Hey, there! Log in / Register

Move on to have the Citgo Sign made an official landmark

With BU looking to sell the building that now serves as the iconic sign's base, the Boston Preservation Alliance has started collecting signatures on a request to Boston to designate the giant, glowing beacon an official city landmark.

Landmark designation will protect the CITGO sign permanently and require any possible changes to be reviewed (including those that result from future development of 660 Beacon Street). Further, it will recognize the CITGO sign as an important piece of Boston history and culture.

Neighborhoods: 

Ad:

Comments

The Shreve Crump and Low building is a landmark and still facing a bