A few weeks ago, I attended a concert put on by the Toronto Public Space Committee, a small political action committee headed by Dave Meslin. (I believe they're related somehow to Spacing magazine, best known in the city for selling those cool subway-stop lapel buttons.) The purpose of the concert was to raise money for, and draw attention to, a number of campaigns they're putting on, most of which focus on reducing the amount of public space devoted to advertising.

Whether you agree with their politics or not, I found it interesting that there are people out there who are concerned about even some of the smallest points of how the city is designed. Among their many campaigns (ten listed on the site) is one to stop city council from putting in new recycling bins with visual ad boards, another to remove unsightly and unfriendly chain-link fences from people's front yards, and another to perform "guerilla gardening" around the city (recon: my back yard could really use some grass seed).

I also found the group's central critique entirely valid, even though I'm more of a realist about these things. Commercial advertising is one of the least-planned design features in any city, and where it's unregulated, it will pop up just about anywhere. A few weeks ago, I met a girl who had helped develop the Virgin Mobile "The Catch" campaign that saw red faux-police-tape put up all over downtown, and huge red-and-white text signs on subway platform floors and pillars. It was a fairly brilliant low-budget campaign, and one she told me they had no problems executing. But can you imagine if five other companies did the same thing? Wall-to-wall-to-wall-to-wall...

Having said that commercial design is generally unplanned, I have to tip my hat to Brown and Storey, which designed the Dundas Square space. I'm fairly new to Toronto, but the first time I saw it, it evoked a Times Square or a downtown Tokyo for me. That said, part of the reason was the overwhelming amount of signage, video billboards, etc. that it contained. To be fair, the Square is outside a mall, and its other charms are certainly considerable. But I would be very curious to know how much the Dundas design was integrated with its surrounding ads.

1. Jeremy,

   Thanks for bringing to attention to the work of the Toronto Public Space Committee and their efforts to resist the proliferation of “public” advertising and the growing pollution of our common mental and cultural environment.

   I’m curious, however, just what it is that you find likeable about Dundas Square. It seems to me just the sort of trick that privatizers of public space must gush over as a model.

   One of the links in your piece leads to the info that Dundas Sq. is, in fact, a commercial venture. The design of the square, it seems to me, is that of a honey-trap: a lure to citizens and visitors alike to gawk at every weapon in the advertising arsenal. This seems a particularly cynical use of public space in what might have been more of an oasis admist the general onslaught of Toronto’s shameless, and C-class urbanity.

   The other thing that struck me was your allusion to its resemblance to Times Square, which cannot have passed unnoticed by anyone. The resemblance, however, essentially amounts to the use of a convergent intersection to create out of public space a living theatre for advertising. Times Square, at least, has the dignity of a heritage as a public space, even though it has now been fairly Disney-fied. But the Dundas Sq. design seems to be a trick in this sense too, intended to create the illusion that this is a space of importance.

   It is a sad commentary that Toronto’s most visible public space project in recent years should turn out to be an occasion to sell our attention to the highest bidders.

   Posted by Michael Dila  on  05/04  at  02:00 PM
3. Michael, I've been past Dundas twice. The first time through, my reaction was closer to yours: I remember specifically commenting to my friends that it was overloaded with ad space. The second time through, and following some web research I felt, at least, that given that this was a corporate, for-profit space that was inevitably going to be billboarded and signed up the wazoo, it had other things to recommend it. I'm not saying, either, that Times Square or Tokyo should necessarily be emulated, only that it has that same neon-overload charge to it. Would I prefer some green space? Probably. But not being from here originally, I tend to accept that Toronto is a fairly commerce-driven city, and don't mourn a neon-lit downtown square. (Ask me about the "new and improved" Sir Winston Churchill Square in downtown Edmonton, on the other hand, and you'll hear a much stronger opinion...)
   
   Posted by Jeremy Keehn  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by Jeremy Keehn  on  05/04  at  02:27 PM

4. One of the great myths of public space making is that everything built with commercial purpose is bad and everything built to be art for art’s sake is good. While I understand Michael’s comment and sympathize with its good intentions, I have to wonder if it isn’t slightly naive. After all, whenever I’ve been at the Dundas Square the last thing I cared about was the advertising. I was much more attracted to the activities taking place there. If part of the genesis of the square was to create a mediated public space then, the fact is, we live in a world driven by commercial forces. We can deny them or we can control them for our own benefit. Getting the most public benefit from the resources at hand is what this small park has accomplished.

   Posted by Simon Wayne  on  05/04  at  06:56 PM
6. First off, thanks Jeremy & Simon. I've wanted to sound off about Dundas Sq. for a long while and I'm grateful for the thoughtful company. Jeremy says he doesn’t mourn a "neon-lit" downtown and I don't disagree with him (entirely). The beauty of slick wet streets at twilight, reflecting cool neon and the twinkling of pixel-boards is surely a real, if unintended upshot of the "bright lights" of the "big city." His second point, that we must accept the reality that Toronto is a commerce-driven city (point taken, to the max), is nicely taken up by Simon. And Simon is right to remind us that commercialism isn't so all-powerful that it can always dominate our experience of public spaces, no matter how hard its forces may try. The point I want to press, however, is not the utopian one that all that is commercial is per se bad, but rather that there is something that doesn't sit right with the choice this development of public space seems to force on us: either to aestheticize and integrate the "noise" of advertising in such places or to simply ignore it (as if). I am curious for an answer to one of the important questions Jeremy raised in his initial post, i.e. was the Brown and Storey design conceived to integrate the dynamic elements of the advertising environment (or even to serve it). If so, how? I do still find it troubling that an opportunity to do something interesting with such a central public space in Toronto was squandered. The last thing this city needed was to dignify the high art of shopping with a public square. Whatever "charms" Dundas Sq. may indeed possess seem to serve the business interests of the area more than they do the public. I’m tired of seeing Toronto bested by cities like Grand Rapids, Michigan, where they are serious enough about their public spaces to give their city the incredible gift of the “Ecliptic" design of Rosa Parks Circle by Maya Lin. The frustrating thing about developments like Dundas Sq., to my way of thinking, is that this city seethes with potential, but seems all too often to end up cheapening even its very best ideas.
   
   Posted by Michael Dila  on  {comment_date format=’%m/%d’}  at  {comment_date format=’%h:%i %A’}
Posted by Michael Dila  on  05/04  at  11:00 PM

<< Back to main