lighted rooftop signs a bad idea

[native tulsan]

There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting. 

First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.  Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.  By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town.  The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.

Second, there is no need for these signs downtown.  Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses.  Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts.  Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping.  These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.

Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.

With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.   

[rwarn17588]

There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting. 

First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.  Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.  By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town.  The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.

Second, there is no need for these signs downtown.  Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses.  Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts.  Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping.  These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.

Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.

With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.   

Personally, I dig rooftop signs. They hail from another era. So aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, and don't be surprised if you're in the minority.

I think some of your other concerns are a bit wanting. Just because the city would reallow signs doesn't mean these building owners would be able to skirt building codes relevant to these signs.

Besides, a lot of these signs are going to weigh much less than your standard heating and air-conditioning unit.

Second, as for traffic signals, they're going to be up too high (on a rooftop, natch) to interfere.

Third, nearly all of your businesses are going to be zoned business areas and away from residential areas. So the nuisance argument doesn't wash.

[Conan71]

Fourth, the cost of signage isn't cheap.  I wouldn't expect every mom & pop to go out and get a roof top sign installed.

Pardon me for butting in RW.

[hello]

I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.

Downtown, 1955

[Conan71]

I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.

Downtown, 1955

Ooh, I bet that photo will send patric into a seizure.

[sgrizzle]

First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.  Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.  By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town.  The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.

Uhh.. yes they can. They can limit it to one building if they want. We are also talking about signs they can legally, right now, attach to the front of the building. All they are asking for is the ability to place the sign above the existing facade of the building.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.

Downtown, 1955

I can make a picture like that almost any brightness.  All depends on how long you leave the shutter open.

[FOTD]

" Arrows of neon and flashing marquees out on Main Street.
Chicago, New York, Detroit and it's all on the same street.
Your typical city involved in a typical daydream
Hang it up and see what tomorrow brings." (Garcia Hunter Lesh Weir)


Pretty self serving those fellas in Blue Dome. FOTD wants to do this on his house....the neons inside burn bright but oh how they would look wonderful blaring onto my neighbors (especially thems that still wear their McCain/Palin bumper stickers on their vehickles).

[patric]

Ooh, I bet that photo will send patric into a seizure.

BBBtthhhh.....PPPPPbbb...thppp...bbbbbl (thump)

Actually, Im rather fond of neon that's tastefully done.
...and I think something like this might be doable with the right planning and proper restraint.
If were talking like the MAYO sign...  Not some spectacular video screen a la "Blade Runner".

The problem with lighting around the new ballpark is that the glare from the floodlights is so overwhelming that everything around it appears as a vast sea of black, and any sort of cosmetic lighting would have to be exaggerated to be effective.  Couple that with ineffective, glary streetlighting (the Acorn lights) and you have a real challenge. 

A priority should be shielding the ballpark floodlighting to limit spill.  This not only gets it out of the eyes of motorists on the expressway but allows more moderate area illumination levels, that should in turn lead to less obnoxious levels of illumination needed for signage.

In any case, the city needs more than just input from the billboard industry and their user base.
Anything meaningful may have to wait until the city can afford to hire it's oft-promised sign inspector.

[TheArtist]

  I actually like the idea of the rooftop signs....in this one district. I would think it would be best to have it in only one section because it would help that area have an even more unique vibe and feel. Wouldnt want it in the Brady District for instance (just some festive lights strung across the streets or lining the tops of the buildings would be nice and even that would further distinguish that area from the others) Wouldnt want it everywhere downtown because we want some areas to be more of the "quiet, peaceful, urban, residential" type.  Some can be of the raucus, urban residential, nature, (light and noise coming in through the windows) and since there is not a lot of residential in this area right now anyway and its becoming more of a center for entertainment... why not?  It would also help with the complaint I had in another thread of how that area is not noticeable from other parts of downtown and its hard to quickly and easily point people to the exact spot.  A few rooftop signs in that location could be just the ticket.  

 What I would be curious about would be the limitations they would put on these signs. Such as,,, flashing and blinking, amount of light, etc.  I think some compromises can be made if need be to "tone things down" or you can allow it to be over the top, Moulin Rouge, wild and crazy.  

Its certainly doable to have it done in only one part of the city, just like we do and dont allow all kinds of things in various parts of the city, including FOTDs neighborhood.

[TheArtist]

Just to give Patric a jolt of terror.... Chongqing China at night. Gets "worse" as it gets further into the video lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Ei0pI11B0&feature=related

I dont think we should have any fear that Tulsa or the Blue Dome district will look anything like that lol. 

[JoeMommaBlake]

Greetings,

I'd like to do that thing I do where I respond to each point in a post. Here goes:

There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting.

I am one of the Blue Dome business owners hoping to change these ordinances. Nice to meet you and thank you for posting here on the forum. I've always appreciated TulsaNow for the way it allows us to discuss things exactly like this.

