3/26/2010

Signs Signs Signs

Posted by MJ

2=5
Hertel Ave. Buffalo NY

The topic of sign laws came up again in the comments of another blog post. Along with some new signs showing up DT (like the MarJon one) I thought I would revisit the topic.

The lead in picture shows the North Park Theater block on Hertel in Buffalo.  The signs are easy to read and non-obstructed. Colors, logos, etc really don't matter since no sign exceeds 3'x3' thus inhibiting it from dominating the streetscape in any way. Each sign has its own accent lights to avoid lighting up the rest of the street. People walking down the side walk or driving by at 30 mph can make out the sign which is facing them instead of facing across the street. The building architecture is left unscathed by massive signs placed flush with it. We can see some examples of these signs already in DT Lockport. The Hunt, Taboo, etc signs in Ulrich City Center and various businesses on the first block of Main. The smaller sizes keep sign costs down while leveling the playing field with other nearby businesses.

Of an opposite nature are signs like the Indian Grill (are they trying to advertise to any legally blind residing in the Urban Park towers?) The new MarJon sign is a similar sheet of back lit plastic. If this is what the overhaul of the sign law did for us, how have we advanced? I agree the first try was too overbearing but I'm not sure what we have now. (One can go to the actual code from the links to the left) A simple code (can even copy the one for the Elmwood Strip in Buffalo) would suffice to keep creativity open while not allowing signs to overtake our environment. That should be the ultimate goal of the law.

Even new signs like Aaron's with the free standing pole out front have obviously gone unaddressed. There is no highway 1/4 mile away  with 55 mph traffic to advertise to. If any sign should be illegal in the city it is these freestanding pole signs (Friendly's, Walgreen's, Rite-Aid, Goodyear, etc). Customers traveling 30 mph in the city makes them a needless blight. Even the town is ahead of the game in discussing to change their zoning laws to ban them and have all signs at ground level in a nice structure with landscaping. Let's beat them too it.


4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I happen to like the signs that hang over the sidewalks. It really adds to the quaint feeling of an old-fashioned town or city. I wish the city of Lockport could have worked something in that would have encouraged that more.

Anonymous said...

MJ - It seems like signs are way too politicized in Lockport.
Why does the lord of Lockport (Ulrich) seem to be able to put any sign up he wants, like that indian sign?


Also, talk about ridiculous things, how about transit Drive-in outlawing smoking? Im as anti-smoking as anybody, but thats the stupidest thing I ever heard!

Rocketboy said...

Yes, because there were no issues EVER with the sign that Taboo wanted to place, amirite?

Oh wait, I'm not.

MJ said...

Not sure if the person getting away with the old Metropolitan (now Indian Grill) Sign was Ulrich. I actually like his Taboo sign. The Metropolitan sign went in before any of the sign law redos.

Post a Comment

Please be be respectful. Diverse opinions are welcome and encouraged. Trolling/baiting/personal attacks/spam will be deleted on sight, as will respnding to one that has yet to be deleted. Do not encourage the behavior.