RSS FeedHow Many Gallery Place Billboards Does It Take …
As illustrated in Orange Barrel Media’s video presentation, one proposed Gallery Place billboard will protrude 8 feet from the building, obstructing condo owners’ views and negatively affecting their quality of life.
A second illustration from the Orange Barrel Media video marketing presentation. One can see how much larger and out of character the billboard is when compared with the Verizon Center sign in the background.
A new grassroots movement, called stopthebillboard.org, has begun to oppose the latest barrage of billboard proposals for the Gallery Place building (pictured above). This time, the movement is being spearheaded by Gallery Place condo residents who would have views blocked by the newly proposed billboards.
As we reported a couple of years ago, the City permitted 3 electronic billboards to be installed on the SE corner of 7th & H St NW despite objections from PQ residents and the fact that the billboard placement is illegal. The newly proposed billboards are also illegal – they are proposed to protrude 8 feet from the building, whereas DC legislation only allows for it to protrude 12 inches.
How many PQ attorneys would jump at the chance to litigate a dispute that seems so cut and dry? We can only hope that the affected residents will take a legal stand since the public outcry route realized little results the last time around.
More info is available at the stopthebillboard.org site, including the full-length Orange Barrel Media video (that was later edited to remove offending material after the opposition website was launched). Also illustrated are sidewalk billboards and an additional video billboard over the G Street alley.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I appreciate the fact that people who don’t live downtown care less about the livability of the community. However, for mixed use areas to coexist, a balance must be struck between commercial activity and residential quality of life. As a Gallery Place residential person, I think these signs would be a travesty, and a threat to video billboards being installed in other parts of the city.
You may not like it, but I think anonymous is right on the money. You can’t really be a NIMBY if you choose to live in a heavy commercial sector of a large city, but there should be some compensation due to the negative impact on the condos’ value.
I want to point out that these signs are not global public goods nor are they critical infrastructure for the good of DC residents whether local or far flung from the signs’ locations. As a result, NIMBYism may have some validity to it especially since the residents were there before the signs being questioned and there appear to be laws on the books that address the specific matter.
This is not analagous to someone moving next to an existing airport and then complaining that the planes are too loud or moving next to an existing sewage treatment plant and then complaining that the air stinks. NIMBYism carries far less weight in those situations.
Hi Everyone, I wanted to take a moment to respond to this discussion, as I think I can shed some light on some of the excellent comments being made. I am with Orange Barrel Media, the company handling the proposed screens at Gallery Place. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. The website, stopthebillboard.org, is riddled with inaccurate information. It was started by a few residents (more on this below) that made demands for excessive compensation, beyond our already very generous offer.
1. We are not putting up any signs without building permits. We have just begun discussions with Office of Planning regarding our proposed signs. We have spent more than a year working with the community on the design of our signs, and have secured the endorsement of the Chinatown Community Cultural Center, as well as the Gallery Place Residents Association. At the request of Residents’, we have made a variety of significant revisions to the proposed signs, including decreasing their size, removing audio features, reducing their hours of operation, and changing some of the mediums. We obtained approval and support from 98% of the condominium residents, with four residents opposed to the signs unless we agree to meet their excessive demands for compensation. In some cases the compensation the have requested would exceed the value of their condos. All condominium owners were aware that signage would be installed, as it is explicitly stated in their purchase contracts and declarations that were given to all purchasers of the units, including the publisher of the website in question.
2. We are not attempting to change city code to allow these type of signs – city code was already modified specifically to allow the signs we are proposing, and is codified under section 3107.18 “Rules for Gallery Place Project Graphics.” Our goal has been to bring unique and high quality signage to the Gallery Place project to add vitality and energy to the project. The Gallery Place Signage Regulations were created by the City for the same reason. We believe our signage proposal is the embodiment of what was intended under the Regulations. We also believe that the proposal is in accordance with the planning goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Gallery Place and Chinatown Area. For instance, the “Five Goals of Chinatown” by the Office of Planning discusses exactly the type of vibrant and creative signs we are proposing. The signs also embody much of the testimony and reasoning provided to and by the DC Council’s Committee on Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Further, these type of signs are consistent (although much smaller than) other signage in the neighborhood, such as the video screens on the Verizon Center.
