On the occasion of Toronto City Hall's 40th anniversary, City-tv's Breakfast Television invited me to offer my thoughts on what the future held for the city. I was to be one of two guests. Arriving at Queen and John Street too early I wandered down to the CBC building with the idea of asking the picketers when they'd be back at work. This was not done without self interest though because I was growing increasingly tired of having to listen to 680 News - ALL NEWS ALL THE TIME - in the morning.

The strikers were not optimistic and, as I walked back to City-tv, I worried that CBC Radio 1 might never return. But my spirits picked up when I found out that the other pundit that morning was going to be Dave Meslin, founder of the Toronto Public-Space Committee. Dave and I introduced ourselves joking that this really was an ungodly hour of the day to try and appear knowledgeable and coherent. We were directed onto the set to the left of Liza the morning show's host. An assistant asked if we wanted water or coffee and the cups were placed in front of us while we introduced ourselves to Liza. To the surprise of the assistant, and maybe to everyone in the room, Dave asked if he could have a cup without the sponsors logo on it. Whoooa! With one minute left before we were to go live Dave launched into the reasons why he did not want to be associated with a Brand. The thought that this is an experience you don't have every day made its way through my mind only to be smacked down by an adrenalin rush when someone said, "ten seconds." Dave's cup disappeared from the table. I kept mine. Then we were live.

As anyone who does unscripted morning television live will probably tell you, there really isn't a lot of time to think about the answers you're going to give. You either know your stuff or you don't. So I really don't remember much of what I said but I've been told a couple of times since that it made sense. But I remember thinking that Dave had shifted gears and our on camera interaction was complimentary. After four minutes it was over. We took the six steps or so over to the in-studio cappuccino bar and the barista, Angelica, asked if we wanted anything to drink. She served us with the same logoed cups.

When Dave and I left the building we stopped for a moment to talk about the cup incident. That segued to a discussion of outdoor advertising and finally to the mother-load of public space integrated advertising, Dundas Square. Now, I have to be up front about this. I love the place. Steve Mann, Canada's Cyborg, calls it an urbeach - short for urban beach - and has studied it with great interest. You can read his thoughts here. I've often talked with the designers Kim Story and James Brown about the square which has either been celebrated or pilloried, but unfortunately for them, probably more of the latter than the former. So Dave and I talked and I think both of us unleashed our best pro and con arguments but we'd both heard them before and had developed an interesting and even complex series of responses to each point. In the end we agreed to disagree and maybe tackle the issue over a beer some day. Time passed.

So it was with great interest that I read today's Globe and Mail coverage of Dave and the Public-Space Committee. I respect his views about the encroachment of advertising into the public realm. Think of it like CBC radio. Our tax dollars support the corporation. Using our money they create a thoughtful series of programs that can run without the adverting that 680 News has to air to remain viable. The city is like that too. Our taxes and the sweat equity of a lot of contributors have created our urban environment. We've paid for this so why would we want to have advertising noise intruding unasked? Right? The only problem with this comparison is that the CBC is one part of a public spectrum and I'm glad I have the choice to go to other places on the dial to get alternative sources of entertainment and news. So, like Dave, I think we have to be very careful about what we allow to intrude on the public realm. Unlike Dave, I believe that there are some places that can and should be open to the full spectrum of forces that make up a complex urban culture - even advertising. And Dundas Square is one of those places. Still I have to thank the Public_Space Committee for making the discussion a vibrant one. We're better off being aware and informed about the forces that shape our environment because once a precedent is established it is hard to reverse.

See Jeremy Keehn's discussion about the sqaure.

Photograph by Jeremy Keehn, Walrus Magazine

1. I never really understood the fuss over Dundas Square. It’s for tourists and it keeps our core busy, interesting and full of people. I’m not a designer but I like the fountains. All the billboards are interesting too.

   Posted by Andrew L.  on  10/09  at  04:03 PM

2. Hello Robert, and readers!

   The BT show was fun. Especially when they cut us off early after I said we should bury all the main streets in the city and put bike lanes and rapid transit on top!

   I’d like to play on Robert’s CBC/Public Space metaphor! In the metaphor, Robert suggests that if public space is like a radio dial, then there should be a CBC element, but also many other alternatives including those that are influenced or owned by the private sector.

   What if we look at it from a different angle? What if we see the whole CITY as a the radio spectrum? There are thousands of private “stations” including malls, cinemas, stadiums, etc. These are all privately owned and run. Public space (as it’s name implies) is the radio station in town that is supposed to publicly owned an publicly driven. Public Space IS the CBC of our city. Entirely.

   So, we’re not saying there isn’t a place for ads in the city, we’re simply saying keep them off the streets.

   Personally, I couldn’t care less about Dundas Square. I don’t believe it attracts tourists (“Hey honey, I heard Toronto has a new concrete square with video ads on billboards”) but if some people like it, then great! I’m all for a diverse city. But don’t call it a public square. And don’t spend tax dollars on it. Let the private sector buy the land, build the square and profit from the ads. An outdoor megaplex, that only shows ads. Hey, it’s a free world.

   On a side note, I wrote an e-mail to CITY TV the next day and told them they had crossed an ethical line in journalism by doing paid product placement ads on invited guests without asking. I have been told that they have changed their policy.

   Robert, let’s have that beer sometime!

   ~ mez

   Posted by Dave Meslin  on  10/10  at  10:55 AM

3. I’m with Dave on this. Our landscape is littered with bad, inwardly focused commercial buildings. We have the choice of going into those stores or not going into them. We don’t have the choice of avoiding a public square.

   Posted by Beth  on  10/10  at  11:08 AM

4. The old Soviet Union had no place for public advertising. Why is it that some people think they know more than anyone else when it comes to personal choices?

   Posted by Mitch D.  on  10/10  at  11:59 AM

5. “Personal choice”? That’s just silly.

   I hear this argument all the time, that outdoor advertising is some form of freedom of expression, and people can choose to look at it or not.

   Actually, the reason outdoor advertsising is booming is because people are choosing NOT to look at ads. At home, you can change the channel, or turn the page, or pay for ad-free TV. So the ad industry responds by putting TV ads in places where you can’t turn it off. TV ads in washrooms, elevators, at gas pumps, on highways and at major intersections like dundas sqaure. Captive audiences. 400 sqaure foot televisions in public space, with only ads, and no remote control. Where’s the ‘choice’ there?

   And who has access to these bilboards anyway? How many people do you think can afford to put an ad up at Dundas Square? Only the most elite and powerful elements in our sociaty have access to visual expression on our streets. Sounds like soviet Russia to me: disempowering elite saturation of media at the expense of all other ideas being heard. The powerful speak, the rest watch quietly.

   If members of the public try to put up their own signs at dundas square they will be charged by private security. People have even been charged for writing with chalk, under the glow of the video screens.

   Mitch wrote that “The old Soviet Union had no place for public advertising.” Well, neither do we. Only places for corporate advertising. Street murals of Stalin have simply turned into the faces of anorexic women and Ronald McDonald.

   I don’t want Stalin or Ronald. Why does that seem so radical? Try to dream a little folks.

   Posted by Dave Meslin  on  10/10  at  12:34 PM

6. Hi Dave,

   Thanks for your extensive comments. The exchange of different ideas is an important part of this site. I didn’t know we were cut off!! Really? Send me an email and we’ll schedule that beer and talk about it and about advertising in the city.

   Posted by  on  10/10  at  08:40 PM

7. Architecture has to test the social realm with new forms or it will lose purpose. Hurray to James and Kim for their envelope stretching work here.

   Posted by Martin Jefferies  on  10/13  at  10:17 AM

<< Back to main