Save The CITGO sign!

Hideous. Obnoxious. Raze it to the ground.
 
I think it would be such a cool opportunity to replace it with something that preserved the historic design (e.g., tubes of light forming an image; pattern of animation) but that no longer advertised the "CITGO" company...

I honestly think we could design something that would appease the sentimental folks by retaining the vibe of the old sign...
Yet exuded a completely different image
 
It's unique and it's part of Boston's history and culture. I'd be sad to see it go.

Maybe this should be a poll?
 
Or why not allow additional / replacement signs? Works in Times Sq.

Citgo is like Esso or Oldsmobile, Brylcreem or Burma Shave or any other brand that's outlived its ability/desire/need to advertise in a prime location.

It's a natural part of city life that old advertisements get replaced with new ones--and get joined by others, if it is in a place that gets a lot of viewer impressions.

Save the place for advertising, but let a new bidder have the space.
 
JumboBuc said:
It's unique and it's part of Boston's history and culture. I'd be sad to see it go.

Maybe this should be a poll?
Click to expand...

Be sure to have (at least) 5 choices:

1) Remove the sign and get back to "just buildings"
2) Allow one other advertiser to place an ad there with similar light & dimensions
3) Keep the sign as it is as historic preservation / landmarking
4) Keep the sign as it is, but allow more ads around it
5) Allow the total size and brightness of ads in Kenmore to grow
 
Move it to Houston, or better yet, Caracas(on Citgo's nickel of course). Boston has enough iconic landmarks that it can live without a billboard for a petroleum firm with a highly questionable human rights track record.
 
It's just a fucking advertisement. Who gives a shit?
 
The other thing to consider is that Related Beal owns the property and will inevitably redevelop it into high end condos or apartments. How many people at the price point they are likely targeting want to live under a tacky flashing neon billboard?
 
kmp1284 said:
The other thing to consider is that Related Beal owns the property and will inevitably redevelop it into high end condos or apartments. How many people at the price point they are likely targeting want to live under a tacky flashing neon billboard?
Click to expand...

Doesn't really seem to stop anyone from buying in Times Square.
 
kmp1284 said:
There's virtually no residential in Times Square.
Click to expand...

There are some (I knew 2 people that have lived [rented] in the square itself), but, Related Beal I believe expressed in interest in a premier location for office space so far. Also, Tokyo/HK/etc command insane prices and have districts with tons of lights.
 
The Citgo sign is much more of a "sign of Boston" than any of the other named examples are signs of their respective cities. NY/HK/Tokyo/etc have lit signs in the general sense. Boston has the Citgo sign. Look through any Boston apparel website and you'll see plenty of Citgo imagery right near the top. That's not the case for any Times Square sign or whatever.

Perhaps some more appropriate comparisons would be the Hollywood sign or the Ghirardelli sign in SF.

kmp1284 said:
The other thing to consider is that Related Beal owns the property and will inevitably redevelop it into high end condos or apartments. How many people at the price point they are likely targeting want to live under a tacky flashing neon billboard?
Click to expand...

If the building below were up for lease, be it office or residential, I bet the Citgo sign would be a selling point, not a negative. "Live (or work) below Boston's iconic Citgo sign!" We put the thing on tee shirts, for Christ's sake! It clearly has more cultural relevance than just "a tacky flashing neon billboard".

Also, why should we (the community at large and the Boston Landmarks Commission) give any thought to "the price point [Related Beal] are likely targeting"? That's their problem, not ours.
 
Last edited:
It's a matter of taste/aesthetic obviously but I find it silly that some people in Boston have this obsession with saving it.
 
JumboBuc said:
The Citgo sign is much more of a "sign of Boston" than any of the other named examples are signs of their respective cities. NY/HK/Tokyo/etc have lit signs in the general sense. Boston has the Citgo sign. Look through any Boston apparel website and you'll see plenty of Citgo imagery right near the top.
Click to expand...

This seems like reason enough to tear it down. Someone needs to make a list of each major city's worst icon.
 
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but I would be sad to see it go. Not only do I like the graphics on the sign, Boston needs stuff to set it apart from other cities. The CITGO sign does that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top