Why sign regulations matter

Public Spaces

Why sign regulations matter

by Dan Malouff • August 26, 2011 10:22 am

One of the most basic rules of urban design is that pedestrians need things to look at. Good walking cities are often visually messy cities.

Route 66, Albuquerque, mid 20th Century. Original photo by Ernst Hass.

For this reason, many urbanists are hesitant to support strong sign control regulations. Signs are things to look at, after all.

When Greater Greater Washington discussed illegal signs at the Uline Area earlier this month, many of the comments suggested that the signs should be allowed, or that the city shouldn't waste time enforcing sign rules.

I do think there is something to be said for a colorful streetscape, but it's easy to say that from the vantage point of an already heavily-regulated environment. A handful of illegal signs might very well improve the visual diversity of a street, but if we eliminated sign regulations entirely, is a "handful" what we would get?

In a previous job I worked in the zoning division of a local planning office. Part of my job was to process certain types of sign applications. Whenever I started to feel like I was wasting my time, I looked over to the image shown above, which I kept tacked to my wall. It was, and is, a healthy reminder that seemingly mundane regulations do make a positive difference to our built environment.

Cross-posted at BeyondDC.

16 comments

Tags: Albuquerque, signs

DC turns blind eye to developer's potential sign infractions (Jun 30, 2011)
DCRA fines Uline Arena owner for unpermitted signs (Aug 5, 2011)
DDOT teasing blogs with five-year-old signs (Aug 24, 2009)
TIGER III to come this summer (Apr 21, 2011)
Zimmerman to visit happy hour tomorrow; sign up to testify for transit on the Arlington budget (Mar 23, 2010)

Dan Malouff is a professional transportation planner for the Arlington County Department of Transportation. He has a degree in Urban Planning from the University of Colorado, and lives a car-free lifestyle in Northwest Washington. His posts are his own opinions and do not represent the views of his employer in any way. He runs the blog BeyondDC and also contributes to the Washington Post Local Opinions blog.

Comments
Add a comment »

That intersection today

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24978846@N00/189196136

by RJ on Aug 26, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

I love that pic of Albuquerque.

by Fitz on Aug 26, 2011 10:41 am • link • report

@RJ, looks like the updated pic was taken at dawn.

Either way Central Ave is no longer the sole center of commerce in Albuquerque like it was in the 1950s.

by Fitz on Aug 26, 2011 10:47 am • link • report

Fitz,

But the Nob Hill section a block behind the photog is rather nice.

by RJ on Aug 26, 2011 10:49 am • link • report

True. I haven't been down there in a few years though.

by Fitz on Aug 26, 2011 10:53 am • link • report

Credit should be given to the Ernst Haas for his photograph: "Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1969"

by Andrew on Aug 26, 2011 11:01 am • link • report

^
I didn't know where the picture came from, Andrew. Thanks.

by BeyondDC on Aug 26, 2011 11:05 am • link • report

@Dan - Interesting to see this article and that you work for Arlington. Particularly given Arlington's current effort to redo its sign ordinance in light of a number of recent controversial enforcement actions.

The picture does show how bad things would get with no sign limits at all, but hopefully everyone understands there needs to be a middle ground.

You may not be able to do it now, but when the Arlington sign ordinance work is done, it would be an interesting piece to delve into where the line should be drawn and how Arlington made the decisions it did.

by Greg on Aug 26, 2011 11:26 am • link • report

Greg, I work in the transportation department at Arlington and really am not connected in any way with the sign ordinance here. My experiences with signs were in a different jurisdiction.

I do agree that there should be a middle ground, and that finding it is an interesting question.

by BeyondDC on Aug 26, 2011 11:30 am • link • report

Is Albuqurque's problem really the signs? Looking at that picture and the "now" picture that RJ posted, it looks like the bigger problem is the auto-oriented zoning. Fixing the signs is just fixing the symptom, not the root cause. The signs would go away (or at least be oriented towards pedestrians) if the development were allowed to be more pedestrian oriented.

by Stephen Smith on Aug 26, 2011 12:46 pm • link • report

The eastern end of Central Avenue in Albuquerque has the most marvelous collection of neon signs you'll see anywhere. All mid-century modern, for motels that are still open. This is where the Mother Road met Albuquerque when you motored west, where countless people stopped for the night.

Further down the street toward downtown, as RJ points out, is an art deco strip mall from the 1930's.

People visiting ABQ and Sante Fe often take the side trip out Central Avenue, past the University, to see these sites. And preservationists jealously protect them. They are a powerful piece of our history, and witness to our great western migration.

by Mike S. on Aug 26, 2011 1:03 pm • link • report

I would definitely agree that sign ordinances matter ... particularly billboard ordinances. The billboard industry seems to be rather evil, from what I can tell. When I lived in Philly, there were front-page articles about how there were thousands of illegal billboards all over the City, but the billboard industry would fight tooth and nail, and sometimes basically ignore court orders to take them down, because a billboard is a license to print money, and it's actually cheaper to fight legal battles rather than take them down. And billboards serve zero public purpose.

They also employ extremely few people relative to the amount of income they gross, since once a billboard is up it takes minimal labor to maintain it (just some sales people to sell the ad space, and very occasional visits to either inspect its structural integrity or change the message. Even the latter is getting easier now that billboards are becoming electronic, which presumably means they can be reprogrammed remotely).

When you drive down an urban corridor in a depressed section of an urban area, and you see umpteen billboards every thousand feet, and most of those billboards are for soda or fried chicken establishments, it's downright depressing.

In general, I feel pretty strongly about the over-proliferation of commercial speech in general. Maybe I'm overly curmudgeonly but I get peeved even when I see those ads on the floor of supermarkets, or obnoxious commercials before the previews even start in movie theatres, etc.

by Marc on Aug 26, 2011 4:53 pm • link • report

@Marc

"When you drive down an urban corridor in a depressed section of an urban area, and you see umpteen billboards every thousand feet, and most of those billboards are for soda or fried chicken establishments, it's downright depressing."

Not to mention the billboards advertising malt liquor, fortified cheap wine, and cigarettes.

I'm glad we don't have them in the DC area. It's one of the first things I notice when I visit some other cities.

by ceefer66 on Aug 26, 2011 6:00 pm • link • report

I must say, I think ABQ looks pretty in that photo.

by Dave Stroup on Aug 26, 2011 6:28 pm • link • report

I don't know, ABQ is pretty mediocre urban design-wise.

by Neil Flanagan on Aug 26, 2011 7:27 pm • link • report

I do think some control is needed.Signs are needed to a certain extent!

by jm on Aug 27, 2011 2:10 pm • link • report