Transcript: The Use of Art in Residential and Commercial Development
You’re listening to Environmentally Speaking, a weekly podcast diving into legal matters surrounding the environment, public utilities, energy, zoning, and permitting laws in Rhode Island and the surrounding areas with your host, Marisa Desautel. Hello, everybody. Welcome to this week’s episode of Environmentally Speaking.
Good morning, Clarice. How are you? I’m doing well. I had to, I hope you don’t mind, I had to cut our conversation short.
Kerin and I, who is, Kerin’s with me today, we’re so excited about the topic. We already started getting into the episode before we should have. So I was like, all right, we have to save some of it.
And what are we talking about this week? This week, we’re talking about art in land use and the idea of our installations in commercial and residential development. Yeah, I am pumped about this because, frankly, we’ve been talking about some heavy stuff. We’ve been talking about some law changes, how it’s going to affect your house.
And we needed some joy. Yes, I agree. And this was this was inspired by you, Clarice.
Yes. So we’ll talk about that. Yeah.
So let’s start off with just sort of the basics when we’re talking about art and land use. I think a couple of things that it might be good to set the stage. We’re talking about the idea of murals on buildings, art installations in front of buildings, just sort of how art is being affixed to areas where folks are kind of moving around.
It’s out to interact with. It’s not the it’s a museum. It’s cordoned off kind of a space.
This is more immersed. Yeah, that’s exactly right. And what that lends itself to rather quickly, especially in my world of land use is regulation.
So normally we’re on here talking about zoning and land use regulations. So the question becomes, what do you do about art, especially if it’s being required by the municipality, which some municipalities across the country are starting to do, or if it’s even something that a developer on their own accord wants to include. And how that conversation falls very quickly into First Amendment protected speech, private property rights, regulation.
It’s a very interesting intersect. Yeah, and it’s it’s funny until you which it obviously is a First Amendment right to speech and expression. But when you think about it, that’s not your first thought right away.
It seems, at least in my mind, it seemed a little bit easier and a more natural integration than like what you were talking about, making sure is this if we deny art, are we denying First Amendment rights? Are we taking in consideration how folks are going to interact with the space? And does that ease and kind of convenience overweigh these rights? So it’s a little bit more nuanced than I thought. And then you have the requirement. I think you had mentioned, yeah, you have in our notes, Oakland, California has implemented a percent for art, which means a now tell me if I’m reading this right.
It’s a percent of physical space that is dedicated to art versus like a fund. I honestly I haven’t read the ordinance, but it’s it’s obviously intended to take whatever the proposed project is to build and taking. I think it can be either.
And I think Oakland’s just an example of one of probably many communities across the US. And I think there’s a couple of ways to do it, like you just pointed out. One, which I think is the case in California, is a percent of project cost.
So if you’re spending a million dollars and you assign a percentage to that for every million dollars, you’ve got to spend a percentage of that money on art. The other way to do it would be, you know, for space. If you’re developing, you know, I don’t know, 50,000 square feet, a percentage of that space has to be dedicated to art.
So, yeah, I think there’s a couple of ways to do it. Oakland is an example. And what’s important about Oakland is that the court actually upheld the law because they said that the developer gets to choose the art.
So it’s not as though the government is saying what the art has to be, what the message has to be with the art. They’re just saying you have to include something. Yeah.
And I think that message piece is important because it seems like what a lot of the restrictions and implementations are typically focused around the physical constraints. And they they’re all not all, but it’s it seems to be safest to stay content neutral. That way, you’re not getting close to touching that First Amendment.
Well, yeah, from the government side. Yeah, definitely. They you know, there are certain regulations that they can and cannot enforce.
And certainly a First Amendment violation would be struck down by the courts. But then again, you know, the question becomes what about height? You know, typically zoning regulations say you can only build to a certain height. You know, does that apply to art? Some some municipalities across the country I’ve learned from doing this research is that, you know, they actually exempt art from from certain zoning requirements.
Oh, and we’ve got some really cool examples that we’re going to talk about. First one is five points in New York City. You said you had you watched a documentary on this.
