Posted February 13, 200520 yr When Harrison Smith drives past the life-size fiberglass Mini Cooper stuck to a wall along High Street or the towering trio of Nationwide "Life comes at you fast" pictures on the Atlas Building, he likes what he sees. As chairman of the Downtown Commission, Smith believes the enormous commercial wallscapes are proof that Columbus is reaping the benefits of its advertising mural graphics plan. "You can call practically anything art, but it's eye interest, it's appeal, it's excitement," he said. "We certainly don't look at it as primarily advertising." Bob McLaughlin, director of the Downtown Development Office, is another big fan of the big ads. "Now all of the sudden, you walk down the street and you go, 'Hey, this is pretty cool.' It's a place you want to be as opposed to a place you want to get past," McLaughlin said. But when Ohio Department of Transportation officials look at the ads, they see something else: a violation of the federal Highway Beautification Act that could cost the state $100 million a year. Now the department is saying very bluntly that Smith and McLaughlin's beloved wallscapes have to go. Or at least shrink dramatically. <a href="http://www.theotherpaper.com/cover.html">READ MORE</a> Personally I think this is ridiculous, the laws are old and inappropriate for the situation.
February 13, 200520 yr That mural is the coolest advertising I have seen for a long time.. They have that 1,200-square-foot regulation for a reason," she said. "Driver distraction is a big issue." ODOT must be in the SUV lobby, they despise mini coopers and other small frugal gas consuming vehicles.I bet if it was an Escalade or hummer they wouldnt have said anything.
February 14, 200520 yr The article says the law was intended as a far-reaching effort to keep billboards from ruining scenic views in rural areas. I don't think downtown Columbus qualifies as a scenic rural area! I also don't buy that the large ads are a distraction to drivers. In that case anything near the road could also be a distraction.
April 29, 200520 yr ODOT needs to be dissolved. The agency thinks they're god. Downtown murals must go, ODOT says City trying to fashion compromise solution Friday, April 29, 2005 Debbie Gebolys THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH The Downtown Commission is proposing to wipe out the large advertising murals that started a high-stakes fight between Columbus and the state. The group that oversees Downtown construction projects once said allowing the signs enlivens Downtown. But if they’re not removed, three towering murals approved under city guidelines could cost the state $100 million a year in federal highway funds, Ohio Department of Transportation officials say. The controversy led the developers of a project at Broad and High streets yesterday to scale back murals and other signs out of concern that they wouldn’t pass muster with ODOT. Downtown Commmission Chairman Harrison Smith said yesterday that the city is proposing new regulations that would limit ads to 1,200 square feet, the maximum allowed by the federal Highway Beautification Act. Officials hope that the smaller signs will convince the Federal Highway Administration that the city should be allowed to use local policies to govern outdoor advertising. "We certainly anticipate the feds would accept it," Smith said. More at www.dispatch.com
April 29, 200520 yr how do we go about dissolving odot? would it take the legislature making laws, or what?
April 29, 200520 yr Obviously cities like New York and LA have huge murals. We have a large Coke ad on the side of a building here in Cincinnati. What's the difference? Am I missing something?
April 29, 200520 yr It has something to do with the proximity of advertisements to an interstate highway. With 70/71 and 670 slicing up all of downtown C-bus, I guess they are considered in violation
April 29, 200520 yr I don't think it has to do with the interestate but more Federal Routes (like Rt. 33, Long Street) and such. "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 29, 200520 yr Whoa whoa whoa, settle down Annie Oakley. The billboards were placed under the impression that no federal laws were in violation. ODOT approached the city saying they were. Naturally the city is going to find a way to keep them up, this article is stating that ODOT still does not approve. Of course they will be taken down/reduced in size if it comes down to loosing $100 mil. highway dollars. Yikes bud, switch to decaf before you hurt yourself.
April 30, 200520 yr Actually, the simplest thing for Columbus and ODOT to do is to move all the state/federal numbers off the downtown streets (and move them to the innerbelt).
May 1, 200520 yr ^would there be any negative aspects of un-highwaying those streets? if not, then it is a concept that should be seriously considered
May 2, 200520 yr ^would there be any negative aspects of un-highwaying those streets? if not, then it is a concept that should be seriously considered Only thing I can think of would be funding/responsibility for street maintance. I'm not entirely sure.
