towards a model for a universal - shire of mundaring · development of a model ‘universal percent...

towards a modelfor a universalpercent for art policy

discussion papers

king street arts centrefirst floor meeting room357 murray street, perth

04.05.2007

detai

l of s

culpt

ure ‘

hear

t’ by s

tuart

gree

n

artist: Tony Pankiw

01 Introduction

02 Discussion paper: Snapshot of Percent for Art – Jude van der Merwe

03 Discussion paper: Towards a Universal Percent for Art Planning Policy – Peter Ciemitis

contents

artist: Tony Pankiw

Why ?The purpose of the following papers is to commence a discussion around the issue of Percent for Art and a Universal Percent for Art Planning Policy.

The application of Percent for Art in Western Australia has grown well beyond its inception almost two decades ago, and its initial limitation to State Government public works. It has more recently been applied to a variety of development activity, including Local Government and the private sector.

The use and nature of ‘Universal Percent for Art’ however has been ad hoc, creating a need for debate and guidance on consistent models. These discussion papers and associated odel Universal Percent for Art Planning Policy represent Artsource’s contribution to furthering the debate.

Who?Artsource is the peak representative body for visual artists in WA. We have been working in an advocacy role in relation to both public art and percent for art models for ten years. Over that time, we have seen numerous systems and processes developed, each with varying degrees of success. Projects with long reaching community benefit at their heart, models that engage direct commissioning and processes that can be disheartening and taxing for commissioners and artists alike have all come our way. Artsource is fortunate to have the support and expertise of Peter Ciemitis, Senior Asociate for Roberts Day and Planners Alan Diggin, Yolanda Millar and Andrew Trosic who have given generously of their time to develop a model Universal Percent for Art Policy to continue and enhance this debate.

What?In order to establish common ground and a framework for the discussion, the following two papers provide:▪ a brief snapshot of current systems of percent and public art existing in WA.▪ an overview of the community and planning environment in which percent for art has developed and its relationship to Town Planning Policies▪ a look at the key elements that should make up a universal percent for art policy

01 introduction

artist: Tony Pankiw

backgroundPublic art, broadly defined can take many forms and perform many functions. It may be an object of civic pride or a cause of stimulating debate. It may provide edification or entertainment. It may be a source of private pleasure and solace, of popular self recognition and inclusion. Some of the most successful public art works are projects that are truly integrated into their contexts, rather than merely playing lip service to a notion of site-specificity that can be superficial. It is informed by a knowledge of the needs and expectations of all those involved; from the body initiating the project to the community that project is designed to address. This does not mean merely giving the public what it wants, for this would preclude the possibility of truly innovative art. It is difficult to express a desire for that which has not yet been experienced.

The practice of constructing artworks in public places is as old as civil society. Extraordinary monuments to victorious battles, artworks celebrating the beauty of human and animal forms, triumphant arches and ritualised places of worship have all enjoyed the unconstrained attentions of the most gifted artists the world has produced.

Much has been written about the value of art in public places in terms of cultural, social and economic values. Links between public art, creative clustering, tourism and cultural hubs is evident in the planning of redevelopment authorities, Claisebrook (WA) Ellenbrook (WA) and Canary Warf (UK) the Docklands (VIC) are a few of a multitude of cases at point.

There is little questioning of why should we have art in public spaces it is more a question of how can we plan it better to be more effective in generating the “ Cultural Milieu”. Ultimately, however, there can be no public art without an engaged and responsive public, even if the precise ‘public’ in question may need to be forged anew by each project. It is therefore imperative that structural provisions be made that take due account of the complexity of the relationship between the planned artwork and its eventual public at each and every stage of the process of development.

the current state of public art procurement in WAThe recent practice, developed in the UK and USA some sixty years ago, of allocating a percentage of construction costs towards artworks has been adopted by WA, Tasmania and Queensland. The implementation of the scheme has contributed to the revitalisation of cities and precincts. It has also provided vital industry development opportunities for the visual arts sector.

