Possibility of New Billboard on Lower Woodward

**BrushStart** · November-06-10, 11:07 AM

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...-for-billboard

Thoughts?

Stosh · November-06-10, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

http://www.detnews.com/article/20101...-for-billboard

Thoughts?

Why not? If it was good enough for the Lafayette, it's good enough for this, right?

Anyway, that violates the federal government plan for the street, according to the article. But I believe it's not really a billboard, it's an electric sign. And if you define a billboard of that nature, then all signage on Woodward would have to be removed, including that Fresard sign in Royal Oak.

**BrushStart** · November-06-10, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Stosh

Why not? If it was good enough for the Lafayette, it's good enough for this, right?

Anyway, that violates the federal government plan for the street, according to the article. But I believe it's not really a billboard, it's an electric sign. And if you define a billboard of that nature, then all signage on Woodward would have to be removed, including that Fresard sign in Royal Oak.

I don't understand the Lafayette reference, but I am in favor of allowing the signage. I don't think it detracts from the "natural scenic byway" or whatever M1 is under federal law. It's a downtown CBD, there's nothing natural or scenic about it. On top of that, there's really nothing scenic about a whole lot of Woodward, i.e. abandoned, crumbling structures in every direction. Plus, I think the design of this sign looks nice. It's not like they are putting it up on the side of the Guardian. If this helps generate money to restore out-of-use buildings, I really hope they allow many more.

**detroitbob** · November-06-10, 12:15 PM

Huge video billboard screens like those on Block 37 or the State Lake Building in Chicago would certainly brighten up that depressing block...just think, live streaming of the next round of arrests and indictments of former city and/or county officials. Who wants to run the popcorn cart?

**Gistok** · November-06-10, 12:31 PM

If you look at any early 20th century images of downtown Detroit, you will see the area filled with signage, so that's not new.

But I have to agree with that other building owner who asked why the county could get a special exemption, and he couldn't?

As nice as that sign might be... it could open a Pandora's Box of others going to court to get equal rights... and then downtown could once again be cluttered with them.

**mikefmich** · November-06-10, 12:56 PM

Yes....Pandora's Box+City of Detroit=not good. I too don't think the city could get past the state & fed regulations. Then again in Detroit, stranger things have happened.

EastSider · November-06-10, 01:03 PM

Hell. The. Fuck. No.

It's as long as a football field. How in the hell would that even come close to being appropriately sized?

After how many millions to design and build Campus Martius and the landscaping in the median, the county wants to stuck this in there?

**BrushStart** · November-06-10, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Gistok

As nice as that sign might be... it could open a Pandora's Box of others going to court to get equal rights... and then downtown could once again be cluttered with them.

You mean like Times Square?

Stosh · November-06-10, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

I don't understand the Lafayette reference, but I am in favor of allowing the signage. I don't think it detracts from the "natural scenic byway" or whatever M1 is under federal law. It's a downtown CBD, there's nothing natural or scenic about it. On top of that, there's really nothing scenic about a whole lot of Woodward, i.e. abandoned, crumbling structures in every direction. Plus, I think the design of this sign looks nice. It's not like they are putting it up on the side of the Guardian. If this helps generate money to restore out-of-use buildings, I really hope they allow many more.

This thread, in particular.

http://detroityes.com/mb/showthread....ette+billboard

Stosh · November-06-10, 01:34 PM

The law, as it relates to byways is:

The law on billboards on scenic byways is simple common sense:
New billboard construction is prohibited along designated scenic byways that are interstate, National Highway System, or federal-aid primary highways. Existing
billboards are allowed to remain.

I would think that Woodward is not any of these?

I believe that it is none of the above. It was once, but it's designation in the area was removed to the Lodge, US 10. It's not the first two, and the Federal aid primary highway designation was removed long ago. I think that the City needs to do their homework as to what is actually the correct designation. There are scenic byways that are NOT federal highways.

**iheartthed** · November-06-10, 03:09 PM

What does the funding from the feds pay for?

Stosh · November-06-10, 03:13 PM

Actually, according to the MDOT, Woodward is a federal highway and therefore is under the juristiction of the provisions of the law. However, if a business is advertising their functions, it falls within the scope of the law and is permissable.

bartock · November-06-10, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by EastSider

Hell. The. Fuck. No.

It's as long as a football field. How in the hell would that even come close to being appropriately sized?

After how many millions to design and build Campus Martius and the landscaping in the median, the county wants to stuck this in there?

But they would only be a couple of blocks away from each other. It could serve as a catalyst to connect them. I remember the last time I was in Toronto on Yonge [[sp?) street, and was quite amazed at how audacious the ads were the main square there. But it works, as far as I know. This would be the CBD, not residential, and quite a unique thing for this area. Like creating a marketing landmark [[you know during sporting events, etc., that the networks would show it) without the expense of a new building that obviously isn't needed at this time. The biggest problem would be blinding folks as they leave the "Comerica" tower, and Wayne County Courts. Besides, I think that the ugly, empty, small building that is there now really takes away from the potential, and the relatively recent idea of making it a parking deck is not optimal for that location. I think it is a neat idea...as long as them Scientologists that have been working on the second floor of the old Raymond James building aren't behind it [[wink).

**Nicodeme** · November-06-10, 08:59 PM

I don't mind it. The article doesn't say if it'll just be an illuminated, electronic static sign, or more like a giant movie screen. The image accompanying the Det News article seems to show news and stock tickers, which would of course need to be animated. I hope that's the case, then it'd be a tiny bit like Times Square.

