Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBack-Up DocumentsLETTERS OF SUPPORT ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Art in Public Places Summary — Letters in Support 1. Perez Art Musuem Miami 2. The Underline 3. National Young Arts Foundation 4. Locust Projects 5. Dade Heritage Trust 6. Miami -Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs 7. Miami -Dade County Public Schools 8. City of Miami Beach 9. City of Coral Gables 10. Village of Palmetto Bay 11. MiMo Biscayne Association 12. Miami River Art Fair 13. Miami Mountains Foundation 14. City of Miami — Historic and Environmental Preservation Board 15. City of Miami — Beautification Committee 16. Venezuelan American Endowment for the Arts 17. Nina Torres Fine Arts 18. Galeria Art 3 19. Arizona House of Representatives — Rep Mark Cardenas 20. Francisco Herretes — City of Miami Art in Public Places Board Member 21. Vicky Romay — Curator 22. Alexis Garcia 23. Dr. Carol Damian, Professor of Art History at Florida International University NATIONAL YOUNGARTS FOUNDATION The Honorable Tomas Regalado Mayor City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 October 11, 2017 Dear Mayor Regalado: We have been given notice that there is an upcoming Public Art Ordinance reading with the City Commission on Thursday, October 12, 2017, and through this letter wish to provide our support. The National YoungArts Foundation (YoungArts) identifies and supports the nation's most promising artists across the country and has used its Miami base to build community, collaborate with creative organizations, and inspire visiting youth throughout the city. We are committed to offering unique arts experiences to students from all backgrounds, exposing them to excellence in diverse creative disciplines through YoungArts programs. The YoungArts signature application campaign —an initiative for which we receive thousands of applications per year, with finalists hailing from Miami -Dade County in the performing, visual, literary and design arts —are just one of several programs that engage youth as visitors, audience members and future applicants in various forums. Additionally, our free and outdoor public performance program, Outside the Box, is a model for placemaking and community building. A new program —In Process: Homecoming —focuses on giving back to communities that YoungArts alumni artists feel most connected to. In going into these communities, we seek to involve Miami -Dade County Public Schools, create education workshops, and present in classrooms. YoungArts prides itself in providing life -changing experiences to its artists, and there is nothing more inspirational than creating a thriving environment for public art. We seek to build the community we hope to see and sincerely endorse the City of Miami's Art in Public Places Ordinance. With enthusiasm, we urge the City Commission to move this ordinance forward to benefit our community. Sincerely, Carolina Garcia Jayaram President & Chief Executive Officer 2100 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD, MIAMI, FL 11137 T: 195.377.1140 11.800.920.278T YOUNGARTS.ORG locust ro ects October 11, 2017 Honorable Mayor Thomas Regaledo & Members of the City Commission City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33131 RE: Art in Public Places — Public Art Requirements for Private Development Over the past twenty years, Miami has exponentially evolved into a vibrant arts community. The arts have benefitted the region economically and been a key player in the transformation and activation of previously neglected areas in the community. Today, Miami is a destination for visitors and residents alike with its highly successful art fairs stimulated by Art Basel, excellent private and public collections that are accessible to the public, and thriving arts organizations, large and small. As Executive Director at Locust Projects, I wholeheartedly endorse the City of Miami's Art in Public Places Ordinance and urge the City Commission to make this ordinance a reality. As the former Assistant Director/Curator at the Miami Art Museum (1994-2006) and working as a curator and arts administrator in such cities as Philadelphia, Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC, I have seen the transformative effect of the arts on the lives of citizens and communities stimulating connectivity and conversations that inspire news ways of seeing and thinking about the world around us. As the Executive Director of an artist -centric organization, I urge you to support this ordinance as we look forward to the opportunities this program can bring to artists in the community, the direct and indirect ways it can support artists who are at the heart of our creative workforce, and how it will push the ambitions, ideas, practices and professional growth of those living and working here as well as introducing the community to creative and innovative artist projects by those living beyond the city. With this ordinance, Miami has the opportunity to be a leading 21 " century arts and culture city. The forward -thinking embrace of the insertion of art into our everyday lives supporting creatives and celebrating the diverse cultures and communities that make Miami home, is embodied by the Art in Public Places ordinance. Please give it your support. Sincerely, Lorie Mertes, Executive Director, Locust Projects Francisco Herretes 6234 NE 2nd Ave Miami, FL 33138 October 12, 2017 Mayor Tomas Regalado Chairman Keon Hardemon Commissioners Wifredo Gort, Ken Russell, Frank Carollo and Francis Suarez City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 RE: SR.1 / PZ.1 - Amendment to Art in Public Places Ordinance Dear Mayor and Commissioners, Id. • II. •11 V I am writing in support of items SR.1 and PZ.1 regarding the amendment to the Art in Public Places ordinance. I am a city AIPP board member, but the opinions I write are my own and in no way are intended to represent the opinions of the board. Firstly, I would like to thank the Mayor and Commissioners for their insights regarding art in public places during this long process and your persistent suggestions and recommendations that have made for a much better piece of legislation for the City of Miami. In retrospect, the delays have been productive to the overall result. would like to thank the Mayor for his support of this legislation and the incredible work from the Planning & Zoning Department in general and Efren Nunez and Director Francisco Garcia in particular. They have put in a lot of effort and have, in my opinion, created a worthy public art plan for a world -class city. City Manager Daniel Alfonso and Assistant City Manager Zerry Ihekwaba, as well as everyone in the City Attorney's office have been instrumental to this important process. The Mayor should be proud of his team. From the start, Commissioner Gort in District 1, has always expressed his concern that the public art process and selection should not delay the building permit process, which is already lengthy enough. The Builder's Association of South Florida (BASF) agreed, and as a result of Commisisoner Gort's recommendations, the ordinance was modified so that the art component of a project now needs to be approved (or fee paid) prior to the certificate of occupancy instead of the earlier temporary certificate of occupancy. This allows ample time for developers to work with staff on their art component without delaying the process, ultimately saving time and money, and promoting development. Commissioner Russell in District 2 has championed for historic preservation, arguing in favor of funding and for HEPB input and supervision of historic grants. As a result, now all grants are reviewed by HEPB for their recommendation and 10% of the AIPP fund is allocated to historic preservation, potentially adding over $1 M annually for historic districts. Commissioner Russell was also the first to point out that without this "Phase 2" of the ordinance establishing the art requirement on private construction, the program would be massively underfunded. With only "Phase 1" as approved in January for public development, the total fund would only receive $440,000 for purchase and maintenance of art, historic preservation, non-profit and educational funding and the administration of the program; hardly effective at all. Instead, with the approval of "Phase 2" today, the fund may receive up to $14M per year, enough for significant investments and considerable returns in the future. Representing District 3, Commissioner Carollo has been steadfast in arguing for a higher threshold and a tiered approach for the art requirement, which would protect smaller developers. Commisioners Hardemon and Suarez and the BASF agreed, and as a result of Commissioner Carollo's persistence, the recent version of the AIPP ordinance raised the starting threshold from $1 M to $3M, and created a tiered program that requires less from smaller developers and increases for larger developers whose projects have greater effect on the city. Commissioner Suarez in District 4 has expressed several concerns regarding the ordinance, showing that he is studiously reviewing the legislation and approaching its effects and consequences from many angles. As he has stated, his main concern is that we are currently in a real estate down cycle, and that it may be better to wait for the next up cycle to revisit the AIPP requirement on private development. He is also concerned that this requirement is an additional cost on construction, which may depress development even further. As a (very) small developer myself, I certainly understand we should be considerate with our bottom line. The last thing we want is to depress property prices and economic conditions in our city, and Commissioner Suarez is right in that regard. However, after researching I believe AIPP cannot be viewed as just an added cost to construction. In fact, public art makes the city better in many socioeconomic ways, and measurably improves property prices, even in the very short term, which may act as catalyst for the up cycle the commissioner is rightfully concerned about. Commissioner Suarez mentioned my comments at the last commission in June, saying he was influenced by what I had said and asking for economic data regarding programs like these and property values, and building value through public art in general. Please see attached a detailed study from the Royal Society of Open Science in England "Quantifying the link between Art and property prices in urban neighbourhoods", concluding that "... relative increases in mean residential property prices are significantly associated with higher proportions of 'art' images per neighbourhood." Also attached is a PDF file with a summary of excerpts from various studies and press articles about how public art can be a creator of significant and measureable value for Miami. Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Houston, Philadelphia, Boston and Atlanta, among many other great cities in the USA and abroad, have all had great success with their public art programs, bringing Billions of dollars in revenue into their local economies and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. As the Urban Land Institute explains, "dollar for dollar, the investments in public art may provide the highest financial returns of any funds committed" to a project. As a property and business owner in District 5, I want to thank Chairman Keon Hardemon for his support to this legislation. I believe he truly understands how a well -run public art program can benefit developing communities like Little Haiti, Overtown, Liberty City, and also Flagami, Shennandoah, Allapattah, East Little Havana, etc. However, he challenged the low $1M threshold, which he called a "poison pill" and argued for a tiered approach in defense of small developers, and argued for exemptions for affordable and workforce housing; all of which have been incorporated to the current proposal and made it a better piece of legislation. He was the only negative vote in January because he was opposed to the bifurcation of the ordinance, with good reason. I absolutely agree that bifurcating is a serious risk, but at least it has allowed us to inherit the AIPP program from the County, create the mechanics, name our board, organize the RFQ for the master plan, and stand prepared for what will hopefully, with your vote today, become a fantastic investment for the City of Miami. Quoting Meg Bartholomew from the Guardian, "The real value of art is so much more than the return on investment or revenue generated. From the impact on our health to the way it makes us think or feel, the true value of art is of course immeasurable." Sincerely, Franncisco etes Attachments: (2) Public Art is a Creator of Significant and Measurable Value for Miami • "Is there an association between art and changes in the economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods? While the popular media and policymakers commonly believe this to be the case, quantitative evidence remains lacking. Here, we use metadata of geotagged photographs uploaded to the popular imagesharing platform Flickr to quantify the presence of art in -London neighbourhoods. We estimate the presence of art in neighbourhoods by determining the proportion of Flickr photographs which have the word 'art' attached. We compare this with the relative gain in residential properly prices for each Inner London neighbourhood. We find that neighbourhoods which have a higher proportion of 'art' photographs also have greater relative gains in property prices." "A comparison of the relative change of mean residential property price and the proportion of 'art' images suggests that the higher the proportion of 'art' images, the greater the relative gain in house price, as measured by the change in rank of mean residential property prices." "This is initial evidence in support of our hypothesis that the presence of art is associated with improvements in economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods." "... relative increases in mean residential property prices are significantly associated with higher proportions of 'art' images per neighbourhood." Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe, Tobias Preis and Helen Susannah Moat, March 2016. Quantifying the link between art and property prices in urban neighbourhoods. Royal Society Open Science. • " The big reveal for real estate industry growth is artwork. The real estate industry is replete with metrics, values and appraisals, long on sales lingo and resale gains, and focused on development, redevelopment and realty renewal opportunities. However, the money metric patois of 21 st century development is artwork. Artwork, particularly contemporary art, has sky- high appreciation and unprecedented resale value according to auction data publicly available and statistical compilers." " Resale value is only one calculable metric in development decisions to use public art as part of the project. Some public art plans offer financial or tax incentives. Artwork, when art is positioned as a cache, has - in addition to monetary value with potential market appreciation — many immeasurable financial benefits, as well as non -economic, value- added attractants for the developer. These include appeal to future buyers, anchor tenants and other lessees, as well as bolstering, or revitalizing the economic health and identity of the locality (which in turn, may spur more development, business uptake, and prospering sub - economies). Public art: - attracts buyers, anchors and tenants - brands buildings and projects - forges or revitalizes community identity - functions as a crucible for media and publicity - creates social media buzz, trending and cross -promotion - enhances developers as good community citizens - enables liaisons with the creative community' Alexandra Darraby. July 2014. Public Art: Eye of Beholder and Pocket of Developer. • "Expensive high-rises and street art may seem like an unlikely combination, but in Chelsea, the two are experiencing a symbiotic relationship as legal, commissioned murals contribute to a rise in property values. The market value of a nearby building that sports two Kobra murals increased from $880,000 in the tax year 2010-11 to $2,075,000 in the tax year 2014-15, with the murals painted in the summer of 2012. "I'd say [the murals] probably contributed about 10 to 15 percent of the growth," said Michael Rosser, a licensed real estate salesperson at the Chelsea branch of the CORE Group." Alanna Weissman, October 8, 2014. Street art contributes to property values, neighborhood character in Chelsea. The Midtown Gazzette. • "Today, community leaders around the country know that a city enriched with public art, and one that offers cultural amenities, is a city that attracts business. When Volkswagen chose to build in Chattanooga, the arts environment was a deciding factor. According to the city's Imagine Chattanooga 20/20 Cultural Plan, "It was the intangibles in Chattanooga that became the tangibles and gave the community the edge. Chattanooga offered something more and arts and culture was a part of the package." "The economic impact of public art has been quantified in communities across the country as well as internationally. "Creative State Michigan," a report from the art promotion group ArtServe Michigan, found that for every $1 invested in nonprofit arts and cultural groups in 2009, those organizations pumped more than $51 into Michigan's economy through spending on rent, programs, travel and salaries." "According to an analysis initiated by the Metro Atlanta Arts and Culture Coalition, Georgia nonprofit arts and culture organizations generated more than $722 million in revenue in 2009 and contributed more than $386 million to the Georgia economy." "Public art has both intrinsic and instrumental value. intrinsic value refers to the aesthetic value of any work of art. Instrumental value refers to the ability of art to educate, stimulate commerce, increase real estate value, build better citizens, increase tourism and provide other benefits." "Public art is fundamental to the magnetism of Athens. However, the impact of public art on the economy is not only about attracting non-residents. It is the city and its residents who will benefit the most because of the Classic City's appeal. Sharr Prohaska, associate professor at New York University's Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism, and Sports Management says, "Anything in the arts will bring visitors, but it's also for the people who live there every day. It's a win -win for the community." John R. Caldwell, March 21, 2012. Caldwell: Public art has positive economic impact. Online Athens. • "By choice or by law, commercial real estate developers are generous patrons of the arts. Most public art created today is funded by CRE development. Some developers voluntarily budget for public art as part of their project costs, but most earmark funds because city ordinances require them to. Does the developer see a return on investment in either case? Developer Stephen Ross seems to be banking on it. The centerpiece of his ambitious Hudson Yards Redevelopment Project in Manhattan is a monumental sculpture by renowned artist Thomas Heatherwick. Featuring 16 skyscrapers, the Hudson Yards project is invariably described in superlative terms as the largest private development in New York history; the largest ever mixed use development; and the biggest debut of office space since the completion of 1 World Trade Center. So it makes sense that Ross would put in one of the most expensive works of public art in the world in hopes of establishing a must -see attraction at the heart of his development, according to the Wall Street Journal. The developer himself envisions a new icon for the city. Across several of its properties, Brookfield Office Properties which develops, owns and manages office properties in the downtown cores of major cities in the U.S., Canada and