Raise the Hammer

As far as I know the land is owned by Loblaw Companies Ltd. we can come up with a long list of defects endangering pedestrians and those using mobility devices on their property.

You mean like the lack of any way to walk to the plaza sidewalk from Main other than walking in the driveway? Or that King involves crossing a driveway that looks like an uncontrolled offramp?

I like that our surrounding highways aren't littered with this

There are a few questions I have about this concept. For one is this going on the museum grounds which would be an eye-sore on a beautiful historical site. I'd like to see some photoshopped views of what this might look like and an overhead view of where this is proposed to go.

There are so many alternative things to do in this city aside from attending a game at one stadium.

So I guess First Ontario is next followed by the Casino, Hamilton Place, etc.

Huge advertising for a single coffee shop as well(single business period), when there are hundreds of great local alternatives. This goes back to my argument that the stadium should have a local name like Civic Stadium, and that that name be on the sign and not Tim Horton's. Advertise the city assets, not private corporate tenants/sponsors.

I'd love to discuss some home of the Ticats, Bulldogs, Cardinals, Mauraders, CFHOF, Gage Park, City of Waterfalls, etc. sign at our major gateways perhaps not unlike a Lion's Club type sign.

Something more inclusive and spread out among food, arts, and attractions if we need a sign, otherwise just make the view appealing and inviting enough to want to stop in.

Hamilton - Come on in!

Comment edited by lawrence on 2014-06-23 14:10:53

Wait, the Steam Museum grounds?

That's easily one of the prettiest municipal properties in the whole city. They'd better not screw it up for the darned stadium.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2014-06-23 15:05:30

"The Ticats sign could be an opportunity for a gateway promoting Hamilton, but is it worth the consequences?"

What are the negative consequences of allowing video screen billboards? Toronto has them along the highway, they don't seem to cause any problems there? I actually kind of like it as your driving in to Toronto, it feels "big city", I'd assume the city must benefit from some revenue, and when I'm driving I can either look at them or pay attention to the radio or something else so they really don't annoy or anything.

Is it an aesthetics thing? I can see how aesthetically speaking video billboards put inside the city proper should especially have to go through some kind of approval so they don't devalue the area around them somehow, but on the side of a highway it's something I just expect to see (and sometimes find useful even). But even video billboards within the city proper can still be pretty nice sometimes - e.g. Times Square.

Surely if the city were to throw out the bylaw they could replace it with something to ensure whatever negative consequences of merely allowing video billboards at all could be minimized.

I'm not trying to say there aren't any consequences or that I'm even for or against the billboard, I'm honestly just curious to know what these negative consequences are for video billboards, or for allowing video billboards in Hamilton more generally speaking.

The consequence is cancelling the sign bylaw and eliminating the City's ability to regulate video signage.

I'm not opposed to signage, I wish to ensure we have a bylaw that regulates them properly.

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.

perhaps they could do the unthinkable and update the bylaw. I know we love to maintain the same bylaws for centuries on end in Hamilton, but maybe this will force them to make some tweaking.

Ironically, this bylaw was updated in 2010, after a few years of review.

Approving a variance to the bylaw does nothing to negate/scrap the existing bylaw. With all due to respect, your entire article is based on a false premise.

Put simply, if Council were to approve this unique one-off proposal today, the bylaw would still be in place tomorrow.

Council must apply exceptions in a consistent manner, they are not allowed to play favourites with bylaws that regular land use and zoning.

If they make the exception for this sign, the reasons for exception must be applied for others seeking similar signage.

Council not granting similar variances is grounds for successful appeal.

Not many other private companies are knocking on the City's door looking to put up a sign with a massive City of Hamilton Logo and the name of a City owned facility for all to see.

Your run of the mill LED sign would not constitute "similar signage" in my opinion. But by all means, correct me if I am missing something here.

Want to take that chance in a court?

"Your run of the mill LED sign would not constitute "similar signage" in my opinion. But by all means, correct me if I am missing something here."

I am also curious in case Joey Coleman or anybody else knows the answers. Would these not constitute valid exceptions?

To Pxtl, based on the information I have so far, I would not see any basis for a law suit against the City.

Now if FirstOntario (as an example) proposed a similar gateway sign with a massive COH logo and the variance were denied, then they might have a case.

In my opinion, the standard signage you would see on the Gardiner, would not be an apples to apples compare to this sign.

Again, let me know if I am missing something...

Cool. Hopefully we get that bylaw that regulates them properly, it sounds like that's going to be the solution longer term anyways.

Related: The towering video billboard by the Main/New Tim's (across from Zizzo's) has recently been rebranded with a Ticat logo.

That will have to do until the video signage arrives for the Main/Dundurn & Main/Frid gateway. ;)

Thanks for bringing this issue up, Joey. I've started some internal discussions at the BNA about whether this could open up the door to bigger, uglier, and brighter advertisements in our neighbourhood, which already has its fair share (usually near Beasley's equally ugly and blighting surface parking lots).

We have to do some more research, but if playing favourites for the Ti-Cats is the thin edge of the wedge, then I could see residents being on board with enforcing the 2010 bylaw.