What planners need to do for Graffiti
UNDERSTANDING GRAFFITI IN NDG: Lessons for Urban Planning
McGill University, August 2008
Introduction
Prohibited by the law, emulated by urban cultures like the hip-hop movement, graffiti and tags are a contentious subject in local politics where police forces and communities tackle the problem with an array of strategies, ranging from curfews to restricting access to aerosol paint cans or providing walls for graffiti artists.
Urban planning is concerned with the built form and its livability. Graffiti and tagging is regarded as a blight on the built form and undermines people’s confidence in urban spaces, and yet little has been written on graffiti and tagging from a planning perspective.
Planners should treat this problem more seriously, and with regard to deeper causes:
Urban planners need to be more conscious of changes in contemporary post modernist youth behavior. Planning needs must be cognizant of both utility of place and changing behavioural patterns.[1] (emphasis added)
Montreal has tended to privilege “broken window”” inspired policies and the city and property owners spend considerable amounts of money to do so.This report looks at the Montreal neighbourhood of Notre-Dame-de-Grace (NDG) by trying to understand why are there tag and graffiti occurrences, and where are they located.
Method and Facts
Readings suggest that bleak institutional landscapes, with large sprawling wallspace and few “eyes on the street” are often targeted by taggers and graffiti artists. NDG is targetted in this study both because the MUHC mega-hospital will be built here, in the south-east corner, and because preliminary research and interviews of local actors suggest that these new buildings will be targeted by taggers. Neighbouring boroughs will also be discussed in passing, as they are also tackling tag and graffiti occurrences and may also be affected by the arrival of new hospital within their borough limits.
The following findings were established through a literature research, field observations, and a focus group with local graffiti artists. This study did not attempt to identify writer names or locating their work throughout the city but rather tried to establish what factors were determinant in making somewhere a good “spot” (location) via the focus group questions.
Graffiti and tags distinguished
Tags are generally considered as a nuisance, scribbling (small “signatures”) and whose main purpose is to mark a space, while graffitis are on a larger scale, involve several colours, and can take more than one session to complete. Grafittis are more visually appealing to a greater audience.
What makes a spot “good”: The Graffitist Perspective
Four young people participated in a focus group, held in NDG in April 2008. The graffiti artists, some still active and others retired, were aged between 18 and 25. Graffiti and tag occurrences can be divided into four main targets, based on their location and a visual assessment of skill: block ends, public and institutional property, public transit system and transit infrastructure.
When asked what made a good spot, a focus group respondent replied: “A good spot is very visible. You think like an advertiser. Where would McDonald’s put their stuff? Where would Videotron put their banner? Where are your eyes going to lay? It’s thinking about where I am going to go, if I like that spot I’ll do it and enjoy seeing it again every day”. Another mentioned the spot’s challenging disposition as an incentive (height from the ground, size of the surface, etc.).
Performance (the sheer quantity of tags) and competition between taggers are key elements in deciding where to display tags, whereas location of graffiti depended rather on the location’s disposition (spectacular effect of a coloured graffiti on a big wall, or high up, etc.).
During site visits, however, it was noticed that there were target spots such as the back of institutional facades that were tagged even though they were not particularly visible or “safe” spots. When asked what they thought about such occurrences, one respondent suggested that these spots are most probably meeting grounds for local youth; another thought they were the “stupidest spots to do tags”. Due to the competitive nature of tagging, a cluster of tags can occur following a gathering: “Once you have a marker (out), and a bunch of writers, anything goes”. Such tags are “social markers”, as one respondent explained: “People will notice and they’ll say ‘Oh you’ve been chilling at that spot, I saw your tag’. It shows where you have been, what you’re doing.”
Thus, tagging has the function of communicating between youths, not so much as a territorial marker but something comparable to public notices. Ferrell writes of recent policy trends and how they affect youth:
In recent years city after city has enacted strict curfews and a multitude of ordinances against loud music, car cruising, and other youthful pleasures (Ferrell, 1993a; LeDue 1992; Reuter 1994b). In negotiating the contemporary city, the kids are largely walled in and boxed out.
