Vast billboards find a gaping loophole in Seattle laws
Mammoth vinyl signs are spreading through Seattle's downtown, brazenly skirting the regulations.
Readers of Crosscut might recall the fracas more than a year ago about the proposed change to City of Seattle’s sign law that would have allowed the tops of skyscrapers to have big electronic displays. Well, get ready for a new front in this war.
In order to attract the Russell Company to the empty former WaMu tower, the Greg Nickels administration made a deal to change the code to give Russell the right to brand the skyline with its own name. To conceal the real intent, Russell wasn’t mentioned; the proposed law would be applicable to companies that occupied a very large amount of space within a building.
As it happened, Seattle artist and community activist Bill Bradburd caught wind of this before it was too late and marshaled a group of vocal citizens to beat back the ordinance, despite the intense lobbying by Russell’s hired guns. To save face, the City Council quietly tabled the proposal to a time uncertain. Were it not for Bradburd and his passionate persistence, our gorgeous skyline would be potentially marred by dozens of big lighted signs.
While this bit of drama was occurring in the public eye, a far more insidious and gradual change was taking place out of sight of all but a few keen observers. No company wants its name dragged though the journalistic mud, with photos of its precious logo photoshopped onto news media images of one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But rather than subject themselves to public scrutiny, this latest entrepreneurial cabal has figured out how to get what they want by “creative interpretations” of our current codes. No laws need to be changed, merely the minds of city employees.
Now to prepare yourself for this tale, you might imagine a group of people kicking back on the deck of a yacht, highballs in one hand, cigars in the other, with big cheesy grins, congratulating themselves. They have managed to make the City look like fools, pull a big one over on the public, and make a ton of money in the process. But the story actually starts decades ago.
However, we first need to have an abbreviated glossary, since part of the ruse has to do with terms so obscure that few people outside of bureaucratic circles (and sign companies) even know they exist.
The first is “On Premises Signs.” This is a catch-all that includes the many different types of signs that identify a business where it has its address. For example, the Macrina Bakery has a sign that is mounted above its storefront. When you see it, instantly your mind tells you, “Oh cool, there’s the Macrina Bakery! Yummm.” Probably you even begin to salivate from the thought of a black bottom cupcake.
Companies like Macrina have to get permits and pay fees to the city in order to erect these signs. In some districts, they even have to get special reviews to fit within areas designated as historic. We will come back to Macrina in a minute.
The second term to know is the opposite of the first, “Off Premises Signs.” These are signs that are not physically connected to a business at that location. Although there are also different types, the most commonly recognized ones are billboards. In the past, these have consisted of big steel superstructures mounted on giant columns. They are lighted and located next to or near roadways. They most often advertise brands of alcohol, financial services, cars and trucks, and entertainment. But none of those items are available at that location. Current technology allows these billboards to be printed on huge sheets of vinyl.
The third term, even more obscure, is “frontage.” Bear with me for a second because this is not likely to come up in any cocktail conversation that you will ever have in your life. In most communities, “frontage” refers to a portion of a building that directly abuts the public sidewalk, that is, as it logically sounds, the front of the building. The Seattle code specifically uses the phrase “frontage on public rights of way.” In most urban locations, buildings have distinct fronts, sides, and rears.
Seems pretty elementary, yes? In fact, an elementary school child could probably grasp this notion. In most cities, signs are allowed for businesses that face directly onto the street. But not Seattle.
The Seattle code has been interpreted to allow signs on any side of a building located downtown, so long as you say you have a business on the premises. In fact, below a height of 65 feet, the size of such signs is unlimited. There are a bunch of other arcane terms in the code. But knowing any more of them would probably make you crazy. Suffice it to say, that as long as you tell the city that you have a business somewhere within the bowels of the building, you are allowed to mount an immense sign on the lower 65 feet of the building. In theory, the lower floors of every building downtown could be plastered with big signs.
So let’s turn back the clock several decades.
In the early 1960s, Washington was one of the first states to successfully ban billboards from freeways. An exception can be seen in the lands owned by the Puyallup Tribe along I-5 near Fife, where massive billboards and video screens now flank both sides of the freeway. (Being classified as sovereign nation, the Puyallups can have their own sign laws.) If that state ban had not passed, you would now be seeing hundreds of similar signs from Vancouver to Bellingham, from Port Angeles to Spokane.
The City of Seattle, like many other cities, later passed a law limiting the installation of more billboards, aka off-premises signs. This was an outgrowth of a national effort to reduce the proliferation of commercial advertising that was spoiling our views of mountains, lakes, forests, pastoral lands, and architectural landmarks. It also took an inventory of billboards, ordering removal of those that had been erected without permits.
