YONGE ST OVERHEAD SIGNS by Tatum
Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2022 1:04 pm
Overhead Cabbage? The Long Debate on Yonge Street’s Overhanging Signs
Tatum Taylor Chaubal
WC: 2629
Walking along Yonge Street as it bisects downtown Toronto, we see a cross-section of the city’s commercial and cultural vibrancy: a busy blend of new and historic storefronts, offices, theatres, and restaurants radiating outward from the frenetic Dundas Square. But during the first half of the twentieth century, this central thoroughfare cultivated a different degree of visual chaos. Wooden hydro poles lined the street, a tangle of streetcar wires criss-crossed the sky, and merchants competed for attention by installing large signs that stretched over the sidewalk. The presence of these signs stoked an extended public and political debate, bordering on absurdism in its twists and turns that we can trace through media coverage.
In his annual report for 1901, City Engineer Charles H. Rust decried signs hanging over the sidewalk as “not only unsightly but dangerous,” and called for their removal from Yonge, King, and Queen streets. The idea lingered in public discourse over the next decade. The Toronto Daily Star identified this type of signage as outmoded: “Muddy streets, cedar block pavements, plank sidewalks, overhead wires, wooden poles, overhanging signs, these are some of the features of a stage of urban development that Toronto ought to have passed, at least as far as the central busy part of the city is concerned.” C.H. Mitchell, vice-president of the Toronto Civic Guild, declared at the Municipal Improvement Association of Toronto’s annual meeting in 1913 that the signs must go. However, no action was taken, and the discussion apparently subsided.
By the time the issue re-emerged in newspapers in the mid-1940s, overhanging signage – both older wooden signs and those illuminated by fashionable neon – had proliferated on Yonge Street. In 1944, the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association, a group of businessmen who would play a key role in the sign debate, asked City Council to prohibit all overhanging signs in their area. They clarified that they had “no desire to eliminate all signs or to curtail their illumination,” but rather to give the streets a cleaner and wider appearance. They pointed to Fifth Avenue, Park Avenue, and Madison Avenue in New York City, where evidently the overhanging sign typology had been restricted for over 20 years. In response, the City’s Works Committee heard arguments both for and against such a ban, which they did not end up advancing. During the hearing, even the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association’s own members could not agree. Several insisted that the alternative of facial signs, flush with a building’s façade, would not have enough visibility to attract potential customers. The Works Committee heard similar deputations regarding a citywide ban two years later, and again decided against enacting one. However, the civic drama of overhanging signs had scarcely begun to unfold.
In 1949, the Toronto Transportation Commission (or TTC, renamed the Toronto Transit Commission in 1954) began work on the Yonge Street Subway, the first subway line in Canada. To facilitate a project of this magnitude, the TTC worked with City officials to solve a number of logistical challenges; one result was the temporary removal of overhanging signs in the construction areas along Yonge Street. This change prompted the first in a multi-year series of articles in The Globe and Mail by Frank Tumpane, a columnist on urban issues and a fervent opponent of overhanging signs. To him, the disappearance of these signs on Yonge Street provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate them forever: “If they are down now, why can’t they stay down?” He reported that Alderman E. L. Weaver had recently said as much when he introduced a motion before the Civic Works Committee to ban the signs permanently on Yonge Street; the Committee had declined, requesting additional information on the subject. Tumpane admitted that illuminated signs added “a touch of colour and gaiety” that was missed with the enforcement of blackouts during the Second World War. Still, he maintained that facial signs would continue to provide light and vibrancy without the clutter of overhanging signs, which overlapped within the streetscape to the point of illegibility and made it difficult to see traffic signals.
By the end of 1949, City officials had formed two factions, squaring off over the question of whether signs removed during subway construction should stay down. Proponents of a ban, notably including the popular Controller John Innes, emphasized the aesthetic benefits of forbidding overhanging signage. They argued that the City had not exercised control over the size and appearance of the signs, which were now detracting from the dignity of Yonge Street. Meanwhile, opponents such as prominent Controllers David Balfour and Allan Lamport feared that a ban would prove a hardship for Yonge Street’s merchants, who were already losing business due to the subway project.
