81wolverine

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 7:54 p.m.

The Stadium Bridge artwork will look very nice next to the massive amount of graffiti that is coming.

Alan Goldsmith

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 7:11 p.m.

We can always use the person who did the Waste Watcher cartoon to create a giant mural with talking milk containers and pizza boxes spewing propaganda about raindrops and recycling.

waterrat

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 7:07 p.m.

I have to say I don't find art and nature incompatible and don't get where that notion comes from. Once again, "Argo Cascades" is not a nature preserve. The country is full of public urban parks that have a parklike setting (which is a more accurate description of the Argo Cascades area) with harmonious displays of art. Some of it can even get you to contemplate nature. For example, we are a part of it and not outside of it. Now, a marginally coordinated effort, or a burden on taxpayers, that I might object to.

lefty48197

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:55 p.m.

I have a good idea for a public art project along the Huron River at the Huron Parkway Bridge. We could have them remove that stupid rail that totally blocks our view of the river and replace it with a rail that DOESN'T obscure the view of this natural beauty. Beats a pile of scrap metal in my book anyday!

Linda Peck

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:53 p.m.

p.s I would like to see that money spent to restore nature's beauty of that area as much as possible rather than put something there to distract from the problems that exist there now.

Unusual Suspect

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:50 p.m.

Let's take care of the graffiti problem first. To start with, the AAPD should monitor the Twitter and Facebook feeds of certain middle school and high school students who have been caught in the past. Certain ones like to announce in advance when and where they will be committing their vandalism and then brag about it the next day.

Linda Peck

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:32 p.m.

There are so many intelligent responses to this news among the comments. I support many of them. First, I would think the "public art constituency" at would feel a bit humbled by their last fiasco and back off a bit on presenting yet more to the citizens of Ann Arbor. It was my initial thought, besides "oh no not again" was that nature does not need art work and it is distracting in places where there is much beauty already. Second, a piece of art work, bad or good, is distracting in heavy traffic areas, and should not be placed there for that reason. In the case of the "art" at the City Hall, it is not distracting as it is not special in any way and driving by it without looking is easy.

kittybkahn

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:25 p.m.

Please no "art" is needed for the Argo Cascades. Nature is beautiful enough and doesn't need any human-made art. I feel the same way about the "improvements" at West Park. I thought it was just fine before. Also, I realize this money for public art comes out of "a different pot" than that needed for other things, like public schools, police, firemen, etc., but perhaps a vote could be taken by the art group and they might be willing to share some of their funds for other uses? I am an art-lover, but am very disappointed in the fountain in front of the new city hall. Besides the fact that it was not designed by a Michigan artist, it is not beautiful and completely out of scale for the building. Every time I drive by it, I am reminded of how it was a waste of money - not the desired impression, I'm sure.

richard hadler

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 6:01 p.m.

I say we put a dancing iggy pop statue up on the Stadium Blvd site. 1969 okay. We will have a real cool time.

Roaring_Chicken

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 4:26 p.m.

Tru2Blue76 wrote: "Additional tart comment: Ref. the Statue of Liberty - there was vehement opposition to THAT public art installation along with endless sarcasm and criticism of cataclysmic proportions --TOO." Liberty was a gift from the French. I don't think the populace had to chuck in one centime for it. I'm not opposed to GIFTS of public art. Maybe France would like to send us one of Cleopatra's Needles for the Stadium Bridge? Les Invalides?

arborani

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 4:20 p.m.

Oh. My. God.

demistify

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:59 p.m.

Stadium Blvd. and State St. are two major traffic arteries that do not have a simple interconnection. This is a big hazard for any unwary traveler not familiar with the area. Introducing any further distraction there is a hazard. How about some improved traffic signage instead?

smokeblwr

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.

YEAH!! Ya gotta have ART! All you really need is ART!

hmsp

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:52 p.m.

@ andralisa, re: "What is RFP ??????" The article mentions it, but not clearly. It would have been better if the sentence read, "The commission also voted 7-0 to approve the final draft of a request for proposals (RFP)..."

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:44 p.m.

