PITTSBURGH | Development Rundown II - Page 87

markson33 · #**1721** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 5:55 PM**

I don't mind the signs. To some extent I see them as an indication of a healthy economy. If there are not signs, its probably because there are no companies to put signs up.

I just wish Highmark would do something with that sign that you can see from PNC Park. Anybody know the story behind that? I was at the game the other day and noticed its still lit up with nothing to say - after 10 years.

Flash · #**1722** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:04 PM**

I've initially disliked most of the rooftop signs, but then I get used to them. IMO, at least it gives the impression of a vibrant, open-for-business attitude to the city in a modern way. As for its effectiveness, I've overheard people on the street now refer to "The Highmark Building" or "The UPMC Building", even though it's still Fifth Avenue Place and the US Steel Building. UPMC staked claim and put up the signage before it was even a major tenant at 600 Grant.

I think one of the direct catalysts for the signage boom has been PNC Park. Pre-2001, pretty much all we had was the big green Mellon sign. Once the Highmark logo went up, the floodgates opened.

If nothing else, it really dates photos. It's almost been hard to keep up with the changes.

PghSH22 · #**1723** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:07 PM**

BrianTH - I found your discussion very interesting, actually. I never thought about sight awareness like that, especially regarding something like viewing a skyline.

As someone who is very aesthetically conscious regarding city development, I actually don't mind the signage too much. In my opinion when it is placed on newer glass/steel skyscrapers I feel that it can actually add to the skyline, espcially at night when illuminated. It, in a way, projects a sort of confidence by displaying the healthy business center/culture that Pittsburgh has, and also gives it a more "modern" feel if done correctly. Of course it can and maybe will (hopefully not) become overly saturated and guady, and would certainly look horrible on older brick/stone skyscapers, but for now I dont mind all of the different colored signage on the tops of the skyline projecting the major employers and investors of our city. I would almost describe it as "vibrant". But this, like most things, is just an opinon....

Private Dick · #**1724** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Well, the light is entering your eyes and triggering receptors. But as your brain processes those raw signals into subjective visual perceptions, it can in fact edit the resulting image such that it is subjectively just like they aren't even there. There have been lots of studies confirming this effect.

Again, understanding this is helpful on a practical, individual level. If you find the "sight" of the logos irritating, and every time you see the skyline you think to yourself, "Look at those damn irritating logos!", you likely will in fact "see" them more, and be irritated more. If you instead just relax and focus on other stuff, you very likely will "see" them less, and be irritated less.

Of course obviously you are free to ignore this advice, say if you actually enjoy being irritated (as is fairly common). Heck, if you want to insist to yourself anything else is impossible, because that gives you a pleasing feeling of irritation as well, be my guest.

I will ignore the advice, but I'll give some in return... you can keep the officious little attitude (as is fairly common), stop being an overwhelming Pittsburgh homer (as is fairly common) and realize that not every move the city and developers make is altogether positive, and quit with the optics BS. We all know what's there and there's a reason city officials have fought against it and the PA Resources Council formed an organization specifically aimed at curbing the proliferation of advertising on the city's skyline. Because they know "ignoring" is not a real option. If you are capable of ignoring the UPMC logo at the top of the city, as if it just simply doesn't exist, then you must be a zen master and we should all be so skilled.

Call me a sucker for architecture rather than advertising. The logos don't "irritate" me. I think they cheapen the the dramatic views and solid, bold architecture of downtown Pittsburgh.

Private Dick · #**1725** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 6:46 PM**

As for the proliferation of advertising on the skyline being an indicator of good economic health and business prowess (as people seem to think)... well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. There are scores of other cities which are in far better shape than Pittsburgh, and that have far fewer logos and lettering adorning their buildings. Instead, it basically says "Our skyline is for sale to the highest bidder"... and as Flash noted, the construction of PNC Park with views directly to the skyline gave the proliferation a jump start. All the fans and TV cameras pointed right towards your ad for 3+ hours... an ad exec's dream. Or to quote the chairman of K&L Gates about their bright white block lettering, "Of course, we appreciate the Pirates putting as many fans in the stands as possible so they can enjoy the sign for two to three hours for 81 games a year. I wish them a lot of extra-inning victories."

To me, a city's skyline is it's public symbol, but again, I guess I'm just a sucker for architecture and aesthetics.

