[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

Two towering signs in Miami on fast track for approval


A plan to erect two skyscraper-tall electronic billboards next to the Arsht Center appears to run afoul of state and federal law but may be approved soon by the city of Miami.

This artist's rendering shows the 22-story electronic ad towers proposed by a developer.
Related Content
Belle Isle Blog: Plan will impact Venetian island residents
Follow the Urbanista blog
(Miami) Heat's on for a home -- to Realtors' delight
Tour-boat operators: Heat players' move would have big impact
BY ANDRES VIGLUCCI

AVIGLUCCI@MIAMIHERALD.COM

The city of Miami is moving at exceptional speed to approve a controversial plan by a developer to erect two skyscraper-size electronic billboards next to the Arsht Center -- even though state and federal laws that sharply limit the size and location of commercial signs appear to prohibit the twin ad towers.
In doing so, the city has taken the unusual step of allowing developer Mark Siffin and his attorneys to write new rules and ordinances specially tailored to permit erection of the towers, which would display flashing ads on giant LED screens rising 250 and 350 feet above a 100-foot parking garage -- for a total height of up to 50 stories.
Those special rules will allow the proposal to go directly to a commission vote this week without the extensive public review normally required of all large development projects in Miami.
The legislation and a detailed development agreement accompanying it -- both supported by Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado and hammered out behind closed doors at City Hall over the past several weeks -- surfaced publicly only late last week, when the city published its agenda for Thursday's commission meeting.
In another unusual move, the city may schedule a second and final vote on the package of measures for a special meeting during August, when the commission typically goes on recess.
The towers -- which are expected to generate tens of millions of dollars in ad fees -- would sit atop a new multistory parking garage that Siffin proposes to build behind the historic Boulevard Shops on Biscayne Boulevard, across Northeast 14th Street from the Arsht's Knight Concert Hall. The lots it would occupy are owned by The McClatchy Co., parent of The Miami Herald.
McClatchy, which has a long-standing, $190 million deal to sell The Herald's parking lots to Siffin, declined to talk about the agreement.
Siffin has said the towers are necessary to finance the garage as well as a long-stalled retail development, City Square, which the commission had approved for adjacent Herald lots. If the towers are authorized, Siffin pledges to complete the retail project, which he says will revive the blighted area surrounding the Arsht.
In an interview, Regalado said the only reason for hurry is to get the measure out of the way before the commission has to tackle the city budget crisis in September.
Siffin's attorney, Jeff Bercow, acknowledged that ``it's not often'' that a private attorney gets to design the public permitting process for a client's project. But he said the proposal is so unusual that it merits special treatment by the city, which had no rules contemplating what Siffin describes as ``media towers.''
`ONE-OF-A-KIND'
``This is a unique, one-of-a-kind project and there are no guidelines'' in the city code, Bercow said. ``We had to work with city staff to create a regulatory framework.''
But the city's accelerated timeline and the lack of public hearings, say some residents critical of the tower idea, mean they won't have a chance to analyze the proposal.
``It's changing the whole nature of the downtown Biscayne corridor,'' said Jack Hartog, president of The Venetian Causeway Neighborhood Alliance. ``If it is 200 times the size of any existing billboard, that glare and that domination of the view is extraordinarily problematic. That something like that is going through on a rushed basis is astounding.''


Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/20/1739637/two-towering-signs-on-fast-track.html#ixzz0uYitSSpj]
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/20/1739637/two-towering-signs-on-fast-track.html

[sobchbud1]

For better or worse this could happen... The city approved it.

Personally I'm torn. On one hand I hate that this kind of crass commercialism is even being considered, but I fear that it is the wave of the future. I think it is an eventuality and will one day be the norm everywhere. Cash strapped cities will always try to explore more sources of revenue. Why not ride the wave? I just pray it's well done. This is coming to your city wherever you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_qIfc-ENYE&feature=player_embedded

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

ive noticed that alot of people on SSP dont enjoy this kind of advertising,may i ask why?

[fflint]

If done right, it *could* be cool.

[Krases]

Its not so much that one is a big deal, its when 50 get built in a small area that I can see it becoming very annoying.

[bobdreamz]

some renderings :

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7472/933951001.jpg

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/City%20Square/PhaseI-TheSquare2.jpg

site plan :

http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n215/restainer/City%20Square/CitiSquare-BirdsEyeView-PhaseI.jpg

^ on the lower left is the Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, Phase 1 will retain the historic Boulevard shops and the Miami Herald parking lots to the right will be developed into retail containing shops & restaurants that will cater to the patrons of the performing arts center as well as residents of nearby highrises that currently don't have these options.

