High Specification Shroud Advertising
- This topic has 67 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
Unfortunately, we didn’t get an opportunity during 2004 to make a written submission in relation to the new Dublin city Development Plan, as we were a little late to the table with our approach in 2004. When we did come to the table with our proposal, we were led to believe that our proposal was being taken seriously and was being considered by the powers-that-be. This process dragged our application into early 2005. In early 2005, I made a presentation to the SPC-Economic Planning and Development. After my presentation where I laid all of the facts out on the table in a transparent fashion a lengthy discussion followed. In total, 12 memebers of the SPC attended the meeting including 10-councillors. Each had their say on what we were proposing. 10 of the 12 SPC-members thought that what we were proposing was a very good idea, and said that they endorsed it. Two senior planners were also attendant at the meeting and suggested that this was a complex area and they would like to present a follow-on presentation to the SPC on this subject. The next SPC-meeting was 2-months later, which we were not invited to attend. Following this meeting we were sent a letter from the council stating that the subject had now been fully investigated and they would not be taking any further action on it, as it was felt that our proposal presented a material contravention to the proposed Dublin city development plan and would require an ammendment or variation to the Plan to allow their use, and at that point it was too late to make any further submissions which might delay the presentation of the new Plan.
So, unfortunately, what has happened to us in the last 10-months has left us feeling very much ignored and more than a little duped.
We are now at a point where we questionning should we put any more energy into promoting what is very obviously a very good idea if we are not going to get any real support for the idea from senior planners ?
I have made many submissions to the council regarding the blatent disrespect that the large billboard companies pay to built-architecture in Dublin……to date I have received no reply. It seems obvious that due to no enforcement and blatant inaction on the matter of billboards and posterboards, the outdoor advertising industry in Dublin has been ruined for any legal operators who respect the industry and the environment in which they work.
Paul – have you any photos that would support your case that the advertising “added in a positive way to the street landscape”?
Also what happens to the material after it is used – is it biodegradable?
Anyone remember the Wallace anti-war shroud “advertising”? Didn’t that make a nice change from Vodaphone and Burgerking!
@Lotts wrote:
Anyone remember the Wallace anti-war shroud “advertising”? Didn’t that make a nice change from Vodaphone and Burgerking!
Ha ha spot on. So much for pigeon-holing as “loony lefty”; wallaces development seems to be both an aesthetic, cultural, and commercial success.
Paul – sounds like you need “political permission” as opposed to “planning permission”; I think you’ll find certain developers around this town – not the wallace type – might already have experience in this regard :p
Hi Lotts, Hutton.
I’m ging to prepare a blog which will show some of the projects my company has completed in other cities….I would be really interested to get some feedback and to hear people’s opinions on the work that has been undertaken using this cncept.
You are also absolutely right that it would seem what we now have to cahse is political permission rather than planning permission…..maybe I have been out of the country for too long but I had hoped that we had moved on from the time when you had to go running to your local politician to get anything done……I’m totally against this kind of political pandering just for the sake of it !
The idea/concept is a good one – there’s no hidden agenda – it seems a pity that the powers that be seem unwilling to even consider that this might be the case.
I’ll let you know when that blog is done
I have no objection to the use of scaffolding as a billboard as long as (a) the item is temporary and (b) work is actually taking place on the site. What I do object to is ordinary buildings being covered with banners when no work is happening a la Burger King on O’Connell Street and the Cornerstone Pub on Wexford Street.
PS I work in adland so I’m not a complete commercial whore or looney lefty
Temporary or not – my objection would be the use of public space and environment to benefit a comercial enterprise or a small select few of the public. It undermines public ownership of public space and intrudes on peoples enjoyment of the same.
As stated above, as a company we are totally against placing banners on the side of buildings or wrapping buildings for the sole purpose of commercial gain. The wrapping of the cornerstone pub was nothing short of rediculous and it has happened a number of times now….in all cases it took at least 4 weeks before the offending banner was removed by the council.
The BurgerKing banner on O’Connell St. was similarly a disgrace…with seemingly no effort whatsoever from the council to get rid of the banner or to heavily punsih (fine) the property-owner.
We have a concept – that concept is building-conservation sponsorship….our shrouds are only permitted to be placed with the agreement of the planners, and the income must be transparent and used so that the conservation works on the building can be carried out….this is common-sense. Use the corporate companies to raise financing to carryout much needed and much underfunded conservation work on our buildings.
Without doubt, there is great appeal in that conservation-funding concept, but one could also argue that developers can afford to restore buildings regardless of such carrots, and these shrouds are/will be used simply as a source of extra revenue in the larger scheme of things.
Even if the funds go directly to the restoration, it’s still saving the developer a packet.I’m just not sure that that there is a drastic demand for such a concept. Buildings that are in dire need of work will continue to languish, while owners/developers who can afford to pay the full cost will be the ones availing of the advertising.
I appreciate we are bombarded with advertising all of the time on a huge scale, but to convert that scale into physical reality by cladding whole buildings in it is one step too far.
