Today, the corner of Speedway Blvd. and Country Club Rd. is much less cluttered with signage than it was in 1970 when the "ugliest street in America" photo was taken. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson’s stringent 1980s sign code (plus multiple street-widening projects) have done much to clean up the billboards and over-sized signs on our streets, but every good law can stand some refinement from time to time.

Under the sign code, if you have a non-compliant sign and you want to take it down to fix it, you can’t put it back up. Also, if the property is sold, and the new owner wants to put a different type of business in that location, the non-compliant sign has to be replaced (although they can ask for variances).

Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in America by Tucson's mayor. Life Magazine published this photo of the corner of Speedway Blvd. and Country Club Rd.in 1970 to prove the point.

The Simonize Car Wash at Speedway and Country Club has incandescent lights and part of it is non-rectangular. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The Loft Cinema on Speedway Blvd. has incandescent lights, a period design, and a partially non-rectangular shape. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The Buick dealership on Speedway Blvd. has five over-sized signs and the biggest American flag in Tucson, but signs like this one have most likely been altered too much to comply with the transitional sign guidelines. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

In the current code, there are no provisions for retaining and fixing non-compliant signs that may be deemed historically or culturally important– part of Tucson’s sense of place. (An unintended consequence of this is the preponderance of empty sign shells and broken neon around town.)

For two years, a group of Tucson preservationists has been working on an Historic Landmark Sign Amendment to the Tucson Sign Code. This amendment defines two sets of signs that may be able to qualify as historic: Classic Historic Landmark Signs (those built before December 31, 1960) and Transitional Historic Landmark Signs (those built between 1961 and 1974, inclusive). It also provides guidelines to define historic. Besides age, the technical guidelines include: historic design motifs (exposed neon or incandescent bulbs), materials and construction from the time period, and non-rectangular shape. In addition, there are aesthetic guidelines which emphasize the cultural or historic importance of the sign and address whether or not it has been changed too much already to be deemed historic.

Although the city doesn’t have an official, public list of signs that potentially could qualify as historic (if the owner wanted to apply for that designation and come up with a Treatment Plan), an unnamed city administrator shared a draft map of sign locations with The Tucson Progressive. The map was shocking, actually. Marked in green on the map are approximately 85 pre-1961 signs (mostly around Miracle Mile and down Stone Ave. through downtown and into Armory Park). Marked in yellow on the map are another approximately 125 transitional signs spread around town but with a large concentration on Speedway Blvd. — 20+ signs between Tucson Blvd. and Wilmot Rd.

The photos at left represent a few of these signs in midtown. They are all about the right age to be considered transitional, and they all meet some of the technical guidelines. The slippery slope of the Historic Landmark Sign Amendment is that with good Treatment Plan and enough arm-twisting during the variance process these signs could be designated as historic by appealing to the Mayor and Council.

Saturday night I shot video (below) from Miracle Mile, down Stone Avenue, and through downtown to Armory Park to capture the old neon that is left. Many of the signs from Tucson’s days as a motor hotel haven are in horrendous shape, and the sign code amendment would help their owners repair them. I support saving Tucson’s pre-1961 neon signs but not the transitional era signs; I would also support a ~1965 cut-off date. Opening up an historic designation to signs from Tucson’s ugly days could leave us with many unintended consequences.

At the Tucson City Council Meeting on June 28, 2011, the Council will hear public comment on the Historic Landmark Sign Amendment. If you have an opinion, write or call the Mayor and Council or better yet, show up to comment at tomorrow’s meeting.

Adobe casita in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

When we first went house-hunting in Tucson in the early 1980s, our realtor thought we were crazy because we wanted a house with architectural style and wooden floors. Having lived in Columbus’ city core in an old Victorian-era brick double, we didn’t realize what a tall order this was in Tucson, our new home.

We spent several weeks driving around older neighborhoods in July in our AC-free Toyota Corolla with Judy (our chain-smoking realtor) and our baby daughter searching for style, affordability, and a house worth the sweat equity we were going to have to invest. We finally settled on a California Bungalow handyman special in the Pie Allen Neighborhood, priced at $34,000– the cost of some new vehicles today.

