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
Summary of Population Groups <br /> The structure of the plans reviewed was very similar, typically including the same components <br /> and little outside of those components. It does not appear that population size has an impact on the <br /> sophistication of the plan. However, one plan diverged from the others.The plan of Austin,TX focused <br /> very specifically on site identification. This plan is not for Austin in its entirety, but rather for just the <br /> downtown area. Drilling down even further, it segmented the downtown area into neighborhoods, or <br /> districts, and then looked at specific geographic locations within those districts.The plan also identified <br /> four types of sites for public art; natural environment systems, built environment systems, connectivity <br /> systems, and cultural systems (City of Austin, 2004). While all ten plans mentioned site identification, <br /> Austin focused almost exclusively on this topic, and was thus less comparable to the other plans. <br /> There were other specific anomalies amongst the plans. Hickory, North Carolina specified that <br /> no public funds would be used for public art, but rather an effort would be made to raise private funds. <br /> Along the same lines, Louisville proposed the creation of a private, nonprofit organization, in addition to <br /> its publicly funded program, which would seek to raise private funds. Most plans mentioned the idea of <br /> leveraging public money with private money, but these plans provided a specific strategy for doing so. <br /> Motivations for Public Art Master Planning <br /> Cities undertake public art master planning for a variety of reasons.These are usually expressed <br /> in the goals of the plan, but reasons for strategic planning at the municipal government in general can <br /> also be found in literature. Broadly, strategic planning can be defined "a disciplined effort to produce <br /> fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is,what it does, and why <br /> it does it" (Bryson, 1995). Planning for public art can serve to allocate resources for public art, or simply <br /> provide a plan should resources or opportunities become available. Based on a survey of cities which <br /> have undertaken strategic planning efforts, Poister and Streib (2005) conclude that "municipal managers <br /> tend to see numerous beneficial impacts of their strategic planning efforts, with very few of them citing <br /> 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.