Zoning Update Opportunity - Let's get rid of pole signs in Tulsa

[TheArtist]

Pole signs help business. The electric poles are the beautification issue. The business poles help people make a living.

How do you explain the areas that do not have pole signs, but yet "people still make a better living" than here?  By the same token, some might argue that the more attractive an area is, that helps business and helps people make a living as well... especially if everyone in the area is working under the same set of rules.

[davideinstein]

How do you explain the areas that do not have pole signs, but yet "people still make a better living" than here?  By the same token, some might argue that the more attractive an area is, that helps business and helps people make a living as well... especially if everyone in the area is working under the same set of rules.

What evidence do you that it didn't decrease sales in those locations? Someone in this thread just mentioned they almost missed a McDonald's because of no arch. I have multiple examples of our company benefiting and not benefiting from good signage. I understand some districts might have regulations based on the environment that makes it thrive, but there are more examples, in my opinion, of it helping business.

Also, the neon signs on 11th are awesome. It's classic Route 66. I wish we could get more neon signs there.

[carltonplace]

Sugarland TX, a freaking suburb of Houston has sign code enforcement.

[heironymouspasparagus]

While we're at it, let's get rid of Neon signs too.  I mean, people just don't take care of them, and they can look like absolute crap, flickering all the time /s

Like that big ole Meadow Gold sign on 11th street!!


Not really - neon is cool!!  Flickering is when maintenance has not been done, and even that has a place in our culture over the last century or so.  We can get it off the pole, though!

I would really like to have one of those old Git-N-Go signs from the 60's with the boy running in neon!!  I have just the place to install it now!! That was a very cool sign and really interesting to put together!!


About the 4th entry down the page....
http://tulsatvmemories.com/gb072404.html

[patric]

Not really - neon is cool!!  Flickering is when maintenance has not been done, and even that has a place in our culture over the last century or so.  We can get it off the pole, though!

Neon can be very attractive in moderation. 
And internally-lighted monument signs beat pole-mounted signs hands-down, for aesthetics as well as maintenance.

[saintnicster]

Like that big ole Meadow Gold sign on 11th street!!


Not really - neon is cool!!  Flickering is when maintenance has not been done, and even that has a place in our culture over the last century or so.  We can get it off the pole, though!

/S for sarcasm.  I'm just saying that this seems like a deja vu moment with neon & rooftop signs in blue dome a few years back.  I mean, rooftop signs were banned, what, back in the 80s because they weren't ever maintained, and generally looked ugly because of it?  Then Blue Dome got them back, because building owners wanted them.  http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=14921.0

Edit/clarification -
I'm not for or against pole signs either way, but one would think that there are more productive paths than "I hate this, and things that I hate should be banned".

Again, going to other threads - I'd imagine that if you offer a big enough carrot to people to do something, then you don't have to beat them with the stick instead.  Incentivize them somehow to venture away from it.

[TheArtist]

What I have discovered with downtown is that incentivizing is very hard to do when almost everything is a "go".  I spoke to some about doing tax incentives, etc. to encourage certain areas to have more pedestrian lively/transit friendly development and they said this couldn't be done with Zoning so the zoning process wasn't the place to try.

Also as I have looked at other cities incentives, they work because they are in areas with stricter regulations or zoning. Here is why, say you want more density near a transit station.  One way to incentivize more density is to say "We will allow you to build higher if your within a few blocks of this station" as one example.  But if you allow just about everyone to build higher anyway, then there is no way to use that as an incentive.

Interestingly, the more zoning and regulations you have in place... the ability to get rid of those things or relax them, If you do this or that type of desired construction, becomes your tool to incentivise.  

Was looking at another city that was, per the outlet mall discussion, wanting a better development in an area.  They waved fees, and I don't remember the specifics but it was something like "increased traffic fees" "water runoff fees" etc. if the development did this or that types of improvements.  They seemed to be fees and regulations that we do not have and thus could not use as tools to encourage better development. But it seems as though we are in completely the opposite situation where the development is asking US to pay to help them put in the development!?

