April 23, 2007
Astral Wins Street Furniture Contract
After evaluating the privately-contracted submissions from the City of Toronto's Co-ordinated Street Furniture Program, the design jury has awarded the contract to Astral Media Outdoor. Astral gained some notorious bad press recently when they threatened to sue IllegalSigns.ca and proprietor Rami Tabello for accusations that the advertising behemoth is refusing to remove illegally-retained billboards around the city.
This also upsets the Toronto Public Space Committee, who say that the street furniture program will actually increase the square footage of advertising allowed on the streets, despite the City's directive that the total square footage of advertising on street furniture be reduced. The TPSC believes that the discrepancy comes from an inaccurate accounting by the City of our current street furniture inventory. The anti-advertising activist group also says that the reconfiguration of ad placement will more than double the amount of illuminated, eye-level advertising that is perpendicular to the sidewalk [press release PDF].
Astral Media's designs are not unfamiliar to Torontonians: Astral/Kramer Design Associates are responsible for the INFOTOGO interactive advertising/information pillars and swooping glass bus shelters, which Astral claims were inspired by the architectural lines of City Hall. The new, revised pillars (or as Astral is calling them, the TOstreetsmart® INFOTOGO® 100 Series pillars) will now feature high-definition video screens programmed with tourism and informational "content" produced by Astral and partner Rogers.
Astral contracts more than 3,700 advertising faces throughout major cities in Ontario and Québec. The Toronto street furniture contract runs through 2027 and involves access to 5,000 transit shelters, 12,500 trash bins, 1,000 bicycle racks, public benches and 2,500 newspaper boxes.
Read on to see some of Astral's street furniture renderings.
NOTE: The renderings below are a few of the multiple versions proposed and don't necessarily reflect the final design choices. Read Astral's pitch [PDF] to see all the design options and read more about their utility.
Related on Torontoist:
Street Furniture Model Prototypes Revealed
Look Who's Spacing
Have Your Say On Toronto's New "Street Furniture"
Anything But Harmonious
|
My god, this stuff is ugly. Why does it have to be all swoopy curvy wierd/futuristic like? Those big tall pillar things with ads on them are such an eyesore, like they have at Dundas square etc, and this stuff is no better.
Why can't the city recognize the value of classic styling, and keep it that way? Because classic styling never gets old, but I'm sure this crap will look really tacky and outdated some years down the road. Same thing with the old school "acorn" street signs.
I'm really not looking forward to seeing this stuff on the streets.
The saddest part is, people who vandalize this trash will actually be seen as criminals :(
I'm just beyond thrilled that we're going to have more Rogers crap all over Toronto. Can we walk nowhere without Ted looming large???
Are you a news source (albeit a new media, opinionated one) or a shill for a special interest group? That activists whose very raison d'etre is to oppose these measures oppose them is not very newsworthy or interesting.
Because Lord knows there's no good reasons to oppose them. Like, for example, having enough freaking advertising on the streets already.
x_the_x: Nobody's complaining about unified street furniture as a concept, but there are concerns about how they are implemented and by whom. Some points that should concern anyone:
• The city will go from half non-illuminated ads to all illuminated ads.
• Astral Media knowingly allows their advertising faces to remain on surfaces illegally, according to IllegalSigns.ca.
• The contract is exclusive and for a twenty year period.
• Astral is recouping costs through and providing additional promotion for its sub-partners (i.e. Directions...brought to you by the new Motorola phone from Rogers!)
• There will be an 11% increase in ads on the furniture, and ads will be brought to eye-level.
• The trash receptacles are unproven, and the placement locations are exclusively reserved for Astral. If they're anything like those stupid hideous bins with the filthy metal flaps, they aren't going to be too effective.
• Though the new info pillars, etc. are said to use less electricity, it's still a lot more electricity over all when the designs should have mandated renewable sources of energy (some of the transit shelters do have some photovoltaic panels in the proposal, though they will still pull power from the grid when the gel batteries are low).
• There may be details in the contract that limit the City, businesses, or citizens to implement similar devices or furniture, like public art, bicycle rings/racks, benches, or even more garbage bins.
