The Philadelphia Planning Commission Tuesday voted to oppose a legislative proposal that would allow animated billboards and building wraps on a portion of East Market Street.
The area has lagged behind other parts of the city for decades, and First District Councilman Frank DiCicco hopes that allowing this type of advertising will help revive a now-dead area, both by making it glitzier and through fees owners of the signs would pay, which would be directed toward rehabbing shabby or underused buildings.
Planners like the idea in general. It's the specifics that worry them. “We have issues, but we support the concept of it,” said Deputy Mayor for Planning and Development Alan Greenberger.
“We didn't like this bill when we first saw it, and we still don't like it,” said city planner Martin Gregorski during his presentation.
While the goal of the bill – the current version of which was introduced by DiCicco and Councilman James Kenney last fall – is to pep up Market Street between 7th and 13th Streets, Gregorski said it creates a district that “could just be plugged in elsewhere too easily.” He said that many of the definitions within the bill are too “muddy” for planners' comfort, and so almost any sign could be considered a large format sign.
The bill sets out to keep the digital signs and wraps from historic buildings, Gregorski said, but planners worry it wouldn't do that as it is now written. It allows an exception for buildings that have had large format signs in the past, he said, and with that term's broad definition, an argument could be made that most historic buildings have had them.
The city's legal department has just completed a review of the bill and issued recommended revisions, Gregorski said. But while these revisions address legal issues, they leave planning issues unaddressed, he said. Gregorski has a meeting with legal and DiCicco's office to go over things Wednesday.
Meanwhile, there is a Rules Committee hearing on the current version of the bill scheduled for Tuesday, Feb. 22. “We asked the Councilman to postpone it, but he wanted to keep the discussion moving forward,” Planning Commission Executive Director Gary Jastrzab said after the meeting.
DiCicco originally proposed a different bill with similar goals more than a year ago. He has always said he is willing to work on the language.
Gregorski and Jastrzab said they expect the bill will either be amended or a new bill will be drafted. Gregorski said that could possibly be done by Tuesday's hearing and an amendment could be introduced.
But in case the hearing is held on the current version of the bill, staff recommend the commission vote against it.
Whether there is an amendment or a totally new bill, it will come back before the Planning Commission, Jastrzab said.
Contact the reporter at kgates@planphilly.com
Comments
The bill was presented as a method of revitalizing east Market Street. The idea is that under the current economic conditions the only way to get new development on east Market Street is for advertising agencies to subsidize the projects - sell advertising space. The underlying premise is that in the recession the city must give up something in order to get development and neither the city, the state nor the federal governments are capable of providing cash or tax subsidies, such as those provided to recent developments such as the Cirus Center or Comcast. The proponents suggest therefore that the city should be willing to give up its desire to have an attractive looking east Market Street in order to get the development - make the place look ugly to get the needed new buildings.
Personally I would prefer to wait out the recession, wait for the real estate market to recover, and then let the needed development happen without spoiling the appearance of the area.
These signs would do wonders for the area and for the city! The bill needs work, but the signs are a godsend!
Revival means beefing up the kind of businesses that would bring back a better mix of customers, which flashing signs will hardly do. THey will serve to put off those that now only occasionally venture here for what is convenient. Put such signs in front of me and I will go out of my way to avoid all such areas. We have so much that intrudes, with loud cell phone conversations on the move, loud pumping music coming from numerous Market St. businesses. Such signs would only add to the cacophony of the street. Revival? Coungressman, you can do better than this.17
Miss Halpern, your "better mix of customers" cannot materialize out of thin air, but if I get your drift, I suggest you head over to West of Broad. I have never been more certain in my entire life on the necessity of a bill that will work wonders for an abomination of a street. You don't make the street better by attracting only a certain clientele, but by attracting greater numbers of people who have some valid reason whatsoever to spend money in the area. This will dissipate the unsavory element, and slowly build a reputation of a destination. This area needs to be completely overhauled, sign districts are exciting, and most people who frequent that area would agree. Philadelphia has enough history that will never be under immediate threat, we do not need to split hairs over the attrocity that is the Gallery. We may not always have the interest and wherewithal of companies to look into investing into the area, so we have to take advantage of it while we can.
Do you also take exception to Times Square? There is a reason it is a number one tourist destination, it worked wonders in New York, it will work wonders in Philadelphia. It is ludicrous to not develop the section of town (which was at one point a sign district) next to the convention center into a tourist area. People do not realize, this has potential to be one of the most important bills ever in deciding the fate of the city, we cannot squander this chance.