3) two additional murals by August 2013 ($40,000); (4) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First by August 2013 ($27,000); (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges by the fall of 2014 ($400,000); and (6) installation of artwork in the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project by the spring of 2013 (budget TBD). That project involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks.
3. By June 2012, identify and prioritize new projects for FY 2013, allocating existing funds using agreed-upon criteria of type, location, and community involvement. The criteria will be defined during the master planning process.
4. By Aug. 1, develop and begin to implement an effective communications plan about the uses and value of public art and the operation of the commission.
5. Collaborate with commissions, organizations, and agencies to accomplish public art projects.

The first objective – developing a master plan – included details on its purpose. The intent of the master plan is to: (1) guide AAPAC’s efforts to include public art throughout the city, involve community groups and create substantial visibility for public art as an integral part of community life and a city asset; (2) train commissioners and task force members with the goal of increased community knowledge, engagement and advocacy for public art; and (3) better integrate the public art administrator with every city department with the goal of increasing public art in the city.

By way of background, there has been some confusion in past years regarding AAPAC’s annual plan. In 2010, the plan wasn’t approved by AAPAC until its June meeting. Last year, the plan was approved in late April. However, neither of those plans were forwarded to the city council until June of 2011 – an oversight attributed to the transition following the departure of the previous public art administrator, before Seagraves was hired. [.pdf of FY2012 public art plan][.pdf of FY2011 public art plan]

Previous public art plans have also differed in format. The plans previously have been lists of projects that AAPAC intends to work on, with the name of the commissioner who’s leading each project, but no budget amount indicated.

Some specific projects that were included in the past two plans but have not been completed have dropped off the current plan, and there has been no discussion about them at recent AAPAC meetings. Those past projects include: (1) a possible pilot public art program at bus stops in collaboration with the AATA; (2) possible public art associated with the Manchester elevated water tank painting project scheduled to occur in FY 2013; (3) continued exploration of repairs/replacement of the Sun Dragon sculpture at Fuller Pool; and (4) assisting the Ann Arbor Downtown Development Authority in developing a Hanover Park public art project.

Outcome: The five commissioners at the March 28 meeting reached consensus on the draft, with the understanding that some additional revisions would be made by AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin and distributed via email. [.pdf of final FY2013 annual public art plan]

Plaque, Name for Dreiseitl Sculpture

Wiltrud Simbuerger introduced the topic of a plaque for the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall. She wanted the commission to start thinking about what kind of sign to put there – something is needed to indicate what it is, who made it, and how it works, she said.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Bob Miller and Connie Rizzolo Brown at AAPAC's March 28, 2012 meeting.

Bob Miller asked for an update on the sculpture – had all the work been finished? Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, reported that there was still some fine-tuning that needed to be done in the spring. At that point, the water for the sculpture will be turned on.

Theresa Reid said that Dreiseitl should be asked to provide a name for his sculpture.

Commissioners then discussed the need for a larger sign that explains how the design of the entire plaza area and building helps manage the flow of rainwater. There was also some discussion about the need to develop a broader communications strategy, with a consistent design across all projects. Marsha Chamberlin suggested that the work be done by Quinn Evans Architects, which designed the new municipal center – including a renovated city hall, the adjacent new Justice Center building, and the front plaza area.

Commissioners eventually reached a consensus, directing Seagraves to initiate the effort and report back to AAPAC at their April 25 meeting.

Communications & Commentary

Several opportunities arose during the meeting for commissioners and the public art administrator to give updates and raise topics for discussion. There was also an opportunity for public commentary.

Comm/Comm: Public Commentary

Three members of the public attended AAPAC’s March meeting. It was a notable departure from the typical pattern, which is that attendees tend to be high school students fulfilling a class assignment, or people who end up serving as commissioners. (Two new commissioners, Bob Miller and John Kotarski, both attended several AAPAC meetings before being appointed last year.)

Jack Urban, a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission, attended AAPAC's March 28 meeting.

At the start of the meeting, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin asked the visitors to introduce themselves, and commissioners did the same.

Ed Weiss said he was relatively new to town. He’d been reading online publications and had become incensed over some of the commentary he saw – for example, people calling the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall “The Hurinal” (it’s located on Huron Street) and people complaining about funding for public art. He came to the meeting because he was interested in the city’s public art program.

Jack Urban introduced himself as a Kalamazoo County commissioner and chair of the Kalamazoo public arts commission, which was formed in partnership with the county and the cities of Kalamazoo and Portage. The group is trying to get itself restarted, he said. Unlike Ann Arbor, however, the Kalamazoo public art commission does not have a funding source. So the group is looking to establish itself and seek financial support, he said.

Also attending the meeting was Thomas Partridge, who arrived after the time allotted for public commentary. At the end of the meeting, both he and Weiss expressed some frustration that the agenda did not provide for a second public commentary slot at the end of the meeting. Weiss said it would be good to have a chance to provide feedback on the discussions that had taken place during the meeting.

Several commissioners acknowledged the frustration, but contended that this is standard practice for the city’s public meetings. [But in fact, most public meetings for city entitites – including those for the city council, planning commission, park advisory commission, greenbelt advisory commission and others – include public commentary at the start and end of each meeting.]

Comm/Comm: Administrator’s Report

At the start of the March 28 meeting, Aaron Seagraves – the city’s public art administrator – updated commissioners on several projects.

Nominations are being accepted until April 13 for the annual Golden Paintbrush awards, which recognize local contributions to public art. [.pdf of nomination form, which can be completed and emailed directly to Seagraves at aseagraves@a2gov.org] Last year’s winners were: (1) Krazy Jim’s Blimpie Burger, for the Snow Bears sculptures they build each winter in front of their business at Packard and South Division; (2) Mary Thiefels and Treetown Murals for the mural outside the Alley Bar along West Liberty; and (3) Peter Allen & Associates, for rock sculptures on North Main Street.

