With short video documentary." />
Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The World's Fourth-Largest City Outlaws Billboards, Calls It 'Visual Pollution'

By David Evan Harris, Adbusters. Posted August 21, 2007.


São Paulo, Brazil, the world's fourth-largest metropolis has banned the "visual pollution" of outdoor advertising. With short video documentary.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by David Evan Harris

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The video to the right is David Evan Harris's short documentary on São Paulo's ban of outdoor advertising.

In 2007, the world's fourth-largest metropolis and Brazil's most important city, São Paulo, became the first city outside of the communist world to put into effect a radical, near-complete ban on outdoor advertising. Known on one hand for being the country's slick commercial capital and on the other for its extreme gang violence and crushing poverty, São Paulo's "Lei Cidade Limpa" or Clean City Law was an unexpected success, owing largely to the singular determination of the city's conservative mayor, Gilberto Kassab.

As the driving force behind the measure, mayor Kassab quelled the rebellion from the advertising industry with the help of key allies amongst the city's elite. On many occasions, Kassab made the point that he has nothing against advertising in and of itself, but rather with its excess. He explained, "The Clean City Law came from a necessity to combat pollution ... pollution of water, sound, air, and the visual. We decided that we should start combating pollution with the most conspicuous sector -- visual pollution."

Since then, billboards, outdoor video screens and ads on buses have been eliminated at breakneck speed. Even pamphleteering in public spaces has been made illegal, and strict new regulations have drastically reduced the allowable size of storefront signage. Nearly $8 million in fines were issued to cleanse São Paulo of the blight on its landscape.

One sore loser in the battle was Clear Channel Communications. Having recently entered the Brazilian market, the corporation was purchasing a Brazilian subsidiary as well as the rights to a large share of the city's billboard market. Weeks before the ban took effect, Clear Channel launched a counter-campaign in support of outdoor ads, with desperate slogans that failed to resonate with the masses: "There's a new movie on all the billboards -- what billboards? Outdoor media is culture."

Although legal challenges from businesses have left a handful of billboards standing, the city, now stripped of its 15,000 billboards, resembles a battlefield strewn with blank marquees, partially torn-down frames and hastily painted-over storefront facades. While it's unclear whether this cleanup can be replicated in other cities around the world, it has so far been a success in São Paulo: surveys indicate that the measure is extremely popular with the city's residents, with more than 70 percent approval.

Though materialism and consumerism, along with gang violence will continue to pollute the city of São Paulo, these human dramas may at least begin to unfold against a more pleasant visual backdrop.

***

NPR program On The Media's Bob Garfield interviewed Vinicius Galvao, a reporter for Folha de São Paulo, Brazil's largest newspaper, about São Paulo's ban on visual pollution.

Bob Garfield: I've seen photos of the city, and it's amazing to see this sprawling metropolis completely devoid of signage, completely devoid of logos and bright lights and so forth. What did São Paulo look like up until the ban took place?

Vinicius Galvao: São Paulo's a very vertical city. That makes it very frenetic. You couldn't even realize the architecture of the old buildings, because all the buildings, all the houses were just covered with billboards and logos and propaganda. And there was no criteria.

And now it's amazing. They uncovered a lot of problems the city had that we never realized. For example, there are some favelas, which are the shantytowns. I wrote a big story in my newspaper today that in a lot of parts of the city we never realized there was a big shantytown. People were shocked because they never saw that before, just because there were a lot of billboards covering the area.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: brazil, advertisement, sao paulo

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
billboards make a city look tacky, anyway
Posted by: eosrk on Aug 21, 2007 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you look at rizy towns like the Hamptons, Beverly Hills, hell, even Naperville, Illinois, you notice there's few or no billboards; places like Chicago, New York, LA, are blasted with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a Bad sign!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Aug 21, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issues even goes beyond Billboards.. If you live in a small town like I do, roads are flooded with small, election signs, realestate for sale signes etc.. It is such ploution problem but the town looks the other way...

I usually contact those on the election signs and complain about THEIR poluting my neighborhood and how could I vote form someone with such disregard..It usually doesnt work!!! It's a bad sign for sure when the politician doesnt care!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great!
Posted by: henderson on Aug 21, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think eliminating ALL billboards is a great idea. To me, they're just very distracting and annoying, anyway. I can imagine that in some instances they could cause car accidents.

I'm pleased with the idea of eliminating all the disgusting advertisments so prevalent on our highways and in our cities. ("Uncovering" anything may just be another way of getting at "the truth"......in more ways than one.) I'm encouraged that it helped owners realize that their buildings needed repair, etc.