Anyway, back to the signs. I am guessing we already have in place some regulations governing size, height, brightness, etc. And I don't know what kind of design requirements we could put in place to ensure they would be "better looking".  However I do know that areas that do not have them do look and feel much better to live and work in.  But it occurs to me that I would never want a pole sign, because I only want my businesses to be in pedestrian friendly areas and you don't need them and in most instances can't put them in regardless, in those types of areas. The reason there is an incentive for pole signs is "cars" and sprawl.  Now that Tulsa is beginning to turn the corner from easy "scrape the trees away and plop up a building and parking lots" to " tear down some old buildings to put in new infill" we might want to consider what signals/incentives/encouragement we are sending development wise with what we more easily allow or don't allow within the city limits.  Do we want to incentivize more sprawl type redevelopment, or incentivize more pedestrian lively/transit friendly development? Having pole signs cost more, (and in a way they do because they are mostly wanted because of sprawl) can actually level the playing field and make more pedestrian lively/transit friendly development more competitive and attractive.

I know that in itself seems so minor that it couldn't really have that kind of effect.  But the deal is, as I have found out, we have dozens and dozens of rules and regulations, zoning, etc. that in effect incentivize one type of development, auto centric, and discourage (by making it more expensive for one thing) pedestrian lively/transit friendly development.  

We tried to put up awnings on the front of the building we were looking at on 11th. The awning company told us it was illegal to put awnings up over the sidewalk!  He mentioned that some of the others who had recently put some in were in violation of code and could be fined and have to remove them, if found out.  I don't know if you realize this, but awnings are important for a pedestrian friendly business. They can also work as signage.  Again, we are subtly here and there encouraging one type of development while discouraging another. How to we want our city to evolve here in the future? What direction will we want it to take?

[saintnicster]

We tried to put up awnings on the front of the building we were looking at on 11th. The awning company told us it was illegal to put awnings up over the sidewalk!  He mentioned that some of the others who had recently put some in were in violation of code and could be fined and have to remove them, if found out.  I don't know if you realize this, but awnings are important for a pedestrian friendly business. They can also work as signage.  Again, we are subtly here and there encouraging one type of development while discouraging another. How to we want our city to evolve here in the future? What direction will we want it to take?

(more dirty thread jacking) Ah ha, I think I found it! https://library.municode.com/HTML/14783/level3/TUCOOR_TIT27PECO_CH12STSI.html#TUCOOR_TIT27PECO_CH12STSI_S1206OBFRPA
I would think that person was over-reacting/trying to milk you for cash... How low were the awnings you were wanting?

There's also the "Nuisances affecting peace and safety" section that mentions awnings
https://library.municode.com/HTML/14783/level3/TUCOOR_TIT24NU_CH1NUCL.html#TUCOOR_TIT24NU_CH1NUCL_S103NUAFPESA

[PonderInc]

Pole signs help business. The electric poles are the beautification issue. The business poles help people make a living.

Well, they definitely help the sign industry make a living.

Every study I've found about the "economic benefits" of commercial signage was funded by the sign industry.  Most of the studies are from the 80's and 90's--long before every person in town was carrying a smart phone with GPS and Google at their fingertips.  You can't argue that wayfinding has changed.  I certainly don't need 35' tall signs to help me find a location.

Meanwhile, there's a growing body of evidence that high quality places (attractive, pedestrian-oriented, sense of safety, slower traffic, proximity of uses, etc) has a massive impact on the economic success of an area.

In 2012, The Brookings Institute did a study that utilized a 162-point audit to measure different aspects of the built environment specifically associated with walkability.  Their discovery: "as the number of environmental features that facilitate walkability and attract pedestrians increase, so do office, residential, and retail rents, retail revenues, and for-sale residential values."

Applying this technique across various locations in Washington, DC, they found:

Places with higher walkability perform better commercially. A place with good walkability, on average, commands $8.88/sq. ft. per year more in office rents and $6.92/sq. ft. per year higher retail rents, and generates 80 percent more in retail sales as compared to the place with fair walkability, holding household income levels constant.

And that's just going from fair to good.  As you progress up the ladder of improved walkability, going from good to very good, the economic gains continue to build.

[carltonplace]

hm, I guess Tulsa developers haven't seen this study.

[Townsend]

hm, I guess Tulsa developers haven't seen this study.

They'd just say it was untrue and throw a snowball at Congress

[davideinstein]

Well, they definitely help the sign industry make a living.

Every study I've found about the "economic benefits" of commercial signage was funded by the sign industry.  Most of the studies are from the 80's and 90's--long before every person in town was carrying a smart phone with GPS and Google at their fingertips.  You can't argue that wayfinding has changed.  I certainly don't need 35' tall signs to help me find a location.

