Art in public places

Material Information

Art in public places urban revitalization through the visual arts
Lee, Leslie Edwards
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
140 pages : illustrations, forms, map ; 28 cm

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Master's ( Master of Planning and Community Development)
Degree Grantor:
University of Colorado Denver
Degree Divisions:
College of Architecture and Planning, CU Denver
Degree Disciplines:
Design and Planning


Subjects / Keywords:
Art, Municipal -- United States ( lcsh )
Art and state -- United States ( lcsh )
Art patronage -- United States ( lcsh )
Art and state ( fast )
Art, Municipal ( fast )
Art patronage ( fast )
United States ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (pages 137-140).
General Note:
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
submitted by Leslie Edwards Lee.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09520247 ( OCLC )
LD1190.A78 1983 .L4345 ( lcc )

Full Text
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Urban Revitalization Through the Visual Arts

University of Colorado Spring 1983
Masters Thesis by
Leslie E. Lee

Submitted by: Leslie Edwards Lee
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Planning and Community Development.
College of Design and Planning University of Colorado at Denver
Spring, 1983

I. Project Abstract........................................................... 1
II. Preface ................................................................... 3
III. Introduction The Concept................................................. 5
IV. Project Description Process and Methodology ............................. 13
V. Research and Analysis Case Studies ...................................... 19
A. Chelsea, Massachusetts .................................................19
B. Cambridge, Massachusetts .............................................. 23
C. Minneapolis, Minnesota ................................................ 27
D. Grand Rapids, Michigan ................................................ 33
E. Seattle, Washington ................................................... 37
F. Denver, Colorado ...................................................... 43
Governmental funding sources for public artwork in Denver...........43
Mayor's Commission on the Arts .................................... 45
- background information .......................................... 45
- current situation and looking forward ........................... 46
The Denver Art Commission ........................................ 47
Metropolitan Denver Arts Alliance ................................. 48
Patten Institute for the Arts ..................................... 49
The Denver Partnership, Inc........................................ 50
t Private Sector Support in Denver for Art in Public Places .......... 51
G. Inventory of Existing Art in Public Places in Downtown Denver........... 53
VI. Recommendations and Conslusion ............................................ 97
VII. Appendices ................................................................ 103
Exhibit A Telephone Interview Information and Contact People ............ 103
Exhibit B "Percent for Art" Legislation and Operating Guidelines......... 109
Exhibit C Bibliography .................................................. 137


Cities can capture the interest and the delight of those people who live, work, and visit there. Especially interesting can be a city's artwork collection. How does a city develop its interest in, its support for, and its continued involvement with art in public places? How does Denver compare with other cities in this regard? This very question, and the desire to answer it, provided the impetus for doing this research and planning study.
The purpose of this project has been to study art in public places as a means for urban revitalization in a city. Five American cities, in addition to Denver, were studied in terms of their programs and policies for art in public places. Thorough research, analysis, and comparison of the different cities was made in relationship to Denver.
The study resulted in a set of seven recommendations. These recommendations address the important issue of how Denver might best improve upon its existing programs and policies for art in public places.


The Cambridge Arts Council defined the role of public art in the following manner. This particular definition has been quoted here because of its similarity to the opinions held by the author.
"Large or intimate? Abstract or figurative? Such works have in common a claim to our memories or aspirations; our senses-and affections.
The community may read into public art its own experiences, its history, its humor, perhaps even its fantasy. Advocated is art which engages itself directly with the surrounding environment. It may create, enrich, or reveal a 'sense of place.1 It forms a connection between people and their environment. Public art captures and reinforces the unique character of a place. Such 'place makers' may reflect the history of a place, its cultural development, even its rythem. It will make a place memorable by its presence there.
The setting for public art should be considered as much a part of our experience of the art as the artwork itself. The public artist creates a work with the setting in mind because the place's impact on the art may be as great as the impact of the art on the place. The two together may make a new place, or enrich an old one."


In order to fully understand the significance of art in public places as an element in the overall urban design and urban planning of a city, one must first understand a wide variety of existing issues which are related to the overall concept of urban design. This introductory section addresses those urban design issues which are important to be made aware of and to understand for the purposes of this project.
The concept of urban design carries many connotations with it.
It means different things to different people for different reasons.
For descriptive purposes, an analogy will be used here.
Consider urban design to be the "fabric" out of which a community is woven. This community fabric is comprised of many different "threads." One such thread in the overall urban design of a community is its open space. Other urban design threads include a community's architecture and buildings, its various transportation and circulation systems, and its art in public places. As they relate to the overall urban design fabric, these threads are all equally important.
Without every thread in its proper place, the fabric of a community begins to unravel. It is essential, then, for the well-being of a community, that the planning of all these urban design elements take place. Their planning should occur concurrently and in a comprehensive manner.
The type of open space which will be discussed in this study is urban

open space. It is a critical component of the urban environment because of its common relationship and its importance to almost every other major urban and/or downtown activity. Retail, office, residential, entertainment, recreation, and circulation are all uses which are directly effected by their surrounding open spaces. Urban open spaces also differ from the more traditional image and understanding of open space as forested groves and grassy meadows with benches and playgrounds. Urban open space is usually more active than this passive traditional image and it incorporates a wider variety of amenities than merely grass, benches, and playgrounds.
A listing of urban open amenities can additionally include: 1) food, news, and novelty vendors; 2) a variety of streetscape furniture including kiosks, fountains, seating areas, urban landscaping, litter receptacles, pedestrian and street lighting, etc; and 3) many cultural features which can include both the visual and performing arts. Permanent or temporary sculptures, murals, and other types of visual arts are certainly examples of cultural amenities in urban open spaces. So are street performers such as actors, musicians, poets, and dancers.
Urban open space includes quite a broad range of places, as well as a variety of uses which have been mentioned above. City sidewalks, building plazas and lobbies, and urban parks and greenways are all examples of urban open places and spaces. Careful planning is necessary in order to provide for adequate urban open spaces in a community.
The utilization of those open spaces is a whole other matter and equally important. Designs which are sensitive to the user and to the user's wants and needs, are the best designs.
For the purposes of this project, a definition of art in public places is necessary. Many different interpretations of the term are possible.

The following interpretation/definition will be used in the context of this study and its downtown public art inventory. Art in public places includes any type of outdoor visual art including sculpture, murals, fountains, monuments, etc. It also can include art which is located in building lobbies lobbies which by their nature are highly visible to the public and have a high level of pedestrian traffic.
No distiction has been made between publicly owned and privately owned art. The term "art in public places" to some people means that the art must be publicly owned and displayed only on publicly owned land. That is not the case here. Granted, it is certainly of interest to determine ownership of a particular piece of art. Privately owned art, however, if it is displayed in a highly public location, is not excluded from the definition used here. For the purposes of the public art inventory, both publicly and privately owned art have been researched.
In 1974, (nine years ago) the United States Conference of Mayors adopted the following resolution at its annual conference. The issue at the time was and still is today "the quality of life in American cities" and the role which the arts play in communities.
"WHEREAS, surveys, public demand, and increasing private support and participation indicate that citizen involvement with the arts is strong and growing; and WHEREAS, continued growth of the arts in quantitative and qualitative ways can no longer be sustained by traditional support resources; and
WHEREAS, the arts are an essential element in providing opportunity for a quality urban environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors adopts the following principles as guidelines for city action:
(1) That city governments recognize the arts as an

essential service, equal in importance to other essential services, and help to make the arts available to all their citizens.
(2) * That every city be encouraged to establish a public agency specifically concerned with the arts.
(3) That the physical appearance of the city, its architectural heritage, and its amenities, be acknowledged as a resource to be nurtured.
(4) That cities should be encouraged to establish a percentage of the total cost of every municipal construction budget to be set aside for the purchase or commission of works of art.
(5) That city governments working together with the public at large shall help to effect a new national goal: 'That no American shall be deprived of the opportunity to experience^ to respond artistically to) the beauty in life
by barrier of circumstance, income, background, remoteness, or race.1"
The condition of the arts has changed over time. Historically, the arts were viewed by only a small segment of society with audience and patronage coming primarily from the priveleged few. The role of the arts as well as the segment of society from which arts audiences are now drawn has been greatly expanded. The notion of arts as a privelege has been discarded in favor of the arts as a right. An entire community can now enjoy both its visual and performing arts. The purpose and objective of the arts, in the broad sense, is to meet many of the aesthetic and expressive needs of a community.
The arts have become an important component of the concept of "quality of life" as a means of humanizing and giving expression to the physical environment whether it be the urban, suburban, or rural built environment.
Particularly important to the potentially cold and sterile environment of a center city, art can involve those who plan for it, those who

create it, and those who view it on a daily basis. It can make the people feel as though they have participated in and added to the life of a city.
The arts should be viewed as a basic community service. Just as schools, health care, police and fire protection, and libraries require the support of the entire community, so do the arts. Community services are not financially self-supporting and are not expected to be. Careful planning for the arts is required in order to establish public policy, ensure equitable distribution of programs, and provide for the proper allocation of scarce resources.
Common to all works of art in public places is the fact that they are open to public debate in a way that privately displayed works of art and museum works are not.
As described in a recently published book entitled Art in Public Places by NEA and Partners for Livable Places; "This public debate can be viqorous and protracted. For art in public places represents the often volatile conjunction of the personal sensibilities of the artist with the public's expectations of art, in the context of public space.
Because the forms of art have evolved and diversified so dramatically in the last several decades, there is a disparity between contemporary artistic practice and public expectations of what art should look like. This disparity particularly affects works that are placed in the public arena. Traditionally these works have been commemorative of great events or people. They have been brought into being to express values and beliefs assumed to be those of the audience, through a content and symbolism readily understandable to all. Yet, just as art is revealed to us as increasingly diverse, so too have we come to recognize that

