T he controversy over public art has reared its head in Victoria again, so residents are bracing for another round of debate. This time, it鈥檚 art for the new Johnson Street Bridge, but instead of leaping into frenzied argument, let鈥檚 put it aside for a while and concentrate on building the bridge.
City council wisely postponed a decision last week on whether to put $250,000 into public art for the bridge until they learn more about the landscaping and other aspects of the project.
The city鈥檚 policy is that as much as one per cent of construction costs can be donated to public art, when any 鈥渆xceptional, significant civic projects鈥� are being built. On the $92.8-million bridge, that would be about $900,000. In the early days, the city had suggested a more modest $350,000 allotment. Last week, staff suggested cutting it even more, to $250,000.
That would still make it the largest public art budget Victoria has ever seen. The plan was to issue a nationwide call for artists and put them through a three-stage jury process. They would have been able to use a piece of steel from the old bridge in their work.
Some councillors wanted to squelch the whole idea before it got off the ground, suggesting that the bridge itself is supposed to become a landmark for the city and doesn鈥檛 need additional decoration.
鈥淚 can鈥檛 count the number of times that I鈥檝e heard this referred to as an iconic bridge. I don鈥檛 understand why the bridge itself isn鈥檛 a piece of art,鈥� said Coun. Lisa Helps.
Helps has a point.
The city鈥檚 bridge website says: 鈥淯pon completion, it will be the largest single-leaf bascule bridge in sa国际传媒, and one of the largest in the world, creating a new iconic structure and destination within Victoria鈥檚 Inner Harbour.鈥�
The city is spending a controversially large amount of money on a bridge that is intended to be more than workmanlike. It is supposed to be a showpiece that will complement the beauties of the Inner Harbour and become a classic image of Victoria, like the legislature buildings.
Adding sculpture at one end or the other seems like gilding the lily.
Public art has its place. It makes the city more livable and more interesting. It can offer a sense of the character of the city. It showcases local and Canadian artists, and, from a purely economic point of view, it provides them with employment.
But anything to do with public art is bound to generate enormous amounts of heat and only glimmers of light. Unless it is conventionally representational, it provokes outrage like that sparked by Mowry Baden鈥檚 Pavilion, Rock and Shell in front of Save-On-Foods Memorial Centre. Then-mayor Alan Lowe even sought a legal opinion on whether the city could get out of its agreement with Baden. It couldn鈥檛.
Regardless of the discussion over public art, we are a long way from needing anything to adorn the bridge. The angry debate over whether the bridge should be built and the decision-making process has stilled for a while, but it has not gone away. It will re-emerge as work continues and inevitable roadblocks appear, because the opponents are focused, dedicated and organized.
It鈥檚 unclear whether the city could be on the hook for buying more steel if it becomes necessary in the later design stages. We have already seen the Craigflower Bridge delayed for want of steel, so that problem could be lying in wait.
While there is a time and place for public art, it must be far down the list of priorities on this project. Let鈥檚 get the bridge built first.
