Pathways: Art at the Water Street Bridge

Fitchburg Cultural Alliance

Fitchburg, MA

Contact Name

Mary Chapin Durling

Post date

October 9, 2012

Project Dates

2010

Workshop Leader

Creative Communities Exchange (CCX) 2011

Tags

Design

Pathways was the third tier of REACH Fitchburg’s 2007 Abigail and John Adams project which focused on revitalization of Main Street and the downtown area. The creation of a sculpture (the first in the city since the 1960s)—a dramatic, contemporary piece of art—was seen as a declaration of the vibrancy of arts and culture in Fitchburg’s historic downtown. The motivating factor was the collaborators’ love affair with Fitchburg. Many of us in the project have personal, emotional connections to the city and its earlier vitality. We are committed—not to the unobtainable “return” of Fitchburg of the 50s and 60s—but to the re-visioning, revitalization and renewing of its future.

Project Goals

What were the project goals?

There were two goals for the project. The first was to create a sculpture that was both reflective of Fitchburg’s rich history while simultaneously contemporary as it marked the entrance to the historical and cultural downtown. The second was to execute the sculpture as a community public art project— engaging diverse sectors of the community in many different settings. This project began with a dynamic, six-month public planning effort that gathered community input starting in May 2009. The design of Pathways integrated these community ideas while meeting agreed upon project specifications from the public art committee, while also maintaining a pleasing visual aesthetic. This process focused centrally on the “sense of place” concept outlined in the original call for artists. The second goal—community engagement—was easier to implement but involved time and planning. The first goal—the artwork itself —as a concept stayed in place. Its location and design had twists, turns, bumps, and grinding halts along the {path}way.

Have they changed over time?

At the start of the project, the collaborators received support from the city to install the sculpture on the Water Street Bridge. Grant applications began. But a change in leadership of the city Department of Public Works took place, and the new office-holder indicated that ownership of the bridge – and permission to erect any sculpture - lay with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT). This complicated the process. Originally, Fitchburg Cultural Alliance met with a DOT representative, and DOT acknowledged the project and verbally approved the addition of a public artwork on the bridge. When designs were ready, a DOT representative reviewed them and suggested applying for a permit to erect the sculpture along the fence that ran along the bridge. When the permit was denied, we were at a crossroads. We could spend time and a majority of our funds on engineering the project, and reapply for the permit with no guarantee that the DOT would approve it, or we could begin looking at several options for relocation of the sculpture. These ranged from the city line to the shopping plaza near the bridge to Main Street itself. After visiting and discussing all the options, we decided to keep to the original intention of creating a “Gateway to Main.” The new proposed site, adjacent to Central Plaza, was on private property, and as such required a new stakeholder to be added to the project. Market Basket (formerly the DeMoulas Brothers supermarket), joined the cause. The site change meant altering the design and scope of the project. It meant pushing back the installation from May 2010 to fall 2010. It meant seeking additional funding for the artist. It meant working with a new corporate partner which only visited the Fitchburg Market Basket for these meetings. It meant informing the funders and hoping that did not impact either current or future support.

Who are the project partners and stakeholders?

Pathways was created through a collaboration of the Fitchburg Cultural Alliance, the City of Fitchburg, and Fitchburg State University. Additional stakeholders were Massachusetts Cultural Council, New England Foundation for the Arts and Market Basket (DeMoulas Brothers) Supermarket.

Project Specifics

How was the project implemented? What were the steps taken?

