June 15, 2008
Grey Is The New Beige, Part Four: Everything Else
On Monday morning, Astral Media unveiled prototypes of its new line of "street furniture" at City Hall. On Wednesday, we took a look at the garbage bins. On Thursday, the advertising pillars. Yesterday, the transit shelters. Today, everything else. (Also check out Karen von Hahn's disparagement of the street furniture in the Globe.)
A lot of people who otherwise hate what the Coordinated Street Furniture Program has wrought like the idea of the multi-publication structures (above and here). We can see how the concept is appealing: instead of a mess of unregulated, multi-hued hunks of metal at a given corner, we can instead have a single monochromatic hunk of metal. Except newspaper boxes are currently regulated, albeit in the same way that billboards are; there are strict bylaws (and even a permitting process) governing where and how they may be placed [PDF], but City staff take a passive, complaint-driven approach to enforcement. Rather than do their job by bringing newspaper boxes into compliance so that they don't clutter the sidewalk, Transportation Services staff instead chose to, as Rami Tabello put it, "mandate the intermediation of a [national] advertising company between journalists and public space." And once the compartments on a multi-publication structure are filled (they can have up to twelve of them), it will be more difficult for new publications to break into the market, especially if they want to do it legally but can't afford the licensing fees to have a box outside of the structures.
Oh, and yes, there's an advertising panel on the back. In theory, these are supposed to be used solely for public art and City PSAs, and while this will likely be true for several years, it is inevitable that there will come a time when it will not be true. Even the SilverBoxes (the current garbage bins) carried messages of affirmation rather than ads when they were first introduced a decade ago.
The last handful of items are explored after the jump.
These look enough like the current ring-and-posts, but as Torontoist brought with us to City Hall neither a bicycle nor a two-by-four, we can't tell you how functional they are. But it's not like there will be that many, anyway: the installation of the 2000 will be spaced evenly over the 20-year duration of the contract, such that 50 will be put out each year. Of course, 100% of the ad pillars will be on the streets by 2009.
The City's new postering bylaw, approved by Council a couple of years ago, will finally be put into effect with the installation of these kiosks. The bylaw restricts commercial postering to such monoliths but allows community posters to continue to be erected on utility poles (so long as they adhere to a number of rules). These kiosks, therefore, will likely come to be dominated by commercial messaging.
We found the bench reasonably comfortable, but not everyone did. From the Star:
Among [the critics] was Roland Hill, a retired judge, who tried out the new benches and issued a harsh verdict."It's hard on your back, and there's no arm rest," said Hill, 85. There are, in fact, arm rests, but Hill said they're far too low to support his arms when he sits in a normal position. He much prefers the benches at Queen's Park.
Torontoist was there when Hill was trying out the bench, and we can tell you that the remarks the Star chose to quote were by far his most polite. (He said something along the lines of it being the worst bench he'd ever sat on and, we were told, got into a bit of a tiff with Astral's infamously irritable Luc Beaulieu.)
Astral didn't bother schlepping to City Hall the prototype of its Urinetown-esque pay-to-pee monstrosity, so we can only offer an opinion based on what we've been told and what we've seen in photos. Suffice it to say that there are very few sidewalks in Toronto that could possibly accommodate these, and as with everything else in the street furniture program, they can only be placed on sidewalks. (The sole location in the core that we've heard tossed out as a potential site is Queen and Soho.) It doesn't really matter where they go, though, as those most in need of public washrooms will be unable or unwilling to fork over the $1 necessary to use them; Astral does have a scheme to offer "Free Homeless Access," but that is an idea that seems unworkable in practise.
"Once upon a time, sure, we weren't pretty, even then, but we were at least clean and just," writes Karen von Hahn in the Globe. "Now, the real street furniture (aside from the giant recycling bins overwhelming the sidewalks) is the swelling ranks of the homeless we've become used to stepping over like garbage."
We'd be cheeky and suggest that it's only a matter of time before the people who live in public space are put in the care of advertisers, but Toronto's clever commercialists have already been there and done that.
Jonathan Goldsbie, with the TPSC, took all of the above photos, except the last one, which is courtesy of the City.
