Back in October, the columnist wrote, “Yes, I’ve been critical of this outlay of public money. Sure, it’s not much, but with the city likely facing layoffs, $75,000 might save someone’s job and benefits.”
He added, “Crystal Lee’s piece even noted my concern when she wrote ‘Almost immediately, they evoked curiosity, skepticism and criticism from the community. The Enterprise’s own Bob Dunning suggested the project was a waste of money, noting the first few coats of “drab colors” in a column published in July.’ “
“Actually, there have been several more critical columns since July,” he added.
So recently, the columnist on June 19 added: “My friend Curt [noted] that the paint job on the East Area Tank rose from $ 75,000 to $91,650 when no one was looking.”
“If they do, Curt, they should invite the nine dedicated city employees who were just laid off due to our budget woes and explain to the solstice gathering why tank art is more important to the city than at least one of the jobs that was eliminated … should be an interesting presentation,” he wrote.
Of course and again, you are talking about one-time money. There was something that did not sit well with this criticism, so I mentioned my concern to a prominent business person in this community, who noted to me that when the project came up, the city’s interim Public Works Director told the council that they had to put a finish on the project – they could either use a standard finish or they could get an artist to put a rendering on it.
Suddenly this became a whole new animal, and I wrote the city to get an understanding of the real cost incurred on the public art on the water tank.
Michael Mitchell, the City’s Interim Principal Civil Engineer, responded to my request because Bob Clarke is out of town until after July 4.
The first thing to note is that the water tank project itself is something that the Vanguard criticized as a $10 million boondoggle. As Mr. Mitchell notes, “The Engineer’s Estimate for the project was about $9 million and the construction contract was budgeted for that amount.”
However, the city got lucky, and received a low bid of $6.2 million; this was in the summer of 2009. As Mr. Mitchell notes, “The low bids were also due to market conditions being favorable to us at that time.”
We are already into the realm of the absurd that we would be focusing on a $75,000 outlay on a $6.2 million project.
There were a number of change orders during this period that reduced the cost of the tank construction contract to about $6,178,000.
Here’s the key point, “The project included aesthetic treatment for the tank (colored stucco, faux columns, etc.) as designed by West Yost’s sub-consultant, Cynthia Eastman, Architect.”
However, as we know, “City Council rejected the aesthetic treatment and voted to obtain a credit from the Contractor and use that credit to pay for a different treatment. They also charged the Civic Arts Commission to hold a contest with the winning artist(s) to install their aesthetic treatment.”
This is the critical point. The city had to pay for the finish. When they opted against that finish and instead to go the route of public art, they received a credit.
“The credit from the Contractor, Gateway Pacific, came in at about $84,000,” Mr. Mitchell writes. “The winning artists’ (L/C Mural & Design) costs for painting the tank was about $75,000. Later the Council opted for the same artists to also paint the pump house; this cost came in at about $15,000.”
This is the extra money that Mr. Dunning’s confederate, “Curtis,” is complaining about.
So the real question is, how much would the project have cost without the art?
Mr. Mitchell writes: “If we had stayed with the original design by Eastman, the tank would have cost about $6,262,150 ( which is the original bid of $6,200,000 less the total of the contract change orders $21,850 plus adding back in the original aesthetic treatment that Council rejected $84,000).”
He continues, “With the original aesthetic treatment being pulled and replaced by the L/C Mural & Design art, the total would be about $6,268,150 (which is the original bid of $6,200,000 less the change orders of $21,850 plus the L/C design costs of $90,000).”
The final answer then is, “So it seems adding in L/C Mural & Design’s costs to the tank increased the total tank cost by $6,000.”
So according to the city’s records, the total cost of going about the art project as opposed to the original design was $6,000 and only because they decided to add $15,000 at the end to paint the pump house, otherwise the city would have actually saved $9,000.
For $6,000, Mr. Dunning has written numerous columns accusing the city and the council of squandering what was still a relatively small amount of $75,000.
I have been told that the city has presented the actual facts to the Enterprise and that the Enterprise has not to this point corrected the record.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Maybe Bib Dunning will start talking about 3 member fire crews? Now that would be a real savings!
Sorry: “Bob”
[quote]”So the real question is how much would the project have cost without the art?”[/quote]The fact that the tank construction bid came in millions lower than the engineer’s estimate does not change the fact that the city paid $92,000 to have the artists paint the water tower and pump house instead of a building painter.
The fact that the city decided not to spend $84,000 on an one kind of “aesthetic treatment (colored stucco, faux columns, etc.)” does does not change the fact that the city paid $92,000 to artists instead of a building painter.
By your logic, one could argue that hiring the artists saved the city $3,000,000 (the difference between the original estimate and the final cost after all the bidding and change orders). This, of course, is a silly way to calculate how much it cost to have artists do the job instead of building painters.
The only way to determine the actual cost of the city’s decision to use artists to do an aesthetic treatment on a water tower is to consider the expense of the minimum-cost alternative, not to compare it with some fictional “aesthetic treatment” that the city did not want to pursue.