{GC} The project was executed through a collaborative approach. Mary Chapin Durling (Fitchburg State University), Ellen DiGeronimo (community member/Fitchburg Cultural Alliance) and Jennifer Jones (president/Fitchburg Cultural Alliance) were instrumental to the vision and success of the project. They organized and facilitated events, such as group tours, speaking events and community activities. They wrote grants, and supplied additional funding when needed. Mary Chapin Durling managed the overall administrative duties, which was key to such a dynamic, multi-faceted project. As a newcomer to the community, I introduced myself, my work and led discussions about public art and Fitchburg. I participated in local events. I met with lots of people from the sidewalk to engaging in online discussions, which I facilitated by starting a blog devoted to the project. This helped to document the process for everyone involved, but also served as branding tool and a journal for the whole project. When we moved to the design phase, I provided drawings, photo-renderings, a small model and a thorough budget. Once the fabrication of the project was underway, I managed the budget, timeline, sub-contractors, volunteers and installation of the artwork. {MCD} The timeline specifics and details: Jan. 2007 Awarded Adams grant $ Fall 2008 Applied and awarded NEFA’s Northern New England Public Art grant $ Fall 2008 NEFA: call to artists; submission; collation sent to collaborators Feb. 2009 Community panel convenes and selects Gillian Christy Spring 2009 Gillian accepts May 2009 Gillian’s introduction to the community and FCA June 2009 1st Site Visit a. visioning session with Fitchburg Arts Academy middle school students b. research and conversation at the Historical Society c. conversation and meal with FCA members and community d. trolley tour of downtown Aug. 2009 2nd Site Visit/Day at the Bridge: conversation about the project, public art and the meaning of Fitchburg with those who use the Water Street Bridge as part of their daily life; not necessarily arts consumers. Fall 2009 3rd Site Visit a. Art & Community talk as part of CenterStage at Fitchburg State University: presentation of Gillian’s artistic process to FS students and general community b. gallery Exhibition: Sculptures In & Out. As part of CenterStage’s art gallery exhibitions, Gillian’s work was in the gallery and installed on the campus Quad. Oct. 2009 4th Site Visit/Forge-In Day: blacksmith festival—general conversation, gathering ideas and comments from the community. Fall 2009 ARRA {American Recovery and Reinvestment Act} funds application Dec. 2009 5th Site Visit presentation of design Jan. 2010 ARRA funds awarded Winter 2010 6th Site Visit/DOT derailment: presentations, meetings, conversations, applications, denials and decisions Winter 2010 new site visioning and conversations Spring 2010 first meeting of collaborators with DeMoulas representative Spring 2010 7th Site Visit/first meeting with Gillian and DeMoulas at site Spring 2010 8th Site Visit/presentation of design #2 Spring 2010 next phase: request to install on DeMoulas’ property; contract; FCA ownership/gifting issue and legal ramifications Summer 2010 DeMoulas’ contribution secured $ Summer 2010 Fabrication begins at Gillian’s studio Fitchburg State intern works with Gillian Fitchburg photographer documents work Sept. 2010 City Council issues: gifting to the city; process through committees Sept. 2010 9th Site Visit/site work begins: brick pad laid Oct. 2010 10th Site Visit/presentation of sculpture to City Council by Gillian with collaborators Oct. 2010 11th Site Visit/Forge-In Day: conversation and dissemination of installation and ribbon-cutting Oct. 2010 12th Site Visit/installation: City Council and interested community members become hands-on participants in the installation Nov. 2010 13th Site Visit/Ribbon-cutting: funders, legislators, mayor, councilors, FCA and community members attend ribbon-cutting in a torrential down pouring First Thursday event Refinements to the project—as indicated above—included additional funding sources, a new location, new design and additional partners. {GC} Budget: Art on Water Street, "Pathways" Item Cost Site Visits $ 2,000 Design $ 1,500 Design Development $ 2,425 Model $ 200 Engineer $ 1,200 Project Management $ 2,000 Fabrication $10,000 Materials $ 5,885 Base Plates $ 1,047 Water jet cut $ 1,439 Rolling $ 2,500 Consumables $ 440 Powder Coat $ 250 Site Demo $ 1,975 Base install $ 5,000 On-Site Welder $ 300 Artist $ 1,440 Assistant $ 280 Truck Rental $ 92 Final Photo $ 500 Ribbon Cutting Event $ 500 7% Contingency x Artists' Fee $ 4,026 TOTAL BUDGET: $45,000

Have they been refined over time?

The original budget was increased twice. The first grant provided $25,000 for a completed project that included site visits and a piece of sculpture. We applied for ARRA funds for two reasons: to expand the scope of the work—crossing over to include the west side of the bridge {the bridge being the original location} and for exigencies. We knew there were potential additional costs {increased engineering costs because of the bridge location} and the ARRA funds provided insurance for that. When we needed to move to the DeMoulas’ location, we knew that there would, again, be unforeseen costs. There were: a brick pad needed to be designed and created and with it came construction costs. It also made good sense to ask the DeMoulas Supermarket to participate not only with space but with their philanthropic dollars; it signals a different commitment to the project. DeMoulas also stepped up and contributed the landscaping around the sculpture.

Obstacles

What were your major obstacles?

{GC} Working together to arrive at a solution to overcome obstacles helped. We were able to brainstorm about “Plan B.” “Plan B” did not yet exist, so remaining sure that the project would move forward, and keeping a sense of humor with a “can do” attitude helped! WIth the original bridge concept I had proposed a very flat and long piece of artwork. Since the artwork was going to be attached to a chain-link fence, right next to a pedestrian sidewalk, my design was constrained. Once the project changed direction, I was eager to consider creating a three-dimensional, freestanding piece. When I visited Fitchburg to see where the next site may be, it was hard to get the team to change their perspective about the design. They had imagined taking the previously designed (flat) piece and simply moving it, where I was ready to completely re-design based on the site. During this meeting, I quickly sketched what I was thinking and showed everyone what I meant. That quick sketch of a freestanding sculpture, incorporating the same concept and imagery, opened up new possibilities and reinvigorated the group. The obstacles opened doors for additional funding and allowed Market Basket and the Fitchburg City Council to be involved.

Who or what was instrumental in overcoming these obstacles?

