| 1 | June 28/05 | no | | | money maker | | yes | waste of money | | put money into other projects | | | |
| 2 | June 29/05 | no | | | not aware of them | | no | don’t like advertising on the bins | | no | | | |
| 3 | June 29/05 | no | | no | don’t know | | yes | | | no | | | |
| 4 | June 29/05 | | | | garbage can should look like garbage can | | yes | this is a marketing ploy | | no | vandalization | | |
| 5 | July 6/05 | Yes | Windermere & Bloor | no | small openings | road side too difficult to access - unsafe | “yes, but only because of poster” | “blocks sidewalk, unsafe at night - easy for people to hide behind” | | no | “safety concerns at night and people hiding behind bins, ugly, ads on Silverboxes is sufficient,” | | height - safety concern; one side too close to road - dangerous; concern over costs (Maintenance & repairs) |
| 6 | July 7/05 | No | | yes | garbage bin seems ok | | yes | right in middle of sidewalk. | obstructing view | no | city doesn’t need to sell ads on garbage bins | | “cash grab. Obstructing views, too tall, garbage bin part seems very small” |
| 7 | July 7/05 | Yes | Keele & Bloor | no | took a few minutes to realize where the garbage went. | Distracted by ad. | yes | “not bad, but too big” | | yes | “good that there are more bins on street, but don’t like the ads” | | enough adds right now. They are more about ads then garbage/recycling bins. |
| 8 | July 7/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | one side too close to street | | yes | “too big. Site line issues, offensive” | | no | enough ads in public spaces already | obnoxious | no reason for them too be this big. OMG bins are better because they are smaller - don’t break up sightlines as much. |
| 9 | July 7/05 | no | didn’t want to use it | no | | | no because couldn’t see around to that side | blocking sidewalk | obstructing view | no | “city gets money elsewhere, so no need to make money off garbage bins “ | | they suck |
| 10 | July 7/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | “garbage bin too small, side facing the street won’t be used.” | | “yes, but not easy to see” | too big. | Offensive | no | enough ads in public spaces already | they will be vandalized | they will be vandalized |
| 11 | July 8/05 | no | | n/a | | | Yes | looks terrible | | no | OMG bins looks much better | look out of place on street | “Don’t blend into neighbourhoods, poor placement” |
| 12 | July 10/05 | yes | Bloor & Windermere | no | garbage bins were overflowing | no room for garbage | yes | too close to street | ad grab focused on getting attention of drivers; in the way of pedestrians | no | ads disguised at garbage bins; overflowing with garbage; don’t fit large cups from fast food joints | | “OMG are better than EcoMupis, but still not very good. These bins are breaking the City’s own by-laws.” |
| 13 | July 11/05 | no | | n/a | never used | | no | haven’t seen one | | yes | if it means more money for city | | |
| 14 | July 11/05 | yes | Lakeshore & 4th st | yes | | | no | “not enough capacity for garbage, recyclables.” | “great that they can accept cigarettes, but seems to be exact same concept as old bins” | | does make city look better | | #NAME? |
| 15 | July 11/05 | yes | Bloor West Village | no | instructions too complicated. Took a while to figure out what went where | | no | too big; OMG bins are better and easy to use | | no | too big | | “need more bins in areas with large public gatherings (I.e. City Hall, Island, etc)” |
| 16 | July 11/05 | no | | | too big | | yes | too big; designed for drivers not pedestrians | block sidewalk; unsafe; eyesore; advertising | no | rather raise taxes | offended by advertising | |
| 17 | July 11/05 | yes | Lawrence & Weston | yes | should be a sign above each opening to make it easier to understand | | no | ok | | yes | good idea | | people are putting everything in litter box because it isn’t clear where recyclables go |
| 18 | July 12/05 | no | n/a | n/a | | | yes | terrible - obstructs vehicular and pedestrian sightlines | | no | forget the added revenue | remove | blatant commercialism |
| 19 | July 13/05 | | | no | hard to understand. People will just put everything in garbage. | concern of fire | yes | safety concerns because of height and width. | more advertising space than garbage space. | no | increase crime. Dangerous for women. | cigarettes will go in wrong opening. | Don’t accept proposal. |
| 20 | July 13/05 | yes | Pacific & Dundas | yes | access if fine | | yes | too big. It’s only an excuse for ads. | | no | they are an eyesore. Too much ads as it is. | | Too much ads as it is. |
| 21 | July 13/05 | yes | ? | yes | it was easy | | yes | position ok | easy to access | yes | | | |
| 22 | July 13/05 | yes | St. Clair & Keele | yes | | | yes | yes | | yes | | | |
| 23 | July 14/05 | no | | | too large | | yes | too large | | no | too big | no more advertising | “make them smaller, no advertising” |
| 24 | July 15/05 | yes | Howard Park & Roncesvalles | yes | needs more sign/age where the garbage/recycling goes | | | yes | | yes | should have art on panels instead of advertising | | would rather have art or nice photos of the City on the panels instead of ads. |
| 25 | July 18/05 | yes | all over | no | openings are a bit small. Difficult to get garbage/recyclables in | | no | | | yes | if it means more garbage receptacles around City and that they can collect organics. | | want organics to be collected in these bins. Anything to promote recycling and a clean city is good. |
| 26 | July 18/05 | yes | Kipling & Albion | yes | | | yes | strategically positioned well. | “not in way of pedestrian traffic, but still visible to vehicular traffic.” | yes | good because there is no cost to tax payers | “will allow businesses to advertise, which is good” | great idea. It encourages people to recycle. Looks nice. |
| 27 | July 19/05 | yes | Boor & Jane | no | not practical | | yes | offensive | too hard to use side closest to street. Also blocks businesses. | no | sell out | | choose not to use it because it’s offensive. |
| 28 | July 20/05 | no | | no | | | no | don’t want more advertising. | willing to pay more taxes | no | no more ads | | no more ads. We have enough. |
| 29 | July 21/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | no | too high | obstructing views | yes | obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic. | too tall | no | ads are intrusive | people can hide behind it | too tall. Ads are intrusive. Will create more traffic on sidewalk. |
| 30 | July 21/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | no | openings were to high | | | | | | | | |
| 31 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | no | too big. Eyesore. | | no | too much advertising already | | too tall. |
| 32 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | n/a | “ugly, money grab.” | blatant commercialism | no | offensive. | | this concept is a waste of time. |
| 33 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | confusing and too tall | | no | very obtrusive | too big | no | don’t think the revenue gain is a fair trade for these bins. | | should think about the aesthetics of the city and don’t sell us out. |
| 34 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | too big for sidewalks | not enough room for pedestrians | no | don’t think the revenue gain is a fair trade for these bins. | | |
| 35 | July 21/05 | no | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | confusing | too difficult to access the road side openings | yes | “no, takes up too much sidewalk space” | half of bin is unusable because its too close to road | no | don’t think the revenue gain is a fair trade for these bins. | old bins work just fine. We’re just cluttering streets with more ads. | |
| 36 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | haven’t seen one | | no | don’t think the revenue gain is a fair trade for these bins. | streets shouldn’t be overrun with ads | garbage/recycling bins are not the place for advertising. Don’t like that you have to touch the recycling opening flap. |
| 37 | July 21/05 | no | | no | too high for average person | | no | should look at what other world cities do. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | too much on sidewalks now |
| 38 | July 21/05 | yes | Bloor & Jane | no | couldn’t figure out what went where | | no | blocked sidewalk. | took up too much space. Garbage can too small | no | eyesore. Don’t hold enough garbage. | | “at first, didn’t know what it was. Enough advertising as it is.” |
| 39 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | too much ads already. Too big | shouldn’t give public space over to advertising. |
| 40 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big. Design is terrible. | | no | should look at other worldly cities - they wouldn’t do this. | we’re not a world-class city with these bins. | go back to old design. Bin should be no higher than 4 feet. Get away from advertising. |
| 41 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | inconvenient | | no | | | Too much ads as it is. |
| 42 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | very ugly | | no | terrible idea | cit won’t be beautiful with these bins. | get rid of them |
| 43 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big | they are unnecessary. What we have right now is sufficient. | no | | | not necessary to have something so big. |
| 44 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | ugly | | no | “city doesn’t want posters, but will allow this?” | too much ads already. | any advertising using electricity should be banned. Go back to smaller bins without ads. |
| 45 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | “if we have them, they are positioned ok” | | no | city should care how it looks. Advertising goes against this. No other worldly city would do this. | | not right for Toronto |
| 46 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | n/a | take up too much room on sidewalk. Will obstruct pedestrian traffic. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | “opposed to this proposal. Don’t lock us into a contract that we won’t be able to get out of. Yes, we need more bins, but not these ones.” |
| 47 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | hard to get garbage in | | yes | obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic. | ugly | no | too tall | | too tall. Don’t need all the ads on our street. |