02 snapshot of percent for art jude van de merwe

artist: Tony Pankiw

Public Art in Perth has experienced a renaissance over the last decade largely as a direct consequence of the State and Local Government’s introduction of Percent for Art policies for Public Works.

Due to these policies, it is now commonplace to see public art embedded in new public construction ranging from Courthouses and Council Chambers through Schools and Hospitals to Main-streets and Freeways. The popularity and success of public art in the public domain is so great that some private developments and projects have voluntarily included public art projects, for a variety of reasons ranging from ‘market branding’ to philanthropic reasons. All of these initiatives have contributed to the perception of Perth maturing as a ‘World Class City’.

Local Government and other State Agencies (such as EPRA) are now extending Percent for Art into the sphere of private development projects using Town Planning Policies to provide statutory backing. (The importance of this is quite critical, as unless Percent For Art requirements for private development are embedded in Town Planning Policies, they are unlikely to be successfully defended in an appeal.) Some preliminary policy models already exist, and Artsource is increasingly fielding enquiries from Local Authorities for advice on implementing Developer Funded Percent for Art Policies in their municipalities.

state governmentSince 1989, the WA State Government, through the Department of Culture and the Arts and the Department of Housing and Works, have adopted a percent for art scheme which sees up to a percent of the capital cost of construction valued at over $2m to be applied to public art.In 2001, the Government identified an ongoing commitment to the scheme in Our Creative Community; Rebuilding the Arts.

Labor will maintain and encourage the expansion of art in public places and create an awareness of the environmental design of public spaces and buildings to which the public has general access. This will include encouraging local art components in all public buildings.

By 2003, more than 203 separate projects had been initiated with over 400 contemporary art works commissioned. The most consistent and adapted of the State Government commissioners of public art through the percent policy model are Education, Justice and Health. Other authorities including the Ports, Main Roads and Housing have also commissioned public art but the approach is ad hoc.

02 snapshot of percent for art (continued) jude van de merwe

artist: Tony Pankiw

redevelopment authoritiesThe first Redevelopment Authority set up in WA for East Perth, (EPRA), identified the benefits of incorporating public art work programs in the early stages of planning and adopted a percent for art approach from the very beginning. The results were seen in the Claisebrook area and has followed through to other projects and to the Subiaco, Armidale and Midland Redevelopment Authorities.Landcorp have also recognised the intrinsic benefits of artworks and adopted a percent for art approach. The planning is often integrated with landscaping and in the case of Harvest Lakes integrated with a community development program.

local governmentOver the past decade, Local Government had begun following suit and commissioned public art works through a model similar to percent for art in the construction of new civic centres, libraries, recreation centres, swimming pools and other amenities. Some Local Government Authorities also initiated percent for art policies both for themselves and for application to developers.

Local Government systems for acquiring public art appear to be the most vulnerable. With over 140 separate authorities in WA, all with exacting requirements for their operation and administration, and often under resourced, the preparation, adoption and implementation of percent for art policies can be challenging for staff. In addition, the internal systems for approval processes are variable and changeable.

Partnership ProjectsAgain, over the same period some land developers began to adopt a percent for art approach; the most cohesive and visible being Ellenbrook which has retained the services of an artist over nine years resulting in considerable artworks of substance and value – all of which have infused the Ellenbrook development with a unique flavour.

There has been a groundswell of support for public art within new land developments and building developments over the past decade; with many developers seeing the benefits of public art translating into images of desirable places to live and work, and the creation of individual spaces enlivened with public art achieving those goals.


artist: Tony Pankiw

Private CommissioningA much smaller collection of individuals involve themselves in commissioning of public art or donating art works to public authorities. While occasionally significant in scope, these commissions fall outside of a policy or strategic direction.

identification of models used to procure public artCommissioning bodies can develop projects through a variety of public art procurement processes. These include;▪Open competition▪Direct Invitation or purchase▪Limited competition

The most standardised model is one used by the State Government; the hallmarks of the process relate to accountability, transparency and equity. All systems have their strengths and weaknesses. An embedded strength for percent for art strategy as policy is that it takes the problematic qualifiers out of a construction project. Given the varying demands and the winds of change experienced through cost over-runs and changing political climates, leaving the artwork as a constant cost factor provides a degree of certainty, continuity and integration within a system where the soft option may be seen as the art component.

