The Seattle City Council is bracing against unexpected blowback from a proposal to allow illuminated signs on downtown skyscrapers. A token offer to Russell Investments (which recently moved from Tacoma into the largely vacant former WaMu Center), the bill sponsored by council president Richard Conlin has drawn objections from a fleet of historic-preservation groups and architects. A University of Washington professor wrote in the Seattle Times on December 1 that the proposal would “turn the downtown skyline into a giant billboard” and “vandalize” the city.
“I can appreciate the fear of the city turning into a Blade Runner world,” says Council Member Mike O’Brien. “But you can look at what Russell wants to do and say it looks fine.” A mock-up shows a thin white strip of letters across one face of its building.
Under the proposed rules, only six or seven downtown buildings would be eligible for a sign. To qualify, a building must be taller than 500 feet and house a tenant that occupies more than 200,000 square feet of the same building where the sign appears (the tenants with that much space downtown are Safeco Insurance in two buildings, Bank of America, Perkins Coie, Nordstrom, Russell Investments, and K&L Gates). The signs would have to be white, they couldn’t blink or rotate, and they could promote only one tenant. The law would allow up to four signs per building at 324 square feet each, or two signs up to 648 square feet each. However, Russell is lobbying for an exception to post a single sign up to 1,080 square feet.
I asked an opponent of the legislation, neighborhood activist Bill Bradburd, about the ramifications he feared. “I don’t know,” he said. “What happens if we tattoo a Nike swoosh on our foreheads? We lose some sense of the public realm. Seattle is recognized as a place of natural beauty.”
Jon Scholes, policy director of the Downtown Seattle Association (DSA), which supports the bill to draw businesses into the city core, calls accusations from opponents “hyperbole.”
“We need to remind ourselves that the skyline is not a naturally occurring feature in our landscape,” says Scholes. “It’s made of glass and steel and concrete. We’re not talking about putting a sign atop Mount Rainier.”
Preservation groups are leading the charge to stop the bill. Twenty-seven members of the UW architecture school sent a letter to the mayor and city council, saying it “overturns a half-century of treasuring and protecting the downtown skyline, and betrays any claim to sustainability.” Historic Seattle is also staunchly opposed, as is Council Member Nick Licata, who sent a letter to his colleagues on December 6 that said the council should reconsider amending existing sign regulations. Licata introduced a resolution on December 7 asking the city’s Department of Planning and Development to come back to the council by May with a report on new rules that would contribute to “the city’s image and not result in the needless proliferation of signage.”
For his part, Conlin sounds surprised by the blowback. “We actually thought initially, and it turned out not to be true, this would be a modest and not very controversial piece of legislation,” he says. However, he acknowledges concerns that “this is a gateway drug that you might regret later on.”
Nonetheless, Conlin says, “fundamentally, I am supportive of the concept. I don’t think this turns downtown into a giant billboard, and I don’t think it vandalizes the city.”
The fear that the city could grow into a logo forest seems unfounded under this proposal—nor have the handful of building signs around town ruined the city (including KeyArena, the iconic Seattle P-I ball, the “W” logo on the University of Washington building in the U-District, etc.).
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.
Downtown has lost 20,000 jobs within the last decade while other cities in King County have gained jobs, DSA’s Scholes says, and signs could be a business boon that “distinguishes and identifies Seattle’s economic brand.” He says the signs “are clearly important to some companies.”
That said, there should be a couple conditions: First, companies should pay a steep permit fee that makes it worthwhile for the city. Second, there should be a sunset provision for review. If, say, after 10 years we truly resent the signs, then we pull ’em down. 
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
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.
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?