

A Happy, Flourishing City With No Advertising - gruseom
http://www.good.is/post/a-happy-flourishing-city-with-no-advertising

======
kinow
I was born and live in Sao Paulo, and this law (Lei Cidade Limpa) really
helped to reduce the visual pollution here.

Here are some links for pictures of before/after. For more images, you can
search for images of Lei Cidade Limpa SP or Lei Cidade Limpa São Paulo (we use
the tilde here, you can remove it if you prefer)

[http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydemarco/sets/72157600075508...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/tonydemarco/sets/72157600075508212/)

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/sueluzfotos/page4/>

[http://ftorquato.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/gilberto-kassab-
de...](http://ftorquato.wordpress.com/2008/08/26/gilberto-kassab-dem/)

And here's a link with a article in Sao Paulo prefecture about this law
(google-translated to English).

[http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prefeitura.sp.gov.br%2Fportal%2Fa_cidade%2Fnoticias%2Findex.php%3Fp%3D14184)

Cheers, -B

------
alextp
Indeed, after living in são paulo for a while going anywhere else in brazil
lead to a slight culture shock.

In a sense this didn't hurt advertisers at all, as the demand for
advertisement stayed exactly the same, they just had to change the available
media. Think of it as a prisoner's dillema-like situation, where defecting is
plastering a huge sign in front of people. It's better for everyone if nobody
does that, but whoever breaks the law and does it can get an advantage.

Preventing people from defecting in these situations is exactly the point of a
government (regardless of how much I disagree with Kassab's actual politics
and would never vote for him).

~~~
jt2190
Are you sure that the policy wasn't designed to transfer control of the
outdoor advertising industry to a subset of advertisers? You know... ban
advertising, and kill off the existing outdoor-ad only companies. Then
reintroduce outdoor advertising, granting permits only to some group of
"respectable" advertisers.

I'm not saying that this _is_ the case here, but it's a fair question, I
think.

[Edit: Here is an older but more-balanced article from the BBC:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5355692.stm>]

~~~
kawera
A fair question for sure but it wasn't the case in São Paulo.

~~~
Calamitous
Actually, another commenter has pointed out that the government has started
displaying ads on buses and inside trains.

~~~
kawera
Not really. The ban doesn't apply to indoor ads so isn't applicable to the
metro's trains or stations. As for the buses, they aren't displaying ads at
all.

~~~
rufibarbatus
Buses are pretty much ads on wheels, --- and in some buses of the green
variety [1] there are TV sets broadcasting most relevant content such as
government propaganda, the horoscope, news and events, and yes, advertisement.

[1] I'm yet to figure out what the colours mean on buses.

~~~
alextp
Regarding [1], each bus company has a different color. The companies won
different government contracts for different parts of the city, so the east
side is roughly red, the south blue, the north-west green, etc.

------
jxcole
I would be interested to see before and after shots. Was their advertising
problem really so bad or was just about the same as any other city?

Edit: Found one: <http://banbillboardblight.org/?page_id=4251>

~~~
jobu
So they didn't eliminate all signage, but it was rather dramatically reduced.

I grew up in a suburb of Minneapolis that had similar restrictions on
advertising, and I can say that it is very nice as a resident. Now when I
visit however, I find it difficult to locate some of the new businesses.

I'm curious how this law has affected business revenue from tourists in Sao
Paulo.

~~~
kingkawn
"Now when I visit however, I find it difficult to locate some of the new
businesses."

I'd be shocked if many people, on this site in paritcular, used street ads as
their primary means of locating new businesses they'd been wanting to find.

~~~
ricardobeat
These laws also forbid huge facades / signage containing brand advertising, so
logos are smaller and store fronts less attention-grabbing. I think that's
what he was talking about.

This store, for instance, was fined R$300.000,00 for it's signage a couple
months ago: [http://img.vejasp.abril.com.br/t/2/t420x280/ponto-frio-
megas...](http://img.vejasp.abril.com.br/t/2/t420x280/ponto-frio-
megastore.jpg) (the penguin is their trademark)

------
hanskuder
I've always seen advertising as a game of iterated prisoner's dilemma. If
every business cooperated and agreed to not advertise, consumers would still
be able to seek and find products and services they wanted, and businesses
wouldn't need to spend money on ads. As soon as one business started to buy
ads, however, they'd have an immense advantage and competitors would quickly
follow suit. So as soon as one business stops cooperating and starts
advertising, the entire market devolves into the equilibrium we see today: our
lives are completely saturated with ads.

The fact that business can carry on as usual when everyone is forced to
cooperate in Sao Paulo shows that advertising is mostly a huge inefficiency.

------
spindritf
I actually enjoy advertising in the city, especially '90s-style neons, bus
stop billboards, and those illegally plastered on construction site fences. I
feel like I'm the only person who does.

It makes the city look vibrant, and often covers up some of the... less
successful architectural experiments.