[pj3000]

A massive bayfront parking garage with 50-story high electronic advertisements built atop... real nice, Miami. Good going... way to destroy the skyline that you've built in the past decade.

Can't wait to see ads dominate Miami's nighttime skyline view (which they undoubtedly will in all their mega-watt glory) as I drive on MacArthur Causeway... or just about any of the causeways, for that matter.

Classless crap.

[bobdreamz]

^ is this really any different than say Times Square or those huge LED displays in Tokyo? This is in the media/arts district north of downtown. I agree they are huge for my liking but it still remains to be seen if the state or the Feds will say anything about it. The garage isn't even on the bay either it's several blocks in close to Biscayne boulevard.

[pj3000]

^ is this really any different than say Times Square or those huge LED displays in Tokyo? This is in the media/arts district north of downtown. I agree they are huge for my liking but it still remains to be seen if the state or the Feds will say anything about it.

I figured that reponse would come up at some point, and... yeah, there is a huge, huge difference. In Times Square or Tokyo the displays are mounted on the sides of commercial buildings in the center of vast commercial districts, and dwarfed by surrounding skyscrapers. In no way can any of that be said for this proposal. It is two blocks from the waterfront and sits in an area that is still (and will remain for the near future) dominated by empty lots and 1-2 story bldgs. Due to the waterfront location, you're going to see those monstrosities whether you like it or not.

They will stick out like sore thumbs and completely detract from the skyline... and that is the precise point of outdoor advertising billboards - to stick out and draw your eyes to them. When you're coming into the city from the north on 95, the massive glowing billboards are what you will see. Coming in on 836... giant, electric billboards. Going either way on 395/MacArthur... skyscraper-sized, glowing advertisements. Venetian causeway, Tuttle causeway... that's where your eyes are gonna go.

It just really cheapens things and doesn't win Miami any points in battling its illegitimate, superficial label.

[Busy Bee]

I don't see what the problem is. Outdoor advertising and signage will never be as pervasive as it was in the first quarter of the 20th century - and that goes for pretty much every city in the country.

[urbanlife]

I figured that reponse would come up at some point, and... yeah, there is a huge, huge difference. In Times Square or Tokyo the displays are mounted on the sides of commercial buildings in the center of vast commercial districts, and dwarfed by surrounding skyscrapers. In no way can any of that be said for this proposal. It is two blocks from the waterfront and sits in an area that is still (and will remain for the near future) dominated by empty lots and 1-2 story bldgs. Due to the waterfront location, you're going to see those monstrosities whether you like it or not.

They will stick out like sore thumbs and completely detract from the skyline... and that is the precise point of outdoor advertising billboards - to stick out and draw your eyes to them. When you're coming into the city from the north on 95, the massive glowing billboards are what you will see. Coming in on 836... giant, electric billboards. Going either way on 395/MacArthur... skyscraper-sized, glowing advertisements. Venetian causeway, Tuttle causeway... that's where your eyes are gonna go.

It just really cheapens things and doesn't win Miami any points in battling its illegitimate, superficial label.


I personally think they look kind of stupid, but other than that I don't really care. I did want to comment on the first paragraph in this statement, I would have to disagree about the differences. Sure this area is no where near as dense as someplace like Time Square, but when inside Time Square most people notice the annoying billboards everywhere much more so than any of the towers they are attached too. The reason why places like Time Square gets a pass is because it is unique to this country because just about every other city in this country outlawed districts like this in one form or another.

[SpongeG]

how does it detract from the skyline when its part of the skyline?

[pj3000]

I don't see what the problem is. Outdoor advertising and signage will never be as pervasive as it was in the first quarter of the 20th century - and that goes for pretty much every city in the country.

You're right, but in the first quarter of the 20th century, there was no such thing as 50-story electronic led billboards.

I personally think they look kind of stupid, but other than that I don't really care. I did want to comment on the first paragraph in this statement, I would have to disagree about the differences. Sure this area is no where near as dense as someplace like Time Square, but when inside Time Square most people notice the annoying billboards everywhere much more so than any of the towers they are attached too. The reason why places like Time Square gets a pass is because it is unique to this country because just about every other city in this country outlawed districts like this in one form or another.

Sure, when you are right in Times Square of course the huge glowing billboards are what most people notice... but that is completely irrelevant. They are invisible on the Manhattan skyline. Obviously, that doesn't apply in this Miami case, where they will be prominent, if not dominant, features of the skyline.

