Welcome to outside, indeed. We’re not sure when it popped up but the southern side of 10th Ave’s Odd Fellows Building suddenly has been optimized for revenue generation.
The giant Jansport advertising banner doesn’t show up in the city’s database of authorized billboards. We’re checking to see if it falls into a grey area related to “on-premises” advertising — loopholes in the city’s land sign code that allow things like Montana vacations to be advertised in empty storefronts and AT&T service to be advertised on banners hanging in front of corner markets.
(Image: CHS)
Some loopholes involve meeting requirements for selling the advertised product at the location. Some involve creative use of permits — say, getting a permit for a legal sign to advertise your business but using the space to advertise Pepsi instead. Some involve business infrastructure like awnings or umbrellas supplied by advertising sponsors. Other times, people just put up signs and hope for the best.
For more on the mess around the city’s sign code, see this recent Crosscut piece.
We have a note out to the owner of Odd Fellows to see what more we can find out and are also checking with DPD and Sally Clark’s office. Her Committee on the Built Environment has been investigating the on-premises/off-premises issues in Seattle. Pike/Pine is also subject to an additional layer of regulations as more and more preservations laws are added for the area.
We kind of like the big piece of marketing on the Odd Fellows building but consider that CHS is also covered in ads to sometimes NASCAR-like proportions.
No, that’s ok, just filth up our environment with mental pollution. We love being advertised to, because we’re young and need to know what to buy. :-P
shut up with your passive aggressive bs.
i’m not sure i understand. who should shut up here? everybody? i’d be ok with that. i need some peace and quiet. get off my lawn!
Might be a good place for a CHS ad to attract some new readers. I mean, how cool would a giant crow look up there, right?
Nice one, James.
Let’s see. A 100% recyclable banner that is used to create tax revenues – revenues that can, and will, fund pet environmental projects like eliminating paper and plastic bags, and mandating recyclable food containers.
All for the price of a sign that is completely non controversial, and actually a bit attractive.
I find it hilarious watching the self righteous do-gooders trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I suppose gang graffiti (artistic “tagging” – in the words of the liberals) would be a better look.
Just as long as someone is not making money, right Righteous Liberals?
…at least its not on the front of the building.
I think it looks great! Also– it was created by a local ad agency. Cheers to keeping money coming to Seattle businesses.
Don’t start blathering about “tagging” be a liberal value.
liberals have values?
God forbid a private property owner should use his property within the confines of the law and regulations. Such balls these people have, trying to earn a living and support local, independent retail at the same time while supplementing that with one simple, short-lived ad.
Keep gazing in your navel, funki, and just don’t look up so you don’t have to see the sign.
so did Jansport pay you guys to write this article?
if not, you should at least ask for a free backpack or something
I don’t get the dust up about a building owner putting advertising on their building – look around at old brick buildings and you generally see remnants of old advertising painted on the side, and certainly in this economy I don’t blame any building owners for maximizing their revenue – but I take issue with Schroth’s assertion that it adds “visual interest” to the neighborhood. It’s an ad, nothing more, nothing less. It’s better than the annoying LCD ads like at the Denny exit from I-5, but there’s no aesthetic value added to the building from it.
That’ll show the “put a bird on it” Portland people that as always, we can do it bigger and better than them ;)
So when we see an ad on a building that some people may not be ok with, the first thing that happens is we run off to check with the city if its been permitted, hoping that we can stick it to the man.
But when things like BadWill Market get a slight hiccup in operations because of failing to secure all needed permits, then suddenly the City is viewed as a savage demon.
Just saying… sometimes it seems like cap hill is full of 14 year olds who curse their parents and pretend to be free spirited renegades, but are quick to ask for money from mommy to go see Twilight.
This is just misguided anger.
On a side note, anyone know where I can buy a new backpack?
the girl in the pic is capitol hill’s very own katie brooks, one of the four people who helped produce the “500 Pine Party” a couple of summers back. This was taken during the few weeks before the event.