The City’s law was challenged in court by Ackerley Communications, the owner of most of the billboards in Seattle. The courts upheld the law but the dilemma was that there were scores of billboards in all corners of the city. So a deal was struck that if a billboard that was near certain sensitive locations, like schools or parks or homes, and was then removed, a new one could be erected in certain acceptable locations elsewhere.
Many billboards are installed in parking lots or vacant lots that have since been developed and those could not be replaced, as sign owners lost the leases. So, therefore, over time, the number of billboards would gradually decrease.
Since then, Clear Channel, the successor to Ackerley, has carefully maintained its inventory of permitted billboards. Under the agreement with the city, they have removed many billboards, and replaced them elsewhere. To their credit, each of these billboards is identified by a tiny sign containing the permit numbers they were given. So the public, should they be interested, can be assured that they are legal.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 6:16 a.m. Inappropriate
"...this city is viewed as desirable in part because we don’t have such egregious behavior.." Really? What's your threshold of egregiousness? Look around - there's a long tradition of egregious behavior: incongruous skyscrapers jarring the landscape in weird places; abhorrent apartment, condo and mixed-use "architecture" all over; sterile and unwelcoming "public space" and "open space" inequitably traded for excess height and density downtown; "townhouses" shimmied into lots; dysfunctional or disruptive transit stations; ugly utility facilities and networks; signage run amok... and that's seemingly within the rules. Outside the rules, except in single family-zoned neighborhoods and unless by chance you get caught up in a timely PR stinkfest, you want something bad enough and have enough horsepower, deviousness or just plain savvy, you'll get it. It's no mystery.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 8:12 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm for more billboards,neon and other media. Seattle is a grey city. How beautiful the white lights strung around downtown trees in the fall. Seattle at one time had sings everywhere. Pioneer Square is so devoid of signs that its hard for a business to stay in business. The Rainier Tower could be our Times Square with the addition of projected advertising and an electronic ticker tape along its swooped base. The Pike Place market has an entire West face devoid of signage, essentially ignoring the Waterfront. A giant Welcome to Pike Place Public Market and a clock would look stunning from the water and the Waterfront. Seattle is drab and should look for opportunities to add visual stimulus where ever possible, not less.
Posted Wed, Aug 22, 9:05 p.m. Inappropriate
Yes, and Mt. Ranier would be less drab with a thousand foot red lighted letter R perched on the summit.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 9:36 a.m. Inappropriate
Thank you for sorting this all out in a clear manner. Hopefully your article will spur the city to get tougher and the advertisers buying these signs will exercise their clout to put this sign-seller out of business.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 9:41 a.m. Inappropriate
This gets an "Editor's Pick"? After just two entries? And for making an argument that Seattle is "drab" because it lacks "more billboards, neon, and other media"? Who's making these "Pick" choices? Is Crosscut leasing space to Ackerley Communications?
Just what I want to see looking out my window at the night skyline - big flashiing signs for Russell, Coke, Sony, Amazon, etc.
Will this make us "big-league" finally?
Gag me.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 12:51 p.m. Inappropriate
"At least one sign broker who is making these deals has been heard to have said that he is simply providing a “public service.” In his view, Seattle is “under-signed” and needs a lot more big billboards,"
Oops there goes the easiest rationalization, even though "we need the signs" does seem a rather snide stretch from "we need the housing," the justification the Teflon Director gave the press for the creative assistance given at the height of the mortgage fiasco so as to lay waste to the potential of way too much of the City's "Buildable Land."
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 2:25 p.m. Inappropriate
To Seattle DSA, DPD & City Council & Sally Clark: When are you going to stop selling out to greedy urban blighters? You are trading the equity of this city and allowing visual trash bandits to take our public view. Which building are you going to allow wrapping in advertising garbage next while you look the other way at our codes? Would you like this whole city to look like Route 99? or Fife? PLEASE stop these unlawful actions. Do the job you were hired to do.
"Billboards are acts of aggression, against which the public is entitled, as a matter of privacy, to be protected. If a homeowner desires to construct a huge Coca-Cola sign facing his own homestead rather than the public highway, in order to remind him, every time he looks out his window, that the time has come to pause and be refreshed, he certainly should be left free to do so. But if he wants to face the sign toward us, that is something else, and the big name libertarian theorists should go to work demolishing the billboarders' abuse of the argument of private property.”
From an article in The Jeweler's Eye entitled The Politics of Beauty by conservative author and commentator William F. Buckley, Jr.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 3:20 p.m. Inappropriate
An interesting take from an architect.
However, a few points of clarification…
1. Of course, Clear Channel was the only advertising company quoted in the article. They own most, if not all of the legal permits for the signs – ever since the City of Seattle issued a moratorium on accepting applications for new, Legal signs. They are therefore in a MONOPOLY position. Why wouldn’t they want to “crack down” on more signs?
2. By issuing a moratorium on new signs and rolling it over every year, the City of Seattle is acting as an enabler of the Clear Channel MONOPOLY. This is not hard to figure out. It is also not by accident.
