TY - JOUR
T1 - Public art in mitigation planning
T2 - The experience of the squaw peak parkway in phoenix
AU - Blair, John M.
AU - Pijawka, David
AU - Steiner, Frederick
N1 - Funding Information:
As with many other aspects of American culture, the 1960s brought a renewed interest in public arts, first with the creation of the National Endowment of the Arts in 1965 and subsequently with the state arts agencies (Harris 1979). Federal and state support brought into being many community arts councils and municipal arts agencies. Requirements that one percent of the capital investment be spent on art became a feature of many cities’ programs; that is, one percent of the total construction cost of a public project is required to be devoted to a public arts project (Harris 1979). Although commonly called the “one percent for art” law, the actual percentage varies from city to city, from 0.5 to 2 percent (Harris 1979). Locally generated resources can be matched by funding from the National Endowment for the Arts, Art-in-Public- Places program (now dwindling and perhaps disappearing) (Balfe and Wyszomirski 1986).
PY - 1998
Y1 - 1998
N2 - Freeways often bring adverse visual and environmental consequences. This study reports on two surveys of residents who were asked for their views on using public art as a component of a freeway mitigation program. The results suggest that the public strongly supports public arts programs, but is ambivalent about their use for freeway mitigation. Four factors contributed to a general disapproval of the freeway public art program: the costs of the art, perceptions of a low level of public involvement in selecting the art, lack of a regional art theme, and inappropriate placement of the art. Although public art's potential to raise controversy is familiar, emphasizing its use as a freeway mitigation tool when other adverse freeway effects have not been fully addressed can make matters worse and even jeopardize the mitigation program as a whole. The paper considers the role of public art in planning and how planners may reconcile the conflicting objectives of the artist, the public, and local government.
AB - Freeways often bring adverse visual and environmental consequences. This study reports on two surveys of residents who were asked for their views on using public art as a component of a freeway mitigation program. The results suggest that the public strongly supports public arts programs, but is ambivalent about their use for freeway mitigation. Four factors contributed to a general disapproval of the freeway public art program: the costs of the art, perceptions of a low level of public involvement in selecting the art, lack of a regional art theme, and inappropriate placement of the art. Although public art's potential to raise controversy is familiar, emphasizing its use as a freeway mitigation tool when other adverse freeway effects have not been fully addressed can make matters worse and even jeopardize the mitigation program as a whole. The paper considers the role of public art in planning and how planners may reconcile the conflicting objectives of the artist, the public, and local government.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031665493&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031665493&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/01944369808975977
DO - 10.1080/01944369808975977
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:0031665493
VL - 64
SP - 221
EP - 234
JO - Journal of the American Planning Association
JF - Journal of the American Planning Association
SN - 0194-4363
IS - 2
ER -