Does banning outdoor advertising kill urban vibrancy?
Close your eyes, and imagine yourself in a city. Any city.
What do you see?
Buildings of all sizes, taxis and buses, and perhaps a subway station or a bus stop, all of which are usually adorned with advertising.
In Midtown Manhattan, for example, you will generally find advertising everywhere you look: on buildings and plastered on taxis, buses, and bus stops.
If, as a São Paulo, Brazil resident, you close your eyes, this is what you will probably see:
A city devoid of advertising.
In September 2006, the city’s mayor, Gilberto Kassab, proposed a law that would effectively ban all forms of outdoor advertising, including all of the city’s 8,000 billboards, messages affixed on buses and taxis, as well as ads on storefronts. After months of wrangling, on April 1, 2007, most of the outdoor advertisements were gone.
Mayor Kassab’s chief concern? Visual pollution.
From the urban planning perspective, the São Paulo advertising ban raises a variety of issues, most of which relate to the vibrancy of urban life.
There are generally two schools of thought: those who feel that outdoor advertising is ugly and detracts from “peaceful” urban living, while the reverse side holds that advertising is an integral component of city culture and urbanity, as it is an art form in itself.
Let’s examine both sides of the issue.
Without advertising, a city is returned to its base components: buildings are just buildings, vehicles are merely vehicles, and, of course, the ghostly remnants of the freestanding billboard structures are merely structures in the air.
But, where’s the culture?
To some, a clean, uncluttered environment with just base components is culture.
Bland, perhaps, but you see the environment for what it is, with all of the regular components of city life without the clutter.
Peaceful and serene, some may argue.
With advertising, a city is more lively, maybe even wild. Organic.
True, while some messages may not be aesthetically-pleasing, even the poorly designed or illegally erected ads make the city what it is: a fluid, complex, confusing, and sometimes downright ugly environment.
This is what I call vibrancy.
Can you imagine the following iconic places devoid of advertising?
Times Square
Leicester Square
Downtown Tokyo
I can’t.
Banning advertising in these famous locations would completely alter the urban environment, not to mention hurting the businesses that are drawn to these places for both clout and pedestrian foot traffic, the landlords who can charge premium rentals by virtue of the vibrancy the environment provides, and the city, whose coffers benefit from enhanced property values.
I’m not saying that the advertising is the only component drawing people, but it’s a significant component.
Quick, close your eyes again.
What’s the first thing you see when you imagine Times Square, Leicester Square, and Tokyo?
Vivid ads and a lively urban environment.
Remove that element, and you’ll effectively kill urban culture.
To me, bland culture is bad culture, and I wouldn’t want to live in a boring urban environment.
I’m all for the “visual pollution.”
Take that, Mayor Kassab.
Feel free to comment. I’m interested in hearing what you have to say.
RSS
Archive
Mobile
