Artist looking for work? $400,000 Spokane St. Viaduct project

widerspokane.jpg

We just got e-mail as a “reminder” that the deadline is approaching for artists to apply “to develop permanent artwork in conjunction with the widening of the Spokane Street Viaduct” (basic project rendering above). The “call for artists” is dated December 18th — which happened to be THIS day — so it might not have gotten a lot of attention. The reminder explains:

The selected artist will develop a creative response to the expansive viaduct and its industrial setting. Possible locations for artwork include the underside of the viaduct’s elevated roadway, its forest of support columns, the spaces surrounding new traffic ramps, the lower Spokane Street roadway and its new sidewalk and/or other areas adjacent to the viaduct. Safety issues prevent placing artwork on the elevated roadway. The artist will determine locations for artwork in collaboration with staff from the Seattle Department of Transportation.

The city notice also says, “The budget for design (including travel costs) is $60,000. It is anticipated that $340,000 will be available for fabrication and installation, for a total project budget of $400,000.” Deadline is 11 pm February 17th; if you’re an artist, you can read a lot more about it here, including links for applying online, or see the “call for artists” page here. Before you say “What? $400,000 for art? Aren’t we having a budget crisis?” take note that the Seattle Municipal Code requires “1 percent for art” for projects like this; read the specific ordinance here. (As for the widening project itself, lower-roadway work continues as crews prepare to start on the first big component, the new 4th Ave offramp for the eastbound side; the city’s project page is here.)

32 Replies to "Artist looking for work? $400,000 Spokane St. Viaduct project"

  • RobertSeattle February 3, 2009 (1:53 pm)

    …And thus the West Seattle Troll was born :-)

  • the_bridge_to_somewhere February 3, 2009 (1:57 pm)

    @Robert: please submit that proposal! ;-)

  • Westwood Resident February 3, 2009 (2:03 pm)

    And we all wonder why things cost so much to get built by this state/county/city.
    Almost half a million dollars for art?!?!

  • J February 3, 2009 (2:11 pm)

    Westwood Resident, I’m glad I live in a community that values art highly enough to commit to the “1% for Art” requirement for public projects!

  • J February 3, 2009 (2:12 pm)

    Also–keep in mind, art is work, too.

  • Westwood Resident February 3, 2009 (2:49 pm)

    J,

    Then YOU contribute to that 1%. During this economic downturn I believe that the 1% can be spent in better ways that art.
    Any art projects should be purchased with private contributions and NOT tax dollars.
    Just look at the deep-bore tunnel, if it gets built that price tag for art to the tax payers will be 48 MILLION dollars, assuming the cost of 4.8 BILLION stays on target. Doubtful, so look for that in increase as the price tag for the tunnel increases.

  • rbj February 3, 2009 (2:53 pm)

    I agree Westwood.

    I say just let the taggers have their way and let graffiti take over. Or better yet have a paint-seattle day and make it legal to tag the thing with graffiti.

    Just like they did at the flood wall in St. Louis in 2000. It turned out beautifully.

  • Irukandji February 3, 2009 (2:53 pm)

    Nice! Forwarding to graffiti artist friend.

  • rbj February 3, 2009 (2:56 pm)

    the only art that’s allowed in seattle anyhow is art that “celebrates” something fluffy and nice. any art that strikes discord or may cause offense is nowhere to be found. not including seattle’s modern architecture of course…

  • nmb February 3, 2009 (3:03 pm)

    J:

    Individual citizens cannot earmark what they want their taxes spent on. If you are unhappy about your taxes being spent on public art, let your City Council know that you oppose the ordinance that allows for this expenditure.

    Personally, I applaud the 1% for Art provision. It is a reasonable and minimal effort to improve the quality of our public spaces for generation to come, and give them meaning and identity.

  • nmb February 3, 2009 (3:05 pm)

    Woops, I meant to address that one to “Westwood Resident”, not “J”.

  • rbj February 3, 2009 (3:12 pm)

    The money should come from grants, private businesses and individuals. Spending 1% on art is a tremendous amount of money to waste right now as people lose their jobs. We wouldn’t need art on the side of a road if we didn’t make our roads so ugly.

    As far as it being a “reasonable and minimal effort to improve the quality of our public spaces” – hogwash. The road under the Spokane street viaduct is hardly used by pedestrians. If we’re gonna spend that kind of money then we should at least do so in places other than where it only benefits those flying by in automobiles. 400k to drop on art at that spot is a waste of money.

    Let the taggers take care of it.

  • eric February 3, 2009 (3:34 pm)

    think of the books we could buy, children we could clothe, families we could feed.

    what.a.waste

  • Scotty February 3, 2009 (3:52 pm)

    The State DOT spends more embossing Salmon and Leaves onto the sides of the new on and off ramps to 405 and the Eastside stretch of I-90 than they have on any road project here in Seattle since it was built in Eisenhower’s day. Oh, and I’ve lived in this area since 1972, and they have been working on 405 non-stop since then. I think we should bomb the Eastside.

