A mock-up of the proposed sign for Russell Investments. COURTESY RUSSELL INVESTMENTS


If a company occupies a significant portion of office space in a building, provides a significant portion of living wage jobs, and keeps the sign aesthetically subtle, yes, let them, especially on the more modern skyscrapers, which are kind of corporate in and of themselves.
What is the difference between this and the stupid green T on the old Rainier brewery/Tully's roasting plant, or the Marquee outside the Paramount, or any other relavant posting of a company name on a structure?

By the way, since Tully's no longer roasts in that building, can we get the big red R back? I know Rainier is not brewed there anymore, but unlike the green T, the R is a piece of our cultural legacy in Seattle.
yeah i dig that ! bring back the big red r , that tully's shit is an abomination. blade runner world would be kinda cool , hong kong has lit signs every where and it looks cool .
If the fear is that we may end up with more big tenants with big signs, that we attract another company renting 200,000 square feet—well, we should be so lucky. This may be one way to do that without tax breaks or cutting city services."

Yes, indeed. Corporations are literally going to be lining up to move here once they are able to erect their giant glowing eyesores.

I'd personally really love to see an Exxon Mobile sign burning the back of my retinas when driving across the ship canal bridge. Can you imagine all the new JOBS we would have in Seattle then? That's the sign of progress I tell ya!

Sarcasm aside, I really can't wait to have BANK OF AMERICA glowing in my face every time I take a moment to soak in one of the most beautiful skylines in the world. What a pleasant reminder that's going to be of how awesome things are right now.
One of the things I've always admired about the Seattle Skyline is the LACK of signage.
This is a phenomenally bad idea.
Dominic, you write: "If say after 10 years we truly resent the signs, then we pull 'em down."

So kind of like the Bush tax cuts, huh? We'll just get rid of 'em, right?

This is really really stooopid.
Signs on skyscrapers might be an extra distraction for drivers on the highways and city streets. Consequently, that might cause traffic fatalities. Currently millions of people are driven under the influence of mood altering chemicals, under the distraction of computers, GPS, cellular telephones and anxiety about the economy, why adding more public distractions to an already bad situation.
I have a hard time believing that a potential tenant of 200,000 ft(2) is going to be factoring in a piece of signage on the outside of a building when they elect to relocate or lease additional space. It may be a small perk, but a competent, cheap workforce, tax breaks and lax regulation of professional practices is probably more likely to sway any tenant of that size. 200k is a lot of space- an average walmart is what, 100k?

Please wait...

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.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.