|
3. GRAFFITI MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS – MURAL
PROGRAM/LEGAL GRAFFITI WALL MONITORING AJOUTS AU
PROGRAMME DE GESTION DES GRAFFITIS – PROGRAMME DE MURALES/SURVEILLANCE DES
MURS DE GRAFFITIS LÉGAUX |
Transportation Committee RecommendationS
That Council
approve the following enhancements to
the Graffiti Management Program:
1. That the Public Works
Department facilitate mural activities to assist with graffiti prevention, as
outlined in this report.
2. That a Youth
Engagement Mural Program be established in partnership with Crime Prevention
Ottawa to support youth and community groups to implement murals in
neighbourhoods experiencing high incidence of graffiti vandalism, at an annual
cost of $50,000, subject to approval of funding in the 2010 Operating Budget.
3. That the General
Manager of Public Works be delegated the authority to expend funds from the
existing graffiti eradication operating budget for murals on City assets
provided that:
(a) a
cost benefit analysis has been completed and supports the mural as a graffiti
prevention mechanism;
(b) the
mural meets all requirements of applicable By-laws; and
(c) community
stakeholders have been consulted.
4. That the Chief
Building Official, Building Code Services Branch, of the Planning and Growth
Management Department, be delegated the authority to permit mural signs, under
the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439, that are located on
surfaces other than buildings, such as retaining walls, provided that:
(a) the proposed
mural sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found
in subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(b)
the surface on which the
proposed mural sign is to be placed has been the subject of incidents of
graffiti vandalism on a weekly or more frequent basis; and,
(c) the
owner of the property on which the proposed mural sign is to be placed and the relevant Ward Councillor
concur; and,
5. That the General
Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department be delegated the
authority to permit murals on certain structures located on a highway under the
Signs on City Roads By-law 2003-520 provided that:
(a) the
proposed mural is placed on a utility box, a retaining wall, a bridge underpass
or any other structure located within the highway that has been the subject of
graffiti vandalism;
(b) the proposed mural
sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found in
subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(c) the surface on which
the proposed mural is to be placed, has been the subject of incidents of
graffiti vandalism on a weekly or more frequent basis; and,
(c)
the owner of the structure on which the proposed mural
is to be placed, and the relevant Ward Councillor, concur.
6.
That the legal graffiti walls, located at the George
Dunbar Bridge and Ottawa Technical High School, as defined in Section 15 of the
Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1, continue to be exempt from the by-law and
that:
(a) the monitoring of the
Orleans Graffiti Wall, as defined in Section 15 of the Graffiti Management
By-law 2008-1, be extended for an additional one-year period; and,
(b)
no additional legal graffiti walls be implemented.
Community and Protective Services Committee RecommendationS AS
AMENDED
That Council
approve the following enhancements
to the Graffiti Management Program:
1. That
the Public Works Department facilitate mural activities to assist with graffiti
prevention, as outlined in this report.
2. That a Youth
Engagement Mural Program be established in partnership with Crime Prevention
Ottawa to support youth and community groups to implement murals in
neighbourhoods experiencing high incidence of graffiti vandalism, at an annual
cost of $50,000, subject to approval of funding in the 2010 Operating Budget.
3. That the General
Manager of Public Works be delegated the authority to expend funds from the
existing graffiti eradication operating budget for murals on City assets
provided that:
(a) a cost
benefit analysis has been completed and supports the mural as a graffiti
prevention mechanism;
(b) the mural
meets all requirements of applicable By-laws; and
(c) community
stakeholders have been consulted.
4. That the Chief
Building Official, Building Code Services Branch, of the Planning and Growth
Management Department, be delegated the authority to permit mural signs, under the Permanent Signs
on Private Property By-law 2005-439, that are located on surfaces other than
buildings, such as retaining walls, provided that:
(a) the proposed
mural sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found
in subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(b) the
owner of the property on which the proposed mural sign is to be placed and the relevant Ward Councillor
concur; and,
5. That the General
Manager of the Planning and Growth Management Department be delegated the
authority to permit murals on certain structures located on a highway under the
Signs on City Roads By-law 2003-520 provided that:
(a) the
proposed mural is placed on a utility box, a retaining wall, a bridge underpass
or any other structure located within the highway that has been the subject of
graffiti vandalism;
(b) the proposed mural
sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found in
subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(d)
the owner of the structure on which the proposed mural
is to be placed, and the relevant Ward Councillor, concur.
6.
That the legal graffiti walls, located at the George
Dunbar Bridge and Ottawa Technical High School, as defined in Section 15 of the
Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1, continue to be exempt from the by-law and
that:
(a) the
monitoring of the Orleans Graffiti Wall, as defined in Section 15 of the
Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1, be extended for an additional one-year
period; and,
(b)
no additional legal graffiti walls be implemented.
7. That
the following motion be referred to Council without recommendation:
Whereas the Keepsix Collective has submitted
a proposal for a mural on the buildings located at 326-348 Elgin St.;
Whereas this property has been subject to
ongoing tagging;
Whereas the proposed mural will
dramatically reduce the occurrence of tagging at this location;
Whereas the proposed mural will improve the
overall appearance of this property in a manner that reflects the local
character of the neighbourhood;
Whereas the subject building faces Jack
Purcell Community Centre and Jack Purcell Park;
Whereas the proposed mural has the
concurrence of both the property owner and the Ward Councillor;
Therefore be it resolved that the Community and Protective
Services Committee direct staff to:
1. Allow
the original mural design that was submitted to staff for 326-348 Elgin St.
2. Review
and update the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439 in order to
facilitate the placement of murals in commercial areas that reflect the local
character and flavour of area businesses.
RECOMMANDATIONS
DU COMITÉ des transports
Que le Conseil approuve les ajouts énumérés ci‑dessous au
Programme de gestion des graffitis :
1.
que
le Service des travaux publics favorise les projets de création de murales
comme moyens de prévention des graffitis, tels qu’ils sont définis dans le
présent rapport;
2.
qu’un
programme de murales par les jeunes soit mis sur pied en partenariat avec
Prévention du crime Ottawa afin d’appuyer les groupes de jeunes et
communautaires qui désirent créer des murales dans les quartiers aux prises
avec d’importants problèmes de vandalisme par graffitis, à un coût annuel de
50 000 $, sous réserve de l’approbation des crédits budgétaires
voulus dans le budget de fonctionnement de 2010;
3.
que
le directeur général de Travaux publics soit habilité à octroyer des fonds du
budget de fonctionnement actuel consacré à l’élimination des graffitis à la
création de murales sur des installations municipales, dans la mesure où :
a)
une
analyse coûts-avantages confirme que la murale est un mécanisme de prévention
des graffitis adéquat dans le contexte,
b)
la
murale proposée est conforme à toutes les exigences des règlements municipaux
applicables,
c)
les
parties intéressées de la collectivité ont été consultées à ce sujet;
4.
que
la chef des services des bâtiments, Services du code du bâtiment (Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance) soit habilitée à autoriser les enseignes murales
situées sur des surfaces autres que des bâtiments (des murs de soutènement, par
exemple), en vertu du Règlement no 2005‑439 sur les
enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées, dans la mesure où :
a) l’enseigne murale proposée respecte les
restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu publicitaire et à
l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3) ainsi qu’à
l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439 modifié,
b)
la
surface sur laquelle l’enseigne murale sera installée est la cible d’incidents
de vandalisme par graffitis de façon hebdomadaire ou plus souvent,
c)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
5. que le directeur général du Service de
l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance soit habilité à autoriser la création de murales sur
certaines structures situées dans l’emprise d’une voie publique, en vertu du
Règlement no 2003-520 concernant les enseignes sur les routes
de la Ville, dans la mesure où :
a)
la
murale proposée sera située sur un boîtier d’installations de services publics,
un mur de soutènement, le passage inférieur d’un pont ou toute autre structure
se trouvant dans l’emprise de la voie publique et ayant été la cible de
vandalisme par graffitis,
b)
la
murale proposée respecte les restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu
publicitaire et à l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3) ainsi
qu’à l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439 modifié,
c)
la
surface sur laquelle la murale sera installée est la cible d’incidents de
vandalisme par graffitis de façon hebdomadaire ou plus souvent,
d)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
6. que les murs de graffitis légaux situés
sous le pont George Dunbar et sur la propriété de l’Ottawa Technical High
School, tels qu’ils sont définis au paragraphe 15 du Règlement no 2008‑1
sur le contrôle des graffitis, continuent à être exemptés de l’application du
Règlement et :
a) que la surveillance de l’utilisation
qui est faite du mur de graffitis d’Orléans, tel qu’il est défini au
paragraphe 15 du Règlement no 2008‑1 sur le contrôle
des graffitis, soit prolongée d’un an;
b)
qu’aucun
autre mur de graffitis légaux ne soit créé.
Comité des services communautaires et de protection RecommandationS
MODIFIÉES DU Comité
Que le Conseil approuve les ajouts énumérés ci‑dessous au Programme de gestion des graffitis :
1.
que
le Service des travaux publics favorise les projets de création de murales
comme moyens de prévention des graffitis, tels qu’ils sont définis dans le
présent rapport;
2.
qu’un
programme de murales par les jeunes soit mis sur pied en partenariat avec
Prévention du crime Ottawa afin d’appuyer les groupes de jeunes et
communautaires qui désirent créer des murales dans les quartiers aux prises
avec d’importants problèmes de vandalisme par graffitis, à un coût annuel de
50 000 $, sous réserve de l’approbation des crédits budgétaires
voulus dans le budget de fonctionnement de 2010;
3.
que
le directeur général de Travaux publics soit habilité à octroyer des fonds du
budget de fonctionnement actuel consacré à l’élimination des graffitis à la
création de murales sur des installations municipales, dans la mesure où :
a)
une
analyse coûts-avantages confirme que la murale est un mécanisme de prévention
des graffitis adéquat dans le contexte,
b)
la
murale proposée est conforme à toutes les exigences des règlements municipaux
applicables,
c)
les
parties intéressées de la collectivité ont été consultées à ce sujet;
4.
que
la chef des services des bâtiments, Services du code du bâtiment (Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance) soit habilitée à autoriser les enseignes murales situées
sur des surfaces autres que des bâtiments (des murs de soutènement, par
exemple), en vertu du Règlement no 2005‑439 sur les
enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées, dans la mesure où :
a) l’enseigne murale
proposée respecte les restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu
publicitaire et à l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3)
ainsi qu’à l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439
modifié,
d)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
5. que le directeur général du Service de
l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la croissance soit habilité à autoriser la création de murales sur
certaines structures situées dans l’emprise d’une voie publique, en vertu du
Règlement no 2003-520 concernant les enseignes sur les routes
de la Ville, dans la mesure où :
a)
la
murale proposée sera située sur un boîtier d’installations de services publics,
un mur de soutènement, le passage inférieur d’un pont ou toute autre structure
se trouvant dans l’emprise de la voie publique et ayant été la cible de
vandalisme par graffitis,
b)
la
murale proposée respecte les restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu
publicitaire et à l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3) ainsi
qu’à l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439 modifié,
c)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
6. que les murs de graffitis
légaux situés sous le pont George Dunbar et sur la propriété de l’Ottawa
Technical High School, tels qu’ils sont définis au paragraphe 15 du
Règlement no 2008‑1 sur le contrôle des graffitis,
continuent à être exemptés de l’application du Règlement et :
a) que la surveillance de l’utilisation qui
est faite du mur de graffitis d’Orléans, tel qu’il est défini au
paragraphe 15 du Règlement no 2008‑1 sur le contrôle
des graffitis, soit prolongée d’un an;
b)
qu’aucun
autre mur de graffitis légaux ne soit créé.