Australia is enriching the experience of tenants and communities through free public art in the accessible parts of its buildings, with works on display in Houston, New York, Denver and Los Angeles as well as international cities." BBG Commercial Real Estate Advisors, February 25, 2015. How Public Art Affects Real Estate Values. • "Perhaps this isn't so strange; after all, the first public art programs started as part of the New Deal, with the formation of the Treasury Department's Section of Painting and Sculpture in 1934. This program commissioned artists through competitions to create high -quality work for federal buildings, mainly post offices. One percent of each federal building's cost was to be reserved for artistic decoration. The reason: to build morale, create jobs (you need someone to construct, install and maintain these often enormous works) and reduce crime. "Public art is a public good," explains Darren Walker, vice president of the Rockefeller Foundation and vice chairman of the Foundation for Art and Preservation in Embassies. "It is the embodiment of the American ideal; in spirit and deed it is a reflection of our democratic values." It is also, strangely, economically viable, despite its often high price tag. New York's Waterfalls cost about $15.5 million; they brought in, according to the Public Art Fund, $69 million for the city. "There are 1,400 cultural institutions in New York that [collectively] bring in more than $6 billion to the economy," says Freedman. "More than 40,000 people are employed in the arts, and the arts bring in 25 million annual visitors. I think there is clearly an economic impact." (Perhaps this explains all the smiling faces: most of them are tourists.)" But we don't just need sculpture gardens and curved steel structures for the money —we need public art because it improves our quality of life, because it makes us stop and open our eyes, because it transforms New York's East River from this banal tributary you have to cross every day to something that ignites conversation, to something sublime. "It is impossible to have a society that is civil and educated without public art," says Walker. "It lifts up humanity and challenges the individual who encounters it to think differently about the world." Raquel Laneri, May 5, 2009. Why We Love --And Need --Public Art. Forbes. • "More visitors, better productivity and free publicity are an easy return on investment for art. Property developers and city planners are taking notice. Art is an underestimated force that can have a significant impact on the economy — not so much from the direct expenditure on the art work itself, but on the increased revenue generated from more visitors, better productivity and free publicity that is attracted to the culture that art creates. When approving the development application for One Central, the City of Sydney required the developer to sign up to a voluntary planning agreement to spend a required amount on public art in the project. The developer spent four times that required amount. Why would they do that? Art is an easy return on investment when seeking to differentiate and activate a project. It also can provide invaluable publicity for both cities and projects. A recent mixed -use transit oriented development in LA commissioned a mural for a wall facing a public intersection that was such a sensation it hit the cover of the LA Times. When a developer can spend over half a million dollars on a marketing campaign, this kind of coverage is priceless, reaching a whole new audience of potential buyers. The real value of art is so much more than the return on investment or revenue generated. From the impact on our health to the way it makes us think or feel, the true value of art is of course immeasurable." Meg Bartholomew, June 20, 2017. Public art: the feel -good hit that makes us linger - and spend money. The Guardian. • "The most comprehensive study of the economic impact of arts investment - at least for the nonprofit arts sector - was conducted by Americans for the Arts, a national nonprofit organization with offices in New York City and Washington, D.C. In its most recent report (Arts and Economic Prosperity III), the organization concludes that "the key lesson from Arts and Economic Prosperity III is that communities that invest in the arts reap the additional benefits of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those communities to compete in our 21st-century creative economy." The numbers impress: the nonprofit arts and culture industry generates $166.2 billion in economic activity annually and is responsible for 5.7 million full-time jobs in the United States. Moreover, this industry generates nearly $30 billion in revenue for federal, state, and local governments every year. When one considers that these three levels of government spend less than $4 billion annually to support the arts, one cannot help but be impressed with the more than seven -to -one leverage." "In 1989, Denver was a cultural backwater. That year, voters approved creation of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) and a 0.01 percent sales tax that was intended to boost the city's pro>le in the arts. The results from this dedicated revenue source have been dramatic, as reported by the 2008 Colorado Business Committee for the Arts' Economic Activity Study of Metro Denver Culture: The $42 million in 2007 SCFD funds catalyzed nearly $1.7 billion in total economic activity in the region: - Nearly $331 million was generated from cultural tourism; and - Taxes paid in 2007 from arts, cultural, and scientific nonprofits totaled $21.3 million. - Denver now consistently ranks as one of the most desirable places in the country to live, and arts and cultural offerings are always cited as one of the most important contributors." David Malmuth, February 2, 2011. Investing in Arts Development. Urban Land Institute • "Art and expressions of culture can no longer be considered pricey or optional additions to major real estate projects. "Culture is the new currency," stated Shaheen Sadeghi, president and CEO, LAB Holding, at a 2015 ULI Fall Meeting opening general session. "It's the way you think and interact with your community." Jessica Goldman Srebnick, CEO of Miami -based Goldman Properties, added, "Art is a game -changer." Srebnick's late father, Tony Goldman, "saw things that other people don't see," she explained. "We always integrate art into our projects. Why surround yourself with sterility when you can surround yourself with something fascinating? As developers, we have the largest canvases in the world." Leslie Braunstein, October 19, 2015. Transforming Cities through Art and Culture. Urban Land Institute • "Public art in transit -oriented developments presents a valuable marketing opportunity, both for public agencies and private developers. Dollar for dollar, investments in public art may provide the highest financial returns of any funds committed to an aspect of a transit project. The intangible benefits of public art - aesthetic beauty, cultural interpretation, education, inspiration, and general improvement of the urban environment - are well-known. But because these are considered "soft" benefits, they are sometimes dismissed as a low priority, especially during challenging economic times. However, experiences in Los Angeles show that public art can be a source of publicity and cash income, as well as beauty." "Investments in public art are not just for cultural or aesthetic purposes; they also can have a positive bottom -line economic impact, with material financial benefits to their owners. Good art is good business." Dan Rosenfeld, May 28, 2012. The Financial Case for Public Art. Urban Land Institute • #1: Economic development is enhanced by concentrating creativity through both physical density and human capital. By locating firms, artists, and cultural facilities together, a multiplier effect can result. #2: The recognition of a community's arts and culture assets (and the marketing of them) is an important element of economic development. Creatively acknowledging and marketing community assets can attract a strong workforce and successful firms, as well as help sustain a positive quality of life. #3: Arts and cultural activities can draw crowds from within and around the community. Increasing the number of visitors as well as enhancing resident participation helps build economic and social capital. #4: Planners can make deliberate connections between the arts and culture sector and other sectors, such as tourism and manufacturing, to improve economic outcomes by capitalizing on local assets. Members of some sectors of today's workforce seek certain characteristics in the places they choose to live. Places with entertainment options, public interaction, lively streets, and recreational and educational amenities are preferred, along with arts and culture activities and amenities. Leaders in the field of planning and economic development are developing noteworthy, creative approaches to making places of any scale more satisfying to this workforce, while increasing economic viability and competitiveness. M. Christine Dwyer and Kelly Ann Beavers PhD. How the Arts and Culture Sector Catalyzes Economic Vitality. American Planning Association. • "The sign of a great state or a great city is the strength of its cultural life," said J. Clayton Hering, president of Northwest Business for Culture and the Arts. "Our non-profit arts groups are a powerful economic force, and act as a magnet for tourism. Even more important, they help educate and inspire our citizens and stimulate creativity in the workplace and in our schools." According to research conducted by New York -based organizations Alliance for the Arts and R.Dot, nonprofit and commercial arts activity generates $17.7 billion annually for the Big Apple. In 2001, nonprofit arts in the city spent an estimated $6.2 billion. This figure is the total of operating expenditures ($4.85 billion); capital expenditures ($.4 billion); and expenditures of people who came to New York City as art venue participants ($.96 billion). These figures do not include spending by out-of-town visitors coming to the city to enjoy art activities and the ripple effect of their expenditures. Project for Public Spaces, Jan 1, 2009. How Art Economically Benefits Cities. "The year before he started [Rehm Emanuel], tourism in the Windy City had notched 39 million visitors. By 2020, he said at the time, he wanted 50 million. It was an ambitious goal, but by 2016, the city cleared a record 54 million arrivals - and it's on track to exceed that number again in 2017. (By contrast, New York hosted nearly 62 million tourists in 2016.) "We hit it within three years," Emanuel told Bloomberg. "So I said OK, let's go to 55 million by 2020!" A major public art initiative has brought free performances to every park in the city. Emanuel is spending $4 million this year to add 120 new sculpture works by prominent and up-and-coming local artists. A major effort to spruce up public transportation systems has also installed public artworks in many of Chicago's CTA stations, turning them into bona fide gallery spaces for the masses. The arts, it turns out, are what's unlocking Chicago's future. "Culture is a venue for tourism, economic development, and public enrichment" Nikki Ekstein, September 22, 2017. Chicago Is More Popular With Tourists Than Ever. Bloomberg. Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypubiishing.org/ on May 5, 2016 ROYAL SOCIETY OPEN SCIENCE rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org Research CrossMark pork far update, Cite this article: Seresinhe CI, Preis T, Moat HS. 2016 Quantifying the link between art and property prices in urban neighbourhoods, R. Soc. open sci. 3:160146. http:l/dx.doi.org/10.1098frsos.160146 a Received: 29 February 2016 Accepted: 29 March 2016 Subject Category: Mathematics Subject Areas: computer modelling and simulation Keywords: urban economics, urban gentrification, art, online data, data science, computational social science Author for correspondence: Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe e-mail: c.seresinhe@warwick.ac.uk One contribution to a special feature 'City analytics: mathematical modelling and computational analyties for urban behaviour: Electronic supplementary material is available at http:fldx.doi.org110.10981rsos.160146 or via http:llrsos.royalsocietypublishi ng.org. THE ROYAL SOCIETY PUBLISHING Quantifying the link between art and property prices in urban neighbourhoods Chanuki Illushka Seresinhe, Tobias Preis and Helen Susannah Moat Data Science Laboratory, Behavioural Science, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry C447AL, UK TP, 0000-0001-9185-0892; HSM, 0000-0001-8974-9277 Is there an association between art and changes in the economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods? While the popular media and policymakers commonly believe this to be the case, quantitative evidence remains lacking. Here, we use metadata of geotagged photographs uploaded to the popular image - sharing platform Flickr to quantify the presence of art in London neighbourhoods. We estimate the presence of art in neighbourhoods by determining the proportion of Flickr photographs which have the word 'art' attached. We compare this with the relative gain in residential property prices for each Inner London neighbourhood. We find that neighbourhoods which have a higher proportion of 'art' photographs also have greater relative gains in property prices. Our findings demonstrate how online data can be used to quantify aspects of the visual environment at scale and reveal new connections between the visual environment and crucial socio-economic measurements. 1. Background The story of art playing a central role in the transformation of deprived urban neighbourhoods is a compelling one that has greatly engaged popular media and policymakers alike. Researchers of urban policy maintain that the creative industries are key to building a successful city economy [1,21. Governments around the world make significant investments in the arts in order to incentivize gentrification and regeneration in specific neighbourhoods [3-51. However, quantitative evidence linking the presence of art with changing economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods is lacking. Several studies focus on specific neighbourhoods that fit this narrative, rather than carrying out broader investigations © 2016 The Authors. Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licensesfbyl4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on May 5, 2016 to determine whether this pattem holds in general [6-10]. Other studies use broad definitions to examine the role that artists or creative people play in the economic improvement of urban neighbourhoods, thereby including groups of people with differing agendas [11]. For example, studies often include professions such as engineering, mathematics and computer science (2,12], or categories such as 'Architectural Services' and 'Dance Companies' [13]. Other research attempting to use art galleries and arts organizations to quantify arts -led redevelopment in urban neighbourhoods suggests that once art institutions have moved into a neighbourhood, redevelopment is already taking place [14,15] or a high level of income is already present [1b]. A key challenge for studies to date has been the identification of a reliable metric that quantifies the presence of art in an area. Traditional studies have relied upon categories of creative occupations [2,12,13] or the presence of art institutions [14-16], which are potentially constraining measures that may not accurately capture the level of art present in a particular area. Online activity could help us trace the presence of art in neighbourhoods in a less restrictive fashion. Today, we have access to a new source of information on human behaviour: patterns of activity on platforms such as Google, Flickr, Twitter and Wikipedia, which have already led to several insights into real - world human behaviour [17-32]. Specifically, such studies demonstrate that we can use these new data sources to quantify aspects of human behaviour that have previously been too costly, time-consuming or awkward to measure. For example, Seresinhe, Preis and Moat found a link between scenic environments and people's wellbeing [30], by analysing novel crowdsourced data garnered through an online game called Scenic -or -Not, alongside data from the Census for England and Wales, Using this online game, over 1.5 million ratings of images covering 95% of Great Britain at a granularity of 1 km2 have already been collected. Here, we propose to create an indicator of the presence of art by exploiting photographs uploaded to the popular image sharing website Flickr. We focus on London as our area of study, as artists have long thought to be changing the economic landscape of London from James Whistler and Oscar Wilde in Chelsea, to the 1990s 'Britart' movement in Hoxton [33]. 2. Material and methods We draw on images uploaded to Flickr between 2004, the year Flickr was released to the public, and 2013. As we are primarily interested in observing the presence of art in urban areas, we only include images geotagged as being located in Inner London. In order to identify and separate areas within Inner London for analysis, we use the system of postcodes maintained by the Royal Mail. Postcodes are alphanumeric references comprising an 'outward code' of two to four characters and an 'inward code' of three characters (e.g. CV4 7AL). Postcodes beginning with NW N, W, WC, E, EC, SW and SE are deemed as being located in Inner London. As the inward code is specific to a single section of a street, we only use the outward code of the postcode (e.g. 'EC1')—the postcode district —to locate neighbourhoods in Inner London. To ensure consistency between the size of postcode areas, in the EC and WC areas, we aggregate the postcode districts by ignoring the further subdivision created by the additional Letter in the outward code. For example, the postcodes 'EC1A' and 'EC1M' are considered part of the area 'EC1', and data for these postcodes are therefore, analysed together. When photographers upload images to Flickr, they can include metadata such as a title, description and tags (e.g. 