Hey, there! Log in / Register

Have Globe editorial writers ever actually seen Kendall Square from across the river?

The Globe today thunders against a Cambridge bylaw that lets companies advertise themselves on their buildings in Kendall Square. Setting aside for a moment the way the Globies ignore the fact that the astroturf effort to overturn the measure is one company's grudge against Microsoft (as Scott Kirsner noted in the Globe just the other day), they managed to pen this WTF statement:

[W]hile some signage is reasonable, the beauty of the Charles is in its quiet blend of green space and historical and modern structures.

So apparently nobody at the Globe has heard of the Citgo sign? And they think Kendall Square as seen from the river is a "quiet blend of green space and historical and modern structures" rather than a bustling collection of information-age buildings?

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I don't see how corporate logos on buildings facing the Charles will benefit the residents of Boston or Cambridge in any way. So I, for one, support banning them and am glad that there is a company which is willing to sponsor the effort.

up
Voting closed 0

These are the same people who drool over the Citgo sign, no? Once a grubby commercial gimcrack becomes an architectural landmark - somehow - it's untouchable.

If you want nice scenery, untainted by commercial interests, move to the country. This is the city.

up
Voting closed 0

Right. Tens of thousands of people who don't want more signs near the Charles Rivers should quit their jobs and move to the country. That sounds so much more reasonable than just not allowing new signs.

up
Voting closed 0

Tens of thousands?

up
Voting closed 0

100,000 people live in Cambridge alone. Everyone I've spoken to IRL about the signs is against them. So I'll wager there are far more than tens of thousands of people in Boston against having these signs.

up
Voting closed 0

The Citgo sign is for locals; everyone else thinks it's for assholes.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://wikimapia.org/p/00/00/43/26/76_big.jpg)

And it's RIGHT ON THE RIVER!

up
Voting closed 0

Astroturf? Check out all those signatures they got.

up
Voting closed 0

Thank Vishnu the push is on to prevent unsightly signage on the Badger Building.

I mean it's pretty damn ugly now. A sign could only make it worse.

up
Voting closed 0

Didn't they recently spend a lot of money to wrap the concrete in sheet metal at street level?

up
Voting closed 0

Cambridge is a college town (Harvard) and an industrial park (MIT and the biotechs).

But the Charles River is not an interstate, so spare us the tacky signage.

up
Voting closed 0

The Citgo and Shell signs predate the interstate highway system. The old Coca Cola sign did too, as did the gushing oil derrick for White's Fuel.

up
Voting closed 0

Kendall Square is an industrial park, but not one out in the boonies along an interstate.

up
Voting closed 0

Kendal Square used to be a profusion of abandoned and semi-abondoned tar-paper monstrosities and the Charles River had much "garish signage" long before any interstate existed. Do we need another round before you get that? These signs are OLD and there used to be more of them.

up
Voting closed 0

Not talking about the oil company signs. Talking about the Microsoft etc. signs.

up
Voting closed 0

I WENT BACK TO THE CHARLES
BUT MY PRETTY RIVERSIDE
HAD BEEN LIT UP WITH SIGNS
BY A GOVERNMENT THAT HAD NO PRIDE

Some of us actually in the area surrounded on three sides and really dislike the idea of having more advertising beamed at us from out shrinking circle of sky.

up
Voting closed 0

I think cyberspace ate a couple of words in your comment. Did you mean to say "Some of us actually live in the area surrounded on three sides by the sign district and really dislike the idea of having more advertising beamed at us from our shrinking circle of sky."?

Amen. Were it up to me, all of the monuments to corporate testosterone that already exist (self-proclaimed green icon Genzyme, Alnylam, Amgen, Akamai and others that don't come immediately to mind) would vanish, and none would replace them. I'd happily lose the hotel/motel signs up high as well (they're governed by a different section of the zoning ordinance, so this doesn't affect them). Let the architecture, such as it is, speak for itself. Signs at street level will guide people to where they're going, especially if the City of Cambridge decides to put proper street signs at intersections.

It is absolutely true that Terry Ragon of InterSystems is paying for this, but he's tapping into a lot of citizen anger at the contemptuous way city government treats us. This was just the catalyst, but it's part of a pattern (e.g., the Gilmore Street trees, Boston Properties upzoning, Alexandria upzoning, refusal to downzone a residential area, Lesley University upzoning).

