Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Billboards are best used to ask everyone to turn off the lights after the downtown developers gut our city councilmanic bonds for an insane gold-plated tunnel, don't you think?
Yes, Seattle has shed more jobs than the suburbs. But claiming that a lack of huge signs is a substantial cause of the job losses us utter bullshit.
Try a better argument, moron. One that actually makes sense.
You install some mooring cables for the clean energy zeppelin fleets for your brave new world, and we'll let you put up some steampunk billboards of zombies smoking cigarettes with the catchy wording "Seattle Steampunk Zombies Light Up in Anticipation".
How's that for a compromise?
But I do have two questions -- First, what's this with the requirement that the signs be white in color, and only letters? Is the goal to make them as boring as possible? No chance for a flying red horse here?
And second, why only for 200,000 square-foot tenants? Any significant business in a building should be eligible (one per building, please), not just the biggest of Big Business. (What happens when a business downsizes and suddenly occupies less than 200K? Does it have to take its sign down?) Talk about special privileges for Big Business, this is it.
If people really cared about this "corporate looking" business, they'd complain about the hideous buildings that the architects design for the corporate clients, but you never hear about that. That Russell building actually isn't too bad, though, by the standards of today. A nice sign would make it better. A mediocre sign would make it better.
The city's design board is a joke and an oxymoron; design does not, can not, and never has proceeded from a board, and this board in particular appears to be unusually dedicated to both blandness and micromanagement.
Meanwhile, all over the city restrictive sign controls have caused a plethora of truly horrible flapping banners, which are supposedly temporary and thus exempt from some of the regulations. Nobody complains about those, either.
The motives of sign opponents are false; they claim to be motivated by aesthetics but they are in fact motivated solely by an antipathy towards life.
DSA: Originator of such ideas as "fining the homeless," "deep bore tunnel," and "Richard Conlin."
But this has nothing to do with attracting jobs to downtown. Jobs lose to suburbs because small towns like Bothell fill-in the swamps at North Creek and allow bland office parks situated in mega-blocks of four story office building clusters. Proper regional growth management (that actually cared about not allowing development on wetlands) would not encourage this kind of suburban sprawl. When an international mega-corp wants to fill 10,000 jobs, that is where they put them, without any care at all about the commuting nightmare they just set up for all those employees (if they even bother to hire Americans to work there in the first place.)
See what I mean by reactionary? That moron Will is your classic faux progressive Seattle reactionary. These people have not a single idea in their head and no goals. They just resist change and try to turn the clock back to when they were 6 and the world was comfortable and familiar.
Advocate for signage all you want. The proposed signs really don't bother me a bit. Just try to come up with a persuasive argument that isn't complete bullshit.
Signs on big buildings don't bring in jobs nor does the lack of signs take away jobs.
I think the best thing we could do for Seattle, and Downtown Seattle especially, is to oust the entire DSA board and start from scratch.