'art', 'sky', "modern'). We deem a photograph to be an 'art' -related image if there is a mention of 'art' in this textual metadata associated with Flickr photographs for each Inner London postcode. In this analysis, we restrict ourselves to dassifying images using textual data only. Future analysis could consider image recognition techniques to classify images as 'art' -related [34], or could work with citizen scientists to determine whether images contain art, following the example of such initiatives as Galaxy Zoo where volunteers classify images of galaxies [35]. In order to create an indicator of 'art' -related images, we search all the textual elements of each image, including the title, description and tags, using the regular expression '\<art\>', which ensures that only the whole word 'art' is found. We note that in regular expressions in R, the symbols '\<' and '\>' match the empty string at the beginning and end of a word. While this process ensures we capture the word 'art' and no other words that contain 'art' (such as 'apart'), this method does have a minor drawback in that words such as 'arty' or art -related compound words that do not have spaces (such as 'streetart') are not discovered. We count only a single occurrence of 'art' for each image, even if it has 'art' mentioned several times in the metadata, rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 3:160146 Downloaded from http:llrsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgi on May 5, 2016 proportion of `art' images on Flickr (0.00049,0.0028] (0.0028,0.0049] (0.0049,0.0058] (0.0058,0.008] I(0.008,0.011] (0.011,0.016] (0.016,0.028] (0.028,0.14] N10 `Muswell Hill gum art' © Niecieden SW3 'Me at Decode' © dave pattern E2 'White Canvas' © Tim Crook 5E1 ` 12 08 13 Tate Modem- Tino Sehgal 06.jpg' © Graham Coreil-Allen Figurel. Proportion ofart' photographs uploaded to Fikkr from 2004 to 2013 in Inner London postcode areas. We deem a photograph as 'art' related if there is a mention of'art' in the photograph's textual metadata. As tourist areas in London will attract more images on Flickr than other areas, we divide the number af'art' images by the total number of images for each postcode for the whole time period (2004- 2013), in order to calculate the proportion of'art' photographs per Inner London neighbourhood. We define neighbourhoods on the basis of postcodes, as explained in detail in the main text. With this measure, we find that the proportion of'art' related photographs is highest in East and Southeast London, with some heightened activity in Southwest and North London. All photos from Flickr are licensed for re- use under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-5hareAlike 2.0 Generic Licence (https:flcreativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-sa/2.01). Postal Boundaries © GeoLytix copyright and database right 2012. Contains ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012. Contains Royal Mail data © Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012. Contains National Statistics data © Crown copyright and database right 2012. Certain areas in London will attract more images on Flickr than others (e.g. tourists generate many images of notable locations such as Big Ben and the London Eye). Therefore, in order to meaningfully compare one area with another, we divide the number of 'art' images by the total number of images for each postcode for the whole time period (2004-2013), in order to create a normalized indicator of 'art' per area. We underline that with this approach, images that are in reality 'art' images but do not have the word 'art' in their textual metadata will not be identified. In addition, images which have the word 'art' in their metadata but do not in reality contain any art will count towards our indicator. Indeed, our indicator is susceptible to any outside influence which may cause photographers to upload a higher proportion of photographs with the word 'art' in the textual metadata—for example, the presence of more photographers who are interested in art, rather than an increased presence of art. With these limitations in mind, our indicator allows us to estimate which neighbourhoods in London may have relatively more 'art', or photographers interested in art, over this time period. Visual inspection • rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open xi. 3:160146 Downloaded from http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on May 5, 2016 of the proportion of 'art' images in Inner London postcodes reveals that art is most prevalent in East and Southeast London, with some sparse heightened activity in Southwest, North and East Central (figure 1). Next, as one indicator of the economic transformation of Inner London neighbourhoods, we use a measure of the relative change in mean residential property prices. We track residential property prices in Inner London using data from residential property sales registered at the Land Registry from 2004 to 2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/price-paid-data). To understand the relative increase in house price in comparison with other areas, we first calculate the mean residential property price per Inner London postcode. (Note that as residential property prices have only been recorded since 2013 for the newly created postcode 'E20', this area has not been included in the analysis.) We then rank the postcodes according to mean residential property price, where a rank of 1 indicates the highest mean residential property price. Finally, we calculate the relative changes in property price by determining the difference between the 2013 rank and the 2004 rank for each Inner London postcode. Thus, negative changes in rank signify an area becoming relatively more expensive, and positive changes in rank signify an area becoming relatively less expensive. We note that other measures of change in house price are strongly correlated with the average house prices in an area. For example, areas with the highest mean house price are those with the highest change in mean house price. This is not true for change in rank mean house price. An alternative approach to resolving this issue would be to normalize changes in mean house price, by dividing the change by the original mean house price for an area. 3. Results Visual inspection of the change in rank of mean residential property prices reveals that areas in central East and Southeast London have become relatively more expensive while areas in outer East London and North London have become relatively less expensive (figure 2a). A comparison of the relative change of mean residential property price and the proportion of 'art' images suggests that the higher the proportion of 'art' images, the greater the relative gain in house price, as measured by the change in rank of mean residential property prices (figure 2b). A Kendall rank correlation test provides further evidence of this relationship (r = —0.23, p <0.001, n = 119, Kendall's rank correlation). This is initial evidence in support of our hypothesis that the presence of art is associated with improvements in economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods. However, in general, measurements of social and physical characteristics can be clustered in geographical space, and thus spatially dependent, where nearby observations may have similar values simply due to their proximity [36,37J. We test whether such spatial clustering exists by first building a linear regression model to predict relative change in mean residential property price from the proportion of 'art' images. We determine which postcode areas are neighbours based on whether they share any boundary points, using boundary -line data for Great Britain from the Ordinance Survey (https: / /www. ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html). Neighbours are defined in a binary fashion: either two areas are neighbours, or they are not. Using this neighbour structure, we confirm that our model contains measurements clustered in space by running a Moran's I test on the residuals of the linear regression model (Moran's I = 0.281, p <0.001, n =119). The presence of clustering in the data means that we cannot guarantee that our observations are independent, a key requirement of linear regression. In order to address the problem of spatial autocorrelation in the residuals of our basic linear regression model, we build a conditional auto regressive (CAR) model. The CAR model is a linear regression model which additionally captures the spatial dependency between the error term for each area and the error terms for the neighbouring areas. Further details of this model can be found in the electronic supplementary material. This CAR model is used to predict relative change in mean residential property price using the proportion of 'art' images. We find that areas with higher proportions of 'art' images also have greater relative gains in house price, as measured by the change in rank of mean residential property prices (i3 = —90.92, p = 0.040, n =119). We note that a small number of areas, such as Shoreditch (E2) and Dalston (E9) which are commonly thought to be associated with arts -led redevelopment, exhibit particularly high proportions of 'art' - related photographs, as well as high relative gains in house price (figure 2b). We also find that the residuals from our model are not normally distributed and exhibit a slight skew. To ensure that the presence of this handful of cases and the distributional properties of our residuals are not driving our rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc. open sci. 3:160146 Downloaded from httpalrsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on May 5, 2016 (a) (b) change in rank of mean house prices relatively more expensive change in rank mean house prices I(-52,-8] (-8,-4] (-4,-1 ] (-1,1] (1,4] II (4,9] • (9,23] relatively less expensive —20 - —l0 - 0- 10- 20 - relatively more expensive • • • E8 • 5E15+�SE22 E9• •• • SE8 • •-SE14 • • •• • SE5 SEII • i • oN•t5 EC2 • •w•• •s N16•r 1SE1 ees• •• SW •SW3 •El rN • a •••SW1W1 5�1 • • •• •• •• SE9 •• • • tree •W5 ar • N• E3 N •t • • • • • • relatively less expensive E2 • postcode area • E • EC & WC • N&NW • SE&SW • w 0 Figure 2. (Caption Overleaf.) 0.05 0.10 proportion of 'art' images on ,Flick, 0.20 results, we run a bootstrap analysis on our CAR model [38], in which we compare the original regression coefficient with a bootstrapped distribution of regression coefficients. To carry out this bootstrap analysis, we resample the residuals of our CAR model 10000 times. We use these bootstrapped residuals to generate bootstrapped changes in rank of mean residential property prices. Finally, we build CAR models to regress the bootstrapped changes in property price on the rsos.royalsocietypublishing.arg R. Soc. open sci. 3:160146 Downloaded from http:lirsos.royalsocietypublishing.orgl on May 5, 2016 Figure 2. (Overleaf.) Relative change of mean residential property prices and the relation to 'art' photographs in Inner London postcode areas. (a) Areas in the eastern part of Central London and Southeast London have become relatively more expensive while areas in East and North London have become relatively less expensive, Property pricesaretracked using data from residential property sales registered with the Land Registry from 2004 to 2013, Mean residential property prices per Inner London neighbourhood are ranked, where 1 is the highest mean residential property price. The change in rank is calculated over the entire time period, and, therefore, represents the 2013 rank minus the 2004 rank. Negative changes in rank (highlighted in red) signify areas becoming relatively more expensive, while positive changes in rank {highlighted in blue} signify areas becoming relatively less expensive. Postal boundaries O Geolytix copyright and database right 2012. Contains ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database right 2012, Contains Royal Mail data O Royal Mail copyright and database right 2012. Contains National Statistics data O Crown copyright and database right 2012. (b) A comparison of the proportion of 'art' related photographs for each Inner London postcode area and the change in rank of mean residential property prices shows that such areas have greater relative gains in residential property prices. (Note that the axis for the change in rank of mean residential property prices is reversed,) Areas thought to be associated with art -led economic development such as 5horeditch (E2) and Dalston (E9) dearly stand out as having risen in rank in terms of house prices, as well as containing a high proportion of'art'-related photographs. We see that the same observation can be made about a number of areas that are not frequently discussed in the media in terms of art -led gentrification, such as Vauxhall (SE11), Lewisham (SE8) and Lambeth (SE5). proportions of 'art' photographs in each area, which remain the same as in the original CAR model, in order to create 10000 bootstrapped regression coefficients. A comparison of the original regression coefficient with the bootstrapped distribution of regression coefficients provides further evidence that areas which have a higher proportion of art images have greater relative gains in house price, as measured by the change in rank of mean residential property prices (mean bootstrapped fi =—116.74, 95% confidence interval [-209.85,—32.19], p = 0.044,10 000 bootstrap samples). 4. Conclusion We consider whether geotagged photographs uploaded to Flickr may help us quantify the link between art and the changing economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods. We quantify art in a neighbourhood using the proportion of 'art' photographs uploaded to Flickr. We compare our art indicator with the relative change in mean residential property price for each Inner London neighbourhood. Once we take clustering of spatial measurements into account, relative increases in mean residential property prices are significantly associated with higher proportions of 'art' images per neighbourhood. The nature, as well as the direction, of any causal link requires more investigation. Does the presence of art in an area remove a negative stigma attached to deprived neighbourhoods [9]? Do artists improve the aesthetics of deprived neighbourhoods through the creation of public artworks such as iconic sculptures and street murals [39-41]? Or, as people connected to the arts rely on socializing to advance their careers, are more 'arty' neighbourhoods attracting more cafes and restaurants, which in turn attract other groups of people to move into the neighbourhood 11,101? We highlight once more that it is also possible that 'self-selection' may be influencing our measure of art in a neighbourhood. As property prices increase, such neighbourhoods might attract more affluent people with interests in art, who might then be more likely to search for art in their neighbourhood which they can photograph and display on Flickr. We also underline that the study we present here considers only one aspect of urban economic change. Future studies may wish to extend this analysis to other related socio-economic variables. For example, as areas regenerate, artists themselves may be displaced 18,42,43]. Studies quantifying the presence of art over time alongside changing socio-economic factors could be vital in better understanding this process. Finally, the link between the presence of art and increasing property prices might be due to a combination of factors. It has previously been argued that in neighbourhoods where a restricted supply of housing is not pressuring property prices, artist -led economic development may not take place [11,44]. Caution should, therefore, be taken in singling out art alone as the driving force behind improving economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods. Our results suggest that art is indeed associated with improving economic conditions of urban neighbourhoods. More generally, our analysis demonstrates that data on our online interactions can provide novel measurements of the environment in which we live. These measurements reveal that the visual environment may affect aspects of our life as crucial as economic development. rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org R. Soc open sci. 3:160146 Downloaded from http:l/rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ an May 5, 2016 Data accessibility. Datasets used in this study are available via the Dryad Repository (http://dx.doi.org/10,5061/dryad. 6q5vf). AuthOrs'contributions. C.IS., T.P. and H.S.M. designed the study, collected the data, discussed the analysis and results and contributed to the text of the manuscript C.I.S. carried out the statistical analyses. All authors gave final approval for Publication. Competing interests. We have no competing interests. Funding. T.P. and H.S.M. acknowledge the support of the Research Councils UK grant EP/K039830/1. C.I.S. is grateful for support provided by a Warwick Business School Doctoral Scholarship. This research used Queen Marys MidPlus computational facilities, supported by QMUL Research -IT and funded by EPSRC grant no. EP/K000128/ 1. References 1. Currld E. 2007 The Warhol economy: how fashion art and music drive New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 2. Florida RL. 2002 The rise of the creative doss: and how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Bask Books. 3. Markusen A, Gadwa A.2010 Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: a review and research agenda.J. Plann. Friar, Res.29, 379-391. (doI:10.117710739456809354380) 4. Nino -demos AG.2013Fuzzy vibrancy: creative placemaking as ascendant US cultural policy. (ult. Trends 22,213-222. (dot10.1080/09548963. 2013.817653) 5. Vieario L, Martinez Monje PM. 2003 Another 'Guggenheim effect'? The generation of a potentially gentrifiable neighbourhood In Bilbao. Urban Stud. 40, 2383-2400. (do1:10.1080/ 0042098032000136129) 6, Cameron S, Coaffee J.2005 Art, gentrification and regeneration: from artist as pioneer to public arts Eur. J. Housing Pokey 5, 39-58. (dor:10.1030i 14616710500055687) 7. Cole D8.1987Artists and urban redevelopment. Geogr. Ree. 77,391-407. (d00.2307/214280) B. Ley D.2003 Artists, aest heticisat ion and the field of gentrification. Urban Stud. 40, 2527-2544. Idof10.1080/0042098032000136192) 9. Lloyd R.2002 Neo-Bohemia: art and neighborhood redevelopment in Chicago.1 Urban Aft 24, 517-532. (doi:10.1111/1467-9906.00141) 10. Molotdh H, lreskon M.2009 Changing art: SoHo, Chelsea and the dynamic geographyof galleries in New York City. Int.1, Urban Reg. Res. 33, 517-541. (doi:10.111i .1468-2427.2009.80866.x) 11. Markusen A,2006 Urban development and the politics of a creative dass: evidence from a study of artists. Environ. Plann. A 38,1921-1940. (dol:10.1068/a38179) 12. Sands G, Reese LA. 2013 Fair weather friends? The Impact of the creative class on the economic health of mid -sized US metropolitan areas,1990-2009. Cam& 1. Regions )son. Soc. 6, 71-91. (dot:10.1093f cJres/rss013) )3. Grodath C, Foster N,Murdoch J.2014 Gentrification and the artistic dividend: the role of the arts in neighborhood change.l. Am. Plana. ASSOC 80, 21-35.(dai:10.108W019443632014.928584) 14. Schuetz 1.2012 Causal agents or canaries in the coal mine? Art galleries and neighborhood change. In Creative communities: art works in economic development (ed. M Rushton), pp.12--35. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. 15. SchuetzJ.20)4Doart galleries stimulate redevelopment?J. Won Ecan.83, 59-72. (doi:10.1016/j.jue20t4.08.002) 16. Foster N, Grodach C, Murdoch J. in press. Neighborhood diversity, economic health, and the role of the arts.J.Urban Aff.(dd:l0.1IT1 uaf.122 8) 17. Alanyall M, Preis T, Moat HS. 2016 hacking protests using geotagged Flickr photographs. PIoS ONE 11, e0150466. (do1:10.1371/Joumal.pone, 01504661 )8. Barchlesi 0, Moat HS, Al is C, Bishop 5, Paisi.2015 Quantifying international travel flows using €iickr. P2oS ONE10, e0128470. (doi:10.1371/joumal. pone.0128470) 15. Batty M, 2013 Big data, smart cities and city planning, Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 3, 274-279. (da1:10,117D2043820613513390) 20. Botta F, Moat HS, Preis T. 2015 Quantifying crowd size with mobile phone and Twitter data. R. Soc. open 0012,150162. (do1:10.1098Jrsos.150162) 21. Choi H, Varian H. 7012 Predicting the present with Google Trends. iron. Res. 88, 2-9. idol:10.11114 1475-49 32 2012.00809 x l 22. Gratam M, Shelton T. 2013 Geography and the future of big data, big data and the future of geography. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 3, 255-761. (do1:10.1177/2043820613513121) 23. King G.2011 Ensuring the data -rich future of the social sciences. Science 331, 719-721. (do1:10.1126/ sdenre.11978721, 24. Laser 0 et al. 2009 Computational social science. Science 323, 721-723. (do1:10.1126Jsdenre.1167742) 25. Letchford A, Preis 1, Moat H5.2016 Quantifying the search behaviour of different demographic using Google Correlate. EMS ONE 11, e0149025. (do1:10,1371/Journal.pone.0149025) 26. Moat HS, Come C, Avakian A, Kenett DY, Stanley HE, Preis T.2013 Quantifying Wikipedia usage patterns before stock market moves. Sri. Rep 3, 1801. (do1:10.1038/srep018{1} 27. Moat HS. Preis T, 0livela CY, Liu C, (hater 6,2014 Using big data to predict collective behavior in the real world. Behan. Brain Sci. 37,92-93. Ido1:10.1017f 5014052581300181) 28. Preis T, Moat H5, Bishop SR, Treleaven P, Stanley HE. 2013Quantifying the digital traces of Hurricane Sandy on Flickr.5ri. Res 3, 3141. (do1:1010381srep 03141) 29, Press T, Moat HS, Stanley HE. 2013 Quantifying trading behavior in financial markets using Google Trends, 53. Rep. 3,1684. (doi:10.1038/srep 01684) 30. Seresinhe CI, Preis T, Moat H5.2015 Quantifying Me Impact of scenic environments on health. Sri. Rep. 5, 16899. Ida1:10.1038/srep16899) 31. Vespignani A.2009 Predicting the behavior of techno-soda! systems. Science 325, 425-428. (doi:10.1126/sdence.1171990) 32. 