Toronto Nathan Phillips Square + Spirit Garden | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

freshcutgrass said:
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. As a "branding" tool, the Toronto sign doesn't even rank with "Moose in the City", which was another cringingly stupid idea copied from another city, and the idea of another buffoon Toronto mayor.

And please explain how plopping down one of these "CITY" signs signifies we are an exciting city? It says the opposite to me, which is why the "hoodie" reference earlier.
Click to expand...

If you can't see the difference between the Moose in the City silliness and the Toronto sign, you're trying hard not to see it. As for the hoodie reference -- either you're making a snide comment about my daughters' UofT and Monarch Park hoodies and every other kid in high school and university right now, or a much more borderline offensive comment. I wouldn't keep referencing it.
 
freshcutgrass said:
As a "branding" tool, the Toronto sign doesn't even rank with "Moose in the City"
Click to expand...

The sign's mass popularity would seem to counter your point.

The branding here is actually quite brilliant. Toronto asserting itself. Toronto just being Toronto, unapologetically. No clichéed Canadiana images, no self-aggrandizing references to some other city, no over-wrought claims of anything. Just Toronto/ just 'Toronto'... literally. Simple. Interactive. Viral. Meaningful.

The Archer is pretty too.
 
With all due respect to the "elites", the city and its infrastructure is primarily for the enjoyment of its citizens, not a few dozen experts who think they are better than others. After all, it is the taxpayers who are paying for those, not the experts, who can feel free to build whatever suits their sophisticated taste with their own money to convey whatever idea they desire.

We like sign. Deal with it.
 
freshcutgrass said:
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. As a "branding" tool, the Toronto sign doesn't even rank with "Moose in the City", which was another cringingly stupid idea copied from another city, and the idea of another buffoon Toronto mayor.

And please explain how plopping down one of these "CITY" signs signifies we are an exciting city? It says the opposite to me, which is why the "hoodie" reference earlier.
Click to expand...

the hoodied masses enjoying themselves by the sign don't particularly care about what you think so I'm not sure why you're obsessed with them. you take the crotchety old man stereotype to a level approaching parody.
 
Well, we have at least one instance of someone attempting to consummate their passions in the O - so that got to count for something. Not sure if The Archer is too conducive to that - should have picked another Moore.

As to the sign itself - it may not be groundbreaking, but it is fun, and it sure is making the rounds in marketing the city - for that reason alone it should stay in some form.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I can love The Archer just like the Sign and feel like I'm not betraying the other ;)

But in this photo-obsessed, selfie time in history people like sculptures that they can interact with and take their photo with. Even elitists who don't wear hoodies have been known to take a selfie (in private).

The Archer doesn't have the same effect as Two Large Forms outside of the AGO that one or more people can lay down in. Plus, people love things that are very large scale now. So a massive, mirrored sculpture of Two Large Forms at the base of City Hall would have a similar effect as the Toronto Sign. But then we'd get accused of stealing the idea from Chicago's Cloud Gate.

So there is no winning here with people who can't enjoy something fun and interactive that's located in our own City. The main thing is 99.9% of people love it and tourists flock to see it like the CN Tower. That's all that really matters.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
As for the hoodie reference -- either you're making a snide comment about my daughters' UofT and Monarch Park hoodies and every other kid in high school and university right now, or a much more borderline offensive comment. I wouldn't keep referencing it.
Click to expand...

Look...if you can't grasp the metaphoric reference to the hoodie, then that isn't my problem. And I love your slightly shrouded racist accusation. You're a special kind of dishonest RRR. If you don't like the implications of my opinion of this Toronto sign, then that's just tough beans. There's only one juvenile resorting to name calling here...and that's you.
 
Everyone's had their ad hominem attacks? Time to move on.

42
 
freshcutgrass said:
Actually, it makes my point, thank you.

And you and I obviously have different ideas on what constitutes "brilliant".
Click to expand...

... so some rarefied and precious piece that appealed to an elite few would somehow be 'good branding'? I'm just not sure I'm following your reasoning.
 
Tewder said:
... so some rarefied and precious piece that appealed to an elite few would somehow be 'good branding'? I'm just not sure I'm following your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about The Archer???

50 years from now, do you think we will be talking about the Toronto sign? Obviously not. But we will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of The Archer. It just isn't a flavour-of-the-month thing anymore, but far more famous than the Toronto sign in its day and engaged far more people....people wrote songs about it for christ's sake. It has become an indelible icon of Toronto.

And like City Hall, it was a very big deal when introduced. As City Hall dragged Toronto kicking and screaming into the era of Modernism, The Archer did the same thing for abstract art. It wasn't just good art, it instigated a pivotal shift in what we now take for granted. That is the value of art.
 
The original Hollywoodland sign was supposed to be temporary (designed to last 18 months). As was the Eiffel Tower (had a permit to exist for 20 years at which time it was to be dismantled). It's next to impossible to predict now that the Toronto sign won't last well into the future, 50 or 300 years from now. It's iconic and artistic already, so it's likely to stay in some form or another; likely as a sturdier version meant to last.
 
Last edited:
freshcutgrass said:
I assume you are talking about The Archer???

50 years from now, do you think we will be talking about the Toronto sign? Obviously not. But we will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of The Archer. It just isn't a flavour-of-the-month thing anymore, but far more famous than the Toronto sign in its day and engaged far more people....people wrote songs about it for christ's sake. It has become an indelible icon of Toronto.

And like City Hall, it was a very big deal when introduced. As City Hall dragged Toronto kicking and screaming into the era of Modernism, The Archer did the same thing for abstract art. It wasn't just good art, it instigated a pivotal shift in what we now take for granted. That is the value of art.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about the Archer. My original point was about the Toronto Sign being brilliant branding, which you seemed to disagree with.

Whatever, I'm still not sure what your point is. It's not as though anyone is contemplating the removal of the Archer so as to make room for the Toronto sign. I'm happy the square has both. I hope one day a future generation will add something else that speaks to them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top