| 48 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | one side too close to street | confusing | yes | too big. Encroaching on sidewalk. | “seem to be ads first, garbage bin later” | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | should be able to find another way to get money. | “maybe it is something that can be done in the suburban are, as opposed to former city of Toronto. They are just too big for small corners in old city.” |
| 49 | July 21/05 | yes | Pacific & Dundas | no | confusing as to what goes where. | things will end up in wrong place. | yes | unfair that it blocks businesses because they pay enough rent as it is. | | no | enough ads in public spaces already | too big. They look terrible. | find other ways to make money in the city. |
| 50 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | | visually obtrusive | | no | embarrassment to city of Toronto | this is all about ads/$ and not about garbage. | City should look at alternative ways to make money. |
| 51 | July 21/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | confusing | | no | too big for sidewalks | too high. Too much ads as it is. | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | eyesore | Don’t accept proposal. |
| 52 | July 21/05 | | | yes | | | yes | good | | yes | | | |
| 53 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | too big | | no | eyesore. | | don’t sell out to corporations. |
| 54 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | too difficult to access one side. | | no | very ugly. Too big. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | eyesore | would rather pay more taxes than have these bins. |
| 55 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | no more ads in public spaces | eyesore | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | get rid of them |
| 56 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | in the way of pedestrians | too many ads as it is | no | | | |
| 57 | July 21/05 | no | | no | receptacle is too small. | | yes | this is just a money grab. | stop selling out public space to corporations | no | doesn’t matter if they are free. | | get rid of them. |
| 58 | July 21/05 | no | | no | confusing and too small (openings) | | no | no more ads in public spaces | take up too much space. | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | economic entrust is being placed ahead of beautifying city. |
| 59 | July 21/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | | | yes | good | | yes | | | |
| 60 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | block sidewalks. | eyesore. Too many ads as it is. | no | no more ads | | get rid of them. |
| 61 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big. Obstructs the sidewalks. | | no | no more ads. | there must be better ways to raise money. | |
| 62 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | can’t access side closest to street. | taking up too much of sidewalk | yes | unsafe. Too high. Too close to street. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | eyesore | get rid of them. |
| 63 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big. Take up too much space. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | too big for sidewalk. | too large. A new design is needed. |
| 64 | July 21/05 | yes | Pacific & Dundas | no | too big | | yes | too big. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | too big for sidewalk. Enough ads already. | “too ““in your face””.” |
| 65 | July 21/05 | yes | ? | no | confusing. | | yes | blight on urban landscape | need to use imagination to find better solution | no | stop selling out to corporations. | | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. Embarrassed to show visitors city. |
| 66 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | there is no good way to position them because they are too big. | | no | too big | enough ads already. | |
| 67 | July 21/05 | yes | Bloor & Jane | no | hard to figure out where recycling went. | most people won’t have patience to figure it out. | no because of positioning on sidewalk. | blocks the sidewalk. Too wide. Should be placed parallel. | | no | “sidewalks should be used for pedestrians, not ads.” | | “new bins should blend into environment, not stand out like this.” |
| 68 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | shouldn’t be on sidewalk. | | no | | | get rid of them. |
| 69 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | too big for sidewalks - block space. | | no | blight on street. | need to find money elsewhere. | get rid of them. |
| 70 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | too confusing | | no | should be parallel so both ends can be used. | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | these new bins will not encourage people to put litter in it’s place. |
| 71 | July 21/05 | yes | Bloor & Windermere | no | need better sign/age around opening | | yes | takes up too much space. The sidewalks are too small as it is. | don’t sell out citizens. | no | don’t belong in city. | | don’t sell out to corporations. |
| 72 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | yes | too large | | no | don’t need more ads. | too big. | get rid of them. |
| 73 | July 21/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | openings are too small. | very confusing | no | too big. | | no | there must be better ways of doing this. | | get rid of them. |
| 74 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | one side too close to street | | no | too big for sidewalk. | blocks vehicular sightlines. Also will block path for wheelchairs. | no | not an answer to garbage issue. | | get rid of them. Go back to Silverboxes |
| 75 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big for sidewalk | | no | too big | | go back to old design. |
| 76 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big for sidewalk | | no | too big | too many ads as it is. | “we need cheaper, smaller bins, without ads. Have more, smaller bins.” |
| 77 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big for sidewalk | graffiti will be all over it. | no | don’t sell out the public. | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | get rid of them and figure out a better way to collect litter. Should be more aesthetically pleasing and a blight. Don’t support corporate ads. |
| 78 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | confusing and people will not take the time to figure it out. | | no | too tall. Obstructs view of street. | | no | be more creative to find other sources of revenue. | | public opinion is very clean - don’t support it. |
| 79 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big | | no | not right for the city of Toronto. | | not designed for good use. Go back to Silverboxes. |
| 80 | July 21/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | | | yes | good | | yes | | | |
| 81 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | sellout | enough ads | no | enough ads in public spaces already | | get rid of them |
| 82 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | confusing as to what goes where. | bin is intimidating | yes | too big | too many ads as it is | no | Toronto is already more commercialized. | | “all we need is bins for garbage, not for ads.” |
| 83 | July 21/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | confusing as to what goes where. | | yes | obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic. | very ugly and obtrusive | no | obtrusive and too big. | no more advertising | get rid of them |
| 84 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big and obtrusive. | seems to be ads first and garbage second. Obstructs the storefronts and cityscapes. | no | not right for the city of Toronto. | | “we need cheaper, smaller bins, without ads. Have more, smaller bins. Get rid of them.” |
| 85 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | block vehicular and pedestrian views | | no | too big | why not use smaller bins and have more of them? | don’t need such a big bin. Money isn’t everything. |
| 86 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big for sidewalk | | no | visual pollution | not necessary | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. Embarrassed to show visitors city. |
| 87 | July 21/05 | no | | no | too confusing | | yes | awkward. They impede pedestrian sightlines. | get rid of them. | no | find another way to raise revenue. | | get rid of them. |
| 88 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | too confusing | | yes | awkward. They impede pedestrian sightlines. | seems to be ads first and garbage second. Obstructs the storefronts and cityscapes. | no | this is a short-term vision. | no more advertising | Too much ads as it is. Don’t want us to become dependent on the $. |
| 89 | July 21/05 | yes | Bloor & Dundas | no | “too confusing, not clear” | | yes | “not positioned for maximum use, but positioned for vehicular traffic. “ | dangerous - side closest to road. | no | enough ads in public spaces already | | need to find a better way of getting rid of garbage. |
| 90 | July 21/05 | | | no | | | yes | obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic. | too big and ugly | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | clutter up street |
| 91 | July 21/05 | no | | no | inconvenient | | no | obstruct pedestrian and vehicular traffic. | too big and ugly | no | don’t sell out the public. | too many ads as it is. | install more cigarette receptacles outside of office buildings. |
| 92 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | obstruct sidewalk | | no | | | they are a blight on sidewalk |
| 93 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | ugly and obtrusive | horrible | no | obtrusive and too big. | | “too much on sidewalks now. This would add to clutter. Go for a smaller, clean bin.” |
| 94 | July 21/05 | yes | Yonge & Wilson | yes | ad is hard to read | | yes | “fine. But, pad should be bigger around bin so that it is easy to access both sides.” | should go all over city | yes | | | “need to have ““garbage bin”” in big letters.” |
| 95 | July 21/05 | no | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | n/a | one side too close to street | | yes | very awkward. Can’t use both ends. | too big and ugly | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | don’t focus only on $ | really offensive. |
