SURVEY OF PUBLIC ART IN SMALL AND MID-SIZED CITIES

within

TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS The University of Texas at ArlingtonCAPPA Department of Public Affairs

Public Administration Capstone Fall 2021

Dr. Joseph Portugal, ICMA-CM

Project Team Members

Trevor MeagherAdriana AmayaRichard Gooden

Doris Lago

November 23, 2021

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master’s of Public Administration in the College of Architecture, Planning and Public Affairs of

the University of Texas at Arlington

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................2

Introduction and Background..........................................................................................................3

Methodology..................................................................................................................................16

Findings.........................................................................................................................................21

Discussion......................................................................................................................................25

Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................35

References......................................................................................................................................37

Appendices.....................................................................................................................................40

Appendix A: Data Collection Matrix.................................................................................40

Appendix B: City Budget URLs.........................................................................................41

Appendix C: City Public Art Surveys and Results..............................................................42

Appendix D: Notes on Art Activities..................................................................................47

Appendix E: Political Map of Tarrant County....................................................................48

Appendix F: Census QuickFacts Comparison Dashboard..................................................49

Appendix G: Arts Council of NorthEast Tarrant URL........................................................50

Appendix H: Public Art Master Plan URLs........................................................................51

Appendix I: Southlake Public Art Fund, Excerpted from Adopted FY 21 Budget..............52

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As cities strive to stimulate local economic growth and cultivate senses of unique cultural

identity, many embrace the civic potential of public art. Sponsoring performances and festivals,

commissioning local artists, and developing comprehensive public art policies and plans are

becoming increasingly popular activities among small and mid-sized cities seeking to attract new

visitors and elevate their citizens’ quality of life. As this practice spreads, it is crucial to survey the

public art policy atmosphere so that cities may better understand the policymaking and strategic

approaches that are likely to lead to successful engagement with public works of art.

This report surveys and analyzes the public art initiatives found in small and mid-sized

cities throughout Tarrant County, Texas, excluding the cities of Arlington, Fort Worth, Grand

Prairie, and Westover Hills. The research team of final-semester Master of Public Administration

students from the University of Texas at Arlington used publicly accessible information from local

governments to assess the state of public art policymaking in these cities, determine the activity

level and types of public art found in each city, and deduce patterns that connect public art with

policy, budgeting, and local characteristics or demographics.

Ultimately, the team finds that public art policies and activity levels vary widely throughout

the county. Some cities exhibit no public art policies or plans whatsoever, whereas others (mainly

found in the more developed and populous northeast quadrant of the county) have developed

comprehensive plans to continuously improve their public art holdings and programming. The

research team concludes with recommendations for cities seeking to capture the unique benefits

of public art model their own plans on these existing approaches. The team suggests that cities

develop public art master plans, create a dedicated fund for public art, and prepare to support their

initiatives with expenditures scaled to their populations.

3

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Public art embodies any work of art designated for and sited in a space accessible to the

general public. Today, public art can be a wide-ranging collection of forms, sizes, and scales—

and can be temporary or permanent. Public art can include sculptures, murals, memorials,

integrated architectural or landscape architectural works, community art, digital new media, and

performances and festivals. Public art is designed to ignite the imagination and encourage people

or citizens of a town to encapsulate the artist’s self-negation and deference for the community.

Traditionally, reverence for the arts has been within large cities’ realms, with populations totaling

100,000 or more, larger budgets, and significant capital expenditures. However, small to mid-sized

cities are beginning to recognize that public art can play a pivotal role in adding appeal and

enhancing the quality of life for a community experienced by both the residents and visitors alike

(America for the Arts, 2017). With meticulous and thoughtful planning and development, public

art can enable small or mid-sized cities to employ art to tackle economic, social, and environmental

goals (McMahen, 2020).

The impetus for the survey of public art in small to mid-sized cities in Tarrant County, in

Texas, was presented to a four-member Capstone group, hoping to persuade local governments’

participation to endorse ecotourism by accentuating community character and sustaining local

businesses and commerce. With the aid of leadership from the College of Architecture, Planning

and Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), the graduate students provide

an analytical perspective with the purpose to paint the ancillary benefits public art can have on

economic growth, enriching the profile of the community, and adding guidance on how to

incorporate or design public art to meet the needs of the community it impacts.

4

A Brief History

Public art is often site-specific, meaning it is created in response to the place and

community in which it resides. Usually, it communicates historical implications about the place in

which it is situated and the people who form the local community. Public art may also address a

pressing social or environmental issue. Furthermore, the works may be created in collaboration

with the local populace, reflecting the ideas and values of those for whom it was made.

The origins of public art date back to ancient Greek cities. These city-states were the early

advocates for the edifying virtues of religious and social art—predominately sculpture—which

was capable of being viewed and appreciated by the community at large (Public Art, 2021). The

celebrated treasures of Greece and Rome transmitted their ancient virtues into more modern

mediums with the hopes of stimulating learning and thought, fostering civic engagement, and

becoming a force for economic development. Ancient Greek art is more prominently recognizable

than that of other ancient cultures, largely owing to its naturalistic but idealized depictions of the

human body that exude the synergist relationship between ultimate beauty and harmony. The arts

evolved so much during this time that the Greek aesthetic became the driving influence on art for

the following centuries. A supreme model of public art in ancient Greece is the Parthenon, 477 –

422 BCE. A masterpiece of classical Greek architecture, the Parthenon is viewed by some art

enthusiasts as one of the most remarkable visual sights in art history. Its stone pillars and columns

project a commanding aura, and they are continually imitated in prominent modern structures like

regal houses of law and museums exhibiting the wares of antiquity. Furthermore, free-standing

Greek sculptures and idealized representations of the human form still adorn those same halls,

radiating power, purity, and divinity.

5

Later, the Romans adopted the style of their precedent kinsmen and incorporated it into

their own culture—the arts took on a broader, and sometimes more utilitarian, purpose. Roman

culture assimilated many other cultures as well and was tolerant of the ways of conquered peoples

(Janson & Janson, 2001, p. 158). Roman art was often commissioned, displayed, and owned in far

more significant quantities and adapted for more uses than under Grecian rule. At the height of

their empire, Roman authorities erected statues of the emperor in all corners of the empire to

demonstrate the majesty of Rome (Public Art, 2021). This concept of communal aesthetics or

propaganda was vigorously implemented later by both pagan sects and newly developed Christian

communities.

Undoubtedly, the Golden Age of public art was the Italian Renaissance. The early phase or

period is known for the development of a southern European culture that spread across the

continent and sparked the evolution from the Medieval Era to modernity (Leonard, 1905). Its

artworks—unlike those in the north—were sponsored entirely by the church and civic authorities

(Public Art, 2021). The nature of the Renaissance shifted in the late 15th century, which was then

fully adopted by the ruling classes and the aristocracy. Top figures exerted great influence and

commodified works of art. Art trade developed and flourished, and the more prominent artisans

were embraced by their aristocratic patrons (Burke, 1999, p. 271.) As Burke ascribes, the

Renaissance period as a cultural movement affected only a small portion of the population—

though Italy was the most urbanized region in Europe, rural peasantry comprised three-quarters of

the population (1999, p. 256). Furthermore, the Renaissance was a period of cultural and

ideological development rather than great social or economic change, (Osborne, 2008, p. 183).

More recently, the United States fostered the production of national symbolism implied by

19th-century monuments throughout the 1930's. The country regulated these works through long-

6

term national programs with propaganda goals (Federal Art Project, United States, Cultural Office,

Soviet Union) (Knight, 2008). The New Deal, instituted during the Great Depression by President

Franklin D. Roosevelt, facilitated the development of public art intended to cultivate national pride

in American culture in the hope of averting a faltering economy (Knight, 2008). During the 60’s,

the Civil Rights movement’s claim to public space and the dissolution of alliances between urban

regeneration programs and artists radically transformed the American approach to public art

(Kruass, 1979). Public art became beholden to a status beyond mere decoration and visualization

of official national histories in public space—it became much more about the public (Knight,

2008). The perception of public art was then reinforced in the 1970s by urban cultural policies

such as the New York Public Art Fund and urban or regional Percent for Art program in the U.S.

and Europe (About, 2021; Percent, 2020). In addition, the discourse surrounding public art shifted

from a national level to a local level, which is consistent with the trend toward specific venues and

the criticism of institutional exhibition spaces in contemporary art practice.

Small and mid-sized cities have unique interests and needs that warrant a closer look at

how public art can evolve in public spaces as these cities grow or maintain their size. The

communities with populations of fewer than 250,000 that self-identify as small and mid-sized have

different histories, physical morphologies, economic conditions, and political climates (Vink,

2016). Literature shows that the downtowns of these smaller cities differ vastly from those in larger

cities, face different challenges, have different assets, and proffer distinct attributes for the

revitalization (Vink, 2016). Several vital points relating to small and mid-sized cities emerge as

(1) cities need to have a long-term vision for their renewal, (2) city staff must play an active role

in the revitalization, (3) building public-private partnerships are essential to the effectiveness of

small and mid-size cities revitalization, and (4) each city must identify and build on the assets of

7

its center (Vink, 2016). The UTA Capstone team assessed communities throughout Tarrant

County, Texas to survey public art initiatives in these cities, learn about how they are funded, and

discover their cities’ stances on commissioning artists to create public artwork.

Tarrant County is an urban county located in the north-central part of Texas. Fort Worth

serves as the administrative center to a county population of approximately 2.1 million citizens

and is a member of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (About Tarrant, 2021).