In early 1950, as the construction proceeded up the street, Building Commissioner Kenneth Gillies began withholding permits for reinstalling signs that had been removed. He claimed not to care whether he had the authority to do so, because of the strength of his convictions on the matter. Controller Balfour publicly opposed Gillies’ actions, highlighting feedback from merchants whose shops had suffered without their signage. Mayor Hiram McCallum soon joined the debate, expressing his determination to eliminate overhanging signs in order to clean up Yonge Street. However, Balfour’s position swayed the Civic Works Committee to recommend that existing overhanging signs be permitted to stay in place for one year, and that signs removed to facilitate subway work should be allowed to go back up. In The Globe and Mail, columnist Tumpane bemoaned this victory for the pro-sign faction. “What happens on Yonge St. is the business of every Torontonian. It is our principal street,” he asserted. “As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, nobody has yet come forward to say that Yonge St. looks better with that overhead cabbage drooping all over it” – an image he came to rely on in his coverage.
Countering the Civic Works Committee’s recommendation, the Board of Control voted 3-2 in favour of removing the signs, with Controller Leslie Saunders joining Mayor MacCallum and Controller Innes on the winning side, and Controllers Balfour and Lamport against the sign ban. Around this time, a survey of Yonge Street merchants had found that a number of prominent business owners did, in fact, support a ban. Lady Flora Eaton of the T. Eaton Company, for example, was quoted as saying, “Overhanging signs are a menace to safe driving. I am utterly opposed to them.” The Ontario Association of Architects found in a poll that most architects in Toronto favoured removal, as well. The Women Elector’s Association also weighed in. The Globe and Mail reported that Mrs. S. J. Allin of the organization opposed overhanging signs because “birds seem to nest in the things,” dirtying people below: “Perhaps the dry cleaners are in cahoots with the people who want to maintain the overhead signs.” Amid this discourse, a heated City Council debate in late January 1950 ended in returning the question to the Civic Works Committee, with a decision required within six weeks.
During this waiting period, public discussion on the subject intensified. Tumpane published at least two articles, pondering “whether the overhead cabbage shall thrive or wither on the stalk.” He tried to assuage concern that “deletion of the overhead cabbage would also plunge the street into semi-darkness,” reinforcing the idea that facial signs could remain lit, and would direct light toward the street instead of onto one another. He also suggested that consistency in signage and the marking of street addresses would benefit wayfinding and, in turn, commerce. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association re-entered the fray, urging the City to acknowledge that support for the ban among merchants was steadily increasing. They argued that commercial success relied on the quality of merchandise and service rather than signage, and that a tidier Yonge Street would foster civic pride. On the other side, the Toronto District Labor Council contended that the prohibition of overhanging signs would deprive members of the Sign and Pictorial Painters’ Union of employment. They claimed that newspapers were behind the campaign to eliminate signs, inspired by newspapers in the United States that were said to be campaigning to banish billboards, as the alternative of print advertising was profitable to them.
In mid-February 1950, the City’s special Civic Sign Committee authorized a poll of businesses along Yonge Street between Front Street and Ramsden Park. Buildings Commissioner Gillies, still a staunch supporter of the sign ban, would undertake the poll and report back to the Committee. The outcome showed a nearly even split: 266 merchants were opposed to the removal of overhanging signs, 262 were in favour, 20 had no opinion, and 279 did not respond. Mayor McCallum took these results as supporting his pro-ban position: “Since 279 of the merchants did not bother to reply, they obviously are not strongly opposed to removal.”
When the Civic Works Committee held a special session on the subject in early March 1950, members voted 5-4 to ban all overhanging signs on Yonge Street beginning on January 1, 1952. Signs removed for the subway construction could go back up until the end of 1951. The Committee also recommended that facial signs on building frontages could not have flashing lights or interfere with traffic signals, must be at least eight feet above street level, must be made of metal, and would require an inspection fee of 25 cents per square foot. Alderman William Collings told the Committee that their decisions would likely have city-wide repercussions: “When we decide on the future of Yonge St., we are deciding on a policy for the city at large.”
The Committee’s recommendations passed to the Board of Control, whose members split 2-2 on whether to move forward with them. At their meeting, a large delegation of Yonge Street merchants appeared to protest the proposed regulations, particularly the inspection fee. The Board ultimately agreed to oppose all of the recommendations except the requirement to remove the signs by the end of 1951. But when City Council reviewed the matter in mid-March 1950, they decided unanimously to require the removal of all overhanging signs on Yonge Street by December 31, 1951. They mandated that signs could not encroach more than 18 inches over the sidewalk, could not interfere with traffic lights, and could not obstruct windows needed for light, ventilation, or firefighter access. They did not ban flashing facial signs or materials other than metal, require a height of at least eight feet, or include an inspection fee. While this outcome may have seemed like a victory to advocates, some criticized Council for not being more definitive; the delayed timeline of their ban allowed signs to go back up in the meantime, and left the door open for a new Council to reverse the decision in 1951.
