This monument to the War of 1812 was unveiled yesterday in downtown Toronto. Its creator, Vancouver artist Douglas Coupland, intends it to clear up who won that war.
According to the National Post, the figures are made of styrofoam and steel then blanketed with resin hardcoat. They were made in Calgary and transported to Toronto at an estimated cost of about $500,000.
I'll let the historians debate the War of 1812. And I will leave it up to you, gentle reader, to judge the artistic merits of the monument. Instead, I'd like to focus on how this public art was procured.
The monument was commissioned by the developer of the condominium as a "public art contribution". You may be scratching your head: why would a developer pay $500,000 for public art? Well, because it had to. There are two ways to exact this type of contribution from a developer. The first is to require it as a condition of development approval. In this way the developer is required to return to the community some of its profit. The second is for the community to give the developer a "bonus" for being a good citizen: "our land use regulations permit only 25 floors on this site, but if you decide to contribute, we'll reciprocate by giving you 30 floors. It's up to you."
From a public finance perspective, the case for public art contributions is not strong. The developer should properly bear the burden for goods that specifically benefit its buyers, and for goods that the city must provide because of the development. But public art benefits everybody, and the need for it is not attributable to any specific project. In other words, public art is better funded from public funds.
Which brings up another troubling aspect of this "contribution". Suppose the developer was required instead to make a cash contribution of $500,000. Would the city itself commission the monument? Is this how it would spend the money? Probably not. Consider the recent decision of Edmonton city council to reject a $750,000 proposal for this new entrance sign to the city:
The councillor for the ward in which the sign was to be located argued that the local residents have gone without dinner for years, and didn't need dessert.
