Originally Posted by MolsonExport
These are worse than the (in)famous metal trees of London (Ontario). There are about 50 of these scattered about downtown, often in hideous colors.
I don't see how these trees are ugly?
At the very least they are a wonderful example of public art. They're artistic representations of something that relates to the heritage/culture of this city (our nickname is the "forest city" after all) , they add a nice splash of colour to the core, and they create a lot of discussion and intrigue.
And to those people who complain about how much money was spent on them instead of planting real trees...give me a break. This is such a poor argument. We have plenty of trees downtown. Could we use more? Absolutely, but were these created as a replacement for real trees? Obviously not! They are not part of some evil conspiracy to replace all of London's trees with metal ones! This is simply public art. And if you don't like it, that's fine, but at least understand why these were created.
If you want to see some truly hideous public art in London, check out this crap at White Oaks Mall!
The mall itself is also quite ugly.