7. Que la motion suivante soit
présentée au Conseil sans recommandation :
Attendu que le Collectif Keepsix a déposé une
proposition pour réaliser une murale sur les édifices du 326 et du 348 de la
rue Elgin;
Attendu que ces propriétés ont été constamment
vandalisées par les graffiteurs;
Attendu que la murale proposée réduira de façon
importante les autres graffitis à cet endroit;
Attendu que la murale proposée améliorera
l’aspect global de cette propriété de façon à refléter le caractère propre du
quartier;
Attendu que l’édifice visé fait face au Centre
communautaire Jack Purcell et au parc Jack Purcell;
Attendu que la murale proposée a reçu
l’approbation du propriétaire des édifices et du conseiller du quartier;
En conséquence, il est résolu que le Comité des
services communautaires et de protection demande au personnel de :
1.
Permettre la réalisation de la murale originale qui a été déposée au
personnel sur les édifices du 326 et du 348 de la rue Elgin;
2.
Réviser et de mettre à jour le Règlement
régissant les enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés
privées 2005-439, afin de faciliter la
réalisation de murales dans les zones commerciales, qui reflètent le caractère propre et la
saveur des commerces du quartier.
Documentation
1.
Deputy
City Manager's report, City Operations dated 29 June 2009
(ACS2009-COS-PWS-0013).
2. Extract of Draft Minutes, 3 September 2009
will be distributed prior to Council.
Comité des transports
and/et
Community and Protective Services Committee
Comité des services communautaires et de protection
and Council/et au Conseil
Steve Kanellakos, Deputy City Manager/Directeur municipal adjoint
City Operations/Opérations municipales
Contact Person/Personne ressource:
John
Manconi, General Manager, Public Works/Services des travaux publics
613-580-2424
x 21110, john.manconi@ottawa.ca
Contact
Person/Personne ressource:
Susan
Jones, General Manager, Emergency and Protective Services /Services de
protection et d’urgence
613-580-2424
x 25536, susan.jones@ottawa.ca
That the Transportation Committee and the Community and Protective
Services Committee recommend Council approve the following enhancements to the
Graffiti Management Program:
1. That the Public Works Department
facilitate mural activities to assist with graffiti prevention, as outlined in
this report.
2. That a Youth Engagement Mural Program
be established in partnership with Crime Prevention Ottawa to support youth and
community groups to implement murals in neighbourhoods experiencing high
incidence of graffiti vandalism, at an annual cost of $50,000, subject to
approval of funding in the 2010 Operating Budget.
3. That the General Manager of Public
Works be delegated the authority to expend funds from the existing graffiti
eradication operating budget for murals on City assets provided that:
(a) a cost
benefit analysis has been completed and supports the mural as a graffiti
prevention mechanism;
(b) the mural
meets all requirements of applicable By-laws; and
(c) community
stakeholders have been consulted.
4. That the Chief Building Official,
Building Code Services Branch, of the Planning and Growth Management
Department, be delegated the authority to permit mural signs, under the
Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439, that are located on
surfaces other than buildings, such as retaining walls, provided that:
(a) the proposed
mural sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found
in subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(c)
the surface on which the
proposed mural sign is to be placed has been the subject of incidents of
graffiti vandalism on a weekly or more frequent basis; and,
(c) the
owner of the property on which the proposed mural sign is to be placed and the relevant Ward Councillor
concur; and,
5. That the General Manager of the
Planning and Growth Management Department be delegated the authority to permit
murals on certain structures located on a highway under the Signs on City Roads
By-law 2003-520 provided that:
(a) the
proposed mural is placed on a utility box, a retaining wall, a bridge underpass
or any other structure located within the highway that has been the subject of
graffiti vandalism;
(b) the proposed mural
sign complies with the size, advertising and location restrictions found in
subsections 123(1) and (3) and Section 124 of By-law 2005-439, as amended;
(c) the surface on which
the proposed mural is to be placed, has been the subject of incidents of
graffiti vandalism on a weekly or more frequent basis; and,
(e)
the owner of the structure on which the proposed mural
is to be placed, and the relevant Ward Councillor, concur.
6.
That the legal graffiti walls, located at the George
Dunbar Bridge and Ottawa Technical High School, as defined in Section 15 of the
Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1, continue to be exempt from the by-law and
that:
(a) the monitoring of the
Orleans Graffiti Wall, as defined in Section 15 of the Graffiti Management
By-law 2008-1, be extended for an additional one-year period; and,
(c)
no additional legal graffiti walls be implemented.
Que le Comité des
transports et le Comité des services communautaires et de protection
recommandent au Conseil d’approuver les ajouts énumérés ci‑dessous au
Programme de gestion des graffitis :
5.
que
le Service des travaux publics favorise les projets de création de murales
comme moyens de prévention des graffitis, tels qu’ils sont définis dans le
présent rapport;
6.
qu’un
programme de murales par les jeunes soit mis sur pied en partenariat avec
Prévention du crime Ottawa afin d’appuyer les groupes de jeunes et
communautaires qui désirent créer des murales dans les quartiers aux prises avec
d’importants problèmes de vandalisme par graffitis, à un coût annuel de
50 000 $, sous réserve de l’approbation des crédits budgétaires
voulus dans le budget de fonctionnement de 2010;
7.
que
le directeur général de Travaux publics soit habilité à octroyer des fonds du
budget de fonctionnement actuel consacré à l’élimination des graffitis à la
création de murales sur des installations municipales, dans la mesure où :
a)
une
analyse coûts-avantages confirme que la murale est un mécanisme de prévention
des graffitis adéquat dans le contexte,
b)
la
murale proposée est conforme à toutes les exigences des règlements municipaux
applicables,
c)
les
parties intéressées de la collectivité ont été consultées à ce sujet;
8.
que
la chef des services des bâtiments, Services du code du bâtiment (Urbanisme et
Gestion de la croissance) soit habilitée à autoriser les enseignes murales
situées sur des surfaces autres que des bâtiments (des murs de soutènement, par
exemple), en vertu du Règlement no 2005‑439 sur les
enseignes permanentes sur les propriétés privées, dans la mesure où :
a) l’enseigne murale proposée respecte les
restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu publicitaire et à
l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3) ainsi qu’à
l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439 modifié,
b)
la
surface sur laquelle l’enseigne murale sera installée est la cible d’incidents
de vandalisme par graffitis de façon hebdomadaire ou plus souvent,
c)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
5. que
le directeur général du Service de l’urbanisme et de la gestion de la
croissance soit habilité à autoriser la
création de murales sur certaines structures situées dans l’emprise d’une voie
publique, en vertu du Règlement no 2003-520 concernant les
enseignes sur les routes de la Ville, dans la mesure où :
a)
la
murale proposée sera située sur un boîtier d’installations de services publics,
un mur de soutènement, le passage inférieur d’un pont ou toute autre structure
se trouvant dans l’emprise de la voie publique et ayant été la cible de
vandalisme par graffitis,
b)
la
murale proposée respecte les restrictions relatives à la superficie, au contenu
publicitaire et à l’emplacement prévues aux paragraphes 123(1) et (3) ainsi
qu’à l’article 124 du Règlement no 2005‑439 modifié,
c)
la
surface sur laquelle la murale sera installée est la cible d’incidents de
vandalisme par graffitis de façon hebdomadaire ou plus souvent,
d)
le
propriétaire de la surface en question et le conseiller du quartier où elle se
trouve s’entendent sur le projet à réaliser;
6. que
les murs de graffitis légaux situés sous le pont George Dunbar et sur la
propriété de l’Ottawa Technical High School, tels qu’ils sont définis au
paragraphe 15 du Règlement no 2008‑1 sur le contrôle
des graffitis, continuent à être exemptés de l’application du Règlement
et :
a) que la surveillance de l’utilisation
qui est faite du mur de graffitis d’Orléans, tel qu’il est défini au
paragraphe 15 du Règlement no 2008‑1 sur le contrôle
des graffitis, soit prolongée d’un an;
c)
qu’aucun
autre mur de graffitis légaux ne soit créé.
Assumptions
and Analysis
The Graffiti Management Strategy is a partnership between the City of Ottawa’s Public Works Department, the By-law and Regulatory Services Branch (BLRS), and the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). This collaborative, multi-faceted approach to managing graffiti has been in operation since 2003. Council approved the enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy on May 23, 2007. At that time, Council directed staff to investigate a program similar to the City of Toronto’s Graffiti Transformation Program, and to monitor and report back on the efficacy of the legal graffiti walls in deterring graffiti.
This report
provides an update on the Graffiti Management
Program, recommends enhancements to the mural and legal graffiti wall
components, and provides results from monitoring the City’s three legal
graffiti walls.
Specifically, the
report discusses the results of consultation, best practice research, and
monitoring of the City’s three existing legal graffiti walls; and seeks
approvals for a number of enhancements to further develop a mural program.
Through consultation, there was a strong consensus that a mural program should invest funds to support mural development in communities experiencing high rates of graffiti vandalism and to provide meaningful employment opportunities for at-risk youth.
Based on extensive stakeholder consultation and best practice research,
this report recommends three enhancements for inclusion in the Graffiti
Management Strategy with regards to the development of an enhanced Mural
Program. The proposed enhancements are
the implementation of a Youth Engagement Mural Program, the installation of
murals on frequently targeted City property through the existing
graffiti eradication budget, and providing delegated authority to staff to
allow murals on other frequently graffitied surfaces.
