|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
When California Avenue businesses asked Palo Alto officials in 2005 to give the gritty fountain at the end of the commercial area a too-long-overdue touch-up, they hardly expected their request to stoke a heated community debate over the meaning of “public art.”
Or, for that matter, the meaning of “fountain.”
But that’s exactly what happened this week, when City Council took up a proposal of the city’s Public Art Commission to replace the traditional “bird bath” fountain with a modern granite-block structure designed by internationally famous architect Bruce Beasley.
That plan has been washed away by a wave of community opposition.
The council voted 7-1 Monday night to send the California Avenue fountain proposal back to the art commission’s drawing board.
Councilman John Barton was the only member who supported the commission’s recommendation to scrap the old fountain design in favor of the modern Beasley piece. Cost of the partially donated Beasley piece is about $185,000 while redoing plumbing for whatever fountain arises there has been estimated at about $150,000 by city staff.
The council vote came after more than a dozen Palo Alto residents criticized the proposed Beasley structure, characterizing it as a quiet, drooling slab not worthy of the name “fountain.”
To these residents, the cracked and leaning California Avenue fountain — which may have been assaulted by errant delivery trucks or other vehicles and requires braces to keep from keeling over — was a beloved symbol of the commercial area’s charm and vitality.
Ellen Wyman, a longtime proponent of fixing the fountain, was one of many who disputed the Beasley piece’s fountain credentials. She gathered more than 800 names on a petition to save the old fountain or replace it with one like it.
The Public Arts Commission had initially wanted to erect a Beasley fountain, but reportedly was told the city couldn’t afford to repair the aged plumbing under the street. So Beasley converted the fountain to a dry block sculpture about 12 feet tall.
It was recently re-converted to a Beasley fountain after an outcry from California Avenue and merchants and others. But even though the Beasley piece would feature a rolling stream of water, residents favoring the traditional fountain argue its quiet flow would be a far cry from the frothy, gurgling gusher that has graced the avenue the 1970s, attracting generations of pranksters armed with soap and food coloring.
Water alone, Wyman and others pointed out, does not make a fountain. The splashing noise is equally essential.
Jan Murphy described the crumbling fountain as a refreshing oasis for train riders leaving the nearby Caltrain station on a hot day. Replacing it with the Beasley piece would be a major loss for the neighborhood, she said.
“There’s the fountain, spraying water, blue and white,” Murphy said. “It’s wonderful to see. The Beasley wouldn’t have that.”
Other residents railed against the commission’s process for selecting the Beasley fountain, characterizing the board as elitist arbiters of public taste whose artsy plans threaten to kill California Avenue’s small-town main-street charm.
The council recognized the value of having a Beasley piece in Palo Alto, but encouraged the art commission to consider other options. In particular, council members questioned whether the bustling hub at the end of California Avenue is, in fact, the best location for the piece anyway.
The council members recommended the soon-to-be-revamped Mitchell Park Library as an alternative location for the Beasley fountain. Councilman Pat Burt noted that the recently passed $76-million library bond already includes funds budgeted for art. These funds could be used to make the Beasley piece the new library’s preeminent artistic exhibit, he said.
The council also asked the commission to reconsider its plan for upgrading the California Avenue fountain. Though it’s not clear what the new plan would be, council members urged the commission to solicit public input before making a final decision. The commission would then bring its revised plan back to the council for approval.
Burt said the commission would still have authority to select finalists for the ultimate California Avenue design. But he and other council members agreed that the public needs to have a say in a location as prominent as California Avenue.
“People are attached to that fountain because they’ve known and enjoyed it,” Burt said. “It was never an outstanding fountain. It was a kind of an off-the-shelf piece that people grew fond of.
“But it’s clearly on its last legs.”
(Staff Writer Gennady Sheyner can be e-mailed at gsheyner@paweekly.com.)
May I ask why this fountain and the associated maintenance has to be so costly?
That said, thank goodness they are not installing that granite slab thing.
With all the art in the world, we can do better.
Hurrah I’m thrilled, the Beasley granite slabs would have been destroyed by skateboarders and graffiti artists. The fountain only attracts pranksters with dye or detergent!!!
May I suggest you put a curb around it high enough to stop any errant truck from hitting it.
If Rome has 300 year old fountains there is no reason why Palo Alto can’t make their fountain last just as long but it’s got to be properly maintained. Also, if you’re going to put a fountain in Lytton Plaza there’s no need to take the California Avenue fountain away.
Mitchell Park doesn’t need Beasley’s ugly granite slabs either. In fact Mitchell Park just got a new piece of art work at the end of the long pathway. We have enough art work in Mitchell Park.
Why doesn’t the City Council kill this wasteful and ugly chunk of imitation granite? You could save over $200,000 right now and put the money towards infrastructure repairs you’ve got $5 Million of those.
