There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting.
First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district. Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out. By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town. The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.
Second, there is no need for these signs downtown. Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses. Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts. Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping. These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.
Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.
With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.
Quote from: native tulsan on January 25, 2010, 11:18:03 AM
There is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting.
First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district. Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out. By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town. The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.
Second, there is no need for these signs downtown. Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses. Moreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts. Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping. These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.
Last, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.
With all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.
Personally, I dig rooftop signs. They hail from another era. So aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder, and don't be surprised if you're in the minority.
I think some of your other concerns are a bit wanting. Just because the city would reallow signs doesn't mean these building owners would be able to skirt building codes relevant to these signs.
Besides, a lot of these signs are going to weigh much less than your standard heating and air-conditioning unit.
Second, as for traffic signals, they're going to be up too high (on a rooftop, natch) to interfere.
Third, nearly all of your businesses are going to be zoned business areas and away from residential areas. So the nuisance argument doesn't wash.
Fourth, the cost of signage isn't cheap. I wouldn't expect every mom & pop to go out and get a roof top sign installed.
Pardon me for butting in RW.
I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.
Downtown, 1955
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/2159489187_5f59c50f87_o.jpg)
Quote from: hello on January 25, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.
Downtown, 1955
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/2159489187_5f59c50f87_o.jpg)
Ooh, I bet that photo will send patric into a seizure.
Quote from: native tulsan on January 25, 2010, 11:18:03 AM
First, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district. Business owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out. By granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town. The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.
Uhh.. yes they can. They can limit it to one building if they want. We are also talking about signs they can legally, right now, attach to the front of the building. All they are asking for is the ability to place the sign above the existing facade of the building.
Quote from: hello on January 25, 2010, 12:09:43 PM
I live in the Riverview neighborhood and it is so nice to see the Mayo sign glowing when I drive at night. I hope they allow the signs.
Downtown, 1955
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2418/2159489187_5f59c50f87_o.jpg)
I can make a picture like that almost any brightness. All depends on how long you leave the shutter open.
" Arrows of neon and flashing marquees out on Main Street.
Chicago, New York, Detroit and it's all on the same street.
Your typical city involved in a typical daydream
Hang it up and see what tomorrow brings." (Garcia Hunter Lesh Weir)
Pretty self serving those fellas in Blue Dome. FOTD wants to do this on his house....the neons inside burn bright but oh how they would look wonderful blaring onto my neighbors (especially thems that still wear their McCain/Palin bumper stickers on their vehickles).
Quote from: Conan71 on January 25, 2010, 12:13:26 PM
Ooh, I bet that photo will send patric into a seizure.
BBBtthhhh.....PPPPPbbb...thppp...bbbbbl (thump)
Actually, Im rather fond of neon that's tastefully done.
...and I think something like this
might be doable with the right planning and proper restraint.
If were talking like the MAYO sign... Not some spectacular video screen
a la "Blade Runner".
The problem with lighting around the new ballpark is that the glare from the floodlights is so overwhelming that everything around it appears as a vast sea of black, and any sort of cosmetic lighting would have to be exaggerated to be effective. Couple that with ineffective, glary streetlighting (the Acorn lights) and you have a real challenge.
A priority should be shielding the ballpark floodlighting to limit spill. This not only gets it out of the eyes of motorists on the expressway but allows more moderate area illumination levels, that should in turn lead to less obnoxious levels of illumination needed for signage.
In any case, the city needs more than just input from the billboard industry and their user base.
Anything meaningful may have to wait until the city can afford to hire it's oft-promised sign inspector.
I actually like the idea of the rooftop signs....in this one district. I would think it would be best to have it in only one section because it would help that area have an even more unique vibe and feel. Wouldnt want it in the Brady District for instance (just some festive lights strung across the streets or lining the tops of the buildings would be nice and even that would further distinguish that area from the others) Wouldnt want it everywhere downtown because we want some areas to be more of the "quiet, peaceful, urban, residential" type. Some can be of the raucus, urban residential, nature, (light and noise coming in through the windows) and since there is not a lot of residential in this area right now anyway and its becoming more of a center for entertainment... why not? It would also help with the complaint I had in another thread of how that area is not noticeable from other parts of downtown and its hard to quickly and easily point people to the exact spot. A few rooftop signs in that location could be just the ticket.
