Every day, in order to get to York, I use a shortcut to get to the nearest GO bus stop. That shortcut happens to be behind a small plaza near my house. There is a small pathway that allows for an easy walk, but is still a very quiet space. The pathway falls directly behind a YMCA child care centre as well as a Subway restaurant. Despite the front side of the plaza being busy and lively, the back is very quiet and it is very rare to see anybody walking through the pathway. In fact, within the past two to three years, I have probably only passed by anyone in that space once or twice. Because the path is behind a childcare centre, during the daytime, young children are often seen playing in the small fenced playground directly beside the path.

On the other side of the pathway are people’s backyard fences. The back of their backyard fences are where the remnants of the graffiti were found. It is very evident that there was significant graffiti there before that is now washed off. Traces of the graffiti are still present, which is what I have photographed. On the entire fence, there is a total of four graffiti symbols that I was able to make out. All of the graffiti was washed off and action is definitely taken against graffiti in the area. There are signs at the back of the plaza that clearly say “No Graffiti,” as well as a surveillance camera facing the fence. Unfortunately, I do not know whether the graffiti was done before or after the camera was placed. Because the space is in between a residential area and an area where parents leave their children for day-care, I think it is very important that there is no graffiti in the space, and think that the extra measures to prevent the graffiti are justified.

The placement of the security camera and the sign are important to note for a few reasons. To start, at the very top of the sign that says “No Graffiti”, it says “Private Property” which emphasizes the importance of the area being private. It is placed there to remind people that despite the area being public in terms of anyone being allowed there, the property itself is private and therefore there are rules as to what you can do in the space. The sign not only prohibits graffiti, but also prohibits skating and loitering in the area. Prohibiting the above, as well as placing a surveillance camera is obviously done to ensure the security of the individuals living in the homes on the other side of the fence, as well as the employees and customers of the stores at the plaza. As well as that, because the front of the pathway is a childcare centre, parents will most likely want to ensure that their children are being left in a safe area. It is very possible that by seeing graffiti in the space where their children are playing outside will cause them to think twice about leaving their children there. It is therefore no surprise that so much has been done to try and prevent graffiti in the area.

I don’t necessarily think that there is an immediate connection between the graffiti and the safety of those in the space, as graffiti can be done for various reasons, in different ways. McAuliffe and Iveson stated that there are different types of graffiti such as hip hop graffiti, political graffiti, latrinalia, racist or gang graffiti, and contemporary street art movements (McAuliffe and Iveson, 129). Not all graffiti is done for negative reasons or with the intent of causing damage to a space. The increased surveillance can definitely make a difference in how often graffiti is done in the space, as individuals are aware that there are higher chances of them getting caught and charged. However, I think it makes the most difference to those living in the area and those who are regularly in the area. I can assume that it will make the individuals living in the homes in front of the space feel more safe, as they will have the comfort of knowing that less outsiders will be loitering around their backyard. It will probably also make the parents of the children in the day-care feel more safe, as they know that there is less of a chance for outsiders to be around their children for a long amount of time.

Generally, graffiti is not something that is commonly seen in Mississauga, especially in residential areas. It is very rare if I ever see graffiti on any of my daily routes, and if I do see anything, it is usually removed soon after. Mississauga generally has the reputation of being a well-kept, safe space, and the city is very particular of removing any graffiti that is found. I found it very difficult to find any space that I regularly pass by that had graffiti. Because there is so much of an association of graffiti with crime, it is no surprise that the city gives so much attention to removing it. Graffiti that is done for purposes other than artistic are generally looked at negatively and will immediately result in many people feeling uncomfortable in the space. I believe that graffiti removal is taken so seriously in Mississauga in order to keep residents feeling safer, even if it wasn’t a danger in the first place. McAuliffe and Iveson mention in their article that those who consider graffiti to be directly associated with crime often draw upon the “broken windows” theory or urban disorder and crime. This theory states that if a window in a building is broken and does not get repaired, the rest of the windows will soon be broken. In other words, by breaking the order of the law, we are inviting further disorder to occur (McAuliffe and Iveson, 130). Whether graffiti actually maintains crime is disputed, and there is no real answer to it.

Despite regularly taking this route to the bus stop, I did not notice the graffiti. I usually do not pay much attention to graffiti, as it does not personally affect the way I view a space as safe or not. However, I will argue that graffiti can make a space more public. The stores in the plaza are private spaces that are privately owned. The homes on the other side of the path are also private homes that are owned by individual owners. Overall, I can assume that most of the residents of the space see the space as private and relatively safe. Those whose homes are on the other side of the fence probably view their home as private spaces where outsiders cannot access without permission. Sibley states in his article that the concept of “private” suggests a retreat from the less predictable encounters of the public sphere, and a reluctance to engage with others (Sibley, 158). However, when graffiti is drawn on the back of someone’s backyard fence, it can definitely make the space more public in the sense that outsiders are able to be in the space and make public statements through graffiti.

While I am not speaking for all types of graffiti done in all places, in this particular space I do not feel like it contributes to the space in a positive way, and I feel like it is a good thing that it was removed. In this case, the graffiti was done on the back of people’s backyard fences, which can seriously impact the way the owner perceives their safety in the space. The space is private property, and it is illegal for any graffiti to be done there. While the correlation of graffiti and safety is subjective, it cannot be ignored that many people do feel unsafe in spaces where there is graffiti. If a homeowner or a concerned parent thinks that there is excessive loitering in the area where they live or drop off their children, they may hesitate about being in the space. From what is left of the graffiti, I can tell that there is no positive message in the words and it is not necessarily pleasing to the eye. Therefore, I would consider it to be vandalism over art and feel like it has no belonging in the space.

References

McAuliffe, Cameron, and Kurt Iveson. 2011. “Art and Crime (and Other Things Besides … ): Conceptualising Graffiti in the City: Conceptualising Graffiti in the City.” Geography Compass 5(3): 128–43.

Sibley, David. 2005. “Private/Public” in Cultural Geography: A Critical Dictionary of Key Concepts. Edited by Sibley, David, Peter Jackson, David Atkinson, and Neil Washbourne. NY: I. B. Tauris. p. 155-160.