• City Council has historically and to its detriment responded like Pavlov's dogs when private money is waved in front of it. Astral gets a windfall for this contract, but more significantly, will wield incredible power over its own clients and the City of Toronto.
If that makes us shills for special interest groups, so be it, but it's hardly a charming, benevolent neighbourhood improvement party.
"people who vandalize this trash will actually be seen as criminals :("
^^^ .. haha .. my first thought was to vandalize as well but that will cost all of us money probably .. so I think I will try and find an ingenious way of sabotaging them.
"people who vandalize this trash will actually be seen as criminals :("
^^^ .. haha .. my first thought was to vandalize as well but that will cost all of us money probably .. so I think I will try and find an ingenious way of sabotaging them.
You and your publication are certainly entitled to express your opinion on the matter. I have no objection to that. My comment was in response to your coverage; the first two paragraphs of your note above, and the four previous pieces linked to, do not state an editorial position or engage with the issues - they merely reiterate the claims of the named activists. One becomes concerned when an independent publication surrenders its voice to that of organized special interests (and I use "special interest" to describe not to demonize). Ask yourself, in what circumstaces would those two groups approve of the decision of the design jury? The (incredibly muddled and poorly written) press release, in particular, could have been written months ago, and is therefore not responsive to the decision at all.
As a result, the coverage as a whole has been less focused on what the issues are or might be and more tracking the claims of activists. The legitimate questions a reader might have following the decision to award the contract - (for example, when will the furniture arrive? will it be phased in? which neighborhoods first?, etc.) aren't asked.
In short, the list of concerns you raise in your comments would have been a provacative and interesting article. Shame the space was donated to other peoples' concerns.
Jonathan Goldsbie, who wrote two of our articles you mention, is a writer for Torontoist but also a member of the TPSC. Kevin Bracken, who wrote another, is one half of Newmindspace, which is an organization that is concerned with the effective (and fun and inclusive) use of public space. I have no link to any of of the groups mentioned—nor do I even necessarily agree with some of what the TPSC says—but I also hate Stupid Corporate Decisions, especially when they are tied with my city's government (which, by proxy, means me).
Torontoist's voice is that of our individual writers, many of who are both active in the community—and many who also work for large corporations.
Our coverage, if it didn't include references to some very real and immediate issues, would sound more like an impartial rehashing of a corporate press release than parroting the phantom agenda you seem to think we have. We've linked to all of the materials and showed many photos of what these things are looking like over the past few weeks, as well as had lively discussion in the comment area.
There is no editorial agenda against the furniture program, but many of us have informed opinions on what's appropriate or not, and it is our duty as citizens to question how public projects are implemented and to hold our elected officials' feet to the fire. We are also hardly "surrendering our voice to special interests" just because we address alternative or dissenting opinions from other critical sources.
The implication that the TPSC or IllegalSigns.ca are fanatics because they are even asking these questions is also particularly inaccurate, but I'll let representatives from their respective groups respond in the comments themselves.
You entirely missed my point.
I have not criticized yours or the activists views on the furniture program (in fact, I have been silent on both points). I give no indication whether I agree or disagree with them (nor whether I consider them to be "fanatics", as you suggest). I am questioning why you present the activists views without criticism, in all four articles dealing with the topic, and prominently in the article discussing the winner, instead of putting forth your own (especially if, as you have conceded, you disagree with their views). The way the issue has been presented here suggests that this page's views are indistinguishable from those groups, which I think does a disservice to the authority of this page.
You are cognizant that parroting corporate press releases would fail to address certain issues, yet unconcerned that parroting the press releases of opponent groups leads to the same result.
You are free to disagree.
I don't necessarily disagree with TPSC on this issue, but both the TPSC and IllegalSigns.ca have put forth their points and backed them up. I don't really understand exactly what your problem with the article is.
I very clearly mentioned that the TPSC is an anti-advertising activist group, and I linked to Rami Tabello's allegations that he was being threatened by Astral, which is not in contention anyway. I was also clear that the accusations against Astral are his own. The article contains no opinion on either organization (or even my own personal opinion on Astral's win), and my other linked entry about the model prototypes is nothing but photos.