[pj3000]

how does it detract from the skyline when its part of the skyline?

??

Well, hopefully they won't become an unfortunate part of the skyline.

So with your line of reasoning... if they erected twin 50-story electric billboards with gigantic, flashing Tim Horton's donuts ads atop Vancouver's waterfront Convention Center, they wouldn't detract from the beautiful vistas of Vancouver, simply because they were now part of the skyline?

Picture them here atop that nice green roof... they'd look great and not detract from Vancouver's skyline at all, because they are part of the skyline, right?
http://www.vancouverconventioncentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/vcc_aerial_0062_2_4c150.jpg

[Busy Bee]

You're right, but in the first quarter of the 20th century, there was no such thing as 50-story electronic led billboards.

No doubt there would have been if technology allowed it.

[pj3000]

No doubt there would have been if technology allowed it.

Ever heard the term, "non sequitur"?

Yeah, so what? There's a helluva lot of things that "would have been if technology allowed it"...

Hell, I'd harvest my farts and power my car if today's technology allowed it.

[mthq]

Why is the city council such in a rush to approve this before the state and the fed gets a look at it? Sounds fishy.

Anyways I think these towers can go either way when it comes to aesthetics. When looking at the YouTube video posted above, the iPod commercial with its quick flashiness gives the skyline energy and a futuristic Blade Runner/Hong Kong look. But when it features the graphics of a local news amber alert, the building looks so fucking awful and embarrassing.

Ideally, I would like for this to have never been thought up; but since this is life, I think compromise can be made on what is the inevitable.

[pj3000]

^ It is fishy. Local Miami politics at its finest once again. The developer agrees to give $8 million over the next 10 years towards the construction of the long-planned Museum Park. Buying votes anyone? How much you wanna bet that $8 million is used for "consulting fees"?

[mhays]

Not classy.

Personally I find ads annoying anytime I notice them. If they get in my face as these would, they severely piss me off.

[hammersklavier]

The reason why places like Time Square gets a pass is because it is unique to this country because just about every other city in this country outlawed districts like this in one form or another.
Doesn't Tokyo have them too? Like in Shibuya and Shinjuku?

[ue]

They're also in Toronto.

[sobchbud1]

The Miami city commission voted 5-0 for approval of this project. It must have been some compelling presentation or the profits are too lucrative to pass up. However, I must admit the parking garage is needed for the Performing Arts Center and the retail component looks promising.

In any case it's a helluva lot more interesting than these:

http://www.jwallacellc.com/photos/building-wraps/pic04.jpg

http://www.givemeasec.com/portfolio/costco03.jpg

[pj3000]

^ Yeah, they are more interesting than those. But those huge ads are still invisible on the skyline... you don't see any of the enormous Times Square ads no matter what angle you view the Manhattan skyline from... you only see them when you are on the ground. Miami's will be front and center and you will see them from miles away as prominent parts of the skyline. That's what I don't like.

[urbanlife]

Sure, when you are right in Times Square of course the huge glowing billboards are what most people notice... but that is completely irrelevant. They are invisible on the Manhattan skyline. Obviously, that doesn't apply in this Miami case, where they will be prominent, if not dominant, features of the skyline.

Yes and no, in the night skyline, depending on where you are looking from, you can notice the neon glow of the area. And when you fly over the area at night, Time Square sticks out like a glowing pimple on the island. But it is all relative really.

Obviously I am not familiar with the area these billboards are going, but in a day and age where commercialism is so pushed upon us, I am not surprised at seeing projects like this.

[pj3000]

Yes and no, in the night skyline, depending on where you are looking from, you can notice the neon glow of the area. And when you fly over the area at night, Time Square sticks out like a glowing pimple on the island. But it is all relative really.

Obviously I am not familiar with the area these billboards are going, but in a day and age where commercialism is so pushed upon us, I am not surprised at seeing projects like this.

Come on, stop nitpicking... Times Square's massive glowing ads are not visible on the Manhattan skyline. A "neon glow" and views from an airplane have nothing to do with the issue. I have no problem with the neon glow of Times Square and certainly take no issue with views from an airplane at night. Again, there is no comparison with Times Square.

A more valid comparison would be a proposal to construct twin 50-story electronic billboards on top of the Javits or Chelsea Piers on the far west side of Manhattan, which would completely alter, and in most people's minds destroy, the skyline view of Manhattan. You can bet there would be mass protest to something like that.

I'm not surprised at seeing this type of commercial advertising development either, but that doesn't mean we should be accepting of it, just because that's what advertisers and land developers want to do to make $.

[dave8721]

I really dont think it will detract from the skyline mostly because of the location. This is several blocks north of the end of the main extent of the skyline. It could distract away from the skyline (people look at the led's to their left rather than look at the skyline to the right) but not really detract from it since the location where these are going is not part of the skyline. For those not as familiar with the location its north of the I-395/MacAuthur Causeway that connects Miami and Miami Beach. If you've ever driven on this road from South Beach back to Miami, you notice the skyline is to the South of the road, these billboards will be to the north.

[JDRCRASH]

Okay, if this happens, then there's NO excuse why we (LA) can't have them limited to 2 areas, Hollywood and LA Live, and ban them everywhere else. But for some reason, the billboard companies abuse those restrictions out here and file lawsuits, while in New York, they don't.

The reason why places like Time Square gets a pass is because it is unique to this country because just about every other city in this country outlawed districts like this in one form or another.

So there can only be one district like Times Square in the ENTIRE country? That's truly ridiculous.

[pj3000]

dave8721: We'll have to wait and see. But I don't think you're getting it. The electronic billboards will detract from the Miami skyline BECAUSE of the location. They will become part of the skyline. If they were within the mix of buildings downtown, then they wouldn't be a problem because they would not be waterfront and the other buildings around them are taller. The gap in the skyline where these are planned to go is the precise reason for the location... because the huge ads will be all you will see in that unobstructed waterfront space. And when driving back on MacArthur the skyline is right in front of you for most of the way... you'll be heading straight for these billboards... the downtown isn't to the south until you are practically downtown.

[JDRCRASH]

^ So your saying that if you can view the skyline from a distance without seeing the billboards, then it's okay?

[pj3000]

^ That question more than oversimplifies it. And no, that's not what I'm saying.

If you take no issue with gigantic skyscraper-sized billboards becoming dominant features of the views in our cities, then fine. But I do. It's as simple as that.

[sobchbud1]

I really dont think it will detract from the skyline mostly because of the location. This is several blocks north of the end of the main extent of the skyline. It could distract away from the skyline (people look at the led's to their left rather than look at the skyline to the right) but not really detract from it since the location where these are going is not part of the skyline. For those not as familiar with the location its north of the I-395/MacAuthur Causeway that connects Miami and Miami Beach. If you've ever driven on this road from South Beach back to Miami, you notice the skyline is to the South of the road, these billboards will be to the north.

I took this this drive coming back to the mainland from Miami Beach last night, and although I'm not a fan of the towers, I would have to agree with dave8721 that it wouldn't really detract from the main downtown skyline. The Performing Arts Center/Edgewater skyline really does stand apart from the CBD and forms its own skyline. If anything, I am actually reassured that it would be a good site for this project if it were to happen. The Arts Center with its dramatic lighting scheme would capture its own attention and The other buildings in the area are mostly much taller (500'-600') than the proposed towers. They would be prominent enough though to serve their advertising purpose, but imho I don't get the feeling that they would overwhelm the area. What I really hated was that heinous Miami Herald/El Herald sign! Anything...I mean anything that detracts my attention from it would be an improvement!

[bobdreamz]

^ lol sobchbud1 I think the Miami Herald building is hated by all and is probably more offensive than these billboards!

[pj3000]

Yes, the Herald building is a waterfront abomination.

We'll have to see about these billboards... I think they'll be an eyesore. I'm not sure what 500-600' buildings in the area sobchbud1 is talking about because these billboards are proposed to go in that large gap of empty lots between 395/Macarthur and the Omni area... there are no buildings there and 50-story billboards will overwhelm the area.

Their prime location in the center of the photo:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/3276054320_f1d6112ae3_b.jpg

Filling that gap to the right of the Marquis (dark tower):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3039/2751457224_e6263dee6a_b.jpg

Again, picture beautiful billboards in the gap:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2328/2711259522_3798926872_b.jpg

photos by NewAtlantisMiami on this forum

[bobdreamz]

^ I actually wouldn't have minded the original plan which was for a 70 story highrise but I guess the recession killed that idea. We will just have to see if the state or the Feds oppose this plan but we don't even know how wide these towers will be also.

[pesto]

Personally:

Interesting, exciting, colorful digital signs are good within an approporiate entertainment district. However, they have to be subject to pre-approval so that you don't end up with static Target ads featuring family underwear.

Any other billboards are eye pollution, sell-outs to commercialism and result in a degradation of the city's appearance.