I’ve never like the concept of covering all or part of buildings in these yokes – it feels like advertisers are taking advantage of the public environment in an underhand way, and is most unpleasant. At least billboards are comparatively self-contained, and this is how large-scale outdoor advertising should stay (though improved obviously :))For state and institutional buildings to be clad in quirky shrouds relating to the building or instituton itself is a different concept entirely – and a good one at that.
Like to see some pics too if you have any Paul…I mentioned earlier that I would prepare a blog-site which will show some examples of my companies work – here it is
http://bcsp.blogspot.com/
In total during the last 5 years we have completed over 700 projects, most of which were on continental Europe. All projects were done legally and with the full support of the city planners.
Of the examples I have given, some of the projects (the smaller privately owned building, the first project) was fully paid for by our concept. This included replacing old windows with original sash windows, repairing the roofing, repair works to the rendering, repainting etc.
The other projects received funding approximating 40%-60% of the overall cost of carrying out the conservation works on the buildings. All works had a conservation-report completed on them by the planning authorities before any works began to identify what conservation work was necessary to be carried out.I know that the commercial nature of what has been placed against some of these fine buildings will make some people shudder – but I ask that people consider that for those against shrouding don’t knock it until you really see it. Do not make the mistake of comparing ugly illegal banners – which can sometimes be seen in Dublin – to what we do.
It is my belief that the long-term gain to be won with this concept far outweighs the short-term pain which must be endured by some people with this idea….and it is just some people. We have found from carrying out quite a few surveys at the base of the shrouds when we have them erected, that the vast majority of people really like what we do.
There will always be people who do not like what we do ….I would ask those people to try to concentrate on the long-term gain for our built-architecture from using this concept
PS it takes a team of engineers to do what we do, and a number of weeks planning.
We do not pin/hang/attach/drop banners from buildings…..this practice is a disgrace.
Thanks for the link Paul.
Certainly the high-quality nature of the shrouds that very notably highlight the scaffolding form, and as a result their incongruous unique positioning within the streetscape, is a very different concept to draped or stretched banners etc – done properly they look genuinely temporary, as opposed to omni-present cheap drapes etc.
Saying that, I still don’t like the idea of advertising dominating in such a way – it simply takes over spaces in a way that is inapproriate for advertsing to do – the theme or message becomes imbued into the public surroundings and streetscape, whereas with billboards it is kept firmly in its place.
It does depend to a degree on the scale all right – this one I’d frankly find offensive:
Thanks Graham.
I do agree that these shrouds are of a size and nature that they make an impression – but I do not agree that these shrouds becoming dominating within our streetscapes. I am proposing that shrouds be acceptable only in very limited circumstances where there is an obvious and real need for the income being created by their presence paying for conservation works to be carried out on our built environment. Part of the rules that would need to be put in place for permitting shrouding is that on no occassion should two shrouds be allowed to be placed on the same street.
I do not believe that it is only the property-owners that are least in need of conservation-funding that benefit from this idea. I have spoken with over a dozen Dublin city property-owners whose buildings are nothing more than a digrace within the public domain, and who have absolutely no intention whatsoever of carrying out at conservation work on their buildings. In many/most cases it was even said to me “why should we ?”. These landlords are fully aware that because of the lack of enforcement from our city councils regarding making them take care of their buildings, they know they don’t have to do anything to take care of their buildings facades. It was suggested to me that they often do nothing becauise as soon as they try to do anything to their buildings they are immediately put under pressure by the planners/heritage organisations to carry out repairs which they simply will not spend that kind of money on.
Though this dissappoints me greatly – these are the hard facts of the economy-driven society we live in today.
When it was mentioned to these property-owners that they might be able to avail of substantial funding to help them to carry out the conservation-works, but that any money given would be contractually-bound for the purposes of carrying out conservation-works – all of the property owners immediately said that they would be interested in participating in such a scheme.
Unfortunately, it often takes waving this kind of carrott in front of people, before they recognise that what they have in their possession is a great and public asset which needs to be properly maintained for all to enjoy.
Personnally, I would very much like to use this concept to renovate and restore the old Fire-Station building on Thomas Street – once one of the most beautiful buildings in Dublin and now shamedly a falling wreck.
I would personnaly much prefer to see a shroud on this building which is there for the purposes of helping to raise funds for this buildings conservation, rather than to have to look at the ugly posters which are plastered all over the hoarding at this building….and which have been allowed to be placed there uncontrolled for a period now of over 3 years.
I know from conversations I have had re. this building that the building has a shortfall of Euro 700,000 to carryout immediate conservation works…..this has been the staus quo for the last 4 years…..in the mean time this beautiful building cntinues to crumble with no-one willing tolift a hand to save it.
Essentially you’re posing a question: do we continue to accept ineffective or unenforced legislation that lets key buildings languish or streetscapes to continue to fall into decay, or do we allow vast commercial advertisments to solve the problem. Though I fully accept this is largely the reality of what we’re faced with and you paint a sad but real picture, it is an unfair question to ask.
