Thursday, February 4, 2010
News Medical Arts Building billboard rears ugly head — again
Posted by Thomas Wheatley @thomaswheatley on Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 7:47 PM
Last August, some Atlantans were puzzled by a massive Holiday Inn billboard that wrapped around the exterior of the Medical Arts Building on Peachtree Street.
Some folks thought the historic landmark — which has sat vacant since the late 1990s — was finally being redeveloped. Turns out the fabric wrap-around was merely used to promote the hotel chain's other projects in Atlanta. In other words, it was a giant, gaudy ad wrapped around a beautiful and unused building.
It was also a violation of city code. According to the city, building advertisements can be no larger than 200 square feet. They must also be related to the business on which they're installed. After Central Atlanta Progress raised a red flag about the Holiday Inn billboard, the ad was removed.
Well, on Sunday, a new advertisement was installed. This one's for Metro PCS. And yes, it appears it's just a tad bit larger than 200 square feet. And, the city tells CL, it too violates city code.
On Tuesday, downtown resident Kyle Kessler contacted members of the media and a marketing firm involved with the ad's placement to raise awareness about this mesmerizing piece of public art. Included in Kessler's email was the above photo.
CL contacted Anosh Ishak, one of the building's owners, on Tuesday and asked why he'd allowed another billboard to be placed on the building after last year's hullabaloo. Ishak, who said he was out of town until Friday, claimed he was unaware of the new advertisement. He'd have to touch base when he received more information about the issue, he told us.
A spokeswoman with the marketing firm that contracted with MetroPCS, told CL on Wednesday that Revelation Outdoor Advertising, the company that installed the billboard, is working with the city to obtain a permanent license for the billboard. She says Revelation doesn't think the advertisement — which, we should note, is approximately 10 stories tall and wraps around three sides of the building — violates the city's signage ordinance.
A city spokeswoman, however, told CL today that the code compliance division is in the process of issuing citations — one for each of the three giant panels — to the building owner and the advertising firm.
Maria Saporta has a good post about why these mega-billboards — which we're told by a source were banned prior to the 1996 Olympics — don't help the city's image. Worth a read, for sure.
(Photo by Max Shirley)
Comments (19)
Showing 1-19 of 19
For readers interested in more: Blog by Maria Sapporta saportareport.com/blog/?p=3135 Facebook Group www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=279020914234 Real Estate Listing www.loopnet.com/property/16462417/384-Peachtree-Street/
like
dislike
I wonder if this is the same Anosh Ishak: http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/living_the_american_nightmare/Content?oid=4869
Change the City Ordinances to allow large signs. Build the highway tunnel from Ga 400 to I-20. Wrap the ventilation towers in aesthetic advertising. And Voila' you have instant tunnel-operating revenue.
But the city isn't in the sign operation business and thus doesn't get any revenue, esp. in this case of the Medical Arts building, Tom.
What is the fine for violating the sign ordinance? If it isn't very high, the advertising company may feel it is worth paying the fine in exchange for the space they want.
I do not know what fines can be imposed by the state, but because the signs are located on a Landmark Building, the city can fine the property owners, the sign company, and the advertiser each $1,000 per day per sign. And each additional violation that's charged (graffiti, broken windows, etc.) would also be $1,000 per day.
If there was ever a building that should be torn down, covered up, buried, or whatever, the Medical Arts Building is it. I have been walking and driving by this dirty, empty, burnt-out hulk nearly every day for 9 years because I live and work in the Midtown-Downtown area. I'm serious. Nothing redeems this building. If they take the MetroPCS sign down will we all benefit by seeing this great and important historic monument once again in all of its glory? Right now the building is an advertisement for MetroPCS. Uncovered it is an advertisement for Atlanta's crappy downtown. Hey let's explore downtown and see more buildings like this one full of human waste, some homeless people, maybe even a couple decomposing corpses!!! I would say burn this building down but it did burn a few years ago and is still standing. I bet most people who think the Medical Arts Building is a landmark that needs to be preserved do not live or work anywhere near it, and certainly never walk by it or look at it for very long. Just park your car in the lot on Porter Place and walk up and have a look. Make sure you're alone, for maximum effect! The place just feels wrong. The best thing to do is stop the stupid talk about this building being in any way important from a historical perspective (yes, I know it was built by the same architect as the old City Hall building, well la-de freakin'-da!!!), and give the owners the choice of renovating it or tearing it down. It sits in a place too prominent to leave it like it is for another 10 years.
Bill, it is those who live and work in close proximity to the building that want it renovated. We've been complaining about the building for years. However, it hasn't been until these most egregious code violations in the form of signs have appeared that City Hall has started to pay attention. If you wanted to give the owner the easy option of tearing the building down, you should have voiced your opinion at the public hearings before the building was landmarked or before the latest zoning ordinance for downtown was approved. The argument here is two-fold; property owners should obey the ordinances and the City should enforce them.
It should be renovated, as a number of formerly derelict buildings Downtown have been, including the old Winecoff(now Ellis Hotel), the Bona-Allen, the former Imperial, and the Glenn Building.
I have always thought how cool that building could be and what a shame that it is in it's current condition. The building has a historical site status which makes it difficult to renovate. The challenge is doing something economically viable without violating the constraints of the special status. It may also require the approval of some kind of historical board, but I am not sure. If so, that adds time and cost, plus uncertainty, which is the enemy of economic development. I know that many types of special status require approval by outside entities of everything down to the color of the walls, both interior and exterior. Think of it as an upscale HOA for commercial buildings. I know that the building was for sale at one time and, because the buyer could not make the planned changes in style and usage, the sale was encumbered, costing the seller dearly in actual dollars. Like several million of them. By "several" I mean more than two and less than nine. I also learned that anyone can apply for historical status of a building, not just the owner. A prominent Midtown restaurant keeps a current certificate of demolition on file to prevent a community activist from doing the same to their place, which would clearly qualify as historically significant.