Buy $200,000 worth of library materials and I might be lured back from Los Altos Library. ($76,000,000 in buildings ain’t gonna do it for me.)
Why does Palo Alto have to destroy and replace every thing with any history to it? FIX the fountain you bone heads.
Absolutely infuriating that they are saying they’ll figure out a way to spend this enormous amount of money on an unwanted slab of granite using the LIBRARY BOND. That’s OK??? In this economy they’re figuring out ways to tuck foist this on taxpayers?? SHAME ON YOU! SHAME SHAME SHAME ON YOU! What’s the matter with these people? How do they sleep at night? I can’t believe what I just read.
I hope some tree sitters come and rescue us from this riduculously wasteful library boondogle.
Here’s an idea – how about they spend the $200K on finding the criminals that are terrorizing our neighborhoods. Im sure the south palo altans around mitchell park would appreciate being able to WALK AROUND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD IN BROAD DAYLIGHT WITHOUT GETTING ATTACKED.
I’m definitely in favor of fixing and maintaining the present fountain. So what if it’s “off the shelf”. It’s sweet and fun…even when vandals do the dye and soapsud thing. Brings to mind the times when those acts were considered playful acts of children rather than vandalism.
I’d rather see the additional funds going to restoring the fountain at City Hall Plaza and in front of the Children’s Theatre. The negative ions of dancing fountains lift the spirits and heaven knows that is something we need!
I mourned their loss when short-sighted city administrators took them away without thought to their contributions.
Why is the City Council hell bent on using that hideous granite slab fountain? It seems they are desperate to use it anywhere. It is unusually ugly and ripe for graffiti. Spend the money for books for the library.
I loved visiting Europe with its piazzas and statue fountains. California Avenue needs to adopt this too. A place to go to sit, rest and enjoy a brief time of coolness on a hot sunny day or in the twilight of evening. Meeting your friends there before dinner or taking your break. Maybe some European outdoor cafes would open. But this is special. A fountain with the sounds that relax us. The falling water that refreshes our senses and cools the air. A very special fountain perhaps in the human form or in a fantasy shape, for all time and up kept, because what we enjoyed, we want to know is always there. Not gone.
The real improvement to that area would be to pick up the trash that is always present, to maintain the bushes, and clean-up the occasional vomit that ends up on or under the benches. That would be much more peaceful than any fountain.
That they would suggest putting this on the taxpayers bill for the library is UNCONSCIONABLE. The art commission and the city council are acting just like AIG! PARTY TIME (on someone elses dime)! WOO HOO!
This should be grounds for some kind of an ethics inquiry or something. That they would make such a suggestion is shocking.
Are these people living in some kind of parallel universe or something? Are they not aware of what’s going on with the economy right now? That they are tossing around this kind of flippant remarks about that much money for such dreck, makes me SICK.
Its immoral.
Its this ridiculous tasteless money-wasting (BIG MONEY wasting), Art Council that should be on its last leg.
I think the support for the traditional fountain should give Council and Arts commission an idea of what the public thinks is “pubic art.” It has a much more approachable, understandable and friendly feel that people (the public) relates to than the stark, bizzare appearance of most of the work presently in Palo Alto.
I also agree with the comment above that moving the slabs to Mitchell park just transfers the problem. We have enough of this kind of random parts and masterials assembly rather than artistic skill, talent and craftsmanship.
Wait wait wait,….
Did I hear right? The library bond that I just voted for, supposed to be for improving the libraries and buying books, if likely to instead be used to replace a fountain? I voted for that thing because I thought they needed to buy more books and educational materials for the libraries, for the kids. If I had known that the money would be misappropriated to purchase a fountain I never would have voted for it, not in this economy.
Who do we need to tar and feather?
WHY do we need a fountain? What we need is city funds spent appropriately.
Oooh, the City? Wasting the money that the FOPAL convinced a majority to vote in via bond measure? Shocker.
I hate to say I told you so, but it’s just too depressing that more people didn’t figure out this would happen BEFORE the vote. Here’s a radical idea: instead of buying some desginer “artictic” granite slab trickle-fountain, buy a cheapo off the shelf fountain, and then DON’T think of new ways to spend the money you saved — just spend what you NEED on the darn libraries.
When pople on the thread were saying the libraries would only cost what they had to cost and the City would be cost-conscious and not keep the bond longer than needed, what an offensive joke. The City officials spend — I mean squander –everything they can get their hands on, and then hold out their hands and whine for more “in the best intersts of the children.”
Aaarrrrgh.
Having a pretty fountain is not what the children need. You want to know what they need?
1) Schools modern enough to not be siffling to the point where teachers are asking them to bring in fans, and clocks in the classrooms that actually tell the right time. (Jordan) Should we also mention that the schools need to be big enough to accomodate the children in the local area without requiring twice-daily cross-town trips by parents?
