Should’ve put that 500K to the bottom line of the overall cost of that library majority of the people in Guelph didn’t want. 500K on 2 pieces of art is crazy, the people spending that money are probably the same people that complain we need more help for the homeless.
Look, I realize this is being funded through donations. But two art installations, at a cost of $250,000 each?! Perhaps I don't understand how much art should cost... but what is that amount even for? Supplies? Time? I just don't understand.
Public art is as important as our public library. Would you or a child be captivated by a grey cement wall? An interactive art installation would invite participation, open new perspectives, and be a welcoming point of focus when arriving in the library. Public art is a program. It informs a place and a time. Take a look at protests surrounding Sir John A. et a
I find those figures for art installations to be excessive. Would a LOCAL artist be that costly.?Again, I’m sure this building will be lovely but last week I read that the downtown library in Hamilton has almost been forced to close because of the damages done by street folks with addiction issues. Figures crossed this won’t happen to Guelph.
Why is more money being spent before we know how we are paying for the library?That project is something you earn and save for five years down the road. They think they "need it"? Find someone just as excited about the spending their bank account to support.
The city is using survey methods that tend to produce more favourable results... 2026 results compared to 2024 - most services either declined or remained flat...Parks & trails - down 4%Garbage & green cart - down 6%Water/wastewater - down 4%Culture programs/facilities - stagnantNPS was +1, so approx equal people promoting it VS speaking negatively.What I found most interesting was the gap between phone and online... The city used the phone survey for the main results and kept the online results in the appendix...Phone respondents reported an NPS of +1. Online reported an NPS of -34.While online surveys usually attract more dissatisfied residents.. 40% of phone respondents had contacted the city in the previous year compared with 66% of online respondents. Suggesting both groups were meaningfully engaged with city services... yet their experiences and perceptions differed dramatically.Understanding why that gap exists would be a better article for GT.
Im sorry. But if I was a person that donated and saw what these funds were being used for I would be irate. These people dont seem to have a clue what a buck is worth. Wild.
Conversely, please explain why you think people shouldn’t have free access to knowledge via books, public computer terminals, workshops and lectures, and a host of other programming that libraries provide.
Between phone and online surveys a total of 747 had participated in this survery out of approximately 118,200 people of ages 18+. That works out to 0.63% sampling of the population. There is no way that you can get an accurate sampling with that small of number.
Love this take! This will be a huge benefit to our city and our library - and without any cost to taxpayers. It’s sad to see so many discouraging comments about something as joyful as public art when it comes at no personal cost. Yeesh. Live a little, guys!
Here's a wild idea... why don't the teachers receive evaluations, like in the private sector... and in schools? If we're doing a great job and are on top of things, it shouldn't be a concern, right? If we're concerned about student attendance, how about measuring teacher attendance? Or how about - works well with others... without threatening to strike if we don't get our way.Perhaps we teachers can model the behavior that we'd like to see and be part of the solution. (And before the namecalling starts, let's not forget about evaluating critical thinking skills! Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are stupid and uninformed.)
I would like the Mayor and Councillors to explain why they are spending our tax dollars on this when they claim there was no way to avoid an almost 8% tax increase for 2026. These pet projects have contributed to a 38% tax increase in the last four years! Come on council, start looking at where OUR money is being spent and direct it to BASIC services. You’ve had four years to address non sustainable spending and nothing to show for it.
Commenters need to do some research on the many values of trees: air quality, human health, birds and insects, shade and climate change are just a few of the benefits trees bring to our city. Better to spend the money on trees than pavement.