What is the obsession with forbidding any signage up on buildings?
Sundance appears to feel strongly that its a bad idea - any reason why? Perhaps just a preference for no bold logos?
I know people have posted widely varying opinions on the FW Forum, some expressing the preference for a cleaner skyline, free from clutter, and, on the other hand, the bright energy that more aggressive signage and lighting would offer.
To me it seems that it really depends on the sign and the building. If we're talking about a random colored blob awkwardly bolted onto a building in a place where it doesn't fit or work with the architecture, then it would look clunky and bad. If it is correctly scaled, and fits with the building design in a graceful fashion, (seems like it is part of the architecture), then I don't see the big deal.
Frankly the graphics of the logo would matter too. When driving east to west on I-30 through downtown recently at night I noticed the blue light from the new ATT logo and I liked the addition of a small splash of color.
The wework sign looks pretty appropriate in scale. Would it look better if it were 1-2 floors lower? What I don't understand about the "gateway drug" metaphor is: does that mean that once the wework sign goes up, does that building forever have the right to have a sign in that spot, so the City/Downtown FW/DDRB lose control of controlling that design in the future? If they allow it, does that mean they have to use similar judgment in future signage applications?
Frost is getting one right? I might have missed but how did that happen? Just made an exception?
Some buildings that I think would not look good with signage up on the building:
- City Center 1&2
- Burnette Plaza
- 500 W. 7th Street
- Omni Hotel (up on glass) - already exists on lower part.