You are accusing me of parroting TPSC's press release, but if you read the release (which came out this morning and which I linked to), it has virtually nothing to do with the content of the article, other than a single sentence.
Actually, I, for one, oppose the very notion of harmonization. Why The Beaches would get the same treatment as the Annex or Chinatown is beyond me. Like I write in my post on the issue, we ought to open up design proposals to the arts community and create a distinctive look and feel for every 'hood.
The motto of Toronto? "Diversity Our Strength"
I think what 'x_the_x' is looking for is a “fair and balanced” view of current events, not necessarily just an alternative one. My issue with the street furniture posts is that much of the cross-listed material consists of unproven allegations, written in a tone that suggests a smear campaign, rather than a legitimate questioning of the issues. Everyone loves a scandal, but unlike the meticulous documentation of sign by-law infractions (on all accounts, very impressive), the street furniture saga has felt like more of a fishing expedition. It all depends on how much this site wants to differentiate itself from TPSC and Illegal Signs. And as an aside to 'x_the_x', try Reading Toronto next time for “fair and balanced” articles, also written with geniune concern for our city. You may find the posts there more to your liking....
Mr. Lostracco didn't parrot views of the TPSC and is being unfairly criticized.
If you want to read TPSC press releases presented as "news" all you have to do is read Dale Duncan at Eye Magazine. Instead of bothering to even ask questions about their claims, she just writes it as fact. I'm not saying what they claim is false, but you'd think that any responsible journalist would at least bother to ask someone at the City for a comment.
Furthermore, i find it hilarious that a journalist for EYE or NOW who makes their money from ADVERTISING would critique the idea of an ad-funded program. Apparently they dont' have a problem accepting pay cheques from the advertisign devils. Frankly i'll put my faith in professional design experts to tell me if these bids are any good or not.
The article wasn't about whether the street furniture looks good, nor was it a point-by-point breakdown of either the proposal or the controversy.
However, I do have a problem with the City not addressing what seems to be clear violation of our advertising laws, yet continuing to tender proposals from those same companies without demanding—and enforcing—regulation compliance as a condition for consideration. That is what is particularly timely and newsworthy, especially when awarding a multi-million dollar, twenty-year contract—hardly a "fishing expedition."
Discourse and passionate debate over how our city operates is good, and I encourage it here, but let's neither manufacture controversy nor make assumptions on an alleged editorial agenda over a relatively benign post.
@ x_the_x
Welcome to the "-ist"averse. This is blogging, not journalism. If you want fair and balanced, then there's always Foxnews :-P
Kevin, I agree with you. However, there is still the majority of the city that doesn't have a history or theme. They can keep the 'harmonized' designs while places like the distillery district can have benches and bus shelters with a turn of the century look.
Man, am I tired of hearing this:
"Furthermore, i find it hilarious that a journalist for EYE or NOW who makes their money from ADVERTISING would critique the idea of an ad-funded program."
What a stupid argument. MOST (not all) public space activists aren't necessarily anti-ad. (Sorry Marc, your characterization isn't actually correct.) The difference? You can CHOOSE whether to pick up eye or now. When public space is sold for advertising, choice is lost.
Alison said: "What a stupid argument. MOST (not all) public space activists aren't necessarily anti-ad. (Sorry Marc, your characterization isn't actually correct.) The difference? You can CHOOSE whether to pick up eye or now. When public space is sold for advertising, choice is lost."
The Toronto Public Space Committee are hypocrites on many fronts.
They fought the anti-postering by-law, thereby supporting advertising and pollution of our streets as these posters fall to the ground and make a mess of our neighbourhoods. Going by TPSC logic, it's okay for bands trying to make a profit to advertise on hydro poles but it's a sin when a large company puts an ad (that doesn't blow away onto sidewalks) on a transit shelter.
As a small business owner, i find their hypocrisy and inconsistency a big joke. They have no credibility unless they oppose ALL ads in public space including those that cause pollution and tax the services of our waste collection people. As someone who works for a living i don't like posters blowing all over in front of my store. If you oppose an ad in a transit shelter then you should oppose an ad everywhere else in public space that causes visual or ACTUAL pollution.