The writing of hip hop graffiti disrupts this orderly latticework of authority, reclaims public space for at least some of those systematically excluded from it and thus resists the confinement of kids and others within structures of social and spatial control.[2]
Recent trends in criminology and legal research show a greater understanding of
such dynamics too:
Many studies support the idea that the health of individuals is promoted by social interaction. It has also been suggested that the removal of public space creates sub-cultures that provide the same stimulation and relationship base as participation in social action. Quite often, graffiti is about establishing place or belonging in the context of the built environment.[3]
The focus group compared doing tags and graffiti to an extreme sport, and the thrill that comes from its illegality is an important part of the satisfaction obtained. However respondents also mentioned ongoing debates between ‘writers’ on the value of illegal occurrences versus legal walls, which often are commissioned to avoid further illegal occurrences.
This debate provided youth in favour of legal and commissioned works with the means of convincing the ones who believe illegality is key. One respondent mentioned how a programme held activities promoting legal graffiti at his school made it “way more worthy, more professional and more credible”, and another respondent, who had done commissioned murals paid by city programmes provided positive feedback: “I love the project, it was an honour for me to be able to paint for the City and get paid to do so”.
When asked about how people whose property was tagged probably felt about it, one of the respondents replied: “Graffiti doesn’t hurt anybody. It only invades your visual space but there are so many things you should be mad about that are invading your visual space, and your space in general in life. You grow up a certain way and you’re conditioned through school and TV and all that so you don’t hate on other people who build buildings or who won’t let some people live in your neighbourhood, and advertising boards built in your face.”
Local Municipal Responses
The neighbourhoods around the MUHC site exhibit a variety of responses to graffiti and tagging.
The City of Montreal is on the offensive to keep public surfaces clean. In 2006, the City of Montreal spent about 10 million dollars on cleaning approximately 140 000 square meters.
Westmount’s Anti-Graffiti Program, while mainly mainly prohibitive and aligned with Montreal police authorities’ approach, does include preventative measures involving partnerships with community organizations, networking with other neighbourhoods and creating alternatives for youth..
Most neighbourhoods in Montreal manage graffiti strategies in partnership with community organizations, through Tandem. For examplethe City and the Montreal police authorities assist residents by providing free clean-up kits.
NDG’s Tandem programme is more comprehensive, offering not only clean-up kits, but also removal services and commissioned graffiti artist services. NDG’s Tandem was able to provide such services thanks to funding received from National Crime Prevention Council in 2003. A graffiti artist works within the programme, and his work includes information sessions in schools on the legal implications of tagging as well as the organization of mural activities. While these sessions cannot prevent entirely tag and graffiti occurrences, they are useful for developing awareness of legal venues for graffiti and responses during the focus group showed that respondents approved and some had attended such activities.
NDG Tandem also explored ways to include community service labour by youth who where caught tagging or doing illegal graffiti. The initiative, in collaboration with a programme in charge of youth community service, failed for various reasons, in part because the young participants failed to show up.
NDG Tandem’s removal service is relatively complex to manage. Removal operations must follow a set of rules that often constrain the programme’s efficiency. Firstly, while graffiti is an annoyance to the tenants, the law requires written consent from the building owners, who may not consider graffiti a problem, who may not reside in the province, or understand English or French. This entails an important amount of office work and delays in cleaning operations. Secondly, tproperty owners who’s buildings are retagged should file a police report. This enables police to better track unwanted tag and graffiti occurrences, but the process can be discouraging as property owners will not often follow through and report the occurrence. Lastly, removal operations require certain conditions (it must be a minimal outdoor temperature of 12-15 degrees and can often take up to 3 days to complete) and are expensive.
