Home › Forums › West Seattle Rants & Raves › NO BILLBOARDS on DOWNTOWN SKYSCRAPERS
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 10, 2010 at 5:16 pm #710608
JoBParticipantdianne..
think about it…
if it is on top of the building you won’t be able to see it from street level…
but you sure will be able to see it from across the bay..
signage that can be seen from the street needs to be at street level
something that high is clearly advertising..
not signage.
December 10, 2010 at 5:31 pm #710609
JoBParticipantenginerd…
oh hai?
one of the things i like most about this forum is that it is continually exposing me to new things.. so i looked this up in the urban dictionary…
the trouble with the cultural divide is that i think i was never on the urban speak side even when i was young.. i am far too literal:(
I can see several interpretations..
but i still don’t get it :(
and i don’t know how to cry on-line tears of frustration and remorse…
so… oh hai yourself ?????
December 10, 2010 at 6:19 pm #710610
DPMemberI rather like the color scheme Nature gave us here in the Pacific NW: year-round landscapes of forest green and brown, subtle shades of grey during the winter, brilliant blues during the summer . . .
[Sigh] It’s delightful just thinking about it.
If you ask me, what happened in Vegas should stay in Vegas.
December 10, 2010 at 6:20 pm #710611
AlParticipantDiane, Ok, so you are not part of Russell. You are just so *passionate* about making sure this signage goes up it made me think you have some kind of connection to the proposal.
December 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm #710612
JoBParticipantDP…
again.. you have cut to the essence with humor…
what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas :)
December 10, 2010 at 6:26 pm #710613
JoBParticipantAl…
you don’t have to have a personal financial vested interest to be passionate about your opinions.
lord knows i don’t ;->
December 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm #710614
sam-cParticipantregarding seeing more color; just read the article in the seattle times about the delay of the council vote. one requirement I was not aware of, the lettering has to be ‘white’. if I did like the idea of allowing the signs (currently do not), I think that the lettering should at least match the company’s logo or color scheme. having white lettering only doesn’t seem right.
and remember, opinions are opinions- they are subjective. just because all comments don’t include a thesis supporting the opinion doesn’t mean it’s invalid, or people are ‘un-educated’
December 10, 2010 at 8:29 pm #710615
DianeParticipanthey sam-c; I know there’s a lot to read in this thread, thanks to many passionate opinions, so would be easy to miss; but I mentioned a couple times that as much as I’d like to see more color, the proposal will only allow white in the signs; and yeh, it was announced yesterday that the vote will be delayed, tbd; so everyone still has more time to send your comments to city council
~
my favorite colors are purple and green, would be fabulous addition to skyline
~
before WaMu died away, they would light up all their windows facing West Seattle with colored lights for different holidays; very fun; miss that
December 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm #710616
maplesyrupParticipantI just can’t BELIEVE that Russell would want a SIGN on their BUILDING!
How DARE they try to get FREE advertising!
Send THEM back to TACOMA!
December 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm #710617
DianeParticipantI LOVE LOVE LOVE everything about Vegas; well, except the smoke
December 10, 2010 at 8:34 pm #710618
DianeParticipantmaplesyrup; hilarious
December 10, 2010 at 8:44 pm #710619
sam-cParticipantah ha you are right. sorry I missed that. admittedly the first and last paragraphs in post 10 had me seeing red (not white). so I slept on my comments and discussed the proposal with the other half over dinner. never re-read through the comments before I posted again. touche’
December 10, 2010 at 8:56 pm #710620
DianeParticipantI like red too
December 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm #710621
moxilotMemberI don’t understand how having your name blazing at the top of the building would cause/not cause you to place your business downtown. It’s a perk, sure, but a deal-breaker? I think not. When I moved up to the PacNW from NorCal, the lack of neon signage and relief from being bombarded by billboards was one of the first things I noticed- and greatly appreciated! I’d like to keep it that way.
Personally, other than the ‘open’ sign, I find neon to be generally tacky and exhausting. Despite it’s lively and robust urban scene, people love this city because of it’s serene setting… and big signs aren’t going to add anything positive to that.
Something tells me you’re not fully disclosing your stakes in your opinion, Diane. Who walks around downtown and tries to figure out what business is in each building? If you truly love the architechture, why would you care what offices are in there? Does it matter- since the orignial businesses responsible for that architecture have most likely moved on? Not trying to attack you, but just curious. It’s funny you love Vegas, because everyone I know can only handle it for two or three days at a time, and then they can’t wait to get away from the craziness. I couldn’t imagine living there.