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I like the newspaper structure, a huge improvement over the multiple chained rusty boxes that are often in the way of the pedestrian crossing button.
They'd be even better if they were against a wall instead of being a sight barrier to traffic.
[ report this ]
I've got to say, I rather like the large newspaper box. Like one of the linked article says, a mess of newspaper boxes the same size is visual pollution, and one ad (not even the full length of the back of the box)is so much easier to stand than what would otherwise be essentially 12. I do have to ask -- are there not currently licensing fees for boxes? I can't quite tell from the wording how papers who "can't afford the licensing fees to have a box outside of the structures." could currently afford to do so, unless the fees are going up significantly. And for example, wouldn't these boxes mostly be placed where there were already 12-odd boxes cluttering up the street?
A few other things:
What do you mean by ad pillars? The link doesn't use the same (arguably rather loaded) terminology. If you mean the kiosks that you refer next, you don't link to the rules that community posters would have to follow to post on utility poles. Posting on utility poles is one of my absolute least favourite things (so ugly! So messy!) so I'm interested, as I'd rather see all posting in a place set aside for them (commercial or non.)
I don't know how I feel about those arm rests on that bench! They do look like they wouldn't really work.
Also, how many public toilets are there currently in Toronto (on the sidewalk, as you imply these wouldn't replace those in parks and stuff)? I never remember seeing one, but then I suppose I've never searched one out. I'm mostly used to pay-to-pee public toilets from living in the UK, the bigger question I think is not how much it costs, but how well cleaned and maintained they'd be. I much prefer those awesome urinals that come out of the ground at night, though they're not really the same thing at all, so forget I mentioned them, heh!
[ report this ]
I can't imagine where there'd be space for those washrooms.
The newspaper boxes are a good idea though, they've had them in Chicago for years.
[ report this ]
I do have to ask -- are there not currently licensing fees for boxes?
Indeed there are. Check out page 13 of the PDF of the bylaw.
I can't quite tell from the wording how papers who "can't afford the licensing fees to have a box outside of the structures." could currently afford to do so, unless the fees are going up significantly.
I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been. The fees did go up significantly a couple of years ago, and, as per the Eye article to which I linked, smaller papers can't afford to absorb that increase as well as the majors. From my reading of the Astral contract, I believe the company is not allowed to charge publications for hosting them in their megaboxes, meaning that whoever dibses a compartment first can avoid paying the fees associated with maintaining their own boxes. This puts anyone late to the game at a financial disadvantage, because the costs associated with distributing their paper will be much higher. Of course, there are advantages to having one's own box, but in my opinion this framework may limit a new publication's ability to weigh those advantages and disadvantages for itself.
My larger concern, however, is that this sets up a situation wherein Council may institute a bylaw restricting all sidewalk newspaper vending to the multi-publication structures, effectively shutting out new voices altogether.
wouldn't these boxes mostly be placed where there were already 12-odd boxes cluttering up the street?
That's the idea. But if the back panels do end up getting used for advertising, you can expect them to start showing up elsewhere; a loophole in the contract would allow Astral to use the structures to place ads in areas they otherwise couldn't, such as along Bloor, where there is no TTC surface route and as such are no shelters on which to sell ads.
What do you mean by ad pillars? The link doesn't use the same (arguably rather loaded) terminology.
I used the term "ad pillars" in the same sense I'd been using it throughout this series (including at the top of this post), which is to refer to the INFOTOGO structures. I did, however, forget that the rollout schedule I linked to uses the term "Information / Way-finding Structures," because that's how that sort of item had been identified in the original RFP. (A proposed rollout schedule was included in the RFP, but no one bothered to reclassify the items for the version appended to the final contract.)
you don't link to the rules that community posters would have to follow to post on utility poles
I chose to not link directly to the new bylaw because I'm not aware of there yet being a consolidated version. That is, a draft bylaw [PDF] went to Council in the summer of 2006 and councillors then made some tweaks [pages 106-112 of this PDF], but — as the bylaw has yet to be added to the Municipal Code — I haven't seen a version that incorporates those changes.
[ report this ]
Also, how many public toilets are there currently in Toronto (on the sidewalk, as you imply these wouldn't replace those in parks and stuff)?