Seagraves also noted that the city council would be voting on approval of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture its their April 2 meeting. AAPAC had recommended approval of the $150,000 work, to be located in the lobby of the Justice Center at Fifth & Huron. [The council subsequently voted to postpone action on that item until its May 7 meeting, expressing an interest in using the delay to explore the possibility of moving the security screening to a point well past the entrance in the interior of the building. The visibility of the proposed sculpture from outside the building was also a point of discussion.]

Related to artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First, Seagraves said the city’s purchase of that corner property has been completed. Connie Brown added that a full task force hasn’t yet been selected for that project, but the rain garden probably won’t be installed until the spring of 2013.

Comm/Comm: Allmendinger Mural

The contract with artist Mary Thiefels for a mural in Allmendinger Park is still in review by the city attorney’s office, Seagraves reported. The mural task force has met to discuss soliciting statements of qualifications (SOQs) in order to develop a pool of potential artists for future murals, he said.

Wiltrud Simbuerger, who leads the mural task force, reported that Thiefels had responded to the group’s request to alter her proposal – she submitted a revised project scope and budget, Simbuerger said. [AAPAC had discussed this issue at their January 2012 meeting, when they approved the selection of Thiefels for the project.] Thiefels now plans to work with local schools and incorporate ideas from students into her design, Simbuerger said, adding that this will be a much more powerful community approach.

Comm/Comm: Art Loan Project

Bob Miller said he’s interested in possibly developing a art loan program, which would allow the city to borrow artwork from other municipalities or institutions. It might involve setting up a permanent location to have rotating exhibits, he said.

Marsha Chamberlin noted that cities like Brighton and Canton have similar programs. Aaron Seagraves cited the Midwest Sculpture Initiative as another example.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo-Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Absent: Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Malverne Winborne.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.

About $1.13 million in unencumbered funds remains in the current public art budget. [The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.] The plan includes a list of ongoing projects, including: (1) installation of Ed Carpenter’s “Radius” sculpture in the lobby of the Justice Center ($150,000); (2) a mural in Allmendinger Park by Mary Thiefels ($12,000); (3) artwork for a rain garden at Kingsley and First ($27,000); (4) an Argo Cascades project near the Argo Pond canoe livery (budget TBD); and (5) artwork for the East Stadium bridges ($400,000).

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its March 28 meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

No specific location has been identified for the work. The task force recommended instead to issue a request for proposals (RFP) and get input on the location from the artist who’s eventually selected for this project. About $175,000 is available for the project from money that has accumulated in the city’s Percent for Art fund. That money includes $155,561 from water-related capital projects and $19,655 from capital projects in the parks system. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

A mission statement developed by the project’s task force states: ”The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the natural river at this location. The public art here will be a marker of the community’s interest in ‘facing the river,’ as it celebrates the river’s water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses.”

Task force members are: AAPAC commissioners John Kotarski and Malverne Winborne; Cheryl Saam, the city’s recreation facilities supervisor for the Argo and Gallup liveries; artist and former AAPAC chair  Margaret Parker; Cathy Fleisher, a local resident; Bonnie Greenspoon of the Ann Arbor Rowing Club; Julie Grand, chair of the city’s park advisory commission; and Colin Smith, parks and recreation manager.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Because the location could be a landmark marking an entrance into the city, the task force had advocated using a relatively large amount from the city’s Percent for Art funds, to be taken from the balance of $529,251 that’s accumulated for public art from streets-related capital projects. The city’s public art ordinance requires that 1% of all capital project budgets (up to a limit of $250,000 per project) be set aside for public art.

Task force members are: AAPAC commissioners Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller; Nancy Leff of the Lower Burns Park Neighborhood Association; Jim Kosteva, University of Michigan director of dommunity relations; David Huntoon, a principle of Intalytics; and Joss Kiely, a UM graduate student and community member.

A request for proposals (RFP) from artists is under review by the city’s legal staff and is expected to be issued in the coming weeks. Goals for the artwork include: (1) unifying an area that has highly diverse uses, including single-family homes, apartment buildings, student housing, university sports facilities (such as Michigan Stadium), and local retail; (2) creating awareness for art with multiple audiences – drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, neighbors, residents, out-of-town-visitors; and (3) possibly creating multiple pieces that are tied together by a unifying theme.

Possible locations for the artwork include the Rose White Park fence; the end of White Street; the north side of East Stadium Boulevard; the underpass and staircases at South State Street; and the East Stadium bridge abutments, sidewalk and railings.

This brief was filed from the basement conference room at city hall, 301 E. Huron St., where AAPAC held its meeting. A more detailed report will follow: [link]

Ann Arbor's public art administrator, Aaron Seagraves (center) talks with public art commissioners Wiltrud Simbuerger and Bob Miller at the commission's Feb. 26, 2012 retreat. The four-hour session was held at the NEW Center on North Main. (Photos by the writer.)

The Percent for Art program, overseen by AAPAC, allocates 1% for public art from all of the city government’s capital projects. The program faced potential cuts by the city council last year, though a majority of councilmembers ultimately voted against decreased funding. There’s also been criticism that the commission, which was formed in 2008, has been too slow in funding works of art. The commission itself has seen recent turnover, with three new commissioners appointed since late 2011.

It’s in this context that AAPAC decided to work on a master plan – the retreat was a step toward that goal, though it’s expected to take several more months to complete. Meanwhile, the commission is also preparing an annual plan to approve at its next meeting, on March 28, with a list of specific projects it intends to pursue in the coming fiscal year. The public art ordinance requires that the annual plan be submitted to the city council by April 1.

