Building top graffiti – spook

Some one identifying himself or herself as spook is moving across rooftops – probably leaning over the parapet  and applying graffiti to the street facing side of  the parapet.

It’s all rather crudely done, with a sense that this person really doesn’t care about the work he is doing, in addition his placement simply defaces a building no were has he or she attempted to choose a wall canvas.

19 Comments

When did graffiti become acceptable and no longer seen as vandalism, if “Spook” wants to paint his/her name on buildings, perhaps “Spook” should buy one.

It became acceptable when the Police Union decided that the tax payers funded Police resources were better spent on salaries than additional law enforcement.

Spook has nothing to worry about as long as this practice continues, and the taggers know it.

Look how much damage he's already done. Tagging is for losers and I'd like to hear of more arrests. Even if the police can only find a minority, it would be more acceptable than indifference to crime that ends up so costly.

Prime example of why graffiti will NEVER be eradicated…. the bike path. How many times have they painted the backside of Hydro building at Ruskin with grey paint… and how many times its been tagged over again, and again?

Pick battles you can win, you'll never, ever defeat graffiti. But feel free to keep pouring money down the drain trying to do so

Also, why is it costly? Because you choose to throw money at it. Instead of possibly centralizing it with public walls, you attempt to defeat it. Silly

I've always kind of liked grafitti when it's in Kensignton or Chinatown, but when I see it in the Junction it doesn't seem right for some reason…Not sure why, it just seems out of context.

If obnoxious spray paint graffiti had a beginning several decades ago, it can certainly decline. It costs the criminal money to do it and the punishment they risk is substantial. There's no economic incentive for a tagger to do what they do.

It's costly to property owners because it's the law to remove it. It's costly because it may encourage more criminal activity.

Why would anyone want to "centralize it on public walls"? If anything, I'd prefer murals there.

Theres a concept you're missing. Its not about economic incentive to the person throwing up the tag, its about coverage and visibility.

I prefer murals too and think tags are crap. A mural is nice to look at and usually is respected by others. More murals, less tags. I think we can agree on that.

Vancouver has been very successful in reducing graffiti by taking a hard-line approach – if the graffiti is not removed by the property owner/tenants/community, then the city removes the graffiti 10 days after notifying the property owner and charges them the cost. It works.

No, that legal effort had a lot of thought and effort put into it. Look at the garbage in the photos above, including that lovely neoclassical building. There are some scribbles and lines that will be costly to remove. That junk benefits no one.

Why are you even showing a legal mural? Those aren't just a collection of illegal scribbles but a group of sophisticated graphics. If that's what taggers did, then I'd be thrilled. The reality is different; taggers create an ugly mess that no one enjoys looking at.

The important thing is for city authorities and residents not to be indifferent about it. Chicago and Vancouver are gaining reputations as clean and attractive cities. I think they've implemented good ideas that should be tried here.

You’re absolutely right, as Toronto already has the by-laws in place to clean up the city but they don't enforce most of these by-laws.

What about the wooden skulls that are appearing around. I think those are nice so if people start complaing about that ill be pretty angry i mean no matter what it is its art to someone

Leave a Reply