Signage will deface Atlanta’s second-tallest building (Perry: lease, credit)

[First24]

Sometime this month, Atlanta’s second-tallest skyscraper is expected to look different, with the flip of a switch.

This was brought to our attention in the form of a Letter to the Editor, as published below. It’s penned by an intown office dweller and industry observer who’s concerned the trend of crowning some of Atlanta’s best-known buildings with brightly lit signage is cluttering the city’s skies.

The building in question, formerly called SunTrust Plaza, is a distinctive, 60-story downtown landmark, designed and developed by the late John Portman, that’s stood for nearly three decades.

https://urbanize.city/atlanta/post/n...an-opinion/amp

Atlanta has few ordinances restricting signage on buildings. The link above has renderings of what former SunTrust Plaza may look like with the Truist logos.

What do you think about the addition of signage to another landmark highrise? No big deal? Should there be stronger ordinances?

[cwkimbro]

I don't think this is that bad. The op-ed is a bit sensationalized in how it is pitched too.

The Truist logo, as bad as it is on paper, looks good on that building. The square fits with the cubic design of the spire of old suntrust building.

The word Truist is plain and doesn't do much to change the shape and geometry of the building. It doesn't look too different from how Westin titles their building or how the old Equitable sign use to be on the old Equitable building.

If anything, the real story should be focused on how poor the equitable building signage looks, compared to what it use to be. I'd also focus on how bad the new signage is on the old Bell South building. The old blue Southern Bell symbol was simple and known and looked good on the building. AT&T changed it. It wasn't as good, but it was well created. The new logo looks like a cheap logo a local contractor uses to temporarily put on construction site fence.

But this ultimately comes down to how well the building owner treats their own building. The Truist building rendering seems to be a design that is simple and fitted for the building.

I think there could be some legitmate regulations against video boards, depending on how much light they project, the direction they face, and how it affects neighboring buildings.


Video boards can produce large changes in light intensity that are too visually distracting to immediate neighbors in the course of being able to use their property.

[Born 2 Roll]

I guess that I don’t really care much either way as long as the signage does not get too gaudy or out of control like has been the case with the Georgia’s Own Credit Union signage on top of the former Equitable building.

I will say that I am not at all surprised and that no one really should be at all surprised that Truist Financial is putting their name up in lights on the outside of the top of the former SunTrust Plaza.

That is because Truist Financial had a history of putting their name on public facilities (particularly public sporting facilities like stadiums and arenas) back when it was a super-regional bank known as BB&T.

So it probably should come as no surprise that Truist Financial wants to prominently display its name up on top of its high-profile skyscraper in a major commercial district at the center of one of America’s largest and most important large major metropolitan areas.

[bu2]

I prefer buildings with only the signage at street level. Think its much better without the names on the building. Some other cities restrict either by ordinance or by voluntary restraint. Oddly enough, Houston is one of those. I think they do it through management districts.

[Atlanta-Native]

Originally Posted by bu2

I prefer buildings with only the signage at street level. Think its much better without the names on the building. Some other cities restrict either by ordinance or by voluntary restraint. Oddly enough, Houston is one of those. I think they do it through management districts.

Signage is often a sticking point for larger companies to have, in order to sign a lease. If you are going to occupy X% of square footage, you will negotiate that signage.

[evannole]

Originally Posted by bu2

I prefer buildings with only the signage at street level. Think its much better without the names on the building. Some other cities restrict either by ordinance or by voluntary restraint. Oddly enough, Houston is one of those. I think they do it through management districts.

Houston's rule must be fairly new. Continental's logo was very prominent at the top of their old headquarters tower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tHoustonTX.jpg

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Born 2 Roll

I guess that I don’t really care much either way as long as the signage does not get too gaudy or out of control like has been the case with the Georgia’s Own Credit Union signage on top of the former Equitable building.

The Equitable sign was a first rate piece of architecture.

In general, I agree with bu2 about keeping building signage at street level only. Otherwise it quickly gets tacky.

[cparker73]

Can you imagine how pissed Tyler Perry has to be to have a logo so similar to his studio blazing across the skyline?

[JMatl]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The Equitable sign was a first rate piece of architecture.

In general, I agree with bu2 about keeping building signage at street level only. Otherwise it quickly gets tacky.

Agreed, arjay. It didn't get much better than SOM's Chicago office back then. The Equitable Building pre-Georgia's Own was timeless elegance.

[Smocaine]

This is much ado about nothing, I'm neutral on mostly-tasteful signage. This Truist addition doesn't butcher the building.


What happened to the Equitable and Symphony buildings, however, is murder.