2) Libraries that are up-to-date, well lighted, safe, and stocked with books. I had no indication there was a problem with the libraries until this bond measure came up begging for better libraries.
3) Safe, clean, gang-free parks and safe streets to use to get to them. A little help for the police department might go a long ways here, rather than denigrating them for noting the descriptions of crime perpetrators.
Your property values are directly tied to these things, not to the fountains. They are what keep those values high. So if the best interest of the kids is not enough, look to your wallets.
I hope the Yes on N crowd who would not hear a word against their wonderful bond for wonderful new libraries are looking at how their money (and ours) is going to be spent. They would not hear a word against the bond, they would not listen to any perfectly rational arguments saying that this bond was too expensive. They are now keeping quiet, possibly licking their wounds and taking down their better libraries lawn signs rather quietly.
I voted Yes on N because I think LIBRARIES are important!!!! Put the money into the libraries and stop wasting it on BS. The Calif Ave fountain is fine, just fix it and keep it up. This is unbelievable… what’s wrong with this city??
Here’s an idea… if the Library Bond has an allowance for public art, why doesn’t the city put those funds aside and create a local competition to create art for the new libraries.. the funds would make for nice prize money. Then the community could be engaged with a spirit of public participation– which seems to me more along the lines of what libraries are about. Create PROGRAMS for community enrichment…. and maybe some local artist, who feels a real connection to the public spaces where the art is to be displayed might have something better to offer us?
> I voted Yes on N because I think LIBRARIES
> are important!!!!
Yeah .. right. Most everything these days is online. Palo Alto has shown one more time it is full of ignorant people who have no idea what is going on in the real world!
Wow Bill, very nice… I happen to be very up to date and online, though I really appreciate being called ‘ignorant’ by you, as you know nothing about me. Libraries are important part of the community offering online access (for free) to those who otherwise don’t have it, can’t afford it, etc. There is quite a bit that can’t be done ‘online’ even today. Also, I really enjoy reading as many books as I want without paying Borders and Amazon for them… so, Bill, I think you may prove to be the more ignorant one… I, myself, am quite well read and informed.
Bill, I think that is a little myopic.
I voted for measure N, after a lot of hard thought, because I do believe libraries are important and because my kids use them. If that money if now siphoned off for something having nothing to do with libraries, I am going to go on the warpath. The Palo Alto city government had better not pull an AIG on us.
…one more thing ‘Bill’– libraries are a critical part of an educated community. Before libraries and public schools, most people were not educated and did not have access to information as they do today. Yes, the internet certainly adds to that formula, but computers aren’t free, and books and periodicals aren’t free… and before society placed value on a public access to information, in part by way of libraries, only rich people had access to information. Libraries are a great equalizer, even if elitists like yourself aren’t smart enough to understand that.
And here’s a pretty telling quote from John Barton “We’re probably going to end up rejecting a world-renowned artist in favor of a precast piece of junk and then tell the artist “no, you get to go work in south Palo Alto” said council member John Barton” (Daily Post 11/12). Yes, John, it certainly would be a slap in the face to this world renounced artist for Palo Alto to banish his work to (gasp) SOUTH PALO ALTO.
This attitude from Barton goes a LONG way to explaining why the city is approving these massive eye sore dense housing projects all over south Palo Alto that are completely ruining the city’s character south of Oregon, and hammering our schools with overcrowding – because after all – its JUST south Palo Alto! How COULD Palo Alto be so crass and uncouth as to put a world renouned artist’s work in south Palo Alto?
Its about time Palo Altans’ wake up to who we’ve got making decisions in this city, what matter to them, and who’s interests they’re actually looking out for.
Is there a way to discern what the City has allocated, budget-wise, for artwork to “beautify” Palo Alto? Because I for one would like an oportunity to tell the Council, Barton first and foremost, that installing $200,000 “sculptures” from a world renowned artist should be a LOWER priority than infrastructure. Think of how many books that money could buy. Argh. Grrr.
And as far as his comments about South Palo Alto, that’ been the attitude for as long as there has BEEN a South Palo Alto and it really sitnks.
I need to back down here a bit. The bond we voted on was $76M, and it included a budget for art work. This piece already exists and belongs to the city, we are just talking about relocating it. They are looking at relocating it in front of the library, which would meet the requirements of art for the library. I am afraid I no longer see a misappropriation here.
You can say what you want about the sculpture itself, everyone is certainly entitled to play the critic. But financially, there would not seem to be a problem.
See what happens when you re-read the article?
JustMe, I can see how one would infer that the city already owned the piece, but where does it say that in the article? I thought the City just tried to get approval to buy the thing, the artist accomodated by altering the design to dry scuplture, and then went back to first design. Or possibly the sculpture was already created and Palo Alto was just trying to figure out how to get approval to buy it.