For the Stadium Bridge art, an exact, full-size replica of the Statue of Liberty "might have the potential to become a landmark for the city and its residents." With the pedestal, it would be 305 feet tall. ;-) Only to make it "distinctively Ann Arborish" there'd have to be an Ann Arbor themed rendition of the famous Emma Lazarus plaque. The Ann Arbor version would probably read: "Give me your aggressive panhandlers, your surplus gang-bangers and punks, but most especially: gimme lotsa marijuana dispensaries." Additional tart comment: Ref. the Statue of Liberty - there was vehement opposition to THAT public art installation along with endless sarcasm and criticism of cataclysmic proportions --TOO. "It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull." – H. L. Mencken

andralisa

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:34 p.m.

What is RFP ??????

bunnyabbot

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 3:16 p.m.

People are starving in the world! People do not have clean drinking water, what a freaking waste of money. Half a Million bucks of tax payer money could be better spent within OUR community for basic needs. Furthermore it only costs $3000-$7000 dollars to drill one drinking water well in Africa. Public Art = totally disgusting

Roaring_Chicken

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 2:39 p.m.

And "nuts" to you, Maestro Rush. As a member of St. Andrew's I can honestly say I've heard your music, and I urge you to keep writing it. Not my style, not at all. But DON'T ASK ME TO SUBSIDIZE, WITH MY PROPERTY TAXES, YOUR "CONTRIBUTION" TO CIVILIZATION. We are not wealthy Venetian patrons of the Renaissance but humble folks who maybe would like our tax $$$ going to the Breakfast Program instead of "public art." Understand? It's about how we, as citizens, get swindled every other day by this reckless local administration. A wise man once said, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." So destroy the populace by poverty, but feel good about the art. We are NOT "Philistines" for objecting to how our tax money is (mis)spent! I don't choose to have the Feds use my federal contributions to subsidize wars -- they take it, and THEY decide.

seekingsun

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 2:36 p.m.

For the Stadium/State Street bridge, I think the art installation could be something similar to this http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/when-a-bridge-is-more-than-a-bridge/Content?oid=1667578. It would not be a visual distraction (like a statue) or likely to be the object for graffiti artists (like a mural), just something to literally brighten up the area.

hmsp

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 2:20 p.m.

@ Ryan Stanton, re: "... Argo Cascades, which features nine whitewater drop pools along the headrace..." (continued from above) Although there has been no whitewater created in the work done at Argo, it is true that there are future plans: "There are two features that will be installed in the main channel of the river," and, "DTE Energy is offering to pick up the tab for whitewater features..." This is not a done deal, though, until the DNR signs off on it. And someone is going to have to do a really good job of selling them on this project — projects like this move things in the opposite direction from where the DNR would like to see things go. The DNR likes natural, free-flowing rivers, without a lot of man-made crap (like Argo Dam, for instance) in them. While it is possible to take photos of the "Argo Cascades" from a distance that look "natural," up close it is very clear that it was built by using huge amounts of concrete, then setting a few rocks on top, without really making any attempt to hide the concrete. The DNR signed off on the headrace project since that race never was a natural river. It was man-made from the get-go, so remodeling it was OK. I would imagine that DTE will have to promise to do a LOT better job of making it look natural than TSP Environmental, the company that built the "Cascades" did, if they want to get final approval for the "whitewater features" out in the river itself. I hope that aa.com can get its act together around reporting the "whitewater" story, and maybe do some ongoing interviews with both DTE and the DNR to keep us posted.

hmsp

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 2:17 p.m.

@ Ryan Stanton, re: "... Argo Cascades, which features nine whitewater drop pools along the headrace..." THERE IS NO WHITEWATER AT ALL IN THE "ARGO CASCADES!" Sorry for the all caps, Ryan, but how many times do we have to go over this? This project has been reported on extensively — mostly by you — and discussed at great length, so I would have thought that we had the facts straight by now. I would say that you obviously have not visited the site, but some of the past aa.com photos have been credited to you, so evidently you have been there. No one ever had any intention of creating any whitewater in the headrace! It diverts a very, very, small portion of the total flow of the river, and it was remodeled to be "a channel that allows paddlers to bypass Argo Dam — to allow novice paddlers direct access the Huron River without having to lift their canoes and kayaks out of the water." The original proposal said, "For recreational boaters that want A MOVING WATER PASSAGE WITHOUT WHITEWATER FEATURES (my caps again), this channel will be able to accommodate those recreational users." There is an astounding level of misunderstanding about this project, and the very fact that it was given the embarrassingly grandiose name "Argo Cascades" (the result of an online poll of a few hundred people, almost none of whom had even been down to see it) is evidence of just how much misinformation is out there. And aa.com has been the main disseminator of this misinformation.

waterrat

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 2:14 p.m.