May 2, 200520 yr does anyone have pictures of these things? it seems like a lot of fretting for a few large billboards.
May 4, 200520 yr These are not ugly normal billboards. These are large art/advertising signs that take up the side of large downtown builidings. These are like those in Chicago, LA, NY, and Toronto. The reason some consider these not to be ads is that they are literally flat on the building and do not feature the companies name very largely. They are more about the image and the "hip" aspect. If anyone does have a pic of these post some. I really like the one featuring the Nationwide ad on the side of the Atlas Butler Building. I think there's a pic here on the downtown Columbus section of the site. Also, the mini cooper ad is good. Columbus just started getting this type of downtown advertising last year and already there is plans to add more, of course, this will be halted if ODOT gets its way.
May 4, 200520 yr odot is nutz! they can drag their feet on the inevitable, but those vinyl hanging ads aren't going away. they are a booming advertising business. first and foremost, it's an easy way for building owners to make some quick loot. also, they are easier on the building than installing a heavy freakin billboard. not to mention your don't have to sell your soul to corporate ghoul clear channel. the stoopid "it's near a highway" excuse or whatever does not fly elsewhere, where state dot's have more important things to do.....like maintain roads and improve public transit. imagine odot doing that instead of fretting over city-based advertisements which are sooo none of their business!!! it just burns me how pathetic odot can be, ohio deserves a better dot. someone asked so here's a sample of one of them (from ny, it's not the cols ads)
June 2, 200520 yr From the Columbus Dispatch, via Columbus RetroMetro, 6/2/05: Building owners fined $100 a day for murals Wednesday, June 01, 2005 The Columbus Dispatch Oversized murals advertising Michelob beer and Nationwide Insurance triggered $100-a-day fines yesterday to owners of the Downtown buildings where they’re posted... http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/01/20050601-B6-03.html&chck=t Perhaps someone with access to the Dispatch can post the article....
June 2, 200520 yr ODOT needs to worry more about freeways and public transportation, and less about the downtonw advertising. im sure there are plenty of advertisements along freeways here in columbus that ODOT would qualify as being "near a highway" i hope that they city will be able to fight this and win. we need to keep the advertisements. thats one thing that make downtown columbus unique over cincinnait and cleveland.
June 4, 200520 yr Perhaps someone with access to the Dispatch can post the article.... ARTICLE DELETED
June 24, 200519 yr An article appeared in yesterday's Columbus Dispatch. I'm not a member so I can't post it, but here's the story link: http://www.dispatch.com/news-story.php?story=dispatch/2005/06/23/20050623-C2-00.html
June 29, 200519 yr It looks like the city went ahead and approved the two new murals anyway. From the AP, 6/29/05: Columbus officials defy order on billboards size Associated Press COLUMBUS, Ohio - In defiance of state and federal regulators, local development officials approved two additional advertising murals that are more than twice as big as allowed. Downtown Commission Chairman Harrison Smith said the work of "a fanatical bureaucrat" is behind efforts to control the size of billboards on downtown buildings. The commission approved allowing Viacom Outdoor Inc. to put a 2,800-square-foot mural downtown within two weeks. It will depict a Subaru sport-utility vehicle with working headlights. Federal regulations limit billboards to 1,200 square feet. Ohio already is in danger of losing $100 million in annual federal highway funds because of oversized billboards. Information from: The Columbus Dispatch, http://www.dispatch.com Full story at http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/12010437.htm
June 29, 200519 yr everyone involved with odot must be like 50-70 yr old granpas lol! (not to mention that they are also long in the back pockets of big auto). odot is more destructive to ohio innovation and business than any state business taxation issues are!