The problem is, the courts have trouble allowing some signs and banning others due to First Amendment issues (at least in California, where the 9th circuit has long been goofy about constitutional issues). This will get worked out eventually, but it may take a while because the advertising industry has deep pockets.

[urbanlife]

Come on, stop nitpicking... Times Square's massive glowing ads are not visible on the Manhattan skyline. A "neon glow" and views from an airplane have nothing to do with the issue. I have no problem with the neon glow of Times Square and certainly take no issue with views from an airplane at night. Again, there is no comparison with Times Square.

A more valid comparison would be a proposal to construct twin 50-story electronic billboards on top of the Javits or Chelsea Piers on the far west side of Manhattan, which would completely alter, and in most people's minds destroy, the skyline view of Manhattan. You can bet there would be mass protest to something like that.

I'm not surprised at seeing this type of commercial advertising development either, but that doesn't mean we should be accepting of it, just because that's what advertisers and land developers want to do to make $.

I am not nitpicking, I am just pointing out that things like this has been done many times over. Every time a building installs a logo onto the side a building is advertising. Everything there is a giant name on a sign it is advertising. One of the best icons in Portland is the "Made in Oregon" sign which is an advertisement for the store.

I am not saying this shouldnt bother you, I am just saying it doesnt bother me.


Okay, if this happens, then there's NO excuse why we (LA) can't have them limited to 2 areas, Hollywood and LA Live, and ban them everywhere else. But for some reason, the billboard companies abuse those restrictions out here and file lawsuits, while in New York, they don't.



So there can only be one district like Times Square in the ENTIRE country? That's truly ridiculous.

I agree with you that there should be an over glorified district or street in several cities in this country. I wish Portland would of preserved its Broadway area which was once lined with theaters and lights and just had an amazing glow to itself, but that is something that has gone into just the city's history.

[sobchbud1]

I'm not sure what 500-600' buildings in the area sobchbud1 is talking about

Their prime location in the center of the photo:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3515/3276054320_f1d6112ae3_b.jpg


I'm talking about the building to the north and south of the "gap" as in the photo you posted. The buildings are significantly taller than the 250 and 350 foot media towers proposed. The four buildings just to the south of I-395 are especially dramatic with their proximity from the expressway and their impact is really in your face as you drive past. The other buildings to the north of the Omni, while a little farther still hold their own. The Arts Center with its unique architecture and lighting would still be prominent from a visual standpoint. Although I hate that they will essentially be billboards, I don't think they will be as overwhelming as you believe.

[pj3000]

I hope they won't be either. Remember that the 250 and 350 foot media towers will be constructed atop a 100 foot parking structure. The above photo doesn't really display how wide the gap is between the Marquis and Omni, though. Many other photos on this forum, including the last one in my above post, do however.

I'd really like to see (as I'm sure we all would) the Herald Bldg gone from the bayfront and significant towers developed on the site and lots to its immediate west. Then these proposed billboards would not be the glaring, waterfront towers of crass commercialism I fear the may end up being. I just don't want to see the Miami skyline marred by these things.

[urbanlife]

I hope they won't be either. Remember that the 250 and 350 foot media towers will be constructed atop a 100 foot parking structure. The above photo doesn't really display how wide the gap is between the Marquis and Omni, though. Many other photos on this forum, including the last one in my above post, do however.

I'd really like to see (as I'm sure we all would) the Herald Bldg gone from the bayfront and significant towers developed on the site and lots to its immediate west. Then these proposed billboards would not be the glaring, waterfront towers of crass commercialism I fear the may end up being. I just don't want to see the Miami skyline marred by these things.

Just out of curiosity, do you visit Miami alot or spend a significant amount of time there? You talk like this will ruin your experience with Miami, but your profile says you are in Pittsburgh, so I was confused alittle about your anger towards this project.

Personally I am one of those "skyline isnt that important" people. When I visit a city or live in a city, I live in it and not at a distance where I can just admire the skyline. A skyline is just a postcard shot and being apart of a city is much more than that. But that is how I feel and live within cities.

[pj3000]

I am not nitpicking, I am just pointing out that things like this has been done many times over. Every time a building installs a logo onto the side a building is advertising. Everything there is a giant name on a sign it is advertising. One of the best icons in Portland is the "Made in Oregon" sign which is an advertisement for the store.


Really? Twin electronic media towers as tall as a 40-50 story building on prime waterfront property? Where?

