City Considers Deaccessing Two Airport Artworks for Expansion

Austin Airport’s $5 Billion Expansion Puts Two Public Artworks on the Chopping Block

Austin’s ambitious $5 billion airport expansion has collided with a difficult question: what value do we place on public art when progress demands its removal? At the center of this debate are two monumental artworks—John Christensen’s “Leaf, Pod, & Samara” (1999) and the late Michael Singer’s “Uplifted Ground” (2015)—that the City of Austin is considering deaccessioning to make way for a new arrivals and departures hall at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. Glasstire reported that the Art in Public Places (AIPP) Panel, the advisory body for the City of Austin Arts Commission, voted unanimously this week to recommend against the deaccession, leaving the final decision to the City Council, which is scheduled to take up the issue on November 19.

Art or Obstruction? The Airport’s Case for Removal

The city’s reasoning is rooted in a hard deadline. The Red Garage, a designated parking area where both artworks are located, is slated for demolition in early 2027. This isn’t a minor facelift; it’s a critical step in the Barbara Jordan Terminal expansion, a multi-year project designed to handle Austin’s rapidly growing air traffic. City staff presented a stark reality to the AIPP Panel: the artworks are fundamentally tied to the structures they occupy. Christensen’s piece consists of three massive poured-in-place concrete elements, while Singer’s “Uplifted Ground” is an “integral part of the structural design for the walkway” in the Red Garage, according to the AIPP online archive. Removing them without destroying them, the city argues, is practically impossible.

This isn’t the first time Austin has faced this dilemma. In 2025, the city decided to deaccession four public artworks at the Austin Convention Center ahead of its demolition. That decision sparked intense backlash, partly due to the city’s insistence that artists would bear the financial burden of moving their own work.

If the city [deaccessions] the sculptures, they will be destroyed. I cannot afford to move them.

— John Christensen, Artist

Jaime Castillo, AIPP Program Manager, clarified that city procedure requires artists to be offered the chance to retrieve their artwork, but only at their own expense. For Christensen, this is a non-starter. “If the city [deaccessions] the sculptures, they will be destroyed,” he stated plainly during the public comment period. "I cannot afford to move them." As an alternative, he proposed creating "quarter-scale versions of the sculptures for a new location," a move that demonstrates his flexibility but also underscores the substantial expense of safeguarding the original pieces.

Artist’s Foundation Pushes Back, Proposes Solutions

The situation for Michael Singer’s estate is even more complex. The artist passed away in 2024, and his work is now represented by the Michael Singer Foundation and Singer Studio. Jason Bregman, Director of the Michael Singer Foundation, told panel members that his team had been in “productive conversations with the airport and AIPP for two years” about relocating the $1.8 million artwork. “Deaccession was never mentioned during that time,” he emphasized, suggesting the city’s current proposal came as a surprise.

Bregman didn’t just present a problem; he presented potential solutions. He shared renderings of possible relocation sites for “Uplifted Ground,” which he admitted were created on short notice without official coordination. He proposed re-siting the large-footprint artwork at the airport’s consolidated rent-a-car facility, the Conrac, where parts of it are already located. “If we all work together, we can find some really beautiful possibilities for resiting Uplifted Ground at the Conrac,” he said. This directly contradicts the city’s assertion that no viable sites exist on the sprawling 4,200-acre airport campus.

We do not recommend a deaccession at this point because we do not have sufficient information on the unavailability of future sites for either project.

— Camille Jobe, AIPP Panel Member

Two panel members, artists Lindsey Millikan and Bernardo Diaz, went so far as to call the airport’s reasoning “absurd,” a characterization that drew objections from City staff. “We do not recommend a deaccession at this point because we do not have sufficient information on the unavailability of future sites for either project,” AIPP member Camille Jobe explained. Her motion called for “further documentation that excludes all possible locations at the airport, and why they’re excluded, including storage opportunities.” Her colleague, Heidi Schmalbach, echoed this, asking for “a point-by-point explanation with rationale of why the sites that have been proposed by the artists wouldn’t work at the airport.”

The Human Stakes of a Concrete Decision

So, what does this all mean for the people of Austin? The city is betting billions on its future as a global travel hub, a move aimed at attracting business and tourism. But at what cost? The potential loss of Christensen’s and Singer’s artworks would reduce the city’s public cultural offerings.

City council meeting vector illustration with effective business team employee brainstorming for important negotiation in fla

The city’s tight construction timeline, which demands the Red Garage’s demolition by early 2027, adds immense pressure to find a quick solution, even if that solution means sacrificing the art.

The fight now moves to the City Council, where the final decision will determine whether Austin’s two major public artworks at the airport will be deaccessioned to make way for a $5 billion expansion. The clock is ticking, and the Red Garage’s demolition date is not flexible.

Keep reading