Boston a little light on the NEON lights?? (appointed, hotel)

[Tiger Beer]

Read somewhere that there are city ordinances restricting neon in the city of Boston. What's that all about?

If that's true, to what extent? What are you feelings on that? Better for the city or worse for the city?

[holden125]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

Read somewhere that there are city ordinances restricting neon in the city of Boston. What's that all about?

If that's true, to what extent? What are you feelings on that? Better for the city or worse for the city?

Not aware of it and there are neon signs around but it's possible there are some restrictions these days. Vermont banned neon because it emits mercury and, frankly, because Vermont's a sedate and rural New England state where tastes run to the pastoral rather than Route 66 kitsch. They don't allow billboards there either.

A lot of formerly neon signs now are using LED, most famously the Citgo sign in Kenmore Square.



Someone proposed a Times Square-like thing on Lansdowne St (with LED, not neon). I would hate that. To me the whole point of Boston is that it's not Times Square.

[lrfox]

Do you mean actual neon or just bright colorful light (mostly LED today)?

I don't know if there's an ordinance, but it's something many people are against. I think that even if there were a law against it, the Citgo sign is somewhat of a landmark and I'm sure it was grandfathered in.

Now that you've got me thinking about it, I think I vaguely remember hearing about limitations on bright LED or Neon lighting in largely residential areas. For example, I'm 100% positive that it's legal to have bright neon lighting in the Theatre District. In fact, the bright marquees and advertisements are part of the draw.

One of my favorite proposals for Boston is this narrow little gem that will go directly across the street from the W Hotel on the narrow parcel next to the Wilbur Theatre. It is a slim, modern structure with a heavy dose of LED lighting and advertising. I love it. Here are a few renderings:



In the Theatre District, that will fly. There's no way you get it built on Beacon Hill though.

If it is a law, I like it. There is a place for everything, and historic residential neighborhoods aren't a good spot for bright neon lighting. The Theatre District, on the other hand is a perfect location for nice bright lighting as it's part of the draw.

[HenryAlan]

I think the law involves how big the signage is, whether it's a commercial district, etc. There are plenty of small neon signs in my neighborhood along the commercial buildings -- bars and restaurants make use of it. Here is a particularly famous neon sign:



I like this one a lot, and to the extent that there are other examples in my neighborhood, it pleases me. Maybe they are violating the law, maybe they are grandfathered, but it keeps a bit of urban style going in what is predominately a residential area.

[xS☺B☺s]

Boston is the antithesis to Times Sq. Loud wild lights and colors are tacky, gaudy, improper and profane. Boston does not want to be TS.

Boston is sedate, ornate, elegant, tactfully appointed, proper. Even Dunkin Donuts and 7-11 sports gold lettering against fine woodwork in Beacon Hill.

The history of Boston's subdued and tactfully appointed tradition is anything but new. It's lineage is visible back to the colonial times in the Old State House and can be further traced observing design commissioned by London Society back a looonnnnnnng way... IOW, New England inherited its proper manners from Old England.






A wiki photo