Results of monitoring the three existing legal graffiti
walls for a one-year period indicate that the legal graffiti walls do not
reduce graffiti by providing a legal location. However, two (House of Paint and
Tech Wall) are long established legal graffiti wall locations with a focus on
urban art versus “tagging” and the urban art communities are actively engaged
in organized programming on them. The two aforementioned walls have strong
support from the community and provide an opportunity to engage the urban art
community to share messages to reduce graffiti vandalism. This report recommends that these two
locations remain as legal graffiti walls. The Orleans wall is a pilot project
on a wooden structure located in a skateboard park and provides an opportunity
for less experienced graffiti artists to tag in a legal environment. While City
staff and the OPS do not support a permanent exemption for this wall, the Ward
Councillor does not support its removal at this time and therefore an extension
of the pilot for a one -year
period is recommended. Further, it is recommended that no additional legal
graffiti walls be established.
Financial
Implications
The financial implications associated with the
enhancements to the Graffiti Management Program include:
0
·
$50,000
in operating funds for the administration of a Youth
Engagement Mural Program. This additional requirement
will be incorporated into the 2010 Draft Budget for Council’s consideration and
approval.
· Operating funds exist within the graffiti eradication budget that can be applied to the installation of murals on City assets.
Public
Consultation/Input
Consultation with
external stakeholders has been and continues to be a key success factor in the
development of the Graffiti Management Program. Staff has consulted extensively
with a variety of internal and external stakeholders and input has been used to
develop the proposed program as discussed in this report.
Hypothèses et analyse :
La Stratégie de gestion des graffitis est un
partenariat entre le Service des travaux publics de la Ville d’Ottawa, la
Direction des services des règlements municipaux et le Service de police
d’Ottawa. Cette démarche concertée à plusieurs volets visant à régler la
question des graffitis a été adoptée en 2003. Le 23 mai 2007, le Conseil a
approuvé une stratégie municipale étendue de gestion des graffitis. À l’époque,
il avait chargé le personnel d’examiner une mesure similaire au Graffiti
Transformation Program mis en place par la Ville de Toronto, ainsi que de
surveiller l’efficacité des murs légaux pour dissuader les graffiteurs et de
rendre compte de ses conclusions.
Ce rapport présente une mise à jour du Programme de gestion des graffitis,
formule des recommandations en vue d’améliorer les volets concernant les
murales et les murs de graffitis légaux et expose les conclusions découlant de
la surveillance des trois murs où les graffitis sont autorisés par la Ville.
Il traite en particulier des résultats de la consultation, de la
recherche sur les pratiques exemplaires ainsi que de la surveillance des trois
murs de graffitis légaux existants et soumet à des fins d’approbation un
certain nombre d’ajouts en vue de la mise sur pied d’un programme de murales.
Tout au long de la consultation, on s’est accordé
à dire qu’un programme de murales devrait financer la réalisation de murales
dans les quartiers aux prises avec d’importants problèmes de vandalisme par
graffitis et la création de possibilités d’emploi intéressantes pour les jeunes
à risque.
À la lumière des
vastes consultations menées auprès des parties intéressées et de la recherche
sur les pratiques exemplaires, ce rapport recommande trois ajouts à la
Stratégie de gestion des graffitis en ce qui a trait à la mise sur pied d’un
programme de murales étendu : mettre en place un programme de murales par
les jeunes; créer des murales sur les installations municipales les plus visées
par les graffiteurs en puisant dans le budget de fonctionnement actuellement consacré
à l’élimination des graffitis; et habiliter le personnel à autoriser la
création de murales sur des surfaces qui sont souvent la cible des graffiteurs.
Il ressort de la surveillance pendant un an des
trois murs de graffitis légaux actuels que ces murs ne réussissent pas à
dissuader les graffiteurs même s’ils fournissent un endroit où les graffitis sont
autorisés. Toutefois, deux de ces murs légaux sont établis de longue date
(House of Paint et mur Tech) et sont consacrés à l’art urbain plutôt qu’aux
tags et la communauté des arts urbains gère activement la nature des graffitis
qui y sont faits. Ces deux murs, qui sont très bien perçus par les résidents,
permettent à la communauté des arts urbains de faire passer des messages visant
à réduire le vandalisme par graffitis.
Le rapport recommande le maintien de ces deux
murs de graffitis légaux. Le mur d’Orléans, pour sa part, est un projet pilote.
Monté sur une structure en bois située sur un terrain de planches à roulettes,
il permet aux graffiteurs novices de faire des tags en toute légalité. Bien que
le personnel de la Ville et celui du Service de police soient d’avis que ce mur
ne devrait pas faire l’objet d’une exemption permanente, le conseiller du
quartier s’oppose à son retrait pour l’instant, de sorte qu’une prolongation
d’un an du projet pilote est préconisée. De plus, le rapport recommande qu’aucun
autre mur de graffitis légaux ne soit créé.
Répercussions financières :
Les répercussions
financières liées à ces ajouts au Programme de gestion des graffitis sont les
suivants :
·
50 000 $ en fonds de fonctionnement devraient
être consacrés à l’administration du programme de murales par les jeunes. Ces demandes
supplémentaires seront ajoutées aux prévisions budgétaires de 2010 en vue de
leur examen et de leur approbation par le Conseil;
·
des fonds de fonctionnement prévus dans le budget consacré à l’élimination des
graffitis peuvent servir à la création de murales sur les installations
municipales.
Consultation publique / commentaires
:
La consultation des parties intéressées externes est depuis le début un
facteur clé de la mise sur pied du Programme de gestion des graffitis. Le
personnel s’est entretenu abondamment avec diverses parties intéressées à
l’interne et à l’externe, et le programme, sous la forme proposée dans ce
rapport, est fortement inspiré de leurs commentaires.
The Graffiti Management Strategy is a partnership between the City’s Public Works Department, By-law and Regulatory Services Branch (BLRS), and the Ottawa Police Service (OPS). It is a collaborative, multi-faceted approach to managing graffiti, based on the widely recognized “4E” model of Eradication, Empowerment, Education and Enforcement. The enhanced Graffiti Management Strategy was approved by Council on May 23, 2007 and subsequently endorsed during the 2008 budget process. In 2007, Council also directed as follows:
· That staff investigate a program similar to the City of Toronto’s Graffiti Transformation Program where unemployed youth and community groups work in problem areas to create a mural
· That staff monitor the existing “legal walls” and report back to Committee in one year on their status and effectiveness in deterring graffiti.
The purpose of this report is to provide an
update on the Graffiti Management Program, recommend enhancements to the
mural and legal graffiti wall components, and provide results from monitoring
the City of Ottawa’s three legal graffiti walls.
The goals of the Graffiti Management Strategy are to:
·
Achieve a clean, safe and beautiful city with a reduction in
overall visible graffiti
·
Foster greater community pride and economic prosperity for
residents and businesses
·
Encourage civic pride and participation in graffiti reduction
·
Engage multiple stakeholders to maximize benefits.
In accordance with Council direction, the following initiatives have been implemented.
The core of the Graffiti
Management Program is the “eradication” component of the 4E model. In 2008, the
City’s Graffiti Removal Crew and external contractors removed 39,471 graffiti
tags from City assets. This represents
a 50% increase over 2007. In addition
to responding to service requests from the public, proactive graffiti removal
in 2008 included a two-month city-wide blitz to remove historical graffiti on
all City assets, the addition of five new zero tolerance zones, and increased
promotion of citizen reporting. In
March 2009, Council approved the addition of one City crew to achieve a cost
savings of $60,000.
|
Year |
Number of Calls |
Number of Pieces of Graffiti Removed |
|
2004 |
265 |
9,000 |
|
2005 |
425 |
12,465 |
|
2006 |
1,099 |
20,453 |
|
2007 |
940 |
26,347 |
|
2008* |
1,218 |
39,471 |
The education component of the 4E model is powerful because it focuses on prevention. An enhanced website is available at ottawa.ca/graffiti and includes: detailed information on the impact of graffiti, prevention and removal tips, tips for parents who are suspicious of their children being involved in graffiti, links to local product vendors and removal companies, information on citizen reporting of graffiti, and an online reporting feature. Residents can also submit general inquiries via email to graffiti.management@ottawa.ca.
Magnets encouraging the public to report graffiti, and a pamphlet providing information about Prevention, Removal and Reporting are also available at City facilities and Client Service Centres, and are actively distributed by BLRS and OPS staff in their role with the Graffiti Management Strategy. City staff and the OPS also share information about the Graffiti Management Strategy with teachers, at community meetings, and at public events.
A public symposium was held in March 2008 to share graffiti prevention and removal tips with private and business property owners. Over 100 participants had the opportunity to learn more about: cost effective graffiti removal and prevention techniques, how to keep neighbourhoods graffiti-free, the responsibilities and consequences of the new Graffiti Management By-law, and Public Art and its role in graffiti management. The event included an on-site trade show featuring local graffiti removal contractors, graffiti removal product suppliers, and representatives from the graffiti and urban art communities.
Annual Graffiti Grants to
Business Improvement Areas (BIAs)
Each of the City of Ottawa’s 15 BIAs is eligible to access a $10,000 annual grant to assist with graffiti removal and prevention on member businesses. In 2008, 13 BIAs participated in this program, spending $108,000 to remove approximately 4,000 graffiti tags.
In 2008, over 310 volunteer individuals and groups received training, equipment and supplies to assist with community-based graffiti clean-ups. The program is supported by sponsors who donate cleaning supplies. In addition, over 30 youth completed graffiti removal through the Diversion Program in an effort to redirect youth involved in graffiti crimes to more productive opportunities.
The development and implementation of graffiti management activities are carried out in consultation with over 50 internal and external graffiti stakeholders. The membership of the Stakeholder Committees is included in Document 1.
The Public Awareness campaign
strongly encourages the regular reporting of graffiti by the public. This has lead to an increase in the number
of graffiti reports to the City. To
ensure an effective reporting process, residents, Councillors, and City staff
are encouraged to report graffiti by calling 3-1-1 or by using the new online
reporting feature at ottawa.ca/graffiti.
In 2008, the City received over 3,000 public requests for graffiti
removal on City and external assets, and 1,700 such requests in relation to
private property.
Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1
The by-law was enacted on January 9, 2008. Proactive enforcement began on May 20, 2008. In 2008, BLRS issued over 700 Notices of Violation to property owners requesting that graffiti be removed from their property within a specified time frame. Ninety-five percent of recipients of Notices of Violation voluntarily complied with the request for graffiti removal from their property.
The OPS and BLRS laid approximately 30 charges
under the by-law against graffiti vandals.
The OPS and BLRS have educated all of their front line officers
on the by-law and indicators related to identifying potential graffiti vandals.
In addition to these initiatives, this report provides recommendations for further enhancements to the Graffiti Management Program in the areas of murals and legal graffiti walls to assist with graffiti prevention.
Murals are large-scale artworks done, with permission of the property owner, either directly on the wall or attached to it. Graffiti vandals respect art, so they generally don’t tag it. Outdoor murals have proven to be effective in managing graffiti vandalism, enhancing beautification, supporting arts and culture, contributing to economic development, and providing youth engagement opportunities.