Sunday’s retreat covered a broad range of topics. Commissioners discussed the need to address all aspects of their mission, as spelled out in the ordinance – including education, outreach and promotion of public art. John Kotarski, one of the newest commissioners, proposed a motto to reflect that goal: “The educated resident is the best consumer of public art.”

Questions were raised about whether Percent for Art funds could be used for outreach and promotion – in the past, AAPAC has been told by city staff that funding is restricted to permanent capital projects. Kotarski advocated for including temporary projects, such as an artist-in-residence program or events like FestiFools. If the ordinance doesn’t currently allow temporary work, he suggested amending it.

When Kotarski urged the commission to seek clarity from the city attorney’s office, Tony Derezinski – a commissioner who also serves on the city council – said the city attorney’s staff is already working on legal opinions related to questions from councilmembers. He indicated that the legal staff would be willing to attend a future AAPAC meeting to answer these questions.

Also during the meeting, Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented preliminary results of an online survey of residents, which yielded 437 responses. [.pdf of preliminary survey report] In response to one of the questions – “Where are the public places in the city that would benefit from a public art project?” – the top three responses were parks (27 responses), “none” (25 responses) and Main Street (23 responses.)

Other items emerged at the retreat. Theresa Reid, the newest commissioner who was appointed earlier this year, reported that she and others are working to apply for a National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant, to help pay for a countywide public arts planning process. Derezinski indicated that the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks, likely won’t come to Ann Arbor until 2013. When originally proposed in October 2011, it was expected to take place this year.

Another possible project on the horizon is tied to the resurfacing of Main Street in 2013. AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin said the Main Street Area Association and Downtown Development Authority are interested in some kind of “street stamping” project. It’s a project that’s in the very early stages, she said, but might include ideas like creating patterns on the street at crosswalks, for example.

Though discrete projects were mentioned, the focus of the retreat remained on big-picture goals. Common themes included the importance of public art in creating a sense of identity for the community, and of its role in supporting the local economy.

Setting the Stage

Commissioners Connie Rizzolo Brown and John Kotarski were tasked with giving a broad overview of the purpose of public art and the history of the commission’s work in this community.

Brown noted that the recent publication by the Michigan Municipal League – “The Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People” – provides a blueprint for reinventing Michigan cities. The idea is to build healthy, sustainable communities to attract visitors, support the local economy, and create a sense of identity for residents and visitors, she said.

Those goals are part of Ann Arbor’s public art ordinance, too, Brown noted. She quoted from the ordinance:

City council has determined that the creation of public art will improve the aesthetic quality of public spaces and structures, provide cultural and recreational opportunities, contribute to the local heritage, stimulate economic activity and promote the general welfare of the community. [.pdf of public art ordinance]

The public art commission was formed to help guide that effort. Brown recapped the history of the commission, noting that it started informally as a group of volunteers who raised money for public art projects. The commission on art in public places (CAPP) was formed, which later transitioned to the Ann Arbor public art commission (AAPAC) when the city’s Percent for Art program was authorized by city council in 2007.

Because it’s an all-volunteer commission, it’s been difficult at times to handle the work, Brown said. That’s why it’s important to identify the roles of everyone involved, she said, including commissioners, city staff, and the public. That way, the work can be shared and it will be easier for everyone, she said.

The purpose, objectives and duties of AAPAC are defined in part by the public art ordinance, Brown noted. There are two main responsibilities: (1) recommending projects and allocating funds, and (2) providing education, promotion and outreach for public art.

In the first category, AAPAC’s duties include setting guidelines for selecting art and locations for art; presenting annual goals and an annual report; and determining whether projects in the city’s capital improvements plan (CIP) are eligible for public art funding. Brown noted that AAPAC doesn’t do this work alone – there are others involved, including city staff, task force members and the public. And AAPAC’s recommendations must be approved by the city council, she said.

Regarding education, promotion and outreach, the ordinance states that AAPAC can raise additional funds from other sources, foster public/private partnerships, promote awareness of public art, and advise donors of art regarding placement of artwork on non-city property. Yet AAPAC has lost some of its focus regarding these responsibilities, Brown said.

Promotion can mean a lot of things, Brown added. It can be as simple as AAPAC’s website, but can also mean embracing the concept of public art beyond just city-owned work to include private or University of Michigan art. So how does AAPAC promote a variety of arts in this region, to create a sustainable arts community here?

One example is a partnership with the Detroit Institute of Art’s Inside|Out project, which involves installing framed reproductions from the DIA’s collection at outdoor locations on building facades or in parks. [A DIA staff member talked to AAPAC about the idea in October of 2011, though it now looks like the installation won't occur until 2013.] A program like that creates awareness of public art in the community, Brown said. “It starts to define who we are.” If AAPAC can give more attention to these kinds of programs, they can increase the commission’s educational component, she said.

It’s important to define public art, Brown said, noting that the city’s public art ordinance defines it in this way:

Public art means works of art created, purchased, produced or otherwise acquired for display in public spaces or facilities. Public art may include artistic design features incorporated into the architecture, layout, design or structural elements of the space or facility. Public art may be any creation, production, conception or design with an aesthetic purpose, including freestanding objets d’art, sculptures, murals, mosaics, ornamentation, paint or decoration schemes, use of particular structural materials for aesthetic effect, or spatial arrangement of structures.

Brown wanted commissioners to think about how public art can draw people to the city. There are a lot of possibilities, she said.

Public Art Options

John Kotarski, who was appointed to the commission late last year, picked up the presentation by noting that he’d been impressed by the amount of work that’s already been done. Instead of creating a new vision, he said, commissioners should think about recovering that original vision.

Public Art Options: Seattle’s Example

When the city’s public art ordinance was being developed, people like Margaret Parker – AAPAC’s former chair, who resigned at the end of 2011 – had researched other public art programs nationwide. Seattle has one of the country’s oldest public art programs, and Parker had gone there to attend a seminar by Barbara Goldstein, editor of “Public Art by the Book.” The book is the gold standard for creating a public art program using best practices, Kotarski said, and was used in developing Ann Arbor’s ordinance.

