Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WTAE)   Bear removed from billboard. *Correction* Bayer removed from billboard   (wtae.com) divider line 22
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1504 clicks; posted to Business » on 01 Aug 2014 at 7:40 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-08-01 06:34:24 PM  
To be honest, I'm surprised it's taken Bayer this long to stop paying for the Alcoa Sign.
 
2014-08-01 07:41:40 PM  

Donnchadha: To be honest, I'm surprised it's taken Bayer this long to stop paying for the Alcoa Sign.


It couldn't wait.....
 
2014-08-01 07:56:35 PM  
Yea, it was an eyesore. Took em look enough.
 
2014-08-01 08:03:04 PM  
That's a Bayer sign? In what way?
www.wtae.com
 
2014-08-01 08:06:38 PM  

jaytkay: That's a Bayer sign? In what way?
[www.wtae.com image 620x349]


media.tumblr.com
 
2014-08-01 08:08:55 PM  

The Bestest: jaytkay: That's a Bayer sign? In what way?
[www.wtae.com image 620x349]

[media.tumblr.com image 198x109]


Oh. I see now.

WTF?
 
2014-08-01 08:12:04 PM  

jaytkay: That's a Bayer sign? In what way?
[www.wtae.com image 620x349]


www.post-gazette.com

It's only really the "Bayer Sign" at night.
 
2014-08-01 08:40:29 PM  
Dat thing needs repainted something fierce. But I'm amazed it works as well as it does with all them spellers n'at. I've seen the wiring and it's all like spaghetti.
 
M-G
2014-08-01 09:12:02 PM  
Might be useful for the journalists to provide a photo of what it looks like illuminated....
 
2014-08-01 09:29:16 PM  
That's 90% crap and 10% sign. Bayer should have charged them.
 
2014-08-01 09:51:41 PM  
Bansky weeped
 
2014-08-01 09:55:01 PM  

Mrbogey: That's 90% crap and 10% sign. Bayer should have charged them.


At night the thing does kinda look awesome.
 
2014-08-02 12:22:47 AM  
Gladys Glover may be willing to pick it up for a while if the price is right.
 
2014-08-02 08:04:07 AM  
A big part of the reason the sign is crap is because Lamar is all pissypants about the anti-advertising laws in Pittsburgh. Limits on advertising signage hurts their growth. They've let the Mt. Washington sign fester, arguing, "Well, we want to build an entirely new sign there, but oh, we can't because of your laws, so we won't maintain the one that's there right now."
 
2014-08-02 08:59:52 AM  

t3knomanser: A big part of the reason the sign is crap is because Lamar is all pissypants about the anti-advertising laws in Pittsburgh. Limits on advertising signage hurts their growth. They've let the Mt. Washington sign fester, arguing, "Well, we want to build an entirely new sign there, but oh, we can't because of your laws, so we won't maintain the one that's there right now."


Besides the fact that it needs painted, what's wrong with it? Do you want to pull the hundreds of neon tubes up there to paint it?

The city wants to restrict the brightness and size of it so it won't be able to be read from across the river. If the city wants rid of the sign, they can outlaw it and purchase it from Lamar and take it down. One slight problem with that idea: it's historical, and the people here really like historical stuff these days in da burgh.
 
2014-08-02 09:20:29 AM  

Goimir: Do you want to pull the hundreds of neon tubes up there to paint it?


No, but Lamar does- they don't want to pay to run the extremely expensive and fragile neon sign. They want to make an LED sign to replace it.

Goimir: The city wants to restrict the brightness and size of it so it won't be able to be read from across the river.


This is completely false. The problem here is that the city has a moratorium on new signage, and under the definition of "new" replacing the neons with LEDs would be "new", and hence, isn't allowed. The city has repeatedly said they'd like to work with Lamar to find a way around this, but Lamar isn't interested in cooperating with the city on this one sign, until the law restricting advertising in the city is lifted.

Nobody wants to take the sign down. Everybody wants the sign to be repaired and renovated. There are some legal hurdles opposing that, but the city is willing to remove them for that one sign- but Lamar won't budge until it's removed completely.

