12.12.16 committee comments

This is a summary of committee feedback from our 12.12.16 meeting...

Initial question about conceptual linkage between elements (‘flow’ concept that runs through all…flow of water, flow of infrastructure, flow of nature, flora, fauna, fossils, trails, etc)

Questions about budget as it relates to scope of individual projects (description of one large piece ‘flume’ and 3 medium pieces and 3 smaller pieces…with opportunity to pick & choose & group per preferences)

Interest in getting First People’s impact woven into project narrative

Interest in landscaping (camas, other plantings)

Someone mentioned preference for mural, benches and birdboxes with narrative tie (poetry) running through each piece

Interest in expanding budget (with supplemental public and/or private $)

Concerns about maintenance issues/budget – discussion of lifespan and ephemerality – questions about jurisdiction (who cares for what) and location of work (visibility)

Lots of interest/support for bluebird boxes

Iconic nature of the work (particularly ‘flume’ and ‘blue tree’) could be a draw to the park

Refinement questions about ‘flume’ – lots of interest in this piece – questions about finish of piece (rust vs painted) – blue theme tie-in – potential for lighting

Interest in the big boulder & bike rack – question about graffiti – possibility of painting it blue

Interest in the blue tree – concerns about health of tree

Pump house murals question: any thought about simplifying design?  Concern about stylistic clash with mural artist – changing nature of mentorship to assisting artist (me) to achieve over esthetic cohesion

Folks liked the idea of possibly combining the bio boulders and bike racks but not each individually

There were concerns that the model of bike rack proposed was not actually best practice in bike safety/security – need more information about best practice

People liked the idea of memorializing the flume, and thought the Flume piece would be a statement piece drawing people to the park

Although panelists appreciated the potential mentoring of other artists, overall the mural project did not appeal to many; there was concern that the aesthetic of the fence would ruin any mural work anyways; Water City employees who care for those buildings have a difficult time maintaining murals and cleaning them when there is graffiti; people appreciated the architecture as is

The blue tree would encourage tourism and social media activity, but people are also very sensitive about what happens to trees

The panel wanted to make sure any temporary or low-visibility projects were paired with a permanent high visibility piece

The benches or bio boulders could become part of the Flume piece, bringing together several of the ideas into one area to maximize impact

A panelist noted that the projects didn’t feel unique to this site and artist as many have happened elsewhere, but there was also understanding that we are still in the early stages of conceptual development

People liked the blue bird houses but wanted them to feel designed and aesthetically engaging, and thought it would be best to seek funding elsewhere for them rather than use the public art money to pay for them; there were also questions about who would maintain them and the need for community stewardship