3. The only other person of significance mentioned in the article by name and with a quote is Seattle City Council President - Sally Clark. This is also not a coincidence. Yes, Sally Clark has made noise that “cleaning up” signs is one of her main issues. Cross reference Sally’s campaign contribution disclosures against the employee register at Clear Channel - and you will see why she has more than a passing interest in this issue, and why she has made protecting the Clear Channel MONOPOLY a priority. This is not a coincidence. Political favors paid for lobbyists and other high powered entities are not just limited to male, Caucasian, heterosexual capitalists. You can act and look just like Sally Clark and be influenced by campaign dollars just the same.
As for Mr. Hinshaw's article itself, a few issues.
1. I dare Mr. Hinshaw to cite the time he saw this Coke sign his “friend” asked him to look at. Anyone familiar with advertising will tell you that the Coca Cola Corporation has been a non participant in Seattle with outdoor advertising for quite some time. Was it a Pepsi ad he saw? (they DO advertise). Did he simply forget the advertiser, and spit-balled Coke? Was it a typo?
2. Why not do some homework, and learn what other “grown-up” cities have done to appease the sensitive, intellectual types who are so offended by signs?
Since Mr. Hinshaw didn’t - I can help you. Require a legal permit, regulate and tax the industry. And heavily fine the entities that do not comply. You could limit the size, content and location of signs – and also earn some revenue from the application, permit and taxes from the sign owners. Not to mention the revenue the landlord, sign company, and advertising creating company earn in order to create a legal sign – all of which can be taxed. (Safe to assume these are all good things in a tough economy).
3. Point out how the “Seattle way” ends up costing the City taxpayers money from their own pocket.
Remember, the failed City of Seattle "experimental toilet program”? It cost the City of Seattle at least $5 Million - in exchange for NOTHING.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004425645_toilets20m.html
Contrast the actions of what the Seattle amateurs did with what the real grown-ups in New York City did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/22/nyregion/22furniture.html
They worked with an advertiser to strike a deal that places TWENTY upscale public restrooms in the City for FREE, in exchange for advertising copy (content, size and location regulated) on the units.
The deal also called for the ad firm to pay all obligations for ongoing maintenance, regular cleaning and graffiti removal – all things the City of Seattle never even considered during their $5 Million experiment.
Seattle pays more than $5 Million and gets nothing, and a real city with real leadership gets $100 Million worth of toilets for FREE? Surprise, surprise.
The “Seattle way” Mr. Hinshaw wants to protect illustrated at its finest.
I would assume Mr. Hinshaw is the same type of overly sensitive, unrealistic, elitist that would join the chorus and campaign to remove advertisements from Metro buses, yet then complain about the Metro system being financially insolvent and wonder why his bus fare is up, and also wonder why his route was eliminated.
Not everyone can be convinced that capitalism can be good, and when applied appropriately - can actually offer real word solutions to real problems. And that’s probably OK.
But when your blinders obstruct common sense, and you paint only one side of the story you are either lazy, or irresponsible, or both.
And that’s a shame for all of us.
Posted Tue, Aug 21, 8:45 p.m. Inappropriate
"They worked with an advertiser to strike a deal that places TWENTY upscale public restrooms..."
"Seattle pays more than $5 Million and gets nothing, and a real city with real leadership gets $100 Million worth of toilets for FREE? "
Seattle paid $5 million for 5 toilets. Wouldn't 20 toilets be $20 million? or do grown-ups have their own special math?
Posted Thu, Aug 23, 4:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Paragraph 5 could be the preamble for just about every major project in Seattle, particularly those occurring downtown and in a few affluent neighborhoods.
Posted Sun, Aug 26, 7:27 a.m. Inappropriate
The city leadership is completely lacking in understanding the fundamental value of our visual environment. Like an old growth forest, once gone it's gone for good. By diligently limiting the visual blight billboards create, we can become a rare and special place among cities as this issue is occurring across the country and around the world. In most cases the communities are loosing. As they become the same by being covered by identical ad campaigns, we have the opportunity to become unique and valuable.
This opportunity is only ours if we become proactive by creating a whole new and modern code to manage the street side media by focusing it into designated areas (like is done in NY). We can turn the current litigation money pit into a new and significant revenue source. In Seattle a properly managed media market for billboards can generate millions in revenue for the city.
Posted Wed, Aug 29, 7:08 p.m. Inappropriate
We are visually assaulted each day by more signs, messages, regulations, billboards!, giant-sized advertising, sandwich boards, and signs that are unnecessarily big. I can barely stand it. It's ugly and it's offensive. This visual stench (or is it visual vomit?) is ruining our experience -- my experience -- of Seattle. It's getting as visually bad to walk or drive downtown as it is to drive north on Aurora or south through Fife.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.