HINELY >
I don't think you have ever really intellectually challenged yourself on posters vs. billboards/ad-funded street furniture.
1. All posters are not ads.
2. there is a big difference between posters and billboards. Posters are completely legal as long as they fall within guidlines. There is also something called the Supreme court of Canada ruled that banning postering is illegal and a city MUST supply room for it.
3. You have the right to put up a poster just as much as you have a right to take it down. Can you do that with a billboard? No, you get arrested for vandalism.
4. This is more of an emotional argument -- almost all posters are local, to the point that they appear within walking distance of where you saw the poster. The one giant blackmark on postering is the postering biznesses which break every bylaw re: postering. They kill it for the rest of us who poster for things like yard sales and lost cats.
5. If you read the arguments, any semi-intelligent person would see that the ad-funded street furniture program is full of faults and needs to be re-addressed.
Hey James, post #15 >>
Eye didn't have anyone from the City comment because the city has still yet to respond to the allegations. They have never even denied that its wrong. They have screwed up and they are trying to figure out how to cover it up.
Matt:
1. So they (TPSC) should urge the banning of those that are?
2. pt. 1: could say same about billboards. pt. 2: but they need not leave the whole of the city open to postering, which they appear to do.
3. posters are in a public place, billboards are on private property, so there, in your words, is a "big difference"
4. no comment
5. insulting someones intelligence is always the perfect way to end an argument
Matt my name is Hinley not Hinely. I am Chinese so you probably aren't used to speaking to someone like me or spelling a name like mine as the TPSC members are almost entirely white. I expected arrogance in your response because usually TPSC members resort to insults when their hypocritical views are challenged. Spacing magazine won't even post contrary views because they are so threatened by them.
1. "All posters are not ads."
All posters are visual pollution. I don't like you or anyone else postering near my store and having your garbage litter the streets. I guess the TPSC is the judge and jury of what constitutes a poster and what is an ad. Frankly, anyone trying to make a profit is advertising no matter what you or any of you Marxist people say.
2. "there is a big difference between posters and billboards. Posters are completely legal as long as they fall within guidlines. There is also something called the Supreme court of Canada ruled that banning postering is illegal and a city MUST supply room for it."
Your grammar is sorely lacking for someone who lectured me on intellectual debate. The City can supply room for "postering" on Kiosks which is what the Coordinated street furniture program is supposed to provide. Of course 2 bit bands and other people will still poster their garbage all over hydro poles like they currently do now. Do TPSC people care about small businesses and the cleanliness of the area around us? Apparently not. Community Organizations have much better ways to advertise events than on hydro poles.
3. "You have the right to put up a poster just as much as you have a right to take it down. Can you do that with a billboard? No, you get arrested for vandalism"
When you get a job and can afford to purchase private property then you can poster it all you want. STOP your filthy TPSC postering in public spaces which pollutes our streets. Does the TPSC not care about the environment?
4....
5. That's just typical TPSC arrogance from someone who doesn't care about City finances. The private sector is offering the city FREE amenities AND revenue. Why don't you free rolling TPSC people go to neighbourhoods across the city who don't currently have transit shelters and explain to them why you want to kill this program. I'm sure the average poor person (like i once was) doesn't give a crap about having an ad on a shelter, they just want a shelter that covers them. I don't want property taxes increased to pay for a program the city can get for free. See, i WORK for a living and most of the TPSC members like your street furniture guy are free loading undergrads who don't have a clue about economics.
You are dismissed.
Couple of things, as this argument continues to escalate:
• Nobody is against a street furniture program, though there are concerns about how such a program is implemented—and there should be when something so significant is being implemented, especially with corporate entities are allowed to be in charge.
• Nobody—not even the TPSC—is attempting to eliminate advertising as a concept. I believe that what the TPSC and Spacing, which are not the same thing, are concerned about is the appropriateness of certain types of advertising in certain types of spaces, as well as the disproportionate level of power wielded by the private sector over City decisions.
