The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Since we're updating our zoning code, this seems like a terrific time to think about what we want for our city.

Here's a simple suggestion: let's PROHIBIT POLE SIGNS

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8714/16824745308_2b0af3b895.jpg)

They make our city look like crap, and I can't understand why we continue to support this urban blight.

I travel all over the country, and I can tell you that pole signs are no longer being built in communities that care about their image.  Cities large and small have moved to small-scale ground signs as the standard for commercial signs.  The more affluent the area, the smaller the signage, and the better the landscaping and pedestrian amenities around it.  Pole signs are starting to be code for "we don't care about this part of town." 

Then I come back to Tulsa and have to look at them every day.

So here's the language I think should be added to the new zoning code:

The following signs are expressly prohibited: Pole signs.

We also need to be thinking about limiting the size and height of all signs. We don't need 40' tall signs in the city of Tulsa.

I absolutely agree with you.

That stretch of road could be an example of how NOT to design an urban area. Not pedestrian friendly. Offset buildings. Ugly signs. Many over head wires. Almost worthless sidewalk.

Compare that to Brookside or Cherry street. Same basic purpose. Both would cost the same to build. One looks great and attracts investment. One doesn't.

I agree with you. Here's an example of where the Tulsa Trifecta is pronounced: 47th & Mingo and 46th & Memorial. Notice how the traffic signal pole and electrical poles compete for space while a sidewalk abruptly turns to gravel and then ends, and to get to the pedestrian crossing button, a person would have to climb a small grassy knoll. Meanwhile, in the background, pole signs are dancing like no one's watching. This does not look like a city that cares. This looks like blight, plain and simple, and it is a visual reminder that humans who walk don't matter, aesthetics don't matter, safety doesn't matter, and that cars are the most valued things in this city. In case you're wondering, this is what "private property rights" combined with public disinvestment looks like.

(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5580/15116028596_debc657df2.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3905/14952478447_2fd4fac7a3.jpg)
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3852/15139021055_db3614a79e.jpg)

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

It's interesting to read the different goals of different cities' zoning code.

Here's what Ft Worth say about signs:

   (b)   It is the intent of these regulations to achieve the following:
      (1)   Enhance the economic value of the landscape by avoiding visual clutter which is potentially harmful to property values and business opportunities:
      (2)   Promote the safety of persons and property by providing that signs do not create a hazard due to collapse, fire, collision, weather or decay;
      (3)   Protect the safety and efficiency of the city’s transportation network by reducing the confusion or distraction to motorists and enhancing motorists’ ability to see pedestrians, obstacles, other vehicles and traffic signs;
      (4)   Enhance the impression of the city which is conveyed to tourists and visitors;
      (5)   Protect adjacent and nearby properties from the impact of lighting, size, height and location of signs;
      (6)   Preserve, protect and enhance areas of historical, architectural, scenic and aesthetic value, regardless of whether they be cultural, natural or human-made; and
      (7)   Encourage the removal of off-premises signs from designated scenic, cultural, architectural or historic districts or corridors.

Here's the proposed Tulsa language.  I don't understand why we're so flimsy and gooey about commercial signs.  Was there a sign manufacturer on the citizen's committee?

60.010-A Purpose
The sign regulations of this section are intended to balance the following differing, and at times, competing goals:
  1. To support the desired character of the city, as expressed in adopted plans, policies and regulations;
  2. To promote an attractive visual environment;
  3. To encourage the effective use of signs as a means of communication for businesses, organizations and individuals;
  4. To provide a means of way-finding for visitors and residents;
  5. To provide for reasonable business identification, advertising and communication;
  6. To prohibit signs of such excessive size and number that they obscure one another to the detriment of the economic and social well-being of the city and its residents, property owners and visitors;
  7. To protect the safety and welfare of the public by minimizing hazards for motorized and nonmotorized traffic;
  8. To minimize the possible adverse effects of signs on nearby public and private prop-erty; and
  9. To provide broadly for the expression of individual opinions through the use of signs on private property.

Why the hell is this even included?


Can we just copy Ft Worth's section on signs? Theirs is better-written with better goals and uses simple language to make very clear, succinct points.