What I would be curious about would be the limitations they would put on these signs. Such as,,, flashing and blinking, amount of light, etc. I think some compromises can be made if need be to "tone things down" or you can allow it to be over the top, Moulin Rouge, wild and crazy.
Its certainly doable to have it done in only one part of the city, just like we do and dont allow all kinds of things in various parts of the city, including FOTDs neighborhood.
Just to give Patric a jolt of terror.... Chongqing China at night. Gets "worse" as it gets further into the video lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Ei0pI11B0&feature=related
I dont think we should have any fear that Tulsa or the Blue Dome district will look anything like that lol. 8)
Greetings,
I'd like to do that thing I do where I respond to each point in a post. Here goes:
QuoteThere is a movement among the Blue Dome district business owners to change city ordinances to allow them to have rooftop neon signs, similar to the 1930's vintage style of the Mayo, Meadow Gold and Cain's signs. While I am usually all for historic preservation, and having these signs on a few of the "grandfathered in" buildings is neat on a limited basis, overall, this is not a tradition worth resurrecting.
I am one of the Blue Dome business owners hoping to change these ordinances. Nice to meet you and thank you for posting here on the forum. I've always appreciated TulsaNow for the way it allows us to discuss things exactly like this.
QuoteFirst, there is no way that the city will be able to limit the allowance of these signs to just one small business district.
Actually, yes they can. They make the laws. A "variance" of any kind, means that it is of course "varying" from the norm. Naturally, they can decide that an entire district "varies" from the norm. Precedent has long been established in Tulsa that different geographic areas can have different rules than others. Downtown, for example, is not subject to the same parking requirements as the rest of the city.
QuoteBusiness owners all across the city will be advocating for a rooftop sign, because they will want a unique way to make their business stand-out.
In most parts of the city, there is room on the property to construct a typical pole sign. Downtown, however, our lot lines end where our property ends. If we want to display signage, it has to be done on the face of our buildings. It can be argued that it is actually better for the buildings and the aesthetics of our neighborhood to have signs stretching upward, increasing the perceived height and visibility of the district.[/quote]
QuoteBy granting one variance, the whole city will be opened up to the potential of adding these eyesores all across town. The city already fights businesses with regard to placing illegal signs and banners in public right of ways, we don't need to add to this visual litter.
As I mentioned earlier, granting one variance doesn't obligate the city to grant another. The code is in place, with the flexibility to vary as needed. It's actually a very nice process. It's okay to have large blanket codes as long as you allow deviation from them on a case by case basis, at the discretion of public servants, and when compelling reasoning is presented. As for illegal signs and banners, I agree. They are ugly and offensive. We're not proposing anything like that. Earlier you mentioned that you like the signs on the Cains and Mayo. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would call those signs "visual litter."
QuoteSecond, there is no need for these signs downtown. Once the ballpark is finished, it will be accompanied by nice streetscaping that will include lights, trees and benches that will benefit these Blue Dome businesses.
Many of our buildings in the Blue Dome District are one story buildings. The Brady District has several two story buildings, which stretch the eye upward and provide a more urban feel. As you may notice on Brady, there is a sign on the face of the building above the second story windows proclaiming it "The Brady District." I would be hard pressed to build a rooftop sign at any of my businesses that is as high in the sky as that one. The bottom of it has to be at least 20 feet off the ground. The only difference is that it's mounted on the face of the building, rather than on the roof. This is really just a matter of where the same sign will be placed. I can put it on the front of the building, or I can raise it ten feet and put it on top. Same sign, just a different location. So to wrap up this point, the Blue Dome District in particular will really benefit from these signs. They will affect the feel and personality of our growing district and will enhance visibility. Furthermore, they are appropriate, given that Rt. 66 (a road known for its neon) once ran through our neighborhood. As nice as they are, no amount of benches, lights and trees could enhance our neighborhood like rooftop signs could.
QuoteMoreover, within the next few years, there will likely be new streetscaping that will connect most of downtown's districts. Therefore, there will be no need to clutter things up with these signs or take away from the aesthetics of the ground-level streetscaping. These business owners should concentrate more on amending the ordinance to allow more liberal standards for signs on the face of the buildings.
Joe Momma's has a large theater style marquee on the face of it. It is a very large 24,000 dollar sign. It does as much for the district and for my restaurant as any street scaping could do. I've never heard anyone complain about it. Instead, I've had more compliments on it than I can count. If I'm not mistaken, our sign company had to do some work to get it approved. I think most would agree that it was a nice addition. It's on the face of my building and I like it. They relaxed the standard because a compelling case was made as to why the sign was safe and appropriate.
QuoteLast, not only are these aesthetics a concern, but I'm sure there are all kinds of other issues like structural engineering of these buildings to support such signs, conflicting with traffic signals and potentially becoming a nuisance to nearby residents.
The previous post was accurate. They would never relax the building code to allow for heavy signage. It's more likely a concern to place a heavy sign on the face of the building than on the top. HVAC units are certainly heavier than any sign. Engineers are required on all types of renovations of old buildings. The permit office could easily require an engineering report if there was concern about structural integrity.
QuoteWith all this being said, I encourage anyone who cares, to go to the TMAPC public hearing on Feb 17th and suggest rooftop signs not be allowed.
I'd really like to ask you to reconsider your perspective. We're not advocating LED signs, flashing billboards, or other digital type signage. We're hoping to simply move the types of signs you already see on our buildings up a few feet to our rooftops. The Blue Dome District is Tulsa's most unique area of commerce. There are no chains of any kind, but rather a host of locally owned restaurants and retail. There's no greater concentration of local restaurants and venues in all of Tulsa and I believe in our short existence, we have established a history of doing things with class and style. The typical reasons for fighting signage are largely non-existent as there are no highway drivers within site and no homes within eye-shot. The only people who should be concerned with our signs are those who own mediocre businesses in the more unoriginal parts of town. As Tulsans continue to realize that downtown is the unrivaled leader in entertainment, dining, and nightlife, one has to assume that the chain restaurants to our south will begin to lose some customers to the city's core.
I guess I'm not sure who the signs on the roof are for. Pedestrians across the street? Cars approaching the area? It seems to me that signs on the front of the building would be more effective for pedestrians. Just asking.
JoeMommaBlake, I like your marquee sign. Unfortunately I spell pizza, spaghetti, chile, etc "Maalox".
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 25, 2010, 08:15:17 PM
I guess I'm not sure who the signs on the roof are for. Pedestrians across the street? Cars approaching the area? It seems to me that signs on the front of the building would be more effective for pedestrians. Just asking.
JoeMommaBlake, I like your marquee sign. Unfortunately I spell pizza, spaghetti, chile, etc "Maalox".
I believe the signs are going to be at or near the front of the building and just as visible as a sign mounted on the face of the building.
JoeMomma - the old Carpet City sign on 11th street weighed more than most HVAC units. I can remember when we loaded that thing on the trailer to take it to the site to hang it up. Took two boom trucks! Nice sign. But very heavy!
Are they still there? Or just 41st street? Don't know what the sign is up to now.
15th street. Sorry.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 25, 2010, 09:07:56 PM
JoeMomma - the old Carpet City sign on 11th street weighed more than most HVAC units. I can remember when we loaded that thing on the trailer to take it to the site to hang it up. Took two boom trucks! Nice sign. But very heavy!
Are they still there? Or just 41st street? Don't know what the sign is up to now.
I drive by 15th& Delaware often so I should know if the sign is still up but I honestly can't say 100%. I know the store is closed. They were lax in maintaining the neon over the years and various letters would be out. I remember either Uptown News or Urban Tulsa used a shot of the storefront when the sign said: Oklahoma's Largest pet Co. They super-imposed a bunch of zoo animals in the windows as I recall.
As much as I hate signs, I can think of some that I think are classy and cool. The Atlas Life Building, Phoenix Cleaners on 18th, the Mayo Motor Inn...heck, even the Tulsa World sign on Boulder is decent. Notice a pattern? They are all artistic, appropriately scaled to fit the building, mounted to the face of the building, and they are visible from the street, but are unobtrusive.
And, sure, I like the Cain's Ballroom sign and the Mayo Hotel sign. Who wouldn't? They are part of our history.
I support JoeMammaBlake and Elliot Nelson and others in the Blue Dome District who are working hard to bring needed life and vigor back to downtown. But I'm not convinced that rooftop signs on small buildings are the missing piece to the puzzle.
