Billboards: what's the big deal?

This is one of the areas of land use regulation where I differ from many of our peers - I don't really have a problem with them.

By their nature, they are going to locate in high auto traffic corridors, which are usually not all that pleseant to begin with. And I agree with Texan, as long as they are maintained well, I usually don't have a problem.

Anyways, how else am I going to know the size of the Lotto jackpot, from which to dream wonderful dreams? ;)

Billboards in some situations look pretty bad/tacky, in other cases not so much. I guess I'm fairly middle of the road on the whole billboard issue.

Anxiously awaiting Dan's screed.....10....9....8....7....

I abhor billboards along interstate highways, in cities, and pretty much everywhere. Here's part of the reason why:

Read more here: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/admap/howardgossage.html

Now, where are my acetylene torches?...;-)

Billboards have their place. They do not really bother me unless I am driving...through Missouri.

As Mr. Nash so aptly put it, it's the visual impact of the things that raise the ire of some.

I believe that signs and even billboards have their place.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with them when there is nothing to see anyway. Along scenic areas, they should be limited. Before anybody flames me, I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The only thing I find annoying is being contantly being surrounding by ads. It's getting to be as bad as Minority Report

It all depends what is on the billboards....

One reason I am not fond of billboards is simply the fact that when I am out driving, especially in a scenic area, I am in public space and as such, I really don't want to be marketed to against my will. I see advertising everywhere I frickin' go, at my home, online, etc. I like to have some place where I don't have to compute some ad.

No, this does not spell the apocalypse and I'm not sure endangers my health safety or welfare. But I find it annoying and would rather not see it. You know, if I was in charge...

I guess its different because it is NOT on a building, where I would expect and tolerate signage as a directional/wayfinding element (where is that #*! Target again?! oh, there it is!). That it is disconnected from the actual place of business bothers me. And while the footprint of the pole(s) might be quite small, the billboard itself takes up a significant portion of the visual field, especially if multiplied by many.

Again, this was just my personal opinion, not a case for legal precedent. I see it as a form of visual pollution, but I have had a very antagonistic relationship with advertising since I was a kid and used to yell at the TV during commercials. Probably not a good "baseline" for the pulse of America here.

But, I would say that the regulations that determine where billboards are allowed is probably most closely tied to air rights and viewsheds. If you are looking for the legal reasoning behind why and where billboards are restricted, that's probably a good place to start.

The billboards in and around Albuquerque (and elsewhere in New Mexico) are pretty carefully controlled. They are rather small in size (smaller than other places I have lived) and where they are allowed is restricted. One of our great assets here is our natural beauty (it certainly ain't the economy) and I am thankful for the foresight of whoever is responsible that our stunning views of the mountains, rivers and wide open desert is generally unimpeded by ads Personal Injury lawyers and the like. I understand that in more remote areas, it is an asset for that little motel to have a billboard on the highway and I am generally ok with that in low doses. Its the intensity of visual advertising within the urbanized areas that really bugs me. As if I don't have enough visual stimuli to deal with. Now we have two electronic billboards within the city and those things are unbelievably distracting. One is right at a curve in the road, coming down a hill and I'm just waiting for an accident. I almost got in one twice within the last year...

They are different from every other form of commercial advertising because they are presented to you against your will. You have to take a negative action not to see them. Why should anyone have to do that? They market something that they don't provide 99.7% of the time (Your Message HERE, frustratingly excepted). They have no other function than to provide a medium for off-site messages. They are a blight on the landscape: urban, rural, and scenic. Sigh.

I'll let Ed McMahon (the attorney and anti-billboard advocate, not the "huyooooo!" guy) argue for me. Ed said it. I believe it. That settles it. :D

There are places for billboards: certain city centers like Times Square, where the advertising is an integral part of the built environment. I admire good outdoor advertising; given the limited time a billboard will be visible to a passing driver, it's very difficult to present a memorable message. Outside from that, it's hard for me to justify.

As wahday and Gedunker said, billboards are a form of marketing that is forced on you. Advertising in the broadcast print media subsidizes the content. Billboards serve no similar purpose; except for the rare PSA (which billboard companies often display to win favor with their host communities when sign code revisions are looming), there is almost no public benefit from their presence. They derive their economic purpose by blighting and leeching from a viewscape that can't be turned off. The property taxes paid by billboard structures are far lower than for other businesses that derive the same amount of revenue. I also despise the tactics of the billboard industry in the US, such the recent round of "sign code shakedowns".