Tarrant County’s flavor and historical essence live on—though the frontier has transformed, its

pioneering spirit endures (About Tarrant, 2021). The County is home to a diverse spectrum of

businesses and lifestyles. With such a mix, there is an incredible range of things to do and see.

Additionally, the diversity and growth bring a vibrant and bustling economy and have led to

regional resurgence in business relocations, expansions, retail development, and new housing

construction (About Tarrant, 2021). Cattle and agriculture, aerospace, and defense contractors play

a significant role in the County’s economic foundation. In yesteryears, the economy was once tied

to oil rigs and cattle ranches. Today, the County’s businesses have a global reach, served by

commercial and industrial airports that are among the County’s major international gateways

(About Tarrant, 2021).

In comparing Tarrant County’s small to mid-sized cities, these municipalities are usually

foraging for funds to meet the needs of the community. Electing to introduce initiatives for public

art to combat the urban sprawl and economic shifts that major metropolitan areas induce may help

to infuse new lifeblood into city centers across the County. Public art is the medium designed to

promote aesthetics, and this research aims to survey public art among the 41 incorporated cities in

Tarrant County, excluding Fort Worth, Arlington, Grand Prairie, and the smallest city, Westover

Hills.

8

What Constitutes Public Art?

Public art can have a variety of meanings and can be an open and contested term. It is often

used to broadly designate artistic works that have been realized explicitly within and for the public

realm. Public art includes both ephemeral works and those that have an enduring nature—often

described as permanent—to signal an expectation of long-term endurance of over generations

(Caminha et al., 2018). As Caminha notes:

This wide spectrum that exists between works that endure for only a few hours, or even a few minutes, to works that are conceived as enduring over centuries, or even millennia, also includes a wide range of different modalities in terms of the internal temporality of a given work (episodic, cumulative, or subject to changing conditions of visibility) and the spatial qualities of a given work (site-specific, mobile, dispersed, fixed-in place, place-defining, digital/virtual and so forth). (Caminha et al., 2018, p. 4).

The Journal of Public Art Dialogue offers an example of this inclusive approach to public

art, defining it broadly as “object art, memorials, murals, urban and landscape design

developments, social interventions, performance art, and web-based work (2011).” Other scholarly

authors offer their explanations of public art, such as Doherty, 2015, who expounds that “public

art can be understood as a variety of methods and styles that engage with the locations and settings

of the public realm (p. 13).” Zebracki’s dictum of public art is that these works are peculiar in that

they integrate a work’s site as part of its context, which makes the ontological nature of public art

complex and contested. One can essentially find as many interpretations of public art as there are

members of the public (2013, p. 303). In her work, “What is Public Art?: Time, Place, and

Meaning,” Hein claims that public art is an oxymoron according to the opinions and standards of

modernist art and aesthetic theory (1996, p. 1). Contemporary philosophical aesthetics focuses

almost exclusively on subjective experiences and commodified works of art (Hein, 1996, p. 1).

She argues:

9

Art is taken to be the product of an individual and autonomous act of expression, and its appreciation is likewise a private act of contemplation. However, art must entail the artist’s self-denial and respect to a collective community as a public phenomenon. The author further adds that no art is ‘private,’ but neither does art become ‘public’ simply because of its exposure and accessibility to the world. Publicity has social and political connotations that are untranslatable to public access. Traditionally, the term public art refers to a family of conditions, including the object’s origin, history, location, and social purpose (Hein, 1996, p. 1).

The term public (and consequently the terms “public art” and “public realm”) is highly

complex because of the intricacy of public and private construction in Western political, legal,

social, economic, and cultural history (Caminha et al., 2018). In modern cities, the conceptual

ordering of spaces and behaviors according to this private and public dichotomy further

complicates the task of defining public art. Western perceptions have been imposed upon other

cultures through colonialism, often supplanting other ways of ordering space and behaviors, which

has further created a level of complexity when attempting to conduct a global analysis of public

art (Hlavajova & Sheikh, 1989). In the context of public art, “public” can vary in its designation,

from indicating an artistic work that is positioned outdoors—not contained or enclosed in an

architectural structure—to pointing to an art piece as the result of the actions of state agencies, an

outcome constructed by public bodies (Caminha et al., 2018). The term can also be used to identify

the availability of works of art. In principle, to be “public” means that residents of a specific locale

can access artistic works without restriction (Caminha et al., 2018). However, public art can be

subject to restrictions on viewership, participation, and access realized through the agency of

private and non-state actors. Communities must prudently craft the designation of public art so

that it may respond to the specific needs and desires of their citizenry. Furthermore, since the term

public art can be the subject of significant controversy, Landi’s (2012) thesis, Public Art-Purpose

and Benefits: Exploring Strategy in the New England City of Pittsfield, posits this clarifying and

inclusive definition of both public and private funded art:

10

Public art encompasses both functional objects in landscape and expressive, decorative forms either permanent or temporary, that belong to any established classical or contemporary artistic disciplines such as but not limited to sculpture, murals, relief; installed with the intent to enhance, physically define, promote or establish identity in a space of place. Those who create or design public art belongs to anyone who classifies themselves as a professional artist, artisan, or citizen involved in the creation and direction of these installments (Landi, 2012, p. 6).

Public Art in Society and Policy

The chronicle of public art is as old as civilization itself. Since the genesis of man, societies

have sought to beautify their surroundings, leading to some of the greatest creations ever beheld.

Ancient examples include massive earthworks such as the Caddo Mounds located in East Texas,

west of Alto, Texas (Commission, 2019). However, public sentiment speculates that the motives

behind such ancient works offer some enlightening insights for contemporary society looking for

a glimpse into the past (Rogers, 2001).

A significant quantity of monumental art and architectural aggrandizement has been

preserved from the Middle Ages and Renaissance-Era Europe. Such works were often constructed

to emphasize the power of the ruling class and promote the church. In the mid-twentieth century,

the U.S. followed a similar trend of monumental sculpture and architectural embellishment

depicting leaders and heroes (Goldstein, 2005). The mid-twentieth century also saw a shift in

public art’s role in society, with the government directing funds to public art projects (Goldstein,

2005; Knight, 2008). As the U.S. government took more of an active role in public art, various

policies and organizations were formed.

The inception of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) is often referred to as one of

the most extensive public art initiatives ever undertaken by the federal government (Taylor, 2008).

The WPA helped pay a weekly salary to artists producing sculptures, murals, and site amenities

with the intent of emotionally reviving an impoverished nation during the Great Depression

11

(Landi, 2012). Today, the legacy of the WPA has left its indelible mark on virtually every corner

of the U.S., and its contributions to our contemporary cultural landscape are underappreciated.

The Percent-for-Art program model was conceived in France in 1936 and later became law

in 1951. This program allocated a percentage of public constructions funds towards the

commissioning of public art and the aesthetic enhancement of public buildings. Similarly, in 1934,

Edward Bruce of the U.S. proposed that one percent of federal building costs be allocated to

commissioning public art in America. This concept was eventually implemented through the

General Services Administration as the Art in Architecture (A-i-A) program in 1963 (Knight,

2008). At the municipal level, the first percent-for-art ordinance was established in Philadelphia,

1959, followed by Baltimore, 1964, San Francisco, 1967, and Seattle, 1973 (Knight, pp. 6-21,

2008). Accordingly, a percentage of capital improvement funding allotted for public art remains a

popular form of public art funding today. In a 2017 survey completed by Americans for the Arts,

46% of public art programs had a percent-for-art ordinance or policy (American for the Arts,

2017).

Under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965, the National Foundation

on the Arts and Humanities Act was passed, and for the first time in the U.S., federal taxes were

reserved for public art and other art-related endeavors. The Act formed the National Endowment

for the Arts (NEA) with the fundamental argument that access to art should be available to all

patrons of art, no matter their social or financial status (Knight, 2008). The agency was created to

sustain a climate encouraging freedom of thought, imagination, and inquiry through the arts and

the material conditions, facilitating artwork of the creative talent of the nation (National

Foundation, 2021).

12

In 1967, the NEA created the Art in Public Places Program (AiPP). The AiPP’s official

purpose was to increase awareness of contemporary art, foster aesthetic and socially-minded

redevelopment of public spaces, and support the connections of artists’ experimentation and

engendering community involvement in the commissioning and placement of art (Knight, p. 15,

2008). From its beginning, the AiPP relied less on direct public input and involvement in

commissioning artworks, selecting sites, and artists. Eventually, the AiPP moved away from this

curatorial role and gave more control to communities to manage their own local public art projects.

The public embraced the control they were given, and this resulted in communal fundraising but

was often supported using corporate funding or Percent for Public Art (Knight, 2008; Landi, 2012).

The ultimate demise of the AiPP was the result of political blowback stemming from the use of

grants to fund controversial pieces like “Piss Christ” by Andres Serrano (Knight, 2008). To further

exacerbate AiPP’s discontinuation, the economic downturn during the 1980s and a rise in fiscal

and social conservative thinking led to significant budget cuts suffered by the NEA (Knight, 2008;

Flemming 2007). The NEA still works to defend its legitimacy, even to this day, as administrations

propose budget cuts and defunding attempts with the hope of its complete elimination (Andrews,

2021).