First of all, I'm not sure if this has yet been done, but the City needs to take a holistic approach toward Public Art displays. Obviously these displays are meant to attract people to the area and ultimately drive commerce. So who decides on these locations? Are they coordinated with other locations? Can a visitor view a walking tour map that coordinates public art displays? Secondly, in a community such as Ann Arbor, well-known for arts and culture the City should strive to - no, dictate - that the art come from within the community. But that requires setting aside various inferiority complexes. Regarding the "natural" state of the river, I have to take issue with both those who insist the argo area is a "natural setting" and those who insist that it should be. The fact is that the space resides in an urban area. It has a long history of industry. It is now transforming into an urban recreational space. Once the bypass grows in, the scale of stone (not concrete) will come down and the aesthetic quality will improve. If and when the main stream whitewater features are built, they'll closely resemble natural drops (and also resemble improvements built to improve fish habitat, because the fact is that such improvements have much in common). In a nutshell, I don't understand "blanket preservationist approaches". Yes, we are the ultimate stewards of the planet. We also reside within it, not outside of it. And my opinion on conservation is that the more people you can draw into the fold with recreational improvements, improved water access, interpretive signage systems, the stronger the cause grows. A group of people sitting inside flagellating themselves for being human does nothing but preach to the choir. Exposing different groups and mindsets outdoors does much more for conservation. This is not a nature preserve and I think it's laughable to pretend that it is or should be.

Stephen Rush

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:53 p.m.

These postings reaffirm my worst suspicions. The notion of spending money on art in this country so horribly unpopular - Why am I surprised? But....remember people, what folks will remember about "us" in 150 years (or 1000) will most likely be what art we left behind as symbols of our social and spiritual perspectives. They won't be looking at pie-charts about wall-street, nor day-to-day GDP results, or clips from Fox News or MSNBC (or whatever is posted on this blog today, including this posting). I"m writing music. nuts to all of this blather.

Ron Granger

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.

Ann Arbor and Michigan artists don't need "affirmative action". If they would like to submit a proposal and be considered, they are free to do so.

PhillyCheeseSteak

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:30 p.m.

From the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission's website: "What is Ann Arbor's Percent for Art Ordinance?" In 2007, Ann Arbor's City Council unanimously passed an ordinance stipulating that all capital improvement projects funded wholly or partly by the City will include funds for public art equal to one percent of the project construction costs, to a maximum of $250,000 per project. ================================================================= This does raise the question of a $360,000 project?

hmsp

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.

fjord says, "The so-called Argo Cascades have their own natural beauty. An artificial art piece would likely look out of place." I could not disagree more! I have actually seen the "Argo Cascades" up close, and I can report that it consists of hundreds of tons of concrete with some rocks placed on top. And that is exactly what it looks like. It looks OK from a distance, as in aa.com's picture, but up close, it looks 100% man-made. I understand that this channel serves a useful purpose for those who do not want to be inconvenienced by a portage, but that doesn't quite elevate it to the level of a "necessary evil," — it is more a "convenient evil." So it is beyond me why this massive concrete bypass is being turned into a focal point of the community: As reported above, the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission's mission statement on this says, "The Argo Cascades public art project will be informed by the historical connection of the urban city and the NATURAL RIVER (emphasis mine) at this location... The public art here will be A MARKER OF THE COMMUNITY'S INTEREST IN 'FACING THE RIVER,' (emphasis mine) as it celebrates the river's water quality, environmental assets, and recreational uses." Facing the natural river and smacking it down, that is. Is this really what the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission wants to celebrate and glorify? — How, with the help of hundreds of tons of concrete, we can bend any natural feature to our will? I encourage the members of the committee to actually visit this site, then compare it to other, truly natural sections of the river, before settling on this location for their project.