[pj3000]

Just out of curiosity, do you visit Miami alot or spend a significant amount of time there? You talk like this will ruin your experience with Miami, but your profile says you are in Pittsburgh, so I was confused alittle about your anger towards this project.

Personally I am one of those "skyline isnt that important" people. When I visit a city or live in a city, I live in it and not at a distance where I can just admire the skyline. A skyline is just a postcard shot and being apart of a city is much more than that. But that is how I feel and live within cities.

I own a house near Brickell in downtown Miami and spend a good deal of time there. So, I have somewhat more than a passing interest. I'm not angry about this proposal... I just highly dislike waterfront property used for this purpose. And, I am a "skyline is important" person. I appreciate aesthetics and the sense of place a skyline lends to a location. As someone who frequently travels between Miami Beach and mainland Miami, these things are just something I don't want to see everyday, but will be forced to given their prominent location.

[urbanlife]

Really? Twin electronic media towers as tall as a 40-50 story building on prime waterfront property? Where?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/4097195195_ca72b71b19_z.jpg
photo by me

The Verizon Building comes to mind. Nothing like seeing this ugly building as gigantic logo while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. Though I don't have any good shots of the building other than this one because there is really no reason to photograph it.


And by no means dont think I was questioning your interest in Miami, you just sounded like someone who had more interest invested in this idea that a typical person from Pittsburgh. Personally I live on the completely other side of the country and have zero desire to ever see Miami again, so for all I care they could turn the entire city into a giant billboard. But then again, I dont see how a skyline can enhance the experience within a city. You cant see the Manhattan skyline when you are in Midtown, but you get a better feeling of what Midtown is like when you are inside it. If all a city has going for it is how its skyline looks, then it isnt much of a city.

[pj3000]

^ yeah, the Verizon bldg. in Manhattan is ugly with its plain face and huge logo, but I don't agree that it represents the same thing we're talking about here. There are lots of ugly, brutalist buildings and lots of garish logos in our cities/skylines... but electric billboards around the same scale as that entire Verizon bldg just don't exist as prominent skyline features... yet. With those, Miami will get to see a flashing Verizon logo the same size as that entire Verizon building... but at least we'll probably get to see AT&T, Sprint, and TMobile ads too! Can't wait!

Oh well, if there are 500 ft tall Victoria's Secret models on the ads I guess it won't be so bad.

And I agree that a city's skyline certainly isn't everything... and in fact is far less important to me than other qualities a city possesses. I guess I just have an aversion to over-commercialization.

[sobchbud1]

For more information go to the project's website. There are some interesting things there, including lighting studies and comparisons along with photos etc.:

http://miamicitysquare.com

Just like those huge building banners that seemingly sprouted overnight in so many cities, this type of advertising is bound to become as commonplace.

The technology using media mesh is relatively inexpensive and energy efficient. Constructing tall metal frameworks atop buildings/garages or draping this mesh over existing buildings seems inevitable. They have to be extremely lucrative. The developer is jumping at the chance to build them, even considering the annual costs of $2.8 mil permitting fees with an additional .8 mil for Museum Park yearly.

I can easily imagine the owners of older nondescript skyscrapers clamoring to retrofit them with this mesh to increase revenue and visibility for them. Cities trying to balance budgets won't be able to resist the lure of easy money in permit fees.

My biggest concern is content. I can live with snappy Nike, Apple, or car ads. I would appreciate the hurricane/weather information or public service ads. I definitely draw the line at ads shilling for Wal Mart, Trojan, or Kotex, etc. If I ever saw them I swear I'd rip out my steering wheel.:hell:

Media Mesh - from www.miamicitysquare.com
http://miamicitysquare.com/images/stories/avanti/pages/mediatech/media-mesh.jpg

[brickell]

Oh well, if there are 500 ft tall Victoria's Secret models on the ads I guess it won't be so bad.



I was just about to say the same thing. This being Miami there's a better than average change of that happening.


Otherwise I'm with you for the most part. It's interesting, in that it's something new. I might like to see it in someone else's city, but I'm not that excited about it being in mine.

[SkyscrapersOfNewYork]

[QUOTE=urbanlife;4925669]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/4097195195_ca72b71b19_z.jpg
photo by me

The Verizon Building comes to mind. Nothing like seeing this ugly building as gigantic logo while crossing the Brooklyn Bridge. Though I don't have any good shots of the building other than this one because there is really no reason to photograph it.


though the Verizon building isnt an equal to Miami's electronic billboard,scale is way off. maybe you could make this argument if its entire face was painted to say Verizon though otherwise its not a valid argument.