• Just a fair warning that if comments start devolving into personal name calling, we reserve the right, as usual, to delete them. Discussions on Torontoist are almost always well-thought-out and presented, so let's have useful dialogue about what is clearly a grey issue.
hinley> What on earth does your being chinese have anything to do with this argument, or the TPSC? I'm Korean, should I feel oppressed in some way?
Also, I've posted about 13 statements on the Spacing blog that disagree with what their writers are saying, or argue a point, and they're all posted. It's more open than this blog, as they let people hotlink their names to their sites.
So, argue the real points, not magical things. If i was to follow your lead, i'd mention Manchuria right about now, my friend.
I'll go line by line through the above posts. The first half:
"Are you a news source (albeit a new media, opinionated one) or a shill for a special interest group?"
It's a news source presenting alternative viewpoints. I look at it the way I do Eye or Now.
"That activists whose very raison d'etre is to oppose these measures oppose them is not very newsworthy or interesting."
Certainly not, but the stuff we dug up is pretty surprising.
"My comment was in response to your coverage; the first two paragraphs of your note above, and the four previous pieces linked to, do not state an editorial position or engage with the issues - they merely reiterate the claims of the named activists."
The idea of Torontoist having an editorial position has always been kind of murky. We're all supposed to write in "we," and we inevitably end up contradicting each other. And since the "named activists" (myself and Kevin, I guess) are Torontoist staffers, I guess that confuses things further. But we were brought on to write about our issues, and I assume there was no expectation that we would do so objectively.
"Ask yourself, in what circumstaces would those two groups approve of the decision of the design jury?"
If they had decided to reject everything (which was well within their mandate). But we're not talking about just the design jury here. Their evaluation was only 40% of the final score.
"The (incredibly muddled and poorly written) press release, in particular, could have been written months ago, and is therefore not responsive to the decision at all."
My release? For one thing, it's hard to write a good press release about "street furniture." As far as press releases go, it's pretty good -- or so I've been assured by enough people who know what they're talking about. Which doesn't mean it necessarily is good but that I have reason to believe it is. In any case, the angle has been picked up by enough media that it was a success. It does in fact respond to the decision in that it focuses on the particulars of Astral's illumination, which is even worse than those of the other proposals.
"The legitimate questions a reader might have following the decision to award the contract - (for example, when will the furniture arrive? will it be phased in? which neighborhoods first?, etc.) aren't asked."
Those are good questions. The City wants Astral to install prototypes in three locations by year's end. They haven't specified the locations, but I'm guessing two of them will be Queen & University and Kingston & Fallingbrook. Page 15 of the RFP has the proposed "rollout schedule," but it's of course subject to change depending on the City's contract with Astral.
"My issue with the street furniture posts is that much of the cross-listed material consists of unproven allegations, written in a tone that suggests a smear campaign, rather than a legitimate questioning of the issues."
I assume you're referring to IllegalSigns.ca, which tends to use more incendiary language than we do. But both myself and Rami have all the necessary documentation to back up everything we say.
"Everyone loves a scandal, but unlike the meticulous documentation of sign by-law infractions (on all accounts, very impressive), the street furniture saga has felt like more of a fishing expedition."
It's the biggest (or one of the biggest) non-TTC contracts the City has ever signed. I don't think it's wrong to point out problems, including flaws in the process, as they are discovered.
"If you want to read TPSC press releases presented as "news" all you have to do is read Dale Duncan at Eye Magazine. Instead of bothering to even ask questions about their claims, she just writes it as fact. I'm not saying what they claim is false, but you'd think that any responsible journalist would at least bother to ask someone at the City for a comment."
If you're talking about the current Eye, it's because the City didn't have an answer by Eye's press deadline. Before going public with my discovery of the overestimation, I called City staff to confirm and hear what they had to say. Their response was that they were going with "the best information we had at the time." I conveyed this to Dale. Unfortunately, she couldn't herself confirm with staff because they themselves didn't have an answer for the media or even city councillors; one councillor contacted staff last Wednesday to ask about this, and they didn't get back to her until Monday!
14Korea: We used to allow URL linking to user names in the comments but we had to stop because of a consistently severe comment spam problem. If you sign-up with a TypeKey ID (the little man with the speech bubble beside my name), it will allow you to post a URL.
