 |
 |
Allan Henderson, of Penngrove, takes a picture of the "Cyclisk" art project by Mark Grieve and Ilana Spector, along Santa Rosa Avenue. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/PD
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
A massive, multi-colored sculpture towering over Santa Rosa Avenue has been in place for only a few days, but it already is accomplishing its goal of stimulating debate about what it means.
The 65-foot-tall, 10,000-pound obelisk made of recycled bicycle parts was hoisted into place by a crane last weekend, and ever since, motorists and passers-by have been gawking at the massive monument.
“It’s a homage to the Washington Monument, in gears,” offered Tracey Slate of Alexandria, Va., who wandered over from a nearby muffler shop to squint up in befuddlement at the work, titled “Cyclisk.”
“It’s impressive,” said her 12-year-old son, Mourad Sami.
All afternoon, visitors and neighbors asked questions and offered opinions about the structure, including the role of public art, the appropriateness of the materials and location, the cost of the endeavor and the deeper political messages behind it.
The diversity of views triggered by the sculpture is exactly what Petaluma artist Mark Grieve and his partner, Ilana Spector, hoped to provoke.
The sixty-foot "Cyclisk" by Mark Grieve and Ilana Spector consists of bike parts. CHRISTOPHER CHUNG/PD
“I wanted everyone to just bring to the table whatever they wanted to,” Grieve said. “I don’t want to dictate anything to anybody.”
Several people interpreted Grieve’s use of recycled bicycle parts in a sculpture located among automobile-related businesses as a political message about alternative transportation options.
Jim Bennett, owner of the used-car dealership Good Stuff Auto adjacent to the sculpture, said placing a piece of art “that pays homage to bicycles” in the midst of car dealers and auto body shops is “a little bit akin to having a pop art depiction of a hot dog outside a high-end restaurant.”
Bob Spitzer, who works at Birky’s Paint & Body Shop, also wondered if the Cyclisk was a sign of the political preferences of some in City Hall eager to “do away with cars on Santa Rosa Avenue at some point and see nothing but bicycles.”
His boss, Arnold Birky, likes the $37,000 piece, but wondered about what it says about the city’s priorities.
“Couldn’t they do something else with that money? I’d like to see South A Street paved with it,” Birky said.
Others embraced the pro-bicycle message they saw in the work.
“I love the shape, I love the size and I love that it’s bicycles,” said Susan Doyle, a Marin County artist. “I don’t know if it’s part of the message, but it should be.”
Doyle and several friends were returning from visiting the Sonoma County Art Museum when they saw the sculpture, “screeched on the brakes,” and started snapping photos.
“It’s absolutely fantastic,” said her friend, Giselle Kappus of Sausalito.
The size of the work is impressive, said Tara Matheny-Schuster, arts coordinator for the city’s Recreation, Parks & Community Services department.
“I think the sheer scale of it is what’s striking people at this time,” she said. “It’s the biggest sculpture that we have here in Santa Rosa, and in Sonoma County, I think.”
Grieve said he wanted the sculpture to be as large as possible so it could stand out and not get “swallowed up in the visual landscape.”
“We felt that the piece needed to be a certain scale to be its own thing rather than a decoration,” said Grieve, who waived his artist’s fee to put 100 percent of the budget into the piece.
Grieve enjoys hearing people’s differing interpretations of the work, but suggested his use of materials was not meant to be an overt political statement about bicycle culture.
“The reason I got into bicycle parts is because they are cheap,” Grieve said.
The bicycle parts came from about 340 unusable bicycles donated to him by community bicycle programs in Santa Rosa, San Rafael and Santa Barbara, he said.
After several months of design work and approvals by the city, he, Spector and others spent about four months at a warehouse in Oakland welding the bike parts together around a rectangular metal frame.
The project was funded though a 1 percent tax on the new $3.7 million Nissan of Santa Rosa dealership building. Since 2006, the city has required all commercial projects that exceed $500,000 in building cost to spend 1 percent of the construction cost on public art.
Some businesses choose to install the art on their own property, like the tile work at the new Whole Foods building in Coddingtown or the mosaic sculpture by Mario Uribe outside the CVS Drugs building on Steele Lane, said Matheny-Schuster.