If Judy thought we were crazy while we were house-hunting, she probably really thought we were nuts when we bought that place, but we saw style and potential in that little house with the inviting front porch, the volcanic rock columns, the cozy fireplace flanked by wooden built-ins, and the large back yard– ready for a swing set and sandbox. Little did we know we were downtown pioneers before downtown was hip.

Thirty years later, many other urban pioneers have joined the struggle to breathe life into Tucson’s older neighborhoods and help downtown become livable and even fashionable.

At yesterday’s City Council Meeting, historic preservationists in Tucson won a major battle against the mini-dorm industry. The Council approved the Neighborhood Preservation Zone (NPZ) overlay for the Jefferson Park Neighborhood. The NPZ will restrict mini-dorm development by limiting the scale of new construction, making it more difficult to build a second story and limiting the size of a building to no more than 35 percent of the lot size. This is the second NPZ the Council has approved– the first being the Feldman Neighborhood NPZ in 2009, which developers are fighting.

This week, Tucson is hosting historic preservation conference, which will include a heritage discussion on Wednesday, June 22 at Hotel Congress.

Also, this week, a new guide to historic homes in Tucson was published.

Next week, at the June 28 City Council Meeting, the Council will consider a proposal to amend the sign code protect and preserve historic landmark signage older than 1975. Although I am a bit concerned about inclusion of “transitional” signage between 1961-1974 in this amendment, I think it is a worthwhile effort to protect the funky neon signs that mark Tucson’s past as a motor hotel haven.

With this volume of preservation activity, will Tucson save its unique architecture and sense of place? I hope so.  I don’t want developers to make Tucson into a place where there is no there there. I still remember the July thunderstorm clouds gathering over the old courthouse’s mosaic dome and the reflection of the Tucson Inn sign in the swimming pool that night in 1981 when we first visited Tucson.

Wooden doors in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Crumbling adobe home in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

El Rapido sign in downtown Tucson. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Fireplace with nichos in an old adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

The old Corner Market in downtown awaits TLC. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Inviting entrance to restored downtown adobe home. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Cluttered with so many signs that you can hardly see the street, Speedway Blvd. was dubbed the ugliest street in American by Life Magazine in 1970.

Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. In the 1980s, Tucsonans passed landmark sign code legislation that has gradually whittled away billboards and reduced the number and scale of signs.

Tucson Sign Code works to beautify our city, and that is why it is under attack by the sign industry and local businesses. The question is: Will the Tucson City Council have the backbone to protect it? Judging by recent “business friendly” rulings by the City Council that have weakened the Sign Code, don’t hold your breath. (In December 2010, they voted unanimously to allow more signs and larger signs along Tucson’s scenic corridors. In March 2011, they voted to allow the Jewish Community Center to erect a billboard on the side of their building, which is in Tucson’s scenic corridor.)

The latest Sign Code battle is being fought on two fronts. Business interests are pressuring the City Council to eliminate the Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), the citizens’ review board that hears appeals when businesses want a variance to the sign code, and to pass a historic sign amendment to the Sign Code, which goes far beyond saying the funky neon signs along Miracle Mile.

Businesses are attacking the SCAAB because the SCAAB doesn’t roll over and do everything they want. From Sign Code activist Mark Mayer…

A proposal is now pending before Mayor and Council to eliminate the SCAAB and assign its functions to the Board of Adjustment.  This proposal, which is stealthily labeled “Improvement in Sign Code Administration”, is part of the City Manager’s Strategic Work Plan that you will be asked to vote on July 6.   The proposal is the apparent result of the repeated sign industry failures to stack SCAAB with its members and allies and it is now setting its sights on the Board of Adjustment as an alternative forum (with “recommended” appointments to undoubtedly follow).  Any claims that this move is due to budgetary issues ring hollow, as there are no proposals to eliminate the larger, more expensive, and sign industry-dominated Citizen Sign Code Committee (CSCC) and assign its functions to the Planning Commission.  The SCAAB proposal needs to be rejected, at least until such time sign regulations are appropriately incorporated into the Land Use Code and the CSCC issues noted above are fully addressed.