In all cases in commissioning public art, context is paramount. Context can be described as the environment in which a commission is planned and realised. Commissioners are encouraged to adopt a researched and flexible approach to the context for a commission This will allow the art project to make connections with the capital construction project and the environment connected with that project.

Additional resources and linkswww.artsource.net.auwww.art2architecture.co.ukwww.publicartonline.org.ukwww.publicartfund.org


artist: Tony Pankiw

introductionThe preceding paper, “A Snapshot of Percent For Art” by Jude Van de Merwe has outlined the emerging practice and context of Percent For Art in Western Australia. In particular, it has foreshadowed its expansion into the sphere of private development through the vehicle of Local Government Planning Policies. This paper briefly explores the scope for the development of a model ‘Universal Percent For Art’ Town Planning Policy that Local Authorities can adapt for their own implementation. In so doing, it briefly address some fundamental ‘tests’ that would be applied to determine whether public art is a ‘fit matter’ for Town Planning Policies.

These include demonstrating;• That there a community need for public art• That public art a legitimate ‘planning matter • That public art a reasonable planning

requirement, and• That there are mechanisms and precedents

for using the planning process to facilitate public art.

The following text briefly addresses each of these questions, as a prelude to considering the merits and weaknesses confronting the development of a model policy.

is there a community need for public art?There is a compelling case to argue that public art provides a community benefit. It does so by contributing to a sense of place, to interpretation of heritage, to community identity and to the visual amenity of the public domain. It does this through several means, sketched below.

▪ The legibility, community identity and a sense of place of a city is reinforced by public art by providing a creative expression through physical form that articulates a unique story about the surrounding community or its environmental setting.

▪ The heritage of place, and its interpretation can be reinforced through public art which can tangibly express past histories, either through a contemporary retelling and revealing of historical layers of a place, or if the preservation of past public art. Sometimes when historical built form cannot be saved, public art provides a means of recording its memory and significance.

▪ The visual and functional amenity of the public domain can be enhanced by public art (as it can by ‘landscaping’) by being able to screen undesirable views, soften the landscape, and add colour and amenity.

03 towards a model for a universal percent for art policy peter ciemitis

artist: Tony Pankiw

In addition, public art contributes to the ‘cultural milieu’ that Charles Landry and Richard Florida argue attracts a creative, innovative population (and consequently, investment) to a city. It creates a greater opportunity for the stimulation of ideas and innovation, the rounding of cultural identity and the inspiration and encouragement of our youth.

All of these matters are significant community benefits satisfying genuine need, and are no less tangible than for example, the community benefits offered by sport and recreation, which is already deeply interwoven with and supported by many planning policies.

is public art a legitimate ‘planning matter? Given then that there is a community benefit provided by public art, one must then examine whether ‘public art’ can withstand the test of being a legitimate Town Planning matter.

As a starting point, it is useful to refer to the first ‘parent’ Town Planning Act in WA; the Town Planning and Development Act 1928, or the ‘1928 Act’ (now replaced by the TPD Act 2005).

Amongst other things, the 1928 Act clearly set out comprehensive schedules listing matters that a Town Planning Scheme may deal with. Amongst the matters listed were ‘statues’ and ‘monuments’ (the 1928 equivalent of public art), under Schedule 1 (“Matters Which May Be Dealt With By General Provisions”. It is also interesting to note that many matters that are now regarded as indisputable planning issues (such as environmental protection, water conservation, noise mitigation or landscaping) were entirely absent as appropriate matters for Town Planning Schemes in the original 1928 Act.

Public Art is further supported as a planning matter through other planning instruments, either by direct reference, or by inference.

One such instrument includes Network City, specifically supports “expansion of the ‘percent-for-art’ scheme within government and consider opportunities for its extension to private sector development projects” (strategy action 3-1(d) (The Draft Network City is regarded as a ‘seriously entertained planning document’ of State strategic significance).

