pages: PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PublicArtCommission | 2008-01-09 | 3 | Mr. Biggs clarified that most projects are operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy and must fulfill all conditions of approval to obtain their final certificate. Mr. Wolfe mentioned South Shore and commended them for being forthcoming in terms of providing art but they still don't see any recognition of it being public art. There are no medallions or plaques, therefore they are not in compliance. Mr. Biggs recognized that the commission brought up the topic that some projects have not fulfilled their art requirements but wasn't exactly sure which ones they were. Ms. Huston replied by saying that if they have asked the planning department, Mayor and City Council, then at some point it isn't the commission's responsibility anymore. Mr. Wolfe said that if developers don't get the final certificate of occupancy in a timely manner, the banks don't like it very much; they have a financial obligation to comply. Ms. Huston wants to get everything argumentative off the table and feels that this issue has been a thorn in the side of the Commission. She feels that they don't have the resources to respond. Mr. Wolfe recognized the rotation of staff in the planning department. He feels that there is a loss of information. Ms. Huston wanted to publicly declare that the commission is not responsible for who applies and their job is limited to creating guidelines, receiving, reviewing, accepting, and/or rejecting the applications. Everything else is someone else's responsibility. She feels that there is an impression that the commission is falling down on the job and isn't sure what else to do. Ms. Lee brought up the problem of supervising to make sure projects don't fall through the cracks and wondered who's job it was to make sure it doesn't happen. Mr. Biggs replied by saying that it is the job of the planning department. He understands from background discussions that Bridgeside is operating under a temporary certificate of occupancy. He mentioned the resolution approved by the commission and thought that was where the discrepancy in the documentation had occurred. He suggested that the commission provide some history on the discussions of Bridgeside. 3-B. Review of Public Art at Bridgeside Commercial Development Ms. Rosenberg recalled that there was supposed to be a stage setting, which was an auditorium-like setup where the landscape would come in, in a way that was concave not convex. She feels that the space is not appropriate to be a theater site. The physicality is not correct and feels that it is completely underused due to the landscaping. Also, the programming is not sufficient and that there is a lack of notification of the programming. Ms. Lee mentioned the evaluation that was supposed to be done which had not been submitted. Ms. Huston had the programming in her hand and said that it is not sufficient. She mentioned two aspects of the property. One, which was approved by the commission, was to build an amphitheater in a public setting but the result was not an amphitheater. It was also supposed to 3 | PublicArtCommission/2008-01-09.pdf |