The problem with your “final answer” is that you stopped looking at the alternatives too soon. Using Michael Mitchell’s scenario that compares one expensive-finish option with another expensive-finish option simply provides “spin” to minimize the “real cost” of the city’s decision.
If the project requires a “standard finish” coat of paint, how much would that cost? Let’s say $20,000, for purposes of calculation. Therefore, the “real cost of the art on the water tower,” the added expense of the decision to go the aesthetic/art route was $72,000 ($92,000 less $20,000).
It’s interesting that this amount of money is considered “absurd” and “tiny” when stood next to a multi-million dollar project (or the entire city budget or U.S. national defense spending) yet looks like real money when considering decisions to fire tree trimmers.
I miss your point that one-time money isn’t worth saving; is that because it would only save the tree-trimmer for one year rather than two or ten? In any case, the tank will have continuing maintenance needs in the future.
Fair enough to argue whether the “drab colors” of the art adds anything to the project that a simple paint job wouldn’t. Or whether spending any extra money on a cylinder that barely can be seen by passersby makes sense at all.
Somehow, to me, this quirky undertaking is just the kind of thing that makes Davis Davis. But, pretending that the decision didn’t have a “real cost,” one that approaches six figures, is disingenuous. I am stunned, but only by the fact that you fell for the city’s unsupportable spin.
I love the tanks paint job. I love the fact our city spent money on [u]art[/u]. I love the fact that our city supported local artists. Go city!
So, shall we assume from recent data that the surface water project will also come in approximately 30% less than the engineers estimates? Let’s get building!
Assuming the facts and figures, and date sequences, are correct this is one of BEST cost analysis reports I’ve ever read.
The City should demand similar staff reporting styles in all reports, from all departments. Failure results in closed session between the Council and the faulted department head and City Manager. Freshly sharpened tree-trimming instruments shall be given to each council member.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars would be saved; thousands of hours of City Council time would be saved, city government would be become vastly more efficient.
Newly elected City Council members, please take note.
I totally agree that the criticism of the cost of the water tank mural is an abuse of arithmetic worthy of a junior high school student. I also happen to think that, on the scale of its cost, the mural is actually quite nice and I’m glad that the city commissioned it. Even if I thought that it was the ugliest thing in Davis, or if it had been canceled half-finished and an outright fiasco, I wouldn’t care all that much, because in context it’s hardly any money.
But I have also been told that when people are hurting and angry, that they don’t want to hear “that logic”. In other words, that a sound interpretation of arithmetic is only one side of a debate. Actually, I was already well aware of this, that both emotions and flawed schooling get in the way of even very basic mathematics that everyone learns in grade school. (I cannot blame flawed schooling alone, since I have seen even science and mathematics professors fall for it.) This is one reason that I have never and will never run for public office. Even so, my own emotions reinforce my concern for sound arithmetic not just for some political issues, but for all political issues.
David
Thanks for the details. Interesting story about economic choices. I’ll add just one more thought to your presentation. The amount spent was not money burned ( as in Heath Ledger as The Joker in Batman). It was a relatively small amount of money that went to an artist or artists who in this economy probably put the money to very good use in terms of their own purchases.
Sometimes I think we are too quick to label the expenditure of publcly generated money “a waste”. All of our parents taxpayer dollars that went to me in the form of Social Secirity after my father died,the funding of my first job for low income youth, my education at UCD medical school,
paid off handsomely in the form of my highly compensated job which has allowed me to have a positive impact on the community in terms of my personal expenditures, the salaries of my office staff and ancillary workers, my personal employees since I do not clean my own home or maintain my own yard. Thes also are very small, but positive contributions to the economy. It is important to note that I did not achieve this by
the myth of “pulling myself up by my own bootstraps”, but rather by the generosity of taxpayers who could see the financial and social benefit of having me achieve my goal of being a doctor and were willing to pay themselves for those long term benefits.
Strong post by the Vanguard. Fact checking and digging beneath the veneer (lets face it- the Enterprise cannot always do this) is exactly the strength of the Vanguard and why it is worthy of being supported.
David, this is dead wrong. The total project cost was still over $8 million. You should really know that; we were updated frequently and it was discussed frequently.
This is what happens when we lose our institutional memory; history can be rewritten. I am afraid we will see the same kind of “arithmetic” for the surface water project.
“The fact that the city decided not to spend $84,000 on an one kind of “aesthetic treatment (colored stucco, faux columns, etc.)” does does not change the fact that the city paid $92,000 to artists instead of a building painter.”
The point is that the city had to spend money to finish the tank and chose the art route over the more traditional route at roughly the same cost is the point here.
Sue: that’s a different point that is probably worth looking into as well, but it just illustrates the absurdity of the focus on the $75,000 art rather than the $6, $8, $10 MILLION project.
Unless this is a deviation from other public art, the work should have been covered by development fees for Art in Public Places. Therefore, the mural should have cost the city nothing.