By May 1951, Tumpane was lamenting the return of the signs: “On Yonge St. the overhead cabbage blooms in the spring. . . In the block directly north of King and on the east side of the street, I counted the following overhanging signs the other day: photographer, cigars, men’s shop, women’s apparel, shoes, shoes, candles, and shoes.” In September 1951, as the deadline to remove overhanging signs approached, Tumpane predicted there would be an attempt to postpone it; a municipal election would take place on the first Monday in December 1951, and voters would have the opportunity to ask candidates where they stood on “the overhanging sign question.” He was right.
As time ticked down to the end of 1951, the sign debate reached operatic levels of drama. The Civic Works Committee decided on October 31 that there would be no extension to the deadline. But a week later, the Board of Control went against the Committee and recommended to Council that the deadline for removing overhanging signs should be extended until construction on the Yonge Street Subway was complete, which was not expected until 1953. Mayor McCallum, who had previously supported the ban, said the extension was justified. His new reasoning was that the subway construction had disturbed local businesses, and that a steel shortage would challenge the manufacturing of new facial signs. In response, the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association delivered a letter to every councillor, insisting that the steel shortage was a poor excuse, and that if the signs did not come down by the start of 1952, they never would. With a vote of 10-8, City Council subsequently stood by the decision that overhanging signs must be removed by December 31, 1951.
On December 28, Tumpane awaited the implementation of the ban with skepticism: “Only four more days remain until downtown Yonge St. is supposed to be free of all overhanging signs. But you would never know it by walking up and down our principal avenue. The overhead cabbage still sprouts abundantly down the length of Toronto’s main street.” He questioned what would happen if merchants refused to comply, and wondered of the newly elected Mayor Allan Lamport, who had been an active opponent of the ban, would risk trying to sway Council to change their minds. Ten days into 1952, Tumpane wrote, “Before the year’s end, I predicted another stall attempt would be made on the removal of the overhanging signs. And just like death and taxes, the attempt has been made and has been eagerly clutched by the Board of Control.” The new Board had quickly recommended a further postponement of the sign ban until 1954, by which time Council membership would have changed, laying the groundwork for even further stalls. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association complained that a deadline extension would be discriminatory, as many merchants had already complied with the order and paid to replace their overhanging signs with facial signs. In response to suggestions that the signage ban unfairly targeted merchants on Yonge Street alone, the Civic Works Committee recommended that a ban be applied across the city, but this did not manifest.
Ultimately, Council did not agree with the Board of Control’s attempt to delay the ban. By early March 1952, only 11 overhanging signs remained on Yonge Street, and the City was working with their owners to have the signs removed by the end of the month. Despite one holdout merchant, who was launching a legal battle to retain his sign, Tumpane seemed cautiously optimistic when he wrote in mid-March that Yonge Street looked “vastly improved” and “several feet wider.” The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association built on their long-fought victory by approaching the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, asking them to use the subway construction as an opportunity to place all overhead wires underground on Yonge Street from Front Street to Ramsden Park, the same area as the overhanging signage ban. The Ontario Associaton of Architects held a competition for designing new facial signs on Yonge Street, and gave the award for best sign to Calvert’s Distillers Ltd. They also seized the moment to encourage the redesign of street furniture, in the interest of continuing to beautify Yonge Street.
Yonge Street’s overhanging signage saga inspired later movements elsewhere. Because the thoroughfare’s appearance had “improved almost beyond recognition,” the Civic Works Committee asked Council to consider similar regulations on King Street in 1955. Legislation proposed in 1959 would apply a ban on overhanging signs throughout the Metro roads system by the mid-1960s, prompting another prolonged debate. And other cities took notice, as well; in 1963, Montreal considered sign regulations that would give its downtown streets “the uncluttered or prim, look of Toronto’s Yonge St.”
In June 1959, the newspapers covered festivities to mark the removal of the last wooden light standard on Yonge Street. The subway had opened ceremoniously in 1954, and Toronto Hydro had finished moved their wiring underground. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association put on a parade, an army band played, and Mayor Nathan Phillips gave a speech, as Toronto celebrated “Yonge St.’s new clean look – no overhead wiring, poles, or overhanging signs.” Yonge Street was officially beautified, and the overhead cabbage was history.