John Kotarski, one of the newest public art commissioners, supports funding temporary art installations, in addition to permanent projects.

Kotarski said he traveled to Seattle in January and had talked to members of that city’s public arts commission. Ann Arbor can learn from that program – which was established in the early 1970s and is also supported with percent-for-art funding – and avoid its mistakes, he said.

Kotarski showed several slides of public art in Seattle, including the Hammering Man sculpture at the Seattle Art Museum entrance. People initially hated it, he said, but now it’s “beloved by the entire city.” The same was true, he said, for a work by Michael Heizer called “Adjacent, Against, Upon” – a series of large, square boulders lined up in a park next to Puget Sound.

“Public art won’t always be accepted at the start,” Kotarski said. In fact, artists want to challenge conventional boundaries – that’s part of what makes art enduring, he said.

Ann Arbor’s preamble to its public art ordinance mirrors the one for Seattle, Kotarski said. The Ann Arbor preamble reads: ”City council recognizes the responsibility of government to foster the development of culture and the arts.” To him, Kotarski said, this means that public art isn’t a luxury – it’s a responsibility of the government.

Like Brown, Kotarski encouraged a broader view of what constitutes public art. Beyond city-funded projects, he said, it includes University of Michigan artwork – like Maya Lin’s “Wave Field” on north campus – and even the fairy doors that are located throughout town on privately owned buildings. “This is public art too,” he said, and should be promoted by AAPAC.

Promoting awareness of public art, in part, means helping to educate the public, Kotarski said. He advocated for modifying the motto of the now-defunct clothing chain Syms – “An educated consumer is our best customer” – to reflect Ann Arbor’s public art outreach: “The educated resident is the best consumer of public art.”

Kotarski recommended ”The Art of Placemaking: Interpreting Community Through Public Art and Urban Design,” a book by Ronald Lee Fleming. This approach describes what Ann Arbor’s public art program is doing, he said. “We’re not decorating the city.” Rather, Ann Arbor is leading the reinvention of Michigan’s cities, he said, with public art as an economic driver.

Saying that the city has somehow become locked into thinking of public art as a permanent piece of construction, Kotarski said his reading of Ann Arbor’s ordinance allows for a broader definition, and he urged commissioners to expand their view of potential projects.

Seattle’s program has several options, he noted, including both permanent and temporary installations. He described these options as five quivers in their bow, and said that having a variety of approaches is a better way to achieve the city’s overall public art goal. Those approaches include:

• Site Integrated: Bringing an artist into a project at the early stages of design, so that the artwork is an integral part of the building or structure, rather than an add-on. Kotarski showed an example of artwork that’s integral to a skatepark in Seattle, and noted that Ann Arbor has a similar opportunity with the skatepark that’s being planned here.
• Site Specific: Locating artwork on a site – like putting a sculpture in a park or in front of a building.
• Portable Artwork: Artwork, typically paintings or sculptures, that are periodically moved to different locations. Kotarski noted that Seattle moves the artwork that’s located in municipal offices every three years. He said he supported a suggestion by Ann Arbor art commissioner Bob Miller, who had floated the idea of rotating outdoor sculptures throughout the city.
• Artist-in-Residence: Embedding an artist within a city department for a period of time. In Los Angeles, an artist-in-residence with the city’s parks department built a large roller imprinted with an aerial image of the city. City workers drag the roller down the beach several times each day, stamping the image onto the sand. Another example, Kotarski said, would be to embed an artist with the street department – perhaps the artist could create stamps that workers could then use to make patterns when streets or sidewalks are paved. Or an artist could be embedded with the city’s parks department, he said, and explore an art project using some of the aluminum canoes that are being replaced as part of the Argo Dam bypass project.
• Temporary Artwork: Temporary installations or performances can be economic engines for a community, Kotarski said. He cited the example of The Gates by Christo, a 14-day installation in New York City’s Central Park that drew millions of people to the area and generated millions of dollars for businesses there. In Ann Arbor, FestiFools – to be held this year on April 1 – is an example of that, he said. Its temporary nature is part of its value. Using an Americans for the Arts economic impact calculator, Kotarski said he estimated that FestiFools brought in more than $100,000 for local merchants. The annual ArtPrize in Grand Rapids is another good example of the economic value brought by temporary exhibits, he said.

Public Art Options: Art & the Economy

Theresa Reid, the newest commissioner who was attending her first meeting that day, said she felt like there were mixed messages regarding art and money. She’s from Chicago, and for her, public art is what makes people love that city. It’s about heart, not money, and she didn’t want to lose sight of that fact. Art has the power to transform, she said, both individually and as a community.

Ann Arbor public art commissioners Theresa Reid and Malverne Winborne. Reid was appointed to the commission this month, and is executive director of the ArtsEngine at the University of Michigan. Winborne is is director of Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office.

Kotarski agreed, but said commissioners also need to be able to make the economic case for public art. They need to be able to answer the question: Why spend money on public art? Is it just because they’re snobs? he asked – no, it’s more than that.

Tony Derezinski, an art commissioner who also represents Ward 2 on the city council, said he wanted to reinforce Kotarski’s point. Three times over the years there have been attempts to cut the Percent for Art program, he said. There have been questions about why the city should keep the funding level at 1%. The argument in support of the program is that it defines Ann Arbor as a community that appreciates art, Derezinski said. That’s even more important during tough economic times – that’s when you define your values, he said. But the longer view is that public art supports the economy, he said.

Kotarski returned to the topic later in the retreat, when he presented several possible answers to the question: Why support public art?