PghSH22 · #**1726** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

As for the proliferation of advertising on the skyline being an indicator of good economic health and business prowess (as people seem to think)... well, let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet. There are scores of other cities which are in far better shape than Pittsburgh, and that have far fewer logos and lettering adorning their buildings. Instead, it basically says "Our skyline is for sale to the highest bidder"... and as Flash noted, the construction of PNC Park with views directly to the skyline gave the proliferation a jump start. All the fans and TV cameras pointed right towards your ad for 3+ hours... an ad exec's dream. Or to quote the chairman of K&L Gates about their bright white block lettering, "Of course, we appreciate the Pirates putting as many fans in the stands as possible so they can enjoy the sign for two to three hours for 81 games a year. I wish them a lot of extra-inning victories."

To me, a city's skyline is it's public symbol, but again, I guess I'm just a sucker for architecture and aesthetics.

Nobody is sucking anyone's anything. Its just a differing opinion than yours. While I can completely see your point, I just happen to slightly disagree with it. Yes there are cities doing economically better than Pittsburgh, and also cities doing way worse. When considering Pittsburgh's size, geographic location and history, it is plausible to say that it is in a strong and growing (finally) phase and I think these coporate logos certainly are a reflection of that, whether you find them aesthetically pleasing or not. I agree that on architecturally unique buildings (like PPG) and old/historic buildings signage and illumination would definitely detract from the image of a skyline. But on boxy, 1970ish style buildings I don't believe all that much is detracted, if not possibly adhanced. 444 Madison in NYC is an example of an old 1930's style stone (i think?) skyscraper that has recently added large Burberry signage that looks completely out of place and tacky given its location in the city and the look of the building (New York does have a moratorium on adding new signage to building tops, this happened to be grandfathered in). So I do think this type of advertising can diminish the aesthetic is certain circumstances, but as of now I dont feel that what is currently displayed in Pittsburgh is quite as tacky and cheap as you see it. I certainly wouldn't want to see downtown Pittsburgh to start to resemble an Asian style neon/advertising jungle, but I hardly think that's the direction its heading for or that anyone would actually allow that to occur.

Flash · #**1727** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

There are scores of other cities which are in far better shape than Pittsburgh, and that have far fewer logos and lettering adorning their buildings. Instead, it basically says "Our skyline is for sale to the highest bidder"

I wouldn't disagree with that. But I do think that in Pittsburgh's case the impression still exists. To an out of towner standing on an overlook on Mt. Washington who has no previous notion of the skyline (as I think many do not), the bright corporate signs convey that something positive business-wise is going on, at least perhaps more than simply all the property owners sold out.

It is clearly showboating, though, and can be overdone and overbearing. I don't feel its on the level of some Chinese cities, however. Can you imagine 150 foot tall UPMC letters oriented vertically down the three sides of US Steel Building?

Jonboy1983 · #**1728** Posted **Sep 7, 2012, 7:59 PM**

Hey, I kinda like that they're doing that type of color scheme with the Gulf Tower. It's similar to what they do with the Empire State Building.

I said it before already. I abhore the letters atop the US Steel Building. I kinda wish US Steel could have sued, or done what Philadelphia did regarding Unisys's plans to put a company logo atop Two Liberty...

ShooFlyPie · #**1729** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 4:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

To me, a city's skyline is it's public symbol, but again, I guess I'm just a sucker for architecture and aesthetics.

Advertising on architecture is American style, Post Reagan. Hell, A Coke Symbol will be the first thing on Mars. Lets just get use to it.

BrianTH · #**1730** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:17 AM**

Ah, isn't that cute: always-irritated poster is irritated by being called irritable.

Anyway, as I pointed out before, since obviously logos aren't going to be stopped entirely, it is a good idea to think about what techniques are commonly used to make visual advertisements like this more intrusive, such that you can at least seek to prevent the more abusive practices.

glowrock · #**1731** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 12:37 PM**

I'm not actually sure what all the hatred is about when it comes to the UPMC logo atop the Steel Tower. It's not that intrusive, and I think it's done pretty tastefully, actually. I agree that I don't want to see every damned tower crowned by advertising, but I don't think the downtown skyline is anywhere near that point, at least not as of yet.