7altzAustwick M, O'Brien 0, Strano E, Inane M. 2013 The structure of spatial networks and communities in bicycle sharing systems. P1oS ONE8, e74685. Ido1:10.1371/Joutnal.pone.0074685) 33. The Economist. 2000 The geography of cool See http!/www,emnomist.cont/node/303114 (accessed 5 May 2015). 34. Crowley EJ, 2lsserman A.2014In search of art. Computer vision-ECCV 2014 workshops, pp. 54-70. 35. Linton Cl et al 2008 Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Man. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 389,1)79-1199. (dot:10.11110365.29662008. 13689x) 36. Bivand RS, Pebesma E, Gdmez-Rubin V. 7013 Applied spatial data onofysro with R. New York. NY: Springer. 37. Harris R, Sleight P, Webber R.2005 Geodemographics, 615, and neighbourhood targeting. Chichester, UK: Wiley. 38. EkonB,Tibshirani 8l.1994Anintroduction toMe Bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. 39. Deutsche R, Ryan CG.1984 The fine art of gentrification. October 31,111-191. (dol:102307/ 778358) 40. GradachC.2010Art spaces, public space, and the link to community development. Commun. Den. J. 45, 474-493. (d0110.1093/cdjlbsp018) 41. Mathews V. 2010 Aesthetfcizing space: art, gentrification and the city. Geogr. Compass 4, 660-675.(dol:t0.1111/1.1749-81982010.00331.v) 42. Bowler A, McBurney 8.1991 Gentrification and the Avant -Garde In New York's East Village: the good, the bad and the ugly. Theory Cult. Sor.8, 49-77. idol10.1177/026327691008004003) 43. Atkinson R.2000 The hidden costs of gentrification: displacement In central London. J. Housing Built Enwron.15, 326-307. (dai:10.1023/A:101012890 1782) 44. Stern M. 2003 Cuhure and the changing urban landscape: Philadelphia 1997-2002. In Paper presented at the Regional Science Association International meetings, 22 November. Philadelphia, PA: RSAI. 914091:E Dsuado )os d 6ao°6uigsiigndhaposipAoa sosi HISTORIC& ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION BOARD CITY OF MIAMI June 15,2017 Honorable Mayor Thomas Regalado & Members of the City Commission City of Miami 3500 pan American Drive Miarni, FL 33131 Re: Art in Public Places — Amendment File No. P . 2, 2099 and PZ 20, 1909 Public Art requirements.for Private Development Honorable Mayor Thomas Regalado and Members of the City Commission: On June b, 2017, the Historic and Environmental Preservation Board (HEPB) passed a motion authorizing the Chair to issue a letter of support to the proposed amendments to the Art in Public Places Ordinance scheduled before the City Commission on June 22, 2017. The Historic and Environmental Preservation Board is pleased to endorse said amendments, which will establish public art requirements for applicable private development projects within the City of Miami. These requirements will serve to advance the City's progressive leadership position in urban design, preservation and public art, while creating great public and private civic spaces. Furthermore, the HEPB is delighted to see that a portion of the Public Art fund will be designated for the restoration of our cultural resources and for public improvements within our designated historic districts. We cannot emphasize too much how valuable the dedicated funding source in this innovative ordinance will be to Historic Preservation efforts within the City of Miami. We urge you to support the proposed amendments to the Tong -overdue Art in Public Places Ordinance and we ask that you consider our proposed language to Subsection 3 of the Miami 21 and Subsection 4 of Chapter 62 of the proposed legislation as listed in page 2 of this letter. Sincerely, William E. Hopper, PhD Chair 444 SOUTHWEST 2 AVENUE, THIRD FLOOR, MFAMI, FL 33130 305.416,1400 - WWW MFAMFGov.c0M Page lof2 The AIPP Legislation has been in the works since 2015. The development community has had enough time to properly prepare for the implementation of the Public Art requirements. To allow for additional time for projects to be exempt would be counterproductive to the intent of the legislation. We have the opportunity now to have art integrated into the built environment while creating dynamic public and private civic spaces and building. Proposed text modifications: Section 3. This Ordinance shall not apply to any Development Projects that have a valid and effective Waiver, Warrant, Class 1I, Variance, Exception, Certificate of Appropriateness, Major Use Special Permit, Development Agreement, or Special Area Plan permit on the effective date of this Ordinance and which have not been substantially modified and that obtain a master building permit within twenty-four (24) months of the Effective Date of this Ordinance. If a decision on a Waiver, Warrant, Class I1, Variance, Exception, Certificate of Appropriateness, Major Use Special Permit, Development Agreement, or Special Area Plan permit has been timely appealed on the effective date of this ordinance to the PZAB, the City Commission, or a court of competent jurisdiction, the twenty four (24) month period to obtain a master building permit shall begin to run on the date of a final order on the appeal to the highest court of competent jurisdiction, or the issuance of the permit, whichever is later. and Zoning as defined by the application checklist included as an exhibit to this from its initial submittal, unle.is at the request of or proposal of the Nanning aad Zoning Department. Substantial modifications shall mean a material change such as but not limited to, Height, FLR/Lot Coverage, number of floors and or dwelling units, decreases in setbacks, open space, uses, and -parking spaces and does not increase the number of average daily trips from the site and or does not alter the location of any points of ingress, egress, access for vehicular and pedestrian patterns to the site. If substantially modified, the Ordinance shall apply to the entire project. Page 2 of 2 BISCAYNE\\ ASSOCIATION ,fri I M 0 June 8, 2017 Honorable Mayor Tomas Regalado and Members, City of Miami Commission 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Re: Proposed Amendment to Art in Public Places Ordinance 13114 Dear Mayor Regalado and City Commissioners, The MiMo Biscayne Association is pleased to express its support for the proposed amendment to Ordinance 13114, Art in Public Places, to be heard before the City Commission on June 22. We have been made aware that a component of the additional funding that would be derived from passage of the amendment would be allocated to historic preservation. As a non-profit organization whose mission is historic preservation, the MiMo Biscayne Association cannot emphasize strongly enough how valuable we believe such funding would be nor over -state the need for such available funding and incentives to be allocated to historic preservation efforts within the City of Miami. Decades ago, the now bustling centers of Coral Gables and South Beach were barren stretches of unshaded concrete and run-down buildings. Today, those centers are magnets for people from all over the world. All it took to bring them back to life was a commitment on the part of City governance to invest in renovation efforts and infrastructure improvements. That investment has been repaid a thousand times over. The City of Miami would be well served to institute similar programs and invest in similar initiatives to benefit its historic neighborhoods. Passage of the proposed AIPP Ordinance on June 22 would be a welcome and much needed step in that direction. Sincerely, >141 Sitei,—/ Debby Stander President, MiMo Biscayne Association 8101 Biscayne Boulevard #309, Miami, FL 33138 www.mimoboulevard.org Remcefive July 12, 2016 Mayor Tomas P. Regalado 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, F133133 Dear Mayor Regalado, The residents of, and visitors to, Miami are thirsty for good art which is accessible to everyone, as evidenced by the success of Art Basel and our area's art museums, galleries, Wynwoocf, and the public sculptures which have helped define us as an art -centric community — and has drawn people to Miami from all over the world. This is good for those of us who live here and those who visit us, and it is also good business. As the Director of the Perez Art Museum Miami, I have had the opportunity in this position, and in my prior curatorial positions in other major cities, to experience the transformative effect of art on the lives of people, especially young people. Making art and sculpture a visible part of everyday life creates a catalyst for conversations about a whole host of topics and mindfulness of different ways of seeing the world. Now, more than ever, the ability to have discourse and analysis of differing points of view in a peaceful way, is a skill which should be fostered. I wholeheartedly endorse the City of Miami's Art in Public Places Ordinance which is up for second reading this week, and urge the City Commission to make this ordinance a reality. Sincerely, • Franklin Sirrnans Director Perez Art Museum Miami M M The Underline Board of Directors tvieg Cia;y Fourtdor Parker Thomson Director Roger Terrone Treasurer Jessi Berrin Stu Blumberg Dr. led Feldman Rodolphe El-Khrsury Mitchell Kaplan Arden Karon Ken Krasner"; Josh Ele.rkin Margaret free Brent Reynolds Ralph Rosado Roberto Roy Ira Mark Trer.vbr'dge Debi Wechsler Pete Wood Fu nctors Miami -Dade County State of Florida City of Miami City of Coral Gables City of South Miarnr *Wire Properties James S & John L Knight Foundation The Miami Foun08tori r iorido Out ivl itch Ba,l 1/Wolfson Foundation Pinnuere Housing f3roup O 1nyar! Street Capital Mary Bric;''cell Viliage Health Foundation of South riot de 13' Floor Investments Adler Group PeopleForBikes Rails For Trails July 8, 2016 City of Miami Department of Planning & Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2' Avenue Miami, FL 33130 1"72 South Dixie Highviny PO Box 552 Coral Gables. FL 33146 wvAv ;heunderine.org RECFWE Wiek Dear Honorable Members Planning and Zoning Appeals Board, Please allow this correspondence to serve as a letter of support for the City of Miami's creation and implementation of an Art in Public Places program. Public art connects people and places and provides universal exposure to creativity, conversation and expression. The benefits of public art, the positive impact on the community, its residents and tourists and the potential to engage local and national artists will enrich our vibrant community and further enhance our image as a cultural destination_ Friends of The Underline plan to weave public art into the fabric of the future 10-mile mobility corridor and recreational space. With five miles (half) of The Underline within the City of Miami, we are excited that the City of Miami's planning department and Art in Public Places program will collaborate with us and consider The Underline a blank Canvas for future artistic expression. Sincerely, Sincerely Meg Daly President/CEO Friends of The Underline Debi Wechsler Art Advisory Chair Friends of The Underline Cultural Affairs 111 NW 1st Street • Suite 625 Miami, FL 33128-1994 T 305-375-4634 F 305-375-3068 mlamidadearts.org mlamldade.gov Carlos A, Girener, Mayor June 7, 2016 Honorable Mayor Tomas Regalado and Members, City of Miami Commission City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 Subject: Proposed Art in Public Places Ordinance - File No. 16-00562 & 16-00315zt Dear Mayor Regalado and City Commissioners, The Miami -Dade Department of Cultural Affairs through its Art in Public Places Program supports the City of Miami in its effort to establish an Art in Public Places Ordinance pursuant to Section 2-11.15 of the Miami -Dade County Code. As stewards of one of the country's largest and most respected public art collections, we can affirm that the implementation of City of Miami's public art ordinance will serve to advance the City's progressive leadership position in urban design and contribute to transforming ordinary public places into great civic sites that can lift the spirit and connect with the City's diverse and vibrant neighborhoods. We recognize the ongoing dedication of City staff and particularly value our partnership with your team in the Planning and Zoning Departments. We have worked together with City staff over the past year to provide advice on the draft comprehensive legislation to establish the City's own public art program and to ensure that it is consistent with the parameters set forth in the County Code. We urge you to support the proposed Art in Public Places Ordinance and we look forward to continuing our work together to make the built environment of our community great through the innovative and collaborative participation of artists. Sincerely, Michael Spfing Director, Miami -Dade Department of Cultural Affairs THE CITY OF CORAL GABLES OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER 'I'!fe Cif trarafilta April 6, 2016 Daniel J. Alfonso, City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2" Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Article 11 entitled "Art in Public Places" 16-00315ZT CITY HALL 405 BILTMORE WAY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 iREcellver) Congratulations on the City of Miami's proposed Ordinance amendment and the inclusion of Article 11 dedicated to Art in Public Places! As a neighboring City, we are thrilled to express our support for the Ordinance and your vision to enrich Miami with the welcoming and engaging experience public art offers. Following a proud history of incorporating public art into the fabric of our community, the City of Coral Gables formally adopted our Art in Public Places Ordinance in 2007 and later began collecting fees toward the program. As a result, the City commissioned, and is in the final stages of installing, an outstanding monumental artwork consisting of two sculptures by world-renowned artist Alice Aycock. Soon, we will be commissioning our next iconic artworks as part of the eagerly anticipated Miracle Mile Streetscape development project. In addition to the spectacular presence of quality artworks, Coral Gables is conscious of the broad scope and reflection of our community that such artworks have for visitors and residents working and shopping during (he day or relaxing at night. With the growing number of public art programs established in neighboring cities and through the excellence of Miami-Dadc's Art in Public Places program, every person can have a free and fluid cultural experience as they travel between our Cities and throughout the County. We can all be proud to share in such a legacy. We wish you continued success and prosperity. Since Cathy Swa�son-Rivenbark, ICMA-CM, AICP, CEcD City Mana er Cc: Francisco Garcia, Department Director of Planning & Zoning P.O. BOX 141349 CORAL GABLES. FLORIDA 3 114-1549 (O5) 480-5201 MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach. 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139 TeL 305-673.7010 Fax: 305-673-7782 Jimmy Morales, City Manager Tel. 305-673-7010, Fax; 305-673-7782 January 28, 2016 City of Miami Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Dear Honorable Members Planning and Zoning Appeals Board, I am writing to express my support for the City of Miami Planning and Zoning Appeals Board adopting a Public Art Ordinance which is scheduled to go before the Board on February 17, 2016. Public art has been proven to provide an educational experience that is accessible and welcoming to all residents and visitors and consistently impacts the community in a positive way. The City of Miami Beach Art in Public Places program has been an important part of the cultural landscape in Miami Beach for more than 20 years. Currently, the program is in the process of commissioning six (6) internationally recognized artists for the Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation and Expansion project, with an estimated public art contribution of $7,000,000. The proposed works by these artists exemplify Miami Beach's prestigious quality commitment to commission world class works of public art. The commissioning of these public art works elevates any public art program to a whole new level, bringing artists to the community. In closing, South Florida's cultural scene is growing at an accelerated pace — a pace driven by public art programs throughout Miami -Dade County and the addition of a similar program in the City of Miami will undoubtedly enhance the City of Miami and Miami -Dade County. S cerely, J1 my +rates C ty Manager Village of Polnlett( Bay April 11, 2016 City of Miami Planning and Zoning Department Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Proposed Public Art Ordinance for the City of Miami Dear Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Board: Please allow this correspondence to serve as a letter of support for the establishment of an Art in Public Places Program within the City of Miami. The privileges of having an Art in Public Places Program will enhance the artistic and civic pride of the City through creative art projects that improve the visual quality of public spaces. The establishment of the program will allow the opportunity to transform public spaces from ordinary civic areas to sites that can connect the communities of Miami -Dade County. I commend Efren Nunez, Planner II who has been working diligently to establish an Art in Public Place Program Ordinance that will enhance the environment by integrating public art in the metropolitan area of Miami. The Village of Palmetto Bay proudly supports the Art in Public Places Program within the City of Miami and we look forward to its approval. Sincere dSiiva Vi 1ge Manager 9705 East Hibiscus Street Palmetto Bay, ft. 33157 305-259-1234 1305-259• I290 (fo4 www. palmettoba y-ft. qov 201S-2016 OFFICERS "RESIDENT inn Alonso FIRST VICE PRESIDENT Venny Torre SECOND VICE PRESIDENT Judy Pruitt TREASURER Vinson Richter SECRETARY Dolly Maclntyrc AT LARGE Enid C. Pinkney Megan Kelly PAST PRESIDENT Olga Vieira TRUSTEES Alex Adams Steven Brooke Ruth Jacobs Leonor M. Lagomasino Megan McLaughlin Albert Menendez Edmund Parnes Quevedo is Randall Susan Shelley Scott Silver Dona Spain Todd Tragash Lilian Walby ADVISORS Walter Alvarez Gay Bondurant Ann Marie Clyatt Bertram "Chico" Goldsmith Gary Held Adolfo Henriques Jorge Hernandez Sallye Jude Penny Lambeth Nancy Liebman Bruce Matheson Thomas J. Matkov William Murphy George Neary Leslie Pantin Arva Moore Parks Rafael Penaiver Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk Jeanette Poole Borah Schaefer Don Slesnick 11 Herb Sosa Ellen Uguccioni "lacy Young EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Christine Rupp cltris@dadeheritagetrust.org cell: 305.910.3996 DADE HERITAGE TRUST March 23, 2016 Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Art in Public Places Ordinance RECEovE Dear City Officials: Please allow this correspondence to serve as a letter of support to establish an Art in Public Places Program within the City of Miami. Public art provides a valuable experience that becomes part of the City's landscape, accessible by all. The benefits of public art, the positive impact on the community, its residents and tourist,s and the potential to attract world class artists from our vibrant arts community make this Program an essential part of an evolving Miami. Speaking from the preservation point of view, Dade Heritage Trust is thrilled that Art in Public Places funds will also be set aside for historic projects within the City of Miami. We are proud to support the Art in Public Places Program and look forward to its approval. Regards, ' r' Christine Rupp Executive Director chris@dadeheritagetrust.org cell: 305-910-3996 190 SE 13th Terrace, Miami, FL 331311305-358-9572 