I wish the City of Woodland had an Art in Public Places program. Our new “sputnik” tank next to Clark Field is plain white, with no artwork. I even provided a plan (at no charge to the city) to paint the jersey numbers of Woodlanders who played in the major leagues on it. City Hall couldn’t even find dough to do that simple decoration. Count your blessings, Davis.
[quote]The only way to determine the actual cost of the city’s decision to use artists to do an aesthetic treatment on a water tower is to consider the expense of the minimum-cost alternative, not to compare it with some fictional “aesthetic treatment” that the city did not want to pursue.
The problem with your “final answer” is that you stopped looking at the alternatives too soon. Using Michael Mitchell’s scenario that compares one expensive-finish option with another expensive-finish option simply provides “spin” to minimize the “real cost” of the city’s decision…
Somehow, to me, this quirky undertaking is just the kind of thing that makes Davis Davis. But, pretending that the decision didn’t have a “real cost,” one that approaches six figures, is disingenuous. I am stunned, but only by the fact that you fell for the city’s unsupportable spin.[/quote]
My thinking precisely. Had the city just gone with a basic paint job, it would not have cost anywhere near $84,000 is my guess. If it had only cost the city $20,000 to do a basic job, that would have been $64,000 saved. Those sorts of savings add up. Why not have had high school or college students donate a project and use that tank as a free canvas for their [removed]approved by the city), and had the job done for nothing? And this is just my opinion, and I will probably get criticized for it, but what goes for “art” in this town is highly questionable at times…
Correction: the removed word was “expression”…
Dino – But the Art in Public Places program is also city money. So you can view this project as a temporary expansion of APP. For all I know, they could even recharge the project to APP if it looked necessary.
Besides, you turn around and wish that Woodland had something like Art in Public Places. The specific funding mechanism is not the most important thing. What’s important is that the city of Davis has funded a lot of nice public art.
Elaine
[quote]Why not have had high school or college students donate a project and use that tank as a free canvas for their [removed]approved by the city), and had the job done for nothing? And this is just my opinion, and I will probably get criticized for it, but what goes for “art” in this town is highly questionable at times…[/quote]
Two points:
1) I completely agree that having high school or college students donate a project would have a number of
benefits. It would allow them to gain experience in design and implementation. It could be done in such a
way as to allow them to be credited for community service if at the high school level. It would have the
downside of not providing employment for a local artist. All solutions have their pros and cons.
2) This is not a criticism, but rather an observation. What passes for art is always either questionable, or at
least subjective, depending on one’s personal point of view and taste. I ,myself, love our community interest
in public art. I love the water tank. Even the pieces of public art that I do not personally like lift my spirit
since they indicate that someone cared enough about the creative process to make something of beauty,
or whimsy, or curiosity, or intellectual challenge and are willing to share it with the community. Pieces that
I personally do not find aesthetically pleasing can be conversation starters and not infrequently have
provided me with a new perspective by seeing it through someone else’s eyes.
Elaine – No, these sorts of savings do not add up. In assessing public expenses, or even their own expenses or any expenses, it is typical for public to make mountains out of molehills, and therefore miss the actual mountains. If you take all of the public art that Davis has ever paid for, whether through Art in Public Places or in any other way, it does not add up to a major expense.
[quote]”The point is that the city had to spend money to finish the tank and chose the art route over the more traditional route at roughly the same cost is the point here.”[/quote]The point is that you’re misrepresenting the choices that faced the city in your attempt to come up with the fiction of “roughly the same cost.”
They could have selected a standard spray-painted finish (at $20,000?) once they rejected the proposed “aesthetic treatment” (at $84,000, as bid). Instead, they chose the less traditional the two winning artists (at $92,000 as amended).
You (and the city spokesperson) attempt to convince us that the “more traditional route” for finishing a tank is “colored stucco, faux columns, etc.” when the typical, traditional treatment for a water tank is really a paint job, possibly dressed up with the city’s name (in our case, a much less expensive addition than would face, say, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA).
There is no way to support a claim of $6,000 “real cost” (or even $50,000) for this decision, so why try?
If we should spend $70,000 to support art or support artists, argue that. If the $70,000 came from some special funding that isn’t “real money,” argue that. If you think the art job is well worth the $70,000 we spent, argue that.
Several folks effectively make just those cases here, including you claiming that the more wasteful the spending on the tank itself, the less anyone should “focus on the $75,000.”[quote]”Sue: that’s a different point that is probably worth looking into as well, but it just illustrates the absurdity of the focus on the $75,000 art rather than the $6, $8, $10 MILLION project.”[/quote] You’re partly right, it’s probably worth looking into and it illustrates the absurdity of your focus on the $75,000 (or $6,000 or $92,000).
Just don’t buy the city revisionist history that taxpayers didn’t spent any money on this choice or that it spent only $6,000. As Sue’s note suggests, you should be focusing on the “real cost” of the tank itself instead of focusing on this little, insignificant spending on the arts. We know Michael Mitchell is understating the cost of the artists’ contract by $90,000; Is he understating the real cost of the entire tank project by millions?
