Update, October 12:
City spokesperson Tiffany Chase emails to say that the city is not hiring a consultant to figure out how the public art policy applies to the Bridge Terminal, but rather “scoping out the project internally.” After that, an request for proposals will be issued.
Original article:
In 2008, Halifax council adopted a public art policy that requires one percent of construction costs of city projects be dedicated to public art. And this election, candidates for office are tripping over themselves to extol the virtues of civic art. But that left us wondering: Where’s the public art component at the new $11.5 million Bridge Terminal?
In response to our queries, city spokesperson Tiffany Chase explains that the policy applies only to buildings over 25,000 square feet, and while the entire Bridge Terminal is enormous, stretching across a large city block, the building component of it is quite small, just 6,000 square feet.
Still, the city is looking to hire a consultant to tell it whether and how the public art policy applies to the terminal. “In short, the inclusion of public art wasn’t mandated under the Policy but the opportunity of this high-profile building has been recognized as significant and good candidate for a public art installation under the principles of the program and the policy,” writes Chase in an email.
The consultant will suggest how much money should be devoted to the project, and then a tender will be put out for artists to put forward their ideas. No timeline has been established for any of this, however. In the meanwhile, in coming weeks some interpretive panels explaining the history of the site will be installed on the building’s walls.
This article appears in Oct 11-17, 2012.
The building is supposed to be a work of art
My thoughts exactly, Joe. If there’s anywhere I could give a pass on public art, it’s here. The building is beautiful as it is. Save the money and put the art elsewhere.
This is the most important issue with the new bus terminal? Crack reporting, Coast.
Seriously public art, this is a problem no a days. We need to stop wasting money on what looks good and build based on functionality. Public art adds absolutely nothing to how well the bridge terminal works.
Public Art? You mean it hasn’t been tagged yet? What the hell are the spraycan addicts waiting for, a Canada Council Grant?
this city is falling apart and we get an article about lack of public art. Was this some sort of ironic joke?
Sorry, but not sure why we need to spend more money on getting some art in the bus terminal. Most people are only there for 5-10 minutes to make a connection, and stand outside anyway. There are plenty of issues to fight for in this city, but putting 3- 5 pieces of art in a location nobody will notice is not one of them.
We don’t need art in the new Bridge Terminal. Let’s focus on getting Go Time fixed, please.
Tim is highlighting how the city operates. I’m definitely interested in that, given their willingness to play loose and fast with other important policies like the sale of surplus schools policy. The city is dysfunctional and the more we read about how they spend our tax dollars the better.
Art?? This is not a place requiring the stuff that often passes for ‘public art’ in this burg. Just try and keep the buses on time. It is bad enough as it is that some folks have to run a marathon from one end of that terminal to the other to make a connection without putting more stuff in their way. There are already enough things like planters there to do that – those should really be fun to avoid in snow. Also, maybe having someone finally policing the smokers would be a better use of ‘art $$$’, it could be styled as ‘living art’. Perhaps just get one of the ‘supervisors’ out of their comfy cars once in a while and actually let people know they are not supposed to be smoking there? Brand new and the place is already starting a downhill slide.