![\"Artful](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/02\/Artful-City-Horizontal-600x50.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
By:\u00a0Jeff Biggar<\/strong><\/p>\n Public art has a storied past in Toronto\u2019s History. The City of Toronto\u2019s public art collection stems back to the late 19th<\/sup> century, with early pieces such as the Canadian Volunteers War Memorial by Robert Reid in Queens Park appearing in 1870. Since then, the process for securing and determining public art in Toronto has changed significantly \u2013 but the interest and willingness to do public art far precedes formalized policy. Terry Nicholson, Director of Arts and Culture Services at the City of Toronto, reminds us that early examples of public art were driven by civic and philanthropic interest.<\/p>\n \u201cBack then the city did not commission public art; it was usually a group of citizens who would come together and rally, raise funds, and then hand it over to the city. That was basically the pattern until the 1960\u2019s.\u201d<\/p>\n Before the City got involved, upper level governments used public art as a means to support Canadian artists through select infrastructure projects (i.e., The Macdonald block at Queens Park). The first commissions in Toronto came in 1977 before the opening of the TTC\u2019s Spadina Subway line in 1978. The commissions, by the then Metro government, were significant in both opening up the process to multiple media, such as interactive art (i.e., Michael Hayden\u2019s Arc de Ciel<\/a>) and expanding the territory for public art to transit. Soon after, public art tied to private development emerged with the commercial development boom in the City\u2019s financial district.<\/p>\n \u201cPublic art from private development really started with office buildings in the mid-1980\u2019s that had huge courtyards out front and provided an obvious spot for it,\u201d says Nicholson<\/p>\n The \u2018percent for public art policy\u2019<\/a>, which states that 1% of capital project costs on private development projects go towards public art\u2019, was instituted in 1986*. This was followed by the inclusion of public art in the official plan in 1991. But up until the early 1990\u2019s, public art was largely negotiated on an ad-hoc basis. For instance, the TTC commissions were secured with no formalized policy, and public art secured from office tower development did not occur through the re-zoning process, but as a separate negotiation.<\/p>\n The early 90\u2019s was a time of growth for public art in Toronto – the first Canadian city to incorporate public art in its official plan. Jane Perdue, public art coordinator for the City of Toronto, credits key advocates who were instrumental in encouraging the city to think about integrating pubic art into Toronto\u2019s built environment.<\/p>\n \u201cPeople like Ken Greenburg and Mary Lynn Reimer looked to programs in the United States to see how public art policies could work for the former city of Toronto\u2026and people like the late Thomas Hendry (Toronto Arts Council) and artist Robert Jekyll who would make strong deputations at City Hall about the importance of public art,\u201d Perdue remarks.<\/p>\n Nicholson credits two privately-funded public art pieces in the mid 1980\u2019s that expedited the need for a real policy framework. First, the Canadian Airman\u2019s Memorial<\/a> on University Avenue by Oscar Nemon and \u2018the monument to multiculturalism\u2019 by Francesco Perilli<\/a> located in front of Union Station. Both projects were one-off deals with politicians, private citizens, and philanthropic partners, and both engaged artists from outside Canada. While valuable in their own right, these works drew the ire of the local art community who demanded more structure in determining how public art gets selected. It was then that the city was feeling pressure to formalize the process, according to Nicholson.<\/p>\n \u201cI think you had to nail down the process side, before commissioning could happen\u201d<\/p>\n Starting in the early 1990\u2019s, public art was put in the Official Plan and secured through a formal planning re-zoning process (i.e., Section 37 of the Planning Act<\/em>). Throughout the 1990\u2019s, more oversight separated the regulatory and curatorial aspects of public art. Now, every public art contribution secured through private development follows a formal process, which includes a public art plan and a review by the Toronto Public Art Commission (TPAC) \u2013 a voluntary group that advises on private development projects. Today, City Planning oversees private developer commissions, while the Culture division is responsible for looking after public art secured for off-site purposes, as well as public art secured on city-owned lands. In addition to the \u2018percent for public art policy\u2019, the City currently funds (1% of capital costs) public art through its own (large) capital projects. Beyond these tools, there is no annual budget to commission public art. Toronto currently houses approximately 230 works of art in its public art and monuments collection, and Nicholson estimates the total (public and private) collection is around 500.<\/p>\n Ensuring equitable policy <\/strong><\/p>\n Toronto\u2019s policies have brought significant public art pieces to the city, but mostly to areas experiencing growth. The creation of public art is directly tied to the development process, which means areas outside of the downtown do not reap the same benefits. Perdue notes distributing public art equitably remains a challenge, and existing policies (i.e., Section 37) tied to the Planning Act<\/em> do not allow the City to transfer public art from one area to another. Additional avenues could be pursued, such as the capital budget process, which Nicholson says presents an opportunity to lay out a plan for areas lacking public art.<\/p>\n \u201cYou have to pinpoint through a planning process key locations that could really use a work of public art and then commission one a year for the next 10 years. You could probably get that approved. It’s a big exercise, but it\u2019s doable.