None. And unlike toilets in parks and other public places, these will be standalone units.
the bigger question I think is not how much it costs, but how well cleaned and maintained they'd be.
The units, customized Danfo MAPTs, will be self-cleaning.
I much prefer those awesome urinals that come out of the ground at night,
I did not know such a thing existed, but I am very intrigued. It sounds like the sort of installation one would find at the Sculpture Garden.
[ report this ]
I know which public toilets you mean, Mathew, but I'm stumped finding a link to them.
Their circular and rise out of the sidewalk on a timer. They also discourage loitering (drugs and sex) by throwing the door open automatically after a few minutes.
[ report this ]
They're. Dammit.
[ report this ]
Thanks for all the extra information Jonathan!
[ report this ]
Mathew and T-Rek, you may be thinking of the products made by the good people at Urilift.
Although Dutch in origin, they may be coming to Victoria soon.
[ report this ]
That's it. With sidewalks already so congested, those would make far more sense than these behemoths.
[ report this ]
>That's it. With sidewalks already so congested, those would make far more sense than these behemoths.
Actually it would make less sense. With the amount of congestion that would cause a public safety issue.
"The attendant on duty has a remote control to operate the Urilift. A simple press of the button is all that’s needed to bring it above ground, or to make it disappear underground again. Organisations such as the local sanitation department, the police, security firms or hotels, restaurants and bars could be given the job of carrying out this simple procedure."
http://www.urilift.com/products-urilift-solution.php
Doesn't sound so practical...
[ report this ]
They're smaller and disappear when not in use. The permanent ones are always there and will create people jams and force pedestrians into the street to get around. Think of the street car stop at the northeast corner of Queen West and University.
With the Urilift it would take very little to replace the attendant with a coin-operated remote mounted on the nearest existing post.
[ report this ]
"With the Urilift it would take very little to replace the attendant with a coin-operated remote mounted on the nearest existing post."
Until...I don't know, the second day when someone attempts to time the lifting of the unit for when someone walks over it....Or when someone gets trapped inside as it lowers into the ground.
You make it sound like they'll be placing these on narrow sidewalks. I doubt they'll have more than 5 or 6 of them in the entire city when all is said and done.
[ report this ]
Do you really think these things rise so quickly and without warning it would cause problems? Or a basic IR detector thing couldn't prevent it from sinking again while someone is still inside?
You make it sound like 5 or 6 is a good investment.
You know how they solved the public washroom problem in Japan? Convenience store washrooms are the public washrooms. Little signs outside and everything.
[ report this ]
As neat as the urilift seems in theory, it would be a nightmare in practice if left unattended.
"The high-tech toilets would be operational at night in places around the borough to combat late night revellers urinating in the streets."
I could just imagine the Entertainment District looking like one of those smack the gopher games on a Friday night.
Also, why is the Astral design so enormous for a single occupancy toilet? Do they have a bidet and hot tub in there? Not bad for a buck then.
[ report this ]
Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning.
[ report this ]
> Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning.
and due to public safety the city would still HAVE to ensure that the urilift systems fall and rise under supervision. You couldn't do this automatically. Too many things could go wrong and a single lawsuit could render them a huge waste of taxpayer's money.
Not to mention they don't clean themselves, so this would be another burden on the tax dollar as opposed to allowing Astral to make the investment.
[ report this ]
"Folks, the point of the Urilift system is not that they rise and fall after every single tinkle. Rather, they rise at a certain point in time -- say, 8pm on a Saturday night -- and then sink back down at a later point in time -- say, 5am on a Sunday morning."
What's the point then in having a public toilet that is only available to drunks at 4AM and requires a city paid employee to supervise?
[ report this ]
The point is that these toilets would be:
(a) available in certain locations (e.g. the Entertainment District) for people who might otherwise use public or private property; but
(b) out of the way at other times and would not obstruct sidewalks.
Out of curiosity, where are people getting the idea that an employee would need to supervise them full-time? All that's needed is someone to visit each location and press a button -- once to raise them at the start of the night, and once to lower them the next morning. Given that they'd be concentrated in certain areas, the marginal expense of doing so would be minimal (and could probably be recouped via advertising), and the benefits would include lower cleanup costs and one fewer social nuisance.