our society is pluralistic and that competing social, political and religious values coexist within it. As a consequence, the traditional forms of public expression in art appear inadequate to the contemporary situation.
The need has arisen, therefore, to explore the applicability of the various forms of contemporary art to the wide range of contemporary public contexts. Artworks in public places have served to encourage a dialogue between artists and the public and to explore the processes by which contemporary art can attain a public significance for a variety of communities."
The process which is utilized by a community will determine to a great degree the amount of success that a work of art in a public place will experience. Many steps are involved in the ultimate placement of a piece of public art. A great deal of planning must occur prior to and throughout the duration of the process. The following process list is the one suggested by and accepted by the National Endowment for the Arts in its Art in Public Places Program.
1. Site Selection (*see note)
2. A selection panel to select an artist is organized
3. Fundraising and community relations begin and continue throughout the project
4. Selection of artist
5. Contract Negotiations
6. Artist drawings and maquettes
7. Approval of six by sponsors
8. Artwork is fabricated
9. Artwork is transported
10. Artwork is installed
11. Dedication of artwork
12. Introduction into public life

Site selection can occur in a number of ways. The three listed
below are quite common.
A. A site suggests itself
B. The site is determined by an agency or a committee as a function
of a larger idea or event i.e. a centennial celebration or an urban revitalization effort
C. Percent for art legislation dictates the site.
Obviously, there are varying degrees to which the planning process for a piece of public art may be followed. The more complete the process, however, the more successful the project. Perhaps the most important element in the process in terms of ultimate community acceptance is the community relations process. Not only is it important for the sponsoring group to communicate its needs and desires to the artist,
but it is equally, if not more important, for the community to be exposed to and be given the opportunity to get involved in the process. This engages the attention, efforts, and support of large numbers of people in the sponsoring community. The process outlined above results in works of art that are accessible to a large public not simply by virtue of their placement in public spaces, but also through the involvement of numerous people in the community in the process of bringing the pieces of artwork into existence.
Until recently, commissions of artworks usually followed construction of the building. The places reserved for sculpture tended towards exterior "pedestal positions" and their interior spaces in courtyards and atriums. Rather than trying to work together as a team and incorporate works of art into the overall design of a project, architects often feel as though their artistis "territory" is being invaded if an artist becomes involved early on in the design process. This artistic competition, unfortunately, often creates an antagonism between

architect and artist. This antagonism sometimes proves to be more destructive than productive for the final end product in terms of creativity. Architectural authority in a project can easily block a piece of artwork if resentment exists on the part of the architect against a perceived artistic intrusion.
A remedy is now being attempted through collaborative projects and through plans that redraw the boundaries between sculpture, architecture, and landscape, grafting wider responsibilities onto the artist. This collaborative effort puts the architect and artist on the same team rather than on opposing teams.
This collaborative effort does not necessarily facilitate the planning process, however. It means that a traditionally, very individualistic profession and form of expression becomes more involved in a participatory, and in a give and take situation. The term compromise immediately comes to one's mind. Is this good or is this bad? Should it necessarily be considered an artistic compromise? Not necessarily! If well-executed, a collaborative effort can have numerous positive effects. In projects which are to include art, if artists are involved from an earlier date in the project, the following benefits can occur:
1. more harmonious relations
2. wider use of art
3. simple budgetary gains


Many American cities have initiated and maintained strong programs and policies for art in public places. These programs and policies may vary a great deal from city to city. Sometimes the initiative, drive, and continuing support for such programs comes from the public sector, sometimes it comes from the private sector, and sometimes it comes from a partnership between the two sectors. In whatever shape it takes, those cities that have had the vision and the foresight to assess their community's existing, as well as potential cultural needs have developed a strong support base for art in public places.
Denver, Colorado lags behind other American cities unfortunately. As a matter of fact, Denver was the last major city in the country to develop a municipal arts agency. Created in 1980, the Denver Mayor's Commission on the Arts has been given no support from the City in terms of operating budget. (Please refer to the Denver case study for more information.)
Denver has no really strong sense of civic pride relative to its public art, and yet great opportunities exist for developing that pride.
Many individuals have visions, and yet no overall arts plan exists for Denver which outlines steps to be taken and which makes recommendations for strengthening art in public places programs. Denver needs to learn from other cities' experiences.
Denver, and in particular Downtown Denver, has great potential to become the center for the arts in the Rocky Mountain region. Downtown already has a lot to offer in terms of the arts including The Denver Art Museum and the Denver Center for Performing Arts. They draw upon a regional

as well as a local audience for their support. Additionally, there exist many local art galleries, theaters, dance companies, etc. for the public's enjoyment and education.
In 1982, Downtown Denver had a working population of 100,000 people with an overall daytime population estimated to be much higher due to the shopper, visitor, and tourist influx according to the Denver Planning Office. These numbers are currently increasing rather than decreasing as a result of Downtown Denver's recent building boom. With such a high degree of visibility and such a high volume of pedestrian traffic, the center city provides the ideal setting for a strong program of art in public places.
Denver's support for the arts comes from both a local and a regional base. This support base could be greatly increased and the level of Denver's civic pride regarding its public arts programs could be greatly heightened. Given the proper guidance and recommendations,
Denver could very possibly realize its full potential and gain the public's recognition as the Rocky Mountain's Regional center for the arts.
In order for Denver to realize its full potential as a regional arts center, it must learn the lessons and hear the stories of other cities which have already successfully undergone the arts planning process.
The assimilation, analysis and transfer of relevant information from other cities to Denver is an important element of this project. For Denver, it is very much of an eye-opening and a learning process that needs to happen.
Briefly stated below are descriptions of the process and the methodologies utilized throughout the duration of the project.

1. A comparative study of policies and/or programs of five American cities in addition to Denver was completed.
t The cities were chosen on the basis of whether or not they had strong programs and/or policies regarding public spaces art.
Only cities with strong programs were selected to be case studies.
The case studies which were selected and which will be described in further detail in Section IV are comprised of the following:
a. Seattle, Washington
b. Grand Rapids, Michigan
c. Minneapolis, Minnesota
d. Chelsea, Massachusetts
e. Cambridge, Massachusetts
f. Denver, Colorado
One of the criteria for choosing the case study cities was that, generally the cities needed to be considered comparable to Denver in terms of size. Other cities such as New York, Chicago, and Philadelphia were initially considered because of their strong public arts programs and policies. They were discounted, however, because of the large differences in scale and character when compared to Denver. Chelsea, Massachusetts is the one exception to the
rule. It was chosen for study because of its dramatic turn around in its attitude towards art in public places (from indifferent to very positive). It serves as an example to Denver in showing what can happen in revitalization efforts of a city relative to art in public places.
The three major sources of information for each of the six base studies were 1) library research, books, and periodicals; 2) telephone and personal interviews with local government officials, arts administrators, etc. (refer to Exhibit A in the Appendix
for more information about the interviews); and 3) locally written arts plans and other reports, state and local arts legislation, and accompanying operating procedures if available. (Exhibit B in the Appendix includes "Percent for Art Legislation" for those case study cities in which such local ordinances and state laws apply.)

2. Analyze in further depth the City and County of Denver's policies and/or programs for art in public places in relationship to the other case studies.
Telephone and personal interviews were held with representatives from 1) The Mayor's Commission on the Arts; 2) Metro Denver Arts Alliance; 3) Colorado Citizens for the Arts; 4) Colorado Council on the Arts and Humanities; and 5) The Denver Art Museum.
3. For planning purposes, narrow down the focus of the Denver case study area rather than the entire City and County of Denver.
Boundaries were established for the downtown study area. Figure #1 shows the delineation of those boundaries, (page 55)
Very important to the analysis of the downtown public spaces art was an actual "walking survey" in which the identification and photographing of the downtown works of art occured. Section V-G includes the results of that inventory and survey, as well as relevant information about each piece of artwork such as location, date, artist and title if available.
The following goals and objectives were developed during the early stages of the project. Not only did they help in the definition of the overall purposes of the project, but they also helped in the identification of specific tasks which needed to be accomplished.
To define and research "art in public places" as it relates to urban open space planning and urban design. What role does public art play in a community?
Research and analyze art in public places programs for five American cities in addition to Denver, Colorado. These case studies will help to identify what the successes and what the failures have been
in various cities across the country in terms of public arts planning.
To concentrate on the identification of and the analysis of Denver's existing art in public places program(s). Policy issues, funding sources, and mechanisms (both formal and informal) for promoting

publicly displayed art in Denver will be viewed in comparison to the other case studies.
Develop a set of policy improvement recommendations which addresses the question of how Denver might best strengthen its art in public places program(s).
Develop a physical plan for Downtown Denver's public art which will:
a. Inventory the existing and the proposed sculptures, fountains, murals, paintings, weavings, etc. which are publicly displayed in the Downtown area.
b. Document graphically and through photographs the public art inventory of Downtown Denver.
c. Recommend new ways to incorporate the visual arts into downtown development and urban revitalization in Downtown Denver.



