lighted rooftop signs a bad idea

[heironymouspasparagus]

15th street.  Sorry.

[Conan71]

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.

I drive by 15th& Delaware often so I should know if the sign is still up but I honestly can't say 100%. I know the store is closed. They were lax in maintaining the neon over the years and various letters would be out. I remember either Uptown News or Urban Tulsa used a shot of the storefront when the sign said: Oklahoma's Largest pet Co. They super-imposed a bunch of zoo animals in the windows as I recall. 

[PonderInc]

As much as I hate signs, I can think of some that I think are classy and cool.  The Atlas Life Building, Phoenix Cleaners on 18th, the Mayo Motor Inn...heck, even the Tulsa World sign on Boulder is decent.  Notice a pattern?  They are all artistic, appropriately scaled to fit the building, mounted to the face of the building, and they are visible from the street, but are unobtrusive. 

And, sure, I like the Cain's Ballroom sign and the Mayo Hotel sign.  Who wouldn't?  They are part of our history. 

I support JoeMammaBlake and Elliot Nelson and others in the Blue Dome District who are working hard to bring needed life and vigor back to downtown.  But I'm not convinced that rooftop signs on small buildings are the missing piece to the puzzle.

What's the goal here?  To direct traffic (both foot and vehicular) to the Blue Dome District.  Rooftop signs on 1 and 2-story buildings will not be visible from any distance (even one block away, unless viewed from across a surface parking lot!).  When you're driving on I-244, the stadium itself blocks your view of the BDD, and Hwy 75 is "sunken" so you can't see anything from there. 

It would take a pretty tall sign on a tall rooftop (perhaps on top of Sager's First Street Loft project) to be visible from the Cincinnati bridge (driving south over the RR tracks).  And any remaining views would be blocked by eventual development.

Here are some examples:
The Cains sign is often sighted as an example.  The rooftop portion of the sign is visible from Main Street and from I-244. 


But you can't see it from Boston, exactly one block over (and directly behind Cain's) b/c of a small, one-story building:


Here's the view from the Cincinnati Ave bridge, looking directly towards the Blue Dome District.  Again, even the tallest buildings in the district aren't visible.  How big of a rooftop sign are we talking about? 


Here's the view from 1st and Detroit.  You can barely see the tip-top of El Guapos (which is, I think, a 3-story building plus some) behind the 1-story tall Dwelling Spaces/Yokozuna building.  Again, a 10 foot tall sign on top of Joe Momma's wouldn't be visible from this location, either.  (A prime "through" street for people leaving downtown.)


Meanwhile, it will be hard to create a zoning ordinance that says: "only cool, beautiful signs that exhibit appropriate content may be placed on the roof of establishments that we like."  Obviously, the Midtown Adult Superstore is one of the tallest buildings in the BDD, and it's lucky enough to be "uphill" from other buildings...so a rooftop sign there (I picture a neon version of the symbol typically seen on the mudflaps of semi-trucks) would stand out nicely.

Then, of course, others in downtown would want rooftop signs.  Specifically, buildings located adjacent to the IDL would benefit.  But others would want to share the glamour:


I think that classy "Blue Dome Entertainment District" signs could be placed to direct traffic from the ballpark or the IDL.  These would probably be much more effective at achieving the desired result.

When all else fails, a small "gateway" sign would certainly attract attention. 


Here are some cool signs that "stick up" above the roofline...

or...


Couldn't you just get a variance for this sort of thing?  Even if it's not visible from any distance, it WOULD add a certain cachet.

Now that I think about it, perhaps the BDD just needs to work on placemaking and branding.  For example, when you're in Chinatown, you KNOW you're in Chinatown!


Whoops!  Off on a tangent!

Seriously, I support the whole Blue Dome gang, and love what they're trying to achieve.  I'm confident that Blake and Elliot would build cool, appealing signs that would add to (not detract from) the streetscape.  I'm just not convinced that a zoning change is the way to do this...b/c I don't trust every downtown property owner to act with the same vision and wisdom.

[patric]

Oh, how long I've waited for an excuse to post this...

[JoeMommaBlake]

Let's remember some things:

1. This is only being proposed for the Blue Dome District.
2. This doesn't mean that every business in the blue dome district will have a sign on it's roof, only that we're allowed to.
3. There have been several references to the style of the sign. Neon signs are allowed right now. We're not asking for the right to put up neon signs. We already can.
4. You want details? I'm of the impression that Elliot wants a neon sign on top of the bowling alley and Yokozuna. Picture a neon sumo wrestler or something of the sort...and on the bowling alley...imagine your standard bowling alley neon with the ball moving towards the pins...On top of the Max Retropub we're wanting a throwback neon sign braced from the back extending up from the rooftop. Other than El Guapos, the restaurants on the block are all a very flat one story. We'd like to vary the height by putting the sign up top. As for the shirt shop, no plans there for rooftop signage.