The City of Ottawa currently offers the following support to community members wishing to complete murals for the purpose of graffiti prevention:
· Outdoor murals in the City of Ottawa are regulated under the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439. In June 2008, Council approved amendments to this by-law to reduce barriers and enable outdoor murals. The amendments included: removing fees and permit requirements, allowing murals in areas zoned institutional, and significantly increasing the allowable size parameters.
· In May 2007, Council approved a $10,000 annual grant to each of the City’s 15 BIAs to assist with graffiti removal and prevention as well as for the implementation of murals. In 2008, 13 BIAs used the funding for graffiti eradication. None of the BIAs put the grant monies towards the implementation of murals; however, many have indicated an interest in doing so in the future.
· Murals may currently receive funding through the following existing programs: City of Ottawa “Business Improvement Area (BIA) Graffiti Grant Program”, City of Ottawa “Arts Funding Program”, City of Ottawa “Non-Renewable Community Project Funding”, and Canada Council for the Arts “Community and Professional Artists Collaborative/Partnership Projects”.
· Mural artists will soon be able to register at ottawa.ca/mural to join a list of mural artists available to property owners wishing to complete a mural and property owners will be able to register their property with an inventory for potential murals locations.
Legal graffiti walls are areas designated for
legal graffiti activity. The theory behind legal graffiti walls is that if
graffiti vandals are given an opportunity to do graffiti in an approved area,
they will stop tagging other areas.
However, this has not proven to be the case due largely to the fact that
graffiti is not carried out for artistic purposes. When a legal graffiti wall is covered in tags, graffiti vandals
look at adjacent areas to tag (also known as ‘creep’). This results in graffiti
vandals using unauthorized areas, increasing graffiti in the surrounding
community.
Data also shows no decrease in prosecutions for graffiti in cities
where there are legal graffiti walls.
This is because graffiti is not carried out for artistic purposes. In the eyes of the vandal, graffiti must be
illegal to be ‘real’. In most cases,
the same graffiti writer who has tagged property illegally has then placed a
piece with the same tag on a legal graffiti wall.
Legal graffiti walls may encourage graffiti crime and allow graffiti vandals to gain experience and exposure for their tags. The legal walls send a mixed message to graffiti vandals that further erodes any measures in place to curb graffiti crime because they feel that the City endorses graffiti. The experience of the City of Ottawa, and OPS with local legal graffiti walls, showed that graffiti spilled over into the community and was not contained to the target area.
On May 23, 2007, Council approved an exemption for each of the three existing legal graffiti walls - at the George Dunbar Bridge on Bronson Avenue (House of Paint), the former Ottawa Technical High School on Slater Street (Tech Wall), and the Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex in Orléans (Orléans Wall) in the Graffiti Management By-law. Council also directed staff to monitor these legal graffiti walls and report back to Committee on their status and effectiveness in reducing graffiti.
While skateboard parks have not been designated as legal graffiti walls in the Graffiti Management By-law, due to the nature of some skateboard park users, Council suggested a preference that graffiti will be tolerated on the skating surface. Graffiti continues however to be removed on any adjacent assets including benches and litterbins. It is proposed that this practice continue, but that staff consider options to reduce graffiti creep into neighbouring communities.
All three of Ottawa’s legal graffiti wall sites are in Zero Tolerance Zones. Due
to the proactive removal of graffiti in those zones, City assets in the
vicinity of these walls are visited regularly and graffiti is removed quickly,
resulting in a reduction of visible graffiti in the area. Therefore, any
graffiti on City assets in Zero Tolerance Zones is likely new graffiti.
Former Ottawa Technical High
School Legal Graffiti Wall (Tech Wall)
The former Ottawa Technical High
School legal graffiti wall is located at the Albert Street Education Centre on
Slater Street. There are no signs posted at the site indicating the boundaries
of the legal space. In addition, there are no signs indicating where graffiti
is not allowed. Further, the wall is in
a Zero Tolerance Area, so City assets, in the vicinity, are visited frequently
and graffiti is removed quickly. The
wall is in a very high visibility area along the downtown transitway and Slater
Street. This is part of its appeal to artists; unfortunately, this also
attracts graffiti vandals to the surrounding area.
The open space area adjacent to
the wall is known locally as Piece Park and local urban artists have been using
the space since the early 1990's.
In addition, the Tech Wall is identified in the Escarpment
Area District Plan. The Plan was commissioned by the City of Ottawa in January
2006, and prepared in cooperation with various stakeholders. Completed in February 2007, a section
dedicated to the Tech Wall mentions: "A key objective of this study is
to formally recognize the recreation grounds as a formal City park, while
preserving and enhancing the many successful community amenities that have
grown organically on this site.
Retaining the concrete canvas of the Tech Wall as an integral component of
the proposed Central Park is a strategy towards ensuring that the proposed
space continues to serve the broad spectrum of residents in and around the
neighbourhood."
George Dunbar Bridge Legal
Graffiti Wall (House of Paint)
The House of Paint legal graffiti
wall is located on the north abutment underneath the George Dunbar Bridge on
Bronson Avenue near Carleton University. It is unique because it is in a
secluded area and is not visible from any residential area or local road. Its location, under a bridge, provides
year-round shelter from the elements. The site was being used for graffiti soon
after the bridge was rebuilt in the 1990's. At that time, the isolation of the
site did not create an immediate problem.
However, as the popularity of the site increased, the cost of cleaning
the graffiti increased to a point where a legal graffiti wall was deemed
beneficial to reduce cleaning costs while providing graffitiists with legal space.
Since 2003, when the wall was
initially sanctioned by the City as a legal graffiti wall, an annual dance,
music and art festival has been held at this location. This event has grown in
size and popularity each year and organizers have taken responsibility for
promoting the proper use of the legal wall, and cleaning up after each event.
Bob MacQuarrie Recreation
Complex Legal Graffiti Wall (Orléans Wall)
The Orléans legal graffiti wall is located in the skateboard park at the Bob MacQuarrie Recreation Complex. It is not located on a structure but rather, it is a freestanding graffiti board. It was implemented in 2007, as a one-year pilot project, through a community initiative. The Orléans wall provides an opportunity for less experienced graffiti artists to complete tags in a legal environment. There is no programming by the graffiti or urban arts communities at this location.
This report responds to Council’s direction to consider a Graffiti
Prevention Mural Program for the City of Ottawa and to report back on the
results of monitoring the existing three legal graffiti walls. It discusses the results of consultation,
best practice research and monitoring, and seeks approval for enhancements, and
the continued development of the program.
Graffiti Prevention Mural
Program
Staff has conducted extensive stakeholder consultation and reviewed best practices of major North American cities in the development of the Graffiti Prevention Mural Program for the City of Ottawa (Document 2).
The purpose of stakeholder consultation was to seek input on the Mural Program (Document 3). A variety of different consultation initiatives were developed and delivered to identify and assess the current needs, benefits, barriers, risks, financial implications and priorities for developing and implementing a mural program in the City of Ottawa. Internal and external stakeholders were consulted on the recommended mural program components. In addition, representatives of City of Ottawa departments, who are subject area experts, were engaged to determine leadership, and delegate responsibility, for developing and implementing various components of the mural program.
Consultation results determined that a mural program should:
·
Contribute
to the overall reduction of graffiti in the City of Ottawa
·
Invest
funds to support mural development in communities and neighbourhoods
experiencing high rates of graffiti vandalism
·
Provide
meaningful engagement opportunities for at-risk youth
·
Support
the Official Plan principles of:
o A Creative City Rich in Heritage, Unique in Identity
o Culture in Every Community
o Clean and Green City.
In accordance with Council direction, staff reviewed the City of Toronto’s Graffiti Transformation Program and, in order to capitalize further on the experience of other cities, staff also conducted best practice research on mural programs in North America, including Halifax, Vancouver, New York City, and Philadelphia.
It can generally be stated that the following components have become best practices in mural programs with the objective of reducing graffiti:
·
Development of community supports to facilitate mural development by community
members
·
Coordination of one point of contact to support community groups
·
Inclusion of youth leadership and education components
·
Consultation and engagement of members of the community
·
Development and maintenance of a network of available artists
·
Maintenance of strong connections with youth and the graffiti
community
·
Inclusion of leadership from experts in the area of public art
·
Limited reliance on capital or
financial resources
·
Solid maintenance and evaluation plan
for mural projects
·
Alignment of the program with other beautification programs
Consultation and research indicates that a large number of excellent mural programs are in existence, many of which could have a positive impact on culture, beautification, economic development and graffiti reduction within the City of Ottawa. It is a priority for the City of Ottawa to focus on the development of a collaborative strategy, rather than separate processes and programs aimed at different target groups. It is also a priority to develop a sustainable model that is accessible to all stakeholders.
Based on extensive consultation and best practice research, a
number of enhancements are recommended for the continued development of the
Graffiti Prevention Mural Program. Approximately 90% of stakeholders consulted supported the mural
initiatives outlined below.
Recommendation
#1 – Enhanced Graffiti Prevention Mural Program
Enhanced Web Resources
The development of a Mural Artist Registry will facilitate linkages between artists looking to participate in outdoor graffiti prevention mural projects and property owners wanting to apply outdoor murals to their property to assist with graffiti prevention. Based on the research conducted, this network will include:
Partnerships will be developed with local paint suppliers to
provide access to low or no cost painting supplies for community groups
producing outdoor graffiti prevention murals in accordance with relevant
regulations.
Staff will work with stakeholders to enable outdoor graffiti prevention murals by monitoring the impact and efficacy of the June 2008 amendments to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439 including:
·
Murals are exempt from the requirement to
obtain a permit and pay a fee if they comply with the standards set out in the
by-law.
·
The maximum permitted sign face area of a mural
has been increased from 10% of the applicable wall area to 100% of the first
and second story wall area of a building.
· Institutional use properties such as schools and community or recreational centres located in certain areas of the city are now permitted to install murals. The definition of graffiti for the purposes of the Graffiti Management By-law excludes mural signs that meet the requirements of the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law, i.e. legal mural signs are not graffiti.
Recommendation
#2 – Youth Engagement Mural Program
In accordance with Council direction, staff
investigated implementing a program similar to the City of Toronto’s Graffiti
Transformation Program, which addresses youth unemployment and
neighbourhood beautification by enabling local organizations to hire youth to
remove graffiti and resurface outdoor walls with attractive murals.
Through the Toronto project, youth receive training in life
skills, art techniques, health and safety, community involvement and
marketing. The City of Toronto is responsible for the promotion,
funding allocation and basic supports to community groups. The
Program began in 1996, and currently has an annual budget of $340,000. In 2008, the Program funded 20 projects
employing 200 youth, at an average grant of $15,000 per project.