Hinley –
1) It’s a pretty big stretch to suggest transposing the "e" and the "l" in your name must have been because of race. Come on. No one ever spells my name correctly either.
“Usually TPSC members resort to insults when their hypocritical views are challenged."
You seem to be jumping to call people racist and hypocritical because they challenge yours.
As for the TPSC being mostly white, that is true. However, there are many members and organizers of Asian decent. Hell, if I can spell Nurwisah, I can spell Hinley.
2) Matt is not a member of the TPSC. The TPSC and Spacing have been COMPLETELY separate organizations for years now. We barely even know each other at this point. (For the record, illegalsigns.ca is ALSO a completely separate organization.) A 10-second search would have provided you with this information. This is indicative of the rest of your arguments.
3) The response you’re getting is probably because the points you pose are the ones that everyone who hasn't done any research on the subject pose. (Example subjects - postering vs advertising; regulation of private property.)
It’s entirely possible to possible to disagree with “public space activist” views on these subjects in an intelligent,informed manner. You’re just not doing it.
Alsion (HA! I just mistyped MY OWN NAME! Racist me!)
"Furthermore, I find it hilarious that a journalist for EYE or NOW who makes their money from ADVERTISING would critique the idea of an ad-funded program. Apparently they dont' have a problem accepting pay cheques from the advertisign devils."
There is very little objectively wrong with advertising in and of itself; I and many others find it annoying, but those are personal opinions that it would be wrong to impose on others. Rather, our (the TPSC's) issues with advertising in the public space fall into a number of broad categories:
1) Privatization of civic infrastructure and other projects that should be publicly-funded and publicly-owned
2) The ideology that only the wealthy should be allowed to express themselves in public spaces (many councillors love advertising and hate postering)
3) The fact that, in Toronto and many other cities, outdoor advertisers are effectively above the law and have bought many local politicians
4) The privatization of public space in general (for example)
5) The fact that outdoor advertising often compromises safety and accessibility
6) The amount of energy that is spent simply to promote further consumption
I invite you to browse through our website for examples of all of the above.
"Frankly i'll put my faith in professional design experts to tell me if these bids are any good or not."
Why? It's not unreasonable to have a jury of professionals, but they're only six of the millions of people who would have to live with these things for twenty years. Do you only go to restaurants that have gotten good reviews?
"They fought the anti-postering by-law, thereby supporting advertising and pollution of our streets as these posters fall to the ground and make a mess of our neighbourhoods."
When the TPSC talks about postering, we’re talking about “community” postering, which the new bylaw defines as posters put up by “persons, charities, religious organizations, community organizations and schools.” (To this, we have attempted to get Council to add “arts organizations.”) Commercial postering, on the other hand, can indeed be eyesores, as they are often erected indiscriminately and for maximum saturation; as such, they tend to make all posterers look irresponsible, and in the past Council has attempted to deal with them by putting forth proposals to ban posters entirely. We appreciate that the new bylaw makes distinctions between “commercial” and “community” posters, prohibiting the former on utility poles, while allowing the latter, albeit with certain restrictions.
The TPSC has never been supportive of complete poster anarchy but rather has always advocated for a sensible bylaw that imposes certain rules and restrictions but that allows for freedom of expression.
The other key element of our stance is that City Council has traditionally attempted to ban postering while at the same time willfully ignoring and often abetting the proliferation of commercial advertising in the public realm, a great deal of which is illegal. As such, it is the implication of many councillors (such as Glenn De Baeremaeker; see the video) that only those who are wealthy enough to afford to buy advertising space may express themselves in public. This is precisely the ideology against which the TPSC was originally formed to fight.
"Going by TPSC logic, it's okay for bands trying to make a profit to advertise on hydro poles but it's a sin when a large company puts an ad (that doesn't blow away onto sidewalks) on a transit shelter."
The problem is more about the privatization of the shelters themselves, but as far as the ad panel goes, it dangerously blocks sightlines for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, making the space less safe and secure. Not to mention illuminated advertising is quite the waste of electricity.
Plus, there are in fact bylaws barring ads on sidewalks, but whoever owns the shelters gets to circumvent them simply because they're able to offer the City a certain amount of money; in most contexts, this is called "bribery."