| 96 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | | | no | overwhelming | provides another opportunity for graffiti. | too overbearing. This isn’t the way to keep the city clean from litter. Pollutes visual landscape. |
| 97 | July 21/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | one side too close to street | only one side is useful | yes | very obstructive on street. | | no | too big and ugly | | there must be a better solution to our litter problem. |
| 98 | July 21/05 | no | | yes | | | yes | shouldn’t be on sidewalk. | | no | | | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. Embarrassed to show visitors city. |
| 99 | July 21/05 | no | | no | not good for short people | | no | obstructive | | no | blight on street. | city needs to be beautified. | raise taxes instead |
| 100 | July 21/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | vertical system is confusing | not clear on where things are to go. | yes | blocks vehicular and pedestrian sightlines | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | “old bins were ok. They openings were too small, but they are better than these. These new ones are too tall.” |
| 101 | July 21/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | | | | yes | blocks vehicular and pedestrian sightlines | | no | cost should not be the only thing that drives the way our city looks. | | “not opposed to ads, but opposed to ads overtaking landscape.” |
| 102 | July 21/05 | yes | Windermere & Bloor | no | confusing | one side too close to street | yes | too big. Urban eyesore. | too many ads as it is | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | get rid of them and bring back Silverboxes. Hire more city workers to empty bins more often. |
| 103 | July 21/05 | | | no | | | no | too big. Will block vehicular sightlines. | | no | too big and ugly | | |
| 104 | July 21/05 | yes | | no | confusing | | no | distraction for motorists. | crowd the sidewalk | no | Silverboxes are better | | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. |
| 105 | July 21/05 | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 106 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | yes | too big and ugly | blocks views | no | Silverboxes are better | | take a look at Chicago’s streetscape - much better. |
| 107 | July 21/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | no | garbage bin was filled with recyclables | one side too close to street | “yes, but too close to street” | too big and ugly | | no | too big and won’t be effectively used. | | far too large. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 108 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | should not be on sidewalk at all. | too many ads as it is | no | obstructs views and walkways | | council should not accept proposal. |
| 109 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too many ads already | | no | shouldn’t be cluttering our streets/sidewalks | | “these and Silverboxes should be removed and smaller, non-ad bins should be added.” |
| 110 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | confusing | | no | poor positioning | | no | shouldn’t be cluttering our streets/sidewalks | | get rid of them. Bring in something more attractive without ads. |
| 111 | July 21/05 | yes | Lakeshore & Superior | no | rubber piece is confusing | should be better instructions to prevent contamination | no | sightlines are compromised. | dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians | no | dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians | too many ads as it is. | should follow the lead of other cities that don’t have ads on garbage bins. They are ugly and detract from city. |
| 112 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | eyesore. | “shouldn’t be positioned on busy sidewalks where people need to get by with wheelchairs/strollers, etc.” | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | visual pollution | should be reconfigured that are without ads. |
| 113 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | alarmed at the height | too many ads as it is | no | they shouldn’t use electricity. | no more advertising | “eyesore; don’t need more ads; garbage should be funded by our taxes, not ads.” |
| 114 | July 21/05 | no | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | complicated and hard to access because they are too small | one side too close to street | yes | looks more like a billboard than a garbage can | cause a potential safety hazard and block sidewalk | no | visual pollution | make city look tacky. | “the city should just spend money on new bins without ads - raise taxes if needed. These bins should not use electricity, especially when we have record # of smog alerts.” |
| 115 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | “yes, but only one side is accessible” | too large | | no | terrible idea | public spaces have too many ads as it is. Too big. | poor design. Shouldn’t be illuminated. |
| 116 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | “it’s a billboard, not a garbage can” | | yes | obstruct sidewalk and views | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | get rid of them |
| 117 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | complicated and hard to access because they are too small | | no | ugly and too large | | no | too big for sidewalk | no more advertising | get rid of them and replace with less visible bins. The small amount of money is not worth having these new bins. |
| 118 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | yes | obstructive | | no | need something better | | will not make us world class. |
| 119 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | blocks sidewalk and view | ugly | no | look at other worldly cities - they have nothing like this. | | |
| 120 | July 21/05 | yes | Lakeshore & Superior | no | confusing - sign was above openings | recycling part too small and one side was too close to street | yes | blocks flow of traffic on sidewalk. | should be parallel | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | city should provide own waste receptacles | city is becoming increasingly commercializes. Don’t sell out our public spaces. City council reject proposal. |
| 121 | July 21/05 | no | | no | | | no | block pedestrian flows | visually un/appealing | no | ugly | | |
| 122 | July 21/05 | no | | no | one side is too close to street - dangerous | size = dangerous | no | to big and positioned horribly | | no | don’t sell more public space to ads. | | get rid of them |
| 123 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | n/a | concerned about safety - someone can lurk behind them | | no | not enough room on downtown streets | | Silverboxes are sufficient |
| 124 | July 21/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | no | positioned poorly | | no | ugly | | |
| 125 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | just an advertising ploy | ugly | no | blight on street. | don’t focus only on $ | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. |
| 126 | July 21/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | “wrong size, no position would be right” | | no | will make our city look like trash. | | reject proposal |
| 127 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | blocks sidewalk because they are too big | | no | too big and ugly | | |
| 128 | July 22/05 | no | | no | too high | | yes | take up too much room on sidewalk. | there must be a better way to get people to use garbage cans | no | ugly | | take up too much space and are ugly |
| 129 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | too big and ugly | no more ads | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | takes away from beauty of city | we can do with the Silverboxes. Will degrade city. |
| 130 | July 22/05 | yes | Danforth & Gough | no | icons were not very clear | | “yes, but only one side is accessible” | very invasive. Too many ads as it is. | | no | keep ads out of our neighborhoods | | Silverboxes are sufficient. The money is not worth having these bins. People will put items in the wrong place. |
| 131 | July 22/05 | yes | Ossington & Dundas | no | one side too close to street | | yes | dangerous | street cleaning vacuums will not be able to pass. | no | visually obstructive | | get rid of them |
| 132 | July 22/05 | no | | no | very complicated | | no | too big and a blight on landscape | overwhelming as city furniture | no | too many ads | | “too big and complicated. Too big for city, which is where we really need extra bins.” |
| 133 | Jul.22 | no | | n/a | | | yes | poor positioning because one side is too close to street | | no | enough ads in public spaces already | | “too high. Seems to be only concerned with advertising, not litter.” |
| 134 | July 22/05 | yes | Jane & Bloor | no | bins are overflowing with garbage | obstructing views and flow of pedestrian traffic | yes | “it’s not a garbage bin, it’s a billboard” | | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | will make city uglier | get rid of bins |
| 135 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | | | no | council should focus on large companies who cause litter in the first place | | too many ads already. Focus on litter instead. |
| 136 | July 22/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | | | yes | good | | yes | | | |
| 137 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | insulting that this is even considered | | no | | | too many ads already. It’s hard to see past these bins - dangerous for drivers and pedestrians. |
| 138 | July 22/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | no | awkwardly placed | | no | in the way of pedestrians | | no | would rather have higher taxes than these bins. | | reject the proposal |
| 139 | July 22/05 | no | Ossington & Dundas | no | “impractical, confusing, and poorly designed” | | no | took up too much space | obstructing view | no | don’t sell city space for commercial interests. Would rather have taxes go up. | | reject the proposal |
| 140 | July 22/05 | no | | no | difficult to figure out what goes where | | no | obstruct views and block sidewalks. | ugly | no | “what we get in revenue, we will lose in appeal.” | look at other worldly cities - they don’t have anything like this. | have regular bins on street. Also get rid of stone benches with ads. Silverboxes are poorly designed as well. |