The proposed historic sign change sounds good on the surface, but it goes too far. Again, from Mayer…

An ordinance to ostensibly protect historic signs is now before the City Council in Study Session on June 14 [that's today!] and in public hearing on June 28. The draft ordinance has mushroomed well beyond what was originally conceived and would now open the door to the largest and tallest of signs being relocated or resurrected on properties where they never existed before and without any notification to surrounding property owners, without any public hearing, and without a legislative decision being made by Mayor and Council. Instead, the decision would be made by a single administrative official, which, if not without statutory authority, is certainly bad public policy. It is no wonder that the sign industry and its proxy, the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, are heartily supporting this ordinance. The Mayor and Council need to narrow the scope of the ordinance down to its original focus, which was to determine the relatively limited number of older signs that are widely embraced by the community for their historic value and focus on their preservation. [Emphasis added. ]

As I said at the beginning of this article, Being known as “ugly” is not a good designation for a town that lives on tourism. If the Mayor and Council truly want to be business friendly, they should keep the SCAAB and ask that the focus of the historic sign amendment be narrowed to its original intent.

Tell the City Council what you think. Here’s a link to their contact information, or better yet, come to the meetings and speak in favor of keeping Tucson off the worst-dressed list.

In a recent e-mail blast, Ward 6 City Councilman Steve Kozachik released a long and varied list of projects that the City Council will be contemplating and potentially voting upon in the coming months. The list is below. In addition, rumor has it that the City Council is considering scrapping or at least knee-capping the Sign Code. If you hate billboards as much as I do, go tell the City Council that you want to see the mountains and sunsets– not the Clear Channel advertising!

There is a City Council Meeting today– May 24, 2011. As always, the meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. and include a call to audience, when you and everyone else can voice their opinions.

In last week’s newsletter I promised to share with you the Strategic Work Plan items that the city is contemplating. These are projects with varying levels of urgency and funding. We will be discussing them over the next several weeks. I’m interested in your thoughts about the items on the list.