Based on the research conducted, it is recommended that the City of Ottawa establish a Youth Engagement Mural Program in partnership with Crime Prevention Ottawa (CPO) to support youth and community groups in the implementation of outdoor murals in neighbourhoods experiencing high graffiti vandalism (details attached in Document 4).
CPO aims to implement specific targeted crime prevention programs, create partnerships essential for sustaining long-term crime prevention programs, and monitor and evaluate progress and impacts of plans and implementation. CPO is uniquely situated to partner with the City of Ottawa to deliver funding to community groups and arts organizations to implement funding targeted at involving youth at risk in mural creation programs for the purpose of preventing or deterring graffiti in graffiti-prone neighbourhoods.
Up to $50,000 in annual funding will be available through CPO to enable local organizations to hire youth to implement murals in neighbourhoods experiencing high graffiti vandalism.
The benefits of this program include:
The
youth engagement component of the Mural Program is important to the crime prevention
aspect of this initiative. Agencies
will be required to ensure that the youth who are involved in the activities
receive appropriate services and referrals to meet their needs. The objective is to engage the youth in
positive activities and to channel their energy towards pro-social outlets for
their artistic talents. The youth will
learn about crime prevention, engage with positive role models and celebrate
their community engagement and artistic contribution to the community.
Recommendation
#3 – Murals on City Property
Further
to Council direction, staff investigated opportunities to complete outdoor
murals on City facilities in addition to the youth engagement mural program.
Based
on the research conducted, it is recommended that, as a major property owner,
the City participate in graffiti prevention by seeking opportunities to install
murals on frequently targeted outdoor walls and structures on city
facilities.
If proven to be cost
effective and efficient, murals will be implemented with an expected lifespan
of three to five years with plans to re-evaluate effectiveness after that
time. The City will also develop a list
of potential mural sites that could be utilized for murals through the Youth
Engagement Mural Program as outlined above.
Sites will be selected based on level of graffiti vandalism and consultation with key stakeholders will be a priority. The Public Works Department will consult with the appropriate internal Branches. In addition, the appropriate Ward Councillor will be consulted on content and location.
Staff will monitor the impact that the mural has on reducing graffiti at the facility, and will continue to remove any graffiti that is placed on the mural. Murals are often costly to maintain and therefore, once a mural reaches the end of its life span, it will be removed or painted over.
Recommendation
#4 and #5 - Murals on Buildings and on Structures on a Highway
There are a number of instances in which a mural may serve to prevent graffiti on a surface (e.g. a retaining wall) that is the subject of incidents of graffiti vandalism on a frequent basis but that is not directly addressed under the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439, administered by the Chief Building Official (CBO) of Building Code Services. In some cases, such structures are in fact in a “highway” or road (e.g. utility boxes), which would be addressed by the Signs on City Roads By-law 2003-520, administered by the General Manager (GM) of Planning and Growth Management (PGM). It would be reasonable and prudent to provide to the CBO and the GM of PGM the ability to approve murals on such surfaces provided that certain conditions are met. For example, the mural must comply with the size and advertising restrictions prescribed by the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439, the surface on which the mural is to be placed must be experiencing high incidents of graffiti vandalism, and the owner of the property and the relevant Ward Councillor must concur with the proposed mural. There would not be a permit fee associated with this approval process. In practice, Public Works will coordinate proposals for murals, including the development of recommendations in accordance with the criteria established for this purpose, for the consideration of the CBO and the GM of PGM.
Recommendation
#6 – Legal Graffiti Walls
It is recommended that the legal graffiti walls
at the George Dunbar Bridge and the Ottawa Technical High School continue to be
exempt from the Graffiti Management By-law going forward without a defined
sunset date. The pilot project graffiti board at the Bob MacQuarrie
Recreation Complex is
recommended to continue for another year. This graffiti board is not comparable to the other two legal
graffiti walls which are located on permanent structures with larger surfaces,
focus on urban art versus tagging and are the subjects of ongoing community
programming. The Orleans graffiti board is located within a skateboard park and
is used as an extension of the skateboard surface primarily for tagging.
City staff and the OPS do not support a permanent exemption for this wall but, the Ward Councillor does not support its removal at this time and therefore an extension of the pilot for one year is recommended. During this time period, City staff, the OPS and the Councillor’s office will work with the community to determine if an alternative to the graffiti board can be found.
The largest part of the graffiti problem in Ottawa consists of
smaller written tags. Tagging is not generally practiced on the two permanent
structure legal graffiti walls (House of Paint and the Tech Wall) since they
are preferred surfaces for larger works of art. Tagging is however practiced at
the Orleans Graffiti Board. Some of the art
is accompanied by tags which serve to identify the artist and in many
cases, tags found on pieces on the legal graffiti walls can be found in the
surrounding areas. Proving that these tags are a match is difficult as tags can
be imitated. Serious artists do not agree with illegal tagging due to the
negative impact that it has on the city and on the reputation of their art
form.
The theory behind legal graffiti
walls is that if graffiti vandals are given an opportunity to do graffiti in an
approved area, they will stop tagging other areas. The City’s experience with local legal graffiti walls has shown
that graffiti spills over into the surrounding community and is not contained
to the target area. The urban art
community supports legal graffiti walls as a means to allow and encourage
urban art.
Monitoring of the City’s three legal graffiti walls began in April 2008, in conjunction with the implementation of the enhanced graffiti removal and tracking under the new Graffiti Management Strategy. Legal graffiti wall stakeholders were consulted on the design and implementation of the monitoring strategy. A public awareness strategy was developed, including messaging to inform the graffiti community of the role of legal graffiti walls, the purpose of the monitoring program, and the consequences associated with misuse of these walls. The new Graffiti Management By-law was also enforced in the vicinity of legal graffiti walls where illegal graffiti occurs.
The monitoring strategy was
developed based on collecting data on graffiti in a study area and a similar
and adjacent control area for each location. The study area includes the urban
area surrounding the legal graffiti wall site. The control area is a similar
area adjacent or in the same neighbourhood as the study area which includes
similar features such as parkland, roadways, residential and business areas.
The monitoring program was based
on the assumption that if there was no significant difference in the amount of
graffiti in the study area in comparison with the control area, this could
indicate that the wall is not adding to the graffiti load. The amount of graffiti in the control area
provides a baseline of the normal amount of graffiti that would occur.
Monitoring began with a sweep of
City assets in the study and control areas. Owners of non-City assets were
asked to do the same. This provided a
benchmark which enabled identification of new graffiti. Assets were monitored for the appearance of
any new graffiti on a clean surface, and all cases were documented. Information
was gathered on a variety of graffiti occurrences such as Service Requests for
City and non-City assets; proactive
cleaning of City assets by City staff and contractors; and requests for private
asset owners to clean their property.
Results of monitoring the three existing legal graffiti walls for a one-year period demonstrate that in all cases, there was more graffiti in the study area, versus the control area, indicating that the legal graffiti walls did not reduce graffiti by providing a legal location.
Legal Graffiti
Wall Monitoring Program - May 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009
|
|
House of Paint
|
Orleans Skate
park |
Tech Wall |
Total |
|
|
Dunbar Bridge – 1301 Bronson Ave. |
Bob
MacQuarrie Rec. Complex–1490 Youville Dr. |
Albert Street Education Centre - 422
Slater St. |
|||
Study Area
|
Incidents on
City Property |
243 |
35 |
210 |
488 |
|
Tags removed
on City Assets |
527 |
212 |
1,278 |
2017 |
|
|
City
Eradication Costs |
$23,650 |
$6,920 |
$24,020 |
$54,590 |
|
|
Control Area |
Incidents on
City Property |
95 |
2 |
50 |
147 |
|
Tags removed
on City Assets |
130 |
3 |
100 |
233 |
|
|
City
Eradication Costs |
$12,450 |
$350 |
$970 |
$13,770 |
|
Staff and the OPS will continue to work cooperatively with the legal graffiti wall, and urban art communities, to limit the amount of creep occurring in the vicinity of the three legal graffiti walls.
The recommendations for the mural component of the Graffiti Management Strategy apply city-wide. The existing legal graffiti walls are located in the urban part of the City.
As part of the development of the proposed strategy for murals and legal graffiti walls, consultation was undertaken with internal service providers and external partners and stakeholders with a vested interest in the mural and legal graffiti walls strategy. Consultation included face-to-face meetings, e-mail and telephone discussions. Very positive feedback was obtained through the consultation process. Almost 90% of stakeholders consulted agreed with the recommended mural initiatives and legal walls. Details of the consultation results are outlined in Document 3 and have been taken into consideration in the development of the report recommendations.
The following stakeholders were consulted with respect to the mural components:
The following stakeholders were consulted on the legal graffiti wall components:
There are no legal / risk
management impediments to implementing the recommendations in this report.
The financial implications associated with the
enhancements to the Graffiti Management Program include:
·
$50,000
in operating funds for the administration of a Youth
Engagement Mural Program. This additional requirement
will be incorporated into the 2010 Draft Budget for Council’s consideration and
approval.
· Operating funds exist within the graffiti eradication budget that can be applied to the installation of murals on city assets.
Document 1 Graffiti Stakeholder Committee Membership
Document 2 Review of Mural Best Practices from Major Canadian and U.S. Cities
Document 3 Summary of Public Consultation - Graffiti Prevention Murals
and Legal Walls
Document 4 Program Guidelines: Youth Engagement Mural Program
Following Council’s approval, Public Works Department, Operations Engineering and Technical Support Branch, will develop and implement the overall Enhanced Graffiti Management Program.
Crime Prevention Ottawa, in conjunction with Operations, Engineering and Technical Support Branch, will develop and implement the Youth Engagement Mural Program as part of the overall Enhanced Graffiti Management Program.
Operations Engineering and Technical Support Branch, in conjunction with the Planning and Growth Management Department, will explore opportunities to permit murals on buildings and on structures in a highway pursuant to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law 2005-439 and Signs on City Roads By-law 2003-520, respectively.
Emergency and Protective Services Department, By-law and Regulatory Services Branch will undertake on-going enforcement of the Graffiti Management By-law 2008-1 respecting requests to remove graffiti from private property.
By-law and Regulatory Services Branch and Ottawa Police Service will undertake on-going enforcement of vandalism pursuant to By-law 2008-1.