I did. So I watched a documentary because it had to do with, again, that intersect between zoning and land use and development. And you had a developer who owned a building in New York City and the building had been used for graffiti murals.
It was it was covered, at least on one side. I’m not sure. There’s like one famous side that you and the developer or the owner of the property said, well, you know, I kind of want to redevelop this property.
And unfortunately, I can’t keep it. I demolished it. So there was there was some outcry, you know, by the artistic community that said, no, we really should keep this.
It’s a it’s a wonderful expression for the city. And zoning laws and property rights actually fell on the side of the developer. So the developer was allowed first to whitewash the artwork and then and then demo the building.
So I think that’s important that the owner of the property has does still have rights, even if there is an artistic installation at the property. But it’s also something to think about if you are a developer and you’re thinking about putting art either as a mural on the actual property or in front of it or inside of it to consider the artist’s rights. And what what is what happens, you know, the longer that that art stays, who ends up owning it and who has the right to change it? Yeah.
And it and it sounds like in this case, five points was that art was put in unintentional to the developer. This was something where it looks like people came and a tag feels disrespectful, but they came to paint on the building and it wasn’t necessarily planned or thought out in that space. So I’m wondering if that has to do with sort of balancing the rights of the two.
It’s kind of like how if you look at Banksy, his work is famous and world known, but he’s doing these, you know, pieces kind of fly by night painting and running. They’re not. There’s that underlying conversation of he is coming to vandalize in a way, beautiful or not.
That’s got to be a piece of it, too. Yeah, I agree. And that, again, gets back to that whole intersect.
We were talking at the beginning, you know, you know, is that a trespass if Banksy comes on to private property or paints on a private private building? I would say yes. Now, that’s kind of a good example, because the the price paid for those pieces of art by that particular artist is wonderful, amazing and good for him. But you do have a property owner who then has to contend with all of the visitors’ safety.
And, you know, how long do they keep it? And I think there’s actually a really great documentary on artists and installations in New York City. And you see property owners coming out and like painting over it. And it just, you know, it’s hard to watch because you know how how much that art, you know, is valued.
But at the same time, you’ve got a property owner that just doesn’t want 40 people at any given time taking taking pictures, standing outside their business. Yeah. And to be I think 40 people is pretty conservative.
When I was I spent some time studying abroad in London many years ago and there were lots of Banksy pieces. And what was interesting is there were building owners who would go and install sort of a plexiglass over piece. Yeah.
To preserve them. Yes. But then the the sub problem was that was now an attraction.
I, of course, wanted to go see the attraction. And it was me and like 200 other people in front of someone’s like apartment or, you know, just looking at like a bridge overpass. So there’s that balance of they’ve adopted this responsibility to now be a steward to that piece that when they, you know, the night before, that was never their plan.
That was never something they wanted to happen. And that’s kind of segues into the truth be told mural in Brooklyn. This kind of in from my understanding of it is this was a specific intended installation for this space.
It was. And it’s been moved. And what’s interesting about this one is, yeah, they they moved it to a different different building.
But, yes, it was it was intentional. And the idea here, at least for the land use nerd in me, is that, you know, every city in town, almost all of them have sign ordinances in terms of what you can do with your signs. And they can be very specific.
And this one became an issue when people didn’t like it. And the question was, is it in sign that has to be regulated or is it art that is protected by free speech and therefore is not regulated? Normally in Rhode Island, political speech, you know, private First Amendment speech is protected and not subject to zoning. That’s why you can see, you know, your, you know, your lawn signs or for elections or kind of big, big signage on private, private property for for elections.
Those usually are not subject to zoning laws because it’s First Amendment speech. Truth be told, installation, same thing. And just go back and forth for a while until finally the local zoning board decided, no, it’s art.
And and for me, that makes sense, because normally signage to be regulated by zoning is something that is intending to draw potential business to the property. You’re you’re doing it for a financial gain to attract business here. This was not intended to to draw people in to spend their money or to buy a product.
This was something else. And so I think in this case is only what made the right right choice. Yeah, I always think of for me, and I could be wrong, but I always think of for something to be a sign, it has to have some actionable piece next to it.