| 141 | July 22/05 | no | | no | not practical | | yes | ads seem to be the Main purpose of bins. | | no | | | “ugly, too big and detracts from appearance of city. Ads add to clutter in city.” |
| 142 | July 22/05 | yes | Howard Park & Roncesvalles | no | wasn’t readily obvious what was to go where | | “no, not obvious” | too big for sidewalk | took a while to figure out what it was. | no | no more ads - we have enough as it is. | | we should have more appropriate receptacles/street furniture. It must fit in with neighbourhood. Nix the ads. |
| 143 | July 22/05 | no | | no | | | yes | outrageous | get rid of them. | no | | | what is council thinking? These are hideous. |
| 144 | July 22/05 | no | | no | one side too close to street | not clear what goes where | no | terrible - one side too close to street | | no | there are other ways of making money that won’t tarnish the look of city. | | we have enough ads as it is. Ads more clutter and uglier. |
| 145 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | difficult to get around them. | | no | ugly and too big. Blight on landscape. | | “complicated to use. Simpler, smaller, and more tastefully designed would be better.” |
| 146 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | obstruction to people in wheelchairs. In way of pedestrians. | block view for vehicles | no | will be harder for collection crews to empty. | ugly | “go back to drawing board. Need something unique to Toronto. Not against ads, but these are ugly and impractical.” |
| 147 | July 22/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | wording and receptacles were confusing | | yes | too large and obtrusive | | no | go back to Silverboxes design | | why not keep the Silverboxes? Or design something similar if they are not good enough. |
| 148 | July 22/05 | yes | Jane & Bloor | no | openings are too small. | “hard to figure out what goes where. The capacity is too small, so they will fill up quickly.” | yes | “easy to access both sides, but it obstructs views” | | no | too much advertising already | they are obstructive. Remove them ASAP. | raise taxes instead. There are better ways to raise money without selling out to corporations. Get rid of them. |
| 149 | July 22/05 | yes | Bloor West Village | no | | | no | “ugly, visual distraction, un-necessarily big.” | not function/al and is dangerous | no | | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | poorly designed and ugly |
| 150 | July 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | too big and money isn’t everything. | | no | to big | | |
| 151 | July 22/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | easy to use | | yes | great | should go all over city | yes | | | |
| 152 | July 25/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | no | overflowing | “too small, poor design, poor accessibility” | yes | “poorly placed, blocks view of drivers” | horrible design | no | design poor | ads aren’t necessary | “too high, too wide, visually block, horrible, old ones better, ads not really the objection more concerned with blocking the view of pedestrians and drivers” |
| 153 | July 25/05 | no | Danforth & Pape | no | only useful for butting out cigarettes | “boycotting use, plus bin is overflowing” | yes | “obtrusive, block view” | “too large, visually impairing” | no | selling off public space | | “use fair process, don’t be toys to corporate dollar” |
| 154 | July 26/05 | no | | no | awful | | yes | “everything wrong, too big” | old ones better | no | revenue can come in other means (I.e. taxes) | | don’t do it |
| 155 | July 26/05 | yes | Davisville & Cleveland | yes | | | yes | appropriate | | no | place ads in other ways | | “forget them, plain garbage bins” |
| 156 | July 26/05 | no | Finch & Kennedy | yes | like the design | cigarette butts are good | yes | “perfect, good idea” | hopefully people use them | yes | put them all over the city | | great idea |
| 157 | July 26/05 | no | | yes | “practical, but don’t like them” | | yes | “not good locations, block view” | “ads are eyesore, won’t use it based on principle” | no | “not happy with survey, doesn’t allow for negativity” | | “survey structure won’t capture true negativity of people’s opinion, creates a ““McDonald’s”” type look” |
| 158 | July 26/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | no | trash slot too small | other ones hard to see and use | yes | “alright, but too big” | | no | way too much ads already | | “more recycling is good, but not by using these bins especially for ads” |
| 159 | July 26/05 | no | | no | too full | “complicated, too big” | yes | doesn’t matter b/c block everything out even is position is changed | | no | “hazard, people can hide behind them, dangerous for women” | | “don’t like them at all, should be removed, blocks sight view” |
| 160 | July 26/05 | yes | Gough & Danforth | yes | not rocket science | | yes | “fine, except for ads and taking up too much space” | | no | ads is bad way to get money | garbage cans should be simple and free | “don’t need ads on garbage cans, they should just serve the purpose of throwing out garbage” |
| 161 | July 26/05 | yes | Rexdale & Eglinton | yes | | | no | very good | | yes | | | |
| 162 | July 26/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | “not labeled properly, confusing” | “openings small and inconvenient, old ones better” | yes | “worst possible manner, intrude on space, hard to use” | “no interest shown in people, should be parallel to road but then view of ads would be lost obviously” | no | invading public space | | “too big, intrudes on walking space, civically obnoxious, city doesn’t care about people’s space” |
| 163 | July 26/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | no | small bins | impractical | yes | “occupy half sidewalk, blocks view” | intrusive | no | too much ads | | “advertising board disguised as a garbage can, still not user-friendly, don’t do it” |
| 164 | July 26/05 | no | | no | crammed with garbage spilling out | openings too small | no | “block view, terrible, safety hazard” | “too high, turned wrong way, awful” | no | “look terrible, safety hazard, openings too small, don’t hold enough garbage” | | can’t wait to see them removed |
| 165 | July 26/05 | yes | Gerrard & Pape | no | people are lazy and diagrams require reading | picture diagrams more effective with arrows | yes | very close to edge of sidewalk | likes perpendicular to road but how accessible will they be when snow plows pile snow in front of them? | yes | “city and tax payers don’t have to pay for them is good, city gets money from ads is good” | “not as obtrusive as meant to believe, more slots make it easier to separate garbage” | “likes several slots for different garbage, look secure, space for ads is good, hopes graffiti is prevented and that there will be enough of them around” |
| 166 | July 27/05 | yes | Humber College Blvd. & Hwy. 27 | no | openings unmarked made it difficult to know where to put what | poster took too much time | yes | “blocks view, bad positioning” | located near bus stop not safe | no | “obtrusive, ugly” | another form of visual pollution | “don’t do it, large, ugly, block view, enough visual clutter, obtrusive, poorly designed, small, hard to use” |
| 167 | July 27/05 | yes | Lawrence & Victoria park | yes | good design | | yes | “people can see them, a lot of exposure” | | yes | great opportunity for city to make extra money | keeps city cleaner | great idea |
| 168 | July 27/05 | no | | no | | | no | “horrible, take up too much space” | terrible idea | no | enough ads already | | don’t do it |
| 169 | July 27/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | yes | | | yes | close to curb | may get too full on one end b/c can’t access other side | yes | garbage portion is completely full at capacity | | since garbage portion is at capacity maybe they are too small |
| 170 | July 27/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | yes | | | yes | “too large, block sidewalk, block traffic” | too close to curb | no | | | “confusing to figure out where to put what, too large, side along street is useless, don’t need more ads” |
| 171 | July 27/05 | yes | Danforth | no | confusing | | yes | take up too much space on public sidewalk | | no | too much space | no more ads | |
| 172 | July 27/05 | no | | no | | | no | “too big, awkward” | “circle around trying to figure it out, ugly” | no | “even if they’re free they look awful, in the way” | | “too large, no more ads, don’t do it” |
| 173 | July 27/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | no | “impractical, holes at correct height but not accessible” | holes should be at 5 foot wide part not 2 foot wide part of bin | no | “block sidewalk, block view” | | no | | | “in/appropriate, impractical, doesn’t matter how much money city gets” |
| 174 | July 27/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | didn’t like arrangement | | yes | “could be improved, too large” | obscure streets of beautiful city | no | “ugly addition, doesn’t belong” | | remove them |
| 175 | July 28/05 | yes | Windermere & Bloor | no | confusing | | no | too big | take up too much space | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | spoils the streetscape | “too much ads, too big, too ugly, too confusing” |
| 176 | July 28/05 | yes | Bloor & Jane | no | garbage can is not big enough | doubt smokers will use ashtrays | yes | too high and obstructing shops and sightlines | does not beautify city | no | does not beautify city | | |
| 177 | July 28/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | no | labeling is confusing - they are too high up. They should be beside openings. | look at bins in Charlottown PEI as an example | no | take up too much space on public sidewalk | eye sore | yes | if bins were smaller and easier to use | | these are too big and take up too much space. Look at what Charlottown is doing - it’s a better alternative. |
| 178 | July 28/05 | no | | no | | | no | interfere with pedestrian flow | | no | blight on landscape and junking up city. | | |
