Frances Bula header image 2
← →

BC Place billboard sets off another war over light in Vancouver

January 18th, 2012 · 58 Comments

Residents around BC Place started complaining about the exceptionally bright, big digital sign that went up on the building last fall.

I thought maybe the unhappiness would eventually fade away, but the residents have formed an informal lobby group and Councillor Geoff Meggs got a motion passed unanimously at council this week asking PavCo to comply with normal city regulations about the sign. (There are two others that also generate some complaints, but they were there before and will be removed as other development happens around the arena.)

It’s just one more example of the kinds of conflicts that Vancouver has more of than other cities as it mixes residential and commercial uses to a much higher degree.

BC Place assistant general manager Kathy Delisser, who appears in my Globe story on this, notes that usually signs are welcomed in areas like the one BC Place is in — an entertainment zone — as a sign of liveliness in the area.

But Times Square is not so fun when your living room faces it.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

←  Older Comments
 →
  • mezzanine

    @maude 50

    +1

  • mezzanine

    @ Paul 47

    a conclusion I drew is that it seems there is a compromise in place already. what further changes would you like to see?

    I do think that plaza should have an LED screen for serving its purpose as a city-wide, if not regional, draw. I hope a future compromise will allow illumination at nights, for evening events at the stadium. (say at lower light outputs, up to say, 10pm, like the light art installation at pender st)

    The CoV’s position seems inconsistent as they are also supportive of the planned telus gardens building having 4 LED screens. 2 of them will be at robson and seymour.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ Guest 48. There is one of the WWII DoD blocks still there. It’s the Music School. It was extensively done over in the early 70’s when I was on the Park Board. The creation of this important, but low profile Vancouver cultural facility is an important part of the “vibrant, interesting, dynamic and cultured place” that Maud 50 says we need to be.

    There is no doubt we can be more spontaneous, and have livelier street venues than we historically have. I believe recent Councils and Park Boards have been trying to do some of those kinds of things. We just have to keep at them. They take time.

    Maud’s description of her/his love of basketball reminds me of one of my employees who lived near Bayswater School and he was one of the neighbours who were not at all happy with people coming the school playground at all hours, often late into the evening, to play ball. The constant ca bom, ca bom, ca bom is not all that pleasant to listen to when trying to enjoy the last rays of sunshine in your back yard or getting to sleep to get to work the next day.

    There have also been similar conflicts at Kits Beach. As far as I know these things have been resolved via the Park and School Boards so they work for everyone. Maud you might try putting yourself in your neighbours shoes to better understand where they’re coming from. And, the constant ca bom, ca bom, ca bom is essentially the same problem as we are discussing with Pavco’s ca blink, ca blink, ca blink.

    Isn’t this kind of conflict resolution part of what being a civilized society is about.

  • mezzanine

    Bill 53,

    but PavCo already is turning the screens off at night. this screen being by a stadium used city-wide and regionally.

    what solution did the park and school board reach? no playground activity in the evening? this seems to have happened already at BC place. what further conflict resolution are you suggesting?

    and you see no contradiction with the CoV supporting 4 LED screens close by at telus gardens? with a screen right across the street from the condos at robson + seymour?

  • Paul

    The assumption that these screens are inevitable or essential to our local economy is what I have a problem with.

    I work in advertising. The industry can live without them.

    The links being drawn between being a vibrant city and using massive TV screens is…..well…..not a very good one.

  • mezzanine

    ^the city seems to think that under special circumstances, they can enhance downtown.

    From CoV docs re: telus gardens

    http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20111018/documents/p3.pdf

    Staff have carefully
    considered the requests for such screens in this application, and are prepared to support their
    further consideration in this case, given that this is a head office principally used by a preeminent technology provider who seeks to integrate them into the language of the initial
    architectural concept.
    ……
    The screen would provide interest
    and animation to the building façade, and allows for a unique place-making opportunity for
    Telus in this location.