(PS–Have all the provisional, etc., votes been counted to determine who came in third? It was surprising to have winners declared in such a tight race with so many ballots still uncounted. Have we really lost our institutional memory or is that still being determined?)
[quote]”If you take all of the public art that Davis has ever paid for, whether through Art in Public Places or in any other way, it does not add up to a major expense.”[/quote]Just how much are you talking about here?
Or, maybe, how little are you talking about, depending on one’s point of view?
I’m not sure Davis misses debating any big deals or even the tiniest deals!
“Had the city just gone with a basic paint job, it would not have cost anywhere near $84,000 is my guess.”
They didn’t need a simple paint job, they needed something more than that.
[quote]Unless this is a deviation from other public art, the work should have been covered by development fees for Art in Public Places. Therefore, the mural should have cost the city nothing. [/quote]The Municipal Arts Fund is funded by a 1% ‘set-aside’ that the City self-assesses on Capital Improvement projects that the City undertakes. Not fees from development, per se.
JustSaying – The point is that some large public expenses do sail through with barely more discussion than much smaller expenses. For example, the high school stadium cost about 100 times as much as the water tank mural, but it did not get 100 times as much discussion, it got maybe twice as much discussion. Davis does not in fact devote prudent flyspeck attention to all issues. Actually it does a better job than many other cities with its budget, but it is still capable of being penny wise and pound foolish. (And I know, the stadium was the school district and not the city, but it was certainly local taxpayer money.)
For the record, Art in Public Places is funded at 1% of the budget for city capital projects. The water tank project was apparently not funded from that, but it is on the same scale, roughly 1% of the cost of the water tank.
Wino: [i]”I love the tanks paint job.”[/i]
Kupo: [i]”the mural is actually quite nice.”[/i]
I have spoken with about 15 or so non-artists in Davis over the last 6 months about the art on the water tank. All but but a few had negative feelings. The few exceptions were neutral.
I was personally predisposed to not like it because I had lobbied for the idea that the tank should be painted as a historical Davis mural, one that told our story. [quote]My vision for the tank mural is one of a quilt, where each section would be taken on by different artists.
The story should begin in prehistoric times, showing how the Wintun Indians lived along Putah Creek. It should end with depictions of the people, parks, buildings and environment of 2010. In between is the story of Davis. [/quote] But I find myself liking what Sofia Lacin Hennessy Christophel painted more and more. It evokes in me a warm feeling. The shadowing created by the metallic attachments at the top is cool. From the highway, the part that says “Davis” is clear.
And maybe I was just dead wrong about a literal mural of Davis history. It seems likely that since everyone who passes by the tank is passing by fast, it is more appropriate to have something more abstract, something which looks pleasant and evokes more feeling than thought, that is more of an emotional depiction than one designed to study and teach.
I hope that over time more and more Davis residents will come to appreciate the aesthetics of the water tank. It is worthy of appreciation.
Anyway, just think folks. For a one-time savings of a dollar and a quarter per resident, Davis could have had a much larger version of this:
[url]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_50Wbj0-SnWE/TDOSaItBG-I/AAAAAAAAGic/v_i2fU9xSH0/s1600/Water+Tank.JPG[/url]
Now, a dollar and a quarter per resident may not sound like much, but just think, for the same amount of money, Davis could have built four or five parking spaces.
Sorry, I meant to post the image, not the URL.
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_50Wbj0-SnWE/TDOSaItBG-I/AAAAAAAAGic/v_i2fU9xSH0/s1600/Water+Tank.JPG[/img]
As to the question of money, three thoughts:
1. In the big picture of things, the money for this is small peanuts. Focus on the big picture. Worrying about this small amount reminds me of what Ruth Asmundson did when she was the Mayor of Davis. In order to save money (if my recollection is correct), Ruth ended the practice of having bottles of water and small snacks (usually cookies) available at City Council meetings. This saved us $12, under the theory that it “all adds up.” But at the very same time, Ruth voted to maintain our impossibly expensive ($4 million cafeteria cash-outs) and she voted to not reduce the pension formulas for new hires and she voted to massively increase the wages of most employees, etc., etc.
2. Public art is a public good. It has an actual value. Spending money on aesthetics is not throwing money away. It is improving our commonweal. It is no different than improving our parks with more and nice shubbery or trees or flowers or maintaining those we have. Like any indivisible good — such as the clean air or the maintenance of our history — public art is something we all own in common and benefit from.
3. I proposed an idea that the Council rejected which would have raised $250,000 to pay for the tank art project and to pay for its long-term maintenance. My suggestion was that the tank could have served as a commercial billboard for a few years: Let it serve as an advertising vehicle for Target or Coca-Cola or Nugget Market or for multiple companies at once. Take all the funds from those billboard ads and set them in a special fund. And once the money was sufficient and the advertising contracts had expired, we would have had plenty of money to pay for and maintain this artwork.