"They have no credibility unless they oppose ALL ads in public space including those that cause pollution and tax the services of our waste collection people. As someone who works for a living i don't like posters blowing all over in front of my store. If you oppose an ad in a transit shelter then you should oppose an ad everywhere else in public space that causes visual or ACTUAL pollution."
So a piece of paper blowing in front of your store is a more legitimate form of pollution than greenhouse gases being released into our air? And it's not as though shelter ads just dematerialize when they're done with them. You think they don't end up in landfill?
Once again, the problem is not advertising in and of itself but rather the ways that a certain handful of companies have taken it upon themselves to define and own our public realm, contrary to many of the City's own bylaws and contrary to what most people want.
The rest of the comments are hard to address because they seem to have been made under the assumption that Matt's remarks were on behalf of the TPSC. I don't know if "Matt" is Matt Blackett, but even if he is, he does not speak for the Toronto Public Space Committee. (Matt Blackett is the publisher of Spacing Magazine, which has been a completely separate entity for over three years.) I would like to believe that Hinley and GH would have writen different things had they not been insulted by Matt's "any semi-intelligent person" remark. A core value of the TPSC is RESPECT, and I would like to believe that any person speaking on behalf of the TPSC would not resort to comments like that.
"I expected arrogance in your response because usually TPSC members resort to insults when their hypocritical views are challenged."
Although I of course disagree with your assessment of us as hypocritical, I would really like to know about occasions when people speaking on behalf of the group have resorted to insults, because that's totally not cool and against so much of for what we stand. Please give me some examples.
"The private sector is offering the city FREE amenities AND revenue."
Once again, in any other context it would be called a "bribe."
"Why don't you free rolling TPSC people go to neighbourhoods across the city who don't currently have transit shelters and explain to them why you want to kill this program. I'm sure the average poor person (like i once was) doesn't give a crap about having an ad on a shelter, they just want a shelter that covers them."
They would probably prefer a shelter that works and is safe and accessible and doesn't pour rain over the entrance and onto the sidewalks. That is, one created with the needs of people in mind. The idea that it's either no shelters or private shelters is not correct.
"I don't want property taxes increased to pay for a program the city can get for free."
Do you feel the same way about healthcare? I'm sure that the taxes we pay to the provincial and federal governments could be greatly reduced if they opted to let the private sector build hospitals for them. It's not "free"; it's private. The question is whether you believe that fundamental pieces of infrastructure are better handled by the government or by a private company whose business is not even "street furniture" but rather outdoor advertising. It's like hiring a plumber to redecorate your kitchen, if the plumber then takes over ownership of the kitchen.
"See, i WORK for a living and most of the TPSC members like your street furniture guy are free loading undergrads who don't have a clue about economics."
Although I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you would not have written this had it not been for Matt's ad hominem attack, I would appreciate an apology. Thank you.
"The question is whether you believe that fundamental pieces of infrastructure are better handled by the government or by a private company whose business is not even "street furniture" but rather outdoor advertising. It's like hiring a plumber to redecorate your kitchen, if the plumber then takes over ownership of the kitchen."
perfect, Jonathan!
And I second Jonathan's request for specific examples of when someone REPRESENTING TPSC has resorted "to insults when their hypocritical views are challenged."
That is unacceptable.
So, however, is making this accusation if you don't have specific examples.
Convince the people to elect councilors who will/will not sell street furniture to the private sector and you will achieve something. Spend your energy "scoring points" in an argument with someone convinced of his or her position and you're wasting your energy and your time, and annoying Torontoist readers.
Jonathan, I take issue with your statement that you have all the necessary documents to back up your claims – what you have is a partial set of emails that you claim expose “new scandals all the time”. If you had read these emails, found issues, posed your issues as questions, rather than spreading allegations that individuals were in conflict of interests, out to screw the City, etc., then this would have been a proper form of debate. But I think a number of us have problems with the way you have presented things: as facts (when they're only theories), and as the only (and always correct) point of view. And I admit, Illegal Signs has been far worse than TPSC, admittedly going so far as to bribe other media companies for ‘dirt”. ( I especially liked the one where it was claimed Jeremy Kramer got an “clear advantage” by attending the DX sessions. Newsflash: the designers for all 3 teams were at those sessions, and from reading the report online, so were you, Jonathan (design credentials from where; I won’t begin to guess).