~~~
botker
You're not alone. If I want a place free of visual clutter then I head outside
the city. But advertising is a form of speech, and without it I would feel
silenced. Corporate propaganda is similar political graffiti: sure you can
make a case against it, but the principle of free speech should outweigh all
objections. So yeah, public advertising gives me the warm fuzzies too.

~~~
rayiner
Do you live in the city?

~~~
botker
Yes, I live in SF.

------
jeffem
I wonder what the comments here would look like if the ban would have been on
a different advertising medium, say, online advertising.

I'd be willing to bet the great majority here would oppose it, and I'd be
willing to bet that people would be exploring all of the negative and
potential unintended consequences.

Have you considered the immediate losses advertisers will incur from
removing/destroying their advertising assets? Will those costs be passed on to
customers? What about the "public" cost of implementing and enforcing the ban
itself? What effect does this have on companies that sell outdoor ads? Does
this concentrate power to companies that sell other types of advertising and
reduce competition? Does this lower the value of real estate properties that
previously sold ad space? What happens to people who previously discovered or
visited businesses via outdoor ads? What about the people who actually enjoy
the ads?

On a deeper level, why stop at banning outdoor ads? Should we ban other things
we find aesthetically unpleasing or is there something about these outdoor ads
that was materially damaging people? Also, how exactly do you determine if
this ban was a "success"?

~~~
kawera
* Also, how exactly do you determine if this ban was a "success"? *

Before the vote, polls indicated that the majority of "paulistanos" wanted the
ban. Now, 5 years later, a poll done by a local paper showed that over 90% of
residents approuve the results and want it to continue.

------
rufibarbatus
In the simplest terms, this bill:

    
    
       - outlawed billboards anywhere, period
       
       - regulated the size of "corporate totems" (such as
         McDonald's distinctive pole thing with their logo)
       
       - regulated the size and number of times one can use 
         corporate branding on their business's façade
    

It's also important to note that sites that had been protected by previous
acts as cultural heritage are exempt from this bill, which means we still have
a few (rather charming) exceptions around.

São Paulo wasn't horribly polluted by billboards to begin with, compared to
every other large city. This bill, on the other hand, had such extreme
impact... we grew used to it very quickly.

------
algorithms
Wow. Just two days ago I wondered how the world would look like without being
plastered with every kind of advertisment. I have to say I am so sick of going
through my city and being bombarded with attention suckers from every
direction. Same thing on the internet when I'm trying to read an article that
is left aligned, makes up 20% of my monitor width and has blinking ads all
around it.

I AM SICK OF IT. I would love to see a new movement to lower the amount of ads
we are faced with each day and give us back our ability to concentrate on
what's really important.

~~~
mattgreenrocks
Without advertising, we'd forced to know ourselves better...and there are few
things more terrifying than that.

------
swah
IMO cables are much uglier than ads, but nobody else seems to notice or care
for them. Most of them resemble this one:
[http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2170/2056763887_4157b7a3a2.jp...](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2170/2056763887_4157b7a3a2.jpg)

~~~
glassx
This one is an extreme case, but I agree with you.

I live in Belo Horizonte, another large brazilian metropolis 580 kilometers
away from Sao Paulo, and all the cabling is underground in the whole downtown
area.

And it's not just the looks, in the five years I lived in this area I never
had a blackout caused by storms. Had to buy several UPS units after moving to
a suburb.

------
OstiaAntica
Vermont has similar rules restricting signage on state roadways, and it adds
to the state's charm.

~~~
schiffern
I wonder how many traffic accidents the law prevents. The copy on roadside
billboards is about as long as a text message, but while texting and driving
is outlawed in 35 states, only 4 states have outlawed roadside billboards
(Vermont, Maine, Hawaii, and Alaska).

------
rickyconnolly
Dislike. Advertising is what gives cities their unique visual culture. We
associate different typographic 'looks' with different cities. Where would
Miami be without its bold, ostentatious signage? Where would New York City be
without its iconic frankin gothic and gotham centered visual culture?

~~~
spodek
I remember hearing things like this before the indoor smoking ban a few years
ago. People said it was part of what bars and clubs were for.

In particular, New York City establishments said people who came in from the
suburbs and brought money in would stop coming in.

The ban was successful. A year or two later Hoboken passed a ban because
people were increasingly going into the city for the cleaner indoor air they
couldn't get in Hoboken.

As a New Yorker of over two decades, I'd love to see such a ban here, perhaps
with some areas, like Times Square, zoned to allow it. As with smoking, I
expect a large majority would support it once implemented.

