Title: Don’t Waste Water
Description: A beautiful reminder to preserve water.
Supplemental info: Located in the wall of a multi-family apartment complex.
I think I made it clear that it’s located in the wall of a multi-apartment complex, which is allowed. I made sure the supplementary image and description clearly show that there are multiple apartments in the shown building but the nomination is constantly getting declined.
Do you have any tips on how to further improve this nomination?
Could you please show a screenshot of what ended up being your full final nomination and of what the appeal reviewer told you?
With this kind of nomination I would not so much be concerned about SFPRP (though if it is it’s a dead end, of course), but rather about the permanence of the work. It might be challenging to find definitive documental evidence that something like this is meant to stay. With public art, this is generally reinforced by authorship information, local sources documenting it being put up, etc. Is this something you can envision finding in this case?
I am sorry that you did not get any replies here when you first posted. This is not what an apartment building looks like in my part of the world, so you will probably need to provide evidence of that if you resubmit. You can include links in the supporting section.
What are the reasons it is being declined for? To me with my worldview, this looks like something cute a homeowner has painted on their own property, so I would really need to be convinced that it is not SFPRP and is not temporary.
I attached a screenshot of the reason. It seems to be a copy paste answer and didn’t get an counter to any of my arguments (on my appeal). Do I have to go to the municipality to get the buildings’ license or something? That sounds a bit too much for a nomination. I provided the reasons similar to what I answer to the user below:
You can see the number of chimneys on the roofs, it’s a building that has many apartments that are vertically separated. They however share some features like you see there is only one antenna that feeds signal to all the other apartments as well. I can make more arguments if you’d like.
It’s an apartment block and function as such. It’s a rural area and you don’t find skyscrapers here if that’s what you mean but it’s definitely not a single family residence building.
I agree that it looks like a single family residence.
To tell if a building is multi-family, generally the international Wayfarer community wisdom is to look for front doors, mailboxes, and/or street numbers. If none of those things show in your Supporting Image or on Streetview, I don’t think you’ll be getting this through.
Are you able to provide the location for this? Multi-family properties can look different in different parts of the world. There are some that do look like they could be single family, but are actually townhomes or duplexes connected to each other. There may also be smaller multi-family properties, which this could be, and there could be a misunderstanding with how multi-family and single family are defined in your region.
To me, it looks like a single family property with more than 1 story. I think more context as to where this is located may help, as apartment buildings may be different where you are than where others are located.
Perhaps it would help to use different wording to describe these multi-family dwellings? Some reviewers might go, that’s not an apartment, thus reject. Judging by the number of chimneys per building, I’d say each building is a duplex? If more than two, perhaps they are terraces?
Also, might help if you take the supporting photo from even further out, to show there’s a cluster of those buildings, and if possible, try to get multiple letterboxes or a shared driveway in the supporting photo.
In America, houses of this size built before the 1960s usually had two fireplaces - or more, maybe one in every bedroom. Central heat didn’t exist until the 1950s, then it was a habit for a while longer.
These two chimneys could be a clue, but could mean there’s one in the kitchen and one in the living room, or something, in a normal house. IMO it’s really not enough to risk putting a (virtual) object on someone’s home.
