ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[tomh009]

Please don't harass the underpaid employee.
That person has zero power to affect change.  All you will accomplish is making that person's life a little shittier.

Exactly.  This is also true for airline gate agents, hotel front desk staff, grocery store clerks and Bell/Rogers call centre staff, just to name a few.  As Markster says, they have no power to set or change policies, they only have to implement them.  Being nice (or at least neutral) to them doesn't cost you anything, even if you hate the company they work for.

[Canard]

I understand. I'm not going to talk to the person at the grocery store. I posted in the heat of the moment what I wanted to do, not what I'll actually do.

I'm sorry, and I regret my post.

Can we please move on?

[Bytor]

Oh, right. Sorry, I ought to have known that. I find that disingenuous. The full phrase was “the $1.9-billion project to put electric trains on streets next year.” It should have read, then, “the $1.9-billion project to put electric trains on streets next year, and operate them for the following 30 years.”

The article was written by Outhit, so you shouldn't be surprised. :-)

[Canard]

It's fun to warp the facts to get people as stirred up as possible!* I notice that CTV Kitchener always says things like "...the dome, which the Region claims was required...", not just "...the dome, which was required...". It immediately gets be back of the listeners subconsciously. I really hate how sneaky this type of reporting is. Why can't we have nice things?

* - sarcasm

[Bytor]

Count me in the "would be very upset if we spent over 2.5 million on artwork" camp.  I could see going a bit higher than $385,000 but not by much.

Would you prefer drab and functional, then? Perhaps grey and Soviet-functional-esque? Public art makes a city or region nicer to live in and gives it character - or helps to expand upon the character already there.  I'm all for a 1% rule of thumb.

[MidTowner]

Would you prefer drab and functional, then? Perhaps grey and Soviet-functional-esque? Public art makes a city or region nicer to live in and gives it character - or helps to expand upon the character already there.  I'm all for a 1% rule of thumb.

The Soviet Union and other communist states paid a lot of attention to public art. Moscow’s metro, for instance, has extensive artwork at each station, and so do transit systems in other formerly communist cities. There’s no dearth of public art in squares and other public places in formerly communist countries.

I prefer functionally aesthetic, personally, and think things should be designed with aesthetics in mind at every step, rather than designed functionally with public art shoe-horned in at the end. I’ve never heard of this 1% rule of thumb. That strikes me as a fairly reasonable guide, though I can’t be sure. But I don’t think anyone taking the time to post here is hoping for anything “drab and functional.”

[SammyOES]

Yeah, "drab and functional" is a silly strawman.

The problem with rules like "1% of a budget" is that it ends up significantly over paying in some cases and under paying in others.  If there's a 10 million dollar project to replace a sewer line in a residential neighborhood - $100K is probably WAY too much to be spending on artwork.  If there's a 10 million dollar project to renovate a public park - $100K is probably too little to be spending on art.  

The amount of money that should be spent on art should reflect the amount/type/use of the public space in the project.

I'm also a pretty big believer that more money being spent on artwork doesn't necessarily mean you're getting better results.  I'd rather a focus on local artists and fair payments.  Sometimes that may be less than 1% and sometimes more.

Edit: And just to add to this given the 'drab and functional' comment, the solution to 'drab and functional' is often not in artwork. It's in overall design and the environment around it. There are many subway stations in NYC that are beautiful without artwork because the design and materials used are beautiful - but much of it probably wasn't considered 'artwork'. And there are many other subway stations in NYC that are dreary and gross - and a couple of statues and beautiful paintings aren't going to do much to change that overall impression.

[Viewfromthe42]

I'm trying to remember the financial numbers involved in some outrage a couple years back, when motorists were vehemently opposed to reducing the 5-6-figure annual budget for highway grass cutting. I'd hope that if we think grass can be worth tens or hundreds of thousands to be slightly shorter for an area most people recognize as being intended to be barren and quickly passed by, we can appreciate that public spaces where people spend hours a week should get attention, too.

[Canard]

Great points. Look at DC or Montreal - the stations are gorgeous and artwork onto themselves (especially Montreal). I could just sit in Radisson for hours in awe.