Since 1977, the town of Chelsea, Massachusetts has undergone a number of physical changes as a result of its urban revitalization program.
Key to this town's revitalization program was the incorporation of public artwork into the overall design planning process. Before describing the rebirth of Chelsea's downtown area, from an urban design standpoint, the chain of events and circumstances leading up to this turning point will be briefly outlined.
Chelsea, Massachusetts is a small blue-collar community located north of Boston just across the Mystic River. Its population is approximately 25,000 and has remained at that level for the past 10 years. It is considered to be a "tough" town with its economy and its identity coming primarily from shipbuilding and other heavy industries. Sometimes called the "junk capital of the world," the town of Chelsea was never, prior to 1977, considered to be an "enlightened" town in terms of urban design. Nor was public art considered to be an important element in the overall urban design of the community.
Three major fires in the town of Chelsea destroyed a great deal of the city. They are listed below:
1908 A terrible fire destroyed 3,000 buildings and 3,000 shade trees making a wasteland of 500 acres in the central area of town.
The town never fully recovered and few of the trees were ever replanted.
1973 Another major fire destroyed another 300 acres and 1,000 residential and commercial buildings.
1975 "The American Barrel Fire" destroyed more commercial buildings used for rag, cloth, and metal re-use industries.
Additionally, in the mid-50's, Chelsea was bypassed by a new highway and the Tobin Bridge. Chelsea had previously been on the route which

Boston vacationers used to take to the fashionable North Shore. As a result of this new transit route, Chelsea was cut off from Boston, both physically and economically. The story sounds pretty grim and, indeed it was! Fortunately, this grim picture was about to take a turn for the better.
In 1977, Chelsea's Mayor and the Director of Community Development began the revitalization process when they allocated $15,000 to be used for preliminary planning studies for the downtown area. This money came from Community Development Block Grant funds as did a subsequent allocation of $42,000 to complete the planning process, including working drawings.
During Jimmy Carter's administration, the town of Chelsea applied for a $3.12 million grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) to do sidewalk oriented improvements for its 6 block downtown.
The funds were to be utilized for implementation projects only. The town's revitalization plan was accepted and the EDA decided to fund the entire request for implementation of that plan. This meant two good things for Chelsea; new jobs would be generated and a new downtown would be built.
How was art in public places incorporated into the revitalization plan for Chelsea and how was it paid for? Certain types of federally funded construction projects, of which this was one, have a percent for art implementation. In this particular case, 2% for art was allocated from the overall budget to the integration of artwork into the project. This meant that out of the $3.12 million in federal monies, approximately $60,000 was spent on art and amenities.
An interdisciplinary approach occurred in Chelsea's revitalization program. City officials, landscape architects, urban designers and planners, and artists were all involved in the planning process of this "townscaping project." To have an interdisciplinary planning process is an admirable event in its own right, but when one considers Chelsea's

"track record," it becomes quite remarkable that it ever happened. Those involved in the project are to be highly commended.
The following physical changes actually took place in the six block downtown area:
Public artwork incorporated into the townscaping improvements t Brick sidewalks edged with granite
Five inch caliper trees planted and highly landscaped areas throughout t Handsome wrought iron tree guards
t Matching trash receptacles
Victorian pedestrian lighting fixtures
Chelsea does not have a municipal arts agency, nor is there a "percent
for arts" legislation in the community on the local or county level.

On the state level, a percent for art law does exist which was passed in July, 1980. It is a one-line clause in the State's new Public Construction Act which states;
"Provided that each/building/contract shall provide that not less than one percent of the cost of a construction project be expended for art; provided further that not more than one hundred thousand dollars be expended/per project/."
If any state funded construction project occurs in the town of Chelsea,
1% of the construction costs will be allocated to public artwork. A similar situation applies to federally funded construction projects.
While no formalized programs to support, promote and provide access to the arts exist in the town of Chelsea, it was felt that the town was worthy of study for documentation purposes of the downtown revitalization project. This extremely successful project did occur and it did change the town's overall understanding, approach and acceptance of art in public places as an integral part in public space improvements.


The Cambridge Arts Council was created "to share the pleasure of the arts with people in Cambridge." Established by the city in 1974, the Council currently has a board of 15 members and a staff of 10. It should be noted that only the Director position, which is currently held by Ms. Chris Connere, is funded by the city of Cambridge. This funding was established in November, 1976 as a line item in the city's budget. All of the other staff positions are funded through various grants. It works to increase awareness of the arts by bringing more people into audiences and workshops, and by bringing the arts into the neighborhoods where people live, work and play. The Council is supported by both public and private contributions, large and small alike.
Less than 10% of the Cambridge Arts Council budget comes from city tax revenues. The remainder of the funds which are needed for Council programs must be raised through contributions from individuals, businesses and corporations, and foundations and government support. In order to show the growth in support of the Council, the following comparison is made. In 1975, the Cambridge Arts Council had a staff of one and a budget of $60,000 (funding from an NEA City Spirit Grant, a CETA matching grant, and a grant from the Dayton-Hudson Corporation).
In contrast, 1980 was a year in which the Council had a staff of 10 and a budget of $325,000 (funded mostly by grants; approximately 10% city funding).
Over the last nine years, since its inception, the Council has developed many programs and projects to bring the arts to the people. A11 of the programs, exhibits, and festivals are free and open to the public.
This encourages all those who choose to-participate fully in the cultural life of the city.

Listed below are some of the formalized programs developed by the Cambridge Arts Council with brief explanations of the various programs:
Annually, 65,000 people enjoy dance, music, sculpture, parades -a celebration of the neighborhoods, arts, and imagination of Cambridge.
Arts On The Line was created in 1979 by the Cambridge Arts Council.
The Council developed Arts On The Line (AOTL) to incorporate permanent contemporary artworks into the four new mass transit stations being built by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA).
Twenty professional artists were selected by AOTL and are in the process of fabricating site specific artworks for Harvard Square,
Porter Square, Davis Square, and Alewife MBTA stations. Initial funding for AOTL came from a $45,000 grant from the Urban Mass Transit Administration. It is one of four filot projects across the United States which is studying how best to incorporate and integrate the arts into the construction transportation facilities, beginning at the earliest planning stages of a project.
More than 50 works of public art have been commissioned and placed all over the city by the Cambridge Arts Council since its founding. Funding for each project was provided by one or more of the following: CETA, HUD, Art Army, CRF, DOT, MBTA, Harvard University, Vingo Trust and NEA. Cambridge's one percent for art legislation (the first local percent for arts legislation passed in Massachusetts June 25, 1979) will now provide for more artworks in development areas and in cooperation with every city department.
The Cambridge Arts Council also works with developers and state agencies to commission new works. To summarize the Public Art Program in Cambridge, one could say that 1) there is heavy community involvement via the various neighborhood groups; 2) not a lot of money is spent on any one piece; and 3) the selection jury and the neighborhood

groups work closely together to make choices on artwork.
The Cambridge Arts Counci 1 granted over $50,000 in 1982 for projects, designed by communities and artists in cooperation, which involved the Cambridge neighborhoods with visual arts, writing, dance, music, film, local history, etc.
An ongoing effort initiated by the Council, the Artist-in-Residence program enables professional artists to teach community residents and neighborhood people through the school system, etc. the meaning and values of their particular artform, whether it be dance, poetry, painting, ceramics, etc.
Exhibits of ten local artists at City Hall Annex, the lobby of the American Repertory Theater, and in banks.
Outdoor events for summer pleasure
A festival uniting Cambridge choirs in music from different eras and styles.
Fashion as art-art as fashion. A party celebrating both local fashion designers and wearable art.
As can be seen above: Cambridge has highly participatory and community oriented arts programs and planning for the arts. A very important driving force, the role of "orchestrator" belongs to the Cambridge Arts Council. Without the City, via the Arts Council, taking on this exemplary and supportive role as an advocate for the arts, Cambridge would certainly

not be experiencing the high level of arts planning and implementation of arts programs which it currently enjoys.


Neither the State of Minnesota nor the City of Minneapolis have "percent for art" legislation. On the state level, various bills of this nature have been introduced to the legislature. The legislature, however, has chosen not to support the arts through such legislation but has preferred to give financial support to the arts through the State Arts Board instead. On the local level, according to the Minnesota State Arts Board, a "percent for arts" ordinance will be pursued in Minneapolis within the year.
The State Arts Board has three sources of funding. By far the biggest source of funding for the Arts Board is through the state of Minnesota.
The National Endowment for the Arts, as well as two public-private partnerships provide the remainder of the funding for the Arts Board.
In Minneapolis, the local arts agency is called the Minneapolis Arts Commission. It was created in 1975 and remains a part of the city government. The Arts Commission does receive financial support from the city. In 1983, city support will amount to $43,000. These funds pay for the director's salary, the clerk/typist's salary, and administrative costs. In addition to the $43,000 in public funds, the Arts Commission will also receive monies from a private foundation. Thirty-three thousand dollars per year for a period of six years will come from the McNight Foundation. This money supports a small grants program which is run out of the Minneapolis Arts Commission. It is called the Minneapolis A.R.T. Exchange and provides small grants to small professional arts groups for technical assistance projects. Unfortunately, the 1983 budget of $76,000 for the Arts Commission is only one-third of what it was three years ago.
Currently, Minneapolis has no NEA funding, although a couple of grant proposals are pending, according to the Director of the Arts Commission.