What's the goal here? To direct traffic (both foot and vehicular) to the Blue Dome District. Rooftop signs on 1 and 2-story buildings will not be visible from any distance (even one block away, unless viewed from across a surface parking lot!). When you're driving on I-244, the stadium itself blocks your view of the BDD, and Hwy 75 is "sunken" so you can't see anything from there.
It would take a pretty tall sign on a tall rooftop (perhaps on top of Sager's First Street Loft project) to be visible from the Cincinnati bridge (driving south over the RR tracks). And any remaining views would be blocked by eventual development.
Here are some examples:
The Cains sign is often sighted as an example. The rooftop portion of the sign is visible from Main Street and from I-244.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4305763768_95c7fec1f9.jpg)
But you can't see it from Boston, exactly one block over (and directly behind Cain's) b/c of a small, one-story building:
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4029/4305020385_1e99b77fc9.jpg)
Here's the view from the Cincinnati Ave bridge, looking directly towards the Blue Dome District. Again, even the tallest buildings in the district aren't visible. How big of a rooftop sign are we talking about?
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2720/4305763828_948ff02281.jpg)
Here's the view from 1st and Detroit. You can barely see the tip-top of El Guapos (which is, I think, a 3-story building plus some) behind the 1-story tall Dwelling Spaces/Yokozuna building. Again, a 10 foot tall sign on top of Joe Momma's wouldn't be visible from this location, either. (A prime "through" street for people leaving downtown.)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2765/4305020421_fde2f539d4.jpg)
Meanwhile, it will be hard to create a zoning ordinance that says: "only cool, beautiful signs that exhibit appropriate content may be placed on the roof of establishments that we like." Obviously, the Midtown Adult Superstore is one of the tallest buildings in the BDD, and it's lucky enough to be "uphill" from other buildings...so a rooftop sign there (I picture a neon version of the symbol typically seen on the mudflaps of semi-trucks) would stand out nicely.
Then, of course, others in downtown would want rooftop signs. Specifically, buildings located adjacent to the IDL would benefit. But others would want to share the glamour:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2745/4305763752_06083405ac.jpg)
I think that classy "Blue Dome Entertainment District" signs could be placed to direct traffic from the ballpark or the IDL. These would probably be much more effective at achieving the desired result.
When all else fails, a small "gateway" sign would certainly attract attention. ;)
(http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/01/large_OVH85MagCitySign.jpg)
Here are some cool signs that "stick up" above the roofline...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Chicago_Theater_-_day.jpg/483px-Chicago_Theater_-_day.jpg)
or...
(http://webbie1.sfpl.org/multimedia/sfphotos/AAA-8646.jpg)
Couldn't you just get a variance for this sort of thing? Even if it's not visible from any distance, it WOULD add a certain cachet.
Now that I think about it, perhaps the BDD just needs to work on placemaking and branding. For example, when you're in Chinatown, you KNOW you're in Chinatown!
(http://www.mrfs.net/trips/2005/Northern_California/San_Francisco/chinatown.jpg)
Whoops! Off on a tangent!
Seriously, I support the whole Blue Dome gang, and love what they're trying to achieve. I'm confident that Blake and Elliot would build cool, appealing signs that would add to (not detract from) the streetscape. I'm just not convinced that a zoning change is the way to do this...b/c I don't trust every downtown property owner to act with the same vision and wisdom.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4035/4305890842_2991acb1f9.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2770/4305147397_6c333c3577.jpg)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2797/4305147441_446a71b1fc.jpg)
Oh, how long I've waited for an excuse to post this...
Let's remember some things:
1. This is only being proposed for the Blue Dome District.
2. This doesn't mean that every business in the blue dome district will have a sign on it's roof, only that we're allowed to.
3. There have been several references to the style of the sign. Neon signs are allowed right now. We're not asking for the right to put up neon signs. We already can.
4. You want details? I'm of the impression that Elliot wants a neon sign on top of the bowling alley and Yokozuna. Picture a neon sumo wrestler or something of the sort...and on the bowling alley...imagine your standard bowling alley neon with the ball moving towards the pins...On top of the Max Retropub we're wanting a throwback neon sign braced from the back extending up from the rooftop. Other than El Guapos, the restaurants on the block are all a very flat one story. We'd like to vary the height by putting the sign up top. As for the shirt shop, no plans there for rooftop signage.