I realize, of course, that the City Council rejected my idea because its members believe (not without cause) that most people in Davis hate commerce, and exploiting commerce, they think, is crass. I, however, don’t think a big red Coca-Cola sign up for a few years there would have looked bad at all. But the Council (and most of you, I guess) don’t agree with me on that.
hpierce: Thanks for the explanation. Actually, I’m surprised that developers don’t subsidize the APP.
Greg Kuperberg: My point was to show the difference between Woodland and Davis, and it does come down to funding. If developer fees DID subsidize the APP, it would not be the “city’s money” to spend on whatever it wants. It would need to be spent on public art. Since hpierce clarified the APP funding, the point is moot.
[quote]”Had the city just gone with a basic paint job, it would not have cost anywhere near $84,000 is my guess.”
“They didn’t need a simple paint job, they needed something more than that.”[/quote]What are you talking about, David? What did we “need”?
Rich – Concerning what the art on the water tank should have been: I regard creative freedom as necessary in my job (despite the public perception of mathematics) and I imagine that you think the same of your job. The right way, really the only way, to get great art is to pick the right people and then let them do what they want. You have to take risks to get great art, because great art is original.
So, first of all, L/C Mural and Design has a good portfolio and they were a sound choice all along. And honestly, although Bob Dunning is entitled to his opinion, I’m coming to think that the water tank is among their best work and that they turned lead into gold. Maybe the cavils from Dunning work best as reverse psychology.
[quote]Elaine – No, these sorts of savings do not add up. In assessing public expenses, or even their own expenses or any expenses, it is typical for public to make mountains out of molehills, and therefore miss the actual mountains. If you take all of the public art that Davis has ever paid for, whether through Art in Public Places or in any other way, it does not add up to a major expense.[/quote]
It is not just in the field of art that the city wastes money. It is a mindset – that somehow we “need” this, that and the other…
[quote]They didn’t need a simple paint job, they needed something more than that.[/quote]
“Needed” something more? Really? Why wouldn’t a basic paint job have been sufficient?
[quote]3. I proposed an idea that the Council rejected which would have raised $250,000 to pay for the tank art project and to pay for its long-term maintenance. My suggestion was that the tank could have served as a commercial billboard for a few years: Let it serve as an advertising vehicle for Target or Coca-Cola or Nugget Market or for multiple companies at once. Take all the funds from those billboard ads and set them in a special fund. And once the money was sufficient and the advertising contracts had expired, we would have had plenty of money to pay for and maintain this artwork. [/quote]
Very clever idea! That is the sort of creative thinking and mindset this city needs to cultivate…
“”Needed” something more? Really? Why wouldn’t a basic paint job have been sufficient?”
It had to do with the finish. I’ll see if I can get a more technical explanation
Elaine – If Davis only ever spent money on what it strictly “needs”, then it wouldn’t need or have me living here.
GK: [i]”The right way, really the only way, to get great art is to pick the right people and then let them do what they want.”[/i]
In general, I agree.
However, how much leeway you allow in what you pay for depends first on what result you are hoping for. If the City had requested (for example) “a mural which depicts Wintun Indian life and culture in the Putah Creek basin prior to 1800,” and we got the artwork that is on the tank now, “letting them do what they want” would have been a mistake.
The common practice with publicly financed works of art is to require some sort of sketch and a general color palette for paintings and for sculptures to require the artists to submit a maquette, which is then approved or modified based on the input of the financier.
One option would have been to take the credit, finish the tank at the appropriate level required and then use the remainder credit to lower the principal that was borrowed.
Another option, use the remainder of the credit to sponsor local artists activities around town where we can easily see their work.
Another option, I too would have supported using advertizing revenue (tastefully done) that was directed at backfilling social services, youth programs, etc. That would have been a healthy source of annual income.
We could still do advertizing on the periphery of the enclosure.
David Thompson
Speaking of mini sculptures: One of the coolest art shows I ever attended at the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art (aka the MOCA), back when it was housed in a warehouse and was known as the Temporary Contemporary, was a maquette collection. Some rich dude had purchased hundreds (maybe 1,000 in all) of maquettes, many which originally served as the basis of famous sculptures. A sidenote to that story is that while I was at that show I met (well, “met” is overstated but “saw” in person and up close) David Hockney, whose work I was then (and still am) a fan of.
Darn, just ready every post hoping that someone would mention what the letters on the tank spell! I have gone round the tank from every side that has access and still can’t figure it out?
[quote]”The point is that some large public expenses do sail through with barely more discussion than much smaller expenses….Anyway, just think folks. For a one-time savings of a dollar and a quarter per resident, Davis could have had a much larger version of this (water tank)”[/quote]I understand. Always and forever, we spend much more public money on water tanks and fighter jets than we do on public art and tree planting. And we do it without much question or comment.