| 179 | July 29/05 | no | | no | it looked difficult. | | no | “like that they are perpendicular because they block less store frontage, but the side closest to the street was too close to road” | | yes | “like that citizens aren’t paying for these bins. Plus, the city needs more money, so this is a great opportunity to make revenue.” | | explanation is too confusing. Should use brighter colours to highlight what goes where. There should also be pictures right beside the openings to make it easier for people to know what goes where. Cigarettes is spelt incorrectly. |
| 180 | July 29/05 | yes | Bloor & Christie | yes | ok | | no | take up too much space on public sidewalk | | no | too many ads as it is | | |
| 181 | July 29/05 | yes | Ossington & Dundas | | | | yes | too big for sidewalk | | yes | | | |
| 182 | July 29/05 | | Danforth & Pape | no | | | yes | eyesore. | to many ads already | no | it’s a corporate scam to make money through ads | | no more ads |
| 183 | July 29/05 | no | | no | | | no | ugly and alters sightlines | Silverboxes are better | no | they are not function/al. Nothing is wrong with what we already have. | | get rid of them. |
| 184 | July 29/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | yes | | | yes | too much visual clutter | garbage space is not big enough | no | too much visual pollution | | get rid of them. stay with the Silverboxes. |
| 185 | July 29/05 | | | no | recyclable opening was not good - flap will get dirty very easily. | too much focus on ads and not enough on garbage capacity. | “yes, but no cigarette smoker will use them” | they block sidewalk sightlines. | they are adding more junk to street | no | ugly and an obstruction | too much ads | Don’t need to sell ourselves out for garbage bins. Not function/al. We don’t need money that badly. It’s a barrier and safety hazard. |
| 186 | July 29/05 | no | | no | doesn’t look easy | looks that garbage bins is too small. | no | no more ads. They are too big. | shouldn’t be in public space | no | offensive | | |
| 187 | July 29/05 | yes | Eglinton & Avenue | no | difficult to understand what went where. | | no | blocks sightlines. | seems to focus on ads more than garbage | yes | “if it means lowering taxes, but it should have more of a focus on garbage and less of a focus on ads.” | | |
| 188 | July 29/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | | | yes | | | no | | | wrong for the city |
| 189 | July 30/05 | | | no | confusing | signs seem to be out of place | “yes, but side facing the street seems to not be used” | obstructive. Once ads go up they will be more obstructive | | no | “it’s importance to look for revenue, but this isn’t it. These are an eyesore and too tall.” | | eyesore and difficult to use. Should look at other alternatives. |
| 190 | July 30/05 | yes | Greenwood & Danforth | yes | not easy for people whose first language is not English. | | “yes, but it’s not that obvious” | no objection to positioning | | yes | we should have them everywhere | | litter container should be bigger. There have been several locations where the litter was overflowing. |
| 191 | July 30/05 | yes | Warden & Bridletown Circle | yes | | | yes | too close to bus stop | | yes | if it means the city gets more money | | instructions should be better. There is a lot of garbage in organics opening. The instructions should be in more languages too. |
| 192 | July 30/05 | yes | Bloor West Village | no | one side was too close to street and the other side was filled to top. | | yes | block sidewalk and we don’t need any more ads. | | no | | | |
| 193 | July 30/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | I sorted other people’s garbage because they placed it in the wrong opening. | | no | too tall and look worse than parking meters. | eyesore. Will only be worse when ads are placed on it. | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | want city to move away from advertising. These bins are ugly and advertising will only make it uglier. |
| 194 | July 31/05 | yes | Danforth & Gough | no | couldn’t reach recycling opening and garbage was overflowing | | no | “overflowing, too big.” | | no | “these are just a billboard, not a garbage bin.” | | “get rid of them. Go back to Silverboxes, they are sufficient and less of an eyesore. They recycling opening is too high for people in wheelchairs.” |
| 195 | July 31/05 | no | didn’t want to | no | ashtray is useless | | yes | block sidewalk and views. | too big | no | just a cash grab | | dangerous. Cash grab. |
| 196 | July 31/05 | no | | no | | | yes | too big for sidewalk | garbage can seems extremely small for the size of the entire bin | no | because the city won’t spend the money they receive from these bins in the neighbourhoods where the bins are placed. | | “good idea only if the revenue is given to BIA or community in which the bins are located. Community should benefit funds, not the bureaucrats.” |
| 197 | July 31/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | bin should be parallel to street | | yes | bin should be parallel to street | | yes | | | handicapped people can’t use both sides and they are too high to reach. |
| 198 | Aug 1/05 | no | | | | | yes | way too big | | no | displays are too big. Too many ads as it is. | | take up too much visual space (visual pollution). We need bins that are more user-friendly and without ads. |
| 199 | Aug 1/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | opening for recycling too small and ashtray was too big. | | no | too tall and too wide for sidewalk | | no | too big and ugly. | Silverboxes are better. Haven’t seen a smoker use them yet. | ashtray is too big because people don’t use it. |
| 200 | Aug 1/05 | yes | Eglinton & Avenue | no | not at right height and one side is too close to street | “should be outside coffee shops, not clothing shops” | yes | positioned in wrong place - coffee shop. | | no opinion | city will do what it wants anyway | “it’s terrible, but if you are going to go with proposal, place them in the right locations (in front of coffee shops).” | not designed for common person. It looks like a portable toilet. |
| 201 | Aug 2/05 | no | | yes | easy to understand | | “yes, but you can’t access one side” | blocking sidewalk. Reduces ability to pass people on sidewalk. | turn them parallel. | no | parallel would be fine. | | respect pedestrian rights. No more ads. |
| 202 | Aug 2/05 | yes | Markham & Scarborough Golf Club | yes | pretty easy to use and clear instructions | | yes | doesn’t bother pedestrians | | yes | because it is for free and it’s easy to use and keeps city clean | | “great idea and doesn’t take up space. Some smaller kids might not be able to reach recycling opening, but otherwise it’s a great idea.” |
| 203 | Aug 2/05 | yes | Bloor & Indian | yes | but bin is ugly | | no | look terrible and they block sidewalk flow | | no | city should not accept such ideas just because they are free. | current bins are just fine. | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. |
| 204 | Aug 2/05 | yes | Eglinton & Sutherland | no | hard to find recycling opening | | “no, other side too close to road” | too big. Looks like a bus shelter. Garbage bin too small. | too much ads. Not enough room for garbage | no | this makes ugly city. | | too much junk on street right now. |
| 205 | Aug 2/05 | yes | | no | very confusing and pictures are in dull colours. | can’t tell what goes where and it’s not in other languages | no | too big for sidewalk | block view and they are ugly | no | “garbage should be about garbage, not ads. There are too many ads as it is.” | shouldn’t make it harder for people to throw out their garbage. | should be easier to use. |
| 206 | Aug 2/05 | no | | no | | | yes | awkward. Too much reading for the average person. | we have enough ads as it is. | no | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. | | far too large and takes away from the fact that they are garbage cans. |
| 207 | Aug 3/05 | yes | Lawrence & Don Mills | yes | but a little complicated | cigarette butts were on ground | yes | positioning ok | “a little large, but ok” | yes | anything to keep garbage off street is good. | | “a little difficult to understand. On the whole, a good idea.” |
| 208 | Aug 3/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | not well marked | “too small, dirty” | yes | “too big, blocked view” | can’t see passed them | no | “too much ads, back to silver box” | one side to close to the street | too tall |
| 209 | Aug 3/05 | no | | no | less room for garbage | | yes | they shouldn’t be there | | no | ads is bad way to get money | | “shouldn’t be 7ft. Tall and covered with ads, silver box ok.” |
| 210 | Aug 4/05 | yes | Gerrard & Pape | no | opening not clear on separation of materials | | no | not apparent that it’s a garbage bin. | | no | not worth it | | shouldn’t clutter the sidewalk. |
| 211 | Aug5/05 | no | | no | | | no | | | no | | | no |
| 212 | Aug5/05 | yes | Queen & Ossington | no | should be parallel to street | | yes | should be positioned like silver box | | yes | but maybe redesign the bins | | |
| 213 | Aug5/05 | no | | no | | | no | terrible - one side too close to street | | yes | but way to tall | | “poorly thought out, not practical, ugly” |
| 214 | Aug5/05 | no | | no | | | no | no | | yes | | | no |
| 215 | Aug 6/05 | yes | Keele & Wilson | no | couldn’t find the recycling bin | | no | to close to street | | no | “crappy ads, don’t look like garbage cans.” | | not garbage cans just ads. |
| 216 | Aug 6/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | no | one faces the street | un/able to use | yes | they take up half of the sidewalk | eye sore | no | “ugly, not worth the money from ads” | | silver box are better |
| 217 | Aug 7/05 | yes | Victoria park & Kingston rd | no | had to search around for the opening | holes to small | yes | very inconvenient spot. Blocks line of sight | | no | due without ads | bins should be shorter | favor of silver box |
| 218 | Aug 7/05 | no | | no | | | yes | “poorly placed, eye sore” | too big | no | not practical | | no |
| 219 | Aug 7/05 | no | | no | | | yes | take up too much sidewalk | “visual distraction, block pedestrian traffic.” | no | make city ugly | | please don’t install them |
| 220 | Aug 7/05 | yes | Windermere & Bloor | yes | no problem | | yes | “too big, hard to go around with stroller” | too much ads | no | too much space | | no |
| 221 | Aug 7/05 | yes | Sheppard & Warden | yes | but garbage slot too small | “no cover on the garbage slot, smells.” | yes | “good, bins seem small” | | yes | great idea | | should cover garbage slot for the smell |