Dan put it well for me as well. Sign Code shakedowns drive me batty. Sign companies are my least favorite constituency to deal with.

And Ed McMahon says it quite well:

''It is the most intrusive form of advertising in the world today, the only advertising that can't be eliminated with the flick of a switch or the turn of a page.''

I can see some value in billboards. When I am driving across the country I sometimes do benefit from knowing the next Shell station is only 28 miles ahead, or there is a Hampton Inn in the next city, or that the book store in Abiline is open 24 hours and has both videos and novelties. :-o

On the other hand, most of the time I find them an intrusion. I am not driving down the highway to read somebody's advertisement. I want to see the scenery, or occassionally not be distracted from watching the road. The new LED billboards are especially distracting, and I have seen some that are far too bright.

In this state the sign industry continually pushes for the right to cut down any tree on public property that interferes with the visibility of its billboards. In this case the advertisers are mostly tourism businesses. Yeah. Tourists are not coming for the natural beauty, but to visit the waterpark.

Billboards are gaudy, big, and put in sometimes awful places. I fully accept regulating/banning them. Along almost all Interstate Highways in America the little blue signs before each exit tell you what's available usually in three categories: Food, Gas, Sleep...

As a kid I remember getting excited to see the billboards when my family drove into Boston. There would be changing colors, moving parts, and all kinds of witty ad slogans. For me, billboards added to the excitement of arrving in the city.

But my opinion of billboards changed when I drove through the south. I don't recall a billboard along I-95 in S. Carolina that isn't devoted to a smut shop or South of the Border (which of course posts a cheesy billboard every mile until you get there). None of the signs are visually interesting or even well-maintained, definitely a blight on the landscape. And then there are the places where practically every establishment in town has a 40 ft. pole sign visible from the highway.:-o

West of Chicago they have a lot of sexually oriented business bilboards. That kind of pisses me off. I'm no prude, but if I had kids, there is no way for them to not see the mostly naked women all over the signs.

I agree totally with Dan. I feel fortunate that in Westchester County that early on billboards were exhiled. In the early 20th century, "The Bronx River Parkway Commission (BPC) considered billboards to be "blatant desecrations" of the landscape and waged "incessant warfare" against the structures. From the beginning of the project, the commissioners made it clear that they "anticipated with pleasure the time when the glaring advertising signs, so numerous in the City section of the Parkway, could be removed." Most of these billboards were positioned to advertise products and services to commuters and other travelers on the busy railway line that paralleled the Bronx River. The BPC was extremely proud of its billboard removal campaign, which eliminated an aggregate total of seven miles of signs from the reservation.(128) The BPC strictly enforced its no-billboards policy and did its best to eliminate or screen signs outside parkway boundaries that could be viewed from within the BRPR."
Here is an image from their report detailing the blight.

I don't really like billboards, but as long as they stay in suburban areas, I'm somewhat ok with them.
I don't think they belong in cities, advertisements can go on buildings. I'm not ok with them lining highways in the country or rural areas either, it really hurts the natural aspect of the landscape.
However, I do think billboards can go in suburban areas and along interstates.

Beautiful Mt. Shasta, CA has a side road near the neighboring cinder cone. The restraunteur on said side road felt afflicted by a lack of business and petitioned for a tall, lighted sign visible from the highway. I do hope that the answer is still, "No way. Get a life."
Appreciating landscape architecture is becoming very difficult. Contemplation of the cinder cone is the wonder of the area, the asset that carries on after the highway travel is over. The cinder cone is also the engine of economic development. Whatever makes a tawdry statement of it is woefully short sighted.
Advertising eggs and peaches is part of the natural landscape, or at least the human settlements living with and respecting the land. Advertising "Little America, Just 285 Miles" becomes a bit much when corporate marketing department muscle enters the picture. "Home Depot: Coming Right Up."

I agree with Wahday and that I am stick and tired of being marketed too. Billboards within scenic corridors should only be allowed in specificlly designed information conveyence nodes along the majors.

I remember coming backing from a camping trip in the New Mtn area of southern cal (right at the Nevada state line) and traveling along the billboard line highway 15 and thinking what a shame as Visually they just bombard you and distract and in some cases take away the tranquil qualities that the desert landscape possess.