July 5, 200519 yr From the 7/5/05 Columbus Dispatch: PHOTO: Pete Scantland designed three giant mural advertisements for Downtown, including the Mini Cooper ad on N. High Street. WILL SHILLING | FOR THE DISPATCH Mural-maker ignores stop sign City backs entrepreneur in tiff with government Tuesday, July 05, 2005 Debbie Gebolys THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH It’s not often that Columbus officials endorse civil disobedience. But when it comes to a young entrepreneur making Downtown streets more inviting, they’ve found a rebel and a cause. Pete Scantland opened his Short North business two years ago, hoping to capitalize on Mayor Michael B. Coleman’s Downtown plan. He named it Orange Barrel Media in deference to the connection between barrels and construction. But when Ohio Department of Transportation officials looked at Scantland’s three supersized Downtown advertising murals, they saw a violation of the federal Highway Beautification Act and ordered him to remove them or face fines. The fines have topped $10,000. Scantland, bolstered by vigorous support from the Downtown Commission and the city’s Development Department, is convinced that state and federal officials are wrong. Downtown Commission President Harrison Smith said the city might sue the state to preserve the murals. Full story at http://www.dispatch.com/topstory.php?story=dispatch/2005/07/05/20050705-A1-01.html
July 5, 200519 yr I would hate to loose the Cleveland interbelt reconstruction funds because Columbus wants pretty billboards. If we lose the money it should come out of Franklin and neighboring counties share of ODOT money.
July 5, 200519 yr To all posters bashing ODOT---they are simply following the rules the Feds make, or else risk loosing the money. (think back when Ohio had to raise the drinking age to 21 or risk loosing funds) Then they are good DOT for the state as they are looking out to keep the money flowing in from the Feds, in a state that is a "donor" stae in regards to gas tax revenues.
July 5, 200519 yr a main argument is columbus thinks that odot should be pushing to change this law, an urban signs vs. rural signs thing. also check out here http://www.retropolitanclub.com/signblog.html about how there is a huge billboard on 71 near cleveland larger than the columbus ones, but odot has been ignoring it
October 26, 200519 yr Big ads can keep on rising Tony Goins Business First Never tell Peter Scantland the justice system doesn't work. A recent, albeit small, court victory, lets Scantland, owner of Orange Barrel Media keep his mural-sized ads adorning various buildings in downtown Columbus. His victory came way of a Franklin County Common Pleas Judge who recently refused the Ohio Department of Transportation's request for an injunction to stop Scantland's company from hanging the ads. The ruling does not stop ODOT's lawsuit to eliminate the ads altogether, which is still proceeding, said department spokeswoman Lindsay Mendicino. The two parties have a court date set for August, Scantland said. He hopes to get the suit dismissed before then. The city of Columbus filed a motion in the case in favor of the advertisers, Scantland said. Courts have allowed similar mural ads in cities like Los Angeles and New York City. More at http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/
November 28, 200519 yr I like the advertisements that are discussed here. They are creative and unique. I have only a few problems with them. How much is too much? Are there rules and guidelines in place to keep everybuilding from being painted over into an oversized advertisement? I think the federal law does have some merrit. I believe when it was created, it was created so that every available inch along the highway wouldn't be one endless mass of advertisement. Also, it was created to prevent--what some people may concider--objectionable material from being plastered everywhere you turn your eyes. Just my two cents.
November 28, 200519 yr I have no problem with huge signage (in urban areas), however I do think that some of the newer flashing billboards are very distracting and could lead to traffic accidents. Since the law being enforced was apparently written in 1965, it probably doesn't effectively deal with flashing light distractions. Plus, the law seems to have been aimed at beautification, not safety.
November 28, 200519 yr I like the advertisements that are discussed here. They are creative and unique. I have only a few problems with them. How much is too much? Are there rules and guidelines in place to keep everybuilding from being painted over into an oversized advertisement? I think the federal law does have some merrit. I believe when it was created, it was created so that every available inch along the highway wouldn't be one endless mass of advertisement. Also, it was created to prevent--what some people may concider--objectionable material from being plastered everywhere you turn your eyes. Just my two cents. I think that's what the Downtown Commission is for. I could be wrong, but I believe that they need to approve all signage before it goes up. Hopefully they have a feel for "how much is too much", but I don't think we're there quite yet. I don't think ODOT should have jurisdiction over downtown Columbus billboards unless it affects the driveablility of the roads. Like Jimmy mentioned, the videoboards and flashing billboards would fall into this category as safety concerns. Basically, if it can cause an accident or a traffic slowdown, then ODOT can interject. Otherwise, they should be working on putting our tax dollars to good use by fixing the 70/71 split and not quibbling over billboards.
