Signage Debate Snags a New Victim: Window Coverings on Empty Storefronts

Bill Cooper's comment gets at the heart of the issue -- selective enforcement. Code enforcement which should be at the heart of Broadway revitalization efforts has been missing in action for decades. What gives? Laws should be enforced consistently across the city.

I recall a while back Starbucks was slapped down for having street furniture. Broadway has been anything goes for decades. Why? I'd like to hear from Huizar's office on this point. I'd also like to know why something which has been on display for years is now discovered to be out of compliance?

Lastly, any law which is so ambiguous in its application that it needs the involvement of the local council member is a bad law. What happens to the poor schmuck who can't get the attention of his council member? The law is obviously poorly written or too complex. It also strikes me as failing common sense. Good heavens, if the code enforcement team can't apply common sense, the law is junk and ought to be junked.

^^ I agree with all of David's points.

Any update son when the Burger Bar will be open so the graphic will be a moot point?

The anti-billboard activists are entering Downtown territory. They should tread cautiously when making accusations like this.

My take on this is that after the supergraphics come down and the empty storefronts are exposed, they will likely rent. Covered over like they currently are, prospective tenants might assume they are not available.

Also, the city does not enforce this stuff on their own. They respond to complaints. Somebody must have called them up about this.

Bert Green is right. Unless the violation is particularly blatant, like the illegal billboards that went up before Christmas on the north side of the 110 freeway, the building department responds on a complaint basis. But David Kennedy's idea that common sense should rule on citing signage put up without permits like that on the building in question misses the point. Sign company attorneys are watching the city's every move when it comes to sign code enforcement (which is separate from general code enforcement, by the way)and using every example of non-enforcement in lawsuits against the city. For all I know, the complaint could have been made by one of those attorneys or someone working for a sign company that would like nothing better than to put up supergraphics wherever they want without any regulation at all. And telling the city to use common sense and leave the harmless examples of signage alone unfortunately plays into that kind of strategy.

I strongly disagree with the notion that prospective tenants have not rented these spaces because they are confused by the window coverings. Anyone with enough money to rent those spaces would know better.

But, more importantly, I am outraged that the city would waste any time and (my tax-payer) money on this. They should work on getting people to stop pissing in the streets and leave images in privately owned spaces alone. Advertising or art, these signs add beauty to that corner.

If only a yarn store would move in that looks like the one depicted...

Dennis, while I admire your dedication to removing blight from residential areas, I don't think it's appropriate in emerging nightlife areas like Downtown. What the city should do is create around 4 signage "superdistricts", like South Park, Hollywood, Koreatown, and maybe even Broadway, while strictly prohibiting any billboards anywhere else...no excuses.

Traci, provide me with a good reason why these storefronts have been empty for so many years while other buildings have managed to rent theirs and I will change my opinion. But I spent much of late 2003 and early 2004 searching for space downtown and the easiest way to spot vacancies is to see an empty space.

I think the city needs to worry about the crappy signage that open stores on Broadway stick up wherever they see fit.

And here's something a bit related, but mostly off topic...

Does anyone know anything about the green newsstands at every corner (many times four to an intersection)??--Who manages those? Does anyone else think they should have a different set up for when it rains besides tying blue tarps from the newsstand to any nearby awning?

Bert one reason - all the tenants/business owners weren't good enough for EC and their HOA's.

They have been incredible picky with who they want in there, and its now coming back to haunt them.

Hey, im the first to admit it, I want to have babies with that building. But sometimes having a basic store below is better than a empty storefront.

Traci - I agree man! Can I tell you how many times I've seen people urinating and the purple shirt bicycle guards do nothing??? Yet, if I were to jaywalk, i'd be given a ticket fast.

Bert: There are many reasons that those spaces, and others up and down Broadway, have not been leased. I just cannot be persuaded to believe that an enormous sign saying "retail space available now" is one of the reasons. The Eastern Columbia's strict standards, as suggested by Ankur, and high rents seem more likely causes of the continued vacancies. Bert, I do not mean to offend you or discount your personal experiences. I agree it is easy to spot a vacancy when all you see is emptiness. But I imagine any business who can afford a space in the Eastern Columbia would be using the services of a commercial real estate agent and would have a tear sheet in front of them if the space fit their requirements. I think this signage exists more to sell their apartments than their retail spaces.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to note that I am a graphic designer who works on signage projects, so my bias is clear.