Signontology

By: Trey Shaughnessy
Published: 2005/07/08 (Category: Neighbourhoods)

Look how ridiculuous this is.

The deep setback and tall sign for this Tim Horton's breaks a Little Italy streetwall in Niagara Falls, NY.
The deep setback and tall sign for this Tim Horton's breaks a Little Italy streetwall in Niagara Falls, NY.

Tim Horton's breaks the streetwall, and plops down its standard-issue box, regardless of where it is located - a Little Italy, Chinatown, Historic Village, market area - disregarding the street and its location. You can't see the building because it is set back from the street, so they are forced to install a sign where a marquis/facade would be if the building met the street.

This is a perfect example of ignoring the streetlife and its surroundings. Even though we can't see the building, I doubt very much that is it clad with pilasters and stonework.

This is the source of the current sign 'problem' on Upper James, prompting City Council to hold public meetings regarding mobile signs littering the streetscape.

Signs litter the field of vision along Upper James, vying for motorists' attention. Note the absence of actual buildings.
Signs litter the field of vision along Upper James, vying for motorists' attention. Note the absence of actual buildings.

The signs are needed because the buildings are set back so far back from the street behind enomous parking lots, that cars on the road would otherwise drive right by, not knowing what they passed.

If buildings were forced to have zero setbacks - even on Upper James - we wouldn't have a sign-litter problem in Hamilton. There would not only be no place for it, but also no need.

I heard opposition that elimating sign-litter would elminate many jobs. I assume City Council thinks the mobile sign industry is a possible field of gainful employment for the future generations of Hamilton. Maybe Mohawk College can offer a course in Mobile Signontology.

Trey lives with his family in Hamilton and works as a graphic designer.

Discuss This Article

Read Comments

Post a Comment

To post a comment:

Log into RTH Account
Username
Password
Post Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you add 2 and 4?
Leave this field blank
Comments
SP@M TEST (Please Leave Blank)

Account Management

This Issue
Jul. 7, 2008

Accidental Activist

City Life

Commentary

Downtown Bureau

Editorial

Entertainment and Sports

Media

Opinion

Photo Essay

Special Report: Peak Oil

Quote of the Issue

Proponents do not have to rationalize the need for transit or look at alternatives (only alternative construction methods) since the need for transit and the benefits to communities, the environment and the economy are clear." -- From the Government of Ontario's New Transit Environmental Assessment Process

Site Tools

Archive

RSS Feed Newsfeeds

ISSN: 1715-1554