Historical Winnipeg discussion

[1ajs]

also cash grabs eliminated this

[biguc]

Originally Posted by esquire

I completely agree. Winnipeg of yesteryear was much more layered and textured... it wasn't like today where you have one entire block that functions as the provincial department of labour (or whatever) and nothing else. The signs spoke to that. In that picture of Graham Avenue, Winnipeg then looks like certain parts of megacities do now.

I guess in the 60s they thought it was progress to eliminate all of the signs as "visual clutter", but I think we can easily see how much was lost in the process.

They still do. Today, the city's planning policy justifies its anti-sign stance as somehow being pro-pedestrian. Because big signs are only made to appeal to drivers, not as a product of healthy competition.

[Urban recluse]

Hell no; just the opposite. I think the presence of many signs adds to the human scale of an urban environment.

[esquire]

Signs... hell yeah!



We had a bit of that going on at one point...







This one's a billboard, but anyone else remember this neon bad boy on Portage?

[Urban recluse]

That Main Street shot is one of the best I have ever seen; I love all those signs. I would love to see a return to this. Of course, the stunning buildings (which are gone) play a huge role in the beautiful vista...

[esquire]

^ Yeah, it's kind of mind boggling that probably up until the early 70s, North Main was just another downtown street, not quite as busy but not all that much different from Portage, with normal shops, restaurants and theatres lining it.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

Hell no; just the opposite. I think the presence of many signs adds to the human scale of an urban environment.

Agreed. I find an abundance of signs to be clearly Jacobsian--a sign of an organically flourishing and prospering human environment. AKA, a city.

As a pedestrian, large signs are arguably more important than they are to drivers. They inform us from blocks away where we can find Chinese food or beer. They become landmarks and waypoints we use to navigate the urban environment. A great example of this is Boston's excellent Citgo sign.



from https://www.bostonglobe.com/business...PRJ/story.html

[Urban recluse]

I'm getting wood.

[Bluenote]

Originally Posted by biguc

They still do. Today, the city's planning policy justifies its anti-sign stance as somehow being pro-pedestrian. Because big signs are only made to appeal to drivers, not as a product of healthy competition.

You would think they would want it more for cars. As people in cars now tend to just drive through DT. But if they seen a sign that maybe sparked their interest as it was a restaurant or shop they wanted something from. That may actually start bringing people DT to shop.

This city has been run by idiots since the 1960s

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Bluenote

You would think they would want it more for cars. As people in cars now tend to just drive through DT. But if they seen a sign that maybe sparked their interest as it was a restaurant or shop they wanted something from. That may actually start bringing people DT to shop.

This city has been run by idiots since the 1960s

No, we mustn't tell anyone what is inside the downtown buildings!

It's actually better now than it once was... Portage Place used to have virtually zero exterior signage to beckon people. Cityplace still has next to nothing. It's crazy.

[Jeff]

on the sign subject..

I was stopped on main st. northbound at portage and I was staring at the blank wall of the electric railway chambers. there is no excuse that that wall should be sitting there blank. a couple advertising banners draped down the building with the existing screen would make that square pop.

[Urban recluse]

One of many areas lacking vitality via signs.

[cllew]

I for one don't like seeing signs that are in disrepair.

Nothing looks worse visually than a sign at night that is partly dark because the owner does not want to pay to have a sign tech come out and put in a new bulb or fix the neon parts.

[Urban recluse]

That is true.

[1ajs]

Bee interesting to find out what cause the sift from the signs in our city was it nimby attitudes or a cash grab?

[Jeff]

Originally Posted by cllew

I for one don't like seeing signs that are in disrepair.

Nothing looks worse visually than a sign at night that is partly dark because the owner does not want to pay to have a sign tech come out and put in a new bulb or fix the neon parts.

this reminds me of, again, the electric railway chambers building. they've been turning its lights on lately and 80% of the bulbs are burnt out. It looks terrible. it's gotta be all or nothing with a building like that, otherwise it looks tacky and lazy.

[Urban recluse]

That is one building that should be showcased in all its glory.

[cllew]

Originally Posted by Urban recluse

That is one building that should be showcased in all its glory.

It was when it was owned by Helmut Sass of Triple S reality. They were the ones who cleaned it up and re-lamped back in around 2008/2009.

[CoryB]

Originally Posted by esquire

This one's a billboard, but anyone else remember this neon bad boy on Portage?

I don't remember it but it is obviously on the south side of Portage. Using the Bank of Montreal logo as a reference point the Gulf sign appears to between Vaughan and Kennedy. In terms of dates we can see a completed Richardson building which opened in 1969 and Gulf Canada went out of business in 1985 given about a 16 year range on which the picture could exist.

[dennis]

Due to the signage and cars, I do not think it was in the eighties.