Who knew that Dave Mowat’s presentation at Pecha Kucha Night 14 back in October would become such a big deal? Maybe he did, but I sure didn’t. It was a great presentation, but we’ve had lots of people come forward with ideas on how to beautify the city, and none of those took off. Furthermore, Dave wasn’t the first one to suggest lighting up the High Level Bridge, something he readily admits. So what made his presentation different?
Well for one thing, Dave Mowat is no ordinary citizen (despite how down-to-earth and approachable his bio sounds). He’s the President and CEO of ATB Financial, an organization with assets of about $27.4 billion, making it the largest Alberta-based financial institution. If we brought together a group of the city’s “power brokers” , Dave would probably have a seat at the table. When he picks up the phone to call EPCOR and asks for a couple hundred thousand dollars for his project, he gets it. I couldn’t do that, could you?
That’s one reason why I’m not a big fan of the proposed fundraising campaign. With an estimated cost of anywhere from $400,000 to nearly $2 million, Dave is going to need more than just the $225,000 committed by EPCOR. Gordon Kent reports:
He would like a few corporate sponsors to pay the bulk of the expenses, with 100 to 200 businesses making smaller contributions and 10,000 to 30,000 people donating about $10 each to “buy a diode.”
When he spoke to Executive Committee on January 14, Dave said, “I think a project like this lends itself toward grassroots funding.” We can disguise this as a “community project” by launching such a fundraising campaign, but that feels a bit disingenuous to me. Dave recognizes that selling diodes for $10 isn’t going to pay for the project, but will build awareness. Still, I’m concerned it’ll do more harm than good.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think it is fantastic that Dave and ATB have taken such an active role in driving this forward. I love that he decided to take action with his idea, rather than just talk about it, and I hope he has inspired other businesses and leaders in Edmonton to do the same.
And I think that lighting up our bridges is a great idea. It aligns nicely with our Winter City Strategy, I think it’ll make Edmontonians feel safer and happier crossing the bridge, and it could become our “signature shot” which would be a great thing for tourism, not to mention civic pride.
There are always going to be naysayers, but it seems to me that most people like the idea of lighting up the High Level Bridge, especially for its 100th anniversary this June. So why would we rely on the private sector to make it happen? If it’s such a good idea, why do we need to raise funds for it?
I think the City of Edmonton should pay for it. Maybe not all of it, but a majority of it. The High Level Bridge is an important piece of municipal infrastructure, it’s an important part of Edmonton’s history, and this project will benefit all Edmontonians.
There’s precedent for this too, as the report that went to Executive Committee noted:
The Langevin Bridge in Calgary was equipped with decorative LED lighting in 2009 at a cost of $370,000. Funding for this project was provided by the Calgary Municipal Land Corporation as part of a revitalization initiative in the East Village. The project included the installation of over 5600 LEDs with roughly the same power consumption of just three Alberta households.
City Manager Simon Farbrother made it clear that Edmonton would not be unique in providing funding to the project. “The reality is that large cities today illuminate themselves at night, and they do it in many ways, and the city has some work to do to catch up in this area.”
We’re spending $2 million this year on Edmonton’s image and brand, and millions more over the next few years. Why not take some of that budget and apply it to a concrete project like this, one that will actually help our brand? Or how about the 1% for Art program? Do you know what 1% of the estimated cost of the Southeast to West LRT expansion is? About $34 million. Considering we spent just 0.08% of the approved 2009-2011 Capital Budget on art, I’d be shocked if we spent anywhere close to that amount along the LRT line. Why not take some of that funding and apply it to the lighting project? It would certainly qualify as a “highly visible” project (and a quick read of policy C458C suggests this is possible).
I recognize that lighting up the High Level Bridge has never been considered in any of the City’s budgets. And I recognize that especially in an election year, this is going to be a tough sell. But I think this is a conversation that needs to take place.