December 10, 2010 at 11:11 pm #710622
maplesyrupParticipantOver by the Statue of Liberty on Alki, I saw some illegal immigrants handing out flyers for escort services.
We’ve become Vegas. Thanks a lot, Russell Investments!
Seriously though, although I don’t like Vegas at all, I think there’s a middle ground between zero signage for businesses and a Vegas or Tokyo scenario. We have a lot of vacant real estate downtown, I don’t see how it hurts to play nice with people who are bringing their businesses to the area.
December 10, 2010 at 11:18 pm #710623
KBearParticipantWhy not let them put up their big signs and charge them for an annual permit to illuminate them?
December 10, 2010 at 11:58 pm #710624
DPMemberI LOVE LOVE LOVE everything about Vegas . . .
Aha!!! Soooo . . . now we see who you’re really working for, Diane.
But seriously, there must be something you like better about Seattle than Vegas.
Or else . . .
Why, Diane? Why?
December 11, 2010 at 12:51 am #710625
KenParticipant“The shore of Puget Sound is where electric guitars cut their teeth and old haiku go to die. … As a result of the weather, ours is a landscape in a minor key, a sketchy panorama where objects, both organic and inorganic, lack well-defined edges and tend to melt together, creating a perpetual blurred effect, as if God, after creating Northwestern Washington, had second thoughts and tried unsuccessfully to erase it.”
— Tom Robbins, “Wild Ducks Flying Backward”
I would rather have the minor key than the strident trumpet of corporate electric tax write off.
December 11, 2010 at 5:23 am #710626
RAEMemberThank you for that KEN. Reading that quote about made me weep. We are overwhelmed, at times, by the beauty of our Puget Sound and Lake Washington. And I sometimes think”Wow, what a beautiful place to build a city.” Many of us are very passionate in our debate about how we should build a big city worthy of and respectful of this setting we are blessed with. This thread is evidence of that. And that’s pretty cool.
December 11, 2010 at 6:33 am #710627
redblackParticipantin keeping with my attitudes as a long-standing member of lesser seattle local 13, i think all of the corporate signage on skyscrapers downtown should face inward.
December 12, 2010 at 3:13 am #710628
DianeParticipantJoB re “think about it…if it is on top of the building you won’t be able to see it from street level…but you sure will be able to see it from across the bay..signage that can be seen from the street needs to be at street level”
~
well, I did think about it, and I was pretty sure the opposite was true; so I did further research, in person; I went downtown last night, and walked all over city streets for hours (it was lovely, perfect winter evening), in the dark, looking up at tallest buildings, and I can say that 100% for sure, you can very easily see any signage on even highest point of downtown towers from the street sidewalks; specifically the Russell Investments tower, if they put sign with their name at top of their building, it will absolutely be easy to see signage from the street; but from across the bay, as I’m looking out at the skyline now, even if it might be perhaps visible from this distance, any of that signage would be like a mere dot on the landscape from here; can you see the Westin signs on top of their hotel from here, or any of the other hotel signs at the top of their buildings from here? I can’t
December 12, 2010 at 3:20 am #710629
DianeParticipanthey DP; you are way too funny
~
is that cartoon for me? I blush
~
at first I thought it was little girl with giant cherry bomb; huh? or is she holding giant red ornament? I like that
~
I have a giant fuchsia feather boa also
December 12, 2010 at 5:38 am #710630
KBearParticipantUm, ever heard of Dr. Seuss?
December 12, 2010 at 5:56 am #710631
JoBParticipantDiane..
while you might be able to see signage on the face of a building.. that placed on top of it would be pretty much impossible to see from the street.
the best thing about the lights of Lav Vegas
is that they are in Nevada.
December 12, 2010 at 6:41 am #710632
DianeParticipantJoB; this ordinance is all about placing a sign on face of the building, above 65 ft; signage still would not be allowed on top; but yeh, even on top, you could still see most; take a trip downtown and look up
~
Kbear; really? I work with kiddos, so read lots of Dr. Seuss; which one is this?
~
here is link to actual text of proposed ordinance, since there continues to be a lot of misinformation about what this could be http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/BuildingConnections/SignCodeReport.pdf
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