  • old timer February 3, 2009 (3:52 pm)

    I don’t know, some nice ceramic pieces placed along the lower sidewalks might brighten up the spaces a bit, give someone something to contemplate as they make their way from the bus stop on 1st over to the light rail on wherever the heck street it’s going to have it’s access.

    We’re gonna get something, like it or not.

    Let’s just hope it’s not a POS like the crud filled ‘water tank’ that used to live between the water towers up on Myrtle.
    Glad when that mistake went away!

  • rbj February 3, 2009 (4:10 pm)

    Hey old timer,

    What was the water tank you’re talking about? Could you send a link to a picture? That sounds hilarious.

  • mickeymopuse February 3, 2009 (4:17 pm)

    I agree with the poster above,,,,art is great but it should be bought with private money and donated if someone wants it.We could better spend that money on schools, and most of all health care for all.

    Call your council members and tell them to get rid of this!!

    ps They had to put art at the transfer station that was built,,,whats up with that, who cares when you are in the line at the dump!

  • smuglife February 3, 2009 (5:01 pm)

    In the context of this boondoggle any percent for art is insulting. how about 1% for something useful like feeding hungry, housing the homeless or healing the sick?

  • J February 3, 2009 (5:17 pm)

    Scotty, can you source that statement?

  • J February 3, 2009 (5:18 pm)

    “Spending 1% on art is a tremendous amount of money to waste right now as people lose their jobs.”

    Some of those people who’re losing their jobs are artists…. Or don’t you count that as a “real” job?

  • mae February 3, 2009 (5:22 pm)

    That 1% for art has given some wonderful pieces of public art for libraries, schools, government buildings and provided some income and exposure for many artists. I’m sorry but I don’t want that taken away. DON’T CUT THE ARTS! Donated art is not necessarily what you would want to look at.

  • rjm February 3, 2009 (5:27 pm)

    Not really for or against the art.. But spending $400K on art, probably puts people to work.

  • Scott February 3, 2009 (5:33 pm)

    400,000 is a few employees or filled in potholes someplace else. What a waste of money, especially when it will be graffiti covered in no time.

  • smuglife February 3, 2009 (5:38 pm)

    no. artist is not a real job. a real job is one where your product or services are in demand by someone else. 1% art further undermines it’s credibility as a useful or needed thing.

  • Roger February 3, 2009 (5:47 pm)

    What a terribly short-sided viewpoint that works to serve only the immediate generation without regard to the beauty/service of the community at large.
    I have lived in areas where there was no 1% spent on art…donors have a way of not showing at all for some projects. So, you end up with desirable areas getting the public art and other areas languishing only in graffiti and tagging.
    I also know that the artists, designers, engineers, construction workers and managers would disagree with eliminating this expenditure.

  • smuglife February 3, 2009 (6:09 pm)

    the community at large doesn’t want to pay for it when member of the community at large are currently sleeping under said viaduct.

  • brandon February 3, 2009 (6:46 pm)

    Having art is not a bad thing (unless its ugly as sin, as most transit pieces are). But the timing is the crux here. Do the art, but after we have solved some of the more pressing economic needs here as people go hungry, lose their jobs, medical and homes. You can do the “art” (and I use that loosely) but its like entertainment; when the budget strings are tight, do I go out and eat and go to movies? No, I splurge later when the budget allows it. Same here.

  • Roger February 3, 2009 (7:35 pm)

    I have been involved in public art projects (not in Seattle) in the past. I know for a fact that projects like this don’t just pay an ‘artist’ or ‘designer’. There are several other jobs and companies that become involved. As such, this money IS being used to help stimulate the economy too. On one of those projects, one of my teachers was selected as the artist. I was hired to do 3D renderings of the installations. The designer also had to hire a metal shop and metal workers to fabricate samples. He required an engineer’s services to work out the physical aspects. He also worked with tranportation consultants, landscape designers and other artists. All of these people were paid out of the funds he “won”. Not to mention the construction crews and managers that were required to install the designs throughout the city. All of that sounds like a good use of money in THIS economy.

  • steve February 3, 2009 (9:30 pm)

    a beautiful suspension bridge at a fraction the cost of a tunnel would be art

  • brandon February 3, 2009 (11:24 pm)

    Roger, the same argument can be used if applied to more practical applications like road repair, police patrols, welfare needs, etc. Would you rather have a broken stop sign fixed, or a salmon mounted on the viaduct?

  • 56bricks February 4, 2009 (7:27 am)

    When that huge pothole that couldn’t be fixed because of budget shortfalls takes out your left front suspension you can at least look at the pretty (maybe,maybe not) things until the towtruck comes. Silly city.

  • WSB February 4, 2009 (5:44 pm)

    Last five comments deleted and thread closed.

Sorry, comment time is over.