1. City/County Courthouse – build a new courthouse to house both City and County operations
2. Expand City Court self-serve kiosks program – to allow remote filing of court documents
3. Graffiti Reduction Pilot Program – has already begun in the downtown area with purpose of identifying taggers and bringing charges
4. Implement PCWIN Project – interconnected communications system for and in between public safety agencies
5. Wireless data communication for Public Safety – new proprietary data communications system
6. Replace Public Safety computer aided dispatch – relates to 911 call center.The intent is to streamline that operation
7. Partner with UA for downtown development – has already begun with Roy Place Building and more plans are being developed
8. Downtown Civic Events coordinator – comprehensive plan for coordinating the planning and staging of community events
9. Management of downtown performing arts centers – consider options for how to manage and co-promote performing arts venues
10. Downtown links overlay zone – optional overlay for zoning of properties located within the downtown links urban overlay district
11. Create downtown entertainment district – meant to designate an Entertainment District primarily to ease restrictions on sale of alcohol
12. Ronstadt Transit Center redesign – consider adding retail/mixed use to the southern border of the RTC
13. Create plan for City owned facilities and land downtown – to create both short and long term returns to the General Fund, HURF and CDBG programs to the community.
14. Westside projects / Mission Garden – seek out funding and continue in conceptual design on the properties.
15. Implement new Clean Renewable Energy Bonds – full debt service is dependent on approval from the Rio Board.
16. Aerospace and Defense corridor – continue working with TREO to create cluster development in this sector.
17. Implement energy efficiency and conservation block grants.
18. Revise Small Business Enterprise programs – create program for giving incentives to local businesses bidding on City work
19. 2012 Bond Election – earmarked at this time to fund projects in police, fire and other core services.
20. Procurement Card program – expand use of PCards in operating departments to save City processing costs and receive rebates for their use
21. Identify economic incentive package for attracting businesses – identify appropriate incentives the City can offer prospects
22. Expenditure limitation – create a permanent expenditure cap, a level beyond our projection capabilities that is fixed, unless changed by a simple majority from the council.
23. Marketing, communication web strategy – put out through social media some positive news stories and other City news worthy items.
24. Extend public pensions TSRS end of service plan – provide an incentive for people to retire if they have met certain criteria.
25. Retiree wellness program – offered to retirees as an option within their health plan coverage
26. Develop Health Insurance RFP – put out on the street provision of health insurance to all City employees
27. Consolidation of Boards, Committees and Commissions – streamline BCC process in order to save volunteers’ time and hopefully expand volunteer pool.
28. Community services dialogues – hear Budget 101 from staff and offer input
29. ERP I.T. Technology – upgrade the software being used by the City and enhance the communication processes.
30. Comply with recent State mandates relating to maintenance of financial data – keeping records per State statute
31. Deferred maintenance plan – put together a comprehensive deferred maintenance plan and begin to perform work under the plan to protect taxpayer assets
32. Comply with recent State and Federal mandates regarding technology and personal data – identity theft protection measures
33. P4 program – allows virtual meeting option through upgrade to City communications system
34. 792-CITY – citizen virtual information center
35. Update building code – more user friendly code system
36. Environmental Services and Tucson Water greenhouse gas inventories – conduct greenhouse gas inventories in ES and TW
37. Plan Tucson – General plan for Tucson, as per State mandate
38. Greater Southlands habitat conservation plan – plan to protect habitat and provide for responsible growth in undeveloped lands south and east of Tucson
39. Modern Streetcar – design has begun and work on the tracks will begin soon
40. City/County water-wastewater study – program to set goals and recommendations related to water supply, integrate planning, demand management and respect for the environment
41. Seawater Foundation – provide alternatives to use of CAP water in Yuma region – crops grown in seawater freeing up CAP for jurisdictions.
42. Complete Land Use Code parking amendments
43. Continue to amend Land Use Code – should have Clarion Study done this year.
44. Sustainable Land Use Code amendments – should have additions to LUC in the area of sustainability later this year
45. Zoning along streetcar route to facilitate development – mixed use, residential, and commercial
46. Houghton Road - change from Scenic Corridor to a Gateway Corridor
47. Expand Houghton Road Area master plan to include areas southeast on State Land
48. Parks and Recreation 10 year growth plan
49. Planning for future events at Hi Corbett field
50. Clean City initiative – multi-departmental program to address pot-holes, graffiti, landscaping, etc.
51. Barrio Viejo drainage project – determine funding sources for this project that was placed on hold when Rio Nuevo pulled funding.
52. West University ”transition area” plan amendment – land use code alterations
53. Transit Fare shift to use of Smart Cards
54. Five year financing plan for Sun Tran/Transit
55. Update Chapter 25 – relates to neighborhood cleanliness – landscaping, removal of unsightly items from private property, etc
56. Riparian Preservation and Restoration – revise the City’s existing riparian preservation ordinances
57. Urban landscape/heat island management – Land Use Code changes to address urban landscape issues
58. Net Zero Energy Program – energy conservation program
59. Planning & Development Services stakeholder group to be formed
60. Developmental Services to adopt “best practices” as found in researching other progressive localities
61. Sign Code program administration improvements
62. Update Tucson Floodplain Ordinance
63. Catalina High School Skate Park fencing project

 

Staff will be making presentation of these proposed Work Plan projects over the next several weeks. Council meetings are always open to the public, so come on down to 255 W. Alameda, Council Chambers, on Tuesday at 2 p.m. for our study session or wait until after 5:30 p.m. to get your time at the microphone during Call to the Audience.

The Tucson City Council unanimously voted business friendly twice at last night’s meeting– approving a new Land Use Code requiring fewer parking spaces and approving a billboard along Tucson’s scenic corridor for the Jewish Community Center (JCC).