Like the NEA, the Texas Commission on the Arts (TCA) was established in 1965. (Texas

Commission, 2021). Initially, the agency (then known as the Texas Fine Arts Commission)

consisted of eight members appointed by the governor for six-year terms. One of the chief

objectives of the Commission was to coordinate state agencies, cultivate an appreciation for the

fine arts in Texas, and act in an advisory capacity regarding the construction of public works of art

or the aesthetic enhancement of state buildings. The Commission was made permanent in 1976,

rebranding itself during the sixty-second Texas legislature in 1971, as the Texas Commission on

13

the Arts and Humanities (Texas Commission, 2021). By 1979, the agency changed its name again

to the Texas Commission on the Arts (TCA). The TCA describes its mission as follows:

The mission of the TCA is to advance the state economically and culturally by investing in creative Texas. TCA champions a diverse and innovative arts community in Texas, throughout the nation, and internationally by procuring resources to enhance economic development, arts education, cultural tourism, and artistic sustainability initiatives. (State of Texas, 2021).

Further, the TCA also informs the community of current trends by publishing an annual magazine,

Texas Arts Reach and producing the monthly Texas Commission on the Arts News bulletin. The

TCA also interacts with local governments, acting as a guide.

Texas government code, 444.029, permits any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state commissioning a public construction project estimated to cost more than $250,000 to specify a percentage not to exceed one percent of the cost of the construction project which shall be used for public art projects at or near the specified site of the construction project (State of TX Initiatives, 2021).

Those organizations may consult with the Texas Commission of the Arts (TCA) for support in

determining how to manage the public art or percent for art projects (State of TX Initiatives, 2021).

Many private and public organizations promote the importance of public art throughout the

U.S. The Americans for the Arts, a prominent nonprofit organization founded in 1960, works to

build recognition and support for the arts. The organization promotes public art by sharing stories

of how art can raise the cultural profile of a community, enhance creativity, and encourage people

to experience the environment they occupy in novel and unique ways. Further, the group asserts

that public art inspires learning and education about the connections between art, society, and the

social sphere. Americans for the Arts advocates that public art contributes to community social,

economic, and cultural values throughout the country. (2020). Public art does have some criticism

and can be viewed as superfluous and a waste of taxpayers’ money and although, there are a few

drawbacks, public art is still seen as essential by many others.

14

As noted by the spirit of the NEA, the social benefit of public art is to make art available

to everyone. “Public art removes art from social and cultural barriers that one might experience

when viewing art in a more formal, socially restrictive setting such as a museum or gallery (Green,

2012).” Furthermore, public art has proven beneficial in providing individuals with a sense of

attachment to their communities and can help redefine the residents’ perception of the community

by either re-imagining its identity or celebrating the existing culture (McCarthy, 2006, p. 245).

From 2008 to 2010, the Knight Foundation’s “Soul of the Community Initiative” implemented a

survey to determine a correlation between a sense of attachment to one’s community and economic

growth (Green, 2012; Knight Foundation, 2016). Approximately 43,000 people in 43 American

cities were sampled. The data revealed that “cities with the highest level of attachment or

connectedness to the community had the highest GDP growth (Knight Foundation, 2016), a vital

indicator of economic performance. Other ancillary findings were quite significant. The survey

indicated that critical drivers of attachment for a community were: “social offerings” such as “arts,

cultural opportunities, and social community activities;” additionally, “openness and welcome-

ness to most demographics,” and “aesthetics of a place” which included parks and green spaces,

and art. These key drivers of attachment outranked education, safety, and the local economy

(Knight Foundation, 2016).

Richard Florida, a renowned American urban theorist focusing on social and economic

theories, studied the economic shifts that have taken place in American cities due to expansions in

globalization and technological evolutions. His work suggests that “quality of life” entices talent

and new business investments as opposed to the prospect of industrial jobs (Florida, 2005). As

public art has become more prominently acknowledged as a factor in citizens’ attachment to their

communities, it has been shown to induce a strengthening bond between the sense of community

15

and economic growth—evidenced by the Knight Foundation’s “Soul of the Community Initiative”

survey (2016).

New developments in public art have produced case studies demonstrating the economic

value presented to both public agencies and private developers (Rosenfeld, 2012). Dollar for

dollar, investments in public art have yielded the highest financial earnings of any assets

committed to an aspect of a transit project. The Los Angeles case for public art conducted by

Rosenfeld indicated that publicity and demand attributed to public art was a central driver for

higher returns than was projected (Rosenfeld, 2012).

The ancillary benefits of public art more generally accepted are aesthetic beauty, cultural

interpretation, education, inspiration, and general improvement of the urban environment.

However, these intangibles are considered “soft” benefits; they are sometimes dismissed as a low

priority, especially during turbulent economic periods. Furthermore, tracking the economic

performance of specific developments, such as the transit-oriented developments (TODs) in the

Los Angeles case study, exemplified that public art can be a great revenue source and enhance

publicity and the beauty of the community at large (Rosenfeld, 2012).

16

METHODOLOGY

To conduct its survey of public art activity in Tarrant County, the Capstone team utilized

a combination of qualitative surveying, interviewing, and rudimentary quantitative analysis. Given

that definitions of “the arts” are fluid and that cities may define, track, and represent their arts

activities with varying levels of detail and sophistication, the team agreed that this mixed-methods

approach would prove most appropriate for the study.

Scoping Activity

The team reviewed publicly available, web-accessible information from the Tarrant County

government, the 37 municipalities in the survey area (all Tarrant County towns and cities,

excluding Fort Worth, Arlington, Westover Hills, and Grand Prairie), and the 2020 United States

Census. Reviewing these websites yielded valuable “at-a-glance” information about each city’s

population and any public arts activity. As these webpages are managed and published by official

government employees—and subject to laws that require transparency and public accessibility—

the team agreed that they would prove to be useful primary sources of data.

Not every city publicly funds arts initiatives. To determine which cities warranted further

study and interview solicitation, the team reviewed websites for the following indicators of public

arts activity:

Existence of a subsection on the city website dedicated to public art or arts initiatives

Existence of a dedicated city commission or council committee for arts initiatives Content and/or programming details for any public art initiatives References to or details about any city policies concerning public art Presence of public art funding in the city budget

The results of this initial survey are contained in Appendices A and B. This scoping activity

enabled the team to strategically select suitable cities for focused study and qualitative interviews

17

(Appendix C). Further, this provided raw data that provided the foundation for the team’s general

summary of arts activity throughout Tarrant County.

Defining Public Art

Because “what is art?” is a question with a subjective answer, the Capstone team found it

necessary to delineate which arts activities were relevant to our survey. The cities with public art

programs throughout Tarrant Country each define art differently. Some cities explicitly reference

only art using visual media, while others include performing arts such as music, dance, and theatre.

Still others include historical museums, parks and memorials, or even martial arts demonstrations

in their descriptions of public art program contents. For the purpose of this survey—and to

maintain internal analytical consistency—the team focused on art forms that are traditionally

associated with public art: visual arts (murals, paintings, etc.), performing arts (music, dance,

theatre), sculpture, arts festivals, and museums. The team did also make note of cities’ self-

described arts activities, even if they did not fall under this traditional definition (Appendix D).

Gathering Quantitative Data

Web pages are useful sources of general information, but may be simplistic, outdated, or

incomplete representations of the “behind the scenes” activity in a municipality. Because of this,

the Capstone team also used publicly available primary information sourced from each city’s

current budget. State law requires that these budgets be publicly available. As such, they are

reliable sources for data collection concerning arts funding at the local level.

The Capstone team acquired each city’s budget from its respective webpage. Following

this, the team conducted a review of the budgets to determine which cities dedicate funding to

public art, the value of these funds, and how they are accounted. The results of this survey can be

18

found in Appendix B. To locate the appropriate funds, the team completed a key phrase search for

the following terms:

Art(s) Public Art(s) Cultural Art(s) Culture Performing Art(s) Visual Art(s)

Sculpture Dance Music Film Theatre Festival(s)

The team also reviewed specific, targeted funds that were likely to include arts

expenditures, including library funds, parks and recreation funds, public works funds, economic

development funds, and special project/miscellaneous funds. Once located, notes on the funds’

arts-specific content and budgeted amount were recorded (Appendices B, D).

Additional Data

The Capstone Team also collected additional geographic and demographic data to

supplement their analysis of public art in Tarrant County. A political map of the region (Appendix

E) obtained from the official Tarrant County website enabled the team to review the relative

locations of each city within the region in order to deduce geographic patterns and find clusters of

art activities. Further, the team used the United States Census’s “QuickFacts” tool to gather simple

demographic data about the cities with public art initiatives and compare them to Tarrant County’s

overall data (Appendix F).

The Capstone Team also acquired disaggregated arts data from SMU Data Arts, one of the

nation’s largest and most preeminent data analysis firms dedicated to cultural and fine arts. While

interesting and fascinating, the team ultimately found the dataset too loosely related to survey’s

scope. The twenty-four arts and cultural organizations represented in the dataset are all

headquartered primarily in the cities of Fort Worth and Arlington. These cities fall outside of the

19

project’s survey area, and thus the Capstone team determined that inclusion of the data would

dilute the report’s other findings.

Rudimentary Quantitative Analysis

Due to both the project’s scope and the variety of municipal policies and definitions of

public art within Tarrant County, the Capstone team determined that rudimentary quantitative

analysis was the most appropriate method for creating a high-level overview of the region’s public

art landscape. The study’s relatively small sample size and the subject matter’s disparate nature

would likely result in inconclusive, incomplete, or otherwise insufficient data for a more

sophisticated statistical analysis. Further, as the project’s primary objective is surveying the region

to capture a “snapshot” of public art, the team agreed that quantitative analysis beyond simple

pattern-seeking or determination of measures of central tendency would likely be superfluous. The

results of this data analysis are included and discussed in the “Findings” section of this report.