Like, even if you look at basic traffic signs, stop yield, those are actionable things, you know, advertising were open or putting a light behind your sign. It’s that idea of we’re hoping that you act and come in. Yes.
Versus this sign. And for folks who don’t know about this mural, it is a large brick building. It looks very colonial.
It looks very much like sort of an old college building and facade and across the front of it in really large letters in big black bold. It just says, truth be told, right across the whole front of the building. It goes over the windows.
It looks like it even paints into the door. It’s just taken over the whole piece. And I look at that and I’m not thinking, what am I supposed to do next with it? Right.
You’re thinking, but I’m not acting. It doesn’t give me a clear direction. That’s right.
You’re thinking, what is this effect on me? Yeah, not not what am I supposed to do next? You’re right. You’re not it’s not asking you to enter the building. It’s not asking you to buy anything.
It’s it’s sending a message. And in this case, the message was about, you know, alternative facts, political delusion. It was it was a political statement.
It was a very it’s a very cool piece. It is. And like I said, it has been moved.
I forget where, but this picture I took because I I think this was the original place where it was put, I believe. But there’s other pictures online. This next one, I have to find this.
I have to say this next one, I think is kind of funny. The tilted arc in New York City again. Yeah.
Yeah. This is this is a great example of, you know, public outcry. Yeah.
So here you have a long piece of rusted steel in an arc across a plaza. In this case, it was Manhattan’s Federal Plaza. And what happened was it was it was so big that it actually split the space.
And people who walked through the area had to go around. They had to go around and they claimed that that was an inconvenience. And also it blocked their not only their path, but their view.
And it was actually removed in 1989 because of that. So in this case, I think this highlights the relation of art and public opinion. So, you know, you do have to consider the piece that you’re putting in.
How is that going? What effect is that going to have on the public? And I think that’s important, even if you’re a private property owner that’s developing property or wants to put something on the property. I do think you need to spend some time thinking about the piece that you’re considering and what the effects might be on on people seeing it. Yeah.
Yeah. It’s I mean, that goes back to what I was saying before about the idea of like convenience versus statement and things like that. And if you’re going for a larger piece, maybe don’t put it right in front of the doors.
If you’re you know, if you’re putting up a a large condo association or something like that or a condo building, maybe don’t block the front door. Maybe do something smaller by the door or larger in the front yard. But I just know this piece really it just looks like a gigantic wall.
It is curved. It is it’s, you know, supposed to make a statement. And I’m not I did not go to art school.
Whatever the message is, is lost on me here. But it just looks like this giant thing that’s blocking maybe light. I don’t know how big it is.
And yeah, I could see it being like a day ruiner. Yeah. I didn’t go to art school either.
I mean, I see the beautiful curve in it. I get it when I see the photographs that it’s intended to be art and, you know, inspiring. But again, what one person sees might not be what someone else sees.
And, you know, there’s also that, you know, idea that once you see something in art, you can’t unsee it. Yeah, it’s hard. So again, I think if you’re ever considering putting, you know, art at your at your property, you have to you have to take some time because there may be things that you don’t see at first or don’t consider at first and you don’t want to put it there and then find out.
And then there’s the issue of then you get rid of it. And that’s that can be a controversy as well. Absolutely.
Oh, but speaking of controversy, I am so pumped to talk about this. We are now talking about the the art piece that inspired the episode, the Blue Mustang in Denver, Colorado. And please, listener, if you don’t know what we’re talking about, please Google Blue Mustang, Colorado.
Look up pictures. I mean, no disrespect to the artist. It is probably one of the more frightening statues I’ve ever seen.
Yeah, it kills me. You’re right. We had we after our last recording, we started talking about this one, and this was the inspiration for today.
And it was really interesting for me to get into it and find out the history, which you knew more about than I did. But I was I really enjoyed, you know, kind of researching this. So the the Blue Mustang, also called Lucifer, because it is a 30 foot tall, bright blue horse with a glowing eye, you know, inspired a lot of public debate.