One reason is to expand the public’s experience of art. Kotarski returned to the motto: “The educated resident is the best consumer of public art.” Not everyone will like every piece of art, but at least they should be able to criticize it from an informed perspective, he said. Instead of just saying “Dreiseitl stinks!” the conversation could center around comparing the German artist’s Ann Arbor water sculpture – located in front of city hall – to work by other artists, or to other work by Dreiseitl, Kotarski said.

World-class performers want to come to Ann Arbor because this city has a world-class audience – people who appreciate the nuances of a performance. Kotarski cited Laurie Anderson as an example. In addition to venues at large cities, her tour last year included Ann Arbor because she knew the audience here would understand her work, he said. Artists like her aren’t just interested in selling tickets. The city can become a world-class audience for public art, too, he said.

Another reason to support public art is because it helps people to understand their community better as well as their individual lives, Kotarski said. One local example he cited is a mural of local war veterans, created by Mary Thiefels and located in an alley off of West Liberty near Main Street.

The final reason Kotarski offered was to create a 21st century economy. He said Gov. Rick Snyder is using “The Economics of Place” as a manifesto to guide the recovery of Michigan’s cities. Businesspeople want to create vibrant communities, he said – they don’t really care if it’s through making ashtrays or public art. “Knowledge workers” want to live in places like Ann Arbor, and the creativity reflected in the city’s public art can be a draw for them, he concluded.

Connie Brown noted that AAPAC’s work can be an essential part of placemaking for the city. That’s done by increasing each resident’s experience with visual art, she said, by building a sustainable local arts community, and by establishing Ann Arbor as a leader in public art. Through art installation, community engagement and education, the city can build a regional network that supports the arts and arts makers, she said. And by commissioning work by leading artists, Brown added, the bar is raised for local artists, and the city becomes more attractive for mid-career artists to live and work here.

She noted that public art projects support a variety of local workers and businesses, including designers, material suppliers, fabricators, installers and maintenance workers.

Brown concluded that part of the presentation by saying that the execution of this vision is difficult. Establishing a broad master plan can help guide the commission’s work, she said, including the annual plan that must be submitted to city council each year.

Different Roles in Shaping Public Art

The commission spent a portion of the retreat brainstorming about the roles of various people who are involved with public art in the city, including commissioners, the public art administrator – a job held by Aaron Seagraves – city staff, task forces, city council and the community.

Here’s the list of roles that commissioners generated for these groups during the session:

• Commissioners: (1) advise the city council and staff regarding public art projects, (2) set the public art program’s guidelines, vision and priorities, (3) submit an annual plan to city council, (4) communicate with the community and raise awareness about public art, (5) generate additional funding, (6) make recommendations on projects and funding allocations, (7) observe and review the fabrication of artwork, (8) set up partnerships, (9) appoint task forces and act on their recommendations, and (10) review job description for art administrator, and help with interview process and selection, when necessary.
• Public art administrator: (1) provide support to AAPAC, (2) act as conduit for ideas and information, (3) handle day-to-day administration of the public art program, (4) maintain AAPAC’s website, (5) promote public art, (6) serve as the chief contact person for the public and media, (7) provide overall leadership for AAPAC, (8) implement AAPAC’s vision, (9) provide project management, (10) report to the city’s public services area administrator, and (11) develop a portal for community engagement.
• Task Forces: (1) make recommendations about projects and programs to AAPAC, and (2) set the vision for certain projects.
• Community: (1) serve on task forces and subcommittees, (2) act as a sounding board, (3) be engaged in the process, (4) participate in project and site selection, (5) become ambassadors of public art, (6) provide ideas for new projects, and (7) be a source for collaborative projects, both through partnerships and fundraising.
• City staff: (1) manage projects that are tied to city capital improvements, (2) identify funding for art projects, (3) provide technical support, (4) act as liaisons between the artists and city departments, and (5) provide input and identify opportunities for new art projects.
• City council: (1) provide oversight, (2) act as final decision-makers, (3) provide adequate funding, (4) amend public art ordinance, as needed, and (5) appoint AAPAC commissioners.

Throughout the brainstorming session, discussions emerged related to some of these suggested roles. There was some uncertainty, for example, regarding the process by which task forces are appointed. Is that handled by the art administrator or the commissioner who’s leading the task force? It’s been done multiple ways, Brown noted.

Malverne Winborne raised the question of who’s responsible for deciding whether a project is “go or no-go.” To him, he said, there’s a lack of clarity between the commission’s role and the role of staff. When Bob Miller offered that AAPAC, as an advisory group, had 49% of the responsibility for making those kinds of decisions, Winborne replied, “Who’s the 51%?” That’s the city council, he was told.

Public art commissioners Cathy Gendron and Marsha Chamberlin.

As a new commissioner, Theresa Reid asked how decisions on AAPAC get made. Is there a formal vote? Not necessarily, Brown replied. Some issues are just discussed until a consensus is achieved. Winborne recommended identifying a hierarchy to clarify the relationship between AAPAC and city council, and AAPAC and its task forces.

It’s not just about making the final decision on a project, Marsha Chamberlin said. There’s also the question about who decides which projects get initiated. Cathy Gendron noted that in the past, a lot of projects were initiated by Sue McCormick, the city’s former public services administrator. The public art administrator reported to McCormick. [McCormick resigned late last year to take a job as head of Detroit's water and sewerage department. Craig Hupy is filling that job on an interim basis while the city conducts a search for a permanent replacement.]

What’s the art administrator’s role in this process? Kotarski asked. He noted that the job description for Seagraves includes “overall leadership” of AAPAC. Several commissioners expressed surprise at that – they indicated that they thought his role was staff support for AAPAC, not leadership. Seagraves noted that since the commission meets only once a month, part of his role is to move projects forward on a daily basis. That’s one way to interpret the leadership responsibility, he ventured.