Prior to 1983, the Minneapolis Arts Commission had been given a $100,000 grant (three year duration) to give small grants to small and medium sized arts organizations. When the "City Arts Program"
(as it was called) ended, the McNight Foundation "picked up the ball" and carried on where the NEA funding left off.
The Minneapolis Arts Commission receives very little financial support from the public sector, and yet, the arts are very strong in Minneapolis. The real strength lies in the private sector. The private sector is the biggest backer and funder of the arts and it is the private sector which brings the richness and vitality to the city of Minneapolis through theater, dance, music, etc.
In Minneapolis, there are five major art institutions. They are listed here:
Children's Museum
Minneapolis Institute of Art
Walker Arts Center
Minneapolis Symphony Orchestra
Guthrie Theater
Additionally, over 100 small to medium-sized arts organizations exist in the Minneapolis area. The real arts texture and vitality in the city comes from organizations such as these. They are supported predominantly by the private sector and reportedly are quite healthy and active.
The Minneapolis Arts Commission schedules many art programs and projects even though it has a very limited operating budget. As has already been mentioned, the A.R.T. Exchange is a major program of the Art Commission. It is a support program that allows small to mediumsized arts and community organizations to invest in themselves by multiplying their resources. At the Minneapolis A.R.T. Exchange $1.00 equals $3.00.

Additionally, the following projects have been scheduled for 1983:
Twin Cities Mayors' Public Art Awards: The 1983 (third annual) awards will be co-sponsored by the two mayors' offices, the St.
Paul United Arts Council and the Arts Commission.
City Hall Renovation
-City Art Collection: A commissioner and a staff member are search ing out and cataloguing the art in City Hall. If the eventual city hall renovation includes an exhibit space, this collection can be shown.
-Humphrey Memorial: Commission representatives on the City Hall Renovation Committee will be discussing what forms this memorial might take in the newly remodeled City Hall.
Ibaraki/Minneapolis Citizen Art Festival: When Ibaraki, Minneapoli Sister City in Japan, recently sent a portfolio of citizens' drawings to Minneapolis, the Arts Commission decided to sponsor a citywide art competition for Minneapolitans. The resulting portfolio will be shown, along with the Ibaraki drawings, and then sent to Japan. The exhibit is tentatively scheduled for fall of 1983.
City Center Manhole Cover Project: The entries in a competition (sponsored by Oxford Development) to design seven decorative brass manhole covers were judged in late 1982. The winners will work with the Public Works Department to cast the manhole covers, which will be installed on Hennepin Avenue this spring. A simultaneous exhibit will show the best of the hundreds of designs submitted.
Seven Corners Theatre District: The Arts Commission will continue to explore models of theatre districts in other cities, in the hope that the City Council may eventually create a theatre district in the Seven Corners/West Bank area, a move that could protect

some of the art activity now there and give it more publicity.
Cable T.V.: The Commission sends a representative to the Twin Cities Cable Arts Consortium, which monitors the francishing process in both cities, testifies at public hearings and does anything
else that advocates adequate representation for the arts on cable TV public access channels. The Consortium has initiated an experimental arts calendar running on the Edina cable system, which will be transferred to the Minneapolis system. Issues under discussion in 1983 will be the structure of the public access corporation to be created by the city.
Public Art Conference: The Commission, with representatives of other Twin Cities groups, is planning a conference and study/planning group on public art, which will culminate in Spring, 1984.
American Theatre Association: The Commission will put on a workshop for ATA during its national convention in Minneapolis in August.
The topic will be the development of the Southern Theatre and the city's role as a catalyst in that project.
Through the Minneapolis Arts Commission, planning for the arts is occuring. A "draft" comprehensive arts plan for the city of Minneapolis does exist. Not only does it state goals and objectives which the city is pursuing, the arts plan also outlines city policies through which these goals and objectives might be achieved. Some of the areas addressed through the city arts policies include:
funding development for the arts
development and growth of arts districts
seek employment and training opportunities for artists
provide access to adequate space for artists to rehearse, perform, and exhibit
protect alternative housing efforts made by artists
encourage the use of arts in neighborhood development

The arts plan provides a formal mechanism with which the progress can be measured. It also acts as a formalized statement of support by the city for the arts planning process.




Grand Rapids, Michigan had developed a reputation as a community with a vital interest in public art. It has, therefore, been chosen as a significant city for study in terms of its art in public places.
It is significant for many reasons, but perhaps most significant is the fact that the origination of the Art in Public Places program of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) occurred in Grand Rapids in 1967. Grand Rapids applied for and was given a $45,000 grant from NEA. Local funding was required to match the federal grant.
Prior to launching a full-scale national Art in Public Places program, NEA felt it was important to test the practicality of the program in a few cities, the first of which was Grand Rapids.
Internationally known artist, Alexander Calder, was commissioned in 1967 to design a sculpture for Vandenberg Center (the government center plaza in Grand Rapids). On June 14, 1969 "La Grande Vitesse" was dedicated to the city of Grand Rapids.
At first, the sculpture was despised. It was installed amidst a storm of public protest. As with many pieces of publicly displayed artwork, the artwork was greeted by some with excitement, but by others with skepticism, puzzlement, and resentment. As the work became more familiar, however, its growing audience began to defend and appreciate it. As a matter of fact, La Grande Vitesse is now the urban emblem/trademark for Grand Rapids. Its symbol appears on municipal letterheads and signs and even on the sides of the sanitation department trucks. This sculpture has really helped to advance the regeneration and revitalization of Grand Rapids especially in the area of the arts. Past President, Gerald R. Ford, was a State Representative from Grand Rapids, Michigan at the time of the Calder commission. The following quote by him represents an attitude which was typical for the city at the time. "At the time, I did not know what a Calder was, but I can assure the members of Congress that a Calder in the

center of the city, in an urban redevelopment area, has really helped to regenerate a city."
La Grande Vitesse paved the way for the acceptance of other art in public places projects in Grand Rapids. It also opened the eyes of the city in terms of accepting new forms of artwork, as well as experimentation with public works of art.
Three projects stand out, one of which was a three month long exhibition of sculpture entitled "Sculpture off the Pedestal." The other two projects to be briefly described are permanent pieces of public artwork, one of which was developed through collaboration and an interdisciplinary approach.
"Sculpture off the Pedestal" was an ambitious effort staged by the Women's Committee of the Grand Rapids Art Museum. The opening day of the exhibit of outdoor art was September 8, 1973, and it lasted for a period of three months. The setting for the exhibition was Calder Plaza. Twelve pieces by twelve nationally known artists were all placed around a renovated downtown plaza on which resides Alexander Calder's permanent piece, La Grand Vitesse. A great deal of planning and fundraising was required in order to put the show together.
The "Grand River Sculpture" (1975) by artist Joe Kinnebrew is more commonly known as the fish ladder. It is, like La Grande Vitesse, a commissioned piece funded through the Art in Public Places program of NEA and matched locally. Collaboration between the artist and the Parks and Recreation Department resulted in both a functional and beautiful piece of design artwork for the city of Grand Rapids.
Functionally, the sculpture acts as a ladder that allows the local Coho and Chinook salmon to return upstream in the Grand River each year to spawn. It is topped by a platform for people to walk on and watch the salmon leap over the rapids.

Mark di Suvero, an artist who had exhibited in the Sculpture off the Pedestal show, was commissioned in 1977 by the General Services Administration (GSA) to do a sculpture for the plaza of the new federal building in Grand Rapids. At one point, GSA tried to cancel the contract, but di Suvero proponents mounted a massive campaign to protect the project. Petitions were signed, letters to the editor of local papers were written, and a presentation was made to the GSA. The local citizenry was successful in acting as a strong support base. The important thing to recognize here is the difference in community attitude towards public art between the time of the Calder piece and the di Suvero piece eight years later. A sense of pride had developed in the community which had previously not existed.
Grand Rapids' local arts agency is called the Arts Council of Greater Grand Rapids. It is a private non-profit corporation (501-C-3) dedicated to the preservation and growth of the arts in the community. There is a close working relationship between the city of Grand Rapids and the Arts Council even though it is not a city agency or department.
The Council is funded through grants and through city and state funding. Specific contracts for services exist between the city and the Arts Council, as well as unrestricted grants from the city. It has a staff of seven people, half of whose salaries are paid for through the above-mentioned city contracts and the other half through other means. The Arts Council has a 1983 operating budget of $1,000,000.
A great deal of this money is given to the Arts Council which, in turn, gives the money directly to arts groups, institutions, etc. through a grants program.
The Arts Council of Greater Grand Rapids sponsors the annual festival, "The Combined Arts Campaign," and the "Ticket Master" computerized box office system. They also are heavily involved in an overall scheduling effort for special events in Grand Rapids, and especially

at the Monroe Center. These programs are briefly described below:
Festival: A three-day long annual celebration; a time when
hundreds of thousands of people (500,000) come to Calder Plaza the heart of Grand Rapids and pay homages to the community's art, culture, music, drama and ethnic diversity. It is also a money maker for the city with the 1982 festival making a $60,000 profit after all expenses were paid.
The Combined Arts Campaign: An ongoing fundraising campaign to
support the arts. Funds from this campaign are allocated to the following performing arts groups: the Symphony, the opera, the ballet, the Civic Theater, Performing Arts for Children, or the Saint Cecilia Music Society.
Ticket Master: A computerized ticket system that allows the customer
to obtain the best seats available from the complete house selection as it exists at the time of the purchase.
t City Celebration: A special events programming and scheduling effort for Grand Rapids. The Arts Council co-sponsors this effort with four other groups; a complete summertime schedule is annually developed on Monroe Center events and other happenings around the city at locations such as the city parks, the zoo, the library, the museum, city pools, etc. This provides a coordinated and centralized piece of information which is then mass-produced and distributed to the people of Grand Rapids.
Planned promotions are a key ingredient of success, so the design of Monroe Center purposely accommodates sidewalk sales, large exhibits, live entertainment and other activities that will make Monroe Center a fun and profitable place to be.