| 222 | Aug 7/05 | no | | no | confusing | | no | “eyesore, too big” | | no | | | “ugly, huge, really bad idea” |
| 223 | Aug 7/05 | no | | no | | | no | useless | | no | | | no |
| 224 | Aug 8/05 | yes | Howard Park & Roncesvalles | no | “not clear on receptacle,” | one half was closer to curb and put me closer to traffic | yes | obtrusive | | no | using electricity for bins a bad idea | | not a good idea |
| 225 | Aug 8/05 | no | | no | | | yes | take up too much space | | no | “too big, eye sore” | too much ads | completely against this idea |
| 226 | Aug 8/05 | yes | Midland & Finch | no | “not at the right height, hard to reach” | complicated | yes | “thats fine, I like how small they are” | | yes | like the money coming in | but no too much ads | label the slots better |
| 227 | Aug 8/05 | no | | no | people threw garbage in wrong slots | | yes | poor | | no | ugly | | eyesore and difficult to use. Should look at other alternatives. |
| 228 | Aug 8/05 | yes | Warden & Bridletown Circle | no | “ugly, hard to understand, not classy looking like the silver box” | “garbage flowing out on both sides, dirty” | yes | nothing to do with the position | | no | | | Get rid of them |
| 229 | Aug 9/05 | yes | Main & Kingston rd | no | not large enough for recyclables | | yes | obstruct view from street | dangerous for pedestrians | no | | | |
| 230 | Aug 9/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | the openings were at right height but difficult to find | | no | dangerous to pedestrians | “visual distraction, block pedestrian traffic.” | no | “hazard, people can hide behind them, dangerous for women” | eye sore | it clutters the street |
| 231 | Aug 9/05 | yes | Bloor & Jane | no | designed to max the ad content | not useful and easy to use | no | “obtrusive, eye sore” | | no | bins should be designed primarily for garbage | secondly for ads | no |
| 232 | Aug 9/05 | no | Sheppard & Consumers rd | no | hidden more from view | | no | ads seem to be the Main purpose of bins. | | no | | | should be more of the smaller bins |
| 233 | Aug 9/05 | no | | no | confusing | | no | “ugly, stick out to much” | dangerous for pedestrians | no | | | ad should be replaced with art. |
| 234 | Aug 9/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | yes | | | no | “obstructive, dominate the sidewalk” | | no | don’t sell out | | “Firmly opposed to these, go back to silver box.” |
| 235 | Aug 9/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | no | way to small | didn’t feel like putting the garbage in the hole | yes | terrible - one side too close to street | block view | no | “con job, not practical” | | “These monsters are ruining our city, go back to silver box” |
| 236 | Aug 9/05 | no | | no | I saw it and couldn’t figure it out | | yes | “block sidewalk, block view” | | no | “it’s just an ad box, and not a garbage box” | | not worth the detriment of city for small amount of money. |
| 237 | Aug 10/05 | no | King & ? | no | too low | not looking like a garbage bin | no | “obstruction, eye sore” | | no | this is nothing more than a ad media box | | remove them |
| 238 | Aug 10/05 | no | | no | confusing | | yes | “too big, eye sore” | inconvenient | no | people wont use them | | “too big, not simple” |
| 239 | Aug 10/05 | yes | Jane & Bloor | no | they looked very small | | no | obtrusive | | no | use smaller bins with ads | | use silver box |
| 240 | Aug 10/05 | yes | Queen & Jamison | no | “the opening was too close to the street, dangerous” | “can’t pass on the sidewalk, confusing” | yes | “2 ft is not enough, to close to the street” | | no | | | “don’t do it, large, ugly, block view, enough visual clutter, obtrusive, poorly designed, small, hard to use” |
| 241 | Aug 10/05 | yes | Markham & Ellesmere | yes | | | yes | they’re ok | | no opinion | | | no |
| 242 | Aug 10/05 | yes | Don Mills & Eglinton | no | hard to get to | | no | “don’t like them, they block up the sidewalk” | | no | | | “ridiculous, don’t put them in” |
| 243 | Aug 10/05 | yes | Eglinton & Laird | yes | right height | cigarette butts were lying around and not pushed through | yes | extremely dangerous | | no | “eye sore, dangerous for pedestrians” | | shorten the trial period and remove them before somebody gets hurt |
| 244 | Aug 11/05 | no | | | | | yes | blight on view | | no | | | ugly |
| 245 | Aug 11/05 | yes | Ellesmere & Nielson | no | openings to small | | yes | good position | | yes | “if the money gaining is beneficial to the city than yes, all in favor” | | |
| 246 | Aug 11/05 | no | | no | | | yes | too much advertising | | no | no more ads - we have enough as it is. | | keep old system |
| 247 | Aug 11/05 | yes | ? | no | couldn’t find the recycling bin | | no | it doesn’t look like a garbage bin | | no | ? | | ? |
| 248 | Aug 11/05 | no | Danforth & Broadview | no | openings not as visible | | yes | “obtrusive to public space, not contusive to promote community” | huge. too big | no | funding would not benefit | | “ugly, too much advertising” |
| 249 | Aug 12/05 | ? | | no | confusing | | yes | position is poor | “entrapment, take up too much space on sidewalk” | no | other alternatives for funding | | “ugly, confusing, dangerous” |
| 250 | Aug 12/05 | no | Pape & Danforth | no | confusing | | no | “huge, “ | obscure vision | no | current silver box ok | | don’t install them they’re too tall |
| 251 | Aug 12/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | yes | opening should be wider | | yes | I like them | futuristic | yes | stay with ad standards | | all around looked pretty good |
| 252 | Aug 12/05 | no | Pape & Danforth | no | | | yes | “too big, unfriendly” | | no | too much ads | garbage cans should be simple and free | I like the old silver box |
| 253 | Aug 13/05 | yes | King & Strachan | yes | same as silver box | | yes | “too big, too much sidewalk space” | | no | to much ads | | “too ugly and too big, blocks city view” |
| 254 | Aug 13/05 | ? | | yes | | | yes | nice manner | | yes | “more money, good idea” | | it’s a really good idea |
| 255 | Aug 13/05 | yes | Keele & Dundas | yes | except make recycling more acceptable | | yes | more efficient if parallel to street | not a huge issue | yes | if it cuts back on litter than I’m all for it | | “It’s a great idea, place more throughout city” |
| 256 | Aug 13/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | openings too small | | yes | impediment to traffic | “block vision, eye sore” | no | it defeats the purpose of having an environmentally friendly solution | adds to pollution | |
| 257 | Aug 13/05 | yes | Christie & Bloor | yes | used it for the cigarette disposal | it’s too close to the garbage | yes | “easy to access both sides, obvious” | positioned well | yes | money should be funneled back to the people of the city | | |
| 258 | Aug 14/05 | yes | Danforth & Broadview | no | confusing | | no | problematic for strollers and wheelchairs | | no | “hazard, people can hide behind them, dangerous for women” | | “ads are already on the silver box, fix up the boxes and remove these” |
| 259 | Aug 14/05 | no | ? | no | no clue what it was | | no | “eye sore, safety hazard” | poor design | no | too much ads | | we don’t need a highrise garbage bin |
| 260 | Aug 14/05 | no | Howard Park & Roncesvalles | no | you had to walk around the machine to use it | | no | “ugly, blocks the view of the site line” | | no | it makes our city hideous | | please remove the bins |
| 261 | Aug 14/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | openings more confusing | | yes | “cruelly positioned, to close to street” | | no | clutter public spaces with ads | find better way | no more ads |
| 262 | Aug 14/05 | no | | no | | | no | “not well positioned, too much sidewalk” | to far from homes | no | too large | | do not like the bins to be placed permanently |
| 263 | Aug 15/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | yes | easy to use and understand | | yes | | | yes | | | |
| 264 | Aug 15/05 | yes | Danforth & Broadview | no | had to search around for the opening | opening too small | yes | no comment | | no | “ads are what concerns me, too large and to close to the road” | | “should not require lighting, should be proactive to energy consumption, an overkill wit ads.” |
| 265 | Aug 15/05 | no | | n/a | | | ok | great | | yes | | | no |
| 266 | Aug 15/05 | yes | Dundas & Ossington | no | “confusing, to much ads” | too little openings for garbage | no | hard to move around it | thought it was just a billboard | no | “too big, clogging up the sidewalks” | | the city is using little bits of garbage collecting for large amounts of ads |
| 267 | Aug 15/05 | yes | Ontario Science Centre | no | could not find recyclables | | no | “not very good, too big” | | no | | | I thought it was a TTC stop and I waited for a bus |
| 268 | Aug 17/05 | yes | Danforth & Broadview | yes | so big cant miss it | | yes | so big | | no | too big | | “too much ads, the old bins were ok. Eye sore” |
| 269 | Aug 17/05 | yes | Bloor & Windermere | no | openings are to small | only one side is accessible | yes | “poor, too large” | impractical | no | “just an ad source, the bin itself is far to small” | | Silver box is more user friendly. |
| 270 | Aug 17/05 | yes | Kennedy & Finch | yes | pictures are simple to follow | | yes | close enough to the road but still on the sidewalk | good | yes | if it is for free | | “But why is it so tall? It’s too n/arrow, garbage is overflowing. Silver box better” |
| 271 | Aug 18/05 | yes | Pape & Danforth | no | confusing | it’s full and smells | yes | can’t use the street side one | dangerous for traffic | no | “eye sore, focused on ads too much” | | preferred silver box |
| 272 | Aug 18/05 | yes | Bloor & Christie | yes | | | yes | its blocking visibility | and foot traffic | no | too big / obtrusive | too much sign/age | preferred silver box |
| 273 | Aug 18/05 | no | Danforth & Pape | n/a | | | yes | too high and obstructing shops and sightlines | blocks pedestrian traffic | no | dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians | | ugly and unsafe |
| 274 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Sherbourne & ? | yes | | | yes | | | yes | | | |
| 275 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Sherbourne & ? | yes | | | yes | | | yes | | | |