[mthq]

^I was going to say the same thing. There are many buildings like the Verizon one with corporate logos across the country. What's being proposed here however is a totally different thing. Imagine the entire body of the Met-Life building in Midtown drapped in ad space rather than have the Met-Life logo on the top. The closest comparison to ads that take up a whole facade would be those images posted toward the end of the first page.



http://www.jwallacellc.com/photos/building-wraps/pic04.jpg

http://www.givemeasec.com/portfolio/costco03.jpg

[Shawn]

For those who have been asking: no, Tokyo doesn't have anything like what's being proposed here in Miami. There are many large LED screens on the sides of buildings, but none larger than a few stories tall.

[urbanlife]

^I was going to say the same thing. There are many buildings like the Verizon one with corporate logos across the country. What's being proposed here however is a totally different thing. Imagine the entire body of the Met-Life building in Midtown drapped in ad space rather than have the Met-Life logo on the top. The closest comparison to ads that take up a whole facade would be those images posted toward the end of the first page.

I never said it was directly the same thing, I just said it was the same idea. You are saying that because so many buildings have logos on them that it is a different thing, but what if no buildings had logos and the Verizon building was to be the first one to do it? I am guessing the anger towards it would be much like this. What if almost every city had a billboard tower, would you still be angry about it or just figure every other city has one?

I am just pointing this out because all of this is related, just because technology changes and our toys become seeker doesn't mean the basics to advertising has changed. Thesis just becoming the new manifestation of trying to get peoples' attention, much like those logos on the sides of buildings. You should ask yourself, why is it important for us to know where the Verizon building is?

[pj3000]

Thanks for the link, sobchbud1.

Just not diggin' them too much... though there are some fine computer generated ladies in these renderings...

[urbanlife]

I should probably also say that while I feel like this still falls in line with the movements of advertising, I will say that it looks extremely tacky and looks like it belongs in Vegas or attached to some new mega mall or something. You would think the giant billboard tower would go up after they constructed the entertainment district.

Anyway, it doesnt surprise me to see things like this, but I do think it does look horrible. I did want to clarify that some, I didnt want anyone to think I actually liked these kinds of developments. But then again, I tend to ignore most advertisements around me, I just noticed there was a snickers and at&t ad above the quick reply section just now that I have never noticed there being ads there before.

[JDRCRASH]

I wish Portland would of preserved its Broadway area which was once lined with theaters and lights and just had an amazing glow to itself, but that is something that has gone into just the city's history.

How many theaters are left?

What's very intersting is that most major cities in America at one time all had theater districts. Sadly, most didn't survive, and those that did are so little of what they once were.

We were truly fortunate that much of DTLA's theaters were left intact. The fact that it's the first and largest historic theater district listed in the NRHP makes it worth saving.

[urbanlife]

How many theaters are left?

What's very intersting is that most major cities in America at one time all had theater districts. Sadly, most didn't survive, and those that did are so little of what they once were.

We were truly fortunate that much of DTLA's theaters were left intact. The fact that it's the first and largest historic theater district listed in the NRHP makes it worth saving.

Technically we have only one of them still left which is used as one of our performance halls. Though we sort of have four theater like places, one is another performance hall next to the surviving theater, but the other two are towers that once was home to grand theaters but are now just theaters in office buildings. And one of them no longer faces Broadway anymore.

http://www.pstos.org/instruments/or/portland/broadway_streetscene-1946-l.jpg
circa 1946, photos on the PSTOS site, no name credit.

The building that has the Paramount sign is the only surviving theater, now reads Portland. Beyond this image would of been a few more theater buildings that are now gone as well. One of them was this amazing elaborate building, the bank building that replaced it is still a beautiful tower, just a shame the theater had to come down for it.



Sorry to get alittle off topic with this post, but to bring it back to the subject topic, is this area that they are wanting to put these billboard towers becoming the heart of Miami's entertainment or something? Again, I know very little about Miami, so I don't really know much about the area these things are going in.

[J. Will]

The only concern for me would be these signs distracting people from the freeway. A few years ago a movie theatre that borders a highway here in Toronto wanted to put two big screens facing the highway running ads and whatnot. There was this same concern, and it never happened.

[urbanlife]

The only concern for me would be these signs distracting people from the freeway. A few years ago a movie theatre that borders a highway here in Toronto wanted to put two big screens facing the highway running ads and whatnot. There was this same concern, and it never happened.

There is a glowing digital sign outside of Seattle on I-5 that you can see for miles coming up to it, I am surprised it was ever allowed to go in because it is a seriously dangerous thing to have near the freeway at night.