Although I’m about to give up on David’s contention that this public art venture somehow didn’t cost what it cost (possibly subtracting the expense of other methods of protecting the structure), I wonder why we compare the cost of public art against what we pay for infrastructure or fighters.
Shouldn’t we, instead, judge this $75,000 art project on its own merits and against competing public art projects? Was it worth foregoing other public art in order to finance this one? I figure there must be standards that help guide such decisions, just are there are engineering standards for water tanks.
Public art as a concept has taken root in Davis, but it requires public support to flourish. There reasons Rich’s survey comes in with such resounding lack of support for this project. Some of them, I think, include residents’ evaluations of the site itself. Hidden away, not out on the flats like Greg’s image, the art is almost invisible to anyone but bus riders and Ikeda Market shoppers. Further complicated by fencing and the shape of the structure itself, this viewer shortcoming only will worsen as the surrounding trees continue to grow.
Is it art if no one sees it? Should the public pay for it if only a few people can enjoy it? Why not spend this money on other public art projects that thousands could frequently see and appreciate? I’m sure the $75-$85,000 costs could have helped the many artists whose program was eliminated last year.
Granted “great art” is so subjective. But, you’ll remember this is not what the city council expected or wanted when it got dumped in their laps. We suffered through an awkward public-art time when the artists took a tough stand on not changing their plans because it was art, and the council sent everyone off to negotiate quietly (apparently out of sympathy for the artists’ feelings).
For many reasons, I think this was a poor public art decision. I’m mostly concerned because it took a substantial amount out of the public art pot for art that will require continuing maintenance, it replaces a basic paint job on a mundane structure that people barely see and it provides ammo for people who read Dunning and think public art’s a poor use of tax money.
Maybe those who think our residents’ appreciation will grow are correct. Like the Vietnam Memorial.
I do love this performance art photo of the tank and the artists. It’s the only decent view I’ve ever seen–and likely ever will–of any part of the work, although it’s confusing from this angle. Who took it and how?
Rich
[quote]It evokes in me a warm feeling. The shadowing created by the metallic attachments at the top is cool. From the highway, the part that says “Davis” is clear. [/quote]
I appreciated very much your comments on the water tank art, especially the one above. It reflects how I have come to feel about this particular piece of art which I happen to see two to three times weekly when I work in Sacramento and pass it on the freeway. I was a little skeptical at first, and now smile every time I see it. I think it is a wonderful representation of Davis to those passing by and makes me just that little bit happier to be coming home to Davis which I truly love.
JustSaying: I don’t understand your claim that no one will ever see it. I see it every day when I take the Mace Blvd. exit returning from Sacramento. I’m sure thousands of others do as well.
I remember thinking as it was being built, “I hope they don’t just leave it bare concrete. This would be a great place for public art.” I’ll admit it’s not my favorite mural ever, but art is subjective, and I do kind of like it. And I think the cost was not unreasonable given the scope of the project.
[i]”I see it every day when I take the Mace Blvd. exit returning from Sacramento.”[/i]
That is probably the most common large view angle. I almost never go that way, but I would guess everyone who lives in Mace Ranch, El Macero, El Macero Vista, Wild Horse, Slide Hill, and whatever they call the houses along Montgomery Ave. are called takes in that same view on trips back to Davis from points East.
My view is normally riding my bike northbound on the Mace overpass (coming back into Davis from Tremont) or westbound (coming back into Davis on the old highway bike lane and often ascending the Mace overpass, other times continuing on to Olive Drive).
I think it fits nicely with the quirky, eclectic pieces around your charming town .
Char –
The letters spell “sol omnibus lucet”, latin for “the sun shines on us all”. But – I think you can only see ALL of the letters during the summer solstice when the sun is at the right angle because some of them are created by the shadow cast by the metal sculptures at the top edge of the tank.
2cowherd – Really? That’s brilliant! I had already decided that the water tank mural was a nifty abstract painting. Now that I know the purpose of the letters, it’s truly inspired. And, I now learn from the Enterprise, most of the cost of the project was supplies rather than compensation. Far from wasting anyone’s money, Lacin and Christophel deserve an award for what they have done for Davis. In fact the mural did win an award. I’m not sure that it has won enough awards.
Well, I respect Bob Dunning too, even if he is a complete idiot about some things.
2cowherd
[quote]The letters spell “sol omnibus lucet”, latin for “the sun shines on us all”[/quote]
Thank you so much for taking the time to post that. I think it is so appropriate for our community and now I will have an even bigger smile on my fact each time I get off at Mace !
As argumentative a community as we sometimes can be, we are truly blessed in many ways.
I should have said that all the letters are ALIGNED at the Summer Solstice. I started seeing the “N” and the “B” several weeks ago if I was exiting westbound on Mace and the sun was overhead.
[quote] I respect Bob Dunning too, even if he is a complete idiot [/quote]
To quote one of my favorite regulars: Bingo!
