Boston Building Signage

[JumboBuc]

Globe: Office tower signs draw scrutiny from city officials

The Boston Redevelopment Authority is working on a new sign policy, one that would formalize by early next year the agency’s often-informal approach

[...]

Typically, the agency allows an office sign only for a big employer’s new corporate headquarters or major regional operation. City officials negotiate the size and placement. In general, city officials say they are also open to signs atop of hotels, beacons that can help tourists find their destinations.

BRA officials say the written policy won’t differ much, if at all, from what has been general practice for the agency. “It should be written down,” Carlson said. “We should be able to distribute that and give it out to people so they understand where we are coming from.”

Agency spokesman Nick Martin said the upcoming policy still won’t be the final word. The new rules will be treated more like guidelines, the starting point for negotiations in many cases.

I know we've discussed building signage before as it relates to specific developments, but couldn't find any discussion about signage in general.

This BRA approach seems sensible to me. Thoughts?

 

[ErnieAdams]

I do think a signage discussion would be interesting. This BRA approach is indeed sensible -- brand your headquarters but not each and every one of your ATMs from 500 feet high, sure, works for me -- so maybe that's why it in particular isn't rousing much discussion.

And the Globe piece mentions it, but not even the most informal handshaking-and-backscratching set of procedures imaginable would have allowed us to have a Citgo sign as currently constituted. I've always wondered whether the sign is a major reason Citgo hasn't changed its logo or been merged out of existence in the last 50 years. What would the process for changing that sign even look like? It doesn't have any landmarks protection that I'm aware of, but how soon would we hear the phrase "will not be grandfathered" tossed around by City Hall, and how fast would Sawx Nation flock to some dopey online petition if they ever do try to change the thing?

 

[dwash59]

I do think a signage discussion would be interesting. This BRA approach is indeed sensible -- brand your headquarters but not each and every one of your ATMs from 500 feet high, sure, works for me -- so maybe that's why it in particular isn't rousing much discussion.

And the Globe piece mentions it, but not even the most informal handshaking-and-backscratching set of procedures imaginable would have allowed us to have a Citgo sign as currently constituted. I've always wondered whether the sign is a major reason Citgo hasn't changed its logo or been merged out of existence in the last 50 years. What would the process for changing that sign even look like? It doesn't have any landmarks protection that I'm aware of, but how soon would we hear the phrase "will not be grandfathered" tossed around by City Hall, and how fast would Sawx Nation flock to some dopey online petition if they ever do try to change the thing?

IN St. Louis, the world's largest Amoco sign has survived the rebranding to BP so far.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/woolbright/3335655117

 

[DZH22]

Harbourvest sign, same font as the prior State Street sign. I liked the old sign better, but this is close enough and the building would feel incomplete without it.

IMG_0844 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_0845 by David Z, on Flickr

IMG_0847 by David Z, on Flickr

 

[Arenacale]

I had to look it up, and that is legitimately their logo. Unlike State Street, they seem to understand how to brand an investment firm.