Neon signs were used by advertisers/establishments/etc. to get people's attention. Don't act as if neon signs were ever a way of life or an actual part of the landscape. They were never anything more than obnoxious advertisements.
As an aside if the Zanzibar ever gets to be redeveloped, it will be interesting whether the heritage facade and signage will be saved in-situ.
AoD
Roy G Biv:
Personally I think that condition of re-establishing the sign in-situ as the prerequisite for the approval of the project is a bad one (especially given the change in built form). If anything the city should require the disassembly, repair and storage of the sign instead.
Neon signs were used by advertisers/establishments/etc. to get people's attention. Don't act as if neon signs were ever a way of life or an actual part of the landscape. They were never anything more than obnoxious advertisements.
(URL)Website emphasizing that the corporation behind the sign advocates its preservation. Gee, I wonder why that is.(/URL)
(IMG)useless, ugly corporate sign(/IMG)
...and there's the Hollywood sign, which was originally an advertisement for a real estate development.
Sadly most of it gone now. You lumping all neon signs into the "obnoxious" category speaks volumes.
Further supporting the notion that corporate signage need not be preserved. Or is this some kind of a "me too" scenario where Toronto *has* to preserve a sign, no matter how ugly, because some other city has done so? Just because Boston did something stupid, we aren't obliged to go down the same path. As I said earlier, if the sign is truly worthy of being preserved, it needs to be placed in a museum, or maybe the CNE, but certainly not on site, where it would be defacing one of the most architecturally inspiring buildings on Yonge.
The Hollywood sign still serves a purpose, and in no way defaces its surroundings.
What does speak volumes is the fact that neon signs are no longer in use. I'm sure corporations would love the ability to reintroduce those cheap, obnoxious, effective advertisements.
Just because Boston did something stupid, we aren't obliged to go down the same path.
Further supporting the notion that corporate signage need not be preserved. Or is this some kind of a "me too" scenario where Toronto *has* to preserve a sign, no matter how ugly, because some other city has done so? Just because Boston did something stupid, we aren't obliged to go down the same path. As I said earlier, if the sign is truly worthy of being preserved, it needs to be placed in a museum, or maybe the CNE, but certainly not on site, where it would be defacing one of the most architecturally inspiring buildings on Yonge.