Document 1 – Graffiti
Stakeholder Committee Membership
o Atria Networks
o Business Improvement Areas
o Canada Post
o City of Ottawa - By-law and Regulatory Services
o City of Ottawa - Public Information Coordinator
o City of Ottawa - Public Works
o
Conseil
des écoles catholiques de langue française du Centre-Est
o
Conseil
des écoles publiques De l’Est de l’Ontario
o Crime Prevention Ottawa
o Eastern Ontario Landlord Association
o Enbridge
o Federation of Citizens’ Association of Ottawa Carleton
o Government of Canada
o Highway and Bridge Engineering Dept. for the Government of Canada
o House of Paint
o Hydro One
o Hydro Ottawa
o Metro Ottawa
o Ministry of Transportation Ontario
o NCC
o Ottawa Carleton Catholic District School Board
o Ottawa Carleton District School Board
o Ottawa Central Railway
o Ottawa Police Service
o Ottawa Sun
o Ottawa Tech High School Legal Wall
o Ottawa Xpress/Voir
o Rogers Cable
o The Citizen/National Post
o VIA Rail
o Yellow Box/AutoMart/Trader Media
Internal Stakeholder Committee
o Business Transformation Services - RPAM
o By-law and Regulatory Services
o Child and Youth Agenda
o Community and Protective Services, Community Arts Program
o Community and Protective Services, Cultural Services
o Corporate Security
o Corporate Services, 311
o Infrastructure Services Branch
o OC Transpo
o O-Train
o Ottawa Police Service
o Parks and Recreation
o Planning, Transit and Environment
o Planning, Transit and Environment - Transit Services
o Public Information Coordinator, Business Transformation Services
o Public Works - Parks and Buildings
o Public Works - Roads
o Public Works - Traffic
o PWS Infrastructure Services -
Construction Services
o Solid Waste
o Youth on the Move
Document 2 - Review of Mural Best Practices from Major Canadian and U.S. Cities
|
|
City of Toronto 2,480,000 residents |
City of Vancouver 600,000 residents |
City of Philadelphia 1,448,394 residents |
City of Halifax 360,000 residents |
New York City 8,274,527 residents |
|
Program
Name |
GTP or
the Graffiti Transformation Program |
Mural
Program |
MAP or
the Mural Arts Program (originally Philadelphia
Anti-Graffiti Network) |
CAP or
the Community Arts Program |
Graffiti-Free
NYC Program (Mayor's Community Affairs Unit) |
|
Website |
http://www.toronto.ca/ graffiti/graffiti_transformation.htm |
http://vancouver.ca/ engsvcs/streets/graffiti/murals.htm |
http://www.muralarts.org/ |
http://www.halifax.ca/Corporate/Graffiti/CommunityArtProject.html |
http://www.nyc.gov/html/cau/html/qol/anti_graffiti.shtml |
|
Start
date: |
1996 |
2002 |
1984 |
2006 |
2008
* (The
historic subway program began in 1985) |
|
Overall Mission/ Goals |
To contribute to a clean and
beautiful city; transforming public space through removing graffiti and
creating murals. |
To provide legal opportunities
for artists; to enhance beautification and to offer positive solutions to
graffiti vandalism. |
Engage in art education and community public
art collaborations, and to increase public access to art. To engage youth and
to teach transferable life and job skills such as taking personal
responsibility, teamwork, and creative problem-solving |
Public education and
beautification; Engage the community; giving back to the community; provide
positive experiences in the arts for youth. |
Reducing graffiti to
create a renewed sense of public safety, higher property values, a stronger
municipal tax base, and increased civic pride. |
|
2008 Annual Budget |
$340,000 in grant dollars (does not include staffing) |
$88,400 ($63,400 for general murals
+ $25,000 for the mural competition.) |
$7,000,000 dollars (City
contribution - 3.1 million, the rest is comprised of grants and donations
from individuals and corporations.) |
$35,000 (includes $20,000 paid
for from Public Works to support professional painting on traffic control
boxes. (Does not include staffing). Funds also come from federal government
to support individual projects and local businesses provide honorariums for
artists. |
Current project is expected to
cost $5000. No Ongoing funding. |
|
Program Description |
Annual community investment
program addressing youth unemployment as well as neighbourhood improvement
and revitalization issues. |
The mural program provides
opportunities for artists, businesses interested in donating a wall, and
residents that want to bring a mural to their neighbourhood. The City will
facilitate the process and will provide the paint supplies, permits and
complete community consultation required to make murals happen. |
The Mural Arts Program creates
over 100 community murals each year engaging thousands of residents in the
mural making process; provides free, quality art education programs serving
nearly 2,000 at-risk youth annually at neighbourhood sites throughout the
city and provides programs in restorative justice serving youth and adult
offenders in local prisons and rehabilitation centers and using the
restorative power of art to break the cycle of crime & violence. |
The Community Art Program works
with local schools to identify youth at risk, and those interested in art.
Youth go into a community and work alongside community to produce a mural on
a wall with high levels of graffiti. |
Community Affairs office works
with business Affairs where graffiti is a problem and brings youth artists in
to revitalize the area through murals. |
|
Program Components |
1 year renewable grants provided
to community associations and organizations with demonstrated capacity to
support youth employment and neighbourhood engagement. Funded agencies hire,
train and support youth. |
Donate a wall for property
owners interested in getting a mural; annual mural competition for
professional and amateur artists; community supports and consultation. |
Community Murals; Art Education;
Restorative Justice; Special Projects; Artist registry; Mural Inventory
(Mural farm website) |
Community Murals; Community
Justice program - After School program to paint traffic control boxes;
Professional painting on traffic control boxes; Outdoor gallery program. |
Community Paint program where
community groups plan and execute their own cleanup, paint over projects |
|
# annual murals supported |
To date over 600 murals; approx.
50 new murals per year |
28 murals in 2008 |
Over 2800 murals, 150 - 200 new
sites per year (*Includes indoor murals) |
12 over 2 years (does not
include the 31 traffic control boxes project) |
To be determined, aim is 1 mural
in each of the 5 boroughs. |
|
Average cost per mural |
$6,800 |
$2,600 |
$15,000 -
$25,000 |
$2,000 -
$3,000 |
$1,000 -
$3,000 |
|
Staffing Resources |
.2 FTE Community Funding Agent |
5 full time staff including 2
Mural Coordinators, office staff; By-law Property Use Inspector and
Police Detective Constable. |
22 full-time and 5 part-time
staff, and over 165 contracted muralists. Also has a 12- member community
advisory board. |
1FTE Community Mural Lead with
support from management, other departments as required. |
1 FTE Director of Quality of
Life (Graffiti coordinator working on all aspects of graffiti) No dedicated
staff to mural program. |
|
Primary Target Group |
At-risk youth who face multiple
barriers to employment. |
Artists, businesses and
residents. |
In the first years, exclusively
with adjudicated graffiti writers who learned to paint murals using talent to
bring beauty rather than blight to inner-city neighbourhoods. Now MAP
includes after-school workshops in mural making focusing on at-risk,
low-income teens. |
Multiple, diverse group of youth
involved in community art including youth involved in graffiti. |
At-risk youth you have been
involved with the law. Can be graffiti writers, toll jumpers etc. |
|
Success Rate/ Outcomes |
Over 12 years, more than 600
murals have been created, 300 sites and 18,000 tags have been cleaned and
1,775 youth have been employed, received business skills and training in the
technical aspects of graffiti removal and outdoor art installations. No
formal evaluation of overall graffiti reduction. |
The success rate is relatively
high. With the upcoming Olympics, they are preparing and facing a
challenge with an increase in the amount of graffiti tagging (i.e. Riot
2010, and other anti-establishment tags) |
Produced over 2,800 murals and educated over
20,000 underserved youth in neighbourhoods, employ more than 300 artists,
engaged more than 100 communities, provide free art programs to 3,00o at risk
youth. Each year more than 10,000 tourists and residents enjoy mural tours,
and more than 5,000 persons participate in special events. |
10 murals have been completed in
2 years as part of the Community Art Program. 31 traffic control box murals
have been painted as part of the Comm. Justice program. They have noticed
reduced graffiti in mural locations; youth who participated in the community
justice program have not re-offended. |
Find that murals reduce
graffiti. Murals developed through this program aren't tagged by vandals. |
|
Graffiti reduction |
15,000 graffiti tags have been
cleaned and 300 murals have been created since 1996 |
It has been reduced and
generally moves to other areas of the city. They measure the amount of
graffiti in certain areas such as the BIA's |
No formal evaluation program. |
No formal review program in
place. It is difficult to evaluate the level of graffiti. No repeat youth
through the Community Justice program. |
Previous success with Subway
program, still too early to tell for this project. |
|
Comple- mentary programs |
Economic Development Mural
Program - This program helps local businesses and communities create an
attractive and positive identity for their commercial areas. Up to $5000 is
available to qualified groups. Clean and Beautiful Secretariat conducts some
education and provides supports and funds to community groups working on
beautification. |
RESTART program that deals with troubled youth. The
program is a 4-day workshop with referrals through police, social services,
courts. The final day is spent applying a mural with the youth and art
mentors; Park Board Mural Program operated through Parks and Rec where boards
are installed in local parks for community murals. |
See above listing of programs. |
Tool Kit provided to groups from
Arts Resource Network; Outdoor Gallery program; one time federal government
project to produce murals on new construction. |
Street-by-street graffiti
removal program offered free to businesses and residents. Vehicles are
equipped with unique equipment which enables operators to remove graffiti by
painting and/or power-washing over 20,000 square feet of graffiti surface
area, per day, per vehicle. All vehicle operators are hired from non-profit
programs such as The Doe Fund and Project Renewal that create jobs for low to
moderate-income residents. |
|
City role/ supports |
Funder, convener |
Facilitate the process and
provide supplies; manage the Donate a Wall program database and organize the
mural competition. |
Partner, funder |
Initiate and run programs,
public education, community consultation, maintenance. |
Organize, fund and coordinate
the overall program |
|
Governance/ Leadership |
City of Toronto - Community
Partnership and Investment Program. |
Under equivalent to Public Works
"Streets" |
Mural Arts is a public/private
partnership that encompasses both the city agency (Mural Arts program) and
the nonprofit Philadelphia Mural Arts Advocates organization. |
Community Relations and Cultural
Affairs |
Economic Development
Corporation/Mayor's Community Affairs Unit |
|
How are murals initiated? |
Application basis through annual
grant program. |
Through the donate a wall
application. The mural competition location is determined by staff. |
Mural ideas come
from a community, but sometimes the Mural Arts Program will notice a good
wall in a neighbourhood and will create a mural there in partnership with
local residents. Other times a City Council member or other public
representative will request a mural in a particular location. |
Mainly through the staff who
identify a community or a high hit area. Councillors also are involved in the
selection of communities. Staff then go to schools looking for interest and
support. |
Initiated on a project basis by
interested parties. |
|
By-laws/ Permits |
none noted. |
Property owners cannot
apply a mural onto an exterior wall of their building without a proper permit.
