4 ms·
For what it's worth, art does not typically contribute meaningfully to cost. In Boston, a budgeted $2 billion dollar expansion of the Green Line is now projecte
by mmoche 10y ago
For what it's worth, art does not typically contribute meaningfully to cost. In Boston, a budgeted $2 billion dollar expansion of the Green Line is now projected to cost nearly $3 billion, and the response from the MBTA has been to cut $2 million worth of art installations.[0]
There are plenty of issues, but calling out public art as an example of waste is shortsighted given its minuscule costs.
[0]https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/19/mbta-suddenly-cancels-contracts-for-green-line-public-art/wLk4ONvF2CTsfw4ujf1QhP/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/11/19/mbta-suddenly-c...
- saosebastiao 10y agoI wasn't trying to call out the art as a significant reason for station expense, but rather like a marker of extravagance. Much like how you can assume that someone wasn't very frugal with their car purchase if they are wearing a Patek Philippe watch.
- mmoche 10y agoGot it. It may be an indicator. I do also think that one of the obligations of any large public project is to ensure that it reflects the public - art is a good way to do this.
- slavik81 10y agoI don't think that comparison is fair. In the context I'm familiar with, the city has a 1% public art budget tied to all new works. If I'm buying a car and spending $10,000, sure I'll spend $100 to get the color I want. I'll be driving it for years. It's worth it just so I don't wince every time I look at it. To me, that is not a marker of extravagance. At least, not like a $20,000 watch is.