Ron Granger

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:27 p.m.

This art commission needs to be able to say No to bad or weak proposals. If none of the proposals look *GREAT*, then you ask for more proposals. You don't press on regardless. We've seen some terribly bungled spending from them in the past. When they select an artist, I want to see some great past works by that artist.

Rork Kuick

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.

"the natural river at this location". They don't know what they are talking about.

amlive

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:17 p.m.

For the Argo art installation, how about waiting to see how the DTE property shapes up? Seems like with some of the ideas for development, from park space to retail or hotel or who knows, that the south side of the river may be a better place. On the north side I really don't see any place from the livery to Broadway that is begging for an art installation. The cascades ARE the art installation on that side (they're certainly not whitewater), and I think anything more would just clutter it up.

MRunner73

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:13 p.m.

Maybe the Public Art Fund is a small part of the budget but it is still at the expense of additional police and fire department personal. City Council does not acknowledge that the crime rate has risen.

Ron Granger

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.

I support public art. However, given the history of AWFUL art this commission has selected, I question their wisdom in exceeding the $250,000 limit specified in the ORDINANCE. Why is $360K necessary? Spending big has *not* worked in the past.

annarboral

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:08 p.m.

What a complete waste of money. Public art, assuminmg we need any, should be funded by public donations not taxes. It also should be a display of local talent. You want to see public art then go to Venice or Florence or Rome in Italy. Youi won't see anything like the "Big Middle Finger" in front of city hall.

xmo

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:07 p.m.

Thank Goodness we have Tax Money Available for ART but not for Children or Food: "The city pays for public art through the Percent For Art Program. Under an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2007, 1 percent of the budget for all city capital projects — up to a limit of $250,000 per project — is set aside in a special public art fund."

clownfish

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 1:05 p.m.

I propose a new title for this forum: GrumpyPhilistine.com.

almightydanish

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:50 p.m.

For the poll question, I can't tell if this selection is sincere or sarcastic - "Woohoo! We need more public art!" If it's sarcastic, I know which one I'm voting for.

Dog Guy

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.

To beautify the Huron River we need to import another fountain or gold plate the daylilies on the banks. "Public art" is an oxymoron created by oxen and morons.

Veracity

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:42 p.m.

Neither Argo Cascades nor the East Stadium Boulevard Bridge are ideal sites for public art due to the paucity of foot traffic so the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission should reconsider the locations. In addition, with no idea of the size or material to be used in either art project, how did the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission estimate the costs of the art projects at $150,000 and $360,000 each. The precision of these numbers suggests that the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission (or its most influential member) has already decided on a specific art designs as well as the artists. As with the Dreiseitl monstrosity and the ostentatious chandelier artwork, I expect that the Ann Arbor Public Art Commission will select artists who are not residents of Ann Arbor or even Michigan. Artists should be commissioned from the wealth of talent living in Ann Arbor which will enhance local pride and retain our tax dollars within the local economy.

Karen Hart

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:29 p.m.

Incorporating interesting art pieces into these two totally diverse landscapes will create opportunities for personal reflection and group discussion for years. That's what public art -- art accessible to the public and sponsored by the public sector -- is all about. I think this is terrific.

thinker

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:27 p.m.

How about another word to describe any art placed at the very busy Stadium bridge: a distraction! I think crosswalks and pedestrians are enough of a distraction. Do we want visitors to Ann Arbor- on game day- braking suddenly to admire the monstrosity city council places there? Do you want to be rear-ended?

jcj

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:23 p.m.

Come on Ryan how about doing a public service and get an answer to Billy's post about a limit of $250,000 per project! If it's true then find out how they got around that. If it's not true then set the record straight.

Roaring_Chicken

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:12 p.m.

Oh, I think on the newly-built Stadium Bridge Complex, a nice Medieval artwork sign: ABANDON HOPE ALL YE WHO ENTER HERE Certainly we residents kinda feel that way sometimes ...

fjord

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 12:01 p.m.