www.dadeheritagetrust.org Miami -Dade County Public Schools giving our students the world Srrperinlondont of Schools Alberdo M. Carvall►o December 8, 2016 The I lonorahlo Lomas Regalado Mayor City of Miami 3 500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL. 33133 Dear Mayor Regalado: M on►l•Dada County School Board Dr. Lawrence S. Feldman, Chair Dr. Marta Pbrez. Vice Chair Dr. Dorothy Sondross•Minclingall Susie V Castillo Dr. Stove Gallon 111 Pena rebates Hantrnan Dr. Martin Karp Lobby Navarro Mori Tore Rojas It has come to our attention that there is a proposed Public Art Ordinance, Sec. 62-661, scheduled for second reading with the City Commission on January 12, 2017. The City of Miami is a pioneer in arts and cultural engagement in the state of Florida. Miami -Dade County Public Schools (M-DCPS) congratulates you on this great commitment to arts and culture in our community. We were especially excited to learn of the new City Ordinance, Sec. 62-661 (4I), which provides funds for cultural education, community outreach, and arts advocacy. To that end, we would like to be a partner at the table as it pertains to youth arts programming in the City of Miami. We feel it would be prudent if a representative from the school district participate as part of the Master Plan Committee for this initiative as well as have a designated member on the city's Public Art Fund Advisory Board. M-DCPS is committed to ensuring that all students in Miami -Dade County are engaged in creating, developing, and molding their talents and abilities in a challenging, safe, and nurturing environment. Our unwavering commitment to the arts is evident in our award -winning visual and performing arts programs as well as the many arts magnet and choice programs across the county. M-DCPS has prioritized arts programming in each of our schools despite ever-increasing financial pressures that have unfortunately diminished arts programming in many other school districts across the state and nationally. As the arts education provider for students in more than 50 public schools serving city residents, we request that the ordinance specifically list M-DCPS as an entity that would qualify to apply and receive funding from this new source. Due to yearly fluctuating needs, we would appreciate the opportunity to present our plan for enhanced arts programming in public schools serving City of Miami residents on an annual basis. We look forward to discussing this possibility further with you and your staff. AMC:mlp 1.505 Sincerely, Iherto M. Carvalho Superintendent of Schools School Board Administration Bullcling • 1450 N.F. 2nd Avonuo • Miami, Florida 33132 305-095-1000 • www.dadoschools.not November 8P, 2016 City of Miami City Commission 3500 Pan American Dr. Miami, FL 33133 Re: In support of Art in Public Paces Ordinance Honorable members of the Miami City Commission, It is with great enthusiasm that I write this letter of support on behalf of the Venezuelan American Endowment for the Arts, VAEA. The VAEA commends the City of Miami for taking the initiative in establishing a public Art Program and crafting legislation that contributes to the aesthetic character of the built environment and to the cultural enrichment of the City of Miami and the surrounding communities. On June 13th 2015 The Venezuelan American Endowment for the Arts (VAEA) established the VAEA MIAMI COMMITTEE, with the mission of forging deeper relations with the cultural institutions and communities of South Florida in order to strengthening the ties of friendship between Venezuela and The United States through bi-national cultural and social programs. We believe the City of Miami has been incredibly welcoming and supportive to the Venezuelan community that has emigrated over the years, and the donation of this public art piece would be a long lasting testament to the friendship between Venezuela and The United States of America. Public art has proven to provide an educational experience that is accessible and welcoming to all residents and visitors and consistently impact the community in a positive way. Therefore, The VAEA commends city staff, in particularly the Planning and Zoning Departments Land Development Division, which has been working diligently for the past several months to craft such thorough legislation in support of the arts. With this said, we kindly request the Miami City Commission approve the Public Art Ordinance as presented by staff. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Anabela Mendoza Program Associate & Miami Representative The Venezuelan American Endowment for the Arts, VAEA anabelarnendoza©vaearts.orq c. (718) 414 4786 Mail: The Venezuelan American Endowment for the Arts, 25 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10004 Web: www.vaearts.orq l Phone: 911 285 VAEA (8232) 1 Instagram & Twitter: @VAEArts J facebook.com/vaearts ART FAIR 2016 FAIR LOCATION JAMES L KNIGHT CENTER MIAMI CONVENTION CENTER 36tBSE 2ND AVE, MIAMI, FL OFFICES: 1800 N BAYSHORE DR, CP1, MIAMI, FL 33132 T 305-395.3599 T 212.537.6807 M 973,270 7774 YFO4M IAMIRIV ERARTFAIR.CQM IAMIRIVERART FAIR.CO M INTERNATIONAL CONTEMPORARY ART FAIR DECEMBER 1 - 4, 2016 January 26, 2016 Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Art in Public Places Ordinance ilif ��erd Honorable members of the Planning and Zoning Appeals Board: It is with great enthusiasm that 1 write this letter of support on behalf of the Miami River Art Fair, herein after referred to as Nina Torres. Nina Torres commends the City of Miami for taking the initiative in estab- lishing a Public Art Program and crafting legislation that contributes to the aesthetic character of the built environment and to the cultural en- richment of the City of Miami and the surrounding communities. Nina Torres commends city staff, in particular the Planning and Zon- ing Departments Land Development Division which has been working diligently for the past several months to craft such thorough legislation in support of the of arts. With this said, we kindly request that the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board approve the Public Art Ordi- nance as presented by staff. Sincerely, Nina Torres Founder and Executive Director Miami River Art Fair MARK A. CARDENAS 1700 WEST WASHINGTON. SUITE H PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007-2644 CAPITOL PHONE, (602) 926.3014 CAPITOL FAX: (602) 417-3048 TOLL FREE 1-800-352-8404 mcardenas@azleg.gov DISTRICT 19 March 15, 2016 Arizona � use ❑f1Representatiuez llpenix, rrizatnr 85 00 7 Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Art in Public Places Ordinance - File No. 16-00315zt & 16-00315 Honorable Members of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board: COMMITTEES: APPROPRIATIONS, MILITARY AFFAIRS & PUBLIC SAFETY WAYS 6 MEANS - RANKING MEMBER It is with great fervor that I write this letter of support as a Representative of the great State of Arizona I would like to take this opportunity to commend the City of Miami for taking the initiative to establish a Public Art Program that contributes to the aesthetic character of the built environment and to the cultural enrichment of the City of Miami. f commend city staff, in particular Efren Nunez with the Planning and Zoning Department who has been working diligently for the past several months to craft one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation I've seen in support of the of arts. This unique ordinance will not only enhance the built environment by integrating public art in the public and private realm but will serve as a cultural and economic engine for the greater metropolitan area of Miami. With this said, I kindly request that the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board approve the Public Art Ordinance. Sincerely, Representative Mark A. Cardenas Arizona House of Representatives District 19 gale ilaa1t CITY OF MIAMI Department of Planning & Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 REF: Art in Public Places Ordinance Honorable members of the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board: Miami, April 30`h, 2016 We would like to congratulate and express our support to the Mayor's Office and the Staff of the City of Miami for the excellent idea of proposing a Public Art Program, under Ordinance N° 16-00315zt & 16- 00315, for the exhibition of artworks in public places. This initiative is consistent with the number of art shows that the city of Miami hosts every year attracting art lovers from all over the globe, reaffirming that Miami has become the Art Capital of the United States. Therefore, it is for us a privilege and an honor to offer our support and provide the city with choices of local and international artists that will leave an everlasting impression on this beautiful city, Very truly yours, Ingrid Rodriguez -Glenn General Director USA 3151 NW 36TH ST. MIAMI, FL 33142 PHONE: (954) 933-6620 VENEZUELA CENTRO COMERCIAL CERES, CALLE PARIS (ENTRE MONTERREY Y MUCUCHIES), URB. LAS MERCEDES, CARACAS, DC TELEFONO: +(58-212)993-7053 EMAIL, info@galena-art3.corn www galeria-art3.com Facebook Galeria Art 3 Francisco Herretes Miami Mountains Foundation Inc. 6242 NE 2nd Ave. Miami, FL 33138 June 08, 2016 Mayor Tomas P. Regalado City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 RE: PZ.1 and FR.2 - 06/09/2016, regarding the Public Art Program Dear Mayor Regalado, Please accept this letter on behalf of Miami Mountains Foundation, a Little Haiti nonprofit corporation under the fiscal sponsorship of The Miami Foundation, promoting art, culture and smart community outreach to transform developing neighborhoods in South Florida. We enthusiastically support the important and long overdue initiative to amend the zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami to include and create the Public Art Program. As the proposed ordinance expresses, the new Public Art Program will contribute to the aesthetic diversity and cultural enrichment of the community, enhance the City's heritage, values and vision, and improve the quality of life and economic success of Miami residents and businesses, attracting visitors, fueling the local economy by creating job opportunities and helping Miami become a premier world class place. We are pleased to read that the proposed Public Art Ordinance and program is similar to the Miami -Dade County Art In Public Places program that has successfully contributed to arts and culture in the County for over 42 years. It is smart to create a separate, specialized Art in Public Places Board to aid in the administration of the Public Art Program and the Public Art Fund. We are certain that the capable people at the Public Art Division in the City's Planning Department will excel in administering this much -needed program for Miami, As a Little Haiti nonprofit, we are thrilled to have this new Public Art Program that will greatly benefit our neighborhood by promoting collective community expression, empowering the community to challenge gentrification through all-important arts and culture. Congratulations to the City and wonderful people that are spearheading this proposal, we hope to have a functioning Public Art Program as soon as practicable. Sincerely, rancisco Herretes Director Miami Mountains Foundation Inc. • 6234 NE 2., Ave. Miami, FL 33138 • (786) 417-4452 • inro(miamimountains.org I FINE ART I.lf4 ninaugrojinoart.com I 305,396..1 21'2.: 17.G8O7 ! 973.'270.7? 4 January 25, 2016 Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Art in Public Places Ordinance Honorable members of the Planning and Zoning Appeals Board: It is with great enthusiasm that I write this letter of support on behalf of Nina Torres Fine Art gallery, herein after referred to as Nina Torres. Nina Torres commends the City of Miami for taking the initiative in establishing a Public Art Program and crafting legislation that contributes to the aesthetic character of the built environment and to the cultural enrichment of the City of Miami and the surrounding communities. Nina Torres commends city staff, in particular the Planning and Zoning Departments Land Development Division which has been working diligently for the past several months to craft such thorough legislation in support of the of arts. With this said, we kindly request that the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board approve the Public Art Ordinance as presented by staff. Sincerely, Nina Torres Director and Chief Curator Nina Torres Fine Art Arts and Entertainment District 11800 N Bayshore Dr. CP1, Miami FI. 33132 I www.ninatorresfineart.com Nunez, Efren Subject: FW: Support Art in Public Places Ordinance From: Quirke, Amanda L. Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 9:20 AM To: Nunez, Efren Subject: FW: Support Art in Public Places Ordinance Assistant: Marta Gomez (305)416-1844 Begin forwarded message: From: Vicky Romay <viartprojects cz gtnail.com> Date: June 22, 2016 at 11:31:40 PM EDT To: <VMendez@tniarnigov.com> Subject: Fwd: Support Art in Public Places Ordinance Honorable City Attorney Victoria Mendez I am writing to you with the aim to offer my full support for the Art in Public Places Ordinance under File No. 16- 00562 and 16-003152 as presented by the Planning and Zoning Department and Approved by the Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board. A Public Art Program not only beautifies and personalize the city, but also provides a cultural and educational component to our great city. As a curator with over 30 years of experience, I believe that the city of Miami would gain a greater dimension with implementation of Public Art in our neighborhoods, in parks through integrated artworks in architecture and in the built environment, working with local and international artists. believe that the ordinance should be maintained as it was discussed at the last meeting as to the public art applicability on private and public development. We are one city, as such we should not exempt institutions or neighborhoods cause they feel they are unique or special. The rules should apply to all, giving special treatment to a specific group or neighborhood opens the door to future exceptions. Thus, jeopardizing the intent and purpose of the ordinance. Frankly, I think it's shameful that an Institution of higher learning such as UM request to be exempt. Not to mention a artsy and trendy neighborhood such as Wynwood would request exception with no oversight. Did you know that the Wynwood development community does not pay the artist? if anything they might pay for materials...but they prefer the artist pay them to display art on their buildings. In simple terms Wynwood BID would like to continue to benefit from the artist community as they have for the past years with no compensation to artist which is shameful. The city has quadrupled the value of property in Wynwood with the adoption of the NRD on first reading, Now they are asking that the rules not apply to them! 1 In conclusion this is a wonderful opportunity for our City and look forward to a favorable consideration on the adoption of the legislation as presented by staff and as reviewed by countless governmental agencies. Affectionately Vicky Romay Curator 786 718 3123 2 Alexis Garcia 6300 F. Hampden Avenue, Denver, CO 80222 :: 818-645-4779 July 13, 2016 City of Miami Department of Planning and Zoning Land Development Division 444 SW 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33130 Re: Art in Public Places Ordinance Dear City Officials: Please allow this correspondence to serve as a letter of support to establish an Art In Public Places Program in the City of Miami. This ordinance will not only serve to establish the City of Miami as a patron of the arts, but will also allow the city to improve the social fabric of the public places where the art will be incorporated. As a regular tourist to Miami, I consider this city a home away from home. Besides visiting the city for leisure, initiatives like the Art in Public Places program send a signal to non-residents that the City of Miami is investing in programs that elevate its cultural reputation around the world. Furthermore, it shows outside business owners that Miami is not just a city of leisure, but that it is committed to improving the quality of life of its residents. Consequently, these types of programs provide an incentive to outside business owners to begin contemplating moving our residence and business to the City of Miami. I am proud to support the Art in Public Places Program and look forward to its approval. Regards, Alexis Garcia Caro! Damian, Ph.D. 1115 North Greenway Drive Coral Gables, FL 33134 damianc@fiu.edu July 12, 2016 Honorable Mayor Tomas Regalado and Members, City of Miami Commission City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 necteuvEr-N,-, Subject: Proposed Art in Public Places Ordinance - File No. 16-00562 & 16-00315zt Dear Mayor Regalado and City Commissioners: As a member of the Miami Dade Art in Public Places Trust and the City of Coral Gables Cultural Arts Advisory Board on Public Art, I respectfully add my name to the list of supporters for the Art in Public Places Ordinance. Both of these volunteer organizations of Arts professional are stewards of one of the country's largest and most respected public art collections. 1 add my affirmation that the implementation of City of Miami's public art ordinance will serve to advance the City's progressive leadership position in urban design and contribute to transforming ordinary public places into great civic sites that can lift the spirit and connect with the City's diverse and vibrant neighborhoods. We urge you to support the proposed Art in Public Places Ordinance and we look forward to continuing our work together to make the built environment of our community great through the innovative and collaborative participation of artists. Sincerely, Carol Damian Professor of Art History Florida International University Nunez, Efren cram: Carol Damian <damianc@fiu.edu> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2016 2:59 PM To: Nunez, Efren Subject: Letter attached Attachments: Eetterfor art,docx Hello Efren, please see my fetter in support of the ordinance. Thank you. Carol Dr. Carol Dairnian, Professor of Art History Department of Art & Art History Florida International University "We have art in order not to die from the truth." Nietzsche LETTERS IN OPPOSITION ART IlN PUBLIC PLACES Art in Public Places Summary — Letters in Opposition 1. Builders Association of South Florida 2. Wynwood BID 3. University of Miami (Concern Addressed) JBASF1I k'. tY II IXI It ;... .t if l,.I lX:.aII XXI St11111I 1IfittIIJA BUILDING GREAT CITIES WWW.BASFONLINE.ORG October 10, 2017 Honorable Keon Hardman, Chairman and City Commissioners City of ,Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Mi um, FL 33133 Re: Proposed Art Tax - Second reading: October 12, 2017, Items SR 1 and PZ I. Dear Mr. Chairman and City Cotmnissioncrs: I write today to express the BASF's continuing concern about the above -referenced legislation, which would implement an Art Tax -an impact fee on all privately -built projects and renovations to existing buildings above $3 million, under the name of Art in Public Places. It is scheduled for second reading on Thursday, October 12, 2017. For the past year, BASF has supported the public portion of the Art in Public Places ordinance, which was adopted by the City Commission in January. Since the beginning, however, the Association has recommended the development and adoption of an incentive -based program for private developers to incorporate new or additional public art works in their projects. That is because for years, these works have been installed -- on a voluntary basis - into buildings and projects, addressing most goals outlined in the proposal for art in the public realm. For a long time, the real estate development industry has been the biggest public arts patron within the City of Miami, voluntarily including public works of art into their commercial and residential buildings. A simple survey could be instructive to show the Commission the number and location of all existing, public works of art, donated voluntarily by industry, to date. I lowever, BASF respectfully reiterates its opposition to what amounts to a proposed Art Tax. The proposed Art Tax legislation before you creates significant barriers to placing art on she, adds significant fees and administrative costs on top of already' high construction costs, and raises potential legal issues that have yet to be adequately considered. It would increase the price of most homes and apartments, and rents paid by small and local businesses in commercial buildings. It would :tniottnt to lip to a 100% increase in building permit fees. hurricane Irma took a toll on our residents, businesses, and the entire community. Some $4B in insurance claims have been filed in the past month; and the impacts on the local economy are still yet to he determined. Instead of adopting this new fee today, the Association respectfully asks the Commission to consider funding the City's long list of other unfunded infrastructure needs, including: I, Pay for more City-wide flood -protection infrastructure, to reduce future hurricane -related and King Tide Street flooding. 