3. The image and size of the sign shown on the website is completely inaccurate. We have proposed a 45’ tall sign, not a 75’ sign. The rendering makes the sign way larger than we have proposed. Our sign will be 1’ narrower than the existing Regal sign, not twice as wide as shown in the rendering. The website publisher knows this is inaccurate, as he has been at meetings when we discussed the reduced size of the sign.
4. The signs on the corner of 7th and H were installed in accordance with the law, and are fully permitted. They are also operated legally, under the guidelines of the signage code. The website states that we are illegally advertising liquor. This is untrue. The Gallery Place Regulations support our ability to advertise any product, service or tenant available on the property.
Please let me know if I can address any additional questions. I can be reached at 614.294.4898
Thanks,
Pete
This is taken directly from Councilmember Jack Evan’s latest e-newsletter:
Evans Leads Charge on Special Sign Disapproval
Councilmember Evans this week joined Councilmember Bowser, Chair of the Committee on Public Service and Consumer Affairs, and other members of the Council in voting in favor of the ‘Billboard Blight Removal Disapproval Resolution of 2010.’
“This resolution prevents additional special signs from popping up across the District, most of which would likely have appeared in Ward 2,” Evans said. “I have been involved in this issue for the last ten years and have always been strictly opposed to special sign permits. These signs are not bound by size limitations and would most certainly be a blight on our neighborhoods and city.”
Although Evans does not sit on the Committee on Public Service and Consumer Affairs, he attended the sessions on the original resolution to comment on and support the committee’s resolution.
“I heard loud and clear from the residents of Ward 2 on this issue,” said Evans. “The testimony was overwhelming against approval of the original resolution. From Advisory Neighborhood Commissions to the Dupont Circle Conservancy, there was never any doubt about how these special signs are viewed by residents – they are seen as a neighborhood blight.”
Who assessed the decrease in property value that would be caused by these signs, Orange Bowl Media? Talk about a way to kill condo values. Who in the future would ever want to buy a condo looking at that noxious sight. What a shame for the neighborhood, and especially the Gallery Place owners.
How do we know the values will not go up? The foot traffic seems to go up every month and some might (I said might) see it as an exciting place to live.
If this really was in the condo purchase contract, it seems like a case of caveat emptor (although that fact does not make it a good idea).
I personally think part of DC’s appeal is that the city is not littered with billboards and similar advertising like many other cities. I live a couple blocks from the Verizon center (in Ward 2), and am against the signs anywhere in DC, including the car advertisement billboards that are in a few places, such as 11th and K, which are passed off as art. It is clearly spreading, and I think it should be stopped. This is not an issue just for a particular condo, or condo association, but for the city as a whole. To me this issue run in parallel with the building height restrictions. Both are key in retaining DC’s character and beauty.
Pete,
Thank you for sharing your side of the story. Unfortunately, “some” are making a bigger deal out of this than it needs to be. If the technology you have can display some creative images in in terms of color, lighting…etc, the signs will be a benefit to the area. There’s a reason why people go to Chinatown over the weekends. Because its lively and bustling.
Hmmn- Pete’s rebuttal is pretty strong. If the points he makes are accurate this seems much ado about not so much. Sounds like Orange have proper standing to do this & if the plan for this was stated in the condo owners’ purchase contracts…..
Why are we pretending that Chinatown “Penn Quarter” is not a strip mall already? It’s looked trashy for years now, why not make it DC’s “Time Square” and at least have something unique. Any neighborhood achored by a Ruby Tuesdays and a Hooters shouldn’t be complaining about lighted signs.
I have to agree with Arch & namllih. I think Pete’s rebuttal is strong and the stopthebillboard argument is heavy on hyperbole.