Aaron (Glowrock)

themaguffin · #**1732** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 3:02 PM**

I dislike the UPMC sign a lot. Not because of UPMC or the building's history of US Steel, but because I don't feel the building was designed for a sign on top. It looks out of place. Some might say because for forty years it didn't have one, but it looks out of place.

Same with Highmark. Well I like the Highmark design ok, it's doesn't fit with the building to me. the Freemarket/Gates works better to me.

Private Dick · #**1733** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 4:33 PM**

http://boringpittsburgh.com/poll/steel-building-without-upmc-gallery/2285/

http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/u-s-steel-tower

http://archiseek.com/2009/1988-fifth-avenue-place-pittsburgh-pennsylvania/#.UEtzqo1lScw

http://www.glasssteelandstone.com/BuildingDetail/473.php

Minivan Werner · #**1734** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:00 PM**

Some buildings look ok with corporate signage, some don't. Further, some signs look better than others.

The one I find most objectionable is the L. Reed Smith sign on 3 PNC.

Jonboy1983 · #**1735** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by themaguffin

I dislike the UPMC sign a lot. Not because of UPMC or the building's history of US Steel, but because I don't feel the building was designed for a sign on top. It looks out of place. Some might say because for forty years it didn't have one, but it looks out of place.

Same with Highmark. Well I like the Highmark design ok, it's doesn't fit with the building to me. the Freemarket/Gates works better to me.

I agree with you on the UPMC signage. It looks out of place atop US Steel. I did have a strong opinion against the Highmark signage, but that one is actually growing on me. I especially like the blue hue of the spire at night that went along with the signage. I still call it 5th Avenue Place tho.

Still, if you ask me, corporate signage should be reserved for the lower part of the building. Note the USS logo at the base of US Steel Tower and the PNC one at the base of PNC Plaza. Altho, don't they have their logo atop Two PNC? I know Citizens Bank has theirs on top of -- ugh I can't remember the name of that building. US Steel used to have their hq there before building US Steel Tower from 1967 to 1970. ANyway, those logos I can handle...

I hope we won't see one on top of PPG Place tho!

Private Dick · #**1736** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:17 PM**

Just "ignore" them. You won't see them "unless you make a conscious effort to look at them", and you will only see them "if you are looking for the logos". Remember that light is coming into your eyes and your "brain processes those raw signals into subjective visual perceptions, it can in fact edit the resulting image such that it is subjectively just like they aren't even there" and they'll just magically disappear! And keep in mind that "there have been lots of studies confirming this effect", so if you aren't able to eliminate them, then there is something wrong with you, and you likely just enjoy being irritated.

Let's all see if we can edit this logo out from our field of view... should be easy if you just convince yourself that it's not even there...

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=179371

Private Dick · #**1737** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:20 PM**

Interesting that this is from a blog post in 2007 about what effect UPMC moving its HQ to the US Steel bldg might have on Pittsburgh's skyline. Rather prescient, no? Too bad that it is not that far off at all...

http://darnnews.blogspot.com/2007/04/downtown-pittsburgh-skyline-has-bad.html

Austinlee · #**1738** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:29 PM**

^I'm all for a MOOK tower. lol

Private Dick · #**1739** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 5:35 PM**

^ Yeah, I like that one as well... though in Pittsburgh, it should probably read JAGOFF instead. And maybe get like a Donnie Iris logo for PPG Place, or something like that.

DBR96A · #**1740** Posted **Sep 8, 2012, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

There are scores of other cities which are in far better shape than Pittsburgh...

A score is 20, so scores, as in more than one score, would have to equal at least 40. There sure as shit aren't 40 cities in better shape than Pittsburgh right now. (And no, overgrown suburbs like Arlington, TX don't count.)

Quite honestly, I've literally never heard anybody but some Pittsburghers (and you) complain about the signage on the city's skyline. That must mean one of three things:

1. It's still not visually intrusive to most people.
2. Most people consider the existing signage to be tastefully done.
3. Some Pittsburghers prefer the "Gotham City" look.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Private Dick

^ Yeah, I like that one as well... though in Pittsburgh, it should probably read JAGOFF instead. And maybe get like a Donnie Iris logo for PPG Place, or something like that.

With an attitude like that, you fit in perfectly in Washington DC. By the way, here's the Washington DC development thread.