2. Build new projects to improve City's long-term resiliency due to increased flooding events clue to sea -level rise. 3. Fully fund much -needed Transit and Transportation needs, a top priority for the City. 4. Pay for Neighborhood and Streetscape Improvements, to help improve the City's overall appearance and to address the needs of existing neighborhoods, not just enhance new developments. finally, weekly headlines remind us about the lack of affordably -priced housing for Miami's residents. This proposed fee only makes it worse. Everyone needs an affordable place to live and BASF works hard, every day, to keep it that way. City efforts and dollars targeted might be more appreciated to provide improved flood protection and more transit options, not to create a new bureaucracy where some 15%+ of the projected revenue (potentially $1-2 million) would be used to fund consultants, more staff and program overhead, with no certainty of any public benefits in the years ahead. BASF supports an Incentive -based program for public works of art, and respectfully asks the City to direct staff to return to them with a proposal for such an incentive based program. BASF stands ready to provide its comment and input on such program, if proposed. Thank you for your consideration of the Association's views. Truly Bt toy(, Executive Vice President and Government .1ftairs Director. 43068607; I June 21, 2017 Chairman and City Commissioners City of .Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Alianii, FL 33133 �Yill BASF f!0',5501 f l()HII,A BUILDING GREAT CITIES W WW.BASFONLIN E.ORG Re: Proposed Art Impact Fee — FR. 2 and PZ 20, June 22' , 2017 Meeting. Dear i\Ir. Chairman and City Commissioners: I write today to express the BASF's continuing concern about the above -referenced item, relating to the adoption of an art impact fee on all privately -built projects above S3 million. It comes to you for First Reading as item FR. 2 and PZ.20. At this time, BASF cannot support the staffs proposed Art Impact Fee, which amounts to up to a 100% increase in building permit fees. Instead, the Association respectfully asks the Commission to direct staff to modify the proposed ordinance, in favor of an Incentive -Based approach. Their concerns ate outlined below. 1. Similar to the City's recently adopted incentive -based Attainable Housing ordinance, prepare a similar incentive -based program for art works to be included in privately -financed and built projects. The standard would be included within Miami 21. a. On February 23, 2017, the City Commission adopted an Incentive -based ordinance for an Infrastructure Necessity — shelter — in its Attainable Mixed -Income Housing. I). The City's prograrn for providing this essential human need — shelter — is creative, and will lead to the production of more housing for those who need it, without adding more cost to the very product everyone needs: a place to live. c. The proposed art impact fee legislation, on the other hand, would increase the cost of housing without any clear public benefit to Miami's neighborhoods- as it discourages developers from actually incorporating artwork on site and provides no certainty on when or where any revenues collected will be spent on art. 2. City has a long list of other Essential Infrastructure needs that are not fully funded. A few that rise to the top of the list, include: a. Transit and Transportation needs - a top priority for the City, its residents and developers. i. Transit -Mobility Impact fee is being prepared by City staff. ii. Miami River Tunnel under discussion — Marine traffic and a bursting downtown population is generating stronger interest in building a tunnel under Miami River. iii. Tinting of traffic lights within the City limits — simpler to achieve, but funding is needed to conduct this irnportant task, which will have positive, City-wide impacts. b. Neighborhood improvement projects —Streetscape Improvements and Sidewalk Repairs - would help improve the City's overall appearance and would address needs of existing neighborhoods City-wide. While the Association appreciates the modifications which staff made from the original proposal, based on the above concerns, BASF respectfully suggests that the City Commission not adopt any new fee — regardless of its good intentions. This new, expensive fee on all new homes and apartments would only penalize dome buyers and rem et �s.; at a time wlien they are already cost -burdened for shelter — a basic human need. BASF would be glad to discuss options to a fee, including an incentive -based progiatn for art works in new private buildings. Thank you for your consideration of the Association's views. Sincerely, Tnaly Barton Executive Vice President Government Affairs Director cc: Tomas Regalado, Mayor Daniell. Alfonso, City Manager. boo!) a rr o� li 1.s1111 1{t, t111.11`: 4'irfr' 1 . 1. t.'_ill it r-r;!I Ilfi <0.r, r1 Cdl t. 113 1• : L I;ruI l i11Br to April 5, 2017 Via E-mail Only. Chairman and 'Members City of Afiami Planning, Zoning and Appeals Board C/O City of Miami Planning Department 444 SW Second Avenue Miami, a. 33131 CEO y Re: PZAB Resolution re proposed Art Impact Fee, Agenda Item No. 4, April 5, 2017 Meeting. Dear Mr. Chairman and Members: I write today to express the BASF's continuing interest in the above referenced item, relating to the adoption of an art impact fee on all privately built projects above S3 mullion threshold. At this time, respectfully, BASF cannot support what amounts to an Art Impact Fee. Instead, the Association respectfully suggests this Board consider recommending an Incentive -Based approach, to the City Commission. Their reasons for this proposal are outlined below. 1. Similar to the City's recently adopted incentive -based Attainable Housing ordinance, prepare a similar program for art to be included in privately -financed and built projects. The standard would be included within Miami 21. a. At their February 23, 2017, the City Commission adopted an Incentive -based ordinance for an Infrastructure Necessity — shelter — in its Attainable Mixed Income Housing - just five tveeks ago. b. The City's program for providing this essential human need — shelter — is creative, and will lead to the production of more housing for those who need it, without adding more cost to the very product everyone needs: a place to live. 2. City has a long list of other Essential Infrastructure needs that are not fully funded. A few that rise to the top of the list, include: a. Transit and Transportation needs - a top priority for the City and for developers, i. Transit -Mobility Impact fee is being prepared by City staff ii. Miami River Tunnel under discussion — Marine traffic and bursting downtown population is generating stronger interest in building a tunnel under Miami River. iii. Timing of Traffic lights within the City Limits — simpler to achieve, but funding is needed to conduct this important task, which will have positive, City-wide impacts. b. Neighborhood improvement projects —Streetscape Improvements and Sidewalk Repairs - would help improve the City's overall appearance and would address the needs in existing and new neighborhoods City-wide. We appreciate and thank staff for changes nude from the original ordinance, based on BASF comments. The arnenclinents ultimately unproved the proposal, with Members' comments conforming the proposal to existing Miami 21 provisions. However, the major issues still remain unchanged since October 2016: 3. Fee was not reduced, or capped, to prevent runaway Art Impact Fee charges to retain equity both smaller and larger sized projects: a. 1V'hile the fee ‘vas tiered at the lower -end of the cost scale (S3 million to SI5 million) the fee remains uncapped, at 1.25c:4 for projects over S15 mullion and up, which is a large number of new construction projects. Page Two Planning and Zoning Chairman and Members April 5, 2017 b. This creates a corollary fee equity. problem: it creates more disparity, in actual dollar costs, between small projects and large projects, unfairly discriminating against large projects. 4. Fee "Equity" is unchanged. a. The City proposes to charge a higher fee for art incorporated into the project, and requires approval at public hearing, escrow account, and covenant recorded against property. b. However, the proposal includes a provision to charge a lower fee if builder simply "writes a check" into City Art Impact Fee fund. c. Since the Public Art Master Plan and AiPP Board will not be formed or be operational for some time yet, the only option available for applicants is to pay the "art fee" or face delays in approval process. 5. Money paid into the City Art Fee fund tnay — or may not — directly benefit the fee payers. a. Paying a fee into a fund, which will eventually buy art, could be placed anywhere throughout the City. It may not be a "direct benefit" to the person paying this fee. b. While the City Attorney should be asked to clarify this point, impact fees are required to "directly benefit" the fee -payers. In its current form, there is no guarantee that the fee -payer will directly benefit from the money he or she has paid for art. Policy Considerations. 6. The City of Miami must continue to prioritize the greatest needs of its residents - shelter & transpor ation - within the limits of the Ciry's resources. 7. The City Commission has clearly signaled its preference for incentive -based land use policy with their recent adoption of an incentives -based Attainable Housing program. With incentives, not fees, the City Commission is clearly endorsing this approach: it encourages the production of attainable and affordable housing development, without adding burdensome layers of regulation and more costs on the private sector. Respectfully, this approach should be taken for art within privately -financed developments. Based on the concerns raised above, most respectfully, BASF asks this Board to recommend the City Commission develop an incentive -based program for privately financed buildings and projects. Thank you for your consideration of the Association's views. Sine ely, 1ruly`I3urtiyi Executive 'Vice President And Government Affairs Director Cc: Francisco Garcia, Planning Director 'Elmo Nunez, Planning Manager 01111 BASF BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING G R EAT CITLES January 11, 2017 Honorable Keon Hardemon, Chair and City Commissioners 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Item SR 1 and PZ 1, Art in Public Places (AiPP) Legislation (2' Reading) Dear Mr. Chairman and City Commissioners: We are writing on behalf of the Builders Association of South Florida (BASF), with respect to the above -referenced legislation, which comes before you on January 12, 2017,.and to convey concerns with the legislation in its current form and a suggested approach that supports the creation of a public arts program in a rational and sustainable manner. Respectfully, the BASF asks for the Commission's support for a bifurcation of this worthy program as follows: • Adopt the AiPP program for government/publicly-funded projects at this time. • This would permit the City to move forward with the creation of this program, focusing the ordinance's applicability specifically to government and publicly -funded projects (defined as "Government Development Projects") and to come into conformance with the County's requirements, pursuant to Art. 2-11.5 of the County's Code of Ordinances, which is only applicable to government projects. • BASF understands the urgency for the City to conform to the County's program, and, most respectfully, supports its adoption. A simple amendment to Item SR 1 could be prepared, to focus applicability to Government Development Projects as the City has defined to meet the definition of 2-1 1-1.5 of the Miami -Dade County Code. Refrain from implementing the public art requirements, including the public art impact fee, on private -sector projects at this time, for these reasons: • For many years now, the City has been very fortunate that private developers have produced award -winning designed buildings, incorporating art works and creatively using materials into their buildings. Neighborhoods within the City of Miami have been recognized globally for their innovative incorporation of arts in real estate. Main Office: 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111 Miami Gardens, FL 33169 www.BASFONLINR.org Brlckell Office: 1200 Brickcu Avenue, Suite PH 2000 Miami, FL 33131 (T): 305-S56-6300 (F) 954-639-7107 www.BASFONLINE.org Chairman Hardemon and City Commissioners Page Two January 11, 2017 • The current legislation would impose a 1% fee (effectively amounting to a 100% increase in building permit fees for many projects) while providing no option for approval of placement of art on site until such time as the AiPP Board and public art master plan are created and adopted, which could take several months or even a year or more. Thus, adopting a fee on private property owners, and including on improvements to existing buildings, is considerably less urgent than adopting this program for publicly -funded proj ects. • Additionally, the public art fee in its current form broadly applied could be detrimental to the City's efforts to promote workforce housing and to projects in emerging neighborhoods in the City that are disproportionately burdened by development costs. • Market conditions have become considerably less stable in the past six to twelve months. Based on national and regional economic data, the South Florida market will likely be considerably less robust for the next few years. • This means that fewer privately financed projects are being started by builders. Thus, respectfully, the timing is not right for the City to consider adopting a new, quite expensive art fee on nearly all privately -financed projects. • Include "sun -up provision" for program applicability to privately financed projects - BASF respectfully recommends that the City consider the inclusion of a "sun -up" provision for adoption of a private projects art fee. Such a provision would bring this portion of the Art in Public Places art fee program back to the Commission for consideration, once economic conditions improve. This is expected in about two to three years from now. • A "sun -up provision" would preserve the program's positive elements, with a specific date to return the program for City Commission consideration at a better economic time, and acknowledge the economic instability at this time. Respectfully, While BASF applauds the City's initiative to promote a robust public arts program, we believe the application of the legislation in its current form, which effectively amounts to a 100% increase in building permit fees for new and existing buildings in the City of Miami, would unfairly burden private property owners and in many ways actually discourages the placement of art on private property. Although we have been diligent in communicating over the past several months to the Planning Department a list of deficiencies/issues remaining with the ordinance before you as item PZ.1, the majority of these still remain to be resolved. Main Office: 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111 Miami Gardens. F1.33169 www.BASFONLINF,.org Brlckeli Office: 1200 I rlckell Avenue, Suite P11 2000 Miami, FL 33131 (T): 305-556-6300 (F) 954-639-7107 www.BASFONLINE.org Chairman Hardemon and. City Commissioners Page Three January 11, 2017 Therefore, BASF respectfully requests the judicious bifurcation of this program to: (1) adopt the core amendments within Chapter 62 to create the Art in Public Places Program; and (2) defer the imposition of development standards and public art fess on private Development Projects. By doing so, the City of Miami would achieve its primary objectives of compliance with the requirements of Miami -Dade County, and establishing the framework for the creation of the City's public arts master plan and formation of the Art in Public Places Board to promote the future investment in public art. At the same time, this approach recognizes the need for refinement of the application of development standards and fees on private property owners, and acknowledges the currently unstable private sector market conditions, with the provision to bring the program back, when timing is better to consider the imposition of such a fee. BASF urges you to consider and adopt these simple changes, based on the above recommendations so that the Art in Public Places program for Government Development Projects can be implemented immediately. Alternatively, we request an additional deferral of the item in order for the BASF and building industry to further articulate such positions and/or provide better alternative solutions. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact us if you have questions or require any further information. Sincerely, Ben Solomon, Esq. BASF President cc: The Honorable Mayor Regalado Main Office: 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111 Miami Gardens, Fl. 33169 www.BASFONLINF.org trrtateu Office: 1200 Briekell Avenue, Suite P11 2000 Miami, Fl. 33131 (T): 305-556-6300 (F)954-639.7107 Sincerely, Truly Burton Executive Vice President www.BASFONLINE.org i BASF REcEovED BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA BUILDING GREAT CITIES 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111, Miami Gardens, FL 33169 Xf (0): 305-556-6300 (F) 954-639-7107 www.basfonline.org Issues List — Art in Public Places Meeting with City Planning Director Francisco Garcia Tuesday, December 14, 2016 l . Amend the fee so it is comparable to programs adopted in cities of similar size: a. Propose a reduction of fees as follows i. .75% for projects up to $30 million ii. .50% for projects over $30 million iii. Cap fee at $1 million dollars b. Basis for Recommendation: after research was done, the following was found - Of the 17 ordinances that apply to private property (less than half of local government AiPP Programs): i. Tampa is only city of comparable size to Miami: their fee is .5% (one-half of one percent) ii. Fee is only applicable within the Central Business District. iii. Caps for existing AiPP ordinances range from $50,000 to $400,000 2. Fee Equity Regardless of Option and Rework Criteria for Artwork On Site — a. Keep fee the same/ identical fee regardless if builder pays into AiPP Fund or if builder chooses to integrate art work as part of the building, (On floors, walls, exteriors, etc). b. Now, paying into AiPP fund is a lower fee, but there is a higher fee imposed if a builder includes the artworks within the finishes of the building. c. This is both inequitable and a disincentive to builders incorporating art directly into their buildings. d. Additionally, the ordinance would impose additional burdens to attempt to provide artwork on -site (i.e. public hearing approval, covenant, and escrow account to fund maintenance) e. Eliminate 25-year escrow agreement for new buildings — art work maintenance is typically included in a new building's annual operating / maintenance budget. This is the proper location for this line item rather than a cumbersome extra -budget item in the form of an escrow agreement. 