[allabootmatt]

At the risk of being totally out of step with the tone here...I have to say that I don't mind the posters at all, and find the focus on them as the number-one 'beautification' issue mystifying, to say the least.

Admittedly, a lot of the posters are for junk ('Think in Spanish' and the like) but many are genuinely illustrative the democratic, no-holds-barred, indie free-for-all that makes Toronto such an interesting place. In addition to TO I have lived in London and Washington and a couple of smaller US and UK cities, and it's that aspect of Toronto that makes me love it so much.

That's not to say that posters everywhere are desirable; only that (some of them) are indicative of a vibrancy that's pretty unique.

In any case, to my mind Toronto would have to deal comprehensively with cracked, uneven sidewalks, shitty street furniture, slipshod utility work, and--of course--its HIDEOUS collection of rotting wooden hydro poles and overhead wires before postering would be the principal obstacle to beauty.

For that reason I find the emphasis on postering (and, for that matter, littering) as components of beautiful city-building to be counterproductive, since they let the City, TTC, Hydro etc. effectively off the hoof of taking responsibility for the aesthetic consequences of the things they actually control.

 

[urbandreamer]

I rely on postering to make a living.

Postering is art.

 

[grey]

I'm with allabootmatt on this.

The real problem badly designed and poorly placed street furniture, and Toronto hydro's poles to a large extent. The problem is not postering and grafitti (and I'm not talking about tagging mailboxes, I mean grafitti murals that some people are retardedly against. The alleys on Queen Street have more artistic merit than 99% of modern "art" -- and I know someone will call me out on this, but you know what I mean, jackasses who sell fingerpaintings for a million bucks to law firms -- and removing them would do a great deal of damage to this city. It goes beyond Toronto the Good; Toronto would become the metropolitan equivalent of, I don't know, Steven Harper in the sweater vests and that is simply not a place I would want to live END BRACKET).

 

[adma]

In any case, to my mind Toronto would have to deal comprehensively with cracked, uneven sidewalks, shitty street furniture, slipshod utility work, and--of course--its HIDEOUS collection of rotting wooden hydro poles and overhead wires before postering would be the principal obstacle to beauty.

Though to me, there's more of a necessary "messy urbanity" symbiosis--whether positive or negative--btw/postering and wooden hydro poles. If you get rid of one, might as well get rid of the other...

 

[EnviroTO]

The problem is not postering and grafitti (and I'm not talking about tagging mailboxes, I mean grafitti murals that some people are retardedly against. The alleys on Queen Street have more artistic merit than 99% of modern "art" -- and I know someone will call me out on this, but you know what I mean, jackasses who sell fingerpaintings for a million bucks to law firms -- and removing them would do a great deal of damage to this city.

OK. I will call you out on it.

The art hanging in corporate offices doesn't have the artists signature as the focus. You are left to have a response to the art itself rather than having a response to the fact somebody painted their name on property that wasn't theirs to paint. I might think my artistic abilities are hot sh&* but it doesn't give me licence to use my talents to paint my signature on a wall/mailbox/sign/vehicle that isn't mine and that I didn't receive permission for. The people you call "jackasses" bought their canvas and got other people to buy it making themselves money. The real jackasses are the people who think everything is theirs to put their signature on.

 

[grey]

Interesting point, but I don't think the absence of self-credit disqualifies a piece of art from being complete bullshit.

I also cannot stress enough that I'm talking about mural art where, while the artist may not own the property, such art is desired, if not encouraged (same might be true of postering in some neighbourhoods?), not the tagging of mailboxes, signs, and vehicles. There's a big difference, and there are plenty of ignorant people have no problem tossing them both into the same category of things to get into a snit about, regardless of any particular neighbourhood's feelings on the matter ("Hi, I'm from Rosedale and I want the city to eliminate all grafitti art in Parkdale alleys because it doesn't reconcile with my idea of a conservative Christian city and bright colours are whorish.").

Wouldn't the Business Improvement Areas have something to say about postering if it was a worthwhile concern? Maybe some have; I don't know, I'm just curious.

 

[MetroMan]

^ Queen St. doesn't have any.

 

[EnviroTO]

I also cannot stress enough that I'm talking about mural art where, while the artist may not own the property, such art is desired, if not encouraged (same might be true of postering in some neighbourhoods?), not the tagging of mailboxes, signs, and vehicles.

The permission of the property owner is a must otherwise who decides whose art can go where? It isn't for someone else to decide how artistic or attractive my own property is. There would be anarchy if everyones tastes in art could be applied to every space at the whim of someone who doesn't have ownership or permission to use that space. Free artistic licence to other people's spaces would lead to chaos. I could paint buildings other colours because I don't like how they are. I could rearrange the plants and trees in the Music Garden because I think it is too refined.

