AGENDA #6c
BUDGET WORKING PAPER
TO: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
FROM: Mary Lou Kuschatka, Transportation Director
Bill Stockard, Assistant to the Manager
SUBJECT: Preliminary Report on Provision of Public Art in Bus Shelters
DATE: April 30, 2003
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum responds to a Council request at the February 12, 2003 Budget Work Session for the Manager to pursue options to provide public art within the Town’s bus shelters. This report provides some preliminary information about ways that this could be accomplished.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
At the Budget Work Session on February 12, the Council asked that we pursue ways to provide public art in Town bus shelters, and include the Public Arts Commission in the implementation of such a project. Staff members have discussed this possibility with Ms. Karen Slotta, Staff Liaison with the Public Arts Commission, and Ms. Renee Piechocki, Chair of the Commission.
Background on Bus Shelters
· The Town has 105 bus shelters, and 88 bus stops with shelters (some stops have more than one shelter).
Below, we provide preliminary options for the Council’s information. We will continue to pursue any of these options as directed by the Council. We believe that Option 1 is the most feasible option for the Council to consider at this time.
This option would involve sandblasting artwork onto glass panels as they are replaced in a shelter. These panels would be removable and replaceable in case of damage. One artist or a series of artists could be commissioned to design images. Fabrications would be done to Town specifications, such as the size and thickness of panels. Images could be created by the artists, sent out for fabrication, and installed by Town staff. We note that changing of panels could require approximately two or more hours of staff time per panel, and sandblasting would be done off-site by non-Town forces.
This option is likely to be the least expensive of the options. Public Arts Commission representatives estimate that there would be a one-time fee of between $2,000 and $5,000 for artists to design and provide a template that could be used again by sandblasting the panel and reinstalling it within the shelter. This option would also enable the Town to re-use panels that have been damaged by graffiti.
We have not been able to locate a community in North Carolina that has pursued this option. However, Ms. Slotta and Ms. Piechocki referred us to the TriMet Agency of Portland, Oregon. According to officials with TriMet, replacement of glass panels can cost about $200 each, but the cost to sandblast with an artist-designed motif and then reinstall the panel could potentially cost less than $200 (Attachment 1). We will provide a more detailed cost analysis if the Council chooses to pursue this option.
The Public Arts Commission would be involved in this option by conducting an artist selection process. Ms. Slotta and Ms. Piechocki recommend that in order to have the full aesthetic effect, more than one panel per shelter would need to be etched. We recommend that the Council authorize us to experiment with this option on a shelter.
This option would provide a venue where artwork can be displayed within protected hinged panels within the shelters. The artwork would be designed and fabricated, with help in installation likely to be coordinated with Town staff and the Public Arts Commission. A rotation of artwork is also a possibility, similar to the rotating exhibits at Town Hall and the Chapel Hill Public Library. A more long-term idea within this option is to include murals, produced either by commissioned professional artists or volunteers, under a selection process guided by the Public Arts Commission.
We were not able to locate a community in North Carolina that has developed such an option. Ms. Slotta and Ms. Piechocki referred us to King County Metro Transit in Seattle, Washington, which has pursued this option. According to Ms. Barbara Leucke, Percent for Art Coordinator for King County Metro Transit, King County operates a volunteer community mural program for windscreens within bus shelters. King County also has completed a series of shelters where artists were given commissions ranging from $500 for a single shelter of painted murals on wooden wind screen panels to $30,000 for six shelters of varying sizes, with wind screens covered in terra-cotta and cut-out metal forms added to the roof line (see Attachment 2).
Since 1989, more than 700 murals have been created in King County. Volunteers have created the majority of the murals, although 10 percent of murals are funded by King County’s Public Art Program, which commissions professional artists. Murals last an average of five years and are replaced when damaged. It can be more difficult to replace murals than is the case with sandblasted etchings. Murals and other artwork within bus shelters can also run a high risk of vandalism. For security reasons, we would also want to avoid creating a visibility blockage with the placement of public art at any shelter. In King County, shelter specifications require that glass must have at least 50 percent openness for security and visibility. There would be a one-time cost to create a gallery platform in the shelters, with a cost range similar to that listed above for King County.
As with Option 1, the Public Arts Commission would conduct the artist selection process.
This option would involve the redesign of Town bus shelters and would include the involvement of the Public Arts Commission in a redesign effort. Artists could work on design teams for shelters, creating artwork that is integrated into the bid documents and construction documents for the shelters This option could also include additional lighting options for display of the redesigned shelters or artwork within them.
We have not been able to locate a community in North Carolina that has pursued this option and can only provide some preliminary comment at this time. This option would provide a visually attractive bus shelter and could potentially involve designs that reflect the community where they are located. However, this would be the most expensive of the options because it would involve complete replacement or redesign (possibly panels and structure). The average cost of shelters, including site work and installation, will be approximately $5,000 per shelter. This cost is likely to be higher if we include specifications to incorporate artwork. As with both of the above options, the Public Arts Commission would conduct the artist selection process.
CONCLUSION
We recognize that any of the above options could provide visually attractive improvements to Town bus shelters. We believe that Option 1 provides the least costly improvement for the community, and offers the best opportunity to experiment with a new venue for public art in the shelters. We recommend pursuit of Option 1, experimenting with sandblasted etchings on more than one panel in a shelter. We will discuss this process with Public Arts Commission representatives if so directed by the Council. Once this process has been discussed more thoroughly, we will return to the Council with a follow-up report. We will also pursue other options as directed by the Council.
1. TriMet Blasts Vandalism into Art, from www.trimet.org (p. 5).
2. Bus Shelter Mural Program, from: http://transit.metrokc.gov/prog/sheltermural/shelter.mural.html (p. 6).