**Gistok** · November-06-10, 09:52 PM

Imagine driving along lower Woodward and then being blinded by a huge 300 ft. long LED sign.

Sometimes at night when I'm driving near one of those [[only 1/20th that big) the screen image suddenly turns bright colors... startling me momentarily. I could see this being quite annoy for drivers along that stretch of road.... and maybe even causing accidents.

Have any of you ever been unexpectedly distracted by those new signs?? Now image one 20 times that size!!

**Rocko** · November-06-10, 11:11 PM

I think they should just demo that low ugly building fronting Woodward. It replaced some cool Italianate commercial buildings [[much like the Grand Trunk/Foran's block) which fronted Woodward and has been empty for most, if not all, of this past decade. I think this would make a really cool pocket park. YES, I know we have Campus Martius, Hart Plaza, and now the renovated Capitol Park within 2-3 blocks from here, but I think this would be pretty cool. They could build an earthen berm with screen privacy trees along the Guardian alley so people wouldn't have to see the alley and delivery doors on the lower levels of the Guardian......ANYTHING is better than that POS that is there right now!

**fryar** · November-06-10, 11:17 PM

My knee-jerk reaction is to approach these kinds of things with trepidation at best, but I would be ok with that sign, though it does change the "flavor" of downtown for a couple of blocks along Woodward. Not to be negative, but I'm surprised to see that they think they can generate millions of dollars in advertising revenue in a location they can't fill. Hopefully, they can lure a Starbucks as well.

I also wouldn't mind the owner of Foran's being permitted to make use of his empty floors, just for the sake of being realistic about the state of things.

**dtowncitylover** · November-07-10, 01:11 AM

It looks tacky. Like something for a Potemkin Village. I'm gonna say no.

**Novine** · November-07-10, 09:16 PM

Look how classy all the other billboards around town make Detroit look. Typical Detroit approach to chase a quick buck at the expense of anything else.

**Gistok** · November-07-10, 09:36 PM

OK, here's what I don't get...

The county says it needs to genereate about $3 million in income to refurbish the 3 story building.

Who's gonna pay to have the expensive sign put up?

And then when the county then generates their $3 million... who's gonna lease office space that has a huge billboard blocking the 2nd and 3rd story views of Woodward?

**stasu1213** · November-07-10, 10:09 PM

I had always thought at an electronic advertisment should had been hung on the side of the Barum building. It could be seen while driving down lower Woodward without it being on the avenue itself. It sits next to the Cadillac Square building. The only thing that divides it and Campus Martius is the parking lot.

**begingri** · November-07-10, 10:24 PM

I'm in favor of the general idea, but not this particular location. This just seems like a haphazard attempt to raise some money. The building itself is nothing noteworthy, just raze it if it's not being kept it. If Detroit could organize this better and create a more centralized/planned area for a large number of billboards [[aka Times Square and/or Yonge Street in Toronto), I would be all for it. Use the money from these billboards towards securing old, abandoned building the CBD from further deterioration. That's my thought, anyway.

**BrushStart** · November-07-10, 10:36 PM

Wow. I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to this sign. I really thought most people would see it as a positive. In response to some of the criticisms, I say:

a) I don't want to see another downtown building raised, including that 3-story building, which by far isn't the most attractive structure on the block, but demolishing a possibly viable structure to create yet another park seems crazy.

b) I'm not sure how the sign is being paid for, but if the plan is to use the money to renovate the building for potential occupancy, how can anyone be opposed to that?

c) I don't know if anyone on this board has traveled much, but billboards are all over lots of cities, Detroit being in the minority with only a handful of downtown signage.

d) This isn't even a billboard, it's an electronic sign with scrolling stock quotes, the time, and probably the temperature, which is far from what I'd call an "eyesore."

e) Anything with more lights on it downtown is plus in my opinion. I wish there was a plan to put up a dozen or so more electronic signs like this. Lights from billboards add life to an otherwise dark, drab, and lifeless skyline. See NYC's Times Square for explanation.

**stasu1213** · November-07-10, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by begingri

I'm in favor of the general idea, but not this particular location. This just seems like a haphazard attempt to raise some money. The building itself is nothing noteworthy, just raze it if it's not being kept it. If Detroit could organize this better and create a more centralized/planned area for a large number of billboards [[aka Times Square and/or Yonge Street in Toronto), I would be all for it. Use the money from these billboards towards securing old, abandoned building the CBD from further deterioration. That's my thought, anyway.

I don't think that the building should be razed. I think that some type of food court or a Starbucks store would be good in the building as well as an Einstein bakery and Panera Bread.

**begingri** · November-07-10, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by BrushStart

Wow. I guess I'm in the minority when it comes to this sign. I really thought most people would see it as a positive. In response to some of the criticisms, I say:

a) I don't want to see another downtown building raised, including that 3-story building, which by far isn't the most attractive structure on the block, but demolishing a possibly viable structure to create yet another park seems crazy.

b) I'm not sure how the sign is being paid for, but if the plan is to use the money to renovate the building for potential occupancy, how can anyone be opposed to that?

c) I don't know if anyone on this board has traveled much, but billboards are all over lots of cities, Detroit being in the minority with only a handful of downtown signage.

d) This isn't even a billboard, it's an electronic sign with scrolling stock quotes, the time, and probably the temperature, which is far from what I'd call an "eyesore."

e) Anything with more lights on it downtown is plus in my opinion. I wish there was a plan to put up a dozen or so more electronic signs like this. Lights from billboards add life to an otherwise dark, drab, and lifeless skyline. See NYC's Times Square for explanation.

Just out of curiosity, where would you like to see future electronic billboards go?