News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

Do You Like The New Street Signs?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 27.4%
  • No

    Votes: 71 62.8%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 11 9.7%

  • Total voters
    113
and we can't afford it.

we've tried using "modren" flat aluminum acorn ones and people hated them too. that's the reason why we got this new one. Which is very nice.

These signs are a case of answering a question nobody asked; or fixing something that doesn't need to be fixed. The traditional acorn signs are great, unpretentious, and functional. The new signs try too hard so to speak, are busy with obnoxious fonts, and are just plain obtrusive. They'll only work in wide open windswept suburban streets, and still, even the suburbs deserve better design than these new signs.
 
Yes they are that bad

Yes the new signs are that bad.

All other things being equal I would vote for a Mayor Candidate who campaigned on restoring the rightful Acorn!

Yes the old signs are about $300.00 each (manufactured in house).... there is always a question as to what they would cost if we tendered them...........

But let's leave that aside for a moment.

I don't know how many street signs the City replaces in a year, but let's say 1,000 (that means we are talking an extra $150.00 per sign for the nicer version of the signs) or an extra $150,000 in a budget of $7,000,000,000 (that's billion).

That's less than 0.002% of the annual budget.

And funnily enough I don't see that other cities all have to have cheap crappy street signs. Including many small towns in Ontario.

A point of contrast, the marginally improved the appearance of the Cumberland exit of Bay Station, for 1.2M or 8x as much as the nicer street signs would cost.

Money is not an issue, quality and aesthetic value are!
 
egotrippin said:
These signs are a case of answering a question nobody asked; or fixing something that doesn't need to be fixed. The traditional acorn signs are great, unpretentious, and functional. The new signs try too hard so to speak, are busy with obnoxious fonts, and are just plain obtrusive. They'll only work in wide open windswept suburban streets, and still, even the suburbs deserve better design than these new signs.
What's being fixed is the cost and trying to create a city wide standard for logistical purposes. There will always be special signs, but having dozens of sign types has to be a nightmare for purchasing and planning.

Not sure what you mean about the fonts being obnoxious, though. It's a simple, clean sans serif that is very legible and easily scalable.

Northern Light said:
Yes the old signs are about $300.00 each (manufactured in house).... there is always a question as to what they would cost if we tendered them...........
This is a very important question, actually, and was probably one of the largest factors in the decision making process. $300 is an obscene number for these signs if they were in fact made in house and there wasn't one or two layers of markup on them. If someone was being obstinate about them, perhaps it was yanked away to avoid the acorns altogether and seek a new supplier. These signs aren't exactly $the $49 jobbies either but based on a contract of many pieces over a period of years, they're likely less than half of that $300 number.

Northern Light said:
Money is not an issue, quality and aesthetic value are!
Of course it's an issue. This city continually makes decisions that put it further into deficit. The total dollars are not that large - as you have detailed - but there are hundreds (or thousands) of similar decisions that have to be made within a city's budget and added together, we're talking hundreds of millions.
 
And funnily enough I don't see that other cities all have to have cheap crappy street signs. Including many small towns in Ontario.

I passed through the town of Dunnville this weekend. It's where the Grand River empties into Lake Erie. A lovely town, which judging by the large Victorian estate homes, some in disrepair and some fixed up, had obviously had it's heyday many decades ago, probably as a shipping and rail hub.

Anyway, one of the instantly recognizable features were the street signs. They were exact copies of the original Toronto signs, right down to the acorn on top. Obviously they had stopped using them at some point in the recent past as the new parts of town had simple rectangular metal squares, still with black on white.

So did Toronto make them for other towns? Or did they find someone to copy our signs? Do these exist anywhere else othen than Toronto and Dunnville?
 
Last edited:
I don't mind the new signs that much although the scaling of the lower bar is a little big. However, not putting the appropriate short forms for street names is a little dumb. I can't wait to see what the sign department comes up with for Plaza, Shepway, and Vineway. For them to barely fit Strathmore Bl on the sign I think they are really done when they go to put Wuthering Heights Drive on a sign (Wuthe He Dr).
 
Thing is - the new sign design *should be* more easily expanded to accommodate a longer name than the acorn signs, so I'm thinking the inconsistency of abbreviation has more to do with the guy operating the vinyl cutter than the signs themselves.

Further - it's well documented that lighter colored letters against a darker legend are much easier to read than dark letters on a light legend - especially when reflective vinyls are used for increased night time visibility. The acorn signs might have a cool look, but a study might have shown city planners that they're actually more difficult to read - which is the whole reason they exist in the first place.
 
There seems to be a pre-occupation at City Hall with conforming standards applied throughout the city for everything. In some cases (certain bylaws, perhaps) this may make sense but in the case of street signs, I just don't understand why they'd paint the whole town the same.

Fire trucks built for Scarborough being used downtown.
 

Back
Top