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
4.6 Summary and Findings: Community Benefits and Costs of Public Art <br /> Listed below are the research findings in regard to the respondents perceived benefits and <br /> cost of public art: <br /> 1. All communities believe that public art is an important part of shaping and defining the <br /> identity of the community. Terms such as community image, building the city s brand, <br /> sense of place, and sense of community were used by respondents in each community as <br /> one of the primary benefits of public art. These benefits of public art reflect the place <br /> making function of public art found within the art,planning, and architecture literature <br /> previously discussed. <br /> 2. All communities recognized the value of giving a platform to local artists, arts <br /> community, and those supportive of local arts, to express themselves and to tell their <br /> stories. <br /> 3. All communities saw the value in the community conversations sparked by public art, <br /> whether the projects themselves were successful or not. In two of the communities, <br /> controversial public art projects, and the conversations that ensued, were credited with <br /> contributing to a greater success of subsequent public art projects. <br /> 4. Community A respondents had a greater emphasis on economic development and was the <br /> only city where the term return on investment was used in reference to public art. Two <br /> cities reference economic impact studies that had been completed to analyze the <br /> economic value that public art brings to their community. <br /> 5. Community A respondents had more comments relative to bringing the community <br /> together, creating a welcoming environment, and recognizing diversity within the <br /> community. As a first-ring suburb, Community A has a closer relationship to <br /> 113 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.