Later, during a discussion about the city staff’s role, Kotarski drew on the experience of Seattle. The Seattle art commission had shifted its orientation, he said, and talked about funding in terms of the public art funds belonging to different departments. Commissioners would approach department liaisons and asked how the departments envisioned spending the money for public art. The attitude from commissioners became, “How can we help you create art for your department’s projects?” he said. There was much less pushback from city staff, because the staff took ownership of the art projects.

Cathy Gendron ended this portion of the retreat by offering some perspective. A lot of these ideas – collaborating with partners, embedding artists early in the process – have been discussed by AAPAC in the past, she noted. “Where we keep getting stalled is who does the work?” Commissioners have been told that the city funds can’t pay for things like promotion, she said. So at some point, she said, part of their discussion needs to focus on putting a structure in place so that AAPAC can do the things they envision.

Developing a Master Plan

Connie Brown began the next portion of the retreat by proposing a framework for thinking about the elements of a master plan. She noted that there is no perfect plan or process, but there are ways that they can approach their work. She cautioned that commissioners aren’t the artists – they shouldn’t be the people coming up with the ideas for specific projects.

Rather, she proposed that they develop a plan based on three basic categories: Location, typology and process.

• Location: This refers to zones or types of areas – recreation areas, neighborhoods, or business districts, for example – where public art could be located. Or commissioners might think about location in terms of geographic features, like the Huron River. This category helps AAPAC consider where the city might place public art, to ensure a diversity of location throughout the city.
• Typology: What type of public art does a project represent? It might be a gateway that marks an entry to a specific spot or corridor. It might serve a wayfinding function – artwork that guides people through an area with signs or pathways. This category helps identify the classification of a particular project.
• Process: There can be a variety of ways that public art projects get initiated. Some are brought forward by city staff or AAPAC – like the mural program – while others might be identified by the community. Partnerships like the one planned with the Detroit Institute of Arts are another way for public art to be created. AAPAC might also partner with other city entities – working with the energy commission, for example, on an art installation using solar-powered LED lights.

The purpose of the retreat and the master plan, Brown said, is to look at the big picture. They weren’t going to identify specific projects at specific location, but instead would start the process of prioritizing and setting general goals.

Public art commissioners John Kotarski and Connie Rizzolo Brown.

The approach might be to identify percentages of the Percent for Art budget that AAPAC would like to spend on certain types of projects – gateways, for example – and certain areas where the commission would like projects to be located. Brown also noted that they need to include all aspects of their mission – not just physical projects, but also education, outreach and promotion of public art.

The master plan that AAPAC ultimately develops can be used to guide the commission’s annual plan, which in turn will guide the work of the task forces that will be charged with implementing specific projects, she said. AAPAC needs to provide guidance but not be proscriptive, Brown cautioned – the task forces and artists need flexibility to be creative.

Brown also advocated for communicating with the city council at an earlier stage, and getting feedback from councilmembers. That way everyone can move ahead confidently, she said, without wondering if a project will get pushback from the council after being developed.

Tony Derezinski offered to use his communications time at council meetings to report on AAPAC’s work. Commissioners generally supported that. Bob Miller noted that it would help make the process more clear and transparent for everyone.

Developing a Master Plan: Survey Results

Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator, presented preliminary results from an online survey that AAPAC had distributed earlier this year. He plans to give a more formal report at the commission’s March 28 meeting. [.pdf of preliminary survey report]

There were 437 respondents, though not everyone answered all of the questions, he noted. For those that identified the neighborhood they lived in, the largest concentration was from the Old West Side (38 respondents), followed by Lower Burns Park (26) and Burns Park (20).

In response to the question “Where are the public places in the city that would benefit from a public art project?” the top three responses were parks (27 responses), “none” (25 responses) and Main Street (23 responses.)

“None” and parking structures/lots were the top answers (both with 26 responses) to the question “Which city infrastructure could be improved aesthetically with public art funding?” The other top response was the library (16 responses).

The survey also asked respondents to choose their top three programs that could result in artists designing multiple works using the same medium, item or theme. Percentage-wise by respondents, the top results were bus stops/shelters (59.5%), pedestrian crosswalk signs (54.4%), street furniture, like benches (54.4%), and community/participatory projects (40.9%).

That question also allowed for free responses. Here’s a sampling:

• A sculpture park in Bryant neighborhood. One of the pieces should allow for water sprinklers, so that it can enjoy a dual function.
• Campaign to stop graffiti
• Dual purpose installation. I’ve seen giant flower-shaped umbrellas with power outlets and lights along city streets; benches that enclose tree plantings
• Facade for abandoned buildings
• Garbage/recycling containers
• Flowers, plants by city entrances; a decent “Welcome to Ann Arbor” sign, “Home of the Wolverines,” something – please!
• More green spaces, places to sit down and enjoy the view
• Statues of historic figures, historic information displays
• Sculptures at interstate entrances to Ann Arbor
• Turn Main Street into a walking street, slowed to traffic to allow street performers, artists, musicians to perform and exhibit

John Kotarski asked Seagraves for his impressions of the survey results – what did it tell him? Seagraves indicated that there hadn’t been sufficient time to analyze the results, since the survey had just closed the previous week.

Kotarski wondered whether the number of “none” responses had surprised Seagraves. Not really, Seagraves replied. Malverne Winborne indicated that those results simply reflect that there are a number of people who don’t understand or support this work, but that the commission shouldn’t get too caught up in that.

Developing a Master Plan: Setting Goals

As the commission moved into its exercise of setting goals, there was some initial discussion over how detailed they needed to be, what the goals were intended to articulate, and whether the goals would be used for the master plan or the more immediate annual plan, which by ordinance must be delivered to city council by April 1.

Connie Pulcipher, a city staff member who was facilitating the discussion, noted that the intent was not to develop the master plan that day. Because this is the first time that AAPAC has formed a master plan, it’s a process that will likely take many more discussions over several months, she said.