I think it's important not to blow this out of proportion. Nobody is asking to put billboards on their rooftops. This isn't a new idea. We're not asking for something new and unheard of. We're only asking for the right to put a sign somewhere different....Not a different type of sign...not a different size...nothing....just moving the location. It seems arbitrary to me whether the sign is on a pole or on the front of the building or whatever...Honestly from my perspective, it's more acceptable to have a sign on top of a building than on a pole in front of it. 

Some cool pics of signs on rooftops.








Right...so there's lots of these.

[Conan71]

Oh, how long I've waited for an excuse to post this...

That's one...uh...um...ahem...well-hung sign.

[PonderInc]

Blake, I have complete faith in you and Elliot.  I'm just trying to figure out how to amend the zoning code to achieve the desired effect WITHOUT allowing crapola.  Just saying "we allow rooftop signs" is not going to cut it.

It sounds like you want to allow neon business signs to advertise individual establishments on their own rooftops (not a general "Welcome to the Blue Dome" sign on a prominent place, and not "off-site outdoor advertising signs" which means "billboards"). 

While I think your description sounds cool, I still doubt that anyone would see it from the ballpark (except for those who will be driving down Detroit or Elgin anyway).  Still, I'm a sucker for old-fashioned, neon signs--especially ones involving bowling pins, so...

Here are some questions:
1. What, exactly, are the boundaries of the BDD?  (Do we use the TIF district boundaries?)

2. Do you want design guidelines to ensure only high-quality signs of appropriate scale and coolness are erected in the BDD?  (Unless you want a bunch of ugly, generic, 71st & Memorial type business signs on your neighbors' rooftops, you better put something in place.) 

3. If design guidelines are desired, who will create them, and who will review the applications?  (It actually makes sense to me that a group of BDD business and property owners plus an architect could act as a design review board for signs in the district...but I'm not sure how to implement this.)

4. When you put rooftop signs on single-story buildings in a neighborhood that wants to encourage loft-style living (picture a 1-story building with a rooftop sign surrounded by 3, 4 & 5-story loft apartments)...are these signs truly an advantage?

5. Since the Blue Dome District includes many buildings that qualify it as a "historic district" that could be listed on the National Register, how will the addition of new rooftop signs affect this potential designation?  (40% tax credits for rehab of buildings in a historic district is not something you want to sacrifice...  Talk to Preservation Commission staff to make sure the signs won't affect the district's application.)

Allowing rooftop signs would set a precedent, so I would suggest that the BDD be prepared set a good one...with design standards and a review process in place.  (I know that Elliot has faced a wicked bureacracy in Bricktown regarding design standards, but some sort of review might be necessary if you want to keep it "cool"...)

If you're saying that you only want "historic looking / neon signs" (this is pretty vague language to put in a zoning code), you're going to have to clarify what that means.  Does that mean no digital signs?  No flashing lights?  (Some historic signs have bulbs that flash...)  Does that mean "no standard issue, boring, billboard-style signs?"  (The Bail Bonds billboard shown above is obviously quite old...does that make it "historic looking?")

It's going to be hard to come up with the right balance in a sign ordiance to achieve what you want without opening the door to a bunch of crap.  I'm just advocating for being thoughtful about how you proceed.

[JoeMommaBlake]

Our request has absolutely nothing to do with the type of sign.

Today, if I wanted to, I could hang a piece of crap sign on the front of my building. There are no laws (obviously) respecting the aesthetic quality of signage, only where they can be placed.

It seems hypocritical to suddenly care about what the sign is made of based upon it's relationship to the building. Ugly is ugly no matter what.

I get it that we all want nice, pretty signs. Unless we're going to start legislating "taste" across the board, I want it to be clear that we're only asking for permission to put the sign on a different place on the building. It makes no difference to me where my neighbors put crappy looking signs. A crappy sign is a crappy sign. Of course I'd rather not have anything ugly in the district, but that's a much more difficult thing to legislate. We're not asking for permission to make laws regarding taste (as nice as that would be). Rooftop or front of building...same sign...10 feet higher.

I'd like to refer again to my point earlier. If we had two story tall buildings here and opted to put signs on the face of them near the top, they would, in effect, be at a higher elevation than rooftop signs on our one story buildings. The existing code isn't about taste or elevation. I'm guessing that it was created for the purposes of "safety?"

