Signage Restrictions are Restricting Great Development

I was reviewing a package of signs on a very simple project that we have been developing, trying to come up with something that would be unique, tasteful, and really make an impact on the project. I didn’t want to just make this mundane signage for advertising or high visibility, but I wanted an artistic and architectural element that would be not only an identifier, but an aesthetic. However, the ridiculous restrictions were basically a requirement to create the homogeneous and mundane. To me this is just a further commoditization of real estate and architecture, and severely limits the sense of place that can happen with well crafted signs and identification in the architectural field.

Who doesn’t love the big billboard in Fountain Square, or a stroll through Times Square, or the multiple neon lights and architectural signs located along the historic Route 66. To do buildings without signage is like having no cars with chrome and no ornaments on Christmas trees. I don’t advocate for no signage restrictions or some ability to review, but I also think it is ridiculous to try to replicate a faux Pleasantville everywhere. Restricting signage is like restricting public art, a delicate balance that can really affect a project, neighborhood, or cities overall ambiance and attraction. Just as Bob Dylan says, “There are so many colors in the rainbow, I see every one,” I would like to see all the colors and see all the options open. Implementing quality and quantities of signage in different levels, even those that are borderline obnoxious, are important parts of creating viable and exciting cities and cultural districts, and not just producing the same production of commodities that so many zoning and signage regulations seem to desire.

Photo from Destination 360