Conducting Interviews

Based on the results of initial scoping, web page research, and budgetary surveying, the

Capstone team selected the cities of Bedford, Flower Mound, Forest Hill, Keller, Mansfield, North

Richland Hills, and Southlake as candidates for further qualitative study in the form of interviews

and/or questionnaires. These cities each were selected due to their available public art policies,

budgets, support, or other publicly accessible information. Although each municipality took a

slightly different approach to its public art, all were found to support it either monetarily or through

explicit policy. Several cities even contained detailed “master plans” concerning their public art.

The Capstone Team attempted contact with each city via phone call. Based on responses,

the team sent either a written copy of the survey to a given city’s public arts representative or

scheduled an in-person or virtual interview for further conversation. Not all cities returned

20

completed surveys. The survey questions, the responses received by the team, and relevant notes

may be found in Appendix C.

The team qualitatively analyzed the responses to these surveys and questionnaires,

searching for their similarities, their differences, and the implications of each city’s orientation

towards public art. This analysis informed the team’s generated recommendations for “best

practices” that would improve cities’ public art budgets, policies, and managerial approaches.

21

FINDINGS

This survey of Tarrant County’s cities provided insights into the region’s public art

environment. Of the survey area’s thirty-seven cities, eleven have populations that exceed 25,000

residents. Several key findings are outlined below.

14 (37.84%) have web pages devoted to their public art content and policies. These cities’ average population is 41,175. The median population of these cities is 39,071. Four of these cities (Westlake, Azle, Bedford, and Benbrook) have populations of 24,999 or below. The remaining 10 cities’ populations all exceed 25,000 individuals.

11 (29.73%) have boards, commissions, or council subcommittees dedicated to public art activity and policymaking. These cities’ average population is 31,156. The median population of these cities is 24,860. Five of these cities (Westlake, Pantego, Richland Hills, Forest Hill, and Bedford) have populations of 24,999 or below. The remaining six cities’ populations all exceed 25,000 individuals.

12 (32.34%) have dedicated funding for public art represented in their city budget. These cities’ average population is 38,780. The median population of these cities is 28,570. These cities are split evenly between those with populations exceeding 25,000 and those with populations of 24,999 and below.

Of the cities that budget for public art, the average expenditure for FY 2021 is

approximately $63,000 and the median expense is approximately $25,000. These figures are likely

to be skewed due to city-to-city budgetary inconsistencies. Some cities’ budgets more clearly detail

public art funds than others. For example, Southlake has a dedicated Public Art Fund that outlines

expenditures, capital finance, and overall fund balances for public art activity. Similarly, North

Richland Hills divides its public art expenses into operational, promotional, and facility

maintenance funds—each of which serves its public art initiatives. Flower Mound splits its funding

public art initiatives across a variety of funds, even dedicating certain funds to specific events.

Conversely, other cities’ public art funding is difficult to ascertain; Colleyville’s budget

includes public art in its fund for library activities but does not delineate or specify the portion of

library funding for public art specifically. Similarly, Watauga quantifies its annual number of city-

22

sponsored public art events in the budget but does not detail the expenditures or finances for these

events beyond noting that they constitute a portion of its annual parks and recreation expenditures.

These inconsistencies greatly complicated the team’s ability to accurately determine some

cities’ budgeted expenditures, finances, and fund balances for public art initiatives. Below, Figure

1 outlines approximate public art expenditures by city, to the extent to which the team was able to

determine them by reviewing each city’s budget. Because these expenditures vary greatly, as do

the cities’ populations, Figure 2 reframes budgeted public art spending in per capita terms.

Fig. 1

87,000

1,100 5,000

43,000

4,600

194,000

161,000

25,000

68,100

10,000 21,000

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Flower M

oundHasl

etHurst

Keller

Lake

Worth

Mansfi

eld

N. Rich

land Hills

Sagin

aw

Southlak

e

Westlak

e

White Se

ttlement

Public Art Expenditures by City, 2021

Expe

nditu

res (

$)

23

Fig. 2

Public Art Activity and Content

Some forms of public art are more widespread than others. The following points summarize

the content of public art projects and initiatives based on the publicly available information that

the Capstone team was able to collect through city websites and budgets.

Visual art activities (murals, painting classes, galleries, etc.) and local art festivals are the most popular public art initiatives throughout Tarrant County, with eight cities explicitly referencing these activities in their budgets or web pages.

Performing arts (theatre, musical and dance performances, etc.) are the second most popular activities, with six cities referencing these art forms.

Sculptures that occupy space in city buildings and public parks are referenced in the arts policies of five Tarrant County cities.

Historic Museums and Memorials are funded by four cities as portions of their public art activities.

Film is referenced by one city (Mansfield) as an element of the city’s engagement with public art.

1.070.51

0.13

0.92 0.95

2.652.24

1.01

2.11

5.58

1.18

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Flower M

oundHasl

etHurst

Keller

Lake

Worth

Mansfi

eld

N. Rich

land Hills

Sagin

aw

Southlak

e

Westlak

e

White Se

ttlement

Public Art Expenditures Per Capita by City, 2021

Expe

nditu

res p

er R

esid

ent (

$)

24

The Capstone team found that detailed references to specific public art activities, projects,

and initiatives occur in clusters. Several cities with dedicated public art funds make oblique

references to public art projects but offer few specifics regarding the actual content of their art

activities. Likewise, cities that did specify the programming content of their art initiatives are likely

to reference multiple types of art—the City of Keller’s Public Arts Master Plan explicitly discusses

sculpture, performing, and visual art in a single comprehensive document. Each of cities that

mentioned specific programmatic content for public art have a population that exceeds 20,000

residents, implying a “critical mass” at which specifying the types of public art embraced by the

city becomes desirable.

Interestingly, four cities (Bedford, North Richland Hills, Saginaw, and Flower Mound)

engage in a specific type of visual public art: painted traffic signal control boxes. These cities

commission (or alternatively, host a competition to select) local artists to paint traffic signal control

boxes found on the corners of busy intersections. For Bedford and North Richland Hills, the cities

also regularly redesign and repaint the boxes in accordance with rotating themes—through of

famous Texas musicians and celebrities or even more abstract concepts like “Local Inspiration”

and “Celebrating Cultures”. These cities justify signal box projects as multi-beneficiary: they

provide economic opportunities for local artists, raise cultural engagement throughout the town,

and beautiful typically mundane elements of public life to cultivate a local identity (City of

Bedford). Further, these cities are able to promote signal box viewing as a tourism incentive,

encouraging visitors to fully explore their communities rather than simply passing through on their

way to a different major city or destination (City of North Richland Hills).

25

DISCUSSION

The Capstone team’s findings highlight several key points that warrant discussion—the

geographic and demographic distribution of public art programs throughout Tarrant County’s

cities, the effect these cities’ proximities to the major metropolises of Dallas and Fort Worth has

on their programs, and the recent focus on public art within several growing mid-sized cities.

Geography & Demographics

With the notable exceptions of River Oaks and Mansfield, every city with significant public

art policies and levels of activity is located in the northeast quadrant of Tarrant County, in the

region colloquially known as the “mid-cities”. Compared to other cities and Tarrant County

overall, these cities are less diverse, have a higher average household income, and are closer to

both of the Dallas-Fort Worth area’s major “hub” cities. These facts imply a link between

geography, socioeconomic status, and public art engagement by local governments. Rather than

being used as an engine of economic growth or local development, public art appears to be an

amenity in these cities, many of which have the financial and economic resources to support public

spending on these projects as quality-of-life initiatives.

These cities are also members of the Arts Council of NorthEast Tarrant (ArtsNET)—a local

nonprofit interest group that assists with coordinating, sponsoring, and supporting public art

activity in the region. Through their memberships, each city can reap the ancillary benefits

associated with public art by leveraging engagement with a region-spanning network. Further,

smaller and less resource-rich cities in the area—like Haslet—are able to still participate in this

network and benefit from the public art expenditures of other cities with which they associate. This

use of shared and combined resources may likely contribute to the overall growth of public art

26

activity within the subregion, as well as the homogeneity of their art initiatives’ content (such as

painted signal box projects).

Complementing the Metroplex’s Economic Epicenters

Rather than compete with the larger metropolises of Dallas and Fort Worth, the mid-sized

cities with public art policies appear to take approaches that complement their neighbors’ cultural

environments.

Naturally, large cities with powerful economies will “draw away” many working artists

from these smaller municipalities. Some small-to-mid-sized cities (like Burleson) embrace this,

explicitly directing visitors and citizens interested in art to the web pages of the region’s major

cities. These towns promote their proximity and easy access to the major cities’ cultural districts

rather than feeling the need to expend significant resources on the cultivation of their own local

artistic identities. Other cities in the region avoid competing with the area’s major powerhouses

by fostering public art programs that are both more casual and more closely linked with the city’s

idiosyncratic histories than those of Fort Worth or Dallas. For example, the City of Grapevine ‘s

annual “Grapefest” wine festival incorporates performances by local musicians and sales booths

reserved for local art vendors into an event that celebrates the city’s particular history and local

industries. Likewise, the popularity of painted signal boxes throughout the mid-cities region

provides opportunities for cities to hire local artists to beautify their citizens’ day-to-day

surroundings and contribute to the cities’ local identity without attempting to truly compete with

massive “high art” powerhouses like Dallas’s Arts District or Fort Worth’s Cultural and Museum

District.