I think it's important not to blow this out of proportion. Nobody is asking to put billboards on their rooftops. This isn't a new idea. We're not asking for something new and unheard of. We're only asking for the right to put a sign somewhere different....Not a different type of sign...not a different size...nothing....just moving the location. It seems arbitrary to me whether the sign is on a pole or on the front of the building or whatever...Honestly from my perspective, it's more acceptable to have a sign on top of a building than on a pole in front of it.
Some cool pics of signs on rooftops.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/2766889218_7bc9366892.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uzL7ZJ5iv9g/SXIDVyfdlEI/AAAAAAAABTI/vDnzffoC88o/s1600/riviera.jpg)
(http://www.doowopusa.org/photos/motels_new/alakai1.gif)
(http://www.doowopusa.org/photos/motels_new/lavita1.gif)
(http://www.doowopusa.org/photos/motels_new/biscayne1.gif)
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vBC6yXy8dp4/SV_iD4I1KmI/AAAAAAAASj8/tLR772eHkRY/100_4794.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/3099668793_163df2a918.jpg)
Right...so there's lots of these.
Quote from: patric on January 25, 2010, 11:24:28 PM
Oh, how long I've waited for an excuse to post this...
That's one...uh...um...ahem...well-hung sign.
Blake, I have complete faith in you and Elliot. I'm just trying to figure out how to amend the zoning code to achieve the desired effect WITHOUT allowing crapola. Just saying "we allow rooftop signs" is not going to cut it.
It sounds like you want to allow neon business signs to advertise individual establishments on their own rooftops (not a general "Welcome to the Blue Dome" sign on a prominent place, and not "off-site outdoor advertising signs" which means "billboards").
While I think your description sounds cool, I still doubt that anyone would see it from the ballpark (except for those who will be driving down Detroit or Elgin anyway). Still, I'm a sucker for old-fashioned, neon signs--especially ones involving bowling pins, so...
Here are some questions:
1. What, exactly, are the boundaries of the BDD? (Do we use the TIF district boundaries?)
2. Do you want design guidelines to ensure only high-quality signs of appropriate scale and coolness are erected in the BDD? (Unless you want a bunch of ugly, generic, 71st & Memorial type business signs on your neighbors' rooftops, you better put something in place.)
3. If design guidelines are desired, who will create them, and who will review the applications? (It actually makes sense to me that a group of BDD business and property owners plus an architect could act as a design review board for signs in the district...but I'm not sure how to implement this.)
4. When you put rooftop signs on single-story buildings in a neighborhood that wants to encourage loft-style living (picture a 1-story building with a rooftop sign surrounded by 3, 4 & 5-story loft apartments)...are these signs truly an advantage?
5. Since the Blue Dome District includes many buildings that qualify it as a "historic district" that could be listed on the National Register, how will the addition of new rooftop signs affect this potential designation? (40% tax credits for rehab of buildings in a historic district is not something you want to sacrifice... Talk to Preservation Commission staff to make sure the signs won't affect the district's application.)
Allowing rooftop signs would set a precedent, so I would suggest that the BDD be prepared set a good one...with design standards and a review process in place. (I know that Elliot has faced a wicked bureacracy in Bricktown regarding design standards, but some sort of review might be necessary if you want to keep it "cool"...)
If you're saying that you only want "historic looking / neon signs" (this is pretty vague language to put in a zoning code), you're going to have to clarify what that means. Does that mean no digital signs? No flashing lights? (Some historic signs have bulbs that flash...) Does that mean "no standard issue, boring, billboard-style signs?" (The Bail Bonds billboard shown above is obviously quite old...does that make it "historic looking?")
It's going to be hard to come up with the right balance in a sign ordiance to achieve what you want without opening the door to a bunch of crap. I'm just advocating for being thoughtful about how you proceed.
Our request has absolutely nothing to do with the type of sign.
Today, if I wanted to, I could hang a piece of crap sign on the front of my building. There are no laws (obviously) respecting the aesthetic quality of signage, only where they can be placed.
It seems hypocritical to suddenly care about what the sign is made of based upon it's relationship to the building. Ugly is ugly no matter what.
I get it that we all want nice, pretty signs. Unless we're going to start legislating "taste" across the board, I want it to be clear that we're only asking for permission to put the sign on a different place on the building. It makes no difference to me where my neighbors put crappy looking signs. A crappy sign is a crappy sign. Of course I'd rather not have anything ugly in the district, but that's a much more difficult thing to legislate. We're not asking for permission to make laws regarding taste (as nice as that would be). Rooftop or front of building...same sign...10 feet higher.
