It’s not even real crystal, but it’s apparently worth $4.8 million. And the item in question — a massive glimmering chandelier — has optics-sensitive Canucks cringing.

The 14-by-21-foot, roughly 7,500-pound “Spinning Chandelier” installation by artist Rodney Graham was recently lit up under a bridge above a former homeless encampment in Vancouver, British Columbia, according to CNN. The nearly $5 million money shot swivels and rises up and down over the course of the day creating Instagram moments for passersby.

The idea was to draw tourists to the “rough and functional space” under the Granville Bridge with 600 polyurethane “crystals,” according to Eric Fredericksen, head of public art for the City of Vancouver.

“For the artist, I think he was thinking more abstractly about the sculpture and the light possibilities in the chandelier,” Fredericksen tells CBC. “I’m not sure how much the social implications are in there.”

But many locals decry the luxury artwork as bad taste in a city that’s seen its homeless population skyrocket to its highest level in nearly two decades this year.

“Imagine how much $4.8 million could have accomplished if it had been spent on addictions treatment, affordable housing, transit or childcare!” tweets Michael Malone.

“It’s gaudy,” local Pierre Blais tells CBC. “If that was the demographic they’re aiming for, they nailed it.”

However, while many took to social media to mock the cost of the piece, fans of the chandelier point out that it was not publicly funded. The project was installed as part of a deal with the city for a luxury 59-story, $575 million, Bjarke Ingels-designed building dubbed Vancouver House, developed by Westbank.

“Yes, we in Vancouver have a homelessness problem, but to dismiss art as a frivolous luxury is to ignore an important cultural element. Public art enriches all,” Blah City tweets.

In a statement, Westbank voiced much the same sentiment: “There is a pervasive attitude in our city that we must choose between contributing to social infrastructure or making other contributions, whether artistic or cultural, that are seen as less functional.” The statement goes on, “Westbank does not view this as an ‘either/or’ situation.”

Hard not to read that as, “Let them eat cake.”