My contention is that signs are no more or less safe on top of a building than they are in front. We can legislate how something is constructed. This day and age we can make sure that they are safe.

Let's ask ourselves why we care about the look of a sign more when it's on the roof. Is it because it's more visible if it's on the roof (in which case my point is proven. More visible is what we're hoping for) or is it because the door might be opening for us to have a chance to legislate taste? Where are the opinions about tacky signs the rest of the year. I think we can all agree that tacky signs are bad and that cool signs are good. I just want to make sure we're discussing the right things here and that everyone is clear about what is being requested.

[Conan71]

Blake, I think there's an over-reaction going on to this issue, personally.  I don't see anything evil coming with roof-top signs in the Blue Dome.  I agree, taste belongs in legislation about as much as morality does, which in my book is not at all.  What one person thinks is tacky, another might think of as being fine retro.

[TheArtist]

I think the point is...  one of these signs on top of a one story building would essentially be in the same place as it would be if it were on the front of a 2 story.

I suppose you could build one of those fake facades or tower things that stick up over the actual height of the floor and then stick a sign on that and it would be ok.  But I kind of like the look we might get if they didnt have to build a facade like that and could just put up the sign.

If a new building were to come in and build a spire and cover it with signage, would that be ok? Could they retrofit a new building with a spire and have it lit up with a sign on it? How bout a rotating Uhaul truck? lol

Is signage ok if its on part of some sort of covered (looks like part of a wall) structure ,,, but not ok if its part of a structure thats uncovered?  Same height, visibility, and same essential placement to boot.

[dsjeffries]

I'm all for the signs in the Blue Dome District.

I understand that the signs would be moved up, but would they still be street-facing? Part of the issue is the property line ending at the sidewalk, so would the signs also be allowed to face the sidewalks and pedestrians? I'd much rather have cool signs directing pedestrians where an establishment is (which is the whole point the Blue Dome business owners are trying to make) than have it point into nothingness. Quite simply, if the parking lots are eventually replaced by buildings, having street-facing signs would do nothing but shine across the street while not directing foot- and auto-traffic.

And though people wouldn't necessarily be able to see the signs from certain parts of downtown, they most certainly would be able to see these signs from the ballpark, straight down Elgin. If I had the time, I'd make a few sketches to illustrate how it would look from the ballpark, but I don't, so I'll post pictures instead.

The examples below show that across the entire country (including right here), there are examples of nice signs that help direct pedestrians and autos in beautiful concert:

The Mayan Theatre. Denver. This sign attracts pedestrians while also letting drivers down the stree find them. Great sign, beautiful theatre.


Coffee Shop, Union Square. New York City. Its corner location catches people's attention on two streets.


Acapulco Mexican Restaurant. Amarillo, Texas.


Tower Theatre. Oklahoma City.


Tulsa World Building. Tulsa.


Atlas Life Building. Tulsa.


Will Rogers Theatre. Oklahoma City.






Examples of less effective (but not necessarily less attractive) signs:

Restaurant Jules Verne. Berlin, Germany.


Brady District. Tulsa.


These signs are attractive, but not very effective at catching the attention of someone walking down the street unless they happen to be right in front of it.
All above photos were taken by me.

[PonderInc]

I can't tell if projecting signs (signs that stick out from the face of the building) are allowed in the CBD w/o a variance b/c of the setback requirements in the zoning code.  Can anyone decipher this? 
http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221.

Did the Tulsa World have to get a variance for their sign?  (Or Garrett Law, or other similar signs downtown?)  It seems like this would also be an issue to address/consider when re-evaluating sign ordinances.  Especially since PLANiTULSA will be recommending a lot of new "main street" developments with little or no setback.

[sgrizzle]

I can't tell if projecting signs (signs that stick out from the face of the building) are allowed in the CBD w/o a variance b/c of the setback requirements in the zoning code.  Can anyone decipher this? 
http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221.

Did the Tulsa World have to get a variance for their sign?  (Or Garrett Law, or other similar signs downtown?)  It seems like this would also be an issue to address/consider when re-evaluating sign ordinances.  Especially since PLANiTULSA will be recommending a lot of new "main street" developments with little or no setback.

I believe they did. I remember a story about them applying for the signs, anyway.

[Red Arrow]

Buildings up to the sidewalk should still have a sidewalk's width to have a sign project from the front of the building to the curb.

[custosnox]

looks like this might be making some headway

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100217_11_0_Citypl574413