| 276 | Aug 19/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | seems ok | but awkward | no | it’s the advertisement | too much | Get rid of them |
| 277 | Aug 19/05 | | 15 ? | | | | yes | | | yes | | | |
| 278 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | no | impractical and awkward | facing wrong way | yes | useless | | no | selling off public space | | Put back the silver box |
| 279 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Broadview & Danforth | no | not accessible | stupid | no | dangerous for EMP | | no | not free | | Vertical ads are being used with the use of energy when they shouldn’t bevery wrong |
| 280 | Aug 19/05 | no | n/a | no | but its blocking view | | no | “safety hazard for EMP, police” | don’t need ads | no | not for free | | “take them down, not the right thing to do” |
| 281 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | yes | but not practical | too small | yes | not convenient because its not parallel | takes up to much space | no | | | I’m against the ads and the position |
| 282 | Aug 19/05 | yes | Windermere & Bloor | no | openings were inconvenient | they spelled cigarettes wrong | no | ugly eyesore | | no | finances gained by the companies won’t equal the payments from the city | eye sore | |
| 283 | Aug 20/05 | yes | Avenue & Eglinton | yes | only for adults and not for kids | | yes | not practical because one end is on the street | obscure vision | no | look for something more attractive | | |
| 284 | Aug 20/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | openings were far too small | not obvious | yes | placement perpendicular takes up too much space | | no | selling off public space | less ads | “bad idea, livability is far more important” |
| 285 | Aug 20/05 | no | | yes | | | yes | blight on view | | no | | | |
| 286 | Aug 20/05 | yes | Bloor & Keele | no | confusing | | yes | far too wide | | no | silver box was already too big | | stay with silver box at least they were parallel to the street |
| 287 | Aug 21/05 | yes | Grace & Bloor | no | confusing | not clear where to put things | yes | “intrusive, way too tall” | eyesore. Will only be worse when ads are placed on it. | no | decrease the attractiveness of the city | | poor proposal |
| 288 | Aug 21/05 | yes | King & Strachan | yes | but too high | | yes | fine | | yes | gives the city something new | they look good | design is cool |
| 289 | Aug 21/05 | no | | no | bin was full | | yes | “ugly, blocks the view of the site line” | | no | | | too big |
| 290 | Aug 22/05 | | | n/a | openings too small | | yes | “no way to place these things on the sidewalk, too big” | | no | “only for ads, not garbage” | | “dont privatize them, its only for corporate interests, too many ads” |
| 291 | Aug 22/05 | no | | n/a | | | n/a | n/a | | no opinion | | | |
| 292 | Aug 22/05 | no | Ellesmere & Nielson | no | too high | confusing | yes | “eyesore, no room for garbage” | | no | “impractical, garbage overflowing” | | go back to the silver box |
| 293 | Aug 22/05 | no | | no | confusing | useless | yes | | | no | I prefer the silver box | | |
| 294 | Aug 22/05 | no | | no | opening to close to street | | yes | dangerously close to traffic | make them parallel | no | cars driving can’t see beyond the curb | | used for ads not garbage bins |
| 295 | Aug 22/05 | no | | yes | | | no | | | | | | |
| 296 | Aug 22/05 | yes | Main & Danforth | no | “tiny openings, garbage overflowing” | unclear | no | fine | | no | city should do it themselves | | |
| 297 | Aug 23/05 | yes | King & Strachan | no | “unclear, bees everywhere” | | no | “too wide, blocks too much view” | | no | selling of public space | insulting to the people of Toronto | |
| 298 | Aug 23/05 | yes | Dufferin & King | yes | satisfactory | | yes | bins should be smaller | | no | too big | eyesore for low revenue | |
| 299 | Aug 23/05 | | Dufferin & King | no | “unclear, bees everywhere” | | yes | I had to stand on the street to use it | | no | “cans are too small, filled up too quickly” | | people want simple bins without ads |
| 300 | Aug 23/05 | yes | Lawrence & Warden | yes | easy too easy | lots of compartments | yes | just right | | yes | advantage to the city | | “design is good, bins are sanitary and clean” |
| 301 | Aug 23/05 | yes | Danforth & ? | no | | | no | blocks sidewalk | | no | too big | | ugly |
| 302 | Aug 24/05 | no | Main & Kingston rd | no | didn’t hold very much | | yes | visual obstruction | should be parallel | no | bad for drivers and pedestrians | | too big for what they hold |
| 303 | Aug 25/05 | yes | Yonge & Wilson | yes | | | yes | very appropriate | clean idea | yes | | | it’ll do us some good |
| 304 | Aug 25/05 | no | | n/a | | | yes | they’re bad | block view | no | | | don’t sell public space |
| 305 | Aug 25/05 | no | | n/a | | | no | no opinion | | yes | good idea | | no comment |
| 306 | Aug 25/05 | yes | Howard Park & Roncesvalles | no | confusing | | yes | “blocks view, bad positioning” | crams the sidewalks | no | terrible design | | “visual pollution, cumbersome” |
| 307 | Aug 25/05 | no | | no | | | no | too big | block sidewalk | no | generate revenue in other ways | remove ads | |
| 308 | Aug 26/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | no | I had to read to much before I could use it | | no | blocks view line | | no | city already has adequate garbage bins | | don’t do it |
| 309 | Aug 26/05 | yes | | no | bins are too small | | yes | dangerous for people | | no | no more ads - we have enough as it is. | | I would rather pay more taxes than accept these |
| 310 | Aug 26/05 | yes | College st | yes | it encourages | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | more money for the city | less garbage on the streets | more ad space for the city |
| 311 | Aug 26/05 | yes | | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | it is perfect | | yes | they’re free | | great idea |
| 312 | Aug 26/05 | yes | College st | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | simple | clear | yes | more revenue | more social services | put these bins another the city |
| 313 | Aug 26/05 | yes | ? | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | easy to see | | yes | | | |
| 314 | Aug 26/05 | yes | Church st | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | easy to yes | | yes | Toronto needs more garbage cans | | |
| 315 | Aug 26/05 | yes | candy store | yes | encourages people to recycle garbage | | yes | | | yes | freewhy not | | put these bins around city |
| 316 | Aug 26/05 | yes | high school | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | | | yes | Toronto needs more garbage cans | | We need cash |
| 317 | Aug 26/05 | yes | beer store | yes | very practical | | yes | | | yes | they look great | | |
| 318 | Aug 26/05 | yes | parking area | yes | very practical | | yes | simple | | yes | why not | | |
| 319 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near Church | yes | very practical | | yes | easy to use | | yes | it’s a great idea | | we need more of these |
| 320 | Aug 26/05 | yes | close to home | yes | right solution to encourage people to recycle | | yes | they’re just perfect | | yes | more ads means more money for the city | | |
| 321 | Aug 26/05 | yes | on the way to school | yes | very practical | | yes | city needs more money | | yes | | | its good for ad spaces which means money for the city |
| 322 | Aug 26/05 | yes | First Ave. | yes | practical | clear | yes | no problem | | yes | Toronto needs cash | | we need more of these |
| 323 | Aug 26/05 | yes | College st | yes | perfect | | yes | no problem | | yes | no opinion | | no comment |
| 324 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near my office | yes | practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | Toronto needs more garbage cans | | more ad space for city less garbage on the street |
| 325 | Aug 26/05 | yes | close to home | yes | perfect height | | yes | simple and clear | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | they look nice |
| 326 | Aug 26/05 | yes | close to the mall | yes | practical | | yes | simple | clear | yes | we need more garbage cans | | works perfect for me |
| 327 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near the gas station | yes | perfect height for children | | yes | well positioned | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | |
| 328 | Aug 26/05 | yes | Dundas West & ? | no | a lot of garbage around the bin | | no | “too tall, blocks view of traffic” | | no | | | if they could be just half the height great |
| 329 | Aug 26/05 | yes | College st | yes | clear opening | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | more ad space for the city means less garbage on the streets |
| 330 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near the subway station | yes | encourages people to recycle garbage | | yes | easy to see | | yes | better than paying more taxes | | they look modern |
| 331 | Aug 26/05 | yes | College st | yes | practical | clear | yes | well positioned | | yes | freewhy not | | great idea |
| 332 | Aug 26/05 | yes | after work | yes | perfect height | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | City could use the money | | no comment |
| 333 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near my university | yes | encourages people to recycle garbage | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | they are so gorgeous |
| 334 | Aug 26/05 | yes | near my job | yes | practical | clear | yes | they are free why not | | yes | great idea | | |
| 335 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the mall | yes | practical | easy to use | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | no comment |
| 336 | Aug 27/05 | yes | in the park | yes | clear | | yes | they are free why not | | yes | | | no comment |
| 337 | Aug 27/05 | yes | in the park | yes | practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | better than paying more taxes | | city could use the money |
| 338 | Aug 27/05 | yes | next to my school | yes | perfect height | | yes | easy to see | | yes | freewhy not | | they are so gorgeous |
| 339 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after work | yes | practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | freewhy not | | no comment |
| 340 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near my gym | yes | practical | | yes | “perfect, good idea” | | yes | amazing | | no comment |