The city of Seattle is considered by many to be the national model for its programs and policies in the field of art in public places. Seattle is quite advanced in terms of the level of sophistication of its programs and integration into the city's governmental structure. Art is not an afterthought for the city government; it is an important element in the urban revitalization plans for Seattle.
Seattle has not always been considered a city so concerned about its public art. With such a wealth of public art, one might think that it has always been an integral part of the city's development.
This is not the case, however. As a matter of fact, Seattle's public art collection, up until the 1960's, was very modest and certainly non-controversial. It was at this time that two things happened.
Governmentally funded programs for art in public places were established in the late 1960s. This was also a building boom era for the private sector in Seattle during which many new buildings and plazas were built. Not all businesses/corporations chose to incorporate sculpture into their new plazas, but a great many did.
Perhaps even more significant to the public artwork cause in Seattle was the collapse of Boeing Corporation in the early 1970's. This destroyed Seattle's largest industry and ended a central source of jobs. Over 100,000 people lost their jobs and an estimated 27,000 people left the city according to Planning Magazine. The city of Seattle, in a combative response to this economic disaster, chose to reinvest in the city through the arts. The city government viewed this as an important step in making a more diversified Seattle and also in developing it as a major tourist attraction. It was at this point that the city became quite serious about its involvement and its leadership role in the arts.

The Seattle Arts Commission was created by city ordinance in 1971 as Seattle's local arts agency. It is an independent municipal agency; a mayor appointed body with fifteen members. Its original appropriation (in 1971) from the city was $35,000 and today it administers monies totalling over $1£ million. With the creation of the Seattle Arts Commission, many programs and policies have evolved and developed including the formal recognition by the city of the arts as an essential city "service."
The Seattle Arts Commission has a great deal of freedom in terms of its powers and duties. The following statement is an excerpt from the 1971 enabling legislation. "To define, initiate, sponsor or conduct, alone or in cooperation with other public or private agencies, public programs to further the development and public awareness of, and interest in the fine and performing arts..."
Since its inception, a number of programs have been developed in response to this mandate. Brief descriptions of these programs have been excerpted from "ARTS PLAN/a guide to the Development of a Municipal Arts Agency" by the Mayor's Commission on the Arts/Denver, Colorado/February, 1983. They are listed below:
t Support of Resident Performing Arts Organizations
The largest portion of the Commission's budget goes to financial support of the city's eighteen resident, nonprofit performing arts organizations. Visual arts exhibiting institutions are granted a smaller amount, and a much smaller fund is earmarked for new and/or experimental projects.
Festival Sponsorship
Bumbershoot, a city-wide arts festival, is held over Labor Day weekend at the Seattle Center. It is sponsored jointly with the center and the Parks and Recreation Department.

Municipal Art Plan
The Commission administers Seattle's public art ordinance which mandates that one percent of all capital construction projects (including public utilities) be used for the acquisition of works of art.
Independent Creative Artists Program
The Commission has set up a bureau with staff to provide city artists with information on grants, jobs, legal affairs, housing, and studio space.
t Communication
The Commission publishes a newsletter, and it also provided information on grants and services to arts organizations. In general, it acts as a municipal interface between artists and arts organizations, the community, other Seattle arts service groups, and city, state, and Federal agencies.
In addition to these programs, there are projects related to Seattle's Public Art program which are significant because of their exemplary nature. It is on this level that the Seattle Art Commission and its Public Art Program becomes a model for other municipal arts agencies on a national level.
Percent for Art Ordinance
(Passed in May of 1973, only two years after the creation of the Seattle Arts Commission.) Significant in showing Seattle's support for, and commitment to the arts is the fact that their percent for art ordinance was passed by City Council during a time when the city's unemployment rate was at a record high level.
Also important to note are the terms of Seattle's ordinance; there are no exemptions in it. In other words, al1 capital construction projects, whether they are city buildings and/or landscaping projects, roads, public utilities, etc., allocate 1% of the entire project cost to the acquisition of artwork. Another

important provision in Seattle's ordinance is that any project paid for wholly or in part by the city of Seattle comes under the terms of the ordinance. (Many cities' ordinances have exemptions for certain types of construction projects and often apply only to projects paid for wholly by the city. This greatly reduces the potential impact of a percent for an art ordinance.)
Seattle provides, within the operating guidelines for the percent for art ordinance, a unique contract between the artist and the city. It takes the artist out of the category of subcontractor on a par with plumbers and electricians and clearly defines his or her relationship with the city.
If the city decides to sell a piece previously acquired through the percent for art program, it agrees to pay the artist 15% of the appreciated value of the work. Also, the artist is notified if a work is relocated, and the city promises to properly maintain and protect it giving the artist the first opportunity to perform any necessary repairs. Finally, the artist reserves all rights to copy or reproduce the work and to borrow it for not more than 60 days once every five years.
Seattle Design Team Program
The Seattle Design Team approach towards project planning is a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach in which different professions work as equals in designing urban services. Teams of artists, engineers, architects, landscape architects, and neighborhood residents are formed and they work together throughout the entire project. This design team approach grew out of the concern of many that, despite the city's extensive percent for art program, the art it generated did not relate to the architectural process.
The first project of the Seattle Design Team, which was completed in 1979, was the Viewland/Hoffman power substation in which

$50,000 was allocated for artwork through the percent for art ordinance. As of March, 1981 eleven other projects had been completed in a similar manner.
Art in Public Places Planning Project
The Seattle Art Commission has received matching funds from the National Endowment for the Arts for a model project to develop a comprehensive informational and planning tool. This planning tool, when completed, will be used by the Seattle Art Commission in planning an "urban art center." The "urban art center" is an extension of the traditional sculpture park concept, as applied to an urban area, where the acquisition of a single large park for artwork is inappropriate or impossible.
The actual definition of the art center will be approached with imagination. It will consider both traditional and non-traditional artwork sites and will identify short, medium (to 10 years) and long term art in public places project possibilities. A team of an artist and an architect will conduct this arts planning study. The completion date and publication of the study is expected in the summer of 1983.


The Denver case study describes in depth the organizations, the programs, and the policies of Denver relative to art in public places. Comparative analysis, recommendations, and conclusions will be made about Denver's position as a city supporting the visual arts in the final chapter of this study. This section mainly addresses Denver's existing conditions. While pointing out some of the city's weaknesses regarding its public art, it also identifies potential opportunities for strengthening those weak spots. They will be further developed in the final chapter.
Three levels of governmental funding exist for art in public places. State, federal, and of course, local government can provide monies to be used for artwork. In Denver, only 2 of the 3 levels are being utilized. No local funding exists at the moment for art in public places in Denver.
The Colorado Council on Arts and Humanities (CCAH) was founded in 1967. It was not until July 1, 1978 that a 1% for art legislation was passed for State construction projects. CCAH began its Art in Public Places program in 1978 which utilized the funds allocated from the percent for art law. From its inception until September of 1982, 57 projects have been funded in Colorado with $214,314.00 being spent on State purchased and/or commissioned artwork. Denver captured 10 of those projects for a total of $20,344 or almost 10% of the total amount spent.
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) since the inception of its Art in Public Places Program in 1967 has given two grants for the total amount of $64,000 to Denver. These NEA grants provide matching funds for community-initiated public-art projects.

The City and County of Denver has provided no formal mechanism for raising money to support an art in public places program. As far as City efforts to support art in public places, they are very limited. There were two periods that effected the public artwork in the downtown area in particular and they occurred approximately 50 years apart.
In neither case, however, did the City play a very active role. The first effort occurred in the period when Denver's Civic Center Park was being planned and developed. Civic Center Park was completed in 1922. By the time of its completion, Civic Center Park contained a number of pieces of public artwork which had been given to the City by various civic benefactors. This has continued and Civic Center Park now is the site for approximately 20 pieces of publicly owned artwork.
In 1974, a private non-profit group called the Park People became involved in art in public places with a project called "Art in the City." The project was supported by grants from the National Endowment for the Arts and the Denver Art Commission, Parks and Recreation Department of the City and County of Denver. It resulted in 8 pieces of artwork, 6 of which are located in the downtown area.
No "percent for art" bill has ever been introduced to City Council.
An effort to create such a bill is in its infancy right now in Denver. Spearheaded by sculptor, Bob Behrens, and architect, Peter Dominick and with technical assistance from the Mayor's Commission on the Arts, this attempt to create a formal funding mechanism should certainly be viewed as a positive step for Denver. Greg Geissler, Executive Director for the Mayor's Commission on the Arts, brings a great deal of expertise to Denver regarding "percent for art ordinances," as well as Art in Public Places programs. He came to Denver in August, 1982 from Tacoma, Washington where he had been the Director of the Art in Public Places Program for their municipal arts agency. Incidentally, Tacoma's arts agency budget in 1982 was $265,000 compared to Denver zero budget for the same year.

