My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Parks and Recreation Commission
>
2025
>
Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/09/2025
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/13/2025 1:53:42 PM
Creation date
1/17/2025 10:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Parks and Recreation Commission
Document Date
01/09/2025
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
496
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
public art approval authority. Pally also encourages a clear link between art planning and other aspects <br /> of the community including a reference to a small town that created a public art plan as part of its <br /> cultural tourism efforts.This integration could take many forms for a municipal government; including <br /> consideration of art in capital improvement plans, urban planning, public works, and parks and <br /> recreation (Pally, n.d.). <br /> The link to other government activities and planning is further discussed in the 2010 article <br /> Embedding Public Art:Practice, Policy and Problems. The authors raised many interesting points on how <br /> public art has been embedded into planning process in Great Britain and identified three major <br /> problems with public art planning. Those problems being funding, how integrated the process is, and the <br /> interaction between the actual process, the policy, and the general public.The main thesis argues for a <br /> more structured way to frame the process and support public art programs (Pollock& Paddison, 2010). <br /> Municipal governments have the ability to tackle these challenges through funding, integration with <br /> other planning initiatives, and public input.The public art master planning process itself offers this <br /> recommended structure and the means to overcome these obstacles. However, government funding <br /> may depend on the political will in the community to use public money for the arts. <br /> Public Art Master Plan Selection <br /> For this analysis,ten public art master plans were selected from a variety of locations <br /> throughout the United States.These plans were classified into three groups based on population. The <br /> groups include cities under 100,000 (Small Cities), cities from 100,000 to 500,000 (Medium Cities), and <br /> cities greater than 500,000 (Large Cities).All population figures were obtained from the U.S. Census <br /> Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey.The previously mentioned survey of public art <br /> programs in fiscal year 2001 reported the breakdown of programs by population. When adapted to the <br /> three population groups in this analysis, it shows small cities have 31%of public art programs, medium <br /> cities have 23%, and large cities have 46% (Americans for the Arts, 2003). Based on these percentages, <br /> 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.