I have to agree with annonymous on March 6th. Chinatown has developed as a center for national chain restaurants and stores (McDonalds, Hooters, Ruby Tuesday, Starbucks, Rosa Mexicana etc.), not as a historic neighborhood. Residents there should embrace this, and let it become a Times Square-esque location, and be thankful that investments continue to be made in the area.
When I moved to this neighborhood 5 and a half years ago, it was full of locally-owned and unique businesses. I paid a premium for my condominium with the hope/expectation that this would become a diversified neighborhood. Since then, while many good things have happened, the retail scene has grown bleak: small businesses have gone out of business, huge chain restaurants are taking over. The city has invested heavily in making this a residential neighborhood. It would be really stupid to then make it unlivable by turning Penn Quarter into a neighborhood fit only for tourist buses, rowdy teens, and people who are completely oblivious to billboard blight.
If Penn Quarter is to have any viability as a livable neighborhood, the residents have to be able to push back on ill-concieved ideas like these billboards. Just because it was planned some time ago does not make it a good idea.
Almost every major city in the world has a district with bright signs – think Ginza (Tokyo), Picadilly (London), West Hollywood (LA), plus just about every Chinatown in the world . Personally, I like the signs, and think they add to the feel of the area. The development is sandwiched between an arena (that has had video boards before the condos were even built) and Chinatown. There are thousands of pedestrians, protestors, musicians, and countless other loud activities going on, 24-7. It’s not like people went to bed in the suburbs, and are surprised to be waking up in an entertainment district. Before Gallery Place/Verizon Center were built, the area was crime ridden and vacant. The development activity has revived the neighborhood. Sure some original tenants are gone, but look at all of the new ones (Andres, Wagamama, Matchbox,etc.)
For those of you who insist that Gallery Place/Penn Quarter/Chinatown is simply a haven for national chains, what do you call: Rasika, Sei, Oya, Oyamel, Jaleo, Penn Quarter Sports Tavern, Zaytinya, all of the Chinese and Thai restaurants, Shakespeare Theater and the National Portrait Gallery. Name one other neighborhood in the DC area that boasts such a vibrant mix of culture, restaurants and nightlife.
The fact the Downtown DC is not littered with billboards and over-sized buildings is part of its uniquely attractive character. Suggesting that residents and others should push for it to become like Times Square, Las Vegas and other similar areas shows, in my mind, a lack of understanding of DC’s positive traits in comparison to other cities. DC has a positive history of preserving its beauty, which has served the city well. I believe if you are a company depending on billboard revenue, then yes, you think DC should follow other decidedly ugly downtown trends. However, for many who love this city, moving to erase the unique beauty of this city would also remove the reason many people living and visiting here are attracted to this city. If we want to follow Las Vegas and the like, should we also bring on the hookers, the slots, the people lining the streets handing out literature for phone sex and strip clubs? DC is not NY, Las Vegas, Tokyo, etc and never will be (hopefully).
I don’t think “lack of billboards” is part of DC’s “uniquely attractive character.” Frankly, having loud-mouthed “citizen” groups that oppose each and everything is part of DC’s uniquely UNATTRACTIVE character (see no metro in Georgetown for a great example of “community” activism). Assuming the Orange Media post above is correct, I don’t see what the problem is. And, frankly, whether you like it or not, advertisemens and billboards and other things that make the area vibrant and busy to those walking along the streets (and, really, its just the streets that directly border the Verizon Center) is exactly the “character” of the neighborhood.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
As an office resident and patron/sales-tax payor of many chinatown stores and restaurants, I can’t say that I particularily object to more lighted and/or video billboards in the area. But I agree that it sucks for the people who own condos there, and if they need a variance of other permission from the city, and the city decides to grant it (over the objections of interested parties) then, at the least, the condo owners should be getting a check from the marketing folks to compensate the condo owners for the new drop in value that would accompany an obstructed view. It’s tough to tell how many condo units would be affected, but that may be a more effective way to argue against this signage then “it’s ugly.”