Background Information
The Mayor's Commission on the Arts was created through an executive order from Mayor Bill McNichols on December 4, 1979. It is composed of 15 members all of whom are appointed by the Mayor. The Commission members serve staggered terms of two, three, and four years. It should be noted that the Commission is an entity which exists at the pleasure of the Mayor; it is not its own public agency within the formal structure of the city government, nor does a charter provision exist within Denver's City Charter for its creation.
Closely associated with the Mayor's Commission on the Arts is a nonprofit corporation called "Friends of the Arts in Denver." This 501-(c)-3 corporation was organized to accept private contributions for the Commission.
An informational brochure written by the Commission about itself states that, "the Commission will work in a leadership role to enable Denver to realize its promise as a national cultural center and its citizens, their individual potential and an ever richer quality of life through the arts." This statement would lead one to believe that the arts are strongly supported through the city government.
The fact of the matter is, however, quite the contrary.
When the Commission was founded a little over three years ago, Denver was the only major city in the United States without a municipal arts agency. It is also true that the Mayor's Commission on the Arts has never received any city funding. It has always been responsible for its own fundraising. It is interesting to note that, of the 50 largest U.S. cities, only three do not receive direct municipal appropriations to support the arts in their communities. Denver is one of the three cities. The other two are Cleveland, Ohio and Newark, New Jersey.
This "lagging behind" attitude and the absence of financial support

from the City hardly speaks positively about its supposed "leadership role in regards to the arts.
Current Situation and Looking Forward
Things appear to be turning around for the Mayor's Commission on the Arts, however. In August of 1982, an Executive Director position was created to staff the Commission. For the first time since the founding of the Commission, it became someone's full-time job to develop city programs and projects for the arts. Prior to this point, the responsibility had fallen upon the Commission members, all of whom had full-time jobs in addition to the Commission. Greg Geissler was hired as the Executive Director. He came to Denver from Tacoma, Washington where he had been the Director of the Art in Public Places Program for the municipal arts agency in Tacoma.
Since Greg's arrival last August, he has really begun the arts planning process in Denver. In February, 1983 the Mayor's Commission on the Arts released a report entitled "ARTS PLAN/a guide to the development of a municipal arts agency." In the report, the following seven programs are proposed during 1983-1984:
1. Support of Resident Arts Organizations
2. Development of a Neighborhood Arts Program
3. Assist the Business Community and Local Government in efforts to enliven the Urban Center
4. Institute a Mayor's Roundtable on the Arts
5. Institute a Business and Arts Committee
6. Act as an Information Center
7. Represent the City and County of Denver
As stated in the report, "The Mayor's Commission on the Arts is presently at a crossroads. It has the official sanction of the City and County of Denver, which confers credibility, but it shares in none of the City and County's resources. Without direct City and

County participation it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure funding that is available through other levels of government. In other words, the City and County of Denver must first demonstrate its commitment to the development of an effective and viable municipal arts agency before it can expect significant participation from other sectors."
As an example, a funding request for 1984 has been submitted to the Mayor by the Commission in the amount of $50,000. Also, Denver has applied to the National Endowment for the Arts for a $50,000 grant from a funding program called "The Test Program of Support for Local Arts Agencies." Eligibility for this three year pilot program is contingent upon a local funding match. Only 10-15 cities will be given funding across the U.S. Without local government funding support, Denver will not be eligible for the NEA grant. It appears that if city funding does occur, Denver will be in a good position to begin implementing some of the programs proposed by the Mayor's Commission on the Arts. "Developing a public art program is a priority item on the agenda of the Commission," says Greg Geissler.
The Denver Art Commission
In addition to the Mayor's Commission on the Arts, there is another public body which deals with art in public places. This particular body has authority over what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in terms of publicly owned artwork for Denver.
The Denver Art Commission was created through Article XIV in the original City Charter. It has always existed as a public body and the members of the Commission are appointed by the Mayor. It was created in the 1920's during a period in Denver's history when civic benefactors, of which there were many, donated numerous pieces of artwork to the City and County of Denver. Many of the older pieces of public artwork are of a commemorative nature and act as a link to Denver's past.

The role of the Denver Art Commission is to accept artwork given to or commissioned for the City and to make recommendations to the Mayor and the Council for the placement of public artwork. Additionally, any proposed alterations in either 1) the piece of artwork, or 2) its location must first be cleared through the Denver Art Commission. In general, the commission has control of all matters of public art owned by the City and County of Denver.
An architect is currently the chairman of the six member Denver Art Commission. Two of the six members of the Commission are required to be artists, one of whom must be a sculptor. The Chairman, Chuck Sink has remained in that position for the past eight years. There is no staff for this totally volunteer commission. The Commission meets irregularly and only when there is business to attend to. The reason that the Denver Art Commission meets on an irregular basis is that there is currently very limited activity in terms of art in public places for the City and County of Denver.
Metropolitan Denver Arts Alliance (MDAA) is a private non-profit 501-(c)-3 arts organization. MDAA promotes the arts, assists local artists and arts organizations to reach their artistic and administrative potential, and presents educational programs to the arts communities and the public. Through networking within the five county metropolitan Denver area, MDAA works to strengthen the bonds between the many artistic disciplines and the business community.
MDAA was organized in 1979 and became incorporated in 1980. In February of 1983, a full-time paid staff position for Executive Director was created. Barbara Yost currently holds that position.
With a part-time intern and a part-time secretary, MDAA operates with a staff of 1-3/4 people and a 23 member Board of Directors.

In 1982, the operating budget for MDAA was $15,000 with $5,800, or a little over one-third corning from membership dues. The rest of the budget comes from grants, contributions and earned income.
Currently, there are 300 memberships with 55 art organizations and 12 corporate memberships. The remaining 233 are individual memberships. MDAA hopes to triple the 1982 budget with a 1983 operating budget goal of $45,000.
Duplication of services is a potential hazard between MDAA and the Mayor's Commission on the arts. Fortunately, good working relationships between the two organizations have prevented this from occurring so far.
The Patten Institute for the Arts was incorporated in 1978. It is a non-profit, tax exempt corporation (501-(c)-3). The Patten, with a membership of 150 businesses, art organizations, artists, art educators, designers, and individuals, is a front-range and statewide art education corporation in Colorado.
The Patten Institute for the Arts began its efforts with the Business and Arts Council. The Council functions as a liaison to increase/ enhance understanding and communications, promoting mutual interests and support for the arts. It creates a forum for business, its customers, employees and their families to enjoy and participate more fully in the emerging cultural life in their community. Three main activities of the Business and Arts Council are:
bi-monthly meetings with guest speakers in business-arts leadership t business and arts seminars
# public events promoting art organizations and art patrons
Potentially, The Patten Institute, through the Business and Arts Council, could develop programs to educate the business and corporate sector

about the benefits of the arts to the private sector. Specifically, a highly promoted educational program about publicly displayed artwork through the business sector could be developed. Currently, this is not well-developed.
The Denver Partnership, Inc. is a private non-profit corporation which, through an entrepreneurial approach and through its two operating corporations,1) maintains an activist role in the development and direction of downtown, and 2) supplies the center city with urban design, planning and financial and development packaging skills.
The Civic Design Team of The Denver Partnership is currently in the midst of a 12 month long planning and implementation project which deals with downtown public spaces. Being studied are the existing, as well as the potential uses of the various plazas, parks, and open spaces in the downtown area. Both privately owned and publicly owned spaces are being studied/analyzed in terms of their success as pedestrian amenities in the overall urban design of downtown Denver.
Answers to the following questions are being sought. Are public spaces in downtown Denver assets or liabilities in terms of the vitality which they create for those who live, work, shop and play downtown? How many people use existing public spaces? How does pedestrian use differ from plaza to plaza and from space to space?
What unique features exist in the various downtown public spaces?
What physical design improvements could potentially improve the use and also the economic return to the owner?
Art can be an integral and important part of public space improvements. A potential exists, in the design planning stages of a project, for collaborations to occur between artist, architect, and landscape architect with broader responsibilities being delegated to the artist.