03 towards a model for a universal percent for art policy (continued) peter ciemitis

artist: Tony Pankiw

A number of Local Authority planning documents now also require public art to be provided either in public or private development. The percent for art policy of the Town of Vincent and EPRA, and the Town Centre Guidelines of the Town of Claremont are a few examples of Local Authority Town Planning Policies that promote or require the provision of public art in private development.

It can therefore be argued that public art has enjoyed the status and standing of being an appropriate planning matter since 1928, well before the emergence of other ‘newcomer’ planning issues such as environmental protection. In particular, its further expansion is repeatedly supported by implication in various planning strategies which promote a ‘sense of place’ and ‘community identity’ and ‘creative capital’, and very explicitly in documents such as Network City and many Local Authority Planning Policies.

is public art a reasonable planning requirement?If it is agreed there is a community need or benefit arising from the provision of public art, and that public art may be regarded as a legitimate planning matter, next it is important to look at where or under what circumstances is public art appropriate.

Public art by definition should contribute to the public realm; those spaces either directly accessed by pedestrians, or in some instances, the traveling public. It follows that public art is most relevant (and provides the greatest community benefit) in environments that facilitate a close (even tactile) interaction between the work and pedestrians. Such environments include parks, squares, and ‘mainstreets’, which have emerged in recent years as a preferred and increasingly prevalent form of commercial centre development. (In these contexts, public art can find its integration into the public realm in a variety of ways; from conventional stand-alone sculpture, through the execution of wrought-iron gates, paving design, bas-relief or integrated wall treatments to video and aural installations.)


artist: Tony Pankiw

It is important however, that any Town Planning Policy which applies a Universal Percent for Art requirement considers whether it is fair and reasonable to apply such requirement. It can be argued that Universal Percent for Art should not be applied as an additional burden to the cost of property development for reasons of fairness. Instead, it may be more reasonable to apply Universal Percent for Art as a trade-off where a developer may receive dispensation to another planning requirement.

One area where Universal Percent for Art could be applied fairly and reasonably is as a tradeoff (or part of) landscaping.

Notably, most Local Authority Town Planning Schemes and their planning policies still apply outdated commercial development standards framed around car-based shopping centres, which include requirements such as a ‘suburban’ standard for the landscaping of carparks and public areas. It is common that landscaping standards for instance, require between 10 and 15 percent of a site to be dedicated to landscaping. In a mainstreet environment, where buildings are built up to the street, landscaping becomes unnecessary, and is commonly waived by the Local Authority, without any trade-off.

It is fair to consider the possibility that public art may be required as a compensatory trade-off requirement in waiving (or reducing) landscaping standards in private developer ‘mainstreet’ projects.

Alternatively, it may be possible to apply a Universal Percent for Art requirement against built development without tradeoff, or against land subdivision, provided that the requirement remains fair and reasonable.

are there precedents for using the planning process to facilitate universal percent for art? The application of universal percent for art policy is not unique, nor is it pioneering.

Numerous examples are applied by Local Authorities overseas, from Tempe, Arizona, through to Oakland and Los Angeles, California and many others. Locally, the Towns of Vincent and Claremont, and the East Perth Redevelopment Authority have operational Percent for Art Town Planning Policies in existence.


artist: Tony Pankiw

The Town of Vincent Percent for Art (Planning) Policy requires that “ Proposals for commercial, non-residential, and/or mixed residential/commercial developments over the value of $500,000 are to set aside a minimum of one per cent of the estimated total project cost for the development of public art works…”. The Policy then sets out the method and approach to the application of the requirement.

This Policy has now been in operation since 1999, and has yielded valuable experience regarding the performance, success and limitations of a Universal Percent for Art policy.

Within the East Perth Redevelopment Authority’s jurisdiction, EPRA’s Planning Policy 1.9 – Public Art, similarly requires “private developments with an estimated construction value greater than $1m, require the developer to contribute 1% of the construction costs1 to the ‘Percent for Art’ program”. This Policy came into effect in May 2006, and is currently being applied to various development proposals.