Given the economic climate, I still take umbrage at the CIty’s seeming refusal or inability to see where it could cut costs, even if the bond passed. What is the total public art cost for the libraries? Why not simply do the minimum, i.e., rebuilding the libraries and restocking them with donated funds, and cancel the bond early or reduce the amount of the bond in the first place if it doesn’t seem to be needed.
Thrift is a virtue hat Palo Alto leaders don’t seem to have.
I’m so glad I voted no on N, I knew this kind of stuff would happen. What a joke to use the money that was meant to renovate the library for a fountain!! Who is this ‘artist’ that he has such a hold that his junk has to be purchased?
I never see anyone sitting around that fountain. That lonely area of town is not like fountains in Europe that act as meeting places filled with people and surrounded by cafes. I am not familiar with the new proposed sculpture but if it is being decided by those who voted for the other so called art I see on California Ave like that creepy running statue with the face in its belly than I wouldn’t hold out much hope for it being anything inspirational. Also $ for Library should be spent on the gosh darn library.
“And as far as his comments about South Palo Alto, that’ been the attitude for as long as there has BEEN a South Palo Alto and it really stinks.”
fyi, you are being unfair to Councilman Barton by taking his words out of context. This is ironic because Councilman Barton is a big booster for South Palo Alto. He uttered those words in frustration after watching his fellow Council members create a process exception for this piece of art. Barton felt that making an ad hoc decision to move the Beasely piece to Mitchell would prevent a more site-appropriate piece from being put there, and at the same time seriously delay replacing the current Cal Ave fountain.
So at least $200K of the $79M was budgeted for ‘art’. I know that no library is complete without artwork. If you ask me, I think we were fed a line with the ‘fix the libraries.. it’s for the kids’. We end up wasting money on a ‘community center’ and ‘public art’. And to top it off I will get reminded about it every Nov 1 and March 1.
Even if ‘public art’ is budgetted for, is it required that it be spent??? In this economic climate, who on earth thinks this is a good idea?
So Barton “uttered those words in frustration.”
How about the frustration of all of us taxpayers who are fed up with money thrown away on bike tunnels and “the color of Palo Alto” and public “art” we don’t like and $250,000 for an appalling website and $455,000/year to promote the city as a tourist destination and ever-increasing utility rates – while we have a $550 million backlog in basic infrastructure and a city council whose number 1 priority is civic engagement, but can’t define what it means?
Now THAT’s frustration!
Can we get the Chinese to do this. They can do it for 1/4 the price.
No wonder they are building big dams for the future – we are stuggling with a fountain at an enormous cost.
This is what is hunting America.
I read in the Daily Post that Councilman John Barton was upset about having to go back to a world renowned artist and tell him they have to place their art “in south Palo Alto”. How divisive and insulting. Thanks for giving me a reason to NOT vote for you in the next election.
Also, why in this economic climate is the City Council spending valuable time and resources arguing about a fountain? This is how Palo Alto perpetuates its reputation in the valley. I am a big fan of the arts, but we have to change up the priority list now.
Those who don’t appreciate art in ANY time, in ANY place = barbarians at the gate. Might I suggest a weekend the public pillory for “A resident”, “pat”, “Next Generation Loses Big Time”, “bill”, CIEboy”, “but seriously”, “mcee”, and the other barbarians in this thread. Maybe we can read “Blondie” comic books to them as we dip their bread in water as we feed them whilst enjoying our public art maypole.
A little bit of appropriate, tasteful, public art is fine by me. But, what is wrong with using a local up and coming artist rather than a renowned artist? From what I have seen of the art under discussion, it reminds me of the monolith in 2001, I would not call that artistic and certainly not appropriate for putting outside a library where skateboarders and graffiti artists will have a field day.
I like the idea of a fountain, but realise that when you start talking about fountains and water and plumbing, you are opening up a big can of worms. But something more appropriate to a library in my opinion would be a figure sitting reading a book, rather than anything else.
If you need a reason to vote against Barton, how about his advocacy and votes for more housing, more construction, more more more.
He’s an architect and totally allied with developers. In fact his wife is a developer.
There are architects on the planning commission too -look ’em up.
I have lived in Evergreen Park my entire life, almost 40 yrs now, and the fountain on California Ave has always been the one consistent sight over the years with all the many changes that have happened. I’m sorry, but don’t we have enough ugly artwork we are forced to look at every day on California Ave? It seems that the majority of people want the same fountain to remain, call us crazy, but we like it. So why doesn’t the city spend the money to just fix it instead of spending thousands on something no one wants! It isnt like there aren’t other areas of PA that could use it. Maybe helping some of the homeless would be a good place to start. I want the old fountain to stay..blue foamy water and all!