These collaborations can range from limited involvement to full-scale partnerships.
The Denver Partnership could,through the Public Spaces Project, act as the orchestrator for such collaborative projects putting together an interdisciplinary team to work with the property owner from the very beginning to develop specific design improvements for particular sites.
The benefits of efforts to include artists in early stages of a project would include the following:
more harmonious relations between design professionals
wider use of art and integration of artwork into overall design
simple budgetary gains
"The integration of our art in our business operations has enhanced both our business and the way we do business. Good art is good gusiness."
- quote by -George Weissman Chairman of the Board Phillip Morris, Incorporated
This quote can also be appropriately used in describing the attitudes of a small number of Denver businesses and business executives. Incorporation of artwork into development projects, corporate art collections, and financial support of art and cultural facilities all indicate that there is business support for the arts in Denver. Compared to other cities, however, the level of support is low.
Regarding art in public places and the private sector in Denver, there are a few examples deserving recognition here. They are listed below:

The Madden Company (Real Estate Developers)
- for "Harlequin Plaza," a museum of outdoor art at their corporate headquarters in southeast Denver.
Conglomerate Associates (group of private developers)
- set aside 1t of construction cost of project at east 16th Avenue and Lincoln for artwork.
- commissioned "The Spectrum" by Charles Ross to be placed in building atrium.
Lawrence Street Venture (developers of Lawrence Street Center at
13th Street and Lawrence Street)
- commissioned two major pieces for Lawrence Street Center plaza/ courtyard.
- "The Shoot Out" by Red Grooms
- "Incomplete Square for Block 20" by Stephen Antonokos
Prudential Insurance Company of America, Denver Real Estate Division
- commissioned a major piece for 17th Street Plaza
- "Soft Landing" by Kenneth Snelson
The New Height Group
- Commisioned a Colorado Artist to do a piece for the 1900 Grant lobby
- Carved brick wall releif wall by Ken Williams (from Pueblo, Colorado)



The following section in this report is a comprehensive photographic inventory and documentation of the art in public places in downtown Denver. In addition to a black and white photograph of each piece of artwork, the accompanying information listed in the inventory includes:
Location of piece
Name of the artist
Date of the artwork
Name of the artwork
The pieces of artwork are categorized by type with a brief analysis of each type of artwork preceding the various photographic sections. Six categories have been identified and are ordered in the following way:
Monuments/commemorative works/placques
Architectural details
An overall map of the downtown area shows graphically the location of each piece. It has been included in the front of the inventory as a key to refer to for the individual photographs. Each is keyed to the map through a self-explanatory number/letter system.

FIG. #1

Twenty-two sculptures have been included in this section. With the exception of two pieces, all of the sculptures have either been commissioned or purchased and placed in their current sites after 1970. It is undetermined at this point how many of the sculptures were commissioned with a specific site in mind and how many were already existing pieces which were purchased for a site. Only a few of the sculptures in this section were designed at the same time as the site surrounding them. In other words, there was little collaboration between artist, architect, planner, and landscape architect. "Plunk art" is a term often used for art designed without concern for the surrounding environment. Much of Denver's art in public places falls into that category, unfortunately.
Recently, Denver has gained five significant sculptures in the downtown area which were commissioned by enlightened developers, businessmen, and art patrons who wanted to include artwork in their projects.
A small percentage of the total project cost was allocated for artwork. The nationally known artists listed below were commissioned
to do pieces in Downtown Denver.
Charles Ross "The Spectrum" 1980
Richard Byers "The Ecologist" 1980
Stephen Antonokos "-Incomplete Square for Block 20" 1980
Red Grooms "The Shoot-Out" 1982
Kenneth Snelson "Soft Landing" 1983

A national focus comes to Denver through these artists and their sculptures. In addition to these nationally known artists, there are many fine local and regional sculptors such as Robert Behrens and Robert Mangold who also have pieces in the downtown. These artists have been working in the area for a much longer period of time than the national newcomers. Their regional influence is most important to the overall makeup of Denver's art in public places.
A-1 Location: Denver Art Museum lawn near entrance Artist: Robert K. Behrens Date: October, 1972 Piece: Wood Construction

A-2 Location: Denver Public Library Lawn; 14th Avenue at Acoma Artist: Robert Mangold Date: May, 1971 Piece: "Anemotive Tower #6"
A-3 Location: West Colfax Median and Civic Center Park Artist: Robert Mangold Date: 1975
Piece: Robert Mangold Series (two similar pieces) Donated by: Robert Mangold and the park people

A-4 Location: Colfax and Speer Boulevard (relocation site of piece)
Artist: Gerald Cross Date: 1975
Piece: Blue Plexiglass, steel; title unknown
A-5 Location: May D & F Plaza; 16th Street Mall and Tremont
Artist: R. Vincent and G. Dwyer; Weldor J. Bieg
Date: May, 1971
Piece: Black metal abstract geometric sculpture; title unknown
a at Hi 31
-j: jSm'

: The lobby of the Spectrum Building
Avenue and Lincoln Richard Byers (Seattle)
'The Ecologist"
of the atrium 16th Avenue an Ross (Nevl
Location, Building Artist;. Datej, IS Pieces
Charles 'The Spectrum1
I'ii mmwm
as rr^i h_ i .m
m r -J rm

mrJW +

Location: Amoco BuiIding/Columbia Savings:
17th Street and Broadway
Artist: Augusta Rodin
Date: Placed in bank lobby in 1981;
Piece: "The Thinker" (7th bronze casting from the original)
A-9 Location: Anaconda Tower Lobby; 555 17th Street Artist: Bayer
Date: building completed in 1977
Piece: Marble/water/metal sculpture (title unknown)
Owned by: Atlantic Richfield

Location: Dominion Plaza on Welton Street near building entrance; 17th and Welton Artist: Gino Lorcini (lives in Ontario) Date: 1983
Piece: "The Meeting" (bronze sculpture)
Location: Broadway and Welton Artist: LeRoy Butler Date: May 2, 1974 Piece: "Undulating Pool"

^^2. Location. 14th Street Plaza in front of Currigan Convention Center
Artist: Robert Behrens Date: July, 1975 Piece: "Earth-Air Crystal"
Location: Denver Center for the Performi
Arts (DCPA) Galleria
Artist: Victor Contreras
Date: October, 1980
Piece: Infinite Energy

A"15 Location: Brooks Tower Plaza/Entry; 1020 15th Street
Artist: Alphonse Pelzer (metal worker from Salem,Oregon)
L>ate: 1891-1963 on top of Mining Exchange Building site of Brooks Tower; 1969 in front of Brooks Tower Piece: Colonel John Williams Scraughn; in bronze
-6 5-

A-16 Location: Arco Tower Lobby; 707 17th Street Artist: Harry Bertoia Date: August, 1982 placed in lobby Piece: "Trees" bronze sculpture Owned by: ARCO
Purchased through: The Denver Art Museum
Location: Intrawest Tower Lobby; California
Street between 18th and 17th Streets
Artist: Leonardo Nierman
Date: 1974
Piece: "The Flame"

Location: Colorado National Bank Building
Plaza; 17th Street and Curtis Street
Artist: Harry Bertoia
Date: June, 1976
Piece: "Sounding Sculpture"
A-19 Location: temporarily on island between 13th Street, Speer Boulevard, and Arapahoe Street Artist: Red Grooms Date: 1982
Piece: "The Shoot-out" (currently covered with plastic)

Location: Lawrence Street Center; 1380 Lawrence; on side of condominium buildi Arti st: Stephen Antonokos Date: 1982
Piece: "Incomplete Square for Block 20" (52' x 52' blue and red neon work)
A21 Location: 17th Street Plaza between Lawrence Street and Larimer Street Artist: Kenneth Snelson clateTT983
Piece: "The Soft Landing" a metal tension sculpture

Location: Placed near entrance of Nordesign;
1523 18th Street
Artist: Kevin B. Robb
Date: Constructed June, 1981; placed at
current site in February, 1983
Piece: Striped Herin

Monuments/Commemorative Works/Placques
Most of the pieces of artwork included in this section are owned by the City and County of Denver. A few are owned by the State of Colorado, and three are owned by Sakura Square and the Buddhist Temple. This commemorative and/or monumental type of artwork is usually given by an individual or a group to the City or State as a gift. The majority of these pieces are located on public property, many of which are in the Civic Center Park area. Completed in 1922, Civic Center Park was a source of pride for both the City and State government. It was often chosen as the site for the placement of such gifts of artwork.
This type of artwork is significant particularly for historic reasons. Not only is a certain artistic style retained, but the history of the
city is preserved through such monuments as well. Civic Benefactors
can voice pride in their community through gifts such as these.
B-1 Location: East lawn of the State Capitol Artist: Preston Powers Date: 1893 or 1894 Piece: Closing Era Statue

B-2 Location: Lawn of original State Museum; E. 14th Avenue at Sherman Designers of Casing: Peterson and Lee; architects Date: 1950; Bell casting/August 29, 1974; dedication Piece: Bronze Bell; one of 53 repTTcas (cast in France) of the original Liberty Bell from Independence Hall in Philadelphia
B-3 Location: West lawn State Capitol Artist: Captain Jack Howland Date: July 24, 1909 Piece: Civil War Memorial Donated by: State of Colorado and The Pioneers' Association Cost: $20,000

theTen Commandments
I AMifc? IjORO thy Gfi J Thau shaft ku* # *4er ?cds'^
Ui fttalr^A*5a|bA hf?r ... ....
n Thau shaft not conmft *i vulha u shaft nar steal ; S' via Thau shaft mar bear fjfti
' rft?neifhfaor. V ; txThcJ shaft itaretson tftg
XThsdshaftoaj ronet tftj m
i -
foose. iiiftuor r.nttr hh [ghbars.
B-5 Location: Civic Center Park near Broadway and Colfax Artist: Unknown Date: Circa 1920 Piece: Likens Drinking Fountain Donated by: 1) Veterans of the Grand Army of the Republic; 2) Ladies of the Grand Army; 3)
The Women's Relief Corps; 4) Daughters of Veterans and the Sons of Veterans
B-4 Location: Civic Center Park near Broadway and Colfax Artist: Unknown Date: June, 1956 Piece: 10 Commandments Monument Donated by: The Denver Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Eagles
I* W