Let's "uncover" EVERYTHING.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

commercial clutter, yech
Posted by: JJinIthaca on Aug 21, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article interesting, and like what it is telling us, for most part. Perhaps mayor Bloomberg would find it interesting as well :-)
However, didn't the writer say something about a ban on pamphlets? THAT really does sound like an infringement on free speech. Hardly a visual/[commercial] pollution, pamphlets. What do people have to say about that; what is it's rationale, if indeed pamphleteering is banned? Is that really passing muster, I mean, the courts, including that of public opinion?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: commercial clutter, yech Posted by: katz22br
» RE: commercial clutter, yech Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: commercial clutter, yech Posted by: ArtemInox
They are against freedom.
Posted by: MobileSucks on Aug 21, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These commies are against freedom of speech and the rights of the corporation to communicate to the public or something. Isnt that what libertarians would think about it? American libertarians are effing insane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Im not Mobile Posted by: MobileSucks
» RE: Im not Mobile Posted by: hellofriends
» RE: They are against freedom. Posted by: ArtemInox
World's fourth-largest Cleaning It Up
Posted by: LeftCoastProgressive on Aug 21, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great concept! If St. Paul cleans it up, the side effects can be very beneficial. Besides the obvious wipe away of visual eyesores, the exposed crud behind the billbords would get the added attention for its own cleanup. Whole communities will be renewed. Are there cities in the US which could do the same?

One note: The writer is from Adbusters. A magazine devoted to changing the 21st Century look of America. Sounds commendable.
AdBusters

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Visual Calm
Posted by: lynned2002 on Aug 21, 2007 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The county in which I live has banned billboards and limited storefront signage ever since I can remember. When I enter a city with billboards it's a visual assault, a circuit overload so to speak. Not to mention ugly as hell. Good for Sao Paulo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Visual Calm Posted by: pete ess
Indianapolis banned them long ago
Posted by: DrSuess on Aug 21, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Indianapolis IN banned them long ago, and it has a dramatic effect on the visual appearance of the city. There are still a few around- they are "grandfathered in", but most are gone. It has an incredible effect on the visual appearance of the city. Its not just the ads that are ugly- its the posts that hold them up- and all that goes along with it. The ban hasn't seemed to hurt business at all- they find other ways to advertise. Besides, I cannot remember when I ever bought something because of a roadside sign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

damn right & its INVASIVE
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Aug 21, 2007 8:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have you SEEN the countryside of Tennessee?

good luck seeing THE COUNTRYSIDE... even if you're going 200km/hr... the only thing you'll see on a Tennessee highway is advertising for BigIndustry....

ummmm Affluenza.


yummy.

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian.com
Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Free Speech?
Posted by: mcstewey on Aug 21, 2007 11:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first saw this storty in Adbusters and was excited to see Alternet pick it up. Our individual and collective psychologies and mental stabilities are being disrupted by visual pollution. I'm glad to see that some cities are doing something about it (i.e., as someone mentioned above, Indianapolis - I did not know that). On a side note, it's still amazing to me how corporate lawyers and lobbyists get away with claiming that advertisting is free speech. There is very little free speech in the U.S. What we have is privileged speech. Those who have the capital (economic, social, cultural, political, etc.) have their voices heard; others do not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

watch the crime rate go down
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Aug 21, 2007 12:50 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That would be funny if it does. Billboards are so stupid anyway. However, if I owned a plot of land next to a highway, I'd probably be a damn hypocrite and put one up to make some easy cash. But still...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good idea
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 21, 2007 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take it a step further...What if we were to ban some of the annoying, obtrusive ads that clutter up the internet?

Of course, web sites have bills to pay, so let's limit the ban to all ads that flash, move, or pop-up. All static ads can stay.

For example, there was this one site that had some annoying ads on it, but I can't seem to remember the name...Hmmm....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Commercial discourse needs to be be controlled
Posted by: pzzp on Aug 21, 2007 3:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
since it seeks to turn everyone into slavering consumers and takes away from our humanity.

Billboards are a blight and take away from both natural and architectural beauty.

The naming of places and venues after commercial entities is a brainwash.

The enslavement of nature and animal images in the service of advertising is immoral.

Why tolerate these things? If more people spoke out or refused to buy products pushed in these ways, changes would happen.