Parking and the Land Use Code

The Land Use Code changes to vehicle and bicycle parking were contentious at the March 8 City Council meeting. Last night’s discussion was a continuation, but in the interim, a compromise was negotiated. Cyclists and businessmen alike spoke glowingly in favor of the Land Use Code changes and the civil discourse that resulted in the compromise. In a nutshell, the new business construction will be able to provide few parking spaces for cars; in addition, there are formulas which allow for customization in vehicle and bicycle parking.

Tucson’s cycling community is trying achieve a platinum rating from the League of American Bicyclists, a distinction held by only two other American cities. Cycling enthusiasts at last night’s meeting said the new bicycle parking laws will help move Tucson forward toward a platinum rating.

Councilwoman Regina Romero praised the Land Use Code negotiations and said that requiring fewer parking spaces and good bicycle parking will allow for more infill construction, while encouraging the use of alternative transportation.

JCC Billboard and the Sign Code

Last fall, the Tucson’s Sign Code Appeals and Advisory Board (SCAAB), a citizen’s advisory board made up of local business people, denied JCC’s application for a sign code variance. Among other nuances, the current code says a business can have a 50 square-foot sign. The JCC already has one over-sized lighted monument sign with a changing text and wanted to erect a 750 square-foot, changing-text billboard on the south face of their building on River Road at Dodge, at the base of the Catalina Mountains.

The JCC lost the variance case last fall, and their last ditch effort to erect a billboard along Tucson’s scenic corridor was at last night’s Tucson City Council meeting.

Since this was an appeal, discussion was limited to the JCC and any neighbors or concerned parties directly affected by the proposed billboard. Council Members were given the SCAAB’s meeting minutes and all records in advance. The JCC’s president and another representative talked in warm and fuzzy platitudes about how a giant sign will promote the mission of the JCC. (In other words, a changing-text billboard on River Road will help sell their services to commuters whizzing by.)

At first it appeared as if no one was there to speak against the billboard, so… I raised my hand and said, “Well, I’m not exactly a neighbor, but I live directly south of the JCC and will be affected by this.”

I think the City Council hearing on a scaled-back 500-square-foot sign was supposed to be an orchestrated no-opposition, slam-dunk for the JCC, so to have some trouble-makin’ blogger raise her hand gave them all a bit of a pause. (Oh, God, what’s she going to say if we let her have the mike?)

They did let me speak– on behalf of those River Road commuters and the hundreds of Tucsonans who use the Rillito River Path and Brandi Fenton Memorial Park– across the street from the proposed billboard. I said people like me use the bike path for exercise and commuting and frequent Brandi Fenton because of the great facilities and the breath-taking view of the Catalinas– a view that would be spoiled by a billboard. I questioned the size and location of the billboard. The JCC president had said that the sign would be visible only from the Alvernon Way direction (east of the JCC), but I remain skeptical that a billboard that large will not be visible from the park and the river path.

Of course, my pitch for preserving natural beauty over commercial signage didn’t stop the process the steam-roller process. The Council approved the 500-square-foot billboard variance– 10x the sign code recommendation. I know that the JCC believes that erecting a billboard at the base of the Catalinas will help their marketing effort. I believe this marketing move could cause public relations problems and hurt the JCC’s public image– particularly with those who are concerned with environmental sensitivity. With its changing text and giant size, if the sign is too visually intrusive, those River Road commuters and park-goers aren’t going to like it, and that could backfire on them. Only time will tell.

This City Council has now voted twice to allow increased signage along Tucson’s scenic corridor; this is a dangerously slippery slope. Environmentalists– this should be a wake up call.

Larger commercial signage will now be allowed along Tucson's scenic routes. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Business-friendly whiners made the front page of the Arizona Daily Star today– with old news. The story– Tough Times Make City’s Sign Code a Target– features three business owners who are perpetual complainers about Tucson’s sign code. (Although two of them were allowed to use the offending signs after appeal, they’re still whining about them.)

The third complainer is Thoroughbred Nisson– who bought the old Kinney Shoe Store building and its GIANT, old, ugly sign across the street. The sign code says that old, non-compliant signs are grandfathered in and can be used until the business changes hands. If the business type remains the same (ie, a restaurant opens where an old restaurant was), the non-compliant sign can be used– regardless how old, ugly, and out-of-scale it may be. If the business type changes, the signage is subject to review.