This implies that these small-to-mid-sized cities have found a niche for their public art

initiatives. They are local, present in daily life, and contribute in subtle ways to the cities’ sense of

27

identities rather than attempting to supplant or compete with the region’s major cities. By doing

so, these cities can promote the “best of both worlds” for their citizens—residents will have access

to a bevy of arts engagement opportunities both in their proverbial backyards and a short distance

away. Depending on their interest level, these citizens may benefit from access to world-class

public art in neighboring downtowns, or they may simply be able to enjoy pleasant, unique, and

more beautified local communities.

Investing in Public Art Policies

Several cities are taking a decidedly more methodical approach to their public art policy

initiatives than many others. Keller, Flower Mound, and Southlake have each created a

comprehensive “Public Art Master Plan” to steer their efforts over the course of several years.

Further, Southlake maintains a dedicated and detailed Public Art Fund within its annual operating

budget (rather than splitting its arts activities among other budgets or accounting for them under

the library or recreational budgets). By consistently tracking and accounting for its public art

expenditures, the city is able to more effectively plan and execute public art plans and events.

Other cities are now beginning to follow this lead; In August 2021, Bedford hired a Public

Art Manager to steer its public art policies. Likewise, the City of Mansfield’s creation of a

dedicated Cultural Arts Supervisor position and the ongoing development of its own arts master

plan imply the desirability of public art’s ancillary cultural and economic benefits and indicate an

increased willingness to invest in their pursuit. Further, this more systematic approach to public

art may be very suitable for suburbs and small or mid-sized cities. Dedicated plans and policies

allow these cities to consciously pursue goals related to public art, track the outcomes of their

efforts and policies, and make adjustments as needed while the plans are implemented. In contrast

to the arts communities in large cities—like Dallas, Fort Worth, or even metropolises like Boston,

28

Chicago, and New York—that often develop as an organic combination of agglomeration

economics and political or cultural migration, these communities are often highly planned and

designed to complement their surrounding economic regions. As such, a public art “master plan”

adheres to this spirit of deliberate development and is likely more appropriate for these cities than

either year-to-year arts policymaking or the total absence of public art initiatives.

By creating a plan and investing in public art, these cities can boost their economies, create

senses of local identity, and attract both residents and visitors through projects that complement—

rather than compete—with their surroundings.

Case Studies

Three of Tarrant County’s cities—Flower Mound, Keller, and Southlake—have developed

master plans for their public art policies and goals. These plans are publicly accessible (Appendix

H) and provide a comprehensive overview of each city’s approach to public art. As such, the

Capstone team reviewed and analyzed the plans. The following selected two of these plans for

case studies summarizing this analysis.

Keller

Keller originated as a tiny rural village whose growth was accelerated by the arrival of

regional railroads in the late 1800s, much like many other communities across Texas. The city was

formally in 1955, and between 1970 and 2010, it saw a tremendous population increase. Keller's

unique blend of big-city comforts and small-town charm makes it a very desirable area in which

to live and do business. Keller now has a population of approximately 44,000 residents who benefit

from great schools, vibrant industries, an award-winning parks and trails system, and sound,

efficient, and innovative municipal service. In 2001, the thriving Keller community determined

that establishing a Public Arts Program was a logical next step for the city’s development. Because

29

of the combined efforts of the city, private people, local companies, civic groups, and the

community at large, public art has been an increasingly significant element in Keller since then.

Keller has amassed an impressive sculpture collection as well as a calendar of family-

friendly art activities. Nearby municipalities have taken similar approaches to public art, acquiring

permanent works, generally for civic buildings or as part of capital projects, and organizing

recurrent, trademark art events or festivals. The Keller art community regularly uses available

cultural resources in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to bring a more extensive mixture of art to Keller,

frequently in distinctive or extraordinary ways to distinguish the local arts program and the city

from other locations. The Public Arts Program's goal is to assist and foster a procedure that inspires

graphical performance in public places and describes the programs, policies, and guidelines for

obtaining and appointing high-quality arts that will enhance the quality of life for all Keller

residents and visitors. Four principles guide the goal of the Public Arts Program:

1. Place-Making: public art must aid in the formation and improvement of current public meeting areas.

2. Urban Design: Public art must echo and encourage the attractiveness and excellence of the city’s-built environment, enhance the community's complete visual attraction, and inspire personal development excellence.

3. Economic Development: Public art must be used to support Keller employ and keep dynamic businesses.

4. Education and Outreach: Public art must be reachable and pleasurable for people of all ages, and it must help local education.

Keller’s Public Art Master Plan aims to summarize and guide the city’s Public Arts

Program, describe artworks and their function in the neighborhood, review and adjust the project's

objectives, and identify prospective art sites in Keller. Keller's leaders and personnel will also use

the document’s suggested planning processes and supporting public art guidelines as guidance in

their attempts to further establish Keller as a city that embraces and promotes public art. In 2001,

30

the city’s Municipal Council founded the Public Arts Program, and the first Keller Public Arts

Members of the Board were selected in 2002. The "Brushes to Bronze" sculpture exhibitions and

the monthly City Hall art exhibitions were early programming initiatives. In 2003, the Public Arts

Program began garnering funds from the city's cell tower leases, in addition to private donations.

Between 2003 and 2008, the Board collaborated with community leaders and other supporters of

public art to finance several art events and oversee the purchase and installation of eight sculptures.

As a result, Keller was named one of the top twenty-five developing art communities in the United

States by Southwest Art Magazine in 2007.

Flower Mound

Displaying art through a location-based approach can help cities to cultivate social

positioning and advancement for a local area. This is best served by a policy cycle that entails

recognizing and utilizing a local area's social assets (offices, associations, specialists, inhabitants),

fortifying the administration of those assets, and incorporating those assets across all facets of local

policy planning. The most effective cultural displays result from the union of a public work of art

itself with the accompanying context of its surrounding local space: the area’s social vivacity,

financial opulence, social justice, ecological accountability, etc. These social arrangements depend

on a broad understanding of artistic expressions and local culture, plus require the accommodation

of a local area's convictions and customs. The portrayal often incorporates expressive arts

(performing, visual, scholarly), but it may also span past these to include all innovative

articulations like music, computerized expressions, creative making, spoken word, and more.

Finally, social arranging considers the experiences and legacy of a local area and district and its

milestones, parks, and regular attractions and structures.

31

The Town of Flower Mound was founded on February 27th, 1961 and is named after a 50-

foot-high mound that is a unique Grasslands Prairie part of the Great American Black Land Prairie.

Flower Mound is a neighborhood that priorities open areas, greenery, families, education, and the

arts. Its history is intertwined with cultural affairs—from the 1968 Small Communities Ordinance

that classified it as a beneficiary of financing towards becoming "a newly developing concept

providing model economic and social conditions to residents," to Edward Marcus' cultural impact

on its progress, to the discovery of a log cabin dating to the 1860’s, to today's ongoing dialogue

concerning local development versus power structures.

The Town is also growing. In 2013, its population reached 64,669, up approximately 12

percent from five years prior. In recent years, this growth has continued—the city now has a

population of 73,130. Moreover, the demographics of its population base are changing: the town

has increasing numbers of empty-nesters, single young professionals, and young married couples

without children. The diversity of home building is being driven by this changing demographic,

and there is a demand for additional artistic, cultural, and creative activities.

Flower Mound has a long-standing tradition of supporting the arts and culture. Five Flower

Mound-based arts non-profits obtain essential support via the Community Engagement Financial

Support Program. Flower Mound takes pride in its educational systems and the District's

extraordinary potential for fine arts development. Flower Mound High and Marcus High are

renowned for their high school bands, theater, and other art programs. Students and the citizens as

a whole benefit greatly from educational systems. The Cross Timbers Artists Guild, volunteer

community music groups, non-profit arts organizations, arts-related enterprises, and Town

services, including the library and Town-sponsored events, are all cultural highlights of Flower

Mound.

32

The City of Flower Mound’s Cultural Arts Master Plan is a guide for this social

arrangement of art installations and events. Further, it offers a more extensive glance at the types

of artistic expression, culture, and imagination created for the satisfaction of Flower Mound’s

occupants. By and large, the aim of the Plan is to set the stage for improving Flower Mound’s

social expressions and to create a strategy for developing artistic and cultural activities over the

course of five years. The plan assesses the current social expressions resources in Flower Mound.

Furthermore, it mirrors the vision of inhabitants as communicated through local area commitment.

The Plan’s objectives and methodologies are optimistic and reasonable, accurately

determining an appropriate scope of intricacy and/or the essential responsibility for curating

artistic assets. A few procedures might be executed ahead of schedule with humble assets required,

filling in as an establishment. Different methodologies will require critical speculations and will

require longer-term approaches for execution. The Town of Flower Mound dispatched this

arrangement under the support of the Cultural Arts Commission. It gives a guide to the Town's job

in the social turn of events and ways to extend the job of the Town in coordinating expressions,

culture, and imagination as a central component of the personal satisfaction of its occupants.

Numerous components of this arrangement provide local artists with the freedom to

aggregate and create collaborative community activities involving other offices, associations,

organizations, and magnanimous sources in Flower Mound. Further openings additionally exist

for organizations and joint efforts within neighboring networks. The achievement of the

arrangement is almost inevitable when it is not exclusively the obligation of a local government.

The Town of Flower Mound coordinates these arrangements into a three-level progressive system

with four all-encompassing objectives, depending on local area needs. Every objective has a

progression of methodologies and strategies for satisfying citizens’ needs.