Tatum Taylor Chaubal
WC: 2629
Walking along Yonge Street as it bisects downtown Toronto, we see a cross-section of the city’s commercial and cultural vibrancy: a busy blend of new and historic storefronts, offices, theatres, and restaurants radiating outward from the frenetic Dundas Square. But during the first half of the twentieth century, this central thoroughfare cultivated a different degree of visual chaos. Wooden hydro poles lined the street, a tangle of streetcar wires criss-crossed the sky, and merchants competed for attention by installing large signs that stretched over the sidewalk. The presence of these signs stoked an extended public and political debate, bordering on absurdism in its twists and turns that we can trace through media coverage.
In his annual report for 1901, City Engineer Charles H. Rust decried signs hanging over the sidewalk as “not only unsightly but dangerous,” and called for their removal from Yonge, King, and Queen streets. The idea lingered in public discourse over the next decade. The Toronto Daily Star identified this type of signage as outmoded: “Muddy streets, cedar block pavements, plank sidewalks, overhead wires, wooden poles, overhanging signs, these are some of the features of a stage of urban development that Toronto ought to have passed, at least as far as the central busy part of the city is concerned.” C.H. Mitchell, vice-president of the Toronto Civic Guild, declared at the Municipal Improvement Association of Toronto’s annual meeting in 1913 that the signs must go. However, no action was taken, and the discussion apparently subsided.
By the time the issue re-emerged in newspapers in the mid-1940s, overhanging signage – both older wooden signs and those illuminated by fashionable neon – had proliferated on Yonge Street. In 1944, the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association, a group of businessmen who would play a key role in the sign debate, asked City Council to prohibit all overhanging signs in their area. They clarified that they had “no desire to eliminate all signs or to curtail their illumination,” but rather to give the streets a cleaner and wider appearance. They pointed to Fifth Avenue, Park Avenue, and Madison Avenue in New York City, where evidently the overhanging sign typology had been restricted for over 20 years. In response, the City’s Works Committee heard arguments both for and against such a ban, which they did not end up advancing. During the hearing, even the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association’s own members could not agree. Several insisted that the alternative of facial signs, flush with a building’s façade, would not have enough visibility to attract potential customers. The Works Committee heard similar deputations regarding a citywide ban two years later, and again decided against enacting one. However, the civic drama of overhanging signs had scarcely begun to unfold.
In 1949, the Toronto Transportation Commission (or TTC, renamed the Toronto Transit Commission in 1954) began work on the Yonge Street Subway, the first subway line in Canada. To facilitate a project of this magnitude, the TTC worked with City officials to solve a number of logistical challenges; one result was the temporary removal of overhanging signs in the construction areas along Yonge Street. This change prompted the first in a multi-year series of articles in The Globe and Mail by Frank Tumpane, a columnist on urban issues and a fervent opponent of overhanging signs. To him, the disappearance of these signs on Yonge Street provided a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to eliminate them forever: “If they are down now, why can’t they stay down?” He reported that Alderman E. L. Weaver had recently said as much when he introduced a motion before the Civic Works Committee to ban the signs permanently on Yonge Street; the Committee had declined, requesting additional information on the subject. Tumpane admitted that illuminated signs added “a touch of colour and gaiety” that was missed with the enforcement of blackouts during the Second World War. Still, he maintained that facial signs would continue to provide light and vibrancy without the clutter of overhanging signs, which overlapped within the streetscape to the point of illegibility and made it difficult to see traffic signals.
By the end of 1949, City officials had formed two factions, squaring off over the question of whether signs removed during subway construction should stay down. Proponents of a ban, notably including the popular Controller John Innes, emphasized the aesthetic benefits of forbidding overhanging signage. They argued that the City had not exercised control over the size and appearance of the signs, which were now detracting from the dignity of Yonge Street. Meanwhile, opponents such as prominent Controllers David Balfour and Allan Lamport feared that a ban would prove a hardship for Yonge Street’s merchants, who were already losing business due to the subway project.
