In early March, a new painting appeared on the side of the building on the northeast corner of 8th Avenue and Clement. It turned out to be an “eco-friendly custom outdoor mural” for Lexus’ new CT model, which they advertise as “a hybrid with aggressive styling and dynamic handling.” The mural was part of a national campaign for the car with the theme “defy convention”.
On April 5, the city slapped a notice over one of the car’s headlights stating that the advertisement was in violation of planning code 604. “The above referenced general advertising sign has been installed without benefit of a permit”.
The owner of the building, DWL Wong Partners, has until May 11 to appeal the notice or apply for a building permit to remove the sign. Wait, you need a permit to remove something?
I think these violation notices are usually referring to illegal billboards that are put up on the sides of buildings, not paintings. So I’ll give the Planning Dept. the benefit of the doubt with that explanation and presume that painting over the sign will suffice.
This is sort of a no harm, no foul situation for the building owner who probably got a decent fee for providing the mural space, and didn’t have to bother with a permit. Lexus should be happy – all told, it will have been up for 2 months before it has to be removed.
On our earlier post about this mural, RichmondSFBlog reader Ian left this comment: “talked to the artist while he was doing it. it’ll only be up for about 6 weeks. he’s a former oakland graffiti artist who now lives in germany and travels all over europe doing this sort of artwork/advertising.” Sounds like the artist knew how this would end.
What do you think of this kind of advertising in our neighborhood? Innovative? Or just another billboard in sheep’s clothing?
Thanks to RichmondSFBlog reader Vince for the tip.
Sarah B.
Good riddance!
The huge corporation responsible for this blatant disregard for the law should be made to pay heavy fines for this outrage.
Who does Toyota and their ad agency think they are, coming into our city and intentionally breaking the law.
Why, if they thought they were right didn’t they get permits in the first place. Did their lawyers honestly think it was okay to put up a billboard advertisement without proper permits? Or did they just think to that the building owner would take the brunt of the consequences and figure that into the compensation.
Thanks for reading my rant
Although the painting itself is interesting, the advertising is NOT. There are laws regulating (not always effectively) where and when outside advertising is allowed. I guess I’m just tired of having advertising shoved down my throat wherever and whenever it can be done – like movie theaters, sides of buses, etc. Enough!
It’s a guerilla marketing tactic that unfortunately is here to stay. Agencies and corporations will risk and eat the small fines or penalties in trade for publicity in addition to the exposure – such as the 2 months Lexus has until they technically have to remove this mural.
In some cases those penalties may be cheaper than ad space on a Clear Channel billboard.
Given the location not sure I agree with the severity of the issue. Has anyone been down Clement Street? Sure I agree with following the rules and the law. I don’t want advertising on my front porch either but in this specific case I say no harm no foul. Lighten up folks they probably covered up some graffiti or something longer since abandoned old advertisement.
It’s a sleeper billboard. Get rid of it quick or fine the owner.
@Armando how do i give a thumbs up to a comment? this really isn’t that big of a deal.
@Jeffrey……This is a sad state of affairs indeed. and the only fix is to make the cost of such actions so high that corporations can’t justify the expense and would be better off going through the extremely abundant advertising channels that already exist.
What’s the difference if Clear Channel get paid to pollute public spaces (aka billboards) or if the City gets paid (I.e., levies a fine)? Either way, outdoor advertising, the travesty as it is, isn’t going away…
@matt – it’s about ethical business practice and pursuing the proper and legal channels of advertising and promotion by the company in question.
Lexus knows exactly what it’s doing in this campaign: paying homeowners a cheap fee to put murals on their buildings. In addition to the cheap ad space, they get free press for their brand, directed to said cheap ad space because they’re in violation of municipal codes. But that doesn’t carry much penalty and doesn’t call for immediate removal.
Lexus is exploiting the homeowner, the neighborhood, and the municipality rather than pursue an appropriate billboard or other ad device for a fair industry-set price among it’s competition.
this is garbage. fine everyone involved. basically just corporate sponsored graffiti. why should lexus be allowed to pollute our streets with advertising?
Well, I like the mural. I think we should have more business oriented murals. It puts real money in artists pockets and it creates a positive flow attitude. More than half of the businesses on Geary are boring for no good reason. Too many Mr. and Mrs. Negative’s in the Richmond.
@ Scott, the mural and the artist are not what I question… Personally I think that the artist did a great job and it is alright for an ad. The problem I have is that the big multiple-billion dollar corporation decided that it could bypass San franciaco laws and put up a billboard without going through the proper channels ( wether or not these channels are good is a different issue). The issue is that if this kind of advertising isn’t nipped in the bud there is a potential for every blank wall space in our city to be covered with paintings that have one reason and one reason only…. To sell.