Would the Ft Worth code have allowed that giant phallic symbol sign that OSU put just north of downtown? Nothing more than a brick embellished, landscaped, neon lit, pole sign.

In contrast to the OU Shusterman corner which has some class.

Can you tell I'm wearing my sooner cap? :)

What I learned as a guest of the Sign Advisory Board a few years back...
Out of fairness, the SAB did (does?) include several members from sign companies, as well as seemingly random citizens.
The result is the random citizens bow to the expertise of the sign professionals and just let them run the show.

I guess another obvious question is: do we really "need" any more billboards in Tulsa?

We could prohibit new billboards, and simply allow those which are currently existing in the freeway corridors to remain legal non-conforming.  This would open the possibility of phasing out billboards over time.  Years ago, Tulsa tried to do this, and a couple little mom-and-pop billboard owners jumped up screaming about the city taking away their livelihood.  Now that all the billboards are owned by Lamar and other international corporations, I don't think that should matter.

Interesting this thread came up just now.  I was in Florida for a project this last week.  Went from one area to another and someone mentioned how things in this one area looked so ratty, even though the buildings were newer.  Then they pointed out that what was different were all the pole signs.  I then noticed what they were talking about.  Funny how here in Tulsa we are used to it and don't notice how bad parts of town look compared to areas in other cities that don't have them.  The "nice" looking areas where we were mostly had signs lower down and it really does make a difference on how pleasing things look and feel.

i spent part of the last week in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. They have very strict sign ordinances and no pole signs are allowed.  You can actually almost drive by the McDonalds without noticing it even exists.  If not for the drive-through line, I’m not sure I would have picked out the golden arches the first time I drove through.

They are a few weeks away from a Wal-Mart opening. After years of resisting overtures by big box retailers, they gave in.  It is a more “rural” Walmart and their sign meets their sign requirements but still kind of sad to see Walmartism arrive in a place we treasure so much for being devoid of national retail for the most part.  All the locals we talked to were not real fond of this coming in other than being able to buy socks and underwear without having to drive an hour to Durango anymore.

I think code outlawing pole signs is a bad idea because it's a job killer. It will not only put many young women out of work, it will also shut down their opportunities for artistic expression. Right thinking people should oppose this change!

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/V14KmUuiYdyCofVPv8Deb5gXD5Wp361lzKUJ2Xk4obi0=w262-h207-p-no)

I have two caveats that I would proffer. 

One being I like diversity and yes creativity so wonder if there could be some areas where pole signs are allowed and some where they are not.  How to decide that would be a bugger though I am sure.

  Also, I have fond memories of the old Route 66, neon type signage that was still around when I was a kid and wonder if along the "various" route 66 corridors in Tulsa if allowances could be made for fanciful new, or retro themed pole signs to be allowed there as well. 

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.

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.

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

(https://www.publicstorage.com/images/properties/21514/public-storage-888-eldridge-road-sugar-land-tx-77478-exterior_1_slideshow_full.jpg)

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

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

/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.

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?

(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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.


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)
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PoleSign.jpg)   (http://www.apexsignsga.com/Portals/17967/images/IMG_1180.JPG)

Urban signs:
(http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-5-e1428600247241.jpg) (http://djeffries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/14-911_0-e1428600323726.jpg)

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.

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Yale-Cleaners-sign-41st-and-Harvard-2015.jpg)
(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/CVS-sign-41st-and-Harvard-2015.jpg)

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

(http://www.accidentalurbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Pole-signs-Tulsa-2015.jpg)

This is one of those things that could get seriously twisted in the wrong direction if the zoning powers that be get their hands on it.  Instead of 9 signs stacked in one location, we could (probably would given past experience...) get 9 signs sitting next to each other in a row on the ground.

The above ground power lines don't help that picture much.

or the lack of any sort of landscaping or sidewalk.

Ill take the opportunity to commend CVS for employing a glare shield on the light for their monument sign, but reluctantly point out that the fixture its attached to is a bit too much "brute force" for the sign it is illuminating.

One of the cool things about LED lighting is you can use fixtures tailor-made to the task, and not struggle to figure out how to get a one-size-fits-all HID floodlight to comply with zoning.