I'm all for public art, but I see no need for it at either of these locations. The so-called Argo Cascades have their own natural beauty. An artificial art piece would likely look out of place. As for the Stadium bridges ... erecting art pieces meant to be viewed by passing motorists is idiotic. Do you really want to create ANOTHER distraction for drivers? How about we save ourselves half a million dollars and hire a few more police officers and/or firefighters?

golfer

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:59 a.m.

maybe they can put the art underwater? they could use if for a target so the boats see how close they come to it. A WASTE OF MONEY!

Wolf's Bane

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:57 a.m.

One man's art is another man's nightmare.

Oscar Lavista

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:56 a.m.

I'm all for public art projects! Can't wait to see what the artists come up with.

Billy

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:52 a.m.

Woo hoo....you get a rare post from me, wonder if you'll delete it just out of habit.... Under an ordinance approved by the City Council in 2007, 1 percent of the budget for all city capital projects — up to a limit of $250,000 per project — is set aside in a special public art fund. Really now? That's the limit? Well then I would like to know how a project slated at $360,000.....that's $110,000 over the supposed "limit" folks.....was approved? That would be a VERY good question to answer.

Brad

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:50 a.m.

""The critical location of the site and its diversity in terms of traffic pattern and usage makes it the ideal backdrop for a highly visible public art project that has the potential to become a landmark " Fluff-speak alert! "Diversity in terms of traffic pattern"? Now really, what is that supposed to mean? Unless I'm missing something, State St. traffic will still be going north and south, and Stadium traffic east and west. I guess that's all four compass directions, so maybe that's the "diversity". But what about the "sustainability", the "walkability" and the "livability"? "Potential to become a landmark"? Probably correct. A few years from now people giving directions will say "and then you take a left at the idiotic artwork on the bridge". Time for the art bucket to GO.

CPLtownie

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.

sigh

a2grateful

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:36 a.m.

Poll answer five, not listed above: Hieftje/city council illegal use of designated millage funds for "art" is criminal, revolting, disgusting, abhorrent, repugnant, offensive, objectionable, vile, loathsome, nauseating, detestable, execrable, abominable, noxious, horrendous, awful, terrible, dreadful, obnoxious, unsavory, unpleasant, disagreeable, distasteful, ugly, hideous, grotesque, putrid, stupid, laughable, contemptuous, embarrassing, and the antithesis of the spirit of Ann Arbor, and even art itself. Due to the wordiness of poll answer 5, it is apparent why it was not listed above.

Mike D.

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:29 a.m.

I am excited that there's significant budget for art at the Stadium Bridge, but, after seeing the monstrosity in front of the monstrosity at City Hall, terrified of its potential tackiness. Please don't let anyone remotely involved in picking out the Las Vegas Mattress have a say in this project. Maybe involve some art history and creative arts scholars from the U so the decision isn't at the whim of politicians' bad taste.

Elaine F. Owsley

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:27 a.m.

As long as whoever chose the last two is not on the committee deciding what to put in, maybe. And I would want at least a Michigan artist if not Ann Arbor.

braggslaw

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:25 a.m.

I would prefer the money be used to plant some trees. Those trees will be more beautiful than any piece of art they could purchase.

tim

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 11:04 a.m.

Paint all the potholes different colors. Polka dot streets would be a very unique, Ann Arbor-type of art.

dia

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 10:47 a.m.

Donate the money to the schools

A2comments

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 10:41 a.m.

How's that fountain at city hall working? Where's the expose' on that?

Barzoom

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 10:32 a.m.

Another waste of taxpayer money. The graffiti painters will have a field day with the new canvas the city is providing for them.

Les Gov

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 10:31 a.m.

oh good...another chance for the City of Ann Arbor to turn its back on local artists and ship our tax dollars out of state....out of country........

Carole

Thu, Apr 26, 2012 : 10:29 a.m.

Save your $150,000 for the Argo Project -- frankly, I prefer the beauty of nature which clearly surrounds the area. And, I believe that there are other better uses for the $350,000. I also suspect that none of these funds will be used to support any local artist which is another reason for not voting for either.