[quote] even if he is a complete idiot [/quote]
Shoot, let me try that again. Is this right? Argghh
[quote]idiot[/quote]
Now thats better. Bob Dunning, geees….
“And, I now learn from the Enterprise, most of the cost of the project was supplies rather than compensation.”
I didn’t see this in the Enterprise article, but since you did, it could support David’s contention (as yet nothing more than a figment of his imagination) that this art and a basic protective paint job essentially cost the same amount. If the artists ended up not getting a fair payment for what was a massive labor effort because the necessary paint, brushes, scaffolding, etc. took most of the contract cash, that had to be an unforeseen result and is a shame.
That also means there wouldn’t have been anything that could have been used for other art that would be better observed and appreciated by Davis citizenry. Apparently some of you get a great viewing as you pass by and enjoy the water tower are even though I haven’t been able to see much of it myself.
Given this added information, I’ve determined that my view and that idiot Dunning’s opinion have been misguided. The artists delivered excellence in a difficult setting. In addition, anything that can be depended upon to regularly bring a smile to Elaine and medwoman and others is worth whatever it costs. Good call, city council.
JustSaying – I have no reason to believe that Lacin and Christophel worked in any kind of crisis circumstances or unfair circumstances. I think that it’s just that the city happened to get a bid from talented but not-very-established artists who like Davis and wanted the assignment. It shows you that Davis is, despite all of the quarreling, a generally well-run city. There are other cities out there that wouldn’t know how to attract any such bid, and might well reject it if it came to them.
“as yet nothing more than a figment of his imagination”
This is just a cheapshot that was completely unwarranted. I spoke to the city officials and was directly told what I reported. I have people here based on nothing more than conjecture who believe that somehow we could have simply painted it, I was told we could not. I’m no expert and so I can’t answer the why. But to claim this is a figment of my imagination is a damn insult with no basis in fact at all.
Kudos to the Civic Art Commission for making this splendid selection. And kudos for the then council for reversing themselves and adopting the CAC’s selection. I look forward to the celebration Sunday.
-Michael Bisch
A late comment after reading the rest.
I disparaged the tank too then we walked around it a few months ago and began to really get an appreciation for the cleverness. This was even before all the metalwork that changes the shadows, was erected.
I wish something similar could be done with the newest rank, smaller, right near the Pelz overpass in South Davis-SODA
but we have no more money, small change or otherwise……
David, sorry, it wasn’t intended as an insult. You’re the one who reported that the cost of the tank art was less than the cost of the aesthetic treatment that was rejected and esentially equivilent to the cost of the alternative, standard finish. In fact, that was the point of your report on the “whole new animal.” Furthermore, you used the claim to discredit Dunning and others who questioned spending $75,000 for the project.
At least two of us questioned how you made the calculation that the three alternatives cost the same, when the city seemed only to be comparing the aesthetic treatment vs. the art contract. It looked as though you’d made a leap without even looking at how much the standard finish would cost, and discounted the point we were questioning.
The reason, of course, is that it just isn’t logical that a standard finish couldn’t be applied in bulk at less cost than a labor-intensive art finish that had to meet the same minimum requirements. It does seem logical that a “colored stucco, faux columns, etc.” aesthetic finish would cost more than a standard finish, if only considering definition.
You agreed to confirm this basic contention, and I look forward to what you find out about the real cost of the standard finish we skipped in favor of the art approach. In the meantime, however, Greg noted that the artists spent most of their $90,000 contract cash on supplies, making the comparison cost for an industrially applied standard finish less significant.
Given the language and tone you used in your story and your comments, I didn’t think you’d be offended by my remarking on your still unverified claim about a standard finish cost alternative. I was trying to explain why I’d changed my mind about the matter, not to offend you. I shouldn’t have been so flip.
JS: Fair enough.
[quote]Elaine – If Davis only ever spent money on what it strictly “needs”, then it wouldn’t need or have me living here.[/quote]
And will you still live here should the city go bankrupt bc it spent what it doesn’t have? That is really just a rhetorical question and not meant to be snarky, but you catch my drift…
[quote]Elaine: how much do you think it would cost just to buy the paint for a facility of that size? And then how much labor do you think it would take to paint it. That’d be a baseline for your costs, if you could simply paint which I was told directly that you could not.
The funniest thing is that this is a $6 million project, Sue is claiming a lot higher, and yet people continue to focus on $75,000 for the art. Really?[/quote]
First of all, I will refer you to an old adage that goes something like this: “Watch the pennies, and the pounds will take care of themselves”. Secondly, it is your article that has brought this fiscally “minor” issue forward. Thirdly, I will refer you to the sage words of JS:
[quote]David, sorry, it wasn’t intended as an insult. You’re the one who reported that the cost of the tank art was less than the cost of the aesthetic treatment that was rejected and esentially equivilent to the cost of the alternative, standard finish. In fact, that was the point of your report on the “whole new animal.” Furthermore, you used the claim to discredit Dunning and others who questioned spending $75,000 for the project.