And leaving the sign as a neon sign isn't even on the table- if any changes are made, that'll be the first thing to go, which is quite sad, actually.
 
2014-08-02 09:47:45 AM  

t3knomanser: Goimir: Do you want to pull the hundreds of neon tubes up there to paint it?

No, but Lamar does- they don't want to pay to run the extremely expensive and fragile neon sign. They want to make an LED sign to replace it.

Goimir: The city wants to restrict the brightness and size of it so it won't be able to be read from across the river.

This is completely false. The problem here is that the city has a moratorium on new signage, and under the definition of "new" replacing the neons with LEDs would be "new", and hence, isn't allowed. The city has repeatedly said they'd like to work with Lamar to find a way around this, but Lamar isn't interested in cooperating with the city on this one sign, until the law restricting advertising in the city is lifted.

Nobody wants to take the sign down. Everybody wants the sign to be repaired and renovated. There are some legal hurdles opposing that, but the city is willing to remove them for that one sign- but Lamar won't budge until it's removed completely.

And leaving the sign as a neon sign isn't even on the table- if any changes are made, that'll be the first thing to go, which is quite sad, actually.


Well, replacing the neon would trigger zoning review. The fact of the matter is that Lamar can run that sign until Mount Washington falls into the river or the city eminent domains it.

Zoning has size and brightness restrictions. Billboards in the city are 16 by 30 or 45 for the most part. It's my day off so I'm not looking up the zoning laws. That sign is 250' long. It's neon at max brightness. The law most likely states that illuminated LED billboards must be restricted to so many lumens measured at a fixed distance, rather than at viewing distance.

To give you an idea of how bright that sign needs to be, bear in mind you cannot read that sign until full dark. You can read an LED sign near the highway if the sun is shining on it.
 
2014-08-02 01:13:58 PM  
Here's a brilliant idea. Lets do a story about a sign that lights up at night, but lets not include a picture of what it looks like lit up at night.
 
2014-08-02 01:45:40 PM  
Shouldn't that be BUYER?
 
2014-08-02 04:02:09 PM  
There was a "Wacky Package" sticker from the 1970s advertising "Bear" aspirin.  The package
showed a sickly-looking bear, and it advised consumers, "press red dots with both paws"  (to open
it).  The "Bayer" criss-cross logo was also changed to "Bear!"
 
2014-08-02 04:27:51 PM  

Goimir: t3knomanser: A big part of the reason the sign is crap is because Lamar is all pissypants about the anti-advertising laws in Pittsburgh. Limits on advertising signage hurts their growth. They've let the Mt. Washington sign fester, arguing, "Well, we want to build an entirely new sign there, but oh, we can't because of your laws, so we won't maintain the one that's there right now."

Besides the fact that it needs painted, what's wrong with it? Do you want to pull the hundreds of neon tubes up there to paint it?

The city wants to restrict the brightness and size of it so it won't be able to be read from across the river. If the city wants rid of the sign, they can outlaw it and purchase it from Lamar and take it down. One slight problem with that idea: it's historical, and the people here really like historical stuff these days in da burgh.


It's a billboard. An advertisement. A commercial. An eyesore. Take it down.
 
2014-08-02 04:35:21 PM  

nytmare: Goimir: t3knomanser: A big part of the reason the sign is crap is because Lamar is all pissypants about the anti-advertising laws in Pittsburgh. Limits on advertising signage hurts their growth. They've let the Mt. Washington sign fester, arguing, "Well, we want to build an entirely new sign there, but oh, we can't because of your laws, so we won't maintain the one that's there right now."

Besides the fact that it needs painted, what's wrong with it? Do you want to pull the hundreds of neon tubes up there to paint it?

The city wants to restrict the brightness and size of it so it won't be able to be read from across the river. If the city wants rid of the sign, they can outlaw it and purchase it from Lamar and take it down. One slight problem with that idea: it's historical, and the people here really like historical stuff these days in da burgh.

It's a billboard. An advertisement. A commercial. An eyesore. Take it down.


And most of state government is corrupt and wasteful. More of them should follow Budd Dwyer's example.

/aren't blanket generalizations fun?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report