Yeah, we’re seeing even here in Rhode Island, airports are putting art in in the space because they want to, you know, highlight the feeling and the local vibe. So it’s not unusual to have art in in an airport. But this one sparked a lot of debate.
It’s very tall. It’s very blue. It was very costly.
Yeah, it was commissioned originally for three hundred thousand and ended up costing six hundred and fifty thousand. It took 15 years. Yeah, 15 years.
I guess, you know, it ended up actually a section of it fell on the artists, killed the artists. There’s a lot of there’s a lot of backstory to this one. Some some say when they see it, it helps convey that wild spirit of the area.
I think that was an intent. I think so. And then others kind of find it haunting and unsettling, maybe particularly at night with the glowing eye.
I don’t know. Yeah. And if folks just I mean, it is electric blue with a giant red eyes.
So, you know what? I get the idea of the wild spirit, but I do look at this and I think that is a frightening horse. Well, it’s certainly meant to evoke emotion. It wins.
You know, and I’m sure people have different different interpretations when they see it. I remember when I flew in to the Denver airport, you know, my daughter was excited. She was little and we were driving by and she’s like, oh, my God, it’s a giant horse and it’s blue.
And, you know, she she really remembered that it wasn’t wasn’t as frightening. We did fly in the day. I don’t know if she would have had the same the same feeling at night, because I think it you know, with with the eye and yeah, lit up or not.
But, you know, I don’t know. But again, it gets to the idea that you just don’t know sometimes until something’s up what the what the what the public perception is going to be. And for this one, for me, at least in land use and zoning world, it brings up that idea who should have the authority to say what goes, you know, in.
Is it the government or is it the private developer or the people who should decide when art can be so polarizing? And if memory serves, I think this piece was selected out of there was a voting process. If I remember correctly, I believe there was sort of kind of like an open bid put out there. Requirements were listed in that.
It can’t because it is right next to an airport. It can’t be this high. It can’t involve these.
It needs to be within these parameters for safety concerns. And that took priority. And then after that, I think there was a series of votes and considerations.
And that’s that’s how we got our blue supper. I’m excited to meet it in a couple of weeks. That’s right.
Let’s take some pictures. Yes. So let’s go local.
We’ve gone kind of New York, Colorado. We’ve we’ve seen some other places. What about our local listeners who are now thinking, I kind of want to see some art? I want to see what’s going on.
Yeah, there’s actually some are relatively new in Charlestown by a Danish artist, Thomas Dambo. And the idea behind the art is it’s it’s an environmental statement about recycling and recycling into art. There are trolls made out of, I think, just pieces of recycled wood.
And they are in a public park, an integrate park in Charlestown. And in that one, the idea for me is that you’re normally parks are zoned for recreational. And the idea here is that recreation includes art installation.
So that’s kind of novel to me. But that makes sense. And the other idea here, which I thought was interesting, is the the project’s intent is to boost tourism.
There was a similar installation in Maine by this artist. And these trolls were installed and then they doubled visitation to the gardens there. So also an interesting idea.
You know, does art increase visibility and the desire of people to come to the property, whether it’s a park or a private property, office space, whatever it is? Does art? And this, I think, is a successful example of art being able to draw people into a property. Yeah. And I really appreciate the interactive piece to it in a park.
It’s not something that’s cordoned off or just a statue that you’re supposed to look at. These are these are pretty large. And the idea that in some of the pictures that you shared, you know, it looks like kids can crawl into their laps or, you know, climb up around it.
I like that piece in a park. That idea of it’s not taking space away from activity. It’s just being incorporated in the activity.
Yeah, that’s right. And I have not personally visited them. I have it in my mind that it might be pretty cool to be walking through, you know, the woods or a park atmosphere.
And then you kind of come around the corner and there’s this surprising, you know, sculpture. And especially for kids, I think it’s a great it’s a great experience, not something that they would easily forget. Absolutely.
And so we’ve talked about art being included in development and or how the two of them sort of have friction. But I thought what was interesting and it was you said it was a surprise to you, too. The impact it has, studies have shown that it can.