DaleC: The building’s historic status actually qualifies for greater incentives for renovation. For instance, the City will freeze property taxes for 8 years. Since only the building’s exterior is landmarked (like many of older office buildings downtown), the owners are free to do almost anything they want on the interior. The owner can even demolish the building if able to prove a “lack of reasonable economic return.” The building has been for sale for decades. The only thing that has hampered sales is the inflated asking price. Even in this deflated market, the owners are currently asking for $11m while the county’s appraisal is only $3. Since the proposed ordinance for historic status began in 2002, the current owners should have known what they were purchasing in 2004 for $5m. Not just anyone can apply for historical status in the City of Atlanta. Besides the Director of the Urban Design Commission, the only people that can nominate a property are the City Council and the building owner or authorized agent.
Kyle, It's too bad you used a logical, fact-filled argument in your post. Now folks like DaleC and Bill will never believe you.
DaleC: Can you give us some cites for the claims you provide in your comment? Are you able informatively to respond to Kyle K who calls you whole comment into question?
I cannot give specifics because I was told this by a good friend, a zoning and land use attorney who handled the case I mentioned. I learned this when some residents of our building wanted to get historical status for the benefits which you describe. I don't know if he, or his client, would be comfortable with me disclosing details which could identify either one of them. Atlpaddy - Kyle makes good points with facts, so he and I can have a conversation which will likely benefit both of us. You should try it sometime instead of throwing out a smarmy ad hominem to sound cute. Kyle - Yes, you can get incentives, they also come with restrictions and interest. As a commercial property owner, I know that historic status impacts EVERY aspect of development, from licensing to credit. I know that because I have been through it. Any change made to the exterior, whether updated fire safety equipment, repairs of brick and masonry, HVAC, etc are subject to review and approval. this rives costs considerably. I am pretty sure there are more historical status designations available than just those issued by the city. I did overstep when I said "anyone". Thanks for pointing out that people with no ownership interest can apply for status, including people who serve at the pleasure of our illustrious elected officials and their "donation" programs :-). The current owners may be the ones I referenced, who bought it for a reduced price due to the status. The buyers DID know what they were buying and used it to reduce their purchase price. The current owners are not the ones that I am discussing. Asking prices and tax appraisals always go hand in had, right? If so, I should have sold my loft for about half of the price I got in Sept of 2008. Thanks for the info.
DaleC: I am not going to claim to be an expert on any of these topics, but here is my understanding. Yes, the incentives come with restrictions. Would you want your local, state, or federal government giving away money with nothing expected in return? The Medical Arts Building is listed on neither the National Register of Historic Places nor the Georgia Register. Listing in either register only restricts what you can do to your private property if you are using government funding or seeking tax incentives. Even if “people with no ownership interest” can nominate a property, there is still a lengthy process of reporting, public hearings, etc. that must take place before the nomination appears before the City Council for final approval. In the 20+ years since the city’s current form of preservation ordinances have come into effect, there have been only 75 buildings, sites, or districts designated as landmark, historic, or conservation. Since there were 58 originally proposed (not all of them are listed), it does not appear that anyone is adding being too hasty in adding properties. I definitely understand that the county's tax appraisal isn't perfect, but it's hard to come up with 5-year-old comps on vacant 12-story office buildings on Peachtree Street with visibility from the Connector. However, either the sellers are asking for too much money, the government's not collecting enough in property taxes, or the truth's somewhere in the middle. Also, someone needs to tell The Varsity that they need to renew their demo permit. It expired in 2007.
Of course there are, and should be, restrictions. The reality of additional restrictions negatively impacts the property value. I know exactly what kind of historical status the Med Arts has, I was simply making the point that there are more ways to protect a building than those provided by the city. I appreciate what you are saying. I hope you understand that I will stick with the opinion of one of the top five or ten land use attorneys in Atlanta, right? If historic status is so difficult, why would the Varsity go through the process for so long? They spent a LOT of money over the years to prevent historical status. It seems they have a different defense now. Doesn't the fact that they did that help make my point? The Varsity is an extreme case of what the Med Arts building faces/ Pretend you want to sell the Varsity. Two buyers want it. One will conh high euild a 29 story mixed use building with high euild a 29 story mixed use building similar to what we see near Centennial Park or 12th and Peachtree. Which one do you think will pay the most? Will it even be close? Now, pretend that second buyer is knocked out because historical status prevents demolition. Congratulations, you just lost millions. Regarding the value, the truth is likely in the middle.
I am still not used to my new touchpad. "One will conh high euild a 29 story mixed use building with high euild" should have read "One will continue to operate the restaurant and the other will build a 29 story mixed use building" mea culpa for the acid trip.
I cannot pretend to understand all the economics or real estate values of the Medical Arts Building (or The Varsity), but luckily, Terminal Station now has a post helping explain some it. http://terminal-station.blogspot.com/2010/02/difficult-economics-of-urban.html
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Most popular damn posts o' the week 4
A bad week in Pittsburgh
-
5 things today: A$AP Rocky, Art Papers
Rap at the Masquerade, an annual art auction and party, and more
-
More details from Peachtree-Pine court ruling 3
Task Force for Homeless' argument that it was victim to a conspiracy didn't fly in court
- More »
Author Archives
-
20 People to Watch: Paul Bennecke
T-SPLOST’s biggest cheerleader
-
Crane accident in Old Fourth Ward kills two workers 1
Mobile lift became stuck in mud, toppled over
- More »