I really love be Anchor Wall designs for our project and to be honest, I'm pleasantly stunned that for such a "bare bones" system as ours, we're getting such fantastic attention to aesthetic and proper design. Art at some stations is just icing on the cake, to me.

And I totally agree that a fixed budget percentage may not be the way to go - I think it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Let the artists make their proposals and then see what fits and go from there.

[panamaniac]

Nobody has mentioned the two negative articles on the record today... and their comment sections.

In the case of the problems being encountered by the Corner Pub at Ottawa and Charles Sts, I was left wondering whether the City couldn't consider moving the expropriation forward to this year from 2018?  The owner seems to be in distress for little reason, in the circumstances.

[panamaniac]

Would you prefer drab and functional, then? Perhaps grey and Soviet-functional-esque? Public art makes a city or region nicer to live in and gives it character - or helps to expand upon the character already there.  I'm all for a 1% rule of thumb.

The Soviet Union and other communist states paid a lot of attention to public art. Moscow’s metro, for instance, has extensive artwork at each station, and so do transit systems in other formerly communist cities. There’s no dearth of public art in squares and other public places in formerly communist countries.

I prefer functionally aesthetic, personally, and think things should be designed with aesthetics in mind at every step, rather than designed functionally with public art shoe-horned in at the end. I’ve never heard of this 1% rule of thumb. That strikes me as a fairly reasonable guide, though I can’t be sure. But I don’t think anyone taking the time to post here is hoping for anything “drab and functional.”

I tend to agree and in the case of ION, I'd be very happy if the public art were simply visible from each station (or along the route) rather than being installed as part of the station platforms.

[KevinL]

A local example of art overspend: a large amount was budgeted for art at the expansion of the bus garage at Strasburg and Chandler, based on a percentage of its budget. While the bus operators, riders of Route 3, and local neighbourhood may appreciate it, it doesn't have much of a broad impact.

[panamaniac]

Would you prefer drab and functional, then? Perhaps grey and Soviet-functional-esque? Public art makes a city or region nicer to live in and gives it character - or helps to expand upon the character already there.  I'm all for a 1% rule of thumb.

The Soviet Union and other communist states paid a lot of attention to public art. Moscow’s metro, for instance, has extensive artwork at each station, and so do transit systems in other formerly communist cities. There’s no dearth of public art in squares and other public places in formerly communist countries.

I prefer functionally aesthetic, personally, and think things should be designed with aesthetics in mind at every step, rather than designed functionally with public art shoe-horned in at the end. I’ve never heard of this 1% rule of thumb. That strikes me as a fairly reasonable guide, though I can’t be sure. But I don’t think anyone taking the time to post here is hoping for anything “drab and functional.”

I tend to agree and in the case of ION, I'd be very happy if the public art were simply visible from each station (or along the route) rather than being installed as part of the station platforms.  For example, the pool/fountain at the corner of Charles and Gaukel cries out for a piece of sculpture - putting it there rather than on the platform across the street would be fine, imho.

[panamaniac]

A local example of art overspend: a large amount was budgeted for art at the expansion of the bus garage at Strasburg and Chandler, based on a percentage of its budget. While the bus operators, riders of Route 3, and local neighbourhood may appreciate it, it doesn't have much of a broad impact.

I remember questioning that at the time, and I was shot down by other forummers.  To me. the money spent for art at the bus sheds should have been used to place the artwork somewhere with high visibility.  It's not a case of "overspend", imo, but rather one of poor placement.

[BuildingScout]

Oh, right. Sorry, I ought to have known that. I find that disingenuous. The full phrase was “the $1.9-billion project to put electric trains on streets next year.” It should have read, then, “the $1.9-billion project to put electric trains on streets next year, and operate them for the following 30 years.”

The article was written by Outhit, so you shouldn't be surprised. :-)

The last couple of issues of the KW-Reckless were particularly thin. The Guelph Perjury is gone and the Hamilton Speculator is not doing much better. I seriously question if these newspapers will be around by the end of the year.