[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 1-14-09

[Geoff Badenoch]

Like John, I am a veteran of the sign regulatory efforts of the 80's, and
likewise bewildered by what happened between then and now to allow signs I
thought were prohibited.

 

One principle I remember from the work that was done back then is that
signage is like an arms race:  whoever has the latest/biggest/brightest/most
attractive sign had to be matched or bested by other businesses to attract
attention.  Communities that keep an effective lid on this issue provide an
even playing field for all businesses and relieve the escalation factor.
Quality and creativity become the desired signage outcomes as opposed to
size, brightness, movement, etc.  I have never opposed signage for
businesses because I know it is essential for consumer information and
way-finding. On the other hand, it is foolish to allow the community's
aesthetic qualities to be visually assaulted by a system of regulation that
does not control the signage arms race. This is a question of enforcement,
probably, so unless we are serious about that, the policy-making behind
regulating signs is pointless. 

 

With respect to the pixilated LED signs we see more and more of these days,
I personally think they are a bit jarring.  I supported the restoration of
the historic Wilma sign, for example, but I have very mixed feelings about
the bright red information sign at its base.  I like the information-it's
helpful to the public.  On the other hand, hiking on Waterworks Hill the
other day I believe I could see the red from there and that was a shock.
There are other red LED signs Downtown that are simply grotesque in their
size and brightness.  Rather than attract me to those businesses, I find I
am repelled.

 

Finally, whatever regulations are put in place, the Council should allow for
the certainty that sign technology is going to take the next leap forward
tomorro.  Those pixilated LED signs of today are soon going to become relics
like black and white TV's and the monochrome computer monitors we used back
in the '80's. Any business that has one today already has one foot in the
grave of sign obsolescence.  Something else, something "better," is going to
be introduced to replace them. For that reason, I think it behooves the
Council to help the public, the business community and the sign companies by
spending some time on an expression of community aesthetic values and craft
sign regulations to fit those values.  That way, when technology changes,
the resulting signage can be asked to meet that standard rather than asking
the aesthetics to meet the technology.  

 

Geoff Badenoch

P   Please consider the environment before printing this email. 

-----Original Message-----
From: missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com
[mailto:missoulagov-bounces at cmslists.com] On Behalf Of John Torma
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 12:31 AM
To: Bob Jaffe; missoulagov at cmslists.com
Subject: Re: [MissoulaGov] Committee Update 1-14-09

 

Bob, what you are trying to do with the electronic signs is exactly what the
status of the sign regulations were when I was the sign enforcement officer
in the mid to late eighties.  We called them electronic change copy signs
then.  They were allowed, but the message visible on the sign could be
changed no more frequently than once every 30 minutes, I believe.  The
rationale for that was just as you have stated -- the very purpose of a
revolving message on a sign is to attract your attention to it, which is a
dangerous thing if you happen to be trying to keep control of a two to four
thousand pound pile of metal and glass.  It really surprised me when these
rapidly changing signs started appearing again.  I would love to know what
happened on the regulatory end.

 

John Torma

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090115/af6a3965/attachment.htm>