So while I have respect for some of the work TPSC does, your methods are seemingly becoming less professional and more adversarial. Your organization is one voice, not the only voice. Those of use who are keen to see street mobility improved are happy to have this program, complete with a set and clear means of placement (finally! You have no idea what an achievement this is – many people have been working for years to get this introduced! And don’t tell me they’re crappy placement rules; they’re not) Advertising isn’t everything; there are other factors that influence our public space. And TPSC does not speak for the entire city.
Jonathan, thank you for your very respectful reply. I was very frustrated with the insulting reponse to my comments (posted earlier by Matt), and i would like to apologize to you.
I must however respectfully contend some of your points. In reponse to the point I made that TSPC members respond with insults when their hypocritical views are challenged, i was referring to Matt's post and also to behaviour i have witnessed during public meetings and/or deputations during the sign by-law. I am sure after reading your post that this behaviour wasn't you.
1. You indicated:
"Once again, in any other context it would be called a "bribe"
What you call a "bribe" i call a constructive private-public partnership to get free amenities and much needed revenue that can be used to pay for more essential city services such as social services.
2. "Why? It's not unreasonable to have a jury of professionals, but they're only six of the millions of people who would have to live with these things for twenty years. Do you only go to restaurants that have gotten good reviews? "
I put my faith in people who have professional design expertise not in armchair critics like you or I or any other member of the public who is not qualified to judge these designs.
3. "The fact that outdoor advertising often compromises safety and accessibility. "
This point you raise is very important. The TPSC should be credited for this, however my understanding is that the street furniture program puts in accessbility guidelines. Again, the design jury will be trusted to enforce this point that you note.
4. "They would probably prefer a shelter that works and is safe and accessible and doesn't pour rain over the entrance and onto the sidewalks. That is, one created with the needs of people in mind. The idea that it's either no shelters or private shelters is not correct."
You are making a huge assumption as a non-professional designer that these designs wont' work. Once again, i will wait to see these and from my reading of report Urban Design can ask for refinements if there is the need. Furthermore, you assume that the tax payers are willing to fund the manufacture, design, installation of furniture and also that the City should pay for this. The City isn't going to pay and therefore it IS indeed a decision between private-public shelters or NO shelters. Most people do not care if something has an ad as long as it works well.
5. "Do you feel the same way about healthcare? I'm sure that the taxes we pay to the provincial and federal governments could be greatly reduced if they opted to let the private sector build hospitals for them. It's not "free"; it's private. The question is whether you believe that fundamental pieces of infrastructure are better handled by the government or by a private company whose business is not even "street furniture" but rather outdoor advertising. It's like hiring a plumber to redecorate your kitchen, if the plumber then takes over ownership of the kitchen."
Your analogy is flawed. People in the US pay BIG dollars via insurance for private health care. However, the public and city will NOT pay a cent for free street furniture amenities. If the private sector ever offers to build the city free hospitals AND pays the city for the right to advertise on these hospitals i'll take the deal in a second.
6. "So a piece of paper blowing in front of your store is a more legitimate form of pollution than greenhouse gases being released into our air? And it's not as though shelter ads just dematerialize when they're done with them. You think they don't end up in landfill? "
You make a good point, as the life cycle of the ad should be considered. However, those pieces of paper posters that regularly blow in front of small businesses like mine across the city are a problem whether or not you wish to acknowledge it. The TSPC unfortunately does not seem to take seriously the concerns of small businesses regarding the plastering of posters and corresponding debris left on our streets.
We will not convince each other, however i have changed my mind about the TPSC's attitude based on your polite post.
thank god i moved to barrie this month. public advertising is so much less intrusive up here. and we have a city that actually does something about its waterfront :D now if only we can get people to do something about our trough feeding mayor.
with that said, i'm still sad because almost all of my friends live in toronto and i'll still have to subject myself to this visual assault whenever i come visit them.