Thoroughbred Nisson tried to play the historic card with the old Kinney Shoe Store sign– erected on east Broadway Blvd. in 1960 (during the same era when Life Magazine said Speedway Blvd. was the ugliest street in America). It was 3x as tall and almost 4x as big as new signs, and there was nothing esthetically pleasing about it. I agree with the decision to tear that sign down and with the neighborhood opposition to that sign. Quoting the Star: “As Ron Spark of El Encanto Estates argued in a letter to the city, it would be a charade to classify ‘older, oversized, grotesquely ugly signage’ as historical.” What the Star article doesn’t report is that Spark was only one of many neighbors who were tired of looking at that sign.

Interestingly enough, businessman and would-be Republican mayoral candidate Shaun McClusky, who was trying to make a case for big signs, actually made a case for the effectiveness of small signs.

The Internet is great, McClusky said, “but I’m in the real estate business. We can advertise a property on 18 websites on a daily basis, but I get far more calls from dropping signs in front yards.”.

Summarily dissing Internet advertising because yard signs are effective real estate tools is silly. Receiving more calls from small real estate signs has more to do with the property the sign is in front of than the sign. If he’s not getting hits from the websites, try a different website! Also, does he know how many people looked at the house on the web before they drove by?

I think GIANT sign cheerleaders would have a more convincing case if they actually had data to show that GIANT signs bring in more business than sign-code-compliant signs. Yes, they can be seen, but does that translate to sales?

Is a sign code actually bad for business? I don’t think so.

Take Palm Springs as a good example of a thriving metropolis with strict signs and LOTS of business. On a recent trip to Palm Springs, I was impressed with the short, tasteful signs and almost complete lack of billboards. We stayed in one of the five or so hotels near their convention center and enjoyed breakfast in a quaint shopping/restaurant area nearby. We thought, “This is what downtown Tucson should look like!”

In this electronic age, giant signs and billboards are dinosaurs. A tasteful, READABLE sign that includes the business name + street number is only one component of a marketing plan. Businesses also should have a well-designed, functional, and up-to-date website, a facebook account, a Twitter account, a stylish business card, and membership in one or more networking groups. And, if you want eye-catching signage, get a car wrap.

March 22 update: The Tucson City Council will hear a sign code variance appeal at tonight’s meeting (March 22, 2011). The Jewish Community Center– a beautifully design building set into the Catalina Mountains– wants to cover the south face of their building with a billboard.  The center already has one non-compliant, over-sized sign. Now they want a billboard, which will not only destroy the architectural elegance of their building but also destroy our view of the Catalina Mountains. If they are allowed to erect this billboard, every time you sit on a bench at Brandi Fenton Park to watch the sunset over the Catalinas, you will see a billboard.

Larger commercial signage will now be allowed along Tucson's scenic routes. (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

After hearing several Tucsonans– including former City Councilman Brent Davis– speak in favor of keeping the current Scenic Corridor Sign Code or fixing just the problem area along Houghton Road, Tucson’s Mayor and Council voted in solidarity to allow larger signs on all scenic corridors in Tucson.

Three plans were considered: Plan A which was drawn up by sign industry lobbyists; Plan B which was drawn up by city staff; and Plan C, a compromise plan that gives business larger signs but not as big as they had hoped for. A fourth plan– dubbed the community plan– was proposed by signage watchdogs Mark Mayer and Kathleen McLaughlin, who sits on the Citizens Sign Code Committee. Although the McLaughlin-Mayer plan was submitted to the Mayor and Council and some residents spoke in favor of it, it was not distributed online with other documentation, and it was not seriously considered at the meeting.

Davis, who had been on the City Council when the initial sign code was developed, spoke eloquently about the vision they had for Tucson’s Scenic Corridors, “It [the Scenic Corridor Sign Code] has worked for almost 30 years. We had a vision to preserve the city’s natural beauty. All City Council members before you– regardless of Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever– have supported it.” He and others urged the Council to think of their legacy on this issue.

