Also good for post-presidential Trump portraiture.
1 Like
Somehow reminds me of my neighbour tuning in to watch Simpsons reruns every afternoon at 5PM, with the radio tuned to the FM band of the television (an old fashioned way to get stereo sound for premium TV) and a pair of binoculars to watch the big screen TV in the apartment across the back alley.
2 Likes
If you can connect to it, put Frozen on endless repeat (possibly just the scene with the song Let It Go) on Frank’s 2000 inch TV and see how long it takes for people in the skyscraper facing the TV to beg the owner to turn it off.
I worked at a surgical instrument company. We had an always on TV in our cafeteria that quietly ran through company related announcements and videos. It was certainly better than some of the alternatives.
But one day we were all eating and chatting as usual when I realized that maybe the video playing wasn’t well thought out for the location. So I asked, “Does anyone care that the video today is bowel surgery?” Nope. We kept on chatting and eating. I was mostly bothered by the fact we weren’t bothered.
5 Likes
“But the plans were on display…”
12 Likes
Visiting the USA, I was surprised by the large number of TV screens everywhere. For example, I don’t normally see TVs in waiting rooms or hotel lobbies, restaurants, shops, etc…
2 Likes
Probably tax breaks for including green spaces that more than offsets the cost of building the park
1 Like
“Park ruined after animal-rights activists release leopards from planning office.”
8 Likes
Running crapulant advertising on the display meant for outdoor concerts and movies was probably the result of a switch to simplistic cost center accounting, where every part of the building is assigned a portion of the total building cost offset by the revenue that part brings in.
Naturally, under that system, the park would be a huge dead loss (hard to put a cash value on the benefits of a park), and the target of attempts to make money from it in any way possible.
2 Likes
Ugh. I’ve been to a library like that. The director was very proud - it makes it feel like a bustling place!
1 Like
The condo building I live in is smack in the middle of downtown. It was built in the 80’s and designed with a plaza and footpath connecting the popular pedestrian mall on one side with a shopping area on the other with shops and stores at street level and condos above. The architecture was intentionally designed to invoke an old English feel with red brick facades, park benches, light posts and large planting areas with trees, flowers and bushes. It’s very lovely in the spring/summer and one of the only green spaces surrounded by very tall office buildings. It’s quite popular to stroll through or eat lunch on a sunny day. My parents bought the place in the mid-80’s and we recently took it over from them.
About 10 years ago the complex got a new owner who wanted to “modernize” the space. They ripped out all the mature trees and planting boxes and put in new modern light fixtures and cold, metal tables & chairs and built a dumb and pointless water feature. All of this was completely and utterly out of place among the rest of the architecture. It was hideous. Worst of all, they made the homeowners and tenets pay for all of this “improvement” (like $10k each!!).
Another thing they wanted to do was install a huge LCD screen and a running banner strip along the sides of the courtyard for advertising a la Times Square. The outrage was swift and intense and thankfully they had to abandon the idea as the city rejected the permit.
Fast forward a few years and the previous owners sold the complex (for a tidy profit of course) and the new, new owners ripped out all the modern crap and restored the plaza to almost the exact same layout of the original - including brand new planter boxes and trees. Now we get to wait while the new trees mature again and the area is once again green and lush (relatively speaking anyway - it’s still a downtown space).
Across from us is another huge screen on the side of the building rotating ads. It’s not too obnoxious but the changing lights/colors does disturb the ambiance in the evenings. Could be a lot worse for sure. Here’s a shot from our window:
Yay capitalism!!
5 Likes
It’s a private park, semi-open to the public, and according to their own web site it can be reserved for private functions, so I think it’s safe to assume it would not be open to the public if being used for a private event. Also, I specifically said “revenue”-- sure, movies in the park could happen, and they would charge admission just like in a movie theater. From their website the park closes to the public at 10pm in the summer, whether that impacts a private function is not clear. I think “movies in the park” would be a private function, and considering the park is only one acre, admission would have to be limited. So yes-- they would care how many people use the park, at one time, just like the BPOE has to care how many people are crammed into the Elks Lodge for a dance: fire laws.
Advertising displays probably sneak in under the same zoning laws as old school static non-electronic signs, even though they’re far more intrusive. No doubt some politicians were well paid to let that happen.
That was probably the whole point. Where owners are limited in how much they can increase rents (or other fees that quack like rents), they usually have an out if they do “improvements”.
1 Like
3 Likes
I think many cities are trying to mimic the Times Square or Tokyo Shibuya neighborhoods thinking more lights/signs equals “vibrancy” that attracts tourists. With this initial foothold concept, next comes the bigger means better mindset so that area then is more or less sacrificed to bright, flashing neon (now LCD) signage, souvenir shops and fast food places.
What they don’t realize is this completely destroys any existing charm in the area and chases away the residents and merchants who were the ones who made the area appealing in the first place. Kinda like how artist areas are the places that get gentrified first. It’s a vicious cycle and the key is to not let it get a toehold.
4 Likes
Buffed it up a bit. 
4 Likes
I haven’t looked at their web site, but I’m not sure how any of those rules or restrictions imply that they would need to charge for anything. They certainly could do that, but it’s not a forgone conclusion.
In the town we used to live in, there was a municipally owned public park that did all of those exact same things.
- Rented out the space to private groups for events. Sometimes those events would sell tickets.
- Held town events. Typically for free. Including concerts and movies.
- Town events frequently had vendors, possibly paid for by the event to be there and possibly paid by the vendor to be at the event. Depending on the event.
- Had limits on the number of people. More constrained by space than fire codes, as an open park there were not the same egress concerns, but there’s still occupancy limits.
If the space is designated public space according to a set of rules, as long as those rules are followed, it hardly matters at all.
There’s really 2 different arguments:
- The owner agreed to rules but is not allowing access/use according to them now.
- We don’t like the rules and want different rules.
From that video, and the other comments. If sounds more like the second issue. But, that issue is long gone and past, back when it permitted and the rules established. It’s fine to complain about the rules, lobby for their change, or otherwise want them updated. But, then the rule making body and agreement should be the target, not the management that’s following what was agreed to.
It’s very different to have a public park on private space where the rules are that is should be accessible 12 hours a day, but the owner makes it so that you have to jump 2 fences, walk through a back alley, and then take a hidden elevator to actually utilize that access and saying the access agreement should have been 13 hours a day and they’re locking the easily used access path right when the closing time arrives without any leeway.
1 Like
There’s more than one way to turn off a TV.
Also known as “direct action.”
3 Likes
100% agree with this.
3 Likes