Advertising is not freedom of speech because it is not speech, it's a pitch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great idea...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Aug 21, 2007 4:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the worse place by far is in the number of high polluting flyer inserts for all those free newspapers...

the billboard eyesores that pock our landscapes and the trees saved by limiting flyer inserts would be a good start at limiting polution... noise & air polution get most of the attention [deservidly so] but do what you can now before it to late to do anything at all

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vermont- Billboard Free
Posted by: skyobrien on Aug 21, 2007 7:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1968, Vermont prohibited new billboards and provided an amortization period of five years to remove existing billboards. By 1974, Vermont felled its last billboard.

In 1997, the state commissioned an independent study of outdoor advertising to review the success of the billboard ban and to assess other forms of advertising. Public opinion polls and studies echoed the 1967 report. The study stated that traveler information solutions must maintain Vermont's quality environment, continue to prohibit billboards, and prevent sign clutter.

Twenty-five years have passed and Vermont is as proud as ever to be billboard-free!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Limits
Posted by: ArtemInox on Aug 21, 2007 11:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a great thing for a gov't to do. Can you see that happening here? HAHAHAHA. No. We NEED to be informed of all these great potential additions to our lives, CONSTANTLY. Nevermind we dont need most of the products. Or that maybe the average person would like to NOT have their senses assaulted constantly by some jackass marketing departments idea of something catchy, cute, interesting, attention grabbing or otherwise annoying as fuck jingle, skit, performance, schtick, spiel, show....

I dont know about anyone else, but I like to see trees and flowers and whats left of the natural landscape on the highway when I drive, not some stupid fucking company logo or meaningless smiling face trying to sell me something, someone else on the radio is already doing that, and when I get home, someone else on the TV, in the mail, in my fucking email, on the website I go to, on my god damn phone, knocking on my fucking door, on bumper stickers, or on something I already bought, FUCK. Just stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Limits Posted by: ArtemInox
Acceptance of grossly excessive advertising
Posted by: ArtemInox on Aug 22, 2007 12:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I often have the chance to speak in general terms with younger people, under 21, and a lot of them seem to have no problem at all with the grossly excessive advertising they have grown up in. Ive shown some of them different advertising schemes I find to be appalling, and am usually given the equivalent of a shrug, no problem is seen with it at all. *yawn* Just one more symptom of a degenerate culture that is continuing to degenerate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Finally! We need an anti-corporate graffiti law, too!
Posted by: logansafi on Aug 22, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate graffiti and corporate littering is legal almost everywhere. The question is why we allow that to be so?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very Good Article
Posted by: Astroboy on Aug 24, 2007 3:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was wondering when and where the tipping point on sensory overload would appear or whether people would just become innured and desensatized by so much visual stimulation.

One thought occured to me however, while watching the video. Being inundated with so much visual advertising, people become so used to it that it gradually loses it intended affect, so one way to regain the power of billboard advertising is to make it LESS common, thereby giving it back it's novelty and strength.

So the mayor seems to me to be disengenuous in his concern for visual pollution, as is the capitulating advertising industry, because they both know that billboards will return, in a LIMITED form, and that just means it becomes a much richer commodity for which politicians and big business can manipulate and corrupt each other.

Just like everywhere else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess what?
Posted by: Shey on Aug 25, 2007 2:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Hawaii, billboards have never been legal. And commerce moves on quite nicely, no corporate CEO's are homeless, business hasn't moved elsewhere.
Billboards are not only a blight on the landscape, they are a waste of money for advertising, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tesla Song
Posted by: LatinoPundit on Aug 26, 2007 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This reminds me of a song by Tesla:

Signs, signs, everywhere there's signs
Fuckin' up the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

About time
Posted by: dealmeinfo2 on Aug 27, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it would be more appropriate to have a limit on billboards and restrictions. I think the new digital billboards they have are kinda annoying and just looks trashy, driving a long the highway with all the billboards flashing things at you. At least the older ones were less obstructive.


---------------------------------------------
List of mortgage companies

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Two Cents ($C) Worth - Penny McIlraith
Posted by: Greensleaves on Aug 28, 2007 5:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When travelling in Spain some time ago, I noticed the lack of signs and billboards and advertisements. Since everyone is going green these days (or should be), I think the eye pollution should be removed for a couple of reasons: 1. Signs and neon and billboards, etc., are ugly. 2. Corporations have endless avenues to get our attention, so let's take a break now and then from all the consumerism. Many corporations are greedy as all get out anyway, and would mow down orphans or their own mother, if they thought there was some way to make a profit for themselves and their shareholders by doing so.

The signs intrude in our lives and sightlines. Even in the country you can hardly escape from McDonald signs.

As a bonus, maybe the toned down advertising may slow down the consumerism a bit, so we can all live simpler and greener and more beautiful lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]