-7Location: East Wing of Greek Amphitheater
Amphi theater Designer: Unknown Date: October 17, 1950
Piece: U.N. Plaza Flagpole: (Relocated from 16th Street and Broadway)
Donated by: The Dunklee Family of Denver Dedicated to: Murphy Borelli Chapter #7 of Disabled American Veterans
Designer: E. H. Bennett Date: 1919
Piece: Colorado of Civic Benefactors
B-8 Location: South end of Civic Center Park Designer: E. H. Bennett Date: 1919
Piece: Greek Amphitheater


*4- "'
* 4
L... _->j

B-9 Location: Civic Center Park; west wall Greek Amphitheater Artist: unknown Date: 1978
Piece: Commemorative Plaque for John Malpiede
B-10 Location: Civic Center Park; west wall of the Greek Amphitheater Artist: Maria Allsin Boniecki (of Warsaw) Date: dedicated June 3, 1957 Piece: Lafayette Plaque

B-1 2
Location: Civic Center Park; North of Amphitheater
Artist: Alexander Phimister Proctor
Date: May, 1922
Piece: "On the War Trail"
Donated by: Stephen Knight Cost: $16,500
Location: Civic Center Park; north of Amphi theater
Artist: Alexander Phimister Proctor
Date: December, 1920
Piece: "Bucking Bronco Statue"
Donated by: J. K. Mullen Cost: $18,500

00 '
13Location': Civic Center Park Artist: William Joseph Date: June 24, 1970 Piece: Columbus Statue and Bench Donated by: Alfred P. Adams Cost: $10,000
B-14 Location: Civic Center Park; South of Voorheis Fountain Arti st: Unknown Date: June 3, 1950 Piece: Powerhouse Placque

Location: Macintosh Plaza; in front lawn of 1445 Cleveland Place near 15th Street Arti st: Dane Romberger Date: December 13, 1982
Piece: Macintosh Monument (Kenneth Mackenzie Macintosh)
Donated by: The City and County of Denver
Location: Traffic island at W.
Colfax Avenue, 13th Street, and Tremont Artist: Unknown Date: 1907
Piece: The National Humane Alliance Memorial (bronze and concrete)

Location: Broadway and Tremont near Brown Dalace Hotel
Designer: Charles Gathers & Associates Date: original April 2, 1971, rededicated May 28, 1981
Piece: Service to Mankind Square; Sertoma Square
B-18 Location: Denver Post; inlayed into the sidewalk at the corner of 15th Street and California Street Artist: unknown
Date: unknown; Denver Post Building opened May 6, 1950 Piece: Granite directional compass

Location: Buddhist Temple; 1947 Lawrence Street
Artist: unknown (shipped from Japan) Date: donated by Mr. Numata (of Japan) in 1980 to Reverand Tamai Piece: bronze bell at entry of Temple

Location: Sakura Square Garden; 1255 19th Street
Artist: John Nudhert Date: Dedicated August 21, 1976 Piece: Bronze bust of Governor Ralph L. Carr
Commissioned by the Japanese Community
B-2 2
Location: Sakura Square Garden: 1255 19th Street
Artist: Harry Tashiro (from Las Cruces,
New Mexico)
Date: Circa 1974
Piece: "Tower of Compassion"
Donated to: originally the Buddhist Temple; then to Sakura Square Garden

Nine different murals were photographed in the downtown area. The three oldest murals were painted by the same artist, Allen True, and were all painted in the 1920's. Carlos Sandoval's mural plus those three murals, all have historic and cultural messages to portray about the growth and the development of the west. Excluding the Allen True murals, the other six murals have been painted since 1974. The American Costume Company, The Changing Scene Theater, and the Colorado Supreme Court Building are all buildings which have murals that depict their "content and use." The remaining two murals are individually different. The blank walls of buildings have created huge "canvases" upon which the artist has been able to paint supergraphics.
C-1 Location: Underneath State Supreme Court Building; E. 14th Avenue and Lincoln Streets Artist: Mural; Angelo di Benedetto Date: Building finished mid-1977 Piece: Mural (underneath second story of building)
Donated by: Otto Freidrichs (Denver attorney; deceased July 1982)

C-2 Location: entries and lobby of Mountain Bell Building; 14th Street and Curtis Street Artist: Allen True
Date: 1929; exterior murals refurbished 10-15 years ago; interior murals are untouched
Piece: painted murals; technology and communications; titles unknown
Location: Both sides of Greek Amphitheaters Artist: Allen True Date: 1919 or 1920 Piece: Oil Paintings (2)
Donated by: Mrs. Katherine Wolcott Toll

Location: Lobby of Colorado National Bank Building; 17th and Champa Street Artist: Allen True Date: 1925
Piece: Indian painted mural (one in a series)
Location: Changing Scene Theater; on wall of building facing alley Artist: Renick Stevenson (lives in Grand Junction)
Date: Originally 1975; repainted 1981 Piece: Clown Mural; untitled

Location: Ameri Blake Street Artist: Elantu Date: 1974 Piece: "middle
can Costume Company; 1622 (a gypsy woman) Earth"/mural on storefront
C-7 Location: 16th Street and Wazee Street on side wall of building Artist: Carlos Sandoval Date: Summer, 1981
Piece: "Technology and Nature" mural

C-8 Location: on side of building near 16th Street viaduct heading into downtown Arti st: Tom Verdi Date: Summer, 1978
Piece: Windows and Mountains mural; title unknown
C~9 Location: on side of building near South Platte River and 16th Street Viaduct heading out of downtown Artist: unknown Date: unknown
Piece: Sunburst Mural; green, yellow, white; title unknown

Only two tapestries were found in lobbies of downtown buildings.
They are privately owned by corporations and are on permanent display in both cases. One is located in the lobby of the Intrawest Plaza
Building and the other is located in the lobby of the Anaconda Tower. Both of these wall tapestries are modern in design and serve as an
artistic means for decorating very large and otherwise unadorned and uninteresting walls.
D-1 Location: Intrawest Tower in lobby; California Street between 18th and 17th Street Artist: Leonardo Nierman Date: 1974
Piece: "The Phoenix" (tapestry)

D~2 Location: Anaconda Tower Lobby; 555 17th Street
Arti st: Bayer
Date: Building completed in 1977 Piece: "Cosmos"

There were five fountains photographed downtown. It should be mentioned that there are also fountains at Currigan Hall, the U.S. Courthouse, the Colorado Supreme Court Building and along the 16th Street Mall which were not photographed. Unfortunately, the photographs were all taken during the winter when no water was running. Therefore, the "total effect" cannot be seen through these photographs.
While fountains can only be seasonally used in Colorado, the sight,
the sound, and the feel of water are all very enjoyable sensations
to the user. Many fountains provide seating areas through the low
walls which are built around the base of the pool. This provides
a relaxing place for the pedestrian to sit and even, perhaps, dangle
a toe in the water.
Location: Civic Center Park; North End Designers/Architects: William E. and Arthur
A. Fisher
Date: 1922 (final piece in Civic Center Park) Piece: Voorheis Memorial and Fountain Donated by: John P. Voorheis Cost: $132,"000

Location: 18th Street and Broadway in traffic island Artist: Bill Joseph Date: 1975
Piece: Abstract Bronze Fountain; title unknown
Donated by: Bill Joseph and the park people
Location: Traffic Island; Broadway and Colfax
Artist: Frederick MacMonnies (from France)
Date: June 24, 1911
Piece: Pioneer Monument
Cost: $92,000; $10,000 by State; $7,000 by
City; $5,500 by Denver Real Estate Exchange;
remainder by public subscription

E-4 Location: DCPA west lawn near Speer Boulevard Artist/designers: Larry Bell and Eric Orr "Date: under construction
Piece: fountain sculpture of glass and solar generated vapor; "The Solar Fountain"
E-5 Location: Intrawest Plaza; 17th Street and California Designer: Paul Friedburg Date: 1974
Piece: cylindrical fountain in plaza

Architectural Details
The architectural details which were photographed for this section are actually an integral part of the architecture of particular buildings. In some instances, there are both functional and decorative uses as in the case of the two sets of bronze doors and the stained glass window in the Colorado National Bank, the Colorado Federal Savings and Loan, and the Equitable Building, respectively. In other cases, the detailing artwork can provide a visual accent for a building entrance or lobby. Such architectural craftsmanship, as this type of work is now called, is displayed at the Federal Office Building, the U.S.
Post Office, and the Civic Center Amphitheater.
Location: Colorado National Bank Doors; 17th and Champa Street (on 17th Street) Artist: Unknown; architects on building were Fisher and Fisher Date: 1914
Piece: bronze, sculptured doors


Location: Colorado Federal Savings and Loan Building; 821 17th Street Artist: Nena deBrennecke (Colorado artist) Date: 1906
Piece: bronze pictograph doors (each door weighs over one ton)

F-3 Location: Civic Center Park; in the Greek Theater Artist: unknown Date: 1971
Piece: Lion Sculpture Donated by: Alfred P. Adams
F-4 Location: U.S. Post Office side steps; 1823 Stout Street Artist: Gladys Caldwell Fisher Date: 1936
Piece: Concrete big horn sheep/rams