\u201d<\/p>\n Besides equity, current policies can be inflexible in terms of the types of public art that can be secured. Temporary or durational work cannot be secured under the Planning Act, <\/em>which states that public art secured as a public benefit (i.e., through Section 37) must be permanent, an area Perdue says the City is not willing to push changes on.<\/p>\n Additional challenges lie on the enforcement side. More public art also means ensuring works gets look after and remain in the public eye.<\/p>\n \u201cWe have to make sure the art remains visually accessible\u2026many condominiums want it in their lobby, but that is out of public view,\u201d says Perdue.<\/p>\n Once a building is built, the ownership is transferred from the developer to the condominium board to oversee ongoing maintenance. Perdue says the City does not have the right to tell individual condo boards what to do public art on the site of their building.<\/p>\n \u201cwe have a clause that allows developers to set aside funds for maintenance, but this is tricky to enforce once ownership is transferred to the condominium.\u201d<\/p>\n Looking Ahead <\/strong><\/p>\n The City\u2019s policy framework has enabled the private sector to make an impressive contribution to public art over the last two decades, but Perdue says the public sector needs to make its own policies work harder on civic projects.<\/p>\n \u201cI would love if the city were more active in securing public art in capital projects; more art that the city commissions on its own buildings and parks. We do this, but we could do more,\u201d says Perdue.<\/p>\n The process to secure public art over the past 150 years has become more formalized, and in doing so has brought benefits to the public, but also to artists, says Nicholson.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are younger artists that now see public art as a viable part of their practice, whereas in the early days it was only senior artists who had the wherewithal to get commissions.\u201d<\/p>\n Nicholson goes on to say that \u201c<\/strong>really good works make you pay attention towards where you are. Artists look at the world differently. And that is something to be cherished. It is important that we are challenged in the way we look at things and public art does that; it\u2019s not just utilitarian.\u201d<\/p>\n While the benefits of public art may be clear for some, Perdue reminds us there is ongoing work to be done in selling the value proposition of public art among City staff.<\/p>\n \u201cit\u2019s a matter of working with various departments and convincing them of its worth; sometimes you are dealing with people who have not done it and have not seen its value.\u201d<\/p>\n For now, the City has no plans to alter its policies as the steady stream of development applications keeps providing public art opportunities. Nicholson says a discussion about the future of public art policy would likely occur when development slows.<\/p>\n \u201cIf we get to a point where development slows down, that may provide an opportunity to take stock of where public art is and where it is going.\u201d<\/p>\n Public Art Policy Timeline <\/strong><\/p>\n 1985:<\/strong> Toronto Public Art Commission formed<\/p>\n 1986:<\/strong> Former Toronto City Council approved first public art policies (\u2018percent for public art\u2019)<\/p>\n 1988:<\/strong> Metro Toronto formed Public Art Advisory Committee<\/p>\n 1989:<\/strong> Metro Toronto Developed a Public Art Policy Framework. First city run public art competition on city lands in the old City of Toronto, Eldon Garnet\u2019s \u201cMemorial to commemorate the Chinese Railroad Workers in Canada\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n 1990:<\/strong> Former City of Toronto encourages public art in Official Plan amendments<\/p>\n 1991:<\/strong> Toronto City public art policies incorporated into Official Plan, \u201cCity Plan\u201d<\/p>\n 1994:<\/strong> Metro Toronto\u2019s Official Plan \u2018The living Metropolis\u2019 incorporates public art policies.<\/p>\n 2002:<\/strong> Amalgamated City of Toronto\u2019s first Official Plan with Public Art listed as Section 37 benefit<\/p>\n Pre-amalgamated Toronto saw North York, Etobicoke, Scarborough, City of York, and East York also developed some form of public art policy or plan.<\/p>\n Source: <\/em><\/strong>City of Toronto Percent for Public Art Program Guidelines (2010),<\/em><\/strong><\/a> Jane Perdue<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n Jeff Biggar is a PhD Candidate in Planning at the University of Toronto. Interviews were condensed and edited for this story.<\/em><\/p>\n Image Credits<\/em><\/p>\n [1]\u00a0<\/em>\u201cMemorial to Commemorate Chinese Railway Workers\u201d (1989) by\u00a0<\/em>Eldon Garnet and Franicis LeBouthillier. Photo by Shaun Merritt via Wikimedia Commons Attribution Generic license.<\/p>\n [2] “Spadina Summer Under all Seasons\u201d (1978) by James Sutherland, Located in the Dupont Subway Station<\/em>. Photo\u00a0by Matthew Monteith<\/em><\/p>\n [3] \u201cThe Pasture\u201d (1985) by Joseph Fafard, Toronto Dominion Centre Plaza. Photo\u00a0by Matthew Monteith<\/em><\/p>\n [4]\u00a0\u201cBetween the Eyes\u201d (1990) by\u00a0Richard Deacon, Yonge St. and Queens Quay. Photo by Alexandre Moreau, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share alike 2.0.<\/em><\/p>\n The Artful City is a bi-weekly blog series exploring the evolution of public art and its role in the transformation of Toronto, both the city fabric and the community it houses.\u00a0For more information about The Artful City visit:\u00a0<\/em>www.theartfulcity.org<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"![\"Dupont_Station_Matthe](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/03\/Dupont_Station_Matthe-Monteith-600x454.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"The](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/03\/The-Pasture-600x425.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![\"Waterfront_Sculpture_Toronto_2010\"](\"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/toronto\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2016\/03\/Waterfront_Sculpture_Toronto_2010-600x399.jpg\")
<\/p>\n