Question: Why doesn't Union Square look more like Times Square? (San Francisco: price, centers)

[garyjohnyang]

I know looking like Times Square isn't doesn't mean anything, but I noticed that there are a lot of billboards in Union Square, while Times Square in Manhattan is lit up with millions of bright lights and digital ads. Union Square I find, has its fair amount of hustle and bustle, but we still don't have any of those huge megatrons and commercials and lights. Is there anything preventing us from putting up those signs? I don't want Union Square to turn into Times Square but I was just curious as to why that never happened. I remember a few years ago that we voted down a proposition to allow signs on Market Street between 5th and 7th.

[Ruth4Truth]

Why should it look like Times Square? San Francisco is a unique city, with its own unique features. Union Square is much smaller than Times Square, for one thing. Let Union Square have its own personality. SF will never be NYC, which is a good thing.

[bmw335xi]

Cuz its not NYC, duh

[mini_cute]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

I know looking like Times Square isn't doesn't mean anything, but I noticed that there are a lot of billboards in Union Square, while Times Square in Manhattan is lit up with millions of bright lights and digital ads. Union Square I find, has its fair amount of hustle and bustle, but we still don't have any of those huge megatrons and commercials and lights. Is there anything preventing us from putting up those signs? I don't want Union Square to turn into Times Square but I was just curious as to why that never happened. I remember a few years ago that we voted down a proposition to allow signs on Market Street between 5th and 7th.

From what I have heard, SF has had for some decades now policies aimed at reducing advertising around the city. The thinking behind this is that too much advertising is not healthy for communities and makes the city look commercialized and ugly (i.e. lots of billboards everywhere). So, where they do have some advertising allowed, it is limited, and not allowed to be as in your face. So a megaton would be too over the top to pass SF regulations.

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Cuz its not NYC, duh

That's not the point, though. What I was trying to get at is why, even though both are a sort of breeding grounds for American consumerism, advertisements in Times Square are digital and everywhere, while in Union Square (where people spend $$$ for overpriced clothes) ads are limited to a few billboards. It's much more than San Francisco not being New York. Yonge-Dundas Square in Toronto isn't in New York, but it still reminds people of Times Square. Then there's places like Ginza, Shinjuku, and Shibuya in Tokyo, and everywhere there is plastered in neon lights and signs and screens. I was just wondering our dense city doesn't have any equivalent to that.

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by mini_cute

From what I have heard, SF has had for some decades now policies aimed at reducing advertising around the city. The thinking behind this is that too much advertising is not healthy for communities and makes the city look commercialized and ugly (i.e. lots of billboards everywhere). So, where they do have some advertising allowed, it is limited, and not allowed to be as in your face. So a megaton would be too over the top to pass SF regulations.

Hmm, well Union Square is already touristy anyways, so I don't really understand why they didn't just go full out with all the billboards and advertisements. San Francisco is already pretty commercialized too, and all the signs would be more symbolic of the essential "focal point" of the city. Do you think a taller, brighter, Union Square would attract more visitors?

[garyjohnyang]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Why should it look like Times Square? San Francisco is a unique city, with its own unique features. Union Square is much smaller than Times Square, for one thing. Let Union Square have its own personality. SF will never be NYC, which is a good thing.

I agree, it is a good thing. It's just that a lot of global cities now are starting to blend into huge commercialized, international, and financial centers, and San Francisco doesn't seem to want to become one of them.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

I agree, it is a good thing. It's just that a lot of global cities now are starting to blend into huge commercialized, international, and financial centers, and San Francisco doesn't seem to want to become one of them.

Good for San Francisco! It doesn't have too much choice, anyway. It can never become huge, as it's limited to a small peninsula. And people are already complaining about the development that's happening to accommodate more tech workers. Let SF have and enjoy what's left of its local charm.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by garyjohnyang

I agree, it is a good thing. It's just that a lot of global cities now are starting to blend into huge commercialized, international, and financial centers, and San Francisco doesn't seem to want to become one of them.

What does huge electronic signs have to do with being 'commercialized, international financial centers'?

San Francisco is already a major interational city and massive financial center.

And those electronic signs would NEVER be allowed by SF voters on account of they are seen as vulgar and tacky by lots of SF people. That said , I think a Times Square type deal would work better on the corner of Van Ness and Market, not so much Union Square.

[04kL4nD]

Times Square sucks. I'm glad Union Square rarely gets as crowded, except around Christmas (note: AVOID).