And this is kind of a broad statement so we can narrow it down, but that it generally increases positivity towards the property, both in value and in long term interaction. Yeah, that’s right. So when I was researching for today’s T’s podcast, I know I always thought, you know, our installations obviously increase costs and my clients are concerned with cost because they have to build a project and they have to finish it.
And it has to get tenants or, you know, a business sale. Yeah, business. Yeah.
Whatever, whatever the the type of development is. And art is is kind of an afterthought because it’s I think, at least in my mind, it’s just an added cost. But studies do show that marketability, sales and property values are increased within our installation, the idea being that it elevates the prestige of the property.
It create it creates a more unique, memorable space than than a property that a similar property that does not have in our installation outside or on it. And what I think is interesting is, at least from my own perspective, it gives the appearance of maintenance for me to have art in a property. It shows that there’s care.
It shows that this is sort of a more thoughtful property. Yeah. So do I have that? And we were talking about this earlier, going around buildings or areas that we are used to going and then seeing art in those spaces.
It makes or at least it did for me. It makes me think, oh, this is a this is a cared for area. This is a nicer, you know, quote unquote, nicer area because somebody’s taken the time to say art can be here and it’s going to be OK here.
Yeah, I agree with you. And that’s not something I really, I think, ever realized was happening when I experienced, you know, that scenario. But I do think it’s true for me as well when I when I do approach a property and it has some sort of an art installation and that kind of goes hand in hand.
I don’t want to demean art. Art is much more elevated than landscaping, but, you know, a nicely landscaped property. Kind of the similar idea is well cared for.
Someone cares about this property. The art, putting art on it, I think even takes it to a whole new level. Yes.
Of someone really felt strongly about having this property stand out. There’s a sense of pride behind it. There’s a sense of safety behind it.
Someone is looking out for this for this area. And I think that that’s what the studies are showing, is that people do respond to that. They feel like it elevates the property and it tends to attract a more discerning tenant or buyer, which to me was very surprising.
Now, I don’t know if the cost I don’t know. I guess that’s going to depend on the cost of the art. Yeah.
You know, like you said, if you’re doing if you’re buying a Banksy, you know, you might not that might be out of the budget. That might that might be too much to to, you know, offset the increase in the value. But there are wonderful like local artists.
I mean, we have RISD right here in Rhode Island. And there’s there’s got to be. Yeah, there’s the South Coast Artists Association, too, which goes.
Yeah, it’s Rhode Island in mass and it’s all coastal artists. Yeah, there’s got to be some wonderful projects, wonderful pieces that would be available to to include. And there’s also a lot of art foundations and art initiatives who are looking to to have pieces sort of shown and circulated and put into buildings to get artist exposure.
The office that I work at, we’re part of we received a grant to include art in our office space, which meant. And I don’t believe from my understanding when the art was installed, we were able to select some pieces, but it was sort of like which out of this pile or which out of this showing would you like to see? So I’m really fortunate. Our office has local artists are in every office room, in every conference room and down the halls.
And it was a thing that was no cost to us. And how does that make you feel when you go to that office space to work? I think it’s I think it’s beautiful. I think the idea of because the alternative is in for background for folks.
I do work at a nonprofit. We wouldn’t be spending money to put art in, to put pieces in. So to know that, do I want to go to the we have an office that has it’s all themed around nautical.
So there’s buoys and fish painted. Do I want to go work in the the nautical office? Do I want to go down the hall and work at the landscape office? Our conference room has a really I mean, it’s a really large piece of a rising sun, and that’s completely in that gold metallic paint with swirls. So when we go into the conference room, there’s this beautiful golden sun that’s going to kick off our meetings or kick off our events.
And we wouldn’t have we just wouldn’t have had the access or the kind of budget to do that on our own. So those are things to consider, too, that could be helpful. Yeah, that’s interesting.
The other thing kind of along that same line is not only does it create goodwill within the people who are working there, but also can create some goodwill with the community. I think it’s it can probably smooth your permitting process if you’re lending a local artist a space to install a piece or a collection of pieces. Yeah.
So, folks, if you’re if you’re now kind of feeling inspired, if you’re thinking you want to go check out some local art, there is Eric Rock and Greta Granit. Those are the.
