A flashy publicity stunt by mobile phone company Koodo has drawn the ire of the Plante administration, which has denounced the use of a century-old downtown house as a commercial sign.
Montreal also announced that the owners of the building would be fined for having agreed to play the game.
The complete transformation of the façade of 2092 Atateken Street was carried out last month to announce the launch of a residential internet service by Koodo, a low-cost subsidiary of Telus. A sign carries the slogan “There’s joy under this roof. Koodo Internet.”
“Instead of opting for a standard display, we created a memorable experience that will leave a lasting impression,” Ashley Babcock of Toronto agency Camp Jefferson told specialist media Grenier aux nouvelles.
But Montreal does not see it the same way.
“This publicity stunt was not authorized by the City,” said Béatrice Saulnier-Yelle, from the office of the mayor of Montreal (who is also the head of the Ville-Marie borough). “This type of intervention is prohibited. An inspection will be carried out quickly, and a notice of violation will be given to the owner, who will also be asked to comply as soon as possible.”
Urban planning regulations prohibit painting the brick on the exterior facade of most buildings. In addition, rules govern the place of advertising in the urban landscape.
Béatrice Saulnier-Yelle, from the office of the mayor of Montreal
“We have received permission”
Several advertising and production firms worked on making the coup in Montreal a reality.
Plus Compagnie, the parent company which brings together several of them, claimed that all the necessary authorisations had been obtained.
The production team visited the borough offices in person on May 2 to speak directly with a permitting officer. After clarifying that the building was not stone, heritage or of interest, and that it was already painted, we received permission to paint.
Isabelle Bonin, Vice President of Plus Compagnie, by email
Mme Bonin transmitted to The Press copies of emails exchanged with the Ville-Marie borough. An official told him that “it is forbidden to paint a masonry facade,” but added the next day that “a permit is not required to paint” since it is maintenance work.
Plus Company also sent to The Press copies of permits for temporary occupation of public property mentioning “facade painting” as the “reason for occupation”.
PHOTO JOSIE DESMARAIS, THE PRESS
A poster posted in front of the building reads: “There’s joy under this roof. Koodo Internet.”
According to images captured by Google Street View, this facade had already been covered in paint since at least 2007.
Koodo has not commented on the situation. The publicity stunt is scheduled to last until July 7.
The same advertising team also applied their transformation method to a Toronto home near Trinity Bellwoods Park.
Dinu Bumbaru, from the organization Héritage Montréal, denounced the use of a century-old building as an advertising billboard.
“This is a selfish, parasitic gesture,” he said. “What is this company doing to help the heritage it is exploiting in this way? Montreal’s heritage needs a lick of paint, not just empty publicity stunts.”
“Prevent visual pollution”
This is not the first time that Valérie Plante’s political party has criticized the presence of advertising in the urban landscape.
In recent years, the local Projet Montréal administrations in the Plateau-Mont-Royal and Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie boroughs have banned the presence of billboards in their boroughs.
The companies that operate these facilities have gone to court to challenge the ban.
“The by-law has a pressing and real objective, namely to prevent visual pollution,” concluded the Quebec Court of Appeal in the Plateau-Mont-Royal case, by maintaining the local by-law in question. “This objective is part of a long-standing movement by the City and the Plateau to improve the quality of the urban landscape.”
In 2020, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the case, effectively putting an end to billboards in the borough. The Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie case is still before the courts.