Some other Metropolitan Local Authorities have likewise embedded a requirement for private development to include public art as a part of their area-specific planning policies. One example is the Town of Claremont’s Town Centre Design Guidelines, which encourage the provision of Public Art, and require that “the provision of public art shall be credited to the development’s landscaping obligation” (ie, landscaping trade-off as discussed above). The requirement has been incorporated in their operational Design Guidelines since their adoption in 2003, and have been applied to a number of town centre projects.

It is clear therefore that considerable precedent exists, albeit that the extent of requirements and the method of application through planning policies is not always consistent.

what then might be the key elements that should make up a universal percent for art policy?An Artsource-facilitated stakeholder forum in August 2006 identified a number of principles to be considered in the formulation of a Model.


left: kevin draper

right:phillipa o’brien

artist: Tony Pankiw

These principles included:

• A Universal Percent for Art Policy should only be voluntarily adopted by those agencies or authorities who wish to apply it, o it is not the place of Artsource, nor any other body, to mandate that any local authorities or development agencies apply a Universal Percent for Art Policy. This should be a matter for the respective Authority only.• it should be fair and equitable o the Policy should not apply significant additional burden upon development. We recommend it is applied as a trade-off for requirements waived, or for a bonus. o The Policy should apply only to larger projects (eg, public buildings, larger commercial or residential projects, etc)

• The Policy, once adopted, should apply Universally, namely that any Local Authority or Agency that elects to consider a Universal Percent for Art Policy, should equally apply the requirement to itself.

• The Policy should operate within an overall framework o there should be a public art/cultural strategy in place for the areas within which the policy would apply (eg, to give clear guidance, and to correctly assign any cash-in-lieu funds)

• The Policy should be place appropriate o generally speaking, public art ought to be situated in places of high accessibility to provide maximum benefit to the community … centres, parks, mainstreets. Universal Percent for Art Policies should define prescribed areas of application. Prescribed areas would also provide boundaries for cash-in-lieu collection and expenditure.• The Policy should be correctly structured o many operative policies and draft policies which we have reviewed exhibit a lack of coherent structure from the perspective of a Planning instrument, frequently intermixing cultural development, implementation and planning matters.


artist: Tony Pankiw

The model Policy which Artsource advocates therefore aims to provide a reference point to encourage consistency in drafting, construction and application.

In our view, the key components of a Universal Percent for Art Policy (for a Local Authority) should therefore include:1) a strategic framework (cultural policy/ public art strategy) within with the Policy should operate,2) a Planning Policy, and3) Operational Guidelines.

The Strategic Framework should represent the overarching guiding instrument for cultural development and public art within a municipality. It should be the document which establishes the need, acceptance and principles of the Policy. It should also provide the spatial reference and administrative framework within which any Universal Percent for Art Policy should apply.

The Policy itself should be simple, and focus primarily on ‘planning matters’. These should include:

• Citation• Purpose• Link to Guidelines• Application o Statement of requirement o Eligible projects o Area of application o Universal application• Method of determining contribution• Location of contribution

The Guidelines should expand and add to these key elements, and address:

* Operation and Intent* Definition of Prescribed Areas* Cash In Lieu

* Eligible Costs* Equity, Safety and Universal Access* Exclusions to Public Art* Design Documentation* Approval of Artwork* Clearance Process* Maintenance and Resistance to Vandalism* Recording* Decommissioning* Creative Development Process* Consultation with Stakeholders


artist: Tony Pankiw

.../-* Collaboration* Definition of Artist* Artist Contract* Moral Rights* Acknowledgement of Artwork* Copyright of Artwork* Fees to Artists

conclusionThis paper has touched on, and briefly demonstrated that a Universal Percent for Art Policy provides a community benefit, is a legitimate Town Planning matter, and has precedent internationally and locally with success.

Through a collaborative process, we have developed a model policy, (The Model Universal Percent for Art Policy and associated Guidelines) no doubt imperfect, but valuable as a tool for reference and debate.

This current model is seen as an advocacy instrument only; not as any mandatory model,but as a living document which should continue to be assessed and improved over time.


towards a model for a universal - shire of mundaring · development of a model ‘universal percent...

Documents