|
unsure |
No formal By-law, no permit
required |
None specific to murals. |
|
Notes |
City of Toronto invested
additional money in 2008 to support research projects that would increase the
capacity of currently funded programs. There is no open call for applications
in 2009. Instead 2008 grants will be rolled over at current funding levels. |
Vancouver is experiencing
increased levels of vandalism due to the 2010 Olympics. They are working to
increase education in 2009. |
City cut $500,000 in
2009. |
Their program is supported by
local utility stakeholders. Bell has a program to hire artists to paint
murals on their boxes. The key to their success is the connections built
within schools and the community. |
The 1985 New York City mural
program is now the ARTS for TRANSIT program owned and operated by Metropolitan Transit
Authority. Its focus is on encouraging the use of public transit by providing
visual and performing arts projects in the system. |
Document 3 - Summary of Public Consultation - Graffiti Prevention Murals and
Legal Walls
Total internal stakeholders consulted: 58
Total external stakeholders consulted: 245
Total unique responses: 39 (all external)
Response rate: 15.1% (37/245)
Completed or partially completed surveys: 29 (some stakeholders provided general comments but did not answer the survey)
*Almost 90% of respondents agreed with the recommended mural
initiatives
The following stakeholders were consulted in March 2009:
Survey Results
|
Question |
Agree |
Disagree |
No Opinion |
Total Responses |
|
1. The development of an online Mural Network to facilitate linkages with artists looking to participate in outdoor graffiti prevention mural projects and property owners wanting to apply outdoor murals to their property to assist with graffiti prevention |
27 (93%) |
1 (7%) |
1 |
29 |
|
2. $50,000 in annual funding to be made available through Crime Prevention Ottawa to support youth to implement murals in neighbourhoods experiencing high graffiti vandalism. |
25 (83%) |
3 (17%) |
2 |
30 |
|
3. The development of
partnerships with local paint suppliers to provide access to low or no cost
painting supplies for community groups producing outdoor graffiti prevention
murals. |
26 (93%) |
1 (7%) |
1 |
28 |
|
4. Ongoing enhancements to
ottawa.ca to ensure that property owners, artists and residents have access
to current and user friendly information about graffiti prevention murals. |
28 (96%) |
1 (4%) |
0 |
29 |
|
5. Staff will work with stakeholders to enable outdoor graffiti prevention murals by monitoring the impact of the June 2008 amendments to the Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law. |
23 (79%) |
3 (21%) |
4 |
30 |
|
6. City of Ottawa will seek opportunities to install graffiti prevention murals on city assets if proven to be cost effective and efficient. |
26 (89%) |
2 (11%) |
1 |
29 |
|
7. The establishment of a part time (.25) Mural Coordinator position to implement the graffiti prevention mural components. |
27 (93%) |
2 (7%) |
0 |
29 |
|
TOTALS |
181 (89%) |
13 (11%) |
9 |
203 |
· Those tagging buildings are not artists, but gang members. Murals are fine, but such artwork will also be tagged and defaced, possible making such an exercise pointless.
· Consider restrictions on artists allowed to register. However, some may be “youth at risk” that the program is hoping to redirect. As such, they may be recent “taggers” but still should be accepted.
· If the same group that runs the registry for illegal tagging runs the artist registry, there would be a conflict of interest, making it difficult to get youth to sign up. Consider keeping this be kept at arms length, or handled by the City’s Community Arts group.
· Property owners need an easy way to determine if murals are permitted for their area.
· Utilities companies would want to be a part of the committee on graffiti prevention including Murals and set up internal processes that are efficient for the objectives.
· If a property owner has a preferred artist who is not registered in the online Mural Network, the owner should still be allowed to have his/her preferred artist install the mural. The owner should not be limited to using only those artists who have registered.
· The artist and wall/property owners’ registry should include pictures. The artists should post examples of their previous work and the property owners should post pictures of the location and provide basic details on the wall or location such as dimensions, surface material etc.
· An online Mural network is a very practical approach.
· The $50,000 in funding should be allocated to those members of the public who have to eradicate graffiti. They should be able to hire an anti-graffiti mural artist, establish a sketch design & price for the mural, and then get reimbursed either in whole or in part from the $50K.
· Funds should not go directly to the mural artist. There is high potential here for a scam by unscrupulous people. City By-law officer oversight is needed to ensure the mural is done and matches the sketch before any payment is made.
· Consideration should be given to how the list of neighbourhoods experiencing high levels of graffiti vandalism will be compiled. Consider an appeal process.
· The mix of the Allocation committee needs to be defined, so that it’s not just big business and resident’s associations. Youth are often underrepresented on these groups, they need strong representation – and not just one or two token youth form a student’s council. Youth involved in street art need to be represented here too.
· The application process needs to be quicker than some programs that have a fall application for funds for the following year. The application deadline should be fixed – not dependant on waiting for the city to finish overall budget approval each year.
· Eligible property owners should also explicitly include residential property owners.
· The maximum of $10,000 is too much for one mural, even if a whole back alley is done. That’s 1/5 of the budget. The focus is on local youth to ensure they are part of the solution – they are not free but not expensive. Established professional mural companies should not be funded.
· The Program should not just target youth at risk or those unemployed, some artists are just youth.
· Partnerships should also include businesses and residents, not just the owners of the property, to encourage community building. They should also work to develop the youth’s business skills, and encourage mentorship.
· Utilities companies would need to know that the murals would not interfere with proposed work of replacing the asset box.
· Property owners of private residences should also be allowed to install murals on their property.
· More funding should be made available for murals. In contrast to the amount spent on removal, $50,000 is a paltry amount that won't effectively deliver on the full range of murals that could be implemented in various contexts in the city.
· Some prominent locations could benefit from high quality murals done by emerging or established artists; such murals would deter graffiti and contribute to the cultural legacy of the city.
· Mural painting is hard and skilled work and should be adequately remunerated so that quality murals are produced in prominent locations.
· Consider including a provision to explore increasing funding based on effectiveness of murals, unmet demand, and community support for the program.
· If funds are only disbursed through 3-way partnerships that include a youth organization - this precludes the involvement of young artists who are not members of youth groups.
· The city will also need to do more (including providing adequate funding) for artist mentors to want to be involved in this program.
· Urban art and the funding of artists through the Crime Prevention Program is an excellent initiative. A mentoring program for these young people would also be useful.
· When selecting artists to put up a mural wall, consider the following:
o Select a professional and legitimate mural painter.
o
Create your own Do It Yourself (DIY) painting team by
enlisting the involvement of your local community (children, artists, community
leaders). This will build stronger bonds in the community; create a team
building exercise, and involve/invest community interest into the care and
maintenance of the community and the mural surface.
o If using “Graffiti Artists”, request criminal record checks, and collect information on who will be painting your mural in order to weed out vandals/criminals.
o Set some conditions/guidelines on what expectations you have from the artists following the completion of the mural.
o
Set some repercussions for breaking the guidelines you
set; for instance, that their tags be removed from the mural and that they will
not be trusted with involvement in future mural initiatives.
o
Involve local
residents/businesses/communities in the design and planning of the mural.
· BIAs should be included in fundable partnerships.
· Paint should be donated to any officially certified artist(s) in order to spray over existing graffiti. Some mechanism is needed to identify certified mural artists that cannot be counterfeited by vandals.
· Don’t just go for the cheapest solutions. Mural work by youth needs specialized aerosol paints, not that much more in cost, but quality shows, and lasts much longer.
· Utilities companies would need to know that the replaced asset would not be a candidate for a mural.
· Consider acknowledging suppliers in the local community newspaper.
· A Mural guide has been long awaited.
· Staff should also work to coordinate some workshops or events to show people more about mural work and give these youth an opportunity to be seen – legally – and perhaps even have an art sale.
· The process should include that the Artists have proper approval to paint Utilities asset boxes.
· The mural guide needs to be completed and available online in conjunction with the launch of the program.
· This needs to be simplified to allow certified mural artists to spray over gang tags with their own artwork. The difference between graffiti and mural art has to be clearly explained to the public (education). Some people believe murals are graffiti and cannot differentiate between the two.
· Consultations should not only involve the artist, the stakeholders such as building owners or City officials and the mural coordinator, but also the community at large through a small judging panel made up of key members of that area’s community. This would ensure a better success rate to the acceptance of the mural in the area, and the quality of the design. If the area is going up where youth tend to congregate, then youth should comprise the judging panel.
· List amendments or exceptions that have been made for residential murals in back alleys and other out of the way places.
· Murals are no longer subject to various requirements, but we need to define the criteria used by a By-law officer when he/she decides that a mural is not art, that it looks too much like graffiti tags or lettering and must be taken down.
· An appeal process for people that are cited under the By-law is required; and need to ensure that choice of a mural solution is open to them. That may mean focusing on an area and encouraging a general cleanup, rather than isolated spots.
· Assurances that the Artists are properly insured and the City is responsible for liability of it are required.
· The new by-law (2008-1) that requires property owners clean up vandalism on their properties or face the potential of property standard fines has shocked and frustrated many property owners; however, the emphasis on property maintenance and accountability has definitely resulted in a reduction in graffiti vandalism in many areas.
· The June 2008 amendments to Permanent Signs on Private Property By-law were excellent policy decisions.
· Putting murals where there is no existing vandalism or graffiti does not seem to serve any purpose. If walls remain clean and pristine, you do not need to spend taxpayer money to put a mural on them. The purpose of putting up a mural is to cover any offensive graffiti that keeps reappearing (eradication).
· The concept of using murals has proven cost effective.
· Will each case be assessed and a recommendation made?
· Allow Utilities companies to have say in the volume of murals on their assets, as well as the timing and duration of artists activities at each asset.
· To ensure the funds currently proposed for allocation assist small business owners and others in need of graffiti prevention murals, the city should not use this funding to produce murals on city assets, but rather they should be paid for out of the general graffiti management budget.
· Graffiti prevention murals on city assets are a good initiative.
· A single point of contact makes great sense.
· Provide a direct telephone number so that people who see someone spray painting can immediately call it in to the authorities or call 911. Using the same number, people should be able to call in a request to have the certified artists spray over any graffiti in their neighbourhood. Such artists should be publicly rewarded in recognition of their service to the community.
· The mural coordinator should be someone with an understanding both of quality of art and the business of art and all the By-laws, considerations such as materials used and lifespan, who the materials can be applied, etc. They should also be sensitive to the subject of art that would be appropriate for the area (i.e. – does it reflect the community it’s going in, such as the Asian community in Chinatown or the GLBT community on Bank Street).
· If this is the same person/office that is in charge of graffiti eradication, it will be a conflict of interest and will create a problem in attracting youth.
· The Mural co-ordinator position should be full time. The number of tasks that must be done to facilitate even one mural are numerous and will be time consuming. Only assigning 1/4 of a person to this position is under-resourcing it. There will likely be considerable demand on the part of artists and also obviously small businesses that are affected by graffiti.