~~~
r00fus
Which is to say, some places like Las Vegas might not want to implement it.

However, it is the purview of government to legislate things like this to
establish protection of the "commons".

------
mickdarling
Once augmented reality apps become more common I can imagine this becoming
more popular. If you are a tourist and want to find stuff, or just see the ads
you would be able to load up the ads layer and maybe even get discounts for
your trouble.

If you want to just see the architectural facades as they were meant to be
seen, then no tech required. I would love to see Vegas or New York, for
instance, with the ads scrubbed and then be able to pull up dynamic ads with a
phone or heads up display.

------
eaurouge
Speaking of distracting advertising, the massive, bright LCD screens on 101
(here in the valley) are an accident or two waiting to happen.

------
mekoka
It's certainly an interesting concept if well applied, but I'm not sure it's
suitable for all cities. For example, I have a hard time imagining Las Vegas
without all the neons and signs.

~~~
jarek
This is because there's nothing else to look at in Las Vegas other than the
neons.

------
__david__
I think this is pretty common in surburbia. My little corner of the world has
banned billboards and tall signs for the past 40 years (and I happen to think
it's for the best, but that may be just because I'm used to it).

------
jwwest
Given the choice between looking at ads and being assaulted by the hideousness
of rusted, empty signs, I think I'd take the ads.

~~~
kawera
This law passed a few years ago and there were empty signs for a few months
afterwards. They are all gone now.

------
kansface
I spent about a month in Sao Paulo on short notice so I spoke basically no
Portuguese. Consequently, I found the city extremely difficult to navigate-
both in terms of finding specific destinations and in the hunter/gatherer
sense. I imagine big signs would have been of benefit to me since I understand
pictures, logos, and studied Latin so I can comprehend way more in writing
than in speech. Even large, indoor shopping centers are not obvious for
someone in my position... how can you tell a shopping center from an office
building when people aren't making huge purchases? I should also mention I
didn't have a smart phone with me. I'm sure this move could not have been a
net positive for business. Whether the trade off is worth it for locals is
another matter entirely.

------
nsgf
A similar operation is ongoing (?) in Athens ATM.
<http://www.illegalsigns.gov.gr/?p=611>

The even made an iPhone app for reporting those things. Everyone got thrilled
at first, but now it looks like it's grinding to a halt (econ. crisis and
all).

The city is indeed cleaner (at least the main avenues). Also, we had many road
accidents involving drunk drivers hitting on those huge ad poles (now, at
least, somebody might have a chance for survival hitting something else other
than metal).

------
KleinmanB
This also should happen for banner ads.

------
jacoblyles
Looks like a Stalinesque ghost town.

~~~
westbywest
As per the small handful of photos included in the blog. Recent Sao Paulo
photos on Flickr would suggest otherwise.
[http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=S%C3%A3o+Paulo&s=rec](http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=S%C3%A3o+Paulo&s=rec)

------
silentscope
Havana, Cuba is the same way. I love it and I hope to God some city in the US
takes the plunge.

------
bokchoi
One of the links from that page led me to this mini-documentary which was
quite interesting:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1Nmnv0Ospg>

------
ericingram
Why don't they regulate away poverty, while they're at it?

I look forward to the future, when citizens realize their government is the
biggest barrier between themselves and prosperity.

~~~
rayiner
People come together, through the government, to stop unwanted advertising.
The law works, and the people are happy. Ericingram bitches about how the
government is the biggest barrier to prosperity. -_-

------
minikomi
My mind just did a barrel roll trying to imagine Tokyo with no signage. I
remember being here for a few days and being mentally overwhelmed with the
constant information spew.

------
mml
I talked with a startup that wanted to project ads on your car's back window.
I asked them if they planned on measuring their revenue in blood.

------
vishaldpatel
What a boring idea.

------
bala79
visual pollutions makes a big distraction on roads, technically they are one
of the reason for road accidents.

------
teyc
Next, see if we can ban people from using ALL CAPS in emails and forum posts.
:)

------
rhygar
The cost of this is a loss of jobs for sign makers (and their suppliers),
marketing agencies, and a loss of income for new businesses (and their
suppliers) that want to make their presence known. Basically, the economy in
that city is worse off overall as a result, and there are fewer jobs to go
around.

~~~
wr1472
They said the same thing about technological advancements during the
industrial revolution...