Mary Chapin Durling and Ellen DiGeronimo were instrumental in getting everyone on-board. When put in frustrating situations with public art projects, my advice is to consider the obstacle a turning point and move forward. As the artist, I was put in a position where I could turn the site changes into an artwork that would ultimately result in a more dynamic sculpture, so that was a positive. However, during this 4-6 month delay I also had to find other work in order to sustain myself. This can be economically challenging to an artist, and something that may warrant discussion during contract negotiations. With a year “invested” in the project, I knew I had to stick with it, keep the ball rolling and see it through to the end.

What top three suggestions would you give to others attempting a similar project?

1. The most successful collaboration has good partners with a complementary variety of strengths and a genuine acceptance of each other’s limits. In our case that translated to the following: a. someone who knows city (and state) political protocol. b. someone who is organized and can see the global picture and the details c. at least one institution with resources d. an amazing artist, one whose focus is the community’s success through their art rather than their art as a stand-alone representation of their ego {look for a Gillian Christy} 2. Time. Determine your global timeline and add 6-12 months. Determine your working time per event, component and milestone—now double that allotment. 3. Vision. Determine your vision; now accept that it will change and arrive at a different iteration that is {if successful} ultimately the best. Be resilient; be able to rethink and adapt; and find new partners. 4. Be prepared for rain.

Project Impact

How has this project contributed to creative community building?

{GC} The new site was transformed from a forgotten old dirt patch. The site was cleaned up and landscaped. The dirt walkway was acknowledged as a short-cut and a stone path was put in its place for pedestrians. The base of the sculpture consists of a brick retaining wall which we have found also serves as a bench and resting place. Until one witnesses these common bits of daily interaction, it is hard to imagine such a transformation. It is gratifying that the idea of adding sculpture inspires community pride and truly creates a “sense of place.” From my time installing the sculpture, people were intrigued, happy and genuinely supportive of something beautiful being added to Fitchburg.

Why do you consider the project successful, as related to your project goals above?

The original goals were achieved. The design of the artwork leads one’s eye to the Water Street bridge, signifying the “Gateway to Fitchburg.” Ideally, the artwork inspires people to stop, look, reflect and enjoy the representation of Fitchburg.

Were there unexpected impacts?

Artscope Magazine editor Kaveh Mojtabal helped me see that this is an extraordinary accomplishment by the FCA and a project that could be replicated in any town with some drive and ambition. In the Artscope article by Brian Goslow about the project, “A Pathway to Revilization” (March/April 2010), Goslow describes the process from initial vision to writing grants and inspiring others about the value of generating public art. The Pathways project may inspire towns looking to revive a Main Street, create a space, or identify a landmark. Partnering with a developer looking to build may be a negotiating tool to get public art in your town as well. {MCD} The project could be replicated by collaboration similar to ours: a community {arts} organization, a large institution, interested community members and staff from city administration. {MCD} Gillian’s comments on the impact start at the installation. I view the impact over all the years and nearly 30 site visits and meetings with Gillian. All the conversations with the thousands of people—from truly the young to the old—that Gillian held are essential to the impact of this project. She discussed ideas—from the widest concept of public art to the personal/emotional meaning of one’s home—with the community. That public conversation is perhaps even more important to shifting Fitchburg’s perception of itself from a post-industrial, lackluster city to one with hope… and art. Then the artwork stands as an icon—a personal connection to that process. The most recent e-newsletter from WolfBrown supports this assertion: Most of us are familiar with arguments and examples of arts as a means of community development, a driver of urban revitalization, beautification and business development. A recent Mission Models Money (MMM) paper, titled "Sustainable Ability," argues that we should now focus on art's ability to elevate the importance of intrinsic values in order to adapt to changing conditions, and hopefully resolve or mitigate larger problems such as climate change. In this argument, intrinsic values refer to "what matters on the inside ... aspects of ourselves that value community, family, connection to others" that often act as a greater motivator for change than scientific evidence. MMM and others (e.g., The Canadian Geographer's 2004 article "Reimagining Sustainable Cultures: Constitutions, Land and Art" by Nancy Doubleday, et. al.) assert that the arts act as a galvanizing force to strengthen and heal communities. The arts are a vehicle for solving complex issues through re-imagining the future and highlighting different perspectives, and an agent for changing ingrained and destructive behaviors. In other words, community and cultural resilience is a byproduct of a thriving creative sector. A recent Arts Council England paper - Making Adaptive Resiliency Real- explains the importance of arts organizations in the local sphere, why it is important to understand what is happening in the external environment, and how one's work is interrelated to community health and vibrancy. But now there are the additional thousands of people who simply see this magnificent piece of art. Some stop and go over to examine. Some sit at its base heading to the market or back home. Some admire how the seasons’ light, time of day or weather are reflected in the contours of the piece. But it is in their city and their piece of art. Ultimately that is at the core of a community project—it provides a personal experience or connection as part of the collective whole; an important and integral piece of the fabric of the city.

CCX Workshop Handout

ToDo-Fitchburg.pdf (303.92 KB)

Stay Connected

Receive the latest news, grant offerings, and community events.