Thursday, February 22nd, 2007 ::: Ad Nauseam

Ad Nauseam received this complaint from Joe Clark:

The magnificent Gropius-style building on the north side of Dupont at Dovercourt has two unnecessary, and large, Pattison billboards on the property, seriously intruding on any enjoyment of the structure, let alone photos. Perhaps somebody who knows how to do this (I don’t) could ask if the billboards are legit?

950 Dupont Street, Before Billboards

950 Dupont Street, After Billboards

In November 1994, Hamilton Gear and Machine Company, 950 Dupont Street, ceased operations after 83 years. Hamilton was a company with pretty cool history, which you can read about in Alfred Holden’s essay, “Dupont at Zenith.” In February 1995, Hamilton Gear’s assets were sold at auction by Corporate Assets Inc. The next month, Pattison Outdoor was granted Permit 95-371430 to erect two illuminated ground billboards at 950 Dupont.

Trouble is, there are three billboards on the 950 Dupont property. Let’s look at all three.

Fascia Sign on Dupont: Illegal

The only permit for a 3rd party sign issued to 950 Dupont, is 95-371430 which permits 2 ground signs. This fascia sign has no permit and is illegal. Adding an extra sign like this is a pretty typical in Pattison’s Toronto portfolio.

Ground Sign on Dupont: Legal

This sign is required to be setback by two feet from the Dupont Street streetline. The distance from the building to the streetline is in face less than 20 feet. Since the sign face is twenty feet across, a 10×20 sign cannot be built at this location and still comply with the by-law.

Ground Sign on Dovercourt: Illegally Oriented

Here’s where it gets interesting, and it always does with Pattison’s signs. The Signs By-Law in 1995 did not mandate separation distances for billboards that face different streets - that’s why a ground sign at this location was permitted to be erected even though it is within 60M of the sign on Dupont - since one sign faces Dupont and the other faces Dovercourt, the Buildings department issued a permit.

However, the Signs By-Law in 1995 did bar signs that “obstruct or otherwise interfere” with windows. This sign clearly obstructs windows, as you can see from the photograph on the right, and from this archival photo.

So here’s what happened: Pattison obtained a permit for a sign that does not obstruct windows then illegally changed the orientation of the ad-faces to increase visibility, in a manner that does obstruct windows. Take a look at engineer Len Maile’s Plan View (bird’s eye-view) diagram of the Dovercourt sign from the permit record:

As you can see, the permit mandates that the catwalks and ad-faces, are parallel to each other. The as-built orientation of the Dovercourt sign is therefore an illegal deviation from plan.

Conclusion: The destruction of 950 Dupont’s architectural integrity flowed from a post-bankruptcy cash grab. The fascia sign is illegal, the ground sign on Dupont is legal and the sign on Dovercourt is illegally oriented. A legal orientation of the ground sign and the removal of the fascia will improve the look of the building and increase space for first party signage.

It looks like we’re stuck with the ground signs until 950 Dupont is re-developed - or, until the G.H. Johnson Furniture store, which is currently using the building, realizes that it makes more sense to use that space to advertise the G.H. Johnson Furniture store, than beer and tuna. In fact, G.H. Johnson has serious a signage problem - you can drive right by 950 Dupont Street and have no idea that 950 Dupont is home to a furniture store, especially if you’re driving on Dovercourt.

Thanks to Joe Clark for the tip and, Joe, for taking photos, we recommend the artwork on the rear of the building.

Coming up in IllegalSigns.ca: why we think the two Pattison billboards at Ossington and Dupont are illegal.