PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Clothing store ordered to take down its sign



SpongeG
06-04-2007, 12:46 AM
Councillors refused to negotiate with a company to keep its illegal sign up on a Fenelon Drive building in exchange for neighbourhood perks at Tuesday's North York Community Council meeting.
The seven-storey advertisement sign for HandM clothing store on the north side of 135 Fenelon Dr. has illegally been up for one year and the company was fined $1,000 by a court for violating a North York sign bylaw. A second court date is scheduled for this month. The maximum fine for violating the sign bylaw is $5,000.

The sign spans the top seven floors of the 19-storey apartment building, which faces southbound lanes of the Hwy. 404, south of Hwy. 401.

Ward 34 (Don Valley East) Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong said he was in talks with representatives for building owner Beaux Properties and was hoping to work out a deal to keep the sign up in exchange for revenue generated by the advertisement to be used in his ward, where the building is located.

"The community could get a substantial contribution of hundreds of thousands of dollars," Minnan-Wong said, adding some $500,000 could potentially be disbursed into the ward.

Ward 24 (Willowdale) Councillor David Shiner pointed out that not only is the sign illegal, but it is eight times the size of what the sign bylaw permits.

"There is no advertising along the Don Valley Parkway," he said. "If we permit this one, we have to permit all. We will have major advertising firms putting up signs and then trying to make a deal. It should be taken down now."

Meanwhile, a request to mount a sign on a building at Bathurst Street and Steeles Avenue was shot down by councillors.

Toronto Community Housing (TCH) was seeking council's approval to erect a four-storey sign on the north wall of 6250 Bathurst St., at the southwest corner of Steeles.

TCH said it is short of cash and the sign would generate about $220,000 in revenue for the corporation over the course of the sign contract.

Feldman noted the 400-unit building, which is home to a large number of seniors, is in dire need of repair and put forward a motion for revenue from the sign advertisement, if approved by council, to be used for that specific building for maintenance repair.

The motion lost on a tie vote. Ward 15 (Eglinton-Lawrence) Councillor Howard Moscoe was absent from the meeting.

http://www.insidetoronto.com/images/assets/27773_3.JPG
The H&M advertisement on the side of an apartment building at 135 Fenelon Drive has been illegally displayed for the past year.

http://www.insidetoronto.ca/news/News/NorthYork/article/27762

Mille Sabords
06-04-2007, 01:08 AM
Too bad those city councillors are taking that attitude. I can't think of a nicer sign to liven up what's otehrwise just a blank wall. Besides, the Gardiner (another city-owned freeway) has several jumbotrons, let alone static signage.

caltrane74
06-04-2007, 01:12 AM
What about the new LED Bell Canada sign on its Wynford Drive Building?

duh?

Tony
06-04-2007, 02:14 AM
Sign By-laws are in place for a reason. Most municipalities have them too.

Coldrsx
06-04-2007, 02:28 AM
i love it...wish we had more

borgo100
06-04-2007, 02:42 AM
well just more signs with hot models on them

vid
06-04-2007, 11:14 AM
The dumb thing about sign by laws is that a local computer store couldn't cover itself with a mural because it freaked out the Futureshop owners, but McDonalds can put it's trade mark roof and giant golden arches all over town? I call bullshit on that. If chain stores are allowed to be 100% visual advertisement, local stores should be too.

WhipperSnapper
06-04-2007, 12:36 PM
the current signs along the Gardiner are 'grandfathered' - no new ones are allowed

What about the new LED Bell Canada sign on its Wynford Drive Building?

stricter laws for revenue generating, 3rd party signs (as it should be)



Forums Directory