[pj3000]

Sorry to get alittle off topic with this post, but to bring it back to the subject topic, is this area that they are wanting to put these billboard towers becoming the heart of Miami's entertainment or something? Again, I know very little about Miami, so I don't really know much about the area these things are going in.


The location is where the performing arts center (theater, opera house, and concert hall) is. These are relatively new, major developments (considered to be the 3rd largest performing arts center in the US... not quite sure how that measurement is made) and anchor what is supposedly a developing arts district. However, the area primarily consists of empty surface lots that are planned for development... but it's moving pretty slow right now.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Adrienne_Arsht_Center_for_Performing_Arts_20100203.jpg

source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Adrienne_Arsht_Center_for_Performing_Arts_20100203.jpg

[sobchbud1]

Sorry to get alittle off topic with this post, but to bring it back to the subject topic, is this area that they are wanting to put these billboard towers becoming the heart of Miami's entertainment or something? Again, I know very little about Miami, so I don't really know much about the area these things are going in.

These are pictures found on the Miami City Square website - www.miamicitysquare.com

the blue star marks the project site

http://www.miamicitysquare.com/images/stories/avanti/pages/map.jpg

the media towers will go on the Parking Garage (smaller yellow area) The large terraced buildings are the Adrienne Arsht Center which consists of the Symphony Concert Hall, Opera House, and smaller Box Theater. I twas built a few years ago. The Metromover runs around the project and has a station at the bottom of the picture. The Miami Herald Building is on the left/east side fronting the Bay. There are production studios and galleries in the neighborhood to the right/west of the area pictured.

http://www.miamicitysquare.com/images/stories/avanti/pages/aerials/aerial5.jpg

project site plan - the media towers are the pie shaped grids.

http://www.miamicitysquare.com/images/stories/avanti/pages/sitefacts/siteplan.jpg

The view from the East on Biscayne Boulevard

http://www.miamicitysquare.com/images/stories/avanti/pages/sitefacts/garageview.jpg

You can view more renderings for this project at the site's image gallery. You'll get a better idea of how the existing lighting will relate to it.

http://www.miamicitysquare.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=57&Itemid=31

[UrbanImpact]

This is the perfect spot. If built, it would be neat driving west to Miami from South Beach.

[dave8721]

The towers got final approval from the City today:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1752270/city-approves-skyscraper-size.html

Miami approves skyscraper size towers in downtown

Miami commissioners Thursday approved a controversial plan to allow a developer to erect two skyscraper-size electronic billboards on top of new parking garages next to the Arsht Center.

Commissioner Mark Sarnoff argued the billboards will help jump start development between downtown and the Omni, and money the developer agreed to pay the city will help fund Museum Park downtown.

"I think you have extracted as much blood as you are going to get'' out of the developer, Sarnoff said before the commission's 4-1 vote.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/29/1752270/city-approves-skyscraper-size.html

[pj3000]

This was a foregone conclusion. Hopefully, the lots across the street will be developed soon to at least partially block the views of these behemoth ads from the bay.

[bobdreamz]

grabbed this quote from the Miami Herald's reader's comment section:

My friend, a New Yorker, who heads one the top department store chains in the country, called me this morning to congratulate me on living in a city that's finally "enterered the twenty first century". Kudos, Mr. Sarnoff and the others for getting this one so right and creating some real buzz for our City.

Anyways I'm glad that some of the ad money being generated by these towers will go to fund the Museum Park and help get City Square up and going.

[pj3000]

If having 50-story tall, stand-alone electronic billboards is entering the 21st century... well then I guess just about every city hasn't entered it yet... the home of the comment writer hasn't, because NYC certainly doesn't have these, nor would the Manhattan planning commission ever allow something like what is being proposed in Miami.

About the ad revenue generated... we'll see about it going to actually fund Museum Park... seems like that money is already spoken for...

[JDRCRASH]

I think the Aurora building in Shanghai has a massive billboard.

[mthq]

grabbed this quote from the Miami Herald's reader's comment section:

My friend, a New Yorker, who heads one the top department store chains in the country, called me this morning to congratulate me on living in a city that's finally "enterered the twenty first century". Kudos, Mr. Sarnoff and the others for getting this one so right and creating some real buzz for our City.

Anyways I'm glad that some of the ad money being generated by these towers will go to fund the Museum Park and help get City Square up and going.


I guess the department store that that New Yorker heads has a lot to benefit from now that they were approved.. no wonder he's happy.