|
Getting the facts: a cost-benefit-analysis
It
is shocking that City Council has already decided that the Coordinated
Street Furniture Program should be completely funded by advertising dollars.
They have committed themselves to a process that will put more advertising
on our streets at the expense of design, functionality, accessibility,
safety and aesthetics. Their decision could not have been based on any
real cost-benefit analysis because Council has never asked staff how much
it would cost the City to purchase street furniture. How many millions
are we saving? With a one-time capital investment spread out over 10-15
years, with very little operating costs, is this really a budget item
that we can't afford?
Functionality & usability
Toronto's street furniture has to work properly as its primary
function. The design of the items should be driven by the needs of pedestrians
and the end-user. The Astral "Info Pillars", for example, have
two panels with ads that face pedestrians, and one panel with information
that faces away from the sidewalk. Eucan's MegaBins function well as billboards,
but with hard-to-find receptacles, poor placement and poor labeling they
are virtually useless as garbage cans. The guidelines in the RFP (Request
for Proposals) should be comprehensive, specific and must meet the standards
of Toronto's Accessibility Guidelines.
Safety
We need to see much more emphasis on safety than we have seen in recent
deals with Viacom, Astral and Eucan. Some of these items are too large
(the MegaBin is a good example), blocking sightlines for drivers, pedestrians
and cyclists. As well, glass panels on transit shelters and phonebooths
provide a level of visibility that discourages physical and sexual assault.
Recently both Viacom and Bell and covered many of their windows with translucent
or opaque advertising that creates an unsafe environment.
Use
of electricity
Electricity should only be used for items where it benefits the functionality
of the item. Illuminated advertising is a waste of electricity in a time
when we need to be reducing consumption. We do not need electric garbage
cans or electric benches in Toronto, even if they are powered by wind
or solar technology which depends on batteries that are hard to dispose
of safely.
Placement
Aside from design criteria for the size, height and shape of the items
we need to see specific requirements for how and where the items will
be placed of the sidewalk. Over and over, we have seen advertising companies
place their items in unusual places and at awkward angles to maximise
the visibility of their ads by car drivers. Items should be placed based
on the needs of pedestrians, the needs of the end-user and also to meet
the requirements of Toronto's Accessibility Guidelines.
Proximity determined by use
Another problem we have seen with the items produced by advertising companies
is that they need to leave a certain distance between the items so as
not to block the advertisements. This means that a bench can't be placed
beside a garbage can and a bus shelter can't be near an information pillar.
The City should not be constrained by the needs of the ad companies when
deciding how close to place the items. Therefore, the proximity of items
has to be outlined in the RFP.
"An
opportunity to reduce the total amount of advertising while simultaneously
increasing its overall value and revenue for the City"
This quote from City documents sounds nice, but we'd
like to know how the City plans on measuring the "total amount"
of advertising. So far, they have used square feet. This is a misleading
figure that does not take other important factors into account such as
illumination and height. The best way to measure the impact of advertising
on a community is by the price paid by the advertiser.
Excluding
ads on certain items
Phonebooths, light poles, benches, mailboxes, flower baskets,
fire hydrants, street signs, traffic lights and bicycle racks are all
included
in the staff report as items that could be included in the RFP. The report
does not state which items might have ads on them. This needs to made
clear.
Excluding certain items completely, from the RFP (or at least
specifying public ownership in RFP).
Items that are currently functioning properly and are owned by the public,
should not be redesigned and sold to an advertising company. This includes
light poles, mailboxes, fire hydrants, street signs and traffic lights.
These items should be excluded from the RFP, or specifically stated in
the RFP that they would remain public property, even if they are re-designed.
Criteria
and enforcement of maintenance
Maintenance has been a big problem with the existing Eucan contract. The
doors never worked properly, the sticker labels have not been maintained
properly and the workers who clean posters off the bins with pressure
washers, leave piles of wet pulp on the sidewalk. Maintenence expectations
should be made clear in the RFP, and a mechanism for enforcement should
be created.
Prevent
new furniture deals outside of the RFP
There is no point in trying to take a coordinated approach to street furniture
in 2006, if another company can come along in 2007 and request to install
another piece of ad-furniture that is not part of the RFP. We would like
to see a motion at council that prevents private contracts for street
furniture to take place outside of the RFP, for the duration of the contract.
Facilitating public discourse
We would like to see some of the street furniture items equipped with
poster boards for community announcements. Instead of allowing private
companies to contribute more invasive advertising to a neighbourhood,
why not give the neighbours a chance to express themselves?
Aesthetic compatibility with streetscape
Toronto's street furniture should be designed in the context of the diverse
look and feel of Toronto's neighbourhoods.
Ad-free zones
Some areas of the city should be ad-free. This could include: in parks,
near schools, in front of Civic Centres, near religious buildings, and
on residential streets.
Public evaluation
We have been disappointed with recent "surveys" facilitated
by the City. We feel they have been characterised by loaded (biased) questions,
lack of information and poor data analysis. So far, with the Coordinated
Street Furniture Program, we are feeling encouraged and optimistic about
the process. We have seen a genuine attempt by City Staff to reach out
and gather public input. We appreciate this and hope to see it continue.
|
