Not currently logged in. [Login or Create an Account]

Stay Connected

Hotel Figueroa and CBS Outdoor Targets of Supergraphics Suit

By Eric Richardson
Published: Thursday, February 03, 2011, at 11:10PM

Eric Richardson [Flickr]

Over a year's worth of ads are displayed in bits and scraps on the side of the Hotel Figueroa in January of 2010. The Kung Fu Panda ad, the last to be painted on the side of the hotel, was removed on December 2, 2008.

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES — Talk about sticker shock: CBS Outdoor and the Hotel Figueroa could be liable for over a million dollars in penalties if the City Attorney's office is successful in a lawsuit filed earlier this week over supergraphics the advertising firm had installed at four locations in Downtown and Hollywood.

Ban Billboard Blight was first to report on the suit, which seeks $2,500 in damages for each day the supergraphics were installed.

At the Hotel Figueroa, that period stretches approximately 500 days. The first vinyl supergraphic was installed on December 2, 2008, and CBS Outdoor kept refreshing the sticker ads until around May 1, 2010.

From 2000 to 2009, painted wall signs adorned the south and north faces of the historic hotel. Those were legal and permitted, but the city alleges that CBS Outdoor crossed the line when it made the move to vinyl ads.

Tweet This Story || Share on Facebook

Conversation

Paul on February 04, 2011, at 12:42AM – #1

Maybe I'm weird but I actually kind of like the ads. That side of the building now is boring and pretty ugly.

patrick manpous on February 04, 2011, at 04:13AM – #2

the ads added character to the intersection of Olympic and Figueroa. Bring them back!

film rob on February 04, 2011, at 07:36AM – #3

paul/patrick i agree.

how much money did the city spend fighting this battle?

FOS on February 04, 2011, at 08:13AM – #4

This is a PR sham by the City Attorney. The "settlement" was reached before the "lawsuit" was filed. The "lawsuit" and "settlement" happened the same day. The "settlement" includes giving away vested rights to CBS on several signs. God only knows what the City Attorney promised CBS on all their other more valuable lawsuits and deals. Ban Billboard Blight has unwittingly become just a PR patsy for the City Attorney. You would have to be a fool to believe that CBS would just write a big check to the City and not be profiting handsomely from it. Make no mistake, CBS and the City Attorney are in bed together. The arrogance of the City Attorney's office is shocking. Did they really think they could get away with such a poorly thought out, ham handed publicity stunt?

downtown vibe on February 04, 2011, at 10:03AM – #5

Does anybody think it is odd that the carwash hasn't been redeveloped?

It sure was nice of that building owner to leave open a view of that very valuable billboard space.

baddicus on February 04, 2011, at 11:47AM – #6

So glad the ads are gone. The worst was the Apple campaign with giant Gandhi images...I really hated the use of legit icons to sell crap.

David McBane on February 04, 2011, at 05:44PM – #7

Personally, I am OK with the painted ads, especially in this particular location. For whatever reason, I think the vinyl ads just look tacky no matter where they are. I wonder if the City could pay a rule saying painted ads are OK but vinyl ads are not. Since it takes a lot more effort to paint and paint can be used on a lot fewer surfaces compared to vinyl, that would cut down the number of ads in one big swoop.

Paul on February 04, 2011, at 07:42PM – #8

I just don't see why the painted ads on the hotel are bad, but that blinding LED monstrosity above ESPN Zone is fine.

Paul on February 04, 2011, at 07:42PM – #9

I just don't see why the painted ads on the hotel are bad, but that blinding LED monstrosity above ESPN Zone is fine.

Sara Jones on February 05, 2011, at 12:13AM – #10

That's a great idea David. I've thought the same thing myself.

JDRCRASHER on February 05, 2011, at 12:31AM – #11

Keep the billboards on Hollywood Blvd (between La Brea and Gower), and in South Park (in area bounded by 9th, Flower, Venice, and Cherry). Then tax the billboard districts and use the funds for arts programs. They already exist but encompass a larger area; they just need to be smaller. Then ban them everywhere else and fine the billboard companies for each billboard districts they fail to take down outside the signage districts, after a certain amount of time when the ban is enacted

There's no excuse why it can't be done. This is already done in many cities. London, Toronto, New York, Sao Paulo, Dallas, etc etc.

Dion on February 05, 2011, at 10:28AM – #12

Why is the city wasting money and time going after the relatively few and cool supergraphics, while not doing a damn thing about the smaller billboards that are all over LA city? if pasadena, glendale, and other smaller cities can ban and remove billboards, why cant LA?

JDRCRASHER on February 05, 2011, at 11:42AM – #13

Because billboards have a very long history here, Dion.

Christopher Eaton on February 05, 2011, at 12:02PM – #14

What a waste of taxpayer money to go after this company because they switched to vinyl ads.

baddicus on February 05, 2011, at 12:04PM – #15

Billboards have just as much history in Pasadena and Glendale as in Los Angeles. Smaller cities have been good about not permitting new legit billboard sign applications and taking legal action against unpermitted new billboards. They also spent some funds to buy out billboard leases for a few of the more high-profile locations.

But in Los Angeles...the city sat idly over the last 15 years when the new signage really began to proliferate. Even Downtown...you'll see those lame "map signs" sponsored by CBS Outdoor plopped in the middle of the public sidewalk. It's a free-for-all in Los Angeles, and the City Council thinks advertising somehow equates to "the urban experience" when in fact it is very much a warped Los Angeles view of what a city should look like.