·
A Mural Coordinator position will work well.
8. General
Comments
· Many of the vandals creating Graffiti are in their 20’s – not just youth.
· Artwork in the “graffiti style” should not be allowed, as it encourages the proliferation of graffiti in other areas.
· We need better enforcement and tracking of graffiti perpetrators, and dedicated police.
· We need a restorative justice programme to make those perpetrators of graffiti take responsibility for their crimes.
· With respect to the 4E’s of graffiti prevention; consideration could be given to a fifth “E”, economic development.
· Emphasis should be given to spraying over gang tags on a daily basis (eradication). Create “artist gangs” and legally allow them to paint over the gang tags with their own artwork during specified daylight hours (empowerment). There should be no mural work done between 10pm to 6am to make it easy for anyone to call in suspicious activity.
· Is the mural painted over at the end of its lifespan? Or will there be maintenance to prolong the life span of the art?
· For public facilities/city assets that are not “muraled” by local youth, consideration could be given to an artist-to-community matching process to ensure the community is happy with the artist.
· If artists are compensated for their time and a community-artist selection process is developed, the quality of art, artist, mural and community ownership may significantly increase.
· Project evaluation is important to determine project successes/inefficiencies and areas of improvements.
· The developing of a large-scale graffiti mural with local graffiti artists and a local business has been very positive. The community provided great feedback and the youth had a great experience. In addition, the business’s wall has not been tagged since. Hence, all parties involved came out winners.
· This graffiti prevention method provides benefits for the community, but more importantly, for youth.
· This is an excellent initiative and there have been great successes with mural works in the recent past; this project will be beneficial for the city and all involved.
· When nothing is done about graffiti, it simply layered itself upon itself.
· Residents have supported the removal By-law; however, business and property owners balked and the majority did very little to correct the problem. In addition, Canada Post, Hydro and the waste management companies did little to eradicate graffiti from their boxes and receptacles.
· Graffiti vandals are anti-social and therefore may not be attracted by a mural program. Consider forbidding selling graffiti-specific paint, available only at a few shops.
· The reason for allowing murals in specific areas makes sense; however, it is rather like allowing speeding in certain areas in order to enable chronic speeders to express themselves.
· I am not sure that encouraging this as an 'artistic expression' is an appropriate response from the city. On the other hand I do not have a solution to the problem and realize that the city is trying to resolve a huge issue - I will indeed change my opinion if this works.
· There are a large number of murals in the Vanier community and graffiti has never been observed on these murals. What better way to measure success!
· Overall, great ideas, and a great initiative.
· Consideration could be given to oiling, waxing, and siliconing flat surfaces (like Hydro vaults) to prevent tagging.
· The mural program may not eradicate the problem with youth vandalizing to convey messages against parents and other social comments.
· The costs of removing graffiti are escalating (three-fold over the past two years). Serious consideration must be given to funding this with tax dollars due to the current financial state that our cities are experiencing.
· When a utility box is repainted due to graffiti, it only takes a few days or one week for the offensive graffiti to return. It should be possible to have the tagged area painted over, then monitored by cameras or a surveillance team in order to catch the vandals that return.
· Most graffiti is highly visible in neighbourhoods where there are high schools. Consideration should be given to catching the perpetrators who spray graffiti on buildings and structures.
· If the “4E” model of Eradication, Empowerment, Education and Enforcement applies to this Mural Program, where is the Enforcement element?
· More effective deterrence is required. The punishment for spraying graffiti on public and private property needs to fit the crime. Tax dollars would be better spent on preventing the problem, rather than painting over it.
· This is a great initiative.
· Consider outreach to graffiti artists to see if they would like to do the mural. That way they can contribute to the community and be a part of it plus their work will not be removed. Have them tag the corners as a signature. They could submit a design and a theme. The city could provide the paint and they do the work for free.
· It’s great that murals and public art are being considered, not only as a way to combat graffiti, but also as a way to beautify the area and create more artistic, liveable communities. This is a great opportunity to showcase local talent, highlight our communities, show our history and diversity, and take pride in our city.
· Enforcement is important. Consider a "Graffiti Cop" who can only work these types of cases.
· Consider an initiative like that of New York, where the sale of spray paint to persons under 18 was banned, and increased fines and punishments for those caught were implemented.
· Murals can become victims of tagging.
· All of the recommended Mural Initiatives are excellent.
· It is important to simplify the approval process for Mural projects.
· Consider using students from a high school enrolled in an arts program, many of who are very talented. It could also go hand in hand with the students volunteering their time and getting credit towards their 40 hours of community time required by all high school students. There would also be a good fit with students from the local high school doing the work for one of the local elementary schools.
· A mural should prevent graffiti, not be graffiti itself. Taggers should not be permitted to sign their names as a form of advertising.
· A property owner should be required to remove/cover the graffiti. If the wall is a graffiti hotspot being vandalized repeatedly, then a mural should be installed.
· A mural should be something other than abstract graffiti tags promoting the names of vandals.
· The City and community should be involved in the design that is chosen, submitted, and approved for a mural.
· Great ideas. These recommendations are comprehensive and will be very effective.
· Murals and graffiti art are an exceptional opportunity for youth to truly claim stake in their youth centres and they nurture a vested interest in their building. This initiative will also curb negative graffiti and vandalism in the community.
· The majority of actions proposed in this initiative are excellent.
·
Unfortunately, several of the recent public and City
sponsored mural wall initiatives have ended up showcasing the double-dealing
nature of “graffiti writers”, who will participate in opportunities to legally
put up graffiti art as part of art mural projects…. but who have afterwards
chosen to continue their illegal activities as graffiti vandals damaging local
properties.
·
The function of an art mural
is to beautify and enrich a community. An art mural becomes the face of a
community. Mural content should have community in mind.
·
Art murals do not curb vandalism. The most cost
effective and successful remedy for vandalism is to repaint the surface and
maintain it rigorously immediately after.
· Vandalism may be immediately curbed on a specific surface by installing a mural wall, but typically this will end up drawing and redirected vandalism onto adjacent properties.
·
Ensure that the murals are not supporting active
vandals with financing, excess paint supplies for future acts of vandalism, and
recognition/visibility/acclaim.
· Ensure that you put thought/control into the content of a graffiti-style mural and make it community-oriented and meaningful.
· Using graffiti mural opportunities as a means of rehabilitating graffiti vandals and reintroducing them into our community can promote a business model where young vandals are presented with a toxic example of success. This example encourages them to continue building their skills via acts of vandalism, in the hope of one day becoming paid mural artists like their vandal idols. If you are going to select artists, reward artists who have chosen to work within the system, not against it. They will respect your property and the property of others, both during and after they have finished your mural.
· With respect to the Orleans Legal Wall, it is important to get the opinion of the Ward Councillor to determine how it has impacted the community.
· It is important to allocate City funding and time towards advertising the legal walls to both graffiti artists and the general public.
· It is important for people interested in graffiti to know that there are legal options, and where those locations are. For residents not interested in doing the graffiti, they might support the art more if they know that it is legally permitted.
· There is a lower standard of graffiti art at the Orleans wall, with more tags and bubble lettering. In the graffiti community, the Tech Wall is seen as the place where the most mature graffiti artists go. Perhaps the Orleans wall is a place where less experienced artists go to practice so that they can become more confident to do art at the other two legal walls.
· Consider more space around the legal walls, so that the less experienced artists can practice instead of vandalizing the areas around the legal wall.
· The City needs to spend more time at the legal walls spreading the word to the youth about the by-laws, about their art etc.
· When discussing graffiti, there needs to be a more balanced approach, where some positive aspects of urban art are highlighted.
· The City should consider funding to support engagement/empowerment of other forms of artwork and mentorship programs.
· The City needs to promote excellence in urban design and messaging and celebrate the positive and legal art that is being done.
Document 4 - Program Guidelines - Youth Engagement Mural Program
A partnership of the City of Ottawa’s Graffiti Management Program and Crime Prevention Ottawa
The Youth Engagement Mural Program supports community safety and the beautification of Ottawa neighbourhoods through youth empowerment and community arts.
The Youth Engagement Mural Program contributes to a clean, safe and beautiful city by funding projects that engage neighbourhoods and youth in a constructive learning process to create murals to prevent or deter graffiti.
The program does this through a strategy of working with community-based organizations that provide training, support, recreation and employment for marginalized youth up to age 25 to work in partnership with the arts community and local property owners to develop murals.
Each project will involve a three way partnership: a non-profit organization with expertise in working with youth; an artist or arts organization with expertise in creating murals; and a body representing the proposed location of the mural. The lead partner who receives the grant from the City of Ottawa must be incorporated and carry liability insurance.
The project must include a strong element of youth engagement and of community development. The project leads must commit to working with the community, the youth and the property owner on the design of the mural. The project must seek to increase the skills and/or the employability of the youth engaged in the project.
The proposed location of the mural could be a property owner who would like a mural, a Business Improvement Association or a community association in a neighbourhood that has been particularly affected by graffiti that is willing to work to identify an appropriate site. The applicant agency can also be the property owner.
Preference will be given to communities identified through the Community Development Framework, through the Ottawa Youth Gang Prevention Initiative or neighbourhoods identified by the City of Ottawa or OPS as frequent targets of graffiti. Property owners could include, but are not limited to: schools, private businesses, churches, City of Ottawa assets such as community centres, field houses.
Funding is to establish new murals; it is not for maintenance of existing murals. Ongoing maintenance of murals is the responsibility of the property owner. All murals must conform to the City of Ottawa’s relevant by-laws. Tags are not permitted as part of the artwork.
A call for proposals will be released and will include a short application form, requirements for supporting documentation, and a deadline. All complete applications received by the deadline will be considered.
A review committee will include one representative from each of the following groups:
· Crime Prevention Ottawa
· The arts community
· Neighbourhood associations e.g. community association
· City of Ottawa’s Public Works Department, Graffiti Management Program
· City of Ottawa’s By-law and Regulatory Services Branch
· City of Ottawa’s Building Codes Services Branch
· City of Ottawa’s Recreation and Community Services Branch, Cultural Services Division
Decisions by the review committee will be final. Agencies will be notified in writing if the Youth Engagement Mural Program has agreed to support their activity.
Applications will be reviewed based on the following criteria:
· Does the proposal demonstrate community engagement/consultation?
· Does the proposal demonstrate a community development approach?
All agencies that receive funds under the Youth Engagement Mural Program will be required to submit a report, on a report form provided to them, by November 15. The report will include a project evaluation, a financial report and photographs. The projects are intended to be summer projects.
All successful participants must agree to participate in a recognition event organized by the Youth Engagement Mural Program. All murals must include acknowledgement of the funds received in a space not to exceed 1% of the mural.