First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.

Actually, yes they can. They make the laws. A "variance" of any kind, means that it is of course "varying" from the norm. Naturally, they can decide that an entire district "varies" from the norm. Precedent has long been established in Tulsa that different geographic areas can have different rules than others. Downtown, for example, is not subject to the same parking requirements as the rest of the city.

Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.

In most parts of the city, there is room on the property to construct a typical pole sign. Downtown, however, our lot lines end where our property ends. If we want to display signage, it has to be done on the face of our buildings. It can be argued that it is actually better for the buildings and the aesthetics of our neighborhood to have signs stretching upward, increasing the perceived height and visibility of the district.[/quote]

By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town.  The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.

As I mentioned earlier, granting one variance doesn't obligate the city to grant another. The code is in place, with the flexibility to vary as needed. It's actually a very nice process. It's okay to have large blanket codes as long as you allow deviation from them on a case by case basis, at the discretion of public servants, and when compelling reasoning is presented. As for illegal signs and banners, I agree. They are ugly and offensive. We're not proposing anything like that. Earlier you mentioned that you like the signs on the Cains and Mayo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call those signs "visual litter."

Second, there is no need for these signs downtown.  Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses.

Many of our buildings in the Blue Dome District are one story buildings. The Brady District has several two story buildings, which stretch the eye upward and provide a more urban feel. As you may notice on Brady, there is a sign on the face of the building above the second story windows proclaiming it "The Brady District." I would be hard pressed to build a rooftop sign at any of my businesses that is as high in the sky as that one. The bottom of it has to be at least 20 feet off the ground. The only difference is that it's mounted on the face of the building, rather than on the roof. This is really just a matter of where the same sign will be placed. I can put it on the front of the building, or I can raise it ten feet and put it on top. Same sign, just a different location. So to wrap up this point, the Blue Dome District in particular will really benefit from these signs. They will affect the feel and personality of our growing district and will enhance visibility. Furthermore, they are appropriate, given that Rt. 66 (a road known for its neon) once ran through our neighborhood. As nice as they are, no amount of benches, lights and trees could enhance our neighborhood like rooftop signs could.

Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts.  Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping.  These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.

Joe Momma's has a large theater style marquee on the face of it. It is a very large 24,000 dollar sign. It does as much for the district and for my restaurant as any street scaping could do. I've never heard anyone complain about it. Instead, I've had more compliments on it than I can count. If I'm not mistaken, our sign company had to do some work to get it approved. I think most would agree that it was a nice addition. It's on the face of my building and I like it. They relaxed the standard because a compelling case was made as to why the sign was safe and appropriate.

Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.

The previous post was accurate. They would never relax the building code to allow for heavy signage. It's more likely a concern to place a heavy sign on the face of the building than on the top. HVAC units are certainly heavier than any sign. Engineers are required on all types of renovations of old buildings. The permit office could easily require an engineering report if there was concern about structural integrity.

With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.

I'd really like to ask you to reconsider your perspective. We're not advocating LED signs, flashing billboards, or other digital type signage. We're hoping to simply move the types of signs you already see on our buildings up a few feet to our rooftops. The Blue Dome District is Tulsa's most unique area of commerce. There are no chains of any kind, but rather a host of locally owned restaurants and retail. There's no greater concentration of local restaurants and venues in all of Tulsa and I believe in our short existence, we have established a history of doing things with class and style. The typical reasons for fighting signage are largely non-existent as there are no highway drivers within site and no homes within eye-shot. The only people who should be concerned with our signs are those who own mediocre businesses in the more unoriginal parts of town. As Tulsans continue to realize that downtown is the unrivaled leader in entertainment, dining, and nightlife, one has to assume that the chain restaurants to our south will begin to lose some customers to the city's core.

[Red Arrow]

I guess I'm not sure who the signs on the roof are for.  Pedestrians across the street?  Cars approaching the area?  It seems to me that signs on the front of the building would be more effective for pedestrians.  Just asking.

JoeMommaBlake,  I like your marquee sign.  Unfortunately I spell pizza, spaghetti, chile, etc "Maalox".

[sgrizzle]

I guess I'm not sure who the signs on the roof are for.  Pedestrians across the street?  Cars approaching the area?  It seems to me that signs on the front of the building would be more effective for pedestrians.  Just asking.

JoeMommaBlake,  I like your marquee sign.  Unfortunately I spell pizza, spaghetti, chile, etc "Maalox".

I believe the signs are going to be at or near the front of the building and just as visible as a sign mounted on the face of the building.

[heironymouspasparagus]

JoeMomma - the old Carpet City sign on 11th street weighed more than most HVAC units.  I can remember when we loaded that thing on the trailer to take it to the site to hang it up.  Took two boom trucks!  Nice sign.  But very heavy!

Are they still there?  Or just 41st street?  Don't know what the sign is up to now.