Is as you say “landlords are fully aware that because of the lack of enforcement from our city councils regarding making them take care of their buildings, they know they don’t have to do anything to take care of their buildings facades” the reason why the CC won’t take on board your proposals as it merely highlights their own deficiencies?
I don’t fully understand the largely negative reaction to Paul O’Mahony’s enterprise here. It seems to me that he is presenting a choice between high quality shrouding which looks good or the current way of doing things with that green gauze flapping around scaffolding poles reinforced with sheets of untreated or graffittied plyboard. Little or none of the negative reaction seems to be based on aesthetics but on the fact that it “commercial”, as if commerce is a dirty, grubby enterprise which steals from the commonwealth.
😀
You have a point jimg, but for me anyway I just don’t like the way this can be presented as an either-or situation.
If the will was there to include the advertising shroud concept into the city dev plan, well just as easily could a proposal be made to ensure all scaffolding on street locations be presented and maintained to a minumum standard.Likewise is cases where the likes of stabilising conservation work is required on a protected structure, it is up to the local authority to issue a notice of works on the owner, not to depend on the advertising industry to ‘save our buildings’.
Still one does have to concede that it is a very tantalising prospect to at least get the ball rolling on projects with the shroud concept – even if it does mean suffering 🙂 the pain of having more advertising shoved in your face – which is what it does, there’s no getting away from the fact, regardless of what sublime specifications these yokes are made and erected to 🙂
Part of the appeal of most European city centres is that architecture forms the scenery, not billboards & electronic advertising etc. It is paradoxal and therefore highly confusing that it is this very ‘scenery’ that is being protected by this idea! :confused:
Thanks guys.
I agree Graham, it is a crazy idea that the very thing that most people who have a love or urban architecture abhore…is the very thing that could end up saving it. I fully accept that there are those amongst us who just hate all kinds of outdoor advertising….and if I’m honest, there is very little of any kind of outdoor advertising in Ireland’s city which I find attractive or in any way stimulating. However, this can change….I know this. If you look at what has happened in so many other great cities around Europe the city councils have embraced new forms of advertising and have completely banned the old, worn and ugly types of advertising (ie.posterboards, billboards, 48-sheets, 96-sheets etc.). There is another way, and we have to embrace that, and not decide that all forms outdoor advertising is an attack on our visual liberties.
I think Paul has muddied the waters a bit by suggesting that the revenue helps fund heritage restoration projects. Maybe he thought this would make the idea more appealing to the architects on this site. I think it’s completely irrelevent. Maybe the revenue has been used for this purpose in some particular cases but it could just as easily be used to fund a coke and champagne fueled party at a brothel for the developers. It’s a red herring.
It’s just that I’ve seen these shrouds used in cities in other countries and the effect is far more pleasing that the ugly way building sites are cordoned off in Dublin. I also think that it should be possible to clearly distinguish this type of temporary advertising from the “burger king banner” type. The former has a different primary function in that it hides potentially ugly building activity and protects passers by and vehicles from stuff falling off scaffolding. The council could vet the ads so that they aren’t too garish and are relatively inoffensive.
I don’t see what’s necessarily intrinsically aesthetically offensive about advertising. Some ads can be beautiful. Imagine a large poster of some appealing scene of Irish natural beauty and add the word “ballygowan” in a small font to the bottom right hand corner; put your hand over the word “ballygowan” and contemplate the picture again. Maybe it’s just me, but I can appreciate the image without noticing the product name or being offended by the fact that the image is being used to promote a product.
Anyway, it’s not like I’m going to start writing letters to politicians in support of this enterpise. But I think it would be an improvement over the current way of doing things.
I would like to take the example of Amsterdam if I could, in my belief one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. My company is responsible for introducing the concept of high-spec shroud advertising in Amsterdam – which is a UNESCO-world heritage site – we were allowed to do so after a public debate in the media and in the general council. It was found that after operating the scheme of building-conservation sponsorship using scaffold-shrouding the city council overwhelmingly voted to continue the scheme on an ongoing basis to continue to allow the scheme to fund carrying out necessary conservation works on urban built architecture. It was overwhelmingly agreed by the council that without such a scheme – the kind of money necessary to carry out work on many of the fine buildings in Amsterdam would never be raised.
Could I also make the point that shroud-advertising is currently acceptable in every capital city in Europe at this present time with the exception of Dublin….this includes another capital city – Edinburgh – which is also a UNESCO world heritage site.
I believe that we have to concentrate on what is for many a small amount of pain for long-term gain. I also believe that to think that our city councils are going to properly enforce property owners to carry out necessary conservation works on their buildings is unfortunately is somewhat innocent. We only have to look around us at present at the gross inactivity in this area to see the truth.
Like it or not, we now live in a market-driven world….what we need is clever and unique ways to properly drive these market economics so that some social good can be achieved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
