North (formerly Thalmic Labs, now Google)

[kitborn]

This was painted on the side of the building adjacent to demolished Mayfair Hotel.

   

[Rainrider22]

This was painted on the side of the building adjacent to demolished Mayfair Hotel.

Looks cool

[KevinL]

Normally I'd object to that kind of space being made into a billboard, but given it's for a local company headquartered a block away I guess I'll keep quiet.

[Viewfromthe42]

Shouldn't this thread be renamed

North

or

North (formerly Thalmic Labs)

[danbrotherston]

Normally I'd object to that kind of space being made into a billboard, but given it's for a local company headquartered a block away I guess I'll keep quiet.

While I agree with what you say, I do want to point out the internal contradiction .

[Spokes]

Normally I'd object to that kind of space being made into a billboard, but given it's for a local company headquartered a block away I guess I'll keep quiet.

I think I'm ok with it because it seems to distract, just a little, from the vacant lot next to it.

[Lens]

But couldn't we have some actual art there instead? I do like that it's a local company and they're actually producing a product here but really, how many folks locally will even be able to afford them / want to purchase them? Though I guess it's more interesting than having nothing there.

[Chris]

But couldn't we have some actual art there instead? I do like that it's a local company and they're actually producing a product here but really, how many folks locally will even be able to afford them / want to purchase them? Though I guess it's more interesting than having nothing there.

I can't afford a Mercedes and don't want to purchase one, should we take down their billboards?

[ijmorlan]

But couldn't we have some actual art there instead? I do like that it's a local company and they're actually producing a product here but really, how many folks locally will even be able to afford them / want to purchase them? Though I guess it's more interesting than having nothing there.

All we need to do is leave it there for 100 years, then it will be historical and illegal to paint over or otherwise destroy!

Personally, I like locally-relevant painted murals like that. I don’t want to see national brands all over everything, but the occasional wall that refers to a local business is called “character”.

[Spokes]

But couldn't we have some actual art there instead? I do like that it's a local company and they're actually producing a product here but really, how many folks locally will even be able to afford them / want to purchase them? Though I guess it's more interesting than having nothing there.

Art would be great too, but this, I'd imagine isn't a long term solution.  Nor is the empty lot.

[Lens]

The difference for me isn't as much about it being an ad as it is painting a giant downtown wall. The temporary park that was pitched was shelved and the site has been an eyesore for a few years now. I would have liked to have seen a mural (or something/anything) there a long time ago but now all we get is a massive ad.

[tomh009]

The difference for me isn't as much about it being an ad as it is painting a giant downtown wall. The temporary park that was pitched was shelved and the site has been an eyesore for a few years now. I would have liked to have seen a mural (or something/anything) there a long time ago but now all we get is a massive ad.

The property owner would have had to pay for the creation and painting of a mural (maybe not inexpensive, given the size of the wall). In this scenario, North paid the property owner for painting the ad on the wall. Can you blame the owner?

[panamaniac]

But couldn't we have some actual art there instead? I do like that it's a local company and they're actually producing a product here but really, how many folks locally will even be able to afford them / want to purchase them? Though I guess it's more interesting than having nothing there.

Art would be great too, but this, I'd imagine isn't a long term solution.  Nor is the empty lot.

Such an optimist .... 

[Lens]

The property owner would have had to pay for the creation and painting of a mural (maybe not inexpensive, given the size of the wall). In this scenario, North paid the property owner for painting the ad on the wall. Can you blame the owner?

I'm sure the BIA and or the City could have contributed to the cost of a mural as both had/have an interest in seeing the site beautified and developed ASAP. Based on the owners other holdings I don't imagine the revenue from North paying for this would even make a drop in the bucket.

[tomh009]

The property owner would have had to pay for the creation and painting of a mural (maybe not inexpensive, given the size of the wall). In this scenario, North paid the property owner for painting the ad on the wall. Can you blame the owner?

I'm sure the BIA and or the City could have contributed to the cost of a mural as both had/have an interest in seeing the site beautified and developed ASAP. Based on the owners other holdings I don't imagine the revenue from North paying for this would even make a drop in the bucket.

If we want property owner X to spend money to beautify a neighbouring lot owned by property owner Y, then we better make some bylaws to force.

And if your neighbour's house is a run-down eyesort, will you then spend money to beautify it?