In early 1950, as the construction proceeded up the street, Building Commissioner Kenneth Gillies began withholding permits for reinstalling signs that had been removed. He claimed not to care whether he had the authority to do so, because of the strength of his convictions on the matter. Controller Balfour publicly opposed Gillies’ actions, highlighting feedback from merchants whose shops had suffered without their signage. Mayor Hiram McCallum soon joined the debate, expressing his determination to eliminate overhanging signs in order to clean up Yonge Street. However, Balfour’s position swayed the Civic Works Committee to recommend that existing overhanging signs be permitted to stay in place for one year, and that signs removed to facilitate subway work should be allowed to go back up. In The Globe and Mail, columnist Tumpane bemoaned this victory for the pro-sign faction. “What happens on Yonge St. is the business of every Torontonian. It is our principal street,” he asserted. “As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, nobody has yet come forward to say that Yonge St. looks better with that overhead cabbage drooping all over it” – an image he came to rely on in his coverage.
Countering the Civic Works Committee’s recommendation, the Board of Control voted 3-2 in favour of removing the signs, with Controller Leslie Saunders joining Mayor MacCallum and Controller Innes on the winning side, and Controllers Balfour and Lamport against the sign ban. Around this time, a survey of Yonge Street merchants had found that a number of prominent business owners did, in fact, support a ban. Lady Flora Eaton of the T. Eaton Company, for example, was quoted as saying, “Overhanging signs are a menace to safe driving. I am utterly opposed to them.” The Ontario Association of Architects found in a poll that most architects in Toronto favoured removal, as well. The Women Elector’s Association also weighed in. The Globe and Mail reported that Mrs. S. J. Allin of the organization opposed overhanging signs because “birds seem to nest in the things,” dirtying people below: “Perhaps the dry cleaners are in cahoots with the people who want to maintain the overhead signs.” Amid this discourse, a heated City Council debate in late January 1950 ended in returning the question to the Civic Works Committee, with a decision required within six weeks.
During this waiting period, public discussion on the subject intensified. Tumpane published at least two articles, pondering “whether the overhead cabbage shall thrive or wither on the stalk.” He tried to assuage concern that “deletion of the overhead cabbage would also plunge the street into semi-darkness,” reinforcing the idea that facial signs could remain lit, and would direct light toward the street instead of onto one another. He also suggested that consistency in signage and the marking of street addresses would benefit wayfinding and, in turn, commerce. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association re-entered the fray, urging the City to acknowledge that support for the ban among merchants was steadily increasing. They argued that commercial success relied on the quality of merchandise and service rather than signage, and that a tidier Yonge Street would foster civic pride. On the other side, the Toronto District Labor Council contended that the prohibition of overhanging signs would deprive members of the Sign and Pictorial Painters’ Union of employment. They claimed that newspapers were behind the campaign to eliminate signs, inspired by newspapers in the United States that were said to be campaigning to banish billboards, as the alternative of print advertising was profitable to them.
In mid-February 1950, the City’s special Civic Sign Committee authorized a poll of businesses along Yonge Street between Front Street and Ramsden Park. Buildings Commissioner Gillies, still a staunch supporter of the sign ban, would undertake the poll and report back to the Committee. The outcome showed a nearly even split: 266 merchants were opposed to the removal of overhanging signs, 262 were in favour, 20 had no opinion, and 279 did not respond. Mayor McCallum took these results as supporting his pro-ban position: “Since 279 of the merchants did not bother to reply, they obviously are not strongly opposed to removal.”
When the Civic Works Committee held a special session on the subject in early March 1950, members voted 5-4 to ban all overhanging signs on Yonge Street beginning on January 1, 1952. Signs removed for the subway construction could go back up until the end of 1951. The Committee also recommended that facial signs on building frontages could not have flashing lights or interfere with traffic signals, must be at least eight feet above street level, must be made of metal, and would require an inspection fee of 25 cents per square foot. Alderman William Collings told the Committee that their decisions would likely have city-wide repercussions: “When we decide on the future of Yonge St., we are deciding on a policy for the city at large.”
The Committee’s recommendations passed to the Board of Control, whose members split 2-2 on whether to move forward with them. At their meeting, a large delegation of Yonge Street merchants appeared to protest the proposed regulations, particularly the inspection fee. The Board ultimately agreed to oppose all of the recommendations except the requirement to remove the signs by the end of 1951. But when City Council reviewed the matter in mid-March 1950, they decided unanimously to require the removal of all overhanging signs on Yonge Street by December 31, 1951. They mandated that signs could not encroach more than 18 inches over the sidewalk, could not interfere with traffic lights, and could not obstruct windows needed for light, ventilation, or firefighter access. They did not ban flashing facial signs or materials other than metal, require a height of at least eight feet, or include an inspection fee. While this outcome may have seemed like a victory to advocates, some criticized Council for not being more definitive; the delayed timeline of their ban allowed signs to go back up in the meantime, and left the door open for a new Council to reverse the decision in 1951.