When news first spread that Executive Committee had decided to take a look at contributing to the project, a number of people expressed their displeasure. It was unfortunate that it happened around the same time as YESS announced it could not meet its funding requirements, causing some people to incorrectly link the two. We should help YESS instead of beautifying our city, they said. I think Ryan Jespersen responded to that criticism well:
Along those lines, I wish that Dave had gone to Council and said something like, “this is an important project for Edmonton, and I want to help you make it happen.” Instead, he essentially said “this is a great idea and since we’re both resigned to the fact that spending public money on this can’t ever be a priority, I’m just going to go and fundraise it myself.” Good on him for taking action, but it doesn’t help to shift the conversation in the direction it needs to go. We need to be willing as a city to spend money on projects like this.
So what’s next? Executive Committee directed Administration to come back on March 11 with “a plan, including a budget proposal and a schedule” for the project. It also asked for a report on an integrated program for illuminating other key landmarks, including City Hall and other bridges, and that report should be finished by April 15. In the meantime, I’ve heard that Dave’s fundraising campaign is starting to take shape.
While we’re definitely running out of time to make something happen for June, I’m hopeful that we don’t rush the project. I think the magic happens when we can light up more than just the High Level Bridge. A phased approach is sensible, but it would be nice to have a vision for something larger.
As Councillor Henderson said, “If we’re going to do it, we should do it right.”
MasterMaq's Blog 
Maybe they could sell the Quinnell dingleball pile to jump start the funding effort.
Do the “Dingleballs” have anything to do with adopting truck balls as a symbol of yeg? 😛
I’d trade year-round lighting for a 10 times a year waterfall anyday
Mack, regarding your comments about the amount of funding that the Southeast to West LRT project will generate…
Edmonton’s Percent for Art Policy, policy C458C, (unlike Calgary’s) only applies to the hard capital construction costs of publicly accessible facilities.
In the case of the Southeast to West LRT expansion, the publicly accessible aspects are considered to be the stations and the bridges (not the lines themselves). Of those budgets, one percent of the hard costs only (so, no professional fees) are earmarked for public art. This means that the $34 million amount that you estimated is very high. The final amount for public art from this LRT expansion will more likely be in the $2 million range.
So, while the idea of pooling available public art funds is one that we support and will be discussing with City Council this spring, we want to keep a priority for public artworks on new and renovated projects, and then pool when there is consensus that the specific project (while qualifying and having some public access and visibility) does not require the amount of public art generated by the 1% for that project.
I hope this helps provide some clarity on the policy.
Alison Turner, Edmonton Arts Council
Alison, does this policy change at all with the recent modification of P3 arrangements? i.e. Does greater private finance percentages mean the calculation for publicly accessible facilities would end up being much lower?
I’m still not sure what your argument against private funding is, Mack. Maybe I missed something, but all you’ve said is “If it’s such a good idea, why do we need to raise funds for it?” But why is it better for the city to spend public funds on this specific project?
I could understand an argument against turning bridge lighting into an advertising campaign for the funders, but I don’t see any mention of that.
Dave Mowat is obviously a guy that know how to get things done. You’ve already mentioned lighting up the bridges isn’t a new idea, but it hasn’t happened yet. If the city wanted to do it, it would have or could have lit the bridges long before now. But it hasn’t been happened.
Am I understanding correctly that you think the bridge lighting should be paid for by the city as a matter of civic pride? How does private funding the project undercut this same sense of civic pride?
Unless you’re calling attention to a lack of vision and drive at the city to do something that is so obviously a good idea.
Please clarify 😉
Hey Jay, thanks for the comment. There’s certainly part of my argument that is along the lines of, “if this is such a good idea, why fundraise” but it’s more than just that.
What I’m trying to get across is that the real conversation we need to be having is about what the City does and does not spend money on, and that it is okay for the City to spend money on projects like this. I think the general reaction to the City putting money into lighting up bridges and landmarks would be negative, and I think that’s unfortunate.
It’s not so much about civic pride as it is about priorities and walking-the-talk. We talk about improving Edmonton’s image all the time, so why not put some tangible dollars behind it?
Also, it’s not that I am against private funding…it’s more that I am for public funding 🙂
How about you pay for it then. Public funding priority’s right now is the miserable state of our roads, lack of enough bridges, old and inadequate sewer and storm systems etc. Needs first.