3. Construction Cost Definition --- a. While language has been added elsewhere in proposed ordinance in the event of a dispute, the proposed definition of Construction Cost remains unchanged. It is still overly broad, includes profit, overhead and other costs not considered "cost of construction". That is strictly materials. b. Also, having what appears to be two potential definitions for "Construction Cost" is confusing at best. c. Edit the definition of "construction cost" from proposed definition in Section 1.5, "Construction Cost", and replace it with proposed language: d. Proposed definition of "Cost of Construction" should be identical to the "Value of Construction Cost" as shown on the City Building Permit. 4. Vesting — a. Staff provided us checklist, a good firsts step. b. However, time frame provided in the ordinance, to get the building permit, to get vested, is set at 12 months, which sets artificially short deadline, considering that Waivers, Warrants, etc. are valid for a period of 24 months to obtain a building permit, and may be extended up to 1 year pursuant to Art 7 of Miami 21. c. If this is a development standard or design criteria and not an impact fee, as the legislation adamantly articulates, then vested rights should be recognized just like any other development standard. i. If applicant has a Waiver approval, they should have the time permitted to get a building permit at this time. Continued on page 2 Page Two BASF Comments - Art in Public Places Ordinance December 2, 2016 ii. An artificial time frame of 12 months, to obtain a permit is contrary to notion that this is a development standard. d. Proposed Amendment to Section 3 of ordinance is provided for inclusion into the proposal: " . . within 24 months or prior to expiration of time period to obtain a building permit" 5. Public Notice — Provide 90-day effective date for imposing fee - similar to any other impact fee, Florida Statutes require a 90-day public notice, in event of new impact fee adoption. FS 163.31801(3)(d) is attached for informational purposes. 6. Art and Artist Selection Process a. Investing in Local Artists and Selection of Works for Private Buildings — Revise language to strongly encourage use of local artists' works — currently, proposed ordinance sets a high dollar threshold for works used in buildings. This discourages building owners from considering works by many fine local artists' works: it is easier to comply with this requirement by simply using works from more famous artists, whose works are much more expensive. Policy goal should be to help develop and grow the audience for highly capable local artists. Reduce the dollar amount threshold to incentivize builders to select more local artists. b. Clarify language to confirm developer selects art works for their individual building —Now, proposal is written so that it seems the decisions for art work(s) choices, being paid for by a private developer and to be installed in this private only owned building, rests entirely with this publicly appointed Board. Revise language so the proposal clearly states the developer (architect or other team members) will choose art works to be installed in their building, with a public board having the role of a simplified review process. c. Include specific details on Board's functions, including specific time -frames to complete their work — this is a new, and additional administrative process that will add time to any development approval. This must be kept to a streamlined minimum, so that applicants — get into and out of an approvals process quickly. For example, if a certificate of occupancy is held up, due to "lack of a quorum on a public arts board that month" this is unacceptable. 7. Public Arts Board — Functions and Procedures a. Establish the board's rules of procedure, time -frames for decision -making, how art will be valued and chosen, before the ordinance becomes effective. b. This can be done easily through the adoption of an Implementing Order — or similar "rules of the road" - to provide specific guidance to this newly created board. c. Otherwise, the tendency will be to taking a much longer time to review/approve items, be unclear as to how their decisions impact the public, etc. 8. Implementation Date for Program — a. This excellent program should start once all appointments to the AiPP Board have been made by the City Commission, and an Arts Master Plan has been adopted, rather than simply collect money from developers that will not be used for some many months until this action has been completed. b. The Association's concern here is that no developer should be stopped from obtaining a final Certificate of Occupancy, or othenvise opening their building, simply because an Art in Public Places Board has not been appointed yet. 9. Schedule follow-up meeting to review changes to be incorporated into final ordinance by Wednesday, January 41h, 2017, to avoid further delays clue to unresolved concerns. 10. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Association's comments. 12/2/2016 Chapter 163 Section 31801 - 2016 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate 163.31801 Impact fees; short title; intent; definitions; ordinances levying impact fees.— (1) This section may be cited as the "'Florida Impact Fee Act." (2) The Legislature finds that impact fees are an important source of revenue for a local government to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth. The Legislature further finds that impact feesare an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government to provide certain services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections and local governments' reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that, when a county or municipality adopts an impact fee by ordinance or a special district adopts an impact fee by resolution, the governing authority complies with this section. (3) An impact fee adopted by ordinance of a county or municipality or by resolution of a special district must, at minimum: (a) Require that the calculation of the impact fee be based an the most recent and localized data. (b) Provide for accounting and reporting of impact fee collections and expenditures. If a local governmental entity imposes an impact fee to address its infrastructure needs, the entity shall account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate accounting fund. (c) Limit administrative charges for the collection of impact fees to actual costs. (d) Require that notice be provided no less than 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution imposing a new or increased impact fee. A county or municipality is not required to wait 90 days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an impact fee. (4) Audits of financial statements of local governmental entities and district school boards which are performed by a certified public accountant pursuant to s. 218.39 and submitted to the Auditor General must include an affidavit signed by the chief financial officer of the local governmental entity or district school board stating that the local governmental entity or district school board has complied with this section. (5) In any action challenging an impact fee, the government has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of the fee meets the requirements of state legal precedent or this section. The court may not use a deferential standard. History.--s. 9, ch. 2006.218; s, 1, ch. 2009-49; s. 5, ch. 2009-96; s. 5, ch. 2011-14; s. 1, ch. 2011-149. httpWwww.tlsenate.gov,Raws/Statutesl2016/163.31801 1/1 BASFnEcE'vED 151_111I1Lt2S A SSC)CIAiH')I1 01 sOLII I-1 FLORIDA BUILDING GREAT CITIES 111 NW 183rd Street, Suite 111, Miami Gardens, FL 33169 ? (0): 305-556-6300 (F) 954-639-7107 u tx.bastouline.org I lonorablc Kcon Hardemon, Chair And City Commissioners City of Miami 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, F7.. 33131 Re: Art in Public Places, Second Reading Items SR 1/ PZ 1, July 14, 2016 Agenda Dear Jill. Chairman and Commissioners: July 13, 2016 Via E-mail and Delivery. City staff has proposed a new Art in Public Places ordinance. It includes the adoption of a new art fee based on 1% of hard construction cost, as shown on building permit documents, for all new private developments. Further, the proposed ordinance would apply to renovations of existing buildings and homes over a certain dollar amount, and would apply to any new single family hotne over S1 million in value. A few exemptions are provided. The fee would be for the purchase of new public art works, among other things. This item came to our members' attention, about a week prior to the first scheduled public hearing, at the Tune 23,d Commission meeting. At that time, the BAST wrote n letter, expressing its objections to what appeared to be an art impact fee. A two week deferral was granted at the June 23rd hearing. BASF representatives met with City staff last week. While a few changes/improvements were made, additional issues and questions continue to surface from our members. An important concern relates to the proposed development fee to be charged for public art work, which, absent some type of limit or cap, could become unexpectedly and inequitably expensive. Respectfully, establishing a ceiling on the fee, of a dollar amount, should be strongly considered. Placing an appropriate upper end cost to the fee, would show good faith to the building community, as it would indicate the City Commission's recognition that there are many other infrastructure and other costs already absorbed by the building industry. The building industry acknowledges that public art is important, but so is improvement of existing and future infrastructure needs, such as transit and transportation, etc. Reasonable cost parameters, as set by the Commission, would provide such support for a good program '1'o resolve these details, and to get a better final product, a second, and we expect, final deferral is respectfully requested until mid -September 2016. This should provide a sufficient time frame to provide BASF's volunteer members with time to meet with staff to resolve Outstanding issues. BASF stands ready to participate in this process until this item returns to the City Commission for public hearing. Thank you for your consideration to the Association's concerns. Sincer Iy, Truly Burton Executive Vice President -6-11 cc: Mayor Tomas Regalado, City Manager Danny Alvarez. III#II11IIt`, #\',',Lai IntlliIJJ UI '.;11111f Ilc!1•:11!h 1 I 1 NW 183'I Street, Suite III, Miami Gardens, FL 33169 )( (0):305-556-6300 (F) 954-639-7107 uuu.liasbitiline.ore I lonorable peon 1-3ardemon, Chair And City Commissioners City- of Miami. 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Ft 3313I Re: Art in Public Places, Second Reacting Items SR I/ PZ 1, July 14, 2016 Agenda Dear \Ir. Chairman and Commissioners: July 13, 2016 E-mail and Delivery City staff has proposed a new Art in Public Places ordinance. It includes the adoption of a new art fee based on I% of hard construction cost, as shaw11 on building permit documents, for all new private developments. Further, the proposed ordinance would apply to renovations of existing buildings and homes over a certain dollar amount, and evould apply to any new single family home over S l million in value. A few exemptions are provided. The fee would be for the purchase of new public art works, among other things. l'11is item came to our members' attention, about a week prior to the first scheduled public hearing, at the June 23^t Commission meeting. At that time, the BASF wrote a letter, expressing its objections to what appeared to be an art impact fee. r1 two week deferral was granted at the June 23rd hearing. BAST' representatives met with City staff last week. While a few changes/improvements were made, additional issues and questions continue to surface from our members. An important concern relates to the proposed development fee to be charged for public art work, which, absent some type of limit or cap, could become unexpectedly and inequitably expensive. Respectfully, establishing a ceiling on the fee, of a dollar amount, should be strongly considered. Placing an appropriate upper end cost to the fee, would show good faith to the building community, as it would indicate the City- Commission's recognition that there are imam" other infrastructure and other costs already absorbed by the building industry. The building industry acknowledges that public art is important, but so is improvement of existing and future infrastructure needs, such as transit anct transportation, etc. Reasonable cost parameters, as set by the Commission, would provide such support for a good program To resolve these details, and to get a better final product, a second, and we expect, final deferral is respectfully requested until mid -September 2016. Tliis should provide a sufficient time frame to provide BASF's volunteer members with time to meet with staff to resolve outstanding issues, BASF stands ready to participate in this process until this item returns to the City Commission for public hearing. Thank you for your consideration to the Association's concerns. SincetIy, • // 2" Truly y Burton Executive Vice President cc: Mayor 1 omns Regalado, City Manager Danny Alvarez. I am, P Not Phi. 11 yCItnU Ilea Soto/nolo E•i Pro Winn Al SKrrarta rlrit Vie Poo sldnnt I.Wy Otnron rorolirn Ylcn P,00r.twol June 21, 2016 0 BASF • I, I 1 I ' I El 1 i I I. Il I N ( fi R C A i CITIES IA %%l'.Ii.411l II NI,IrP•;.1)1t1; Honorable Keon I-Iarcleinon, Chair and City Commissioners 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Re: Item SR 4, Art in Public Places Second Reading Oiclinance Dear Mr. Chairman and City Commissioners: Maio DrItto. III HW RIJnl iltnal. Huila II/ I0,am1 flrl danr. PE 31100 Pao: SOS. SS,14, 100 Iltnfvord- 051-100•07).1 Ulk5lt. Umaa 170110rkckell Mono. PanlYme•a Bello 2a11.1'root IJpn.l FlJIISI 1 am writing on behalf of the Buidlers Assocaition of South Florida, to raise concerns about the above referenced item. It comes before you for public hearing on Thursday, June 23, 2016. Briefly, their concerns are outlined below. This proposed ordinance seeks a much broader applicability than Miami Dade Comity's Program. The proposal is not only applicable to public projects -- but it would now apply to nearly all construction activity on private property greater than Si million. o Applies to all "development projects" — including interior or exterior modifications, additions, or new construction that exceed $1 million in construction costs o Only exemptions are for: • Any project with construction costs less than $1 million ▪ Residential buildings or projects including Icss than 7 units a Limitations on Vested Rights. The proposed ordinance explicitly recognizes vested rights only when BOTH conditions are met below: (I) Project has been issued and continues to have a valid Waiver, Warrant, Class 11 Permit, (Exception, Variance, COA, MUSP, SAP, or development agreement, AND (2) Applicant obtains from the Building Department a "master building permit" within 6 months of the ordinance's effective date. 1 110011R11015 Waal I00OYrtIo r1.101 ADONEL 1)ISTINGIJI51161) IIASI INUUSliftY I I-'ADEI1S �" � CCEt��w. w 1f A r7E f! 1� 1 `,1 r'� 1I 1 V\L d i. V 11 1 . C� LIEI IFJAR Coastal w i;I:iSI l infinity j RELATED ill. Intl.., nl 46,..n10 AHN 1I FIN &I Al lii 1.1.1, INDUSTRIES FLORIDA EAST COAST 13iNin Saunberq 11Asscctn i.sei.tn4 ril)Ihillli& ttlligthr -tI ® GreeribergTraurIg IT zlil pRintErG2ouFa t" Jr} HIE onFEN CnhIPnH1C•9 ..... Page Two June 21, 2016 Chairman and City Commissioners ® Public Art Fee = l % of construction costs paid at building permit issuance; or provide on -site art piece valued at a minimum of 1.25% of construction costs. o Punitive computation of fee is essentially an ART IMPACT FEE. If the developer chooses to defer payment until TCO/CO, the values are calculated against PROJECT COST , rather than construction cost, which would include additional costs related to consulting fees, all interior systems and features, site work, permitting and entitlement costs, surveying, etc. and contingency allowances o On -site art must be first approved at a public hearing by the new AiPP Board; and property would be subject to a recorded covenant which requires that developer (i) maintains the art For its working life of up to 25 years, and (ii) posts fiords or letter of credit in escrow to secure replacement cost. O Broad discretion afforded to the newly -created AiPP Board o Seven appointed members with very broad discretion. Briefly, they will be responsible for the following: developing a public art plan, deciding how to spend the fees that are paid into this fund, approve or deny applications by property owners to satisfy public art requirements on -site, and hearing appeals and requests for waivers. o Lack of clarity about where the money must be spent: will the money paid by developer get used for artwork within close proximity? Within the same commission district? Or, simply citywide at the discretion of the board? 6 This is basically a blank check —to a Board that has never existed before — which the City is funding, through what is effectively — an art impact fee — adopted as though it is a zoning standard. Respectfully, given these numerous unanswered questions, BASF asks that this item be deferred at this tithe. Thank you for the opportunity to present the organization's views. Sincerely. 'Trt Lf3urten Executive Vice President 1110- tlf WIOMfOPSPOAOY(lilONA♦O ills rlN[1 I1151 tL=tl RASE INN tlsTliY 1. If A19LRS LENNJAR ZCoas1al x%flnity p RELATED III[ ll' ri.oniun tansy cons-r dral.Io., nt me-renme INDUSTRIES All2NsI l IN A t.Ei 1R LI.Y 13ttznl Solberg ei A�7!r(11:Ie1 ElFM INGreenbergTraurig IH$ f1114Pn COMPJIRIFS ASS( It' 1. I !AW Ott WI' t(1:Iktit:IL SINc:L'tth9AN ltfrllind&Kullghl 0 PRIMtaoolaotll' urns:.. -rspz:.:. Nunez, Efren From: Nunez, Efren Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 12:04 PM To: Schmitt, Megan Subject: FW; City of Miami - Letter of Opposition From: White, David [mailto:DRWhite@BBandT.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:11 AM To: Nunez, Efren Subject: RE: City of Miami - Letter of Opposition Efren, I spoke with our South Florida Region about this. While we are a sponsor of the Builders Association of South Florida, BB&T does not take formal positions on non -banking political or social issues. David R. White BB&T Vice President Corporate Communications 2400 Reynolda Road, Winston-Salem, N.C. 27106 TEL: 336-733-1471 I FAX: 336-733-0650 EMAIL: drwhiteta'7,bbandt.com I MAIL CODE: 001-94-02-2 From: Nunez, Efren[mailto:EfrenNunez@miamigov.comJ Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 10:26 AM To: CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS NOTIFICATION Cc: Garrido, Sergio Subject: City of Miami - Letter of Opposition Good afternoon: The City of Miami's Planning Department is in receipt of a letter of opposition from the BASF attached hereto opposing the City's initiative to promote the visual and performing arts by establishing a public art program. The Planning Department would like to confirm that the view's expressed in the letter are reflective of those of BB&T. Please note that this letter will form part of the public file under the Public Art Ordinance which is scheduled to go before the City Commission on July 14, 2016. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 305.416.1402 or Sergio Garrido at 305.412.1405. Efren Nunez, Planner li Planning & Zoning Department City of Miami 305.416.1402 EfrenNunez@miamigov.com 1 Nunez, Efren From: Casas-Celaya, Marta <Marta_Casas-Celaya@comcast.