This painted power box was rejected by reviewers for “not likely to be permanent”, which is ridiculous, so I appealed it, and the decision of the appeals team is even more ridiculous.
It’s clearly in the same style as the first picture in the article and most likely painted by the same commissioned artist. I see no reason why this should have been rejected by reviewers in the first place, but I ESPECIALLY don’t see why the appeals team is blundering like this.
Do you have any evidence that this is commissioned by the owner of the junction box? If not, I can’t see a reason why it should be approved… but am willing to be convinced otherwise.
This is an awesome project featuring named artists and I would approve each work. I wonder if the word “test” in this particular article is why it was rejected as temporary? Do you have other articles you could link?
No other info sources to my knowledge, but if they reject a submission made in 2025 because an article from 2020 mentioned the word “test”, that’s just lousy reviewing. Especially since this particular power box has looked like this since at least October 2022 according to StreetView photos. Seems to me that’s permanent enough.
You mean like the article I already linked that leads to the city’s official news/events/tourism website?
And if you think only commissioned works are valid wayspots, then I suggest you read the criteria clarification again. Nowhere does it mention being commissioned as a requirement. It’s a plus, not a must. Unique Art
Apology. I missed the link. My eyes weren’t fully awake. In terms of it being commissioned, I see it as added weight to it being accepted more than anything else.
i will confess that i actually didn’t see that the link was in the original post either - i had pulled up the screenshot and used google lens to pull it from there. felt a little silly when i realized i didn’t have to do that. idk why my eyes wanted to run past that.