(http://i.imgur.com/2FyDI75l.jpg)

A baby pole sign!

A drive thru dentist, sandwich shop and nail shop.  Just need a vape shop and the grand slam of strip mall occupancy is complete!

No offense, to our resident sandwich maker.

One of our fastest growing stores with a hard working GM that's married with a solid job to support his kid. It also employees around 25 other people. You can make all of the snap judgements you want...I see the tax revenue it generates and the opportunties it gives people to make a decent living. I wish that sign was higher so it would be visible from the highway.

That same sandwich shop put a store in the Thompson Building when no one else wanted to and completely renovated the old Dex's/Collective spot on 11th. Not only that, it's the only eatery in our central business district to take the risk to stay open until 9pm every night to help prevent it from being a complete ghost town. Maybe a vapor shop will do the same at the Philcade?

I can list about 20 roads Downtown that could successfully put bike lanes in.

There’s a time and place for everything.  I’d tend to agree there are places for them in downtown, but there is still no security for the guy in the bike lane going north on Boston when the dumbass reading his cell phone makes a right turn into or through his/her path eastbound onto 6th St.

It isn't a slight on you, your sandwich shops or your employees.  It is a slight on 99% of strip mall owners in Tulsa.  AKA, those that fill their homogeneous, could be Anywhere U.S.A. strip mall developments that cater to cars with the same four tenant types rather than building unique structures that interact with pedestrians and fill them with a mix of local and national retailers.  The joke isn't on you, its on the guy that thinks he has a Class A retail space today in a good part of town that in ten years will have deferred maintenance in a degraded part of town because the virus of unsustainable growth has passed his area by.  Oh BTW in ten years it'll need a major overhaul because it's clad in Styrofoam covered by EIFS exterior, your sandwich shop has declined to take the third five year option on the lease because traffic is down and you need to move to the next hot area.

ETA:  Which is why the moment Jimmy Johns and Einstein Bagel moved into downtown I knew we'd "made it" over the first major hurdles in downtown development.  You can pull a list of what national chains will consider a zip code or certain part of town based on the demographics.  Ten years ago when McNellie's was opened the list was about five (Dollar Tree, etc), none of which were wanted downtown.  For the "creative class" the chains aren't welcome, for the hordes of workers that will hopefully follow them to take part in the energy that surrounds them the chains are awesome.  Case in point...Urban Outfitters coming to Brookside...derided by the hipster folks, loved by those of us that are desk jockeys that wish we could paint or play music all day.

Again, no slight on you or even chains.  We need national retailers to survive, the local guys can't do it all on their own.  In fact, I've told many people for years the moment chains arrive in a revitalizing area you know it is time to move to your investment focus to another area because you've successfully raised the demographics to fit an investment grade profile and that isn't a bad thing.

rdj - Fair enough. I apologize for being defensive. I take your view as well.

Our delivery base and growth will prevent us from having to relocate to a new area most of the time. I agree that a structure like the Thompson Building is better than our store at 41st, but there are literally no options like that around once you go even remotely South. If there were denser options we'd go there every single time. Our denser store are usually always busier in regards to the entire chain.

I just want to make sure we are always attacking the bad zoning laws and not the businesses or employees. I tend to be business-friendly in regard to signage because I see the correlation sales often and at the end of the day that's my livelihood. On the flip end, I'm naturally opposed to sprawl. The signs cited in this thread are still in sprawl areas so I don't necessarily see how getting rid of pole signs changes the bigger issue at hand.

Round of applause on that.

The areas that have walkable density, Cherry St, Brookside, Utica are higher rent so it is harder to get the economics of sandwiches, coffee, etc to work.

I don't often get close to your stores in Tulsa, but my traffic pattern takes my by a JJ in Moore at least twice a week.  Have been stopping there on what has become a fairly regular basis and it is always good.  (I wonder if they could do mobile delivery as I travel by on the interstate....will have to ask them)  While I like the regular bread, I really wish JJ would come up with a whole wheat version of it - with the same crunch/tooth to the crust.  THAT would make it a 3 or 4 times a week event for me!!  Would go out of my way in Tulsa to get that.