33

The City of Flower Mound also created an execution framework with a complete outline

for monitoring and evaluating its public art plans. An addendum within the Cultural Arts Master

Plan includes current examination results. Further, the document contains a well-researched survey

of Flower Mound’s neighboring municipalities that contrast their observable arts and cultural

practices. These cities provide a useful benchmark—based on similarities in size and other

demographic aspects to Flower Mound—for determining appropriate financial resource

allocations and policy considerations while Flower Mound implements its Cultural Arts Master

Plan.

Flower Mound’s plan is the result of a comprehensive process that utilizes a triangular

research approach—it incorporates several types of research, data, and qualitative feedback to

inform its results. Figure 3, below, outlines the structure of Flower Mound’s planning process.

Fig. 3

Qualitative Research

Quantitative Research

Complementary Research

Plan Development Research Analysis Draft and Final Plan

Document Review

Community Survey

Interviews/Discussion Groups Community Meetings

CV/Profile

Comparison Cities

34

The following core questions characterized the project plan:

I. What is the current condition of Flower Mound's arts, culture, and creativity?

II. How do locals envision the future?

III. How are we going to get there?

The project plan uses qualitative and quantitative approaches, subject matter experts, and

secondary data collection to address these and other questions. It is based on a triangulation

approach. This strategy provides a more comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand and

enhances the research's legitimacy by incorporating many insights from a variety of perspectives.

As a result, as provided in this publication, the findings represent a thorough overview of

significant research that identifies recurring themes, challenges, and solutions. In April 2018, the

planning process began with a visit to Flower Mound by a team of consultants, accompanied by

various local leaders and stakeholder workshops. The second visit, in May 2018, featured public

meetings with arts groups, artists, senior citizens, young people, and others. Additional meetings

took place in the local farmer’s market, a coffee shop, at a Concert in the Park, and the library.

Stakeholders, artists, citizens, and employees from all backgrounds, sectors, and geographic areas

of the Town – as well as individuals from neighboring municipalities – were all included in the

Cultural Arts Master Planning process. This resulted in a comprehensive plan that incorporates

both research and local input to better guide the city’s artistic developments and cater its

programming to its citizens.

35

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations

Over the course of the survey project, information was obtained to determine suggestions

and recommendations for cities in Tarrant County regarding their public art policies and initiatives.

Notably, each city throughout the region approaches public art differently. Some had more money

allocated for art, which made arts visible throughout their city. Others depended on bigger cities

surrounding them for arts. The information gathered by the Capstone team came from city

websites, budgets, phone interviews, email exchanges and in-person interviews. As a result, a

better understanding was obtained regarding the state of public art throughout the cities of Tarrant

County, their desire to grow arts initiatives, or their impediments in doing so. All the information

obtained from each city was compared and analyzed in order to develop the following

recommendations for cities seeking to create or improve programs that take advantage of the

economic and cultural opportunities obtainable through public art:

1. Cities should standardize art spending/budgeting into a single fund and develop supporting plans and policies. At times, public arts are allocated under parks and recreations, libraries, and other facilities. Detaching public arts from those places might be difficult due to the nature of the commodities they all create for their city budget, but will likely yield dividends. Southlake’s flexible arts master plan is a fantastic example—it is thorough, specific, and can be revised as needed. The development of public art in Southlake has been highly visible and other cities in Tarrant County would benefit from their model.

2. Any city wanting to create public arts program or master plan should conduct scoping research on neighboring cities/counties. Cities considering starting or expanding public art programs should also consider population size. After our research, we suggest that a city with roughly 35,000+ population would have potential for sustainable public art initiatives, with perhaps somewhat slow launch due to the complicated nature of the program and large investment necessary for its implementation.

3. Smaller cities with budgetary constraints should join local arts alliances such as ArtsNET. This represents a small investment but keeps them “in the loop” on public arts opportunities without fully investing large sums of their limited financial resources. Yearly membership costs are likely lower than starting their own public arts initiative. Additionally, this membership may be an effective supplement for existing public art initiatives.

36

4. Crucially, cities seeking to fully commit to public art must be willing to make the requisite financial investment in order to succeed. Dedicated staffing and costs associated with developing and implement master plans may be expensive, but hiring experts fully devoted to seeing these plans through will maximize their chances of success. Likewise, as the average amount of these cities’ public art expenditures—and Southlake’s full Public Art Fund (Appendix I)—indicate, a significant financial commitment must be made to support and sustain these policies. Failing to do so will likely yield disappointing or subpar results. Cities looking to develop successful public art policies should be prepared to support them with at expenditures of approximately $1.50-$3.00 per citizen per year. Ideally, public art funds should maintain an additional surplus balance to provide for unexpected costs, support growth, and enable the ongoing maintenance of capital assets. By tracking the results of plan implementation efforts, this figure may be adjusted as appropriate.

Conclusion

City-sponsored art initiatives throughout Tarrant County and their levels of public funding

are varied and diverse. Many local municipalities—particularly those that are already

economically developed—are investing in the cultural potential of public art. Others are beginning

to recognize these opportunities and are seeking to grow their public art initiatives alongside their

booming populations through the creation of comprehensive master plans and policies. Although

these cities’ approaches lack uniformity, standouts like Southlake, Flower Mound, and Keller have

proven that public art, when properly supported and planned, can offer incredible benefits for their

communities. These cities’ levels of investment in public art and their thoroughly developed

provide an effective blueprint for successfully initiating and sustaining public art initiatives at the

local level.

Rapidly growing cities like Bedford and Mansfield are beginning to develop their own

public art plans to cultivate local senses of identity and steer their programs. By modeling these

plans on those of their neighbors and conscientiously investing in public art, these cities may

capitalize upon the local economic environment, stimulate their economies, and transform Tarrant

County into a hotbed of cultural activity and engagement.

37

REFERENCES

About. Public Art Fund. (n.d.). Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://www.publicartfund.org/about/mission/.

About Tarrant. Tarrant County TX. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2021, from https://www.tarrantcounty.com/en/county/about-tarrant.html.

Americans for the Arts Public Art Network Council: 2017 Survey of Public Art Programs. Retrieved from https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/legislation-policy/naappd/2017-survey-of-public-art-programs

Andrews, T. M. (2021, October 25). Behind the right's loathing of the NEA: Two 'despicable' exhibits almost 30 years ago. The Washington Post. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/20/behind-the-loathing-of-the-national-endowment-for-the-arts-a-pair-of-despicable-exhibits-almost-30-years-ago/.

Burke. (1999). The Italian Renaissance: Culture and Society in Italy. Princeton University press.

Caminha, K., Wilson, M., Svanelid, O., & Nilsson, H. (2018). Public Art Research Report (2018) - statens konstråd. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from https://statenskonstrad.se/app/uploads/2019/03/Public_Art_Research_Report_2018.pdf.

Commission, T. H. (2019, April 19). Caddo Mounds history. Caddo Mounds State Historic Site | Caddo Mounds history. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.thc.texas.gov/historic-sites/caddo-mounds/caddo-mounds-history.

Doherty, C. (2015). Public art (now): Out of time, out of place. Art/Books.

Flemming, R. L. (2007). The Art of Placemaking. London; New York: Merrell.

Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. New York: Routledge.

Goldstein, B, (Ed). (2005). Public Art by the Book. Seattle; London: University of Washington Press.

Green, J. (2012, October 15). “Why Public Art is Important.” The Dirt. ASLA, [Web log]. Retrieved October 20, 2016, from https://dirt.asla.org/2012/10/15/why-public-art-is-important/

Hein, H. (1996). Symposium: Public art,what is public art?: Time, place, and meaning. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 54(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540_6245.jaac54.1.0001

38

Hlavajova, M., & Sheikh, S. (2017). Former west. art and the contemporary after 1989. MIT Press Ltd.

Janson, H. W., & Janson, A. F. (2001). History of art. Prentice Hall.

Journal. Public Art Dialogue. (2011). Retrieved November 7, 2021, from https://publicartdialogue.org/journal.

Knight, C. (2008). Public Art: Theory, Practice and Populism. Malden, MA: Wiley- Blackwell Publishing.

Knight, J. S. & Knight J. L. (2016). The Soul of the Community. Retrieved November 8, from http://www.knightfoundation.org/sotc/

Krauss, R. (1979). Sculpture in the Expanded Field. October, 8, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/778224

Landi, P. J. (2012). Public Art: Purpose and Benefits: Exploring Strategy in the New England City of Pittsfield, MA. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

Leonard, F. E. (1905). The transition from medieval to modern times—chapters in the history of physical training. American Physical Education Review, 10(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/23267224.1905.10649764

McMahen, M. (2020). Public art master planning for small towns : a study in Pilot Point, Texas University of Texas at Arlington.

McCarthy, J. (2006). Regeneration of Cultural Quarters: Public Art for Place Image or Place Identity. Journal of Urban Design, vol. 11, iss: 2, pp. 243-262.

National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-209). The National Endowment for the Humanities. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.neh.gov/about/history/national-foundation-arts-and-humanities-act-1965-pl-89-209.

Osborne, R. (2008). Civilization: A new history of the western world. Pegasus Books.

Percent for art policy brief. NASAA. (2020). Retrieved October 1, 2021, from https://nasaa-arts.org/nasaa_research/nasaapercentforartpolicybrief/.

Public art definition, history, types. Public Art: Definition, History, Types. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2021, from http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/public-art.htm.

Rogers, B. E. (2001). Landscape Design: A Cultural and Architectural History. Abrams Inc

39

Rosenfeld, D. (2012, May 28). “The Financial Case for Public Art.” Citylab. Retrieved from https://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/The%20Financial%20Case%20for%20Public%20Art%20-%20CityLab.pdf.