I'd like to refer again to my point earlier. If we had two story tall buildings here and opted to put signs on the face of them near the top, they would, in effect, be at a higher elevation than rooftop signs on our one story buildings. The existing code isn't about taste or elevation. I'm guessing that it was created for the purposes of "safety?"
My contention is that signs are no more or less safe on top of a building than they are in front. We can legislate how something is constructed. This day and age we can make sure that they are safe.
Let's ask ourselves why we care about the look of a sign more when it's on the roof. Is it because it's more visible if it's on the roof (in which case my point is proven. More visible is what we're hoping for) or is it because the door might be opening for us to have a chance to legislate taste? Where are the opinions about tacky signs the rest of the year. I think we can all agree that tacky signs are bad and that cool signs are good. I just want to make sure we're discussing the right things here and that everyone is clear about what is being requested.
Blake, I think there's an over-reaction going on to this issue, personally. I don't see anything evil coming with roof-top signs in the Blue Dome. I agree, taste belongs in legislation about as much as morality does, which in my book is not at all. What one person thinks is tacky, another might think of as being fine retro.
I think the point is... one of these signs on top of a one story building would essentially be in the same place as it would be if it were on the front of a 2 story.
I suppose you could build one of those fake facades or tower things that stick up over the actual height of the floor and then stick a sign on that and it would be ok. But I kind of like the look we might get if they didnt have to build a facade like that and could just put up the sign.
If a new building were to come in and build a spire and cover it with signage, would that be ok? Could they retrofit a new building with a spire and have it lit up with a sign on it? How bout a rotating Uhaul truck? lol
Is signage ok if its on part of some sort of covered (looks like part of a wall) structure ,,, but not ok if its part of a structure thats uncovered? Same height, visibility, and same essential placement to boot.
I'm all for the signs in the Blue Dome District.
I understand that the signs would be moved up, but would they still be street-facing? Part of the issue is the property line ending at the sidewalk, so would the signs also be allowed to face the sidewalks and pedestrians? I'd much rather have cool signs directing pedestrians where an establishment is (which is the whole point the Blue Dome business owners are trying to make) than have it point into nothingness. Quite simply, if the parking lots are eventually replaced by buildings, having street-facing signs would do nothing but shine across the street while not directing foot- and auto-traffic.
And though people wouldn't necessarily be able to see the signs from certain parts of downtown, they most certainly would be able to see these signs from the ballpark, straight down Elgin. If I had the time, I'd make a few sketches to illustrate how it would look from the ballpark, but I don't, so I'll post pictures instead.
The examples below show that across the entire country (including right here), there are examples of nice signs that help direct pedestrians and autos in beautiful concert:
The Mayan Theatre. Denver. This sign attracts pedestrians while also letting drivers down the stree find them. Great sign, beautiful theatre.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3254338889_089f77b7aa.jpg)
Coffee Shop, Union Square. New York City. Its corner location catches people's attention on two streets.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/84/246203836_84f165ca30.jpg)
Acapulco Mexican Restaurant. Amarillo, Texas.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3264/3149276115_2c1fbcc2ff.jpg)
Tower Theatre. Oklahoma City.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3570/3478287363_be9d0e86b2.jpg)
Tulsa World Building. Tulsa.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2167/2425900482_a5ab8c8fc4.jpg)
Atlas Life Building. Tulsa.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2016/2036895094_c7a38e6487.jpg)
Will Rogers Theatre. Oklahoma City.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/216/519360828_83334cfe39.jpg)
Examples of less effective (but not necessarily less attractive) signs:
Restaurant Jules Verne. Berlin, Germany.
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/82/218251274_9ab28fcf00.jpg)
Brady District. Tulsa.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3478292381_e0738f4eb9.jpg)
These signs are attractive, but not very effective at catching the attention of someone walking down the street unless they happen to be right in front of it.
All above photos were taken by me.
I can't tell if projecting signs (signs that stick out from the face of the building) are allowed in the CBD w/o a variance b/c of the setback requirements in the zoning code. Can anyone decipher this?
http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221. (http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221.)