| 341 | Aug 27/05 | yes | walking my dog | yes | I like the ashtray | | yes | easy to see | | yes | freewhy not | | they would be nice all over the city |
| 342 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the park | yes | easy to use | | yes | | | yes | city needs cash | | great idea |
| 343 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside the hospital | yes | I love the ashtray | | yes | simple and clear | | yes | city needs cash | | no comment |
| 344 | Aug 27/05 | yes | at my College | yes | practical | | yes | no problem | | yes | better than paying more taxes | | no comment |
| 345 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after my gym | yes | practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | freewhy not | | I think they look nice |
| 346 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after school | yes | practical | | yes | easy to use | | yes | | | no comment |
| 347 | Aug 27/05 | yes | walking my dog | yes | encourages people to recycle garbage | | yes | easy to see | | yes | more money for the city | | no comment |
| 348 | Aug 27/05 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| 349 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside College | yes | ? | | yes | easy to see | | yes | | | the city could use the money |
| 350 | Aug 27/05 | yes | on the way to work | yes | very handy | | yes | easy to see | | yes | the city needs more money | | no comment |
| 351 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my job | yes | practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | the city needs more money | | no comment |
| 352 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my College | yes | good idea | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | the city needs more money | | no comment |
| 353 | Aug 27/05 | yes | on my way to school | yes | I love the ashtray | | yes | no problem | | yes | | | we more of these |
| 354 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the park | yes | perfect height | | yes | easy to see | | yes | freewhy not | | no comment |
| 355 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the gas station | yes | the right way | | yes | | | yes | no comment | | |
| 356 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the park | yes | practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | we need money | | they are great |
| 357 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near a gas station | yes | opening was perfect | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | free | | great idea |
| 358 | Aug 27/05 | yes | walking in the park | yes | perfect | | yes | well positioned | | yes | less pollution | | no comment |
| 359 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the mall | yes | practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | better than raising taxes | | no comment |
| 360 | Aug 27/05 | yes | walking my dog | yes | I love the ashtray | | yes | | | yes | better than raising taxes | | the city could use the money |
| 361 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after my gym | yes | practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more money for the city | | I like them |
| 362 | Aug 27/05 | yes | walking my dog | yes | I like the ashtray | | yes | no problem | | yes | why not | | no comment |
| 363 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my building | yes | useful | | yes | well positioned | | yes | we could use more garbage bags | | no comment |
| 364 | Aug 27/05 | yes | | yes | practical | clear | yes | easy to see | | yes | the city needs more money | | they look good |
| 365 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the newspaper store | yes | easy to understand | ashtray is great | yes | great | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | great idea |
| 366 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside the mall | yes | useful | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more money | | modern and great |
| 367 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my friends house | yes | it works perfectly | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more money | | no comment |
| 368 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my boyfriends house | yes | practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | lovely idea | | no comment |
| 369 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my building | yes | clear | practical | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | its ok as long as its free | | no comment |
| 370 | Aug 27/05 | yes | near the school | yes | good solution to recycle | | yes | easy to see | | yes | better than raising taxes | | cute |
| 371 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after school | yes | perfect height | | yes | easy to see | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | they look great |
| 372 | Aug 27/05 | yes | on my way to work | yes | easy to use | | yes | perfect | | yes | city needs more money | | no comment |
| 373 | Aug 27/05 | yes | after going to the supermarket | yes | perfect height | | yes | | | yes | more money for the city | | no comment |
| 374 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my classes | yes | | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | they are amazing | | |
| 375 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my girlfriends house | yes | | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | no comment |
| 376 | Aug 27/05 | yes | outside my job | yes | practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | if it means money for the city | | they look fine |
| 377 | Aug 28/05 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | | |
| 378 | Aug 28/05 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | | |
| 379 | Aug 28/05 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | | |
| 380 | Aug 28/05 | no | Christie & Bloor | no | no | | yes | to close to street | eyesore. Will only be worse when ads are placed on it. | no | it’s a joke | I will boycott all these bins | I will vandalize every bin I see |
| 381 | Aug 28/05 | no | Bathurst & College | no | | | yes | placed to close to the road | | no | ugly | | don’t install them they’re too tall |
| 382 | Aug 28/05 | yes | Danforth & Pape | no | openings were too small | | yes | “ugly, blocks the view of the site line” | blight on sidewalk | no | public space shouldn’t be for sale | | bad for local business |
| 383 | Aug 28/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | openings were too small and poorly labeled | “they should have a lid, they are overflowing” | yes | too big | poor positioning | no | the city doesn’t need more ad space | | “regardless of whether or not your making moneyit doesn’t matter , not worth it” |
| 384 | Aug 28/05 | yes | Scarborough Town Center | yes | | | yes | abomination | eyesore | no | the city should not contact the bins | | a lot of ad space and a little garbage space |
| 385 | Aug 28/05 | yes | Danforth & Broadview | no | poorly labeled | too small | no | take up too much space | too big | no | eyesore | | get rid of them please |
| 386 | Aug 29/05 | yes | Bathurst & College | no | not enough room and it was overflowing | | yes | to much space | 7 feet tall | no | ads encourage more garbage | | please don’t let this happen for real |
| 387 | Aug 29/05 | yes | Danforth & Playter | no | it was poorly marked and overflowing | | yes | The ads are focused more for car traffic | pedestrians wont be able to use the street side bin | no | poorly designed. Ads are ok if the bins are Maintained and more roomy | | |
| 388 | Aug 29/05 | yes | on the way to work | yes | the opening was perfect | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | we could use more garbage bins | | no comment |
| 389 | Aug 29/05 | yes | Roncesvalles & Howard Park | yes | easy to locate and understand | not practical and time consuming | no | no close to a Main intersection hard to stop your car | great for people walking the street | yes | lets see where the money goes | use shredders to reduce product | “it’ll be used for graffiti and people to post more ads on top of ads. What about getting rid of paint, batteries and stuff like that.” |
| 390 | Aug 29/05 | n/a | n/a | yes | practical | | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | why not they’re free | | I think we need more of these |
| 391 | Aug 29/05 | yes | near a gas station | yes | “the openings were right, height was right” | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more money for the city | | no comment |
| 392 | Aug 29/05 | yes | n/a | yes | they are practical | | yes | easy to see | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | they look great |
| 393 | Aug 29/05 | yes | n/a | yes | practical | | yes | simple and clear | | yes | why not | | they are big and beautiful |
| 394 | Aug 29/05 | yes | near my school | yes | clear opening | and waist container is perfect | yes | better than the newspaper boxes | | yes | rather this than more taxes | | modern and great |
| 395 | Aug 29/05 | no | Eglinton & Laird | yes | waste of money | | yes | not satisfied | | no | for a billboard its great | but for a garbage bin its terrible | the silver box is more practical and is not intrusive |
| 396 | Aug 29/05 | n/a | on the way to work | yes | practical | understandable | yes | easy to see | clear | yes | it will bring more money for the city | | it keeps the streets free of garbage |
| 397 | Aug 29/05 | yes | n/a | yes | ok for the ashtray | | yes | easy to see | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | they look Toronto |
| 398 | Aug 29/05 | yes | near downtown | yes | practical | perfect height | yes | well positioned | | yes | great idea | city needs more money | we could use a lot more of them |
| 399 | Aug 29/05 | yes | n/a | yes | easy to understand | right height | yes | easy to see | | yes | we need more garbage cans | | they don’t look bad at all |
| 400 | Aug 29/05 | yes | n/a | yes | recycle units are practical | | yes | well positioned | | yes | more revenue means more social services | | I think it’s a great idea |
| 401 | Aug 29/05 | yes | Yonge & York Mills | yes | they should be cleaned because they’re full | | yes | they look nice | | yes | good idea to get money from the ads | | they just need to be frequently cleaned |
| 402 | Aug |