    PavCo did itself no favours by not giving advance hearings of the signs, but I’m not sure the current compromise with turning screens off at 4-5 pm is a good one. IIRC, they were off even for saturday’s evening’s big game of Canada vs Cuba. And I’m not sure of what use that would be in summer, when it doesn’t get dark at 4:30pm.

    And I don’t understand Meggs’ approach. There really is no by-law for LED signs.

    Currently, staff are in the early stages of scoping a work program to review the City’s Sign
    Bylaw. One of many issues and needs to be addressed in the review, is the need for a clear
    and coherent approach to new technologies such as display screens.     (from the above link)

    For Geoff Meggs to be hard-line about this would bode poorly for the the city’s expressed support for the screens at telus gardens, for light-art installations around vancouver and for the screens to be active during night events in the summer, let alone winter events like the current women’s CONCACAF tournament.

  • Bill McCreery

    @ mez 54. Your “… this seems to have happened already at BC place. What further conflict resolution are you suggesting?” appears to indicate you are not hearing what I’m saying as a part of this discussion. It appears that others who actually are affected by the Pavco billboards feel the problem has not been sufficiently resolved to date. I have simply suggested because of their, IMO, somewhat persuasive comments, that there may be other solutions or additional measures which will help improve their quality of life. If not, you are correct.

    Please don’t put words in my mouth. I did not mention the Telus project. I am not familiar with the specifics of it. I would point out however that there are not a lot of residential uses along that part of Georgia. However, it would also be interesting to know how these would affect people working in the adjacent offices. I’m not sure I’d like having a flashing strobe off to the left across the street while I’m trying to write a legal opinion.

    Thank you Paul 55. A voice of reason. This ‘we will die’ argument was made when the City 1st banned billboards a number of years ago, and by goodness the ad men did find other ways to tempt us and separate us from our scheckles. In addition, shouldn’t this discussion be made within the already adopted City policy of not allowing large billboards?

    The continuity thread seems to be routinely ignored by this Council and staff. When new policies are proposed if there is other earlier related policies all of these should be presented as a part of the reports and discussion so that the new policy will be, or made to be, consistent with the earlier policy(s). This has not been happening. It is important that it should otherwise no-one will know what policy is precedent.

    Might not Councillor Meggs take on this matter be influenced by his apparent interest in running for MLA in the forthcoming election.

  • Lewis N. Villegas

    I agree with Bill that this kind of problem has a solution in civic process, and yes, let’s keep the debate going with decorum. Just because we may have a differing points of view doesn’t mean we have to dislike, insult, etc.

    I don’t call it ‘hyper-urbanism’ out of malice or boredom. I think it is an apt monicker for what we are doing in the tower zone. I have begun thinking about the contrast between modern urbanism—the excesses of which are under discussion—and modernity. The later is a project continuously unfolding in the west virtually without interruption for centuries.

    I have very little doubt that Michelangelo saw himself as a “modern”, as did Brunelleschi, Alberti, Palladio, Borromini, and the rest of that elite that rescued modernity from medieval feudalism by not being afraid to learn from the past. In their case, an imperial Rome still very much hanging around in ruined state. Much more ‘in place’ that what we have now.

    Relatively speaking, Modern urbanism has been a flash in the pan. Around for barely one hundred years, and to my mind, proven itself incapable of delivering good urbanism. I mean…. where is it? Is there a single “modern” space in our city we like?
    The worst part of the Wall Centre has to be the ground plane. I’ve never gone, and I don’t think I ever will… why go?

    If Sean Bickerton is around, we should discuss International Village… what? Place? That round modernist copy of a human-scaled space that fails as miserably as Philip Johnson’s attempt in Pittsburg. Why don’t proponents of flashing billboards, or towers in Safeway parking lots, first explain that one?

    And let us not forget that the suburban sprawl is just the flip side of the coin of modern urbanism.

←  Older Comments
 →