The draft set of goals, which the commission intends to review and likely revise in the coming months, include:

• Establish relationships with city units and other city commissions.
• Develop a marketing/communications plan and budget.
• Develop a framework for decision-making.
• Use a simple narrative to ensure that the public, city council and city staff are better informed about the public art program.
• Identify a diversity of locations for public art.
• Promote temporary art.
• Develop a scoring list for project selection.

During the goal-setting discussion, several issues emerged that the commissioners discussed in more depth, including the possibility of funding temporary art, and the types of categories that might be used in selecting future public art projects.

Developing a Master Plan: Setting Goals – Temporary Art

John Kotarski noted that one of the obstacles that AAPAC faces is the interpretation of the public art ordinance. Does it include the ability to fund temporary art or an artist-in-residence? It seems important to clarify that with the city attorney’s office, he said, and to possibly work to amend the ordinance, if necessary.

In response to his question, AAPAC chair Marsha Chamberlin reviewed the work of the commission, noting that they’ve spent a lot of time developing policies and procedures, and that over the years a significant balance of Percent for Art funding has accumulated. [Seagraves later clarified that the Percent for Art balance of unallocated funds stands at around $1.1 million.] There is a push to get more projects competed, she said, and the ordinance doesn’t need to be changed in order to do that.

Chamberlin said that AAPAC has been told that the Percent for Art funds can’t be used for temporary art. By way of background, the meaning of “permanent” has been explained to AAPAC by city staff as relating to the ability of an item to be capitalized. At AAPAC’s July 2010 meeting, Sue McCormick – who at that time supervised the program as the city’s public services administrator – told commissioners that the city runs a depreciation schedule on each piece of art, and that artwork is considered a capital investment that needs to last a minimum of five years. At AAPAC’s December 2011 meeting, Chamberlin reported that the city’s finance staff had revised its definition of “permanent” to a minimum of two years, not five.

The challenge of permanent versus temporary artwork was also discussed at an AAPAC retreat in October of 2011. And at AAPAC’s September 2011 meeting, former commissioner Margaret Parker floated an idea to bypass the funding constraint on temporary installations by considering them as promoting public art, which is part of the commission’s charge.

At the Feb. 26 retreat, Kotarski asked whether AAPAC could spend $50,000 on building a gallery at city hall, or $20,000 on a promotional campaign, or $10,000 to create a coloring book connected to the upcoming DIA exhibit? If not, that eliminates an enormous amount of what AAPAC can do, he said. The issue needs clarity.

Tony Derezinski said these kinds of issues have been raised by city council members. He said he’s talked with the city attorney’s office, and that they are formulating opinions in response to these issues. Derezinski suggested that AAPAC schedule a session with someone from the city attorney’s office, to get some legal advice on these questions. The city attorney has indicated willingness to do that, he said.

Bob Miller suggested that the ordinance could be amended to accommodate temporary projects. Chamberlin said the issue had arisen when FestiFools, an annual street festival featuring oversized puppets, had approached AAPAC for funding. The commission had been ready to allocate funds for FestiFools, but was told that it wasn’t allowed because the event was considered temporary.

Developing a Master Plan: Setting Goals – Layers of Categories

Malverne Winborne suggested dividing the city into zones or quadrants, to help guide the selection of projects and ensure that all parts of the city are represented. [Later in the meeting, it was suggested that the quadrant boundaries (starting from downtown) could be roughly North Main to US-23 to the north, Jackson Road to the west, State Street to the south, and Washtenaw Avenue to the east.] Winborne was especially concerned about under-served areas, like the Bryant neighborhood. Located on the city’s southeast side – south of I-94 and east of Stone School Road – Bryant is one of the city’s lower-income neighborhoods.

Wiltrud Simbuerger said AAPAC should use different approaches to help determine where public art should be located, and what kind of public art is needed. In addition to geographic location, another approach might be to identify land use, such as recreational or parkland. Another way might look at  process – whether it’s participatory, or temporary.

Theresa Reid suggested setting up task forces for each quadrant of the city. Perhaps those groups could be tasked with identifying two projects for their quadrant per year, she said. It’s also possible to envision the task forces working together on a larger project that might span geographic areas.

Reid, who’s also a board member of the countywide Arts Alliance, reported that she and Derezinski, among others, are involved in an effort to apply for a National Endowment for the Arts “Our Town” grant, to help pay for a countywide public arts planning process. There could be opportunities for larger-scale projects as a result.

Later in the meeting, Cathy Gendron drew dots on a map to indicate where current public art projects are located. Winborne noted that most are concentrated downtown – there’s a need to get outside that area, he said. Bob Miller responded by saying that the downtown is the city’s economic center, so perhaps that’s appropriate.

Aaron Seagraves suggested that another selection category might be the size of a project, based on its budget or impact. The mural program, with a current budget of $10,000 per mural, is an example a smaller project that could be replicated throughout the city. Larger projects, like the Herbert Dreiseitl water sculpture in front of city hall – the largest public art project to date, costing more than $750,000 – would fall on the other end of the spectrum.

Public art commissioners Malverne Winborne and Tony Derezinski, who also serves on city council.

Winborne described these various selection categories as layers. Connie Brown summarized that in looking at selection this way, AAPAC could decide to base its decisions on land use (recreational, neighborhoods, etc.) and typology (gateways or wayfinding, for example). So they could decide to focus one year on putting public art into parks, as wayfinding projects, for example. The following year, they might focus on major corridors, and creating gateways to the city.

Gendron suggested that another layer – in the category of process – could be the outright purchase of public art. It’s something that AAPAC has previously discussed, she noted.

Gendron also advocated for density of population or activity as another layer. Derezinski agreed, saying that’s where you find the value of public art for economic development.