Signal Art Program. North Richland Hills, TX - Official Website. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.nrhtx.com/790/Signal-Art-Program.

State of Texas - Texas Commission on the Arts. (n.d.). TCANET. Texas Commission on the Arts. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.arts.texas.gov/about-us/agency-overview/.

State of Texas - Texas Commission on the Arts. (n.d.). TCANET. Texas Commission on the Arts. Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.arts.texas.gov/initiatives/public-art/.

Taylor, N. (2008). American-made : The Enduring Legacy of the WPA : When FDR Put the Nation to Work. New York, N.Y.: Bantam Book.

Texas Commission on the arts. TSHA. (n.d.). Retrieved November 8, 2021, from https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/texas-commission-on-the-arts.

Traffic Signal Box Art Project: Bedford TX. City of Bedford. (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://bedfordtx.gov/820/Traffic-Signal-Box-Art-Project.

Vink, M. (2020, November 9). National Arts Administration and Policy Publications Database (NAAPPD). Americans for the Arts. Retrieved September 10, 2021, from https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-program/reports-and-data/legislation-policy/national-arts-administration-and-policy-publications-database-naappd

Zebracki, M. (2013). Beyond public artopia: Public art as perceived by its publics. GeoJournal, 78(2), 303–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-011-9440-8

40

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Data Collection Matrix

City Population Arts Page Arts Council/Committee Arts in Budget Budgeted AmountAzle 11,286 Y N NBedford 20,821 Y Y NBenbrook 23,215 Y N NBlue Mound 2,981 N N NBurleson 45,862 Y N NColleyville 26,057 Y N Y UnspecifiedCrowley 15,439 N N NDalworthington Gardens 2,500 N N NEdgecliff Village 3,026 N N NEuless 61,032 Y N NEverman 6,127 N N NFlower Mound 81,482 Y Y Y 86,850Forest Hill 12,943 N Y NGrapevine 55780 Y N NHaltom City 43,728 N N NHaslet 2,137 N N Y 1,100Hurst 38,172 N Y Y 5,000Keller 46,939 Y Y Y 43,000Kennedale 8,620 N N NLake Worth 4,867 N N Y 4,610Lakeside 1,661 N N NMansfield 73,094 Y Y Y 194,000Newark 1,251 N N NNorth Richland Hills 71,949 Y N Y 161,000Pantego 2,496 N Y NPelican Bay 2,100 N N NReno 6,822 N N NRichland Hills 7,841 N Y NRiver Oaks 7,539 N N NSaginaw 24,860 Y Y Y 25,000Sansom Park 5,704 N N N

Southlake 32,280 Y Y Y68,100 expenditure, +100k Capital; fund balance over

333kTrophy Club 12,636 N N N

Watauga 24,188 N N Y Quantity of Programs, but not Budgeted Amount

Westlake 1,793 Y Y Y 10,000Westworth Village 2,778 N N NWhite Settlement 17,776 N N Y 21,000

41

Appendix B – City Budgets

City Budget URL

Azle https://www.cityofazle.org/DocumentCenter/View/6923/City-of-Azle-FY-2020-21-Budget

Bedford https://bedfordtx.gov/384/Budget-Breakdown

Benbrook https://www.benbrook-tx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8098/City-of-Benbrook-FY-2020-21-Budget

Blue Mound https://www.bluemoundtexas.org/single-post/2020/09/29/notice-of-public-hearing-on-tax-increase

Burleson https://www.burlesontx.com/DocumentCenter/View/21224/Adopted-Annual-Operating-Budget-FY-2020-2021?bidId=

Colleyville https://www.colleyville.com/home/showpublisheddocument/5475/637136451702330000

Crowley https://www.ci.crowley.tx.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/2950/05b_09162021_final_budget_for_meeting_1.pdf

Dalworthington Gardens https://www.cityofdwg.net/documents/243/FY__2021-22_BUDGET.pdf

Edgecliff Village https://cour60.wixsite.com/evgov/overview

Euless https://www.eulesstx.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/2144/637475307214830000

Everman http://www.evermantx.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2021-Proposed-Budget.pdf

Flower Mound https://www.flower-mound.com/DocumentCenter/View/31813/FY-2021-2022-Proposed-Budget

Forest Hill https://www.foresthilltx.org/media/Budget/Adopted%20Budget%20FY%202020-2021%20FINAL

Grapevine https://grapevinetexas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8174/Grapevine-FY21-Budget3

Haltom City https://www.haltomcitytx.com/finance-departments-news-events/3988-proposed-fy2022-haltom-city-budget

Haslet http://www.haslet.org/DocumentCenter/View/3341/Final-Adopted-Budgetpdf-FY2021-2022

Hurst https://www.hursttx.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10594/637685310382630000

Keller https://www.cityofkeller.com/home/showpublisheddocument/22568/637152166264000000

Kennedale https://www.cityofkennedale.com/DocumentCenter/View/5950/Fiscal-Year-2021-22-Proposed-Budget?bidId=

Lake Worth https://www.lakeworthtx.org/sites/g/files/vyhlif756/f/pages/budget_ordinance_2021-2022.pdf

Lakeside https://lakesidetexas.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Adopted-Budget-2020-2021-1.pdf

Mansfield https://www.mansfieldtexas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8369/Budget-Document-2020-2021-PDF

Newark https://newarktexas.com/finance-1

North Richland Hills https://www.nrhtx.com/DocumentCenter/View/11225/FY-21-22-Operating-Budget?bidId=

Pantego https://www.townofpantego.com/media/Finance/Adopted%20Budget%20Book%20FY%202021-2022%20Final.pdf

Pelican Bay https://cityofpelicanbay.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2021-2022-BUDGET.pdf

Reno https://www.renotexas.us/DocumentCenter/View/1276/2019-2020-Proposed-Budget?bidId=

Richland Hills https://www.richlandhills.com/government/city-budget-finances/fiscal-year-2022-budget

River Oaks http://www.riveroakstx.com/doc/AdoptedFY2022BudgetF.pdf

Saginaw https://www.ci.saginaw.tx.us/DocumentCenter/View/13416/2021-22-Adopted-Budget-Document?bidId=

Sansom Park https://www.sansompark.org/DocumentCenter/View/1342/FY2021-2022-Annual-Operating-Budget-adopted-September-16-2021

Southlake https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/3821/Adopted-FY-2021-Budget

Trophy Club https://www.trophyclub.org/DocumentCenter/View/2743/FY21-PROPOSED-BUDGET-DOC

Watauga https://www.cowtx.org/DocumentCenter/View/13688/FY2021-2022-PROPOSED-BUDGET-DOCUMENT

Westlake https://www.westlake-tx.org/522/Annual-Operating-Budgets

Westworth Village http://cityofwestworth.com/uploads/file/Budgets/2020-2021%20Budget%20(Proposed%20Final).pdf

White Settlement https://wstx.us/DocumentCenter/View/1317/Proposed-Budget-Fiscal-Year-2020-2021

42

Appendix C – City Public Art Surveys and Results

Tarrant County Public Arts Initiatives Survey

1. What is the City of (NAME)’s reasoning for creating and maintaining its Arts Board or Commission?

2. Does the City of (NAME) have any additional specific policies or goals related to public art that are not listed on the city website?

3. Does the City of (NAME) track any data or information on public art policy outcomes?

4. If yes, would you be willing to share any information about the policy outcomes or provide a brief overview of them?

43

Appendix C, con’t. – City of Bedford

City of Bedford Public Arts Initiatives Survey

Krissi Oden – Cultural Arts Manager

1. What is the reason behind creating your arts commission/ board?

In August of 2021 the city of Bedford created a new position of Cultural Arts Manager. They hired Krissi Oden to take charge of the arts throughout the entire city. They have a cultural commission, but it has not yet come into fruition.

2. Does your city have any specific policies or goals related to public art that are not listed on the city website?

Bedford has prioritized in creating the new position of Cultural Arts Manager to give arts a bigger space throughout the city. They will focus in creating bigger art events, about 2 or 3 per year.

3. Does the City track any data or information on public art policy outcomes?

At the moments the city is in a transition process and once it is flowing the tracking process will begin. The position of Cultural Arts Manager is very fresh. It is the hope of the city to grow within time. The city of Bedford is in the process of building a new activities center and a performing arts center.

4. If yes, would you be willing to share any information about the policy outcomes or provide a brief overview of them?

The outcomes will not be visible soon, but everyone is welcome to see the progress. Focus events for the fall are: Haunted (Halloween) and Chalk art contest in November.

44

Appendix C, con’t. – City of Mansfield

Rosalie Gilbert, Cultural Arts Supervisor

1. What is the City of Mansfield’s reasoning for creating and maintaining the Mansfield Commission for the Arts?

a. Interested citizens advocated to city council and staff members for the creation of an arts council and more vibrant arts scene in Mansfield

b. Comments and recommendations from City Bond rating reviews suggested that we were a very sports centric city and we needed to expand our offerings – particularly adding arts and culture events and activities to maintain our standing as a desirable city to live, work, and play

c. As the City looks toward the development of the last 25% of our land we seek to build a community that offers a variety of opportunities that encourage residents to settle and stay in Mansfield and attracts visitors. The City sees the arts as an important component in building that type of town.

d. Since starting an arts department and commission, the interest from residents, businesses, and artists in having more public art, more events, and more facilities has increased dramatically (or maybe now we just have people to hear and address those needs & interests), so we see the benefit in maintaining and growing our programming

2. Does the City of Mansfield have any additional specific policies or goals related to public art that are not listed on the city website?

a. The City is beginning a comprehensive cultural arts master plan. We hope to have a consultant contracted by late January 2022, and we anticipate the planning process will take 12-18 months. The master plan would address overall mission and vision for the arts in Mansfield, facility needs, public art policies, ordinances, funding, and program management, and a potential cultural district designation in our town.

i. By the end of the planning process we hope to have a framework to launch a public art program immediately, a clear understanding of new facilities that may be needed and/or how to utilize and renovate existing facilities to better serve our community, and all the pieces needed to apply for a state cultural district designation in the next few years.