By May 1951, Tumpane was lamenting the return of the signs: “On Yonge St. the overhead cabbage blooms in the spring. . . In the block directly north of King and on the east side of the street, I counted the following overhanging signs the other day: photographer, cigars, men’s shop, women’s apparel, shoes, shoes, candles, and shoes.” In September 1951, as the deadline to remove overhanging signs approached, Tumpane predicted there would be an attempt to postpone it; a municipal election would take place on the first Monday in December 1951, and voters would have the opportunity to ask candidates where they stood on “the overhanging sign question.” He was right.
As time ticked down to the end of 1951, the sign debate reached operatic levels of drama. The Civic Works Committee decided on October 31 that there would be no extension to the deadline. But a week later, the Board of Control went against the Committee and recommended to Council that the deadline for removing overhanging signs should be extended until construction on the Yonge Street Subway was complete, which was not expected until 1953. Mayor McCallum, who had previously supported the ban, said the extension was justified. His new reasoning was that the subway construction had disturbed local businesses, and that a steel shortage would challenge the manufacturing of new facial signs. In response, the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association delivered a letter to every councillor, insisting that the steel shortage was a poor excuse, and that if the signs did not come down by the start of 1952, they never would. With a vote of 10-8, City Council subsequently stood by the decision that overhanging signs must be removed by December 31, 1951.
On December 28, Tumpane awaited the implementation of the ban with skepticism: “Only four more days remain until downtown Yonge St. is supposed to be free of all overhanging signs. But you would never know it by walking up and down our principal avenue. The overhead cabbage still sprouts abundantly down the length of Toronto’s main street.” He questioned what would happen if merchants refused to comply, and wondered of the newly elected Mayor Allan Lamport, who had been an active opponent of the ban, would risk trying to sway Council to change their minds. Ten days into 1952, Tumpane wrote, “Before the year’s end, I predicted another stall attempt would be made on the removal of the overhanging signs. And just like death and taxes, the attempt has been made and has been eagerly clutched by the Board of Control.” The new Board had quickly recommended a further postponement of the sign ban until 1954, by which time Council membership would have changed, laying the groundwork for even further stalls. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association complained that a deadline extension would be discriminatory, as many merchants had already complied with the order and paid to replace their overhanging signs with facial signs. In response to suggestions that the signage ban unfairly targeted merchants on Yonge Street alone, the Civic Works Committee recommended that a ban be applied across the city, but this did not manifest.
Ultimately, Council did not agree with the Board of Control’s attempt to delay the ban. By early March 1952, only 11 overhanging signs remained on Yonge Street, and the City was working with their owners to have the signs removed by the end of the month. Despite one holdout merchant, who was launching a legal battle to retain his sign, Tumpane seemed cautiously optimistic when he wrote in mid-March that Yonge Street looked “vastly improved” and “several feet wider.” The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association built on their long-fought victory by approaching the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, asking them to use the subway construction as an opportunity to place all overhead wires underground on Yonge Street from Front Street to Ramsden Park, the same area as the overhanging signage ban. The Ontario Associaton of Architects held a competition for designing new facial signs on Yonge Street, and gave the award for best sign to Calvert’s Distillers Ltd. They also seized the moment to encourage the redesign of street furniture, in the interest of continuing to beautify Yonge Street.
Yonge Street’s overhanging signage saga inspired later movements elsewhere. Because the thoroughfare’s appearance had “improved almost beyond recognition,” the Civic Works Committee asked Council to consider similar regulations on King Street in 1955. Legislation proposed in 1959 would apply a ban on overhanging signs throughout the Metro roads system by the mid-1960s, prompting another prolonged debate. And other cities took notice, as well; in 1963, Montreal considered sign regulations that would give its downtown streets “the uncluttered or prim, look of Toronto’s Yonge St.”
In June 1959, the newspapers covered festivities to mark the removal of the last wooden light standard on Yonge Street. The subway had opened ceremoniously in 1954, and Toronto Hydro had finished moved their wiring underground. The Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association put on a parade, an army band played, and Mayor Nathan Phillips gave a speech, as Toronto celebrated “Yonge St.’s new clean look – no overhead wiring, poles, or overhanging signs.” Yonge Street was officially beautified, and the overhead cabbage was history.