Welcome to Seattle, the city with green intentions, Houston of the North. LMAO, a hick town at the end of the road.

Two Words: ADD BARDAHL

WTF?? Get your facts straight. Before you go after an easy target, Houston does not allow any signage on buildings in downtown above 42 1/2'. There are a few exceptions to the rule, older buildings granfathered in such as the Rice Hotel and the "Houston Chronicle" as well as city or county owned buildings such as the Toyota Center and Minute Maid Park. Another exception, made specifically for Continental Airlines, was allowing corporations that occupy over 45% of the building they are in to be projected onto the structure.

Our skyline is the product of crass commercialism and of corporate and developer egos. Adding tenant signs wouldn't be a terrible thing and could actually promote the local businesses that drive our economy. The Microsoft sign on the top of one of Bellevue's office buildings doesn't bother me. Nor did the signs for City Light, the P-I, Bardahl, Sunny Jim, Grandma's Cookies, Wonder Bread, Washington Natural Gas, Safeco (and now UW), Pemco, Starbucks, or Rainier Beer.

The downtown core is a commercial district, not an art exhibit.

It's a working city, not a work of art.
The skyline is a product of crass commercialization? Well, it is inarguably the product of commerce... the "crass" part is an opinion, and a small-minded one at that.

"sean98125", don't forget the Camlin Hotel or Key Arena.

The idea of corporate signs on skyscrapers immediately made me think of the PSFS Building in Philadelphia. Looking for a suitable night image, I came across this article: http://www.phillyskyline.com/archive_0806.htm (search for "PSFS" or scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page).

Here's the portion that makes me recommend the piece:

"I will admit up front that talking about corporate signage presents an opportunity for hypocrisy. It's hard to disparage Unisys for wanting their corporate brand in a noticeable place while lauding the Philadelphia Saving Fund Society's circa-1932 corporate brand.... But, there is a clear cut difference between an original design element and a tacked-on addition two decades after a building has opened. Just like there is a clear cut difference between placing that brand on top of the building, capping your visual experience, and placing it two-thirds up the side of the building."

Corporate signage is not necessarily a bad thing. (Indeed, see sean98125's comments.) But at least it should be well-integrated into the design of the building.

I'm curious as to how the size of the commercial entity in question affects their eligibility (ie - is DPD really correct in stating that this only applies to 10 tenants?). At this point, since DPD pretty much has taken the position that little if anything has any environmental impact, I'm skeptical to say the least.

It seems to me that from a 1st amendment perspective the size of the advertiser is completely irrelevant - either signs are allowed or they aren't.

If LA's experience with lighted mega-signs is any indication, this genie is damned hard to put back in the bottle once sign rules are liberalized.

Some of the area's most obnoxious billboards advertise tribal casinos.

Sao Paulo, Brazil took the step of outlawing pretty much all advertising. The city is reportedly transformed. The before and after photos are compelling. I think the question really bring to focus the difference between how we would like our city to look, and how much we are willing to legislate our way to making it happen. Personally, I find billboards and the illuminated video-boards along I-5 in Fife considerably more annoying than seeing a company name at the top of a building they occupy, such as CH2M Hill in Bellevue. Why not allow signage on buildings and get rid of all of the ugly ClearChannel billboards throughout the city?

Yay sean, and for once dbreneman & I agree on something. Neon light brings a vibrancy to an urban core that is difficult to replace with flat glass enclosures. Add to that list the many marquees of movie palaces long gone or repurposed.

GW's mention of Sao Paulo reminds me that they have an exhibit on this project in the Urban Best Practices Area at the Shanghai Expo and the results of their project to take down illuminated signs all over the city is impressive.

I'm not against all illuminated signs--I miss "Grandmas Cookies" and love the P-I Globe, but I would hate to see Seattle light-up like so many other cities (like Shanghai) that put on light shows on their skyscrapers and allow huge corporate signs and logos. Many people think these skylines are beautiful, however.

Whatever happened to darkening the city, eliminating light pollution? Shouldn't Seattle be turning off the lights? Maybe we'd have a better shot at seeing the northern lights once in awhile, as our pioneer ancestors did.

Thank you Sean98125: Our skyline is the product of crass commercialism and of corporate and developer egos. Adding tenant signs wouldn't be a terrible thing and could actually promote the local businesses that drive our economy. The Microsoft sign on the top of one of Bellevue's office buildings doesn't bother me. Nor did the signs for City Light, the P-I, Bardahl, Sunny Jim, Grandma's Cookies, Wonder Bread, Washington Natural Gas, Safeco (and now UW), Pemco, Starbucks, or Rainier Beer.

The downtown core is a commercial district, not an art exhibit.

— sean98125

I too wish we could move toward darker skies for the reasons Knute relates. But we don't want to become as dark as N. Korea. Maybe this is off-topic, but some worry that if there is a big landslide into the reservoir behind Mica Dam, farthest upriver of the Columbia dams, built quickly on the cheap out of earthfill instead of concrete, the resulting wave could conceivably overtop (very bad when a dam is earthfill,) and take out Mica, thereby endangering all other dams farther down, not to mention the odd city or two. Scary stuff, that. We would no longer need to worry about our "pristine" skyline.

I also miss the Sunny Jim sign. Apparently he himself died young, while he was still Sunny Jim.

I kind of like how neon signs on buildings look. I think the PI globe is great, as is the Wonder Bread sign and the Pink Elephant. Why not other companies as well? Might be one small solution to help the city plug its enormous budget hole. What about allowing advertizing on bus shelters too? I've seen that done all over Europe and N. America, but not here. To remain solvent, the city will need to be creative.

I'd love to see less light pollution. When I was a kid, sitting in my grandparents' yard, I remember easily seeing the Milky Way. I even saw the Northern Lights a few times. Now I live in that same house, and when I walk out into the yard at night, much of the sky is drowned out by a bright orange glow over the hills on the eastern horizon: the lights of Gig Harbor, ferchrissake!

But the signs aren't going to get any dimmer until the "background noise" they are trying to punch through gets dimmer. Let's work on getting all the other useless light out of our cities, then the signs can be dimmed down and still deliver their message.

In the same spirit as the Chihuly store at Seattle Center, this signage deal is another “they didn’t think you’d notice” arrangement by the city council on behalf of Russell Investments. Russell is a 150B financial services company and a subsidiary of Northwestern Mutual Financial Network of Milwaukee. Russell is moving from Tacoma to Seattle. In addition to cutting a terrific deal on their new building in this depressed market, they also received concessions from the mayor and council for a reduction in their B&O; taxes and a “city action” to change Seattle’s restrictive sign ordinance to allow Russell to erect large illuminated logos to shine down on our European Urban Village.

So, it’s not how much the city could make off of illuminated outdoor signage….it’s how much did it cost us to have to look at them ?

What is the annual permit fee going to be? Anywhere near what it costs for the Macy's skywalk which is $30,000 a year if I recall?