3. Does the City of Mansfield track any data or information on public art policy outcomes?a. Probably not. We do track things like attendance at events and revenue vs. expenses

for events, but I’m not sure that’s what you mean.

4. If yes, would you be willing to share any information about the policy outcomes or provide a brief overview of them?

a. I’m happy to share, but I’d need more specific questions or details to know if I have anything to share that you would want to know about!

45

Appendix C, con’t. – City of North Richland Hills

Sarah Green, Cultural Arts/Digital Design

1. What is the City of North Richland Hills reasoning for creating and maintaining the Commission for the Arts?

The City doesn’t have an active Public Art Commission per se. The Cultural Arts Division, housed within the NRH Parks and Recreation Department maintains oversight of the collection and Arts Programming. Public Art is recognized by City officials as an economic driver, with the City’s “Signal Art Program” artworks serving as wayfinding markers along the 30 plus miles of hike and bike trails and commuter roadways within City limits. The NRH Signal Art Program has attracted national attention and brings in visitors who tour the City specifically to take selfies with the art boxes. The City recognizes that by integrating art into daily life, the NRH Art in Public Spaces program beautifies public areas, improves neighborhood quality of life and creates a distinctive identity for our community.

2. Does the City of North Richland Hills have any additional specific policies or goals related to public art that are not listed on the city website?

Programs such as the NRH Pop Up Gallery and NRH Poets Corner were implemented as opportunities to explore the role of art and artists as agents of revitalization and municipal development. The City of North Richland Hills is looking at the many ways in which artists can serve as catalysts for positive change and growth. A recent branding of NRH Arts Programs titled “Art Lives in Our City” has a specific aim to recognize the creative individuals who reside in North Richland Hills. By providing programs that showcase the work of residents, North Richland Hills endeavors to promote inclusivity and a heightened sense of community by actively engaging with residents by honoring their talent and ingenuity.

3. Does the City of North Richland Hills track any data or information on public art policy outcomes?

At present, there is no formal tracking of public art policy outcomes. The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a budget reduction for Cultural Arts Programming as the City reallocates funding for vital infrastructure and development projects. As the Cultural Arts Department operates less structured, more “grassroots” programming, informal tracking of online opinion surveys, social media comments, audience counts and interpersonal conversations will continue.

4. If yes, would you be willing to share any information about the policy outcomes or provide a brief overview of them?

N/A

46

Appendix C, con’t. – City of Southlake

Vicky Schiber – Community Relations Manager

1. What is the reason behind creating your arts commission/ board?

Adopted by the City Council on September 18, 2018, the Southlake 2035 Public Arts Master Plan seeks to identify priorities and to establish a collective vision for what public arts can accomplish in Southlake. The plan encompasses a vision for ways public art is utilized and details priorities, location, and themes that should be considered for project and program development.

2. Does your city have any specific policies or goals related to public art that are not listed on the city website?

Listed in the Public Arts Master Plan

3. Does the City track any data or information on public art policy outcomes?

The Public Arts Master Plan will have data and information. It can also be revised as needed.Here is a link to the master plan. https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/DocumentCenter/View/18782/Public-Arts-Master-Plan?bidId=

4. If yes, would you be willing to share any information about the policy outcomes or provide a brief overview of them?

47

Appendix D - Notes on Art Activities

City Website Arts Initiative ContentAzle Historic MuseumsBedford Traffic signal box art projectBenbrook Benbrook Heritage FestBlue Mound N/ABurleson Festivals, Martial arts and arts campColleyville Performing Arts - Concerts in the plazaCrowleyDalworthington GardensEdgecliff VillageEuless Public art in glass, bronze or other mediums throughout different parts of the city. (Sculpture)EvermanFlower Mound Murals, Block parties, Concerts in the park series, annual arts festivals, otherForest Hill Veterans Memorial

Grapevine Heavy arts activity centered around museums historic downtown; annual arts festivals; historical/tourism initiatives; many culptures and murals, plus festivals

Haltom CityHaslet Arts and Culture mentioned but content not specified; Lists ArtsNET membershipHurst UnlistedKeller Sculptures, public arts board, concerts/festivals/eventsKennedale Arts and Culture mentioned but content not specifiedLake Worth Lake Worth MuseumLakeside

Mansfield Music festivals, theatre performances, visual art classes and displays, visual art festivals, dance competitions; Photography and film

Newark Lists 3 parks as social engagement/public art opportunitiesNorth Richland Hills

NRH Art in Public Spaces, Pop Up Gallery, Autumn Sound Concert Series, Sounds of Spring Concert Series, Poets Corner, & Signal Art Program; culinary arts

Pantego Lists ArtsNET membershipPelican BayRenoRichland Hills "Arts on the Go," which is a mobile workshop at the Richland Hills Public Library; Lists ArtsNET membershipRiver OaksSaginaw Visual Arts beautification of public spaces and fixtures--manhole covers, signal boxes, walls, fire stations, etc. Sansom ParkSouthlake Extensive website detailing public art--sculptures, murals, arts festivals, etc.Trophy ClubWataugaWestlake Nonspecific, but Public Art is integrated into the city's master developmental planWestworth VillageWhite Settlement

48

Appendix E - Political Map of Tarrant County

Source: https://www.tarrantcounty.com/en/elections/interactive-maps/City-Maps-in-Tarrant-County/All-cities-in-tarrant-county-map.html

49

Appendix F - Census QuickFacts Comparison Dashboard

FactTarrant County Bedford

Flower Mound Keller Mansfield N.R. Hills Southlake

White alone, percent 72.60% 74.50% 78.90% 87.30% 68.00% 79.40% 78.90%Black or African American alone, percent 17.90% 12.10% 3.90% 1.90% 18.70% 6.80% 1.70%American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 0.90% 0.60% 0.30% 0.40% 0.40% 0.90% 0.40%Asian alone, percent 5.80% 5.40% 10.90% 6.10% 4.60% 4.40% 15.90%Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 0.30% 1.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.10% 0.70% 0.00%Two or More Races, percent 2.60% 3.40% 3.00% 3.00% 4.00% 3.70% 2.50%Hispanic or Latino, percent 29.50% 13.90% 11.10% 10.10% 18.20% 16.60% 6.40%White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 45.30% 64.30% 71.10% 78.90% 55.20% 68.00% 73.60%Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2015-2019 60.50% 54.30% 85.80% 82.00% 75.60% 62.20% 93.80%Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2015-2019 $188,500 $217,300 $361,900 $386,200 $257,100 $203,800 $676,900 Median gross rent, 2015-2019 $1,095 $1,116 $1,731 $1,405 $1,428 $1,165 $1,367 Households with a computer, percent, 2015-2019 94.40% 95.30% 98.70% 97.60% 97.60% 96.10% 98.90%Households with a broadband Internet subscription, percent, 2015-2019 86.90% 90.40% 96.90% 94.80% 94.30% 90.50% 97.60%High school graduate or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2015-2019 86.10% 94.70% 96.90% 95.80% 94.20% 91.80% 99.10%Bachelor's degree or higher, percent of persons age 25 years+, 2015-2019 32.30% 37.10% 62.00% 56.50% 42.30% 33.50% 69.70%With a disability, under age 65 years, percent, 2015-2019 7.30% 8.20% 4.10% 4.30% 5.80% 9.10% 3.20%Persons without health insurance, under age 65 years, percent 18.90% 11.20% 5.70% 6.00% 7.60% 13.90% 4.30%In civilian labor force, total, percent of population age 16 years+, 2015-2019 68.00% 69.10% 72.50% 67.80% 70.70% 68.60% 62.20%Median household income (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $67,700 $70,362 $137,285 $141,364 $99,510 $71,076 $240,248 Per capita income in past 12 months (in 2019 dollars), 2015-2019 $33,292 $36,923 $54,100 $59,481 $38,948 $36,237 $91,954 Persons in poverty, percent 10.20% 5.60% 2.90% 3.10% 3.80% 7.60% 2.50%

Source: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

50

Appendix G – Arts Council of NorthEast Tarrant URL

ArtsNET URL: https://theartsnet.org/

51

Appendix H – Public Art Master Plan URLs

Flower Mound:

https://www.flower-mound.com/DocumentCenter/View/22946/Cultural-Arts-Master-Plan-?bidId=#:~:text=The%20Cultural%20Arts%20Master%20Plan,life%20for%20Flower%20Mound%20residents.&text=This%20plan%20was%20commissioned%20by,of%20the%20Cultural%20Arts%20Commission.

Keller:

https://www.cityofkeller.com/services/administration/city-manager/public-arts/public-art-master-plan

Southlake:

https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/DocumentCenter/View/18782/Public-Arts-Master-Plan?bidId=

52

Appendix I - Southlake Public Art Fund, Excerpted from Adopted FY 21 Budget.

Source: City of Southlake, Adopted AY 21 Budget.

URL:

https://www.cityofsouthlake.com/DocumentCenter/View/34257/FY-2021-Adopted-Budget---Full-Book