At least two of us questioned how you made the calculation that the three alternatives cost the same, when the city seemed only to be comparing the aesthetic treatment vs. the art contract. It looked as though you’d made a leap without even looking at how much the standard finish would cost, and discounted the point we were questioning.
The reason, of course, is that it just isn’t logical that a standard finish couldn’t be applied in bulk at less cost than a labor-intensive art finish that had to meet the same minimum requirements. It does seem logical that a “colored stucco, faux columns, etc.” aesthetic finish would cost more than a standard finish, if only considering definition.
You agreed to confirm this basic contention, and I look forward to what you find out about the real cost of the standard finish we skipped in favor of the art approach.[/quote]
[quote]In addition, anything that can be depended upon to regularly bring a smile to Elaine and medwoman and others is worth whatever it costs. Good call, city council.[/quote]
Please do not include me in the list of people who like this thing. I don’t particularly care for it…
Elaine: I asked some painters about how much it would cost just to do the paint job and they said just to paint a facility that size with labor they could probably do it for about $40,000 to $50,000. However, there are two factors that increase the cost. First, city has various labor requirements. Second, the first coat of the paint has to be an industrial strength sealer. In short they thought $75,000 was about the right cost for a city to have to pay for the finishing.
To dmg: I’m not sure I am buying your figures of a “basic job”. The reason I say that is because the city was contemplating an artistic art job for $84,000. So what you are telling me is the actual art part would have only cost $9,000? I find that hard to believe…
Elaine: It would probably help if you correctly understood the situation.
The city originally budgeted $84,000 for finishing the tank
Instead, they commissioned for $75,000 artists to paint it
That originally saved them $9000
They then decided they needed to paint the adjacent pump house, which was $15,000.
That meant that they spent a total of $6000 for having the art and the adjacent pump house painted than the original contract.
I don’t quite understand why you get from that the actual art part only cost the city $9000.
The city decided not to do the “aesthetic treatment” that was included in the original contract. The contractor rebated $84,000.
The city then had to decide how to finish the tank. They considered two alternatives. One was a standard finish. The other was an artist rendering. The selected artist contract cost $75,000 to which $15,000 was added for the adjacent building, making a total of $90,000.
We will not know how much more or less the artist option cost than the standard finish would have until you find out how much the standard finish for the tank and for the building would have cost. When you provide those figures, it’ll be easy to see how much more or less the decision to go the art route instead of the standard finish route.
I think Elaine understands the situation, and is just using different language than you (“basic job” instead of “”standard finish.”. I think the problem here is that it seems you’re using the $75,000 colored stucco, faux columns, etc. figure to suggest the artists’ option is somehow a savings to the city when the art option has to be compared with the standard finish option cost.
As you wrote, “So the real question is, how much would the project have cost without the art?” when you have the standard finish costs, we’ll be able to answer your question, not until.
Elaine
[quote]Please do not include me in the list of people who like this thing. I don’t particularly care for it..[/quote]
That’s ok. I like it enough for both of us ; )
[quote]I think Elaine understands the situation, and is just using different language than you (“basic job” instead of “”standard finish.”. I think the problem here is that it seems you’re using the $75,000 colored stucco, faux columns, etc. figure to suggest the artists’ option is somehow a savings to the city when the art option has to be compared with the standard finish option cost.
As you wrote, “So the real question is, how much would the project have cost without the art?” when you have the standard finish costs, we’ll be able to answer your question, not until.[/quote]
Precisely. Or to put it another way, if the city slotted $75,000 for an art option that included stucco, faux columns, etc., how much would the city have allotted for a basic paint job? The exact same or close to the same? I don’t think so… stucco treatment, faux columns, etc. cost money…
[quote]That’s ok. I like it enough for both of us ; )[/quote]
LOL Just to give you some perspective, I come from the East Coast originally. My roots tend to be from New England, even though I was raised in MD. If you know anything about MD and the New England states, modern art isn’t that plentiful. It just is not my cup of tea. I would eschew the Modern Art Museum in D.C. for the Fine Arts Museum when I would go downtown, where I could look at all the old masters. So frankly I cringe at most of what passes for art in this town. It is all a matter of personal preference… beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For instance, I’m not particularly fond of the eggheads on the UCD campus. But then if you have ever been on the U of MD campus you would understand why. It has the Willamsburg feel, w old brick buildings and white columns. Ah, nostalgia…
Elaine, see my 10:09 am post again that answers your question or should
To dmg: As I said before, I’m not believing the figures you were given – they don’t make logical sense…
That’s fine. You can call up local painters and ask them what they would charge and remember to add in the added costs of labor via the prevailing wage law, let me know what you come up with.
ERM
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I grew up in rural Washington State with no exposure to any art until I took my first art appreciation class in high school after moving to California. With no preconceived notion of what constituted “good art” I was basically like a little sponge. I suppose it is this that has made me so eclectic in my tastes in art, music, dance, theater….there is little I cannot appreciate, even if I do not personally love it.