 

[MetroMan]

So it looks like while the rollout of bus shelters, postering boards, benches and garbage bins, the newly design bike poles will have to wait:


Regarding the ease of breaking the lolipop poles, I wrote to the relevant office @ City Hall and received this response:

Mr. M.

Transportation Services is committed to improving the security of the City's bicycle parking posts, and we have been developing a new, stronger design that will allow us to retro-fit the existing posts. In the mean time, Astral Media, the firm that was awarded the Co-ordinated Street Furniture contract, has also put forward a design. We have been testing and adjusting both prototypes, and are close to making a decision as to which product to use.

The retro-fit process will be costly and time-consuming. We will provide a public update when we are ready to proceed. In the mean time, we recommend that cyclists continue to use the post-and-ring stands, but that they take precautions to deter the kind of opportunistic theft that is the most serious risk. The best way to do this is to always lock both the frame and at least one wheel of the bicycle, so that, even if the locking ring is broken, the bicycle cannot be ridden without also breaking the lock.

Yours,

David Tomlinson
Pedestrian & Cycling Infrastructure
Transportation Services
East York Civic Centre
850 Coxwell Avenue
Toronto, ON
M4C 5R1"

So it looks like the revised Astral posts aren't yet finalized. I'm happy with that. Their original proposal was more secure but didn't keep with the existing look so they moved back to the easy to break lolipops. I thought that was a missed opportunity. If they're going to introduce new bike posts, make sure they're secure. It seems, that's what they're doing. Common sense prevails!

So the multi newspaper boxes and corrals and the public WC's are still waiting to be rolled out.

As for the bike racks, I personally love what a lot of neighborhoods are doing by turning them into unique art pieces. They're attractive, sure to become a Toronto iconic feature and they're theft proof.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The permission of the property owner is a must otherwise who decides whose art can go where? It isn't for someone else to decide how artistic or attractive my own property is. There would be anarchy if everyones tastes in art could be applied to every space at the whim of someone who doesn't have ownership or permission to use that space. Free artistic licence to other people's spaces would lead to chaos. I could paint buildings other colours because I don't like how they are. I could rearrange the plants and trees in the Music Garden because I think it is too refined.

There are Toronto councilors who think they know what art is, but really don't. One person's art is another's junk.

Click on this link to look at a video with just that problem.

Building owner told to remove mural
A building owner had a mural painted on a wall of her property and has since been told by the city that the art she commissioned is not art at all but grafitti and it must be removed.

 

[Urban Shocker]

I saw one of those tubby garbage bins slumped forward on the sidewalk near the Big Carrot recently, dead. The metal bolt - once anchoring it to the sidewalk - didn't look very substantial. Did it fall or was it pushed?

 

[paraone]

The permission of the property owner is a must otherwise who decides whose art can go where?

as a graffiti artist for a very long time, I can tell you that when the queen alleys started, specifically in the + junction between portland and augusta, a bunch of artist, myself included, indeed did have permission for the owners of 3 of 4 buildings there and I never touched the 4th building. Trust me we needed the permission because of police harassment. As of 2009, I'm not sure what the status is because I don't paint there anymore.

I will not defend defacement of private property, but I can't stand when all graff artist are tossed into the same category.

The art hanging in corporate offices doesn't have the artists signature as the focus. You are left to have a response to the art itself rather than having a response to the fact somebody painted their name on property that wasn't theirs to paint

forget a second about the legalities of the art, your saying that because the signature is the art, that negates it from being art? What if it was on a canvass in a corporate office?

 

[EnviroTO]

I will not defend defacement of private property, but I can't stand when all graff artist are tossed into the same category.

I have no problem with murals done by graffiti style artists. However, usually when permission is granted the end result is a little more than simply the name of the artist.

forget a second about the legalities of the art, your saying that because the signature is the art, that negates it from being art? What if it was on a canvass in a corporate office?

I don't think the signature of a graffiti artist is something others can appreciate.

 

[jks]

Well, all the graffiti that you can see from the subway on the Bloor-Danforth line can easily qualify for art in my opinion. It's amazing. The back walls of the buildings from Runnymede to High Park is what I'm referring to. Someone even painted a subway train and a streetcar on one of the walls!

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

St. George & Bloor. When I saw this I had to walk back & grab a shot, I think it exemplifies the problem with postering and graffiti.

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.



I had to add this.
It was a good idea at the time but most of them have outlived their usefulness. This is becoming more and more common around town, there's simply no more room for staples + glue & posters won't adhere to these anymore. This example is at Huron & College.