The Never-ending Story of Incorrect Signage

*Update: On Tuesday, September 17, I was walking up Ossington and I noticed that the sign featured below has been, in my opinion, properly updated. The “Queen” part has been completely covered with a white piece of plastic that now says, in matching font, “College.” And, this isn’t the only sign that was fixed. I’ve seen at least three others and they have all been fixed the same way. So good on the contractor for that.*

My neighbourhood of Ossington is best known for its bars, restaurants and stores. So naturally I’m spending my time bitching about incorrect construction signage.

I first posted about the incorrect signs earlier this week. On Wednesday, much to my pleasant surprise, Mike Layton, the city councillor for my ward of Trinity-Bellwoods, left a comment on that post that said this:

“I saw your post here and asked Heather in my office to contact Transportation. Today she heard from Mohammad Kashani in Engineering and Construction Services. He has assured us that the sign should read Dundas to College, not Dundas to Queen. He has asked the contractor to fix this and it should be changed shortly.”

How pro-active is that? I have to say that right now, I’m super-impressed with Layton. But I’m not so impressed with the contractor who’s running this project because on Thursday, it fixed one of the signs by doing this:

Screen Shot 2013-09-13 at 12.28.05 PM

Wow, I hope someone didn’t hurt himself updating that one, lone sign (from what I can see, none of the other signs have been touched).

But seriously, how shitty does that look? And perhaps more importantly, how unclear does that look?

While I understand not replacing the signs, why couldn’t “Queen” have been covered up with duct tape and then “College” written/painted over the tape? That solution would look better and be easily read from the road.

I know it’s just a construction sign but little, incorrect stuff like that really bothers me because it’s so easy to fix. Why not just take the extra five minutes and do a good job?

And no, crossing out “Queen” using a thin, red market isn’t “a good job.” I think it’s a really sloppy and lazy solution and I can’t help but wonder if that laziness and sloppiness is restricted to just signage. Yes, I know that’s kind of an unfair thought but I believe that the little details can say a lot about a project. Personally, I think that more people should have this attitude and should demand that care be taken with the details. In my experience, if care’s taken with the little stuff, the big picture, end result is much stronger.

Re-reading Layton’s comment, I see that he does say “sign,” singular, so I suppose that explains why just the sign I took a photo of was touched. But if you were running a project and were told that one of your signs were wrong, wouldn’t you check out most, if not all of them, just to make sure your signage was accurate? No? Am I being too detailed oriented again?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s