Dozens of offices, high-rises and hotels sit smack dab in the middle of Times Square. Yet it isn’t building facades that dominate the landscape. Instead, attention is drawn to the giant advertisements, or "wallscapes" as they are often called, that blanket these buildings.
While wall wraps are the latest wave in advertising to flood large U.S. cities — the trend is booming in downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco, as well as all over New York — you won’t find many wallscapes draped down the sides of Philadelphia’s buildings.
But this could change dramatically, depending on the outcome of an upcoming zoning board hearing.
Currently, wall wraps must conform to billboard regulations in order to be licensed. But the outdoor advertising industry argues that the vinyl mesh drapes actually serve the same purpose as the thousands of murals covering blighted buildings in Philadelphia.
"The point we are trying to make is that wallscapes add vitality to a city," says Barry Rush, a partner with the New York-based advertising firm Metro Lights.
Outdoor advertising opponents argue, however, that wall wraps are anything but art.
"You can’t just plaster over the whole city," says Mary Tracy, president of the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight (SCRUB). "Philadelphia has too much historic and aesthetically important architecture."
Last year, Metro Lights hung a 9,750 square foot wallscape advertising Gap khakis on a building at 7th and Callowhill Streets. That wall wrap will soon be the focus of Philadelphia’s Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). The board was set to consider the ad last week, but the hearing was continued. It is likely to be rescheduled for sometime in the next few weeks.
Zoning board Chair Thomas Kelly agrees that his panel’s vote in the Gap case will set a precedent for future regulations.
"There are no laws on the books for wall wraps," he says. "We have to hear all the circumstances of the case" to determine whether more specific codes are necessary, Kelly adds.
Metro Lights did not obtain any city permits before hanging the Gap ad, Rush acknowledges, claiming that he didn’t realize permits were necessary. It wasn’t until after the company was cited for zoning and building code violations that Metro Lights sought to legalize the wall wrap.
"What’s the difference between wrapping a building in an ad, or putting vinyl siding on it?" questions Metro Lights’ attorney, Ron Patterson — of the firm Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers.
(Law firm partner Leonard Klehr served as Mayor Street’s head fundraiser during his 1999 campaign. Klehr hired Street, also an attorney, after he stepped down from City Council to run for mayor. Street remained employed by the firm until he was sworn into office in January 2000.)
Last year, Metro Lights applied for a building permit, which was immediately denied. A wall wrap is considered a "temporary banner" and — at 65 feet by 150 feet — the Gap ad exceeded size limitations for such a sign.
So Patterson appealed to the Board of Building Standards. An engineer assessed both the Callowhill Center and the wrap, and concluded that the vinyl mesh material is non-flammable. The engineer also determined that the wrap could withstand winds up to 108 miles per hour, surpass requirements.
"The wrap has to act like a sail in case wind gets under it," Patterson says.
But Metro Lights’ initial zoning permit application was denied on the grounds that the wall wrap was too large and too close to the Vine Street Expressway. For traffic safety reasons, billboards are prohibited within 660 feet of highway entrance and exit ramps.
Metro Lights insists that wall wraps and billboards are two distinct forms of advertising.
"We contend that [the Gap ad] doesn’t block any vistas or rely on a free-standing structure," Patterson says.
That may be the industry’s contention, but SCRUB attorney Sam Stretton says the argument is simply a way to get around billboard prohibitions.
"Wall wraps have the same effect of detracting from a neighborhood," he says. "A duck is a duck is a duck — I don’t care how you dress it."
When the city enacted billboard laws in 1991, Stretton says, the purpose was to protect neighborhoods from being bombarded with commercial messages.
"The proliferation of billboards is a sign of a dying city," Stretton says. "It means no one cares anymore."
Patterson argues that wall wraps actually uplift a city. He characterizes the Callowhill Center as "an underutilized building" and insists that the revenue generated by the wallscape before it was removed allowed the building’s owner to finance needed renovations.
Rush would not reveal how much the Gap paid the building owner to allow its wallscape. But billboard advertisers pay as much as $200,000 annually for a sign in a "prime" location.
Rush stresses that he believes wall wraps should be regulated "to weed out advertisers who don’t play by the rules," but not under the same statutes created for billboards.
Depending on how the ZBA votes, the curtain could come down on the Reebok wallscape at 8th and Market Streets. Amtrak recently pulled several wall wraps pushing its new Acela line illegally hung on Delaware Ave.
Tracy also argues that the city fails to collect a $100-per-year fee for billboards. That’s why she is particularly riled up about a proposal by Councilman Frank DiCicco that would allow the city to license temporary wallscapes draped over scaffolding. "Let the city collect what it is already owed before we talk about issuing new licenses to raise money."