If you increase the size now, you will never be able to go back because the larger signs will be grandfathered, he warned. Noticeably proud of the vision and the work that was done on the sign code in the 1980s, Davis said those who have lived in Tucson for a while will agree that streetscapes have changed dramatically since the code was adopted.

In the end, it didn’t matter that there were fewer large sign supporters than Scenic Corridor supporters, the Mayor and Council voted for the compromise Plan C and talked about revisiting the issue in a year. Another issue that came up in the public comment and was mentioned by Councilwoman Karin Ulich was review of the make-up of the Citizens’ Sign Code Committee; there were several charges that the committee– which originally proposed the most lenient signs for the Scenic Corridors– is dominated by people who would benefit from more and larger signs (ie, developers, sign makers).

Personally, I think the Mayor and Council threw the baby out with the bathwater. Changing the designation of South Houghton Road, which will soon be widened, to a Gateway Corridor– thus allowing different signage– and protecting the other scenic routes would have been a better course of action– even though it would have taken longer.

Driving near Gates Pass (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Tucson is surrounded by the natural beauty of the desert and the majesty of the sky islands. Less than 15 minutes, from little abode in midtown is the scenic route along River Road and access to the Rillito River Park trail. Maybe there is something primal about being surrounded by the natural world, but all I know is that it cleanses the soul and calms the mind.

In an attempt to preserve Tucson’s beauty, the local sign code includes a section that limits business signage and billboards along the designated scenic routes. The roads highlighted in red on this city map mark designated scenic routes. When the sign code was written several years ago, these routes were on the outskirts of town. Thanks to sprawl, the city has encroached upon some of these areas.

Now the Citizen’s Sign Code Committee, a business-oriented advisory committee to the Tucson Mayor and Council, wants to weaken the sign code along Tucson’s scenic routes and allow for larger signage. Obviously, this would increase blight and lead to the destruction of scenic views like the one above.

In her ward newsletter, Councilwoman Karin Ulich alluded to finding a balance between preserving the natural beauty of the surrounding desert and mountains and promoting commerce.

Councilman Steve Kozachik took this idea a step further in his ward newsletter and tried to tie bigger signs to jobs:

More on jobs? We are looking at restructuring some of the provisions to the sign code. While everybody on the council recognizes the need to protect the natural beauty of our scenic areas, we must find the balance between jobs creation/ preservation and protecting that public good. There is general consensus that the sign code needs an overhaul. What we will vote on next week is a step in that direction that I am confident will reflect our mutual concern for the environmental sensitivity of our surrounding areas and the need to allow businesses to operate in ways that give them a fighting chance at survival during this economic downturn.

Sorry, Koz, but I don’t buy this. Primarily, the jobs you will create with larger signs along the scenic corridor are short-term, sign-building jobs. In this era of social networking and Internet marketing, having a big-ass sign is not essential to business survival. In fact, I would argue that having a facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, an e-mail marketing list, and/or a well-organized website with good search engine optimization are far more important to business success than a giant roadside sign. (Also, Internet marketing provides ongoing jobs– not short-term jobs.)

View from Pima Canyon (Photo Credit: Pamela Powers)

Having a tasteful sign with your business name and street number (please!) that is designed with a type style and color scheme that drivers can read at 40mph is important– yes– but that sign doesn’t have to be giant. After all, eventually drivers who see those big-ass signs every day just ignore them; in contrast, you can update your customers and their friends on facebook or Twitter continuously.

Businesses that are stuck in the big-sign-equals-success mindset need to wake up to the 21st century marketing techniques. Who is motivated to buy something from a roadside sign? Friend referrals (in person or through social networking) and an easy-to-find website are far more important. Seriously, I always “let my fingers do the walking” around the Internet before I get in the car, and I don’t know anyone under 60 who doesn’t.

At the December 14  City Council meeting, changes to the sign code for Scenic Corridor Zone District will be discussed. If you have an opinion, come to the meeting and voice it during the call to the audience. The meeting begins at 5:30 in the Council Chambers, 255 W. Alameda.