Winborne voiced a different perspective. He noted that if you talk to real estate agents, they’ll tell you that it’s easier to sell into communities that are perceived as cool. What if public art were put into areas that aren’t currently active, in order to draw people there? he said.

Gendron noted that if you divide the city into quadrants, then the North Main quadrant falls into an area that already has a lot of public art. Yet the North Main corridor itself, even though it’s a major entryway into the city, is essentially bereft of public art.

Reid agreed with the need to think about places of potential impact. She cited the High Line project, a public park built on an abandoned elevated rail line in Manhattan – its creator, Robert Hammond, was a recent speaker in the UM Penny Stamps series, she noted. It’s an example of taking an eyesore and creating a landmark, she said. They should think not only about where there’s density and impact now, but where there might be density and impact in the future, if spurred by public art.

Kotarski said he sees these layers as ways to help commissioners set priorities. Then, their message to the public can be simple – a direct message about where and how they plan to allocate public art dollars.

Derezinski advocated for being general about their priorities, and not attaching specific dollar amounts or even percentages to those priorities. He didn’t want to get “trapped” into criticism that they haven’t exactly followed their plan.

Next Steps

Aaron Seagraves suggested that further development of the master plan could be handled by a committee formed for that purpose. Marsha Chamberlin, AAPAC’s chair, indicated that a committee-of-the-whole would be preferable, in her view. “Today was very energizing,” she said.

John Kotarski agreed, saying that all commissioners should have a voice in developing the master plan.

Seagraves noted that though discussions could continue about the master plan, the annual plan needed to be done quickly. Given the April 1 deadline for turning the annual plan over to the city council, he said, AAPAC would need to finalize it at their next meeting, on March 28. He reminded commissioners that the annual plan is a list of general projects – it doesn’t need to include specific budgets.

The annual plan for the current fiscal year, for example, lists 10 projects for the period from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012: [.pdf of FY2012 annual plan]

1. Complete the Justice Center/City Hall exterior art installation.
2. Select and install one interior project at the Justice Center/City Hall.
3. Re-install the Kamrowski murals in the Justice Center/City Hall.
4. Continued development of the public art project at the Fuller Road Transit Station. Artist selection is anticipated to occur in FY 2012.
5. Complete the Mural Program pilot and evaluate program for continuation.
6. Evaluate opportunity for a public art project associated with a River Art Trail that includes the Gallup Canoe Livery, Argo Headrace. Coordinate with Park and Recreation.
7. Evaluate opportunity for a public art project associated with the Manchester Elevated Water Tank painting project scheduled to occur in FY 2013.
8. Evaluate opportunity for a public art project associated with the Stadium Bridges project.
9. Continue exploration of Sun Dragon repairs/replacement pending results of the feasibility study.
10. Evaluate opportunity for a pilot public art program at bus stops in collaboration with the AATA.

Commissioners listed off several projects that could be part of the next annual plan. Some are carry-overs from the current plan, including the East Stadium bridges project, the mural project, the river art trail, and the Sun Dragon repairs. Possible new projects include developing a master plan.

Next Steps: Possible New Projects

Cathy Gendron advocated the inclusion at least one project that was a priority for AAPAC, noting that many current projects were suggestions from city staff. Commissioners shouldn’t lose sight of the need to be proactive, rather than simply reactive, she said. When Bob Miller suggested that such a project could be guided by the recent survey results, Gendron cautioned that the survey wasn’t comprehensive. The results could be part of their decision-making, but shouldn’t be the only consideration, she said.

Cathy Gendron indicates where current public art projects are located throughout the city. Most are clustered in the downtown area. The commission discussed the need for geographic diversity.

Seagraves suggested that commissioners give that type of project some thought, and they could discuss it at the March 28 meeting.

Marsha Chamberlin reported that she’d been contacted by the Main Street Area Association and the Downtown Development Authority about possibly partnering on a Main Street project. The street is scheduled to be resurfaced in 2013, she said, and there’s interest in “street stamping” as part of that resurfacing project. That might include creating patterns at crosswalks, for example. She said it’s in the early stages, and is something for AAPAC to discuss.

John Kotarski noted that this type of project would be perfect for an artist-in-residence, but they need to clarify whether the Percent for Art funds can support something like that.

Gendron mentioned that she’d had a discussion with Bill Martin, a local developer whose company – First Martin Corp. – owns several prominent properties in town. He has pledged $10,000 for some kind of art project along the North Main corridor, she said. He likes the idea of putting banners along that stretch, Gendron said, adding that she thought he could be convinced to support other ideas instead.

By the end of the retreat, commissioners had also generated a “parking lot” list of issues – that can be “parked” for now, but need to be discussed in the future. Those issues are:

• Develop a marketing plan.
• Clarify the process of appointing task forces.
• Clarify roles and responsibilities for different groups (AAPAC, art administrator, etc.) and identify gaps.
• Work with the city council to see if amendments to the public art ordinance are needed.
• Review and possibly modify AAPAC’s committee structure.
• Discuss whether AAPAC should provide a framework for doing projects.
• Formalize a city staff liaison for the capital improvements plan, so that AAPAC can give early input into capital projects.
• Identify a structure or mechanisms for accomplishing AAPAC’s goals.

Commissioners present: Connie Rizzolo Brown, Marsha Chamberlin, Tony Derezinski, Cathy Gendron, John Kotarski, Bob Miller, Theresa Reid, Wiltrud Simbuerger, Malverne Winborne. Also Aaron Seagraves, the city’s public art administrator.

Next regular meeting: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 4:30 p.m. at city hall, 301 E. Huron St. [confirm date]

The Chronicle relies in part on regular voluntary subscriptions to support our coverage of publicly-funded programs like the Percent for Art, which is overseen by the Ann Arbor public art commission. Click this link for details: Subscribe to The Chronicle.