It’s not an ad, it’s not a billboard, it’s a total SCAM. The landlord claims to have a sign permit for an On-Premise sign, but that means it must legally identify an establishment and/or its product/service within the building’s “frontage on the public right-of-way.” It doesn’t. Interesting that the landlord asked one of the building tenants if they would sell Jan Sport backpacks after this blog exposed the situation? And looks like the 2008 permit expired?
Clearly, Jan Sport is a California product with no relationship to the building or the great Pike/Pine neighborhood. But obviously, it can afford to pay the “great advertising company” enormous fees. Downtown wallscapes (or supergraphics) are said to pay between $15,000 to $30,000 monthly, depending on size and number of “eyeballs.” Can anyone within a block of this ad afford the same?
Since wallscapes are mostly national advertising, they are printed cheaply out-of-state in bulk and often not recycled as would be done by our local, environmentally-sensitive companies. Instead of buying a Jan Sport bag, check out the awesome AG bags sold in Nube near this sign. They are not only beautifully designed and wholly unique, they are made of reused vinyl!
The phenomenon of those who are determined to dominate our visual environment is not only happening in Seattle but in many places across the country. But other cities like NYC, LA, Portland, Toronto and many more are fighting back by revising their antiquated sign codes, or significantly increasing fines to stop those who would challenge the law. Cities would prefer to see their streets legitimately promote and focus on local commerce which pays to be doing business in each place. These fake On-Premise signs are posers and users.
So why should anyone care? Well, you’re paying for it. The City of Seattle has quietly been involved in years of very expensive legal challenges trying to enforce against these signs. In the time being our City services are drastically cut, and we pay up to $4 an hr to park on the streets, but these wallscapes are freeloaders.
Council-member Sally Clark’s new sign ordinance is simply ridiculous. In order to try to control a handful of perpetrators of On-Premise sign loopholes, Clark is proposing a limitation on ALL Seattle’s businesses’ wall signs to be only 100 sf. And by design, it has to have 50 percent be the name and location? Wait until Seattle’s stores like Nordstrom, Macy’s, Nike, H&M, Forever 21, Columbia Sportswear, or the theaters and medical facilities, etc. learn about a 100 sf wall sign limitation! To complicate the issues, Clear Channel which controls 90% of billboard advertising in Seattle, Tacoma, and King County has issued the most complaints at the City. They would love to see this ordinance happen and these competitor’s simply disappear so they can own the entire market.
When reading online and you get a pop-up banner ad, you can click the annoying thing off. A remote controls TV commercials. You get to choose and at least you receive FREE content in exchange for the inconvenience. But national “out-of-home” ads gives nothing back, it is something we CAN’T turn off.
Here’s the deal, across the US sign codes were written for a different time, one focused on the “automobile” not pedestrians. The wall sign would most often be painted on the side of the building and would remain for decades. As these painted signs aged and became ‘ghost murals’ they create a unique sense of place, an urban texture that identifies each neighborhood’s evolving character. You don’t retain that when they are painted over or covered up by vinyl fabric images that are tossed away every 4 weeks.
Each Seattle neighborhood needs to decide together what it wants. It should not happen by a blindness to a couple users playing subtle games.
Our eyeballs are not for sale. The idea of a conservation district for Capitol Hill is to preserve the character contributing buildings–of which Odd Fellow is one. This should mean not only not tearing them down but also making sure that we can actually see them. Advertising of this proportion doesn’t contribute to the character of the neighborhood. It just clutters it up. Visual pollution.
And BTW, the City doesn’t get revenues of any significance for this advertising. If they did, I might be more sympathetic. The building owner gets a rental fee but the big winner is the distributor like Clear Channel or Total Outdoor. They are not exactly good corporate citizens.
finally some good news!! Gawd this was important!!
Neighborhood Gal – Which monopoly do you work for – Clear Channel or Lamar?
Or, better yet – Sally Clark’s office? (She has been enlisted by Clear Channel to work on their behalf)
Just, be honest where you are coming from on this – so everyone knows where your bread is being buttered?
Stumping to look cool for the Capitol Hill in Crowd is one thing, but doing so with a hidden agenda that is counter to those that you try to appease is comical to watch.
Hypocrisy (the liberal Seattle way) at its best…