The result looks great, no paint used! Must be ok?
To me it would still seem there was a cost of cleanup, therefore damage has been done. For the council to remove the graffiti they would have to clean the surronding pavement.
edit: I knew this would be downvoted, but my personal opinion still stands. This is not free to cleanup... Chalk is easier[to cleanup], chalk disapears with rain.
Public services weren't leaving the streets dirty because they were lazy, they were leaving the streets dirty because they were rationing water due to drought...
Ok, this one is just great. We had the Microsoft 'stickers on the street' fiasco, we had the 'chalk goes into the bay' fiasco, this however, hard to argue with. And well cleanup is kind of part of the city's job in the first place.
Genius.
Now we need to do this for dusty windshields. Put the stencil across the back window of a dirty car, wipe with damp cloth, done.
Devil's advocate: Austin was under stage 2 water restrictions at the time of SXSW (and still is). It is illegal, and unethical, to use water for outdoor cleaning like this during a drought in a thirsty city like Austin (i.e. no power washing sidewalks, etc.). That's probably why the sidewalks were so dirty, providing a nice dirty canvas for their graffiti.
Certainly, this is better than stickers and chalk, but it's still not very environmentally friendly on a large scale, in a city like Austin, where everyone is watching their gardens and grass get crispy due to lack of water. Water matters in Texas.
The other cool thing is if "everyone did it" then you'd have some damned clean sidewalks. The potential for abuse or taking this too far is very limited.
I live in Austin, please don't do this. Not to mention our sidewalks aren't nearly as dirty as say LA, and it won't look as nice. A few years ago whrrrl put down a bunch of chalk on the sidewalks and never cleaned it up, it's still there and now it's just embarrassing. Graffiti is graffiti. Etching your name into dirt is still etching your name into something.
You might think cleaning of streets must be legal...but, in a Texas town experiencing a long hard drought, it probably isn't. Austin was under stage 2 water restrictions at that time, which prohibits washing of sidewalks and streets.
I'm picturing them at the airport, wheeling a couple of 50 gallon drums filled with water through the security checkpoint (and now I'm wondering what would happen if you tried to check a big container of water, aside from the obvious weight overage charges, and how long it would take to convince them you weren't planning to blow up the plane). But, you could be right. I haul ~100 gallons of water with me everywhere I go, in the tanks on my motorhome.
I'm picturing a specialized truck that has a tank of water on the back and contains the rest of the machinery necessary for power washing. I've seen transit agencies use them to clean bus stops. Makes sense to own one if you're in the business of washing sidewalks.
Which would have its own environmental impact and monetary cost. I'm guessing this hypothetical water is coming from somewhere outside of the areas affected by the drought? So, somewhere north of Dallas, I guess, or east of Houston. 200 miles, at least, in either direction, at 10 MPG, is about $150 worth of gas ($75x2, since presumably the truck has to go both ways).
I doubt that's what happened, but maybe they made an effort to be sustainable and used grey water. Since Austin won't let you use grey water for gardening (which is a shame), it might also be illegal for washing, but it would be the more sustainable option, if the grey water comes from a source that is known to be safe and contains no chemicals that would effect the river or ground water.
First off, I'm happy to declare them as water-misusing criminals, since I hate ads. The reality is that selective cleaning of a sidewalk is just as bad as spraying me with a deadly neurotoxin that reprograms my brain to be sexually attracted to their web two point oh product.
But with that in mind, I can conceive of a universe where they cleaned a sidewalk (selectively) with some of their own water (perhaps purchased in bottle form at Sam's Club). And, although I hate ads, that's mildly cool. Without any facts to the contrary, hating them for blogging about it seems more like "Internet Outrage" than actual concern. FWIW.
I'm playing devil's advocate, mostly. The environmental holocaust that happens in Austin during SXSW makes this little faux paux look puny. One company painted a house green just for SXSW...painting is horrible for the environment. Generators were humming 24/7 all over downtown. Traffic was at a standstill from morning to night every day, with cars pumping out smog. Bottled water was being distributed everywhere at a disgusting rate. And all of it was in the service of companies pounding me in the face with ads at every turn.
I'm not the biggest fan of SXSW, if it wasn't apparent, and the environmental impact is one of the reasons I dislike it so much (but mostly the pervasive corporate agenda invading one of my favorite cities in such a vulgar manner).
The result looks great, no paint used! Must be ok?
To me it would still seem there was a cost of cleanup, therefore damage has been done. For the council to remove the graffiti they would have to clean the surronding pavement.
edit: I knew this would be downvoted, but my personal opinion still stands. This is not free to cleanup... Chalk is easier[to cleanup], chalk disapears with rain.