3 ms·

Luckily there is something in between "ugly advertisements" and "no advertisements at all"

rbanffy 3y ago
None at all is still better. When you allow some, you’ll have people gaming the rules and finding loopholes. A clear ban is easier to enforce. As for making the city ugly, I grew up there and I’m the first to say it’s an acquired taste. You get used to the grit, to the harshness and the layers of architectural history. Visiting the city centre is always some sort of a discovery.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  None is not necessarily or inherently better because advertising generates revenue. You would need to weigh the revenue vs. the nebulous value of "no advertising". Given that there exists stores in Sao Paulo, you still see "advertisements", just not on billboards. You speak of the grit - said grit could be improved with government efforts funded by... advertisements in part. I suppose this lack of nuanced thinking is why the war on drugs is still a thing. There are many bad things that you can try to unliterally ban. There are tradeoffs.
vc9999 3y ago
Luckily this is just an article explaining one side of the law, and it's from 2001. Obviously, there are advertisements, but not on large billboards across the city. Sometimes, I feel like this site is no different from a Twitter thread. There are so many uninformed people making comments about things they have no clue about.
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I'm talking about the billboards and other outdoor ads as referenced in the article. What are you talking about? > In September 2006, the mayor of São Paulo passed the so-called “Clean City Law" that outlawed the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores. Within a year, 15,000 billboards were taken down and store signs had to be shrunk so as not to violate the new law. Outdoor video screens and ads on buses were stripped. Even pamphleteering in public spaces has been made illegal. Nearly $8 million in fines were issued to cleanse São Paulo of the blight on its landscape. Seven years on, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and South America’s most important city remains free of visual clutter and eye sore that plagues the majority of cities around the world. You're right though. Uninformed people who don't read the article are annoying. I'm not even for ads. It's simply that there's a way to do outdoor ads that doesn't ruin the city.

None at all is still better. When you allow some, you’ll have people gaming the rules and finding loopholes. A clear ban is easier to enforce. As for making the city ugly, I grew up there and I’m the first to say it’s an acquired taste. You get used to the grit, to the harshness and the layers of architectural history. Visiting the city centre is always some sort of a discovery.

endisneigh 3y ago
None is not necessarily or inherently better because advertising generates revenue. You would need to weigh the revenue vs. the nebulous value of "no advertising". Given that there exists stores in Sao Paulo, you still see "advertisements", just not on billboards. You speak of the grit - said grit could be improved with government efforts funded by... advertisements in part. I suppose this lack of nuanced thinking is why the war on drugs is still a thing. There are many bad things that you can try to unliterally ban. There are tradeoffs.

vc9999 3y ago

Luckily this is just an article explaining one side of the law, and it's from 2001. Obviously, there are advertisements, but not on large billboards across the city. Sometimes, I feel like this site is no different from a Twitter thread. There are so many uninformed people making comments about things they have no clue about.

endisneigh 3y ago
I'm talking about the billboards and other outdoor ads as referenced in the article. What are you talking about? > In September 2006, the mayor of São Paulo passed the so-called “Clean City Law" that outlawed the use of all outdoor advertisements, including on billboards, transit, and in front of stores. Within a year, 15,000 billboards were taken down and store signs had to be shrunk so as not to violate the new law. Outdoor video screens and ads on buses were stripped. Even pamphleteering in public spaces has been made illegal. Nearly $8 million in fines were issued to cleanse São Paulo of the blight on its landscape. Seven years on, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and South America’s most important city remains free of visual clutter and eye sore that plagues the majority of cities around the world. You're right though. Uninformed people who don't read the article are annoying. I'm not even for ads. It's simply that there's a way to do outdoor ads that doesn't ruin the city.