Meanwhile, there's a growing body of evidence that high quality places (attractive, pedestrian-oriented, sense of safety, slower traffic, proximity of uses, etc) has a massive impact on the economic success of an area.

In 2012, The Brookings Institute did a study that utilized a 162-point audit to measure different aspects of the built environment specifically associated with walkability.  Their discovery: "as the number of environmental features that facilitate walkability and attract pedestrians increase, so do office, residential, and retail rents, retail revenues, and for-sale residential values."

Applying this technique across various locations in Washington, DC, they found:

Places with higher walkability perform better commercially. A place with good walkability, on average, commands $8.88/sq. ft. per year more in office rents and $6.92/sq. ft. per year higher retail rents, and generates 80 percent more in retail sales as compared to the place with fair walkability, holding household income levels constant.

And that's just going from fair to good.  As you progress up the ladder of improved walkability, going from good to very good, the economic gains continue to build.

I'm in the sandwich business and our signage at our store on 11th increased our business once the pole sign went up. Our low signage in Bartlesville has hurt our business.

I'm fine with a debate on this, but the well-being of the business I operate overrides a subjective opinion. Instead of complaining about pole signs hindering walkability I think the focus should be on more public transit funding, more bike lanes and better sidewalks. Using sprawling suburbs outside of Houston just proves, to me, this is more opinion based than hard evidence it increases walkability. Dense locations don't have room for pole signage...that's why there are less poles in walkable areas.

[Conan71]

I'm in the sandwich business and our signage at our store on 11th increased our business once the pole sign went up. Our low signage in Bartlesville has hurt our business.

I'm fine with a debate on this, but the well-being of the business I operate overrides a subjective opinion. Instead of complaining about pole signs hindering walkability I think the focus should be on more public transit funding, more bike lanes and better sidewalks. Using sprawling suburbs outside of Houston just proves, to me, this is more opinion based than hard evidence it increases walkability. Dense locations don't have room for pole signage...that's why there are less poles in walkable areas.

Bike lanes.  Now there's a scary proposition.  They have them all over Albuquerque.  The area we stay in Rio Rancho when we go through there is full of auto-centric big box development.  There's far too much turning in and out to make it safe for bikes in the bike lanes.  I have yet to see a white line bike lane that I'd feel more comfortable riding in rather than taking the driving lane itself.

[dsjeffries]

I'm fine with a debate on this, but the well-being of the business I operate overrides a subjective opinion.

The Brookings study is not subjective, and it's not an opinion; it's objective, verifiable, and offers repeatable results.

I'm in the sandwich business and our signage at our store on 11th increased our business once the pole sign went up. Our low signage in Bartlesville has hurt our business.

If a pole sign helps your business, it's because you're in an area designed for cars and built for traffic speeding by at 40 mph - not one built for people walking.

Instead of complaining about pole signs hindering walkability I think the focus should be on more public transit funding, more bike lanes and better sidewalks...Using sprawling suburbs outside of Houston just proves, to me, this is more opinion based than hard evidence it increases walkability. Dense locations don't have room for pole signage...that's why there are less poles in walkable areas.

I think you're missing the point. The argument isn't that a pole sign specifically hinders walkability - the argument is that pole signs - the kind employed by gas stations on the side of an interstate highway - are ugly and make an area look run-down; and that monument signs - signs supported by more than just a pole and which include more of a design element - look nicer and should be the standard in Tulsa. Most urban, dense, walkable areas use a combination of awnings, flat facing or projecting signs.

No one is talking about removing all signs from every business, just massive, ugly, cheap pole signs. Your argument that pole signs don't exist in dense, walkable areas because there's no space for them is invalid. Pole signs don't exist in dense, walkable areas because those areas are built at a scale appropriate for humans walking at 2-4 mph, not cars traveling at 40+ mph. And most of those areas use a combination of awnings, flush or projecting signs to let people walking know they're there.

Pole sign (left)                                                         Monument sign (right)
 

Urban signs:

[PonderInc]

Here are a couple examples of alternatives to pole signs.  This is what is meant by "monument" signs.  You'll see them at 41st and Harvard b/c the neighborhood fought tooth and nail for this small nicety when the PUD was proposed.




Or we could just stick with the status quo...