To date, five businesses have installed pieces in public view on their property as part of the program, while six others are in progress. Numerous other businesses have opted to pay the fee to the city, which used the money for art installations in the downtown arts district, Matheny-Schuster said.
To date, a total of $412,000 has been dedicated to artwork through the program, she said.
Nissan worked with the city to locate its $37,000 contribution on a triangular shaped city-owned parcel nearby. The requirement that the dealership spend the additional money was “a little bit of a sting” at the time, said dealership owner Jim Bone.
“It sits a lot better with me now that I’ve seen what we got for it,” he said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Nissan was required by a City ordinance to pay 1% for art. They paid the money and then the city decided to place it on a remnant parcel they owned. That parcel’s highest and best use was to annex it to the adjacent property owner. The owner has stated a willingness to purchase that parcel. The parcel is zoned commercial and has street frontage on Santa Rosa Avenue. That’s valuable. Displaying cars there was allowable and would have increased sales taxes paid to the city, a double win for them. Rather, they gave Nissan a freebie by not requiring them to devote any of their land to house the project.
Moreover, the adjacent property owner wasn;t even notified that this project was proposed. The insensitivity of placing a monument to bicyclists in front of a car dealership is beyond comprehension. Only in Santa Rosa would a majority of council members decide that this was the right thing to do.
Again, this piece of property was essentially unusable.
A comment about a potential buyer is just that, a comment. It is not cash dollars or an offer to rent or buy.
Additionally, the zoning code made this property essentially unusable.
Wanting to buy and using is just that, wanting, it does not mean it was achievable.
The city owned land did have value to the adjacent property owner and could have been sold or leased. Therefore it was a cost to the city in addition to the cost of $37K to the developer of the Nissan dealership.
\They should have spent the money by giving someone in Santa Rosa a job for a year.\
Isn’t that what they did? Sculptors need to pay the rent too.
I own Good Stuff Auto and would have purchased($)the ‘tip’ from the City and did make an inquiry to that effect a while ago. The exposure would have translated to increased tax revenue($)and would have been mutually beneficial. My conversation included some nice ideas for the landscape, with automobiles not being the predominant feature. I ASSumed that I could buy the tip at a later date. I was never asked, notified or informed (told) until they broke ground to erect the obelisk. Part of me sees it as a another slap in the face from the City and part feels honored to have such a note worthy landmark at the tip of our property. The piece makes many statements some of which maybe political which I don’t believe were intended by the artist. Many would say if art evokes an engagement with the object and or each other it done it’s job.
With our city’s potholes being ignored, services being cut from the city budget, our City chooses a ‘piece of art’ while ignoring the needs of our community.
Apparently spending tax payers money on their ‘personal whims’ is the actual priority, not the needs of the community.
Apparently common sense has become as extinct as the dinosaurs. The City Planners should be ashamed of themselves. While running for election, they run on the platform of ‘improving our budgetary spending, getting down to basics, etc.,’ then stoop to such wastefulness, in the name of art?
Something is wrong with these decision makers….they don’t live in the same world as the majority of the tax payers.
Wake up folks, smell the coffee, you are in office to represent the people of this community – NOT – your own personal agenda.
@Grey
Your comment gets a thumbs up from me. I didn’t realize it was a state mandate. However, the city is guilty of setting up many dedicated funds that undermine the general fund, leaving it less able to pay for core functions of government.
I intended my criticism to apply to all levels of government. Budget reform begins with eliminating these funds so that spending flexibility is restored.
As to the art mandate, I’d bet if the city wanted they could come with a use for the money that was both artsy and functional.
Frugality in government spending has become the rarest element on mother earth.
What’s really funny with so many comments here is that people really don’t care.
They don’t care for the truth, or the law, or another other process.
So many are just venting. They don’t want to be part of the solution. They don’t want to educate themselves and work for change. So much easier just to throw off some flippant line and move on.
I think the next public art sculpture should be made of the body parts from useless politicians who have been thrown out in the November election.
Hey…maybe Marsha WAS right afterall! She can be reincarnated as a piece of art!
That’s where all the Saturn EV1′s went. HAHA
They should have spent the money by giving someone in Santa Rosa a job for a year. This is idiotic.
@Political
I’m not sure I follow you on how citizens are trying to balance the budget via the initiative process. Still, we agree that direct citizen democracy has further tied the hands of elected officials.