So, political prognosticators, what do you figure will happen if enough signatures are turned in? MGL c. 43, sec. 42, gives the city five days to verify whether 12 percent of the city's registered voters have signed the petition. If so, the city council must "immediately" reconsider the vote (next Monday's meeting, I would guess). If the council does not completely repeal the offending legislation within 20 days from verification that enough people signed the petition, the city clerk has to put it to a vote of the citizens, which can be in a special election, if the city council chooses, or the next general election, which would be next November, when the city council is up for reelection. My money is on a special election.

up
Voting closed 0

I agree with the general sentiment of restricting gigantic signs, but your comments are spot-on. What quiet Charles River are they talking about? The one flanked by Memorial and Storrow drives? The one with the science museum literally sitting atop it? The one filled with boats? And touche about the (hideous) Citgo sign. A few nights ago, I walked from Cambridge to Boston on the Mass. Ave. bridge. The light from the Citgo sign reflected on the surface of the water all the way across the river, like the Moon or a sunrise might do.

I also found it interesting that the editorial did not mention that a giant hotel sign looms over the Cambridge Common, the city's central park. But then, I think most Globe editors live much farther away from Boston than Cambridge.

up
Voting closed 0

but you have to go to Waltham or Newton to see it.

Hotel signs may be governed by different rules than most other signs, since it's important for visitors to be able to locate hotels from far away.

up
Voting closed 0

actually sits on top of the hotel it is advertising. Not the same thing as a random billboard. I see plenty of those on Mass Ave - I don't need to look at more on Memorial Drive. I don't care who sponsored the effort, I just signed on because I don't want any more billboards. One CITGO sign and one retro-looking Shell sign (which again is advertising the business right beside it) are plenty for me.

up
Voting closed 0

So, as long as the sign is advertising a business that's using most or all of the building the sign is on, it's okay? Funny, that's what I thought the rule was!

(Which is, I suppose, why the Globe thought it would be appropriate to use an illustration for their article in July that included signs for Burger King, Walmart, and Dunkin' Donuts and was created by Intersystems--hardly a neutral party.)

up
Voting closed 0

Well, yes - for me, anyway. I don't have a beef with business owners advertising their brand on their property, as long as they comply with zoning regulations. What I don't need is to see billboard row along Mem Drive, or in the neighborhood outside of Alewife, which is close to where I live. This effort may be the result of one guy's battle with Microsoft, but the longterm effect of the Council's actions will be to allow anyone with enough cash and connections to put up signage wherever he wishes, long after the One Mem Drive battle is put to rest. I'm not OK with that. Does that clarify things for you?

up
Voting closed 0

So we should make some progress, because if we go too far in that direction, we might fall? How are you able to walk in the morning without worrying that your left leg will step too far and you'll end up doing a split?

The slippery slope isn't as slippery as you think it is...nor is it exactly sloped the same way either. I'm going to guess you won't even see Burma Shave signs down Mem Drive any time soon, let alone full billboards or ads. I just don't see the disaster in the making that some people want this to be. Better to have a sign for Microsoft (or whomever) than the vacant ex-gas station near River St, the old decrepit power plant building near Western or half of the cement wall monstrosities along that same stretch that serve as housing of various types.

up
Voting closed 0

Ah, I see, as long as it's in the name of progress, move forward at all costs, damn the consequences then, eh Kaz? Such philosophy has never gotten us in trouble in the past right? Deregulation and more "efficient" processes help everyone, not just those with the fattest purses and longest reaches, correct?

Maybe that works for you, but for me, I'd rather have the Microsofts and Proctor Gambles of the world have to check in with the local populace before erecting large scale ads around our neighborhoods. If they want to badly enough, they'll manage to find their way through the hoops (after all, I presume those existing signs weren't erected illegally).

You're right that the Council's actions do not signal the end of the world, but I'd rather speak up now and have my say, then bitch later after all the damage is done. I'm sure those multi-nationals won't be too terribly hampered by my civic participation after all.

up
Voting closed 0

You were the one that said that if you didn't speak now, you'd see miles of neon along the river in no time. My point was that you won't because I'm pretty sure the rules aren't being changed to make that a reality. So, some how that ascribes me to letting corporations do whatever they want? Again, you swing wildly but this time to the opposite hyperbole to turn my comment into a strawman that's easy to knock down.

Nobody is arguing that we should let corporations do whatever they want and nobody should be arguing that by letting them change the rules to put up this sign on their building we'll be opening a gateway to Vegas-style neon hell along our parkways. As the Rally for Sanity approaches, I can only ask that you "Take It Down a Notch"...For America (and Cambridge).

I'm all for people speaking up when they have valid opinions grounded in reality that need to be heard as part of the public discussion...but using dystopic nightmare scenarios that just aren't borne out by the facts doesn't benefit anyone.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm tired of being harassed by the anti-sign petitioners. With all the other crap that goes on in Cambridge and this is what it is focussed on? It's one person's issue with Microsoft. F them.

up
Voting closed 0

Harrassed? Did the petitioner chase you down the street? Or did he just have the temerity to speak to you in public?

up
Voting closed 0

It's not. Microsoft are assholes, but I don't want gaudy signs in Cambridge.

up
Voting closed 0