Several questions spring to mind in considering the City’s coordinated street furniture RFP.


Where will these amenities fit in physically on sidewalks that are already tight with sidewalk cafes, honor box corrals, street lights, bike racks and, of course, pedestrians? What are the implications for property owners; will they have a say when these structures are plopped in front of homes and businesses? What about the zoning code’s clear prohibition of outdoor advertising in center city, neighborhood commercial corridors, residential and school areas? Is the city exempt from its own laws? It’s been established which areas will be “protected” from the street furniture advertising; it’s not good enough for parts of CenterCity. Where, then, will these ads actually go? Last of all, what will this stuff LOOK like?

At this point, I'm not feeling the "win-win" in this.

To the earlier posters who think this is a good idea because ads on street furniture are not as ugly as billboards:

It is not a case of either/or -- it is a case of both/and. Rest assured, there is no billboard removal component to this plan.

This is a program for massive uglification. it ain't just gonna be tasteful ads for the museums and theaters. Expect plenty of liquor ads with T&A, too.

The revenue (the article projects about 2 million per year) is trifling compared to the fair market value of such an advertising bonanza. Outdoor advertising is unbelievably expensive, and these ads will be at eye level all over center city.

NYC goes one step further and allowed plasma/LCD screens to be installed on subway staircases in the streets (probably a joint effort between the City of New York and MTA).

I'm not entirely convinced this is for good. I wouldn't mind to see flash and dazzle ads on East Market (I was NOT against the SEPTA building-wrap), but would I want every public surface taken to visual pollution?

It's hard to say--a lot of public things in Philly are already tagged to hell. I have a decorative bus stop outside my front door but every surface that isn't part of the art has been etched to hell.

I'd rather care for ads that change every week so that way if the surface gets tagged, it will be fresh as a daisy eventually [only to be tagged again], similar to the ads in the subway.

__________________
Buh-bye.

Yeah, something tells me City Blue is itching to blanket the more impoverished sides of town with ads... followed by Colt 45, Thunderbird, etc.

In the Northeast every surface will get covered with WE BUY UGLY HOUSES!

__________________
Buh-bye.

It's probably closer to $10+ million, which is still a small, but decent amount to add to the city coffers. Also, the city would be getting new and privately-maintained bus shelters, benches, honor boxes, newsstands, and public toilets -- you have to factor in the purchase and maintenance cost of all that street furniture when you think of the value to the city.

A lot of people have voiced their opposition to idea of more public ads. It's a legitimate viewpoint, but take a walk down pretty much any block in the city, especially Center City. You're likely to find:

-street signs
-parking signs
-tow truck warning signs
-stop signs
-store window or door signs
-honor boxes with the newspaper's logo
-for rent or real estate signs
-posters
-flyers

Point is that the public sphere is already inundated with advertisements and visual interference. The atmosphere these street furniture ads would be coming into is hardly pristine.

Here at SCRUB, we've been watching this thread with great interest. Good to see the range of opinions on the issue.

Few details have been emerging from the RFP process. So, we've been talking with our counterparts in other cities about their street furniture experiences. There's a new page on our site with photos, a link to the RFP and info about an important court case in LA that could entirely undermine LA's sign control ordinance. A billboard company sued LA after their street furniture program placed ads in prohibited areas. It's still a question how our city will handle that matter here.

http://www.urbanblight.org/furniture...tfurniture.htm

We'll share new info as we get it.

Doh! Stupid First Amendment.

__________________

Traveling through Canada, I have been impressed with the variety and application of street furniture in every municipality of reasonable size. The absence of recycling in Philadelphia's RFP specifications is almost as distrubing as the lack of public interaction on this subject. Contrast that with Toronto who is just completing a rather extensive and very public process, all of which is memorialized on thier website http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/streetfurn iture/. You may want to check this out--not only does thier spec include recycling, but two of the players in that game are bidding in Philadelphia (each company's presentation is online).

In terms of the timing in this project, should it become controversial (count on it) City Council will hold it up: a twenty year contract requires thier approval. It very unlikely this contract will happen on John Streets watch.

It is important City Council hears about this from everybody. At the very minimum a project of this magnitute requires public scrunity--if recycling has been overlooked what else is missing?

I like and support the work done by SCRUB. But here's a thought experiment, an aspect to consider:

Remember a few decades ago when posters designed by locals for local events were plastered on vacant surfaces? They were "real" as opposed to corporate, nitty-gritty as opposed to sleek.

They evoked a pleasure in urban life - vitality.

People would generally honor another's poster unless there were multiples on one bench or plywood wall, or if event date had passed. It stays with me as evidence of civic engagement. Tax-supported street cleaners or a nearby business would clean up sometimes.

I would argue this should be included: the private biz must somehow allow civic voice without much control over those areas allocated to "the people". The RFP should incorporate unrestricted access by the public in some way - if we're going to have "ads" then let's also let the public express ourselves, and use the profit-making companies to support this.

I read through S.C.R.U.B.'s website and it seems they're more concerned with eliminating advertising than eliminating blight. A tastefully designed advertisment wrapping a formerly rusted and abandoned factory is not blight, it's just the opposite, and I live right in the shadow of that factory which is, in fact, a BLIGHT on my neighborhood.

Businesses offering free benches and trashcans to the city in turn for ad placement is not blight, again, it's just the opposite. It's a place to put our trash, which in case you haven't notice, mostly ends up in the gutters and eventurally my front yard. THAT is blight. And please, show me a city that doesn't have benches with realtors' faces on them.

And advertising on SEPTA? Would you rather see the stained walls of broken and mismatched tiles? That's probably the most absurd argument I've ever heard.

Philadelphia is not Colonial Williamsburg, and the places that are run by the National Parks Service, and even the local parks department can remain free of advertising, but I don't see any reason to inhibit advertising in public, urban places, particularly places like Market East, Broad Street, and Vine Street, especially when it comes at the cost of public benches, trashcans, and an opportunity to cover some of these rusted, ugly, post-apocolyptic factories that make Philadelphia look like a *&$% hole.

S.C.R.U.B. is just a misguided NIMBY who realized they could make bigger headlines going after the Inquirer, Clear Channel, and the city, than they could genuinely cleaning up the real blight. They're a lot of noise with no resolve, because like most misguided NIMBY's and homegrown organizations that like to think of themselves as big-time PAC's, they just don't get economics and don't realize that things like benches, trashcans, and general public maintenance cost A LOT of money. Money we don't have. Money that can come from advertising. Unfortunatley that ignorance and hot air is only conserving the real blight.

__________________
The idealistic are no longer concerned with influencing public opinion and creating a free world of responsible and ethical social choices, but rather imposing opinion through legislation, mandating these ethics, and outlawing choice in what the loudest sample finds offensive.

Ban the Bans. It's a slippery slope between Idealism and Fascism.