Still, the complaint about money lacking for core govt functions rings hollow as long as money is available for clearly discretionary items. Whether any candidate could point that out and get elected is another matter.
While Kay Tokerud is correct that city property was used, the parcel is essential valueless.
It cannot be built upon as there is nothing that would meet zoning set backs that would allow the parcel to have anything constructed upon it except possibly a city run park.
Lyn you fail to understand the law. While I agree with you comments about how the general fund works, what you are advocating is for the City of Santa Rosa to break the law!
Taxes like the 1% for art are collected under a specific statue that requires them to go for specific purposes. Divert those funds is illegal and a form of embezzlement. Surly your not advocating that the city commit a crime.
The Cyclist was built on City owned property that could have been rented or sold. With great frontage, this piece of real estate could have been utilized by the owner of the adjacent car dealership. Two commenters were incorrect, one said that the Nissan owners had it on their land and one stated that this project cost the city nothing. The City provided the land.
To me, it looked like colored worms in the PD picture. Another large phallic design like some of the other “art” sculptures in Santa Rosa. The bicycle friendly council majority has outdone themselves this time. Not only is the City donating the land but they put a bicycle themed sculpture directly in front of a very nice car dealership. I can see why Nissan didn’t want to put it on their own land. What a bad idea.
About 2 years ago the City held 40-50 meetings with Santa Rosa residents and asked them what their budget priorities were. Out of dozens of categories, public art came in dead last. That was reported back at a City Council meeting that I attended. I would like to see the City roll back this ordinance and certainly not donate any more city owned land for these projects.
@Lyn:
Any complaint or criticism you have to that process should also be directed to the proposition system in this state. What do you think you’re doing every time you pass a bond/spending measure? You’re putting the money in a box because you don’t trust your elected officials, then complaining when they can’t balance a budget.
If we keep allowing citizens to balance the budget one item at a time through initiative, pretty soon the whole thing will be predetermined- and we’re almost there! (80-90% already.)
@Political Scientist
Once upon a time most government revenue went into the general fund, which would then be divvied up based upon current needs. The new paradigm is to put the money into in separate boxes, or funds, and then say “But that’s all we could use the money for. It’s not available for general fund expenses.”
So, we have money for senior citizen rec centers, $40 million utility barns, endless downtown projects, and now art, but we don’t have money for core functions of government.
If your budget sets aside $500 each month for restaurant meals, do you continue to spend that much if you find yourself coming up short on the mortgage? Santa Rosa would.
Yes, Political Scientist is right and speaks to a large issue of how cities funds themselves.
The 1% for Art program was put in place as a city’s statue. It requires 1% of a commercial project’s construction budget to be used for art. The City of Santa Rosa pays nothing. REPEAT. The City of Santa Rosa pays nothing.
These funds are created by a statue which marks how the fund can be spent. They can’t be spent on road repair, or the senior center, or for police for that matter. To do so would be illegal. The government cannot collect fees under a statue and then spend them on something else.
This explains things like park fees funding the DeTurk Round Barn reconstruction and other such projects that people are having difficulties with.
So no, we have not lost our minds, nor are our priorities screw up. In fact, the Great Depression was a vital time for the arts in America. Maybe it is time for a 21st renaissance.
Strong arming companies to pay for this pork is destroying the local economy.
This type of art program is a great thing. I am glad the city is supporting our city as a unique place to live and not just some generic strip mall city in California. We need to have culture and we need to be open to the unique art that comes from a program like this one. I applaud the owner for putting the art work on his property. Santa Rosa Avenue is certainly a place that can use some pick me up in the art category.
We’ve lost our minds.
Sorry Lyn, but I disagree. The money is allocated because of a law requiring the Nissan project to invest in local art. If not for this law, that money wouldn’t have come into the city’s coffers anyways.
It’s not discretionary spending, and like Birky I would rather have a paved road than a bunch of bicycles, but in this case it’s not an either/or. You have the art, or you don’t have the art.
Could anything speak more eloquently about the city’s spending priorities than the Cyclisk? If the trend continues, Santa Rosa will soon have the distinction of being an artsy city with streets fit for travel only in a Conestoga wagon.
The pattern is now well established: there is always money for projects once considered discretionary, but not for things once considered government’s core responsibility. Those things all required a tax increase.