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 1:20 PM To: Nunez, Efren Cc: Garrido, Sergio Subject: RE: Letter of Opposition Efren, for the record, Comcast has no position on the Public Art Ordinance mentioned in the letter. Thanks again. COMCAST Marta M. Casas-Celaya, APR Director, Government & Community Affairs 1100 Northpoint Parkway West Palm Beach, FL 33407 Office: 561.227.3457 Cell: 561.236.2413 E-mail: Marta_Casas-Celaya@cable.comcast.com From: Nunez, Efren[mailto:EfrenNunez@miamigov.com] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 8:55 AM To: Casas-Celaya, Marta <Marta_Casas-Celaya@cabie.comcast.com> Cc: Garrido, Sergio <sgarrido@miamigov.com> Subject: RE: Letter of Opposition Good afternoon Marta: Per your request attached is the letter of opposition from the Builders Association of South Florida opposing the City's initiative to promote the visual and performing arts by establishing a public art program. The Planning Department would like to confirm that the view's expressed in the letter are reflective of those of Xfinity Comcast. Please note that this letter will form part of the public file under the Public Art Ordinance which is scheduled to go before the City Commission on July 14, 2016. Staff notes that the Xfinity Comcast Logo is reflected multiple times on the letter. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 305.416.1402 or Sergio Garrido at 305.412.1405. Efren Nunez, Planner II Planning g Zoning Department City of Miami 305.416.1402 EfrenNunez@miamigov.com From: Casas-Celaya, Marta [mailto:Marta Casas-Celaya@comcast.com] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 4:53 PM 1 at: Nunez, Efren Subject: Letter of Opposition 1 Nunez, Efren Subject: FW: Sr 4 and pz 14 art in public places (Wynwood BID) From: Eisenberg, Joseph Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2016 1:36 PM To: Nunez, Efren Subject: Fwd: Sr 4 and pz 14 art in public places FYI Joe Begin forwarded message: From: David Polinsky <dpolinsk agmail.com> Date: June 18, 2016 at 12:40:03 PM EDT To: David Snow <dsnow@miamigov.com> Cc: Joseph Eisenberg <JEisenberg@miamigov.com>, Steve wernick <steven,wernick cr,akennan.com>, Victor Sanchez<victor@goldmanproperties.corn> Subject: Sr 4 and pz 14 art in public places Hi David. Hope you are having a nice weekend. It looks like Wynwood will be requesting an absolute carve out of the NRD district from the proposed art in public places program. Wynwood already has more art in public places than any other parts of the City and arguably has almost too much art. We also already have a very well thought out arts program under NRD-1's requirements for art or glass treatments along facades facing primary frontages subject to WDRC review. The notion of an external AIPP board making these decisions runs contrary to our view of how best to help developers select art which is contextually appropriate to Wynwood. This should be done by WDRC alone. And if necessary we can make this role for the WDRC more explicit in NRD-I.1 before it gets to first reading. We also don't believe the same art should remain frozen in place for 25 years. A big part of what makes Wynwood interesting to the public is that the art is constantly changing. In the Wynwood context, spending 1.25% min on art may actually decrease the likelihood of producing art which is contextually interesting and appropriate. Paint is cheap and great mural artists sometimes even pay developers to have their art displayed on our buildings. (For example did you know the artists of Wynwood Walls are only reimbursed for expenses? Clearly low expenses has not been a deterrent to creating great public art spaces in Wynwood.). Going out of our way to spend more could just lead to worst choices for the sake of showing the required amounts had been spent. i We also believe the definition of Art in the draft legislation is too narrow and should include all types of hardscape and softscape materials within publicly accessible spaces (such as paseos and breezeways) which can be rendered onto a building in ways which create interaction with art. Lastly the definition of Artist should be broadened to include other design professionals, such as architects and landscape architects. As 250 Wynwood showed, the interaction of art with architecture is as important as the selection of artworks themselves. And several of these other design professionals can play a similar role as an "Artist" in creating artistic moments within a project. I am speaking again with Efran on Monday at 1;30 to see if AIPP and NRD-1 can be reconciled. But I dont necessarily expect we will reach an agreement in time for Thursday's scheduled second reading, in which case the BID will ask for a deferral. I highly value your input and Joe's and would like to discuss with you both before then. I hope you will understand and agree that unless we properly vet this legislation and reconcile with what is already working in Wynwood and in the NRD zoning, the unintended consequences could be very damaging to Wynwood's role as one of Miami's and the country's great neighborhoods. The easiest and perhaps only workable solution would be to carve out Wynwood and i believe this is what the BID will be advocating. Best Regard David Sent from my iPhone 2 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WYNWOOD Honorable Daniel J, Alfonso City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2r"' Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 Dear Mr. Manager, I3tn NW 26th Street Suite ni Miami, Florida 33.127 I$ (78ii)6!S-8829 E info(wynwrolltsiti.coM The Wynwood Business Improvement would like to express its strong concern about the inclusion of the Wynwood Arts District in the proposed Art In Public Places Program ("AIPP"), SR.4 and PZ.14, scheduled for second reading on June 23rd. This new legislation is incompatible with the recently approved Wynwood NRD-1 zoning overlay. For instance, none of the mural arts which wrap our buildings and which have helped Wynwood to become an internationally acclaimed arts and culture destination, would meet the definition of "Art" under the new AIPP legislation. The Wynwood NRD-1 legislation already contains incentives for the inclusion of art in new construction projects, subject to review by the Wynwood Design Review Committee (WDRC). The WDRC meets monthly and is staffed by design professionals, artists and property owners with an in-depth, contextual knowledge of Wynwood and its unique artistic environment. In other words, Wynwood does not need a separate and redundant art in public places program and board, which would only serve to increase construction costs and dilute the effectiveness of our existing, already successful programs. The Wynwood BID therefore respectfully requests that all properties with the NRD-1 boundaries be made exempt from the requirements of the proposed AIPP legislation. Thank you for your consideration. i om Curitor Executive Director The Wynwood Rus,ness improvement District (BID) is u municipal board of the City of Miami, 'Florida. II mission ,s to guild upon Wynwnnd's role as a gloIxliy recognized tenter for arts, innovation or,d cclture, NNT4 s, Bt151NE5S IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WYNWOOD I3to NW 26th Street Suite HI Miami, Florida 33127 I, (786) 6t5-8828 B info1wynwoodbid.com A RESOLUTION OF THE WYNWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ("BID") PLANNING COMMITTEE URGING THE CITY OF MIAMI TO NOT ADOPT AN "ARTS IN PUBLIC PLACES" PROGRAM THAT AFFECTS THE WYNWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD; URGING THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE BID TO ADOPT A SIMILAR RESOLUTION; FURTHER DIRECTING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TRANSMIT COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE OFFICIALS STATED HEREIN. WHEREAS, Wynwood is a neighborhood in the City of Miami ("City") generally bounded by NW 20th Street to the South, NW 361h Street to the North, the FEC Railroad tracks to the east, and Highway 95 to the west; and WHEREAS, Wynwood was originally first recognized on or about January 7, 1917 when Josiah Chaille and Hugh Anderson platted in the area; and WHEREAS, Wynwood was once a distressed area that is now a thriving arts and culture district; and WHEREAS, Wynwood has developed over the last decade through public art and expression; and WHEREAS, in 2009, Goldman Properties created the Wynwood Walls which has included more than 50 artists from 16 countries and has brought much notoriety to the City within the genre of graffiti and street art, along with the world's greatest artists; and WHEREAS, while many would consider graffiti to be vandalism, in the unique neighborhood of Wynwood, landowners cultivate street artists and have helped the area become a freewheeling outdoor museum; and WHEREAS, the Wynwood Art District Is a district of the Wynwood neighborhood that is home to over 70 galleries, five museums, three collections, seven art complexes, 12 art studios five art fairs, and the Wynwood Walls; and WHEREAS, every second Saturday of each month, a community -wide art walk is held called the Wynwood Artwalk; and WHEREAS, Wynwood has become the go -to -place for an alternative and more cultural nightlife in the City; and The Wynwood Business Improvement District (BID) is a municipal hoard of the City 01 Miarnl, Florida. Its mission is to build upon Wynweod's role as a globally recognised center For arts, innovation end culture. WHEREAS, Wynwood has been able to create this cultural mecca without the need for specific regulations concerning or requiring art in the public domain; and WHEREAS, the City is now attempting to create public art program ("Program") that would apply to Wynwood as well as other areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the Wynwood Business Improvement District Planning Committee ("Committee") commends the City for considering such a Program; and WHEREAS, the Committee is concerned that Wynwood is very unique and different from other areas of the City and thus should not have the same Program regulations apply to its unique neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the Program requires the acquisition of works of art in value of a minimum of one and a quarter percent of construction costs of one million dollars or more; and WHEREAS, while much of the construction costs in Wynwood meets the applicable dollar threshold, the unique artwork that currently exists does not meet this dollar threshold; and WHEREAS, the Program has a related board that is made of individuals who possess degrees in the fine arts and related fields; and WHEREAS, many of the artists who have created beautiful works of art in Wynwood do not have any related degrees and thus would be "judged" by individuals who are not their peers and do not necessarily understand the uniqueness of Wynwood; and WHEREAS, criteria to determine if art should be erected pursuant to the Program is whether the artist has sold any art in the past; and WHEREAS, many of the artists in Wynwood are considered "street artists" who do not "sell" their artwork but simply display it for the enjoyment and benefit of the public; and WHEREAS, the Program requires the artwork to be "durable" for a minimum of twenty- five years; and WHEREAS, the unique artwork in Wynwood is not meant to last for twenty-five years, but rather, is intended to be periodically changed; and WHEREAS, the Program requires an application process to display art including, but not limited, to submission of sketches, appraisals, and plans; and VVHEREAS, the unique artwork in Wynwood is not "planned" but is created as a result of creative minds and passions; and WHEREAS, the program requires artists to waive any rights they may have to their artwork including the right to reproduce and distribute; and WHEREAS, the artwork in Wynwood is unique and thus artists who have displayed their artwork in Wynwood should not be required waive any of their invaluable rights; and WHEREAS, implementation of any of the regulations of the Program in Wynwood will have a detrimental effect including but not limited to deterring artists from displaying their unique artwork in Wynwood; and WHEREAS, the Committee believes the intent of the Program would not be accomplished in Wynwood, specifically improving the quality of life of residents, stimulating businesses, attracting visitors and potential residents, and creation of job opportunities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE it RESOLVED BY THE WYNWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PLANNING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF MIAMi, FLORIDA; Section 1_ The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The Wynwood Business Improvement District Planning Committee urges the City of Miami to not adopt an "Art in Public Places" Program that affects the Wynwood neighborhood. Section 3. The Committee urges the Board of the BID to adopt a similar Resolution. Section 4. The Executive Director is directed to transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Mayor and Members of the Miami City Commission, City Manager Daniel J. Alfonso, City Attorney Victoria Mendez, Planning Director Francisco J. Garcia, and all the board members of the Wynwood Business Improvement District. Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and execution by the Chairperson. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 29th DAY OF JUNE, 2016. David Polinsky Chairperson \I WYNWOOD BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Sao NW 26th Street Suite Ito Miami, Florida 33127 RE: City of Miami Art in Public Places Program (AiPP) Legislation SR.1 and PZ.1, July 14, 2016 City Commission Agenda IT (786) 615-8828 e 111f0.09wynwuodbid.rnira The Wynwood Business Improvement District (BID) has always proudly supported the incorporation of art into the built environment and has developed a reputation worldwide as a major tourist destination for the mural arts, with a creative energy that has been incorporated into the NRD-1 district recently created by the City of Miami as an overlay district to spur neighborhood revitalization and encourage mixed use development. Although we support the goal of investing in public art and the placement of artwork in public places, the BID has expressed and continues to have concerns about the basic compatibility of the program in Wynwood, as the same mural arts that have brought Wynwood worldwide recognition and investment, would not be recognized for credit towards the AiPP legislation requirements. Furthermore, the BID, as a Board of the City of Miami, is concerned about potential legal issues with the legislation as drafted that have been brought to our attention, and the requirements imposed on property owners. While these ordinances exist in Florida, it appears the legitimacy of the ordinance has not been tested. it has come to our attention that recent case law applicable in Florida, namely the Supreme Court's decision in Koontz V. St John's Water Munugernent District, has created more protection for property owners and restrictions on a municipality's ability to Impose requirements on a private property owner as a condition to obtaining a permit. Additionally, in 2015, the Florida legislature enacted Sec. 10.45, FS., which establishes a claim under state law for government actions which might not rise to the level of a "takings" under the US Constitution, and randates attorney's fees be awarded by a court if it finds the government action improper, and is deemed a separate cause of action from Bert Harris claims, etc. See attached. Sec. 70.45, F5, broadly defines the term "prohibited exaction" to include "any condition" that does not meet the test of an essential nexus and rough proportionality to some impact it is trying to address. The statute mandates that if a court finds that the government action is improper, the court must grant attorney's fees to the property owner. The Legislation calls for the creation of a Board and a set of standards and guidelines (namely the "Public Art Master Plan" and "Public Art Program Guidelines") that must be satisfied by an applicant proposing to provide art on site do not actually exist today and may not exist for an extended period of time. Explicitly the legislation says they will he drafted by staff, to he reviewed and recommended by the Board which is yet to be formed and many months away from having its first meeting, for the city commission to ultimately approve at a public hearing. This could take a year, or possibly more. However, the requirement to "comply" imposed on property owners becomes effective immediately upon adoption and signature by Mayor or if no veto within 10 days. And thus those owners would only have the option of paying the art fee. Given the risk and uncertainty involved and potential fiscal impact if a court were to determine the legislation was lnvalid, the BID wanted to make sure the Administration, City Attorney's Office and City (38686274;2/ The Wynvrood Business improvement District (BILI) is a rrmnicipai hoard of the City of Miami, Rorida_ tte mission is to build upon Wynwond's role ns a globally, recognized center To' nits, innuentior and culture. Commission were aware of this statute and the potential risks involved with this legislation before moving forward at Thursday's commission meeting. 138686274 2i UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI LJ VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Daniel J. Alfonso City Manager, City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 CityManager@miamigov.com Office of the President June 9. 2016 Submitted into the publi record or it m(s) � • Z on _(_. City Clerk P.t) 13ox 2/1800h I'1i W5,-784-5155 Loral G.thles, TL 33f2,I •11,00 Fx' .3U5.2841•376+3 Re: Art in Public Places Program City of Miami City Commission Agenda June 9. 2016 Agenda Items FR.2 & PZ. I Dear Mr. Alfonso: This correspondence is transmitted to you on behalf olthe University of Miami (the "University"). It very recently came to the University's attention that the City of Miami (the "City") is considering the adoption of ordinances establishing 'Public Art Requirements" and establishing a "Public Art Fee" based on defined "Construction Costs" (collectively. the "Proposed Legislation"). The purpose of this correspondence is to request that the City amend the Proposed Legislation to create an exemption for the University in substantially the following form: XX. Exemptions The requirements of this ordinance shall not apply to an entity organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that: (1) provides medical and clinical health care services, research or educational activities within a campus environment; and (2) displays art on its campus pursuant to a public art program. We look forward to working with the City to shape the Proposed Legislation between first and second reading. The University is committed to public art. At present, there are eight (8) pieces of public art at the University's Medical Campus. The t - 00i315 4- -.Su-- (Y}A a 4L iAre.Z- C o.,4i-er 0 s..x rip-!'ai llt7~ oe 5CUcsub., i+ A - ` /64-.e.. AkditiQ 2 - Le. k i -X .ovl Submitted into the ubl'c recor for City Clerk University's Coral Gables Campus displays a wide selection ofpublic art and, of course. houses the extensive collections within the Lowe Art Museum. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this correspondence. We look forward to working with the City (-inn this issue. Very truly yours, udy Fernandez Chief of Staff to the President Vice President for Government and Community Relations University of Miami Cc: Ms. Victoria Mendez. I:sy.. vmende 0),miatnigov.corn Mr. Francisco J. Garcia. fgarcia cc miamigov.com Mr. 'Todd B. Hannon. cicrks(a miamigov.com. Mr. Rudy Fernandez, rfernandez*miami.edu Mr. Marc Weinroth, mweinroth@miami.edu miami.edu Ms. Janet Gavarrcte. igavarrcte(ujmiami.edu