KEY POINTS:
Sometimes, there is good cause to regulate the size, location and characteristics of advertising billboards. They can be an unwelcome intrusion if they are, say, out of scale or sympathy with surrounding buildings, or degrade scenic views. But only in rare circumstances can a ban on billboards be justified. Auckland, with its unexceptional buildings and cityscape, is not one of these.
That fact seems to have escaped the Auckland City Council's planning and regulatory committee. Today, it will consider banning billboards in a central-city area bounded by Symonds St, Karangahape Rd, Ponsonby Rd and the waterfront. It talks of wanting people to appreciate the "buildings, heritage and natural landscape". A ban would, it says, help make Auckland an "international city", bringing it into line with other "main international cities with European influences".
So much for daydreaming. The committee seems blinkered to the reality of a city of largely unremarkable buildings, the product, in large part, of successive councils' policies. The city would look even grayer were it not for the splashes of colour provided by billboards. Indeed, creativity is far more evident in much of this advertising than in the vast majority of buildings.
It is trite to compare Auckland with European cities that have outlawed billboards. Bans in Europe reflect this advertising medium's incompatibility with heritage buildings. There would be a similar sense of affront if a large billboard were placed on, or obscured, Auckland's Ferry Building. But to suggest Auckland is on a par with European cities that attract millions of history-hungry tourists is nonsensical.
Some other bans also have validity. Such as those imposed by the American states of Vermont, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska, which possess scenic beauty that underpins important tourist industries. To act without such a reason, however, is to condemn a city to the soulless grey and uniformity of an Eastern bloc state before the collapse of communism.
It does not help that the committee appears to have paid little heed to business issues. APN Outdoor New Zealand, owned by Herald publisher APN News & Media, says it was involved only in early discussions. It may be that the committee has underestimated the importance of this form of advertising for businesses. Billboards enable them to communicate with potential customers without knobs on radios having to be turned on or newspapers having to be bought.
Committee chairwoman Glenda Fryer argues that a ban would simply see advertising money move from billboards to other media. But it is reasonable to expect lack of access to the centre of New Zealand's biggest city to have some impact on national advertising. It would also cost jobs and deprive the local economy of an estimated $5.2 million a year. The committee may consider this an insignificant amount, given Auckland's annual gross domestic product is about $38 billion. But it would be money lost for no good reason.
The city council may believe there is a need for tighter restrictions on billboards. Worldwide, many other councils have felt the same. But the vast majority have also recognised that, regulated sensibly, billboards are a vibrant, business-friendly means of brightening what is often an unsightly clutter of buildings. There is no reason for Auckland to think differently.