~~~
rhygar
Bzzzt! Wrong. This is not a technical innovation. This is government
regulation of a market.

~~~
brc
Not all government regulations are bad. The worst thing anyone can do in
support of free markets is somehow insist that there should be no government
regulations.

We have regulations on vehicle drive-by noise limits. Yes, this costs
consumers and manufacturers. But overall, it is a net gain as it results in a
quieter society, which is better. Visual pollution is just as bad as noise
pollution.

It's a sensible move for people to adopt if they choose to do so.

I actually think it would be broadly neutral. A lot of value invested in
advertising is actually wasted. So redistributing that back into the economy
may turn out to be marginally beneficial. For every signwriter that had to get
a new job, perhaps a magazine editor, online ad creator or telephone sales
operator got a job. Or perhaps the companies that saved in constructing
advertising changed to improving their products instead.

It will always be impossible to know. But don't argue that all government
regulation is wrong.

~~~
botker
All government regulation is bad because none of us has the moral right to
dictate the behavior of strangers.

The aggregate gain in a quieter society that you describe is not an aggregate
gain in happiness. It's a society in which we're silenced.

Advertising is a form of speech, and we should all support free speech in all
forms, lest we find ourselves silenced.

Hacker News would be free of visual clutter if we all stop posting. If a
government mandate forced us to stop, supporters may argue that it makes the
world a cleaner place. Clutter-free as it might be, those supporters don't
have the moral right to prevent us from speaking. That in essence is why all
government regulation is bad.

~~~
brc
Government regulation is not necessarily the dictating of behaviour to
strangers.

Every collective has it's own rules which are mostly designed to facilitate
better running of the collective. This is true from the couple, the family,
the business, the church, right on up to the planet as a whole.

It is imperfect to assume that everyone will agree to get along and abide by
the same rules. Therefore, you need a level of collective creation and
agreeance of rules in order to try and optimise behaviours.

Once you decide that there needs to be rules, you've got to decide on who
makes the rules. There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various
levels of democracy.

So in a sense, we surrender ourselves to certain rules in the understanding
that we consider the cost to be greater than the benefit. This will always
involve compromises - but in a truly free society freedom to stick up massive
advertising hoardings conflicts with the freedom to walk down the street
without having to see such things.

The middle road, the compromise, is a representative government whereby we
agree to rules in the understanding that, if the rules aren't working out in
the way we want, we collectively change the rulemakers.

Of course, in practice, there is plenty of evidence that this is problematic.
For the most part, there is far too much government regulation over matters
which the government has no part in agreeing to.

In the case of the advertising hoardings - well, presumably whomever enacted
the ban would be free to be challenged in an election and the decision
overturned if people felt the cost exceeded the benefit. In this case, I don't
really think it's a case of violating free speech, as the advertisers are
still free to speak in many forms, just that there are restrictions in a
certain form.

But a dogmatic sticking to an approach where nobody has any say over anybody
elses business just invites ridicule, just as communists and socialists of
varying stripes invite their own ridicule with ridiculous 'property is theft'
comments.

~~~
botker
It's ironic that my anti-dogmatic stance ( _None of us has the right to
dictate the behavior of strangers_ ) came across as being dogmatic ( _Thou
shalt not dictate the behavior of strangers_ ).

Of course you're right that this is how the world works, from a Collectivist
perspective. The Individualist perspective, which I tend towards, asserts that
individual happiness is far more important than any attempt to "optimise
behaviours".

    
    
      There are many choices, from outright dictatorship to various levels of democracy.
    

Tyranny of the majority is not inherently preferable to the tyranny of a
dictator. The other end of the scale is self-ownership, which is not widely
practiced today.

At the end of the day, my giant sign isn't harming anyone, and no one's forced
to look at it. Restricted speech in the name of "cleanliness" is not
acceptable in my book, but from a Collectivist perspective I guess it's
alright.

If that stance invites ridicule, I accept -- just as long as we all remain
mutually respectful about letting each other voice our opinions -- and that
includes businesses and politicians.

~~~
jarek
Serious question: do you consider it practically possible to live in an
Individualist way in a modern city?

~~~
botker
Yeah, I do, although I think most people would answer "No". Culturally, in the
US at least, there's a distinct tendency toward Individualism in rural areas
and Collectivism in urban areas. But the distinction is cultural, not
inherent.