Examples from elsewhere
There are some international practices that would be interesting to look at for inspiration on how to improve existing Montreal programmes, such as the South Bronx MAGIC project (More American Graffiti In Control)[4]. Throughout the 1990s, cities such as New York, Stockholm and Los Angeles led the way for a progressive approach towards dealing with graffiti[5], but more recent trends are tougher, such as the zero tolerance approach that has been dominating crime prevention strategies employed in metropolitan areas.
Montreal has also tried to innovate along these lines. Café Graffiti, in Hochelaga Maisonneuve, has been providing exhibition and creation spaces for local graffiti artists since 1997[6]. This community group is unique in maintaining close connections with graffiti artists from across the city.
Montreal is host to an international convention on graffiti[7], an indication of the growing importance of Montreal as a centre of discussion about this question. Also of interest is MU, a social economy project that collaborates with boroughs and non-profits to produce a new generation of mural art (where graffiti becomes art). MU is working on a project in NDG. Links to information on these initiatives are in the bibliography.
Recommendations
Planners have a role to play to improve tag and graffiti management by:
(1) taking into consideration tags and graffiti patterns when designing land-use policies;
(2) providing technical knowledge to improve graffiti programme efficiency;
(3) coordinating community-institution communication; and
(4) encouraging authorities to recognize graffitists as a clientele with their own needs that should be taken into account when planning healthy communities.
Urban planners could reduce opportunities for graffiti and tagging by a finer control of development, to reduce bare walls at block ends and endless bleak windowless walls on institutional and industrial buildings.
Alternatively, planners could actually plan for graffiti, opening up and even legalizing in some areas a certain number of paintable walls per number of units built.
Literature and present research have demonstrated that tags and graffiti’s are practically unavoidable due to the gregarious and competitive nature of these practices. Understanding and working with root causes of graffiti will enable more nuanced approaches and—ultimately—a better understanding of the needs of this public for opportunities to contribute, in their way, to the civic forum. .
References
BANDARANAIKE, Suniti. “Graffiti Hotspots: Physical Environment or Human Dimension?” Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and held in Brisbane, 18-19 August, 2003, 25 pages. Available online at: www.aic.gov.au/conferences/ 2003-graffiti/bandaranaike.html
Café Graffiti, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. http://www.cafegraffiti.net/Historique.html
FERRELL, Jeff. “Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control, and Resistance”, Youth and Society, September 1995, n.1, vol.27, pp.73-92.
“From Subway Graffiti to the Canvas: Bronx Program Transforms Vandals” The New York Times, November 22,1987 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDE153FF931A15752C1A961948260
MU: Murals http://economiesocialequebec.ca/?module=document&uid=462
SPOONER, Susan. “Managing Graffiti and Disorder” Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and held in Brisbane, 18-19 August, 2003, 10 pages. Available online at: www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2003-graffiti/spooner.html
“Where Miles of Murals Preach a People’s Gospel”, The New York Times, May 26, 2002, http://www.racematters.org/milesofmurals.htm
“Writing on the Wall”, The Mirror, August 7-13, 2003, http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/080703/cover_art.html
[1] S. BANDARANAIKE, “Graffiti Hotspots: Physical Environment or Human Dimension?” Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and held in Brisbane, 18-19 August, 2003, p.15.
[2] J. FERRELL, “Urban Graffiti: Crime, Control, and Resistance”, Youth and Society, September 1995, n.1, vol.27, p.79.
[3] S. SPOONER, “Managing Graffiti and Disorder” Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association and held in Brisbane, 18-19 August, 2003, p.5.
[4] “From Subway Graffiti to the Canvas: Bronx Program Transforms Vandals” The New York Times, November 22,1987 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDE153FF931A15752C1A961948260
[5] “Where Miles of Murals Preach a People’s Gospel”, The New York Times, May 26, 2002, http://www.racematters.org/milesofmurals.htm
[7] See “Writing on the Wall”, The Mirror, http://www.montrealmirror.com/ARCHIVES/2003/080703/cover_art.html
