FLOOD WALL MURAL MUST STAND ON ITS OWN MERITS

Plans for a 320-foot (longer than a football field), 14-foot tall mural for the downtown flood wall are on hold. The city park board withheld its endorsement of the project. The park board's concern centered on a communications glitch. We understand their reservations, and sympathize with those who say the mural project should be judged on its own merits, and not on procedural problems. It's worth noting, though, that the procedural reasons might have been a polite way to say "no".

The city and various advisory groups should closely examine the pros and cons of putting a mural on our flood wall. Debate over design, funding and location should determine whether the city proceeds with this project.

The idea of a "city of murals" has some merit as a tourist attraction. Several years ago, Vision 2000 and the River Heritage Mural Association set a goal to paint 10 murals in 10 years. Since then, the Jim Parker and Riverfest murals have been completed downtown, and a third was painted at Washington School. Griffin's added a fourth private mural at its downtown location. These outdoor works of art complement the famed Jake Wells mural in Kent Library.

But the issue now is whether we want another mural downtown, and if so, whether the flood wall is the proper location. As such, the feelings of downtown merchants are entitled to much consideration. Some merchants feel too many murals may destroy the "old-time look" of historic downtown. Some support the murals as a way to attract more tourists. Others are opposed.

Last month the merchants declined to donate funding to the mural, but they have yet to vote either on the overall merits of the mural or on a recommended location. These issues may be decided at their April 23 meeting.

The Convention and Visitors Bureau Advisory Board has recommended that the city give $7,000 to the project, but only if downtown merchants support the concept. Of that conditional contribution, $5,000 would be in cash with $2,000 in a contingency fund for maintenance and repairs. The money would come from motel and restaurant tax revenues. City council consideration will not be Monday, but probably in two weeks.

Planning for this river wall mural began in the fall of 1989. The first major hurdle was to secure Corps of Engineer approval, which was granted with the proviso that money be set aside to sandblast the wall if the mural deteriorated. The design committee includes Jake Wells, Bill Chamberlain, Donna Hanschen, Andy Juden Jr. (Downtown Levee District), Jane Ervin (Downtown Merchants), Laura Brothers (SEMO Council on Arts), Paul Lloyd, and Steve Bone, then city parks director. The city staff has also been kept abreast of the project.

Placement of the mural remains a key consideration. We feel it should not be situated on the city side of the flood wall between Themis and Broadway. The downtown merchants have invested too many dollars in new trees and other improvements already in place here, and these trees and lights are quite attractive. Instead, let's debate the merits of placing it either on the river side at the same location; on the city side of the flood wall near the south side parking lot (across from Hutson's Furniture); or not at all.

In promoting the project, the mural association would be well advised to feature prominently the art work itself. The mural has been designed by a professional artist in separate and sequential images. One mural association member explained it was not designed as a billboard to be seen all at once. A public display of the design might quickly settle this issue for all concerned.

The mural association is working to beautify our community and to create a source of city pride. In the final analysis, however, the discussion should center on the benefits of the mural, its design, location, upkeep and costs. These issues should determine whether this project proceeds.

Lots of questions remain. We could be sold on this mural, but have not been to this point.