Bottom line is that I hate billboards!!!!!

I must say that when I visit the states I notice that within a day or two I start to think "I need lots more things in life - look at all the things people need in America" You may not notice it, but boy are there a lot of adverts in the US built environment.

In my previous job we did a lot of public surveys about the 'urban environment.' We measured feelings about many variables, and sign clutter hardly registered - but here that would mostly apply to shop front signs, A boards and street signs.

As to needing to know what services on the motorway are coming up, in the UK we have innocuous signs indicating the number of miles (yes miles, we're not really Europeans after all) before the next service and if that exit has petrol, hotel etc. It works for me.

Sorry to butt in - we don't have many billboards so I shouldn't really comment.

But, as I am, what we do have that are becoming ubiquitous are the Adshel bus stops with posters on either side. The council gets a free, well maintained bus shelter and the company gets revenue from the posters. But now our towns and cities are starting to feel like one great KFC advert. If you're not familiar google adshel+advertising. Apparently these are "beautiful municipal structures that both beautify your city as well as provide an opportunity for advertisers to build their brand recognition." Oh thanks - I feel uplifted already.

Cheers!

Perhaps my Texas bias is coming into play. Nearly every freeway in this state is laced with frontage roads on both sides. These frontage roads are continuously dotted with businesses, from retail/gas stations to industrial complexes. So if you drive from Austin to Dallas, which is about 180 miles or so, there will be a near-constant stream of advertising for businesses that are along the roadway (in this case, Interstate 35). We are bombarded with advertisements against our will anyway. I don't need to buy a new Sterling semi truck just outside of Temple. I don't need a repossessed mobile home outside Waco. I do need kolaches from West, though. But still, you get the point. Billboards won't make our "scenic" highway drives any less scenic than they already are[n't].

Well, I'm not sure I-35 classifies as a "scenic" highway - its a major N-S interstate. My concern is billboards creeping into the smaller highways and byways where people often go to behold the scenery of America. That's the whole idea behind the Scenic Byways recognition - to funnel additional funding for maintenance of roads that reveal and provide access to our more exceptional corners of the nation. In my opinion, to then allow these views to be obstructed by billboard advertising is counterproductive.

I also feel that my tax dollars helped pay for these roads and as such, I have a say in whether they are littered with billboard advertising (maybe more people disagree than agree, but I at least should be able to legitimately voice my opinion). Its a little tricky legally, I understand, because technically the signs are located on private land outside of the roadway, but the visual pollution concept I think provides some additional room for legislation. Under current law, a municipality can still restrict or remove billboards that, because of distraction or obstruction of critical view corridors (for safety), present a danger to the public.

Personally, I think Scenic Austin has the right idea: http://www.scenictexas.org/files/No_New_Billboards-ScenicTexas_Fact_Sheet.pdf

The saying is true: 'The sun is ris' and the sun is set and I ain't the hell out of Texas yet!':-D I've personally been all over Texas interstates from El Paso to Corpus, across the panhandle, from Dallas to Houston-- and I have family near Dallas -- and I agree Texas interstates are an assault to the senses.

So why add even more to an existing visual wasteland and make it just that much more unsightly? I would add that those high rise 'signs' for the businesses along the interstates aren't signs at all: they are message boards that could easily be restricted and even prohibited if anybody had the will.

I agree that businesses have the right to advertise their goods and services. I have the right to ignore those advertisements. Please tell me how to ignore a billboard without a negative action on my part.:)

We recently adopted a modified "cap and replace" ordinance. That is, if a company wants to install an electronic billboard, an existing board must be removed. In the past month, we run across lots of problems with this ordinance and we're hoping to have in rescinded.

Anybody else have experience in this area?

The billboard lobby is strong in Florida.

My biggest complaints are as follows:

The new digital ones cast off a ton of light at night, particularly when it is showing a mostly white background.

Some of these things are huge and they overhang property lines in urban areas. I for one would not want to live next to an area where my neighbor was allowed to have one of these tower type ones in his yard or behind his business. It would blcok your sunlight, and heaven forbid if it should come down on your house!

If you've ever parked your car under a large one, you will come back and hour later to find it covered with bird poop.

From my above NYTimes link, (which now connects to full text of article:)):