Did the Tulsa World have to get a variance for their sign? (Or Garrett Law, or other similar signs downtown?) It seems like this would also be an issue to address/consider when re-evaluating sign ordinances. Especially since PLANiTULSA will be recommending a lot of new "main street" developments with little or no setback.
Quote from: PonderInc on January 26, 2010, 03:41:21 PM
I can't tell if projecting signs (signs that stick out from the face of the building) are allowed in the CBD w/o a variance b/c of the setback requirements in the zoning code. Can anyone decipher this?
http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221. (http://www.incog.org/City%20of%20Tulsa%20Zoning%20Code/CH_12.htm#SECTION___1221.)
Did the Tulsa World have to get a variance for their sign? (Or Garrett Law, or other similar signs downtown?) It seems like this would also be an issue to address/consider when re-evaluating sign ordinances. Especially since PLANiTULSA will be recommending a lot of new "main street" developments with little or no setback.
I believe they did. I remember a story about them applying for the signs, anyway.
Buildings up to the sidewalk should still have a sidewalk's width to have a sign project from the front of the building to the curb.
looks like this might be making some headway
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100217_11_0_Citypl574413
"The recommendation for action by the City Council includes no limit on what type of business sign could be placed on a rooftop in the area.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=16&articleid=20100218_16_A9_TheTul879724"
That seems a little different from the stated goal.
What happened to "no LED signs on rooftops"?
There NEEDS to be limits on what type of business signs can be on rooftops.
This was being sold as a neon-nostalgic sort of renaissance, not an open door to giant video displays.
This is merely allowing a different type of placement. Signage still has to go through the same licensing permitting process it had to before. If it couldn't be applied to the front of a building before, it can't be applied to the top.
Quote from: sgrizzle on February 18, 2010, 01:52:47 PM
This is merely allowing a different type of placement.
Im seeing "type of sign" not "type of placement".
Quote from: patric on February 18, 2010, 01:49:57 PM
This was being sold as a neon-nostalgic sort of renaissance, not an open door to giant video displays.
Whoa momma, having an adult bookstore in blue dome just got more interesting.
But it's already 2 stories isn't it?
Wait, does this mean Lamar and company can come in and erect Digital billboards and it just has to flash the business' name on which the sign is erected every third or fourth time?
Quote from: Townsend on February 18, 2010, 02:58:34 PM
Wait, does this mean Lamar and company can come in and erect Digital billboards and it just has to flash the business' name on which the sign is erected every third or fourth time?
No
Quote from: Townsend on February 18, 2010, 02:58:34 PM
Wait, does this mean Lamar and company can come in and erect Digital billboards and it just has to flash the business' name on which the sign is erected every third or fourth time?
You mean like the on-premise digital billboard on the Mathes Brothers lot off of 169, that doesnt fall under the usual off-premise billboard rules?
What if we took blue dome in a more Freemont direction?? I am pretty sure the mention of something like that may have sent some of the posters on here into cardiac arrest.
Signs going up
Very nice. Especially like the new Lees sign. :)
That Lee's sign is sweet. The building to the east...ugh.
Quote from: SXSW on June 02, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
That Lee's sign is sweet. The building to the east...ugh.
Hopefully it will breed a new neighbor. Adam has done the Lee's store first class.
Quote from: SXSW on June 02, 2010, 01:48:03 PM
That Lee's sign is sweet. The building to the east...ugh.
It's not the building, it's neglect. That's a nice Streamline style deco building that could be something interesting.
Quote from: swake on June 02, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
It's not the building, it's neglect. That's a nice Streamline style deco building that could be something interesting.
Whenever I see it, I always think "wow, that would make a really cool retro dinner".
Quote from: swake on June 02, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
It's not the building, it's neglect. That's a nice Streamline style deco building that could be something interesting.
I agree, the building is cool but not in its current state.
Quote from: custosnox on June 02, 2010, 02:47:00 PM
Whenever I see it, I always think "wow, that would make a really cool retro dinner".
I always thought it would make a neat retro diner as well. With a bar of course.
Quote from: custosnox on June 02, 2010, 02:47:00 PM
Whenever I see it, I always think "wow, that would make a really cool retro dinner".
Something like this? :)
(http://kalafudra.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nighthawks.jpg)
Quote from: dsjeffries on June 02, 2010, 03:46:35 PM
Something like this? :)
(http://kalafudra.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nighthawks.jpg)
I'd look so cool in one of those hats.
