Seattle Skyline Sign Legislation Proposed: Let the NIMBYism Commence

[The Straight Story]

Seattle Skyline Sign Legislation Proposed: Let the NIMBYism Commence

Depending on who you ask, the legislation change proposed to the Seattle City Council on Tuesday that would let certain skyscrapers put large signs on their tops is either a "minor change" or a "shocking give-away of our skyline."

The proposal, if passed, would initially only affect one company, Russell Investments at the former WaMu Center on Second Avenue. But eventually, it could include between six and 10 other buildings. It would allow skyscraper tenants who occupy at least 200,000 square-feet of space to put either four 324 square-foot signs on four sides of their own top floors, or two 628 square-foot signs on two sides.

The signs would have to be simple and white, with no flashing or rotating allowed.

The square-foot figure makes the size sound enormous, but when viewed in the context of a 598 foot-tall, 42-story skyscraper like the Russell Investments Center, the effect is more like the byline is to this article.

Here's a mock-up of what the sign-adorned building would look like. The sign is that teensy-weensy white line near the top of the middle building. Can't see it? Squint more.

http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/12/seattle_skyline_sign_legislati.php

[backscatter712]

1. The issue is with the slippery slope...

Go into the article and look at the photo - an example of one of those signs is in there, but very hard to see, and not very visible at all.

Don't think that the political backers won't come back sometime down the road and say "Can we have 1,000 sq. ft. signs?" "Can we have 2,000 sq. ft. signs?" "Can they be in color?" "Can they be flashing and animated?"

Before long, the Seattle skyline looks like the Vegas Strip...

[quaker bill]

3. There is no such thing

as a slippery slope. Rules are rules, people enforce them or they do not. Allowing one thing does not necessarily lead to another. This is one of the more bogus NIMBY arguments of all the NIMBY arguments, and there are plenty to pick from. I regulate for a living, I get to hear most of them frequently. I have also heard how a proposed development would destroy the habitat for the endangered lynx. I work in Florida and the nearest endangered lynx is well over 1000 miles from here.

Prohibit them or not, it is a matter of personal taste, but if you are going to argue with someone who could make a decision, find a better argument than "slippery slope". All it says is that you don't trust the officials to actually do what they say they are going to do, they will be obligated to respond that they really mean what they say, and then all you have for a rebuttal, "oh-no you don't". It is a dead end, don't go there.

[HEyHEY]

2. I love the look of Asian cities, North American skylines are dull

[Luminous Animal]

4. Yeah. That is EXACTLY why they want advertising there. So nobody can see it.

The Seattle Daily Weekly, owned by Village Voice Media which has never met a corporate initiative that they didn't like.