December 6, 200519 yr Another thing that I think may have been mentioned before, but how does New York's Time Square get away with this?
December 6, 200519 yr Another thing that I think may have been mentioned before, but how does New York's Time Square get away with this? from what i'm aware, times square isn't visible from a 'highway'
December 7, 200519 yr Neither are these adds in downtown columbus, and they don't have to be a highway, they just have to be roads that are funded by the federal government, and that includes US routes. High Street is US Route 23 and Long Street is US Route 33 and then there are others. Also there are buffers around these routes. I don't think there are any "highways" near or around Times Square, but there must be a federally funded route near-by, I am sure.
December 7, 200519 yr Neither are these adds in downtown columbus, and they don't have to be a highway, they just have to be roads that are funded by the federal government, and that includes US routes. High Street is US Route 23 and Long Street is US Route 33 and then there are others. Also there are buffers around these routes. I don't think there are any "highways" near or around Times Square, but there must be a federally funded route near-by, I am sure. Um, actually there isn't. The only federally funded route on Manhatten would 9A & I-95. Neither within eyeshot of Times Square. Now if I-495 or I-78 would of been built across Lower Manhattan.....
January 27, 200619 yr Advertisers having a ball with murals Downtown More huge displays on the way to promote Crew, Nationwide Friday, January 27, 2006 Debbie Gebolys THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH The Columbus Crew is about to make a smash hit Downtown. A really, really big one. Starting Monday, a 25-foot soccer ball carrying the team’s logo will stick out of the top three stories of a condominium tower at 145 N. High St. The Downtown Commission approved the idea yesterday, and workers are to begin placing the foam ball on the building this weekend. Commissioners said the ad, designed by Orange Barrel Media, fits into their plan to use "organized chaos" to make city streets more lively. The 600-pound ball will look as if it smashed the walls of the 12-story Brunson Building and stayed there. Surrounded by a web of stress cracks in the wall, it will look as though some supernatural force delivered a mighty kick. It will stay up for six months and should be visible from High, Spring, Wall and Front streets. Read more at http://www.dispatch.com/2006/01/27/20060127-Pc-A1.html
January 27, 200619 yr Wahoo! "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
February 27, 200619 yr Another pic from Columbus RetroMetro.com http://columbusretrometro.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/00000003_main.jpg
March 2, 200619 yr Another thing that I think may have been mentioned before, but how does New York's Time Square get away with this? from what i'm aware, times square isn't visible from a 'highway' not times square, but driving elsewhere down the westside highway, lie, bqe etc. you are assaulted like crazy by flashing video billboards, regular billboards & hanging vinyl ads off buildings all along the way. ps -- i just noticed the columbus mini cooper ad, there is or was one or more of those in nyc too. and the crew ad is cute, but oh no it looks like they have the same team colors as boca juniors -- heh, that takes a lot of nerve in the soccer world.
March 2, 200619 yr Another thing that I think may have been mentioned before, but how does New York's Time Square get away with this? from what i'm aware, times square isn't visible from a 'highway' not times square, but driving elsewhere down the westside highway, lie, bqe etc. you are assaulted like crazy by flashing video billboards, regular billboards & hanging vinyl ads off buildings all along the way. But is it visable from I-478, 278, 95 or US 9? If not, then they are not in violation. The Columbus problemchild is in view of US 33 (and US 23?), thus why ODOT is being angry.
March 2, 200619 yr ^well I-95 yes, but why only those four? all those i mentioned, that you mentioned and others too all received fed funding $$ for initial construction and maintenence too. same thing. http://www.nycroads.com/history/speed_NYC/
March 3, 200619 yr ^well I-95 yes, but why only those four? all those i mentioned, that you mentioned and others too all received fed funding $$ for initial construction and maintenence too. same thing. http://www.nycroads.com/history/speed_NYC/ Those were the only 4 I could think of without looking at Steve Anderson's site. But, you answered my question, and I'm back to shruging my shoulders/speechless concerning ODOT. I have no reply.
Create an account or sign in to comment