Is there any rumor of anything happening with that building? Grizz? Blake?
Quote from: Townsend on June 02, 2010, 03:47:39 PM
I'd look so cool in one of those hats.
Is there any rumor of anything happening with that building? Grizz? Blake?
I think Public Works owns it.
Quote from: dsjeffries on June 02, 2010, 03:46:35 PM
Something like this? :)
(http://kalafudra.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nighthawks.jpg)
Something a lot like that lol. Now if I can just keep diner and dinner straight hehe
Quote from: swake on June 02, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
It's not the building, it's neglect. That's a nice Streamline style deco building that could be something interesting.
Was it part of Bill Whites sprawling dealer ship? The whole building fits the idea including (if it's still there the Body Shop sign on the SW corner of the building, but that could just go back to when it was an independant european auto repair place in the 80's. The colors on the outside of the 2nd street side are BMW Motorsport.
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/1971_bmw_3l_csl_course_01_m.jpg)
Every time I've been by it was full of plywood and sheetrock.
That building is used for storage of plywood. That's all I've ever heard about it. It's an awesome building....I can think of a number of concepts that would go well in there.
Check out the whole building. It's attached to a building that goes all the way to 3rd street.
Quote from: JoeMommaBlake on June 02, 2010, 11:59:24 PM
That building is used for storage of plywood. That's all I've ever heard about it. It's an awesome building....I can think of a number of concepts that would go well in there.
Check out the whole building. It's attached to a building that goes all the way to 3rd street.
Right now, there is some old car in there as well. Who owns it?
It was privately owned back in the 90's when we stored newspapers there. Really nice guy and a cool building that seemed structurally sound but outside is rough.
It's the old Safelite Auto Glass building, isn't it?
More applications for rooftop signs, this one at 71st & 169 (Aloft Hotel).
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/PUD-595-B-3-Z-5970-SP-5c.pdf
I fail to see anything wrong with the signage on that building, especially if the overhang prevents the roof sign from causing more light pollution.
Quote from: patric on September 02, 2010, 11:27:35 AM
More applications for rooftop signs, this one at 71st & 169 (Aloft Hotel).
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/PUD-595-B-3-Z-5970-SP-5c.pdf
That's not a rooftop sign really. The building is taller than the sign.
Plus, I drove by this one last night. Looks nice to me.
Yokozuna rooftop sign is going up right now. I can see it from my office. Sorry, no pics.
Quote from: DowntownDan on October 14, 2010, 02:28:04 PM
Yokozuna rooftop sign is going up right now. I can see it from my office. Sorry, no pics.
(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg829/scaled.php?tn=0&server=829&filename=6lyy.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)
Quote from: Townsend on October 14, 2010, 02:42:22 PM
(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg829/scaled.php?tn=0&server=829&filename=6lyy.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)
Underwhelmed.
Quote from: Conan71 on October 14, 2010, 04:00:00 PM
Underwhelmed.
Wait for night time. It might be mind blowing. You could have your mind blown.
Quote from: Townsend on October 14, 2010, 04:13:54 PM
Wait for night time. It might be mind blowing. You could have your mind blown.
That wasn't exactly quick to get put up. What happened to the idea of a lighted sumo wrestler?
Anyone have bets on # of days between when Fassler opened and them having a sign or at least having their name on the door?
Quote from: sgrizzle on October 15, 2010, 07:16:06 AM
Anyone have bets on # of days between when Fassler opened and them having a sign or at least having their name on the door?
Meh, I found it right away. Don't really need all that sign readin' riffraff anyhow.
Now if KOTV would build and move...
Yeah, very underwhelmed by the Yokozuna sign. It looks awful during the day. Haven't seen it at night yet, but I'm sure it looks alright in the dark.
Quote from: Townsend on October 14, 2010, 04:13:54 PM
Wait for night time. It might be mind blowing. You could have your mind blown.
Far better chance of getting blown down by the Day Center...
Quote from: Townsend on October 15, 2010, 09:00:28 AM
Now if KOTV would build and move...
Word is that the builder has been down at city hall a couple times last few weeks applying for permits.
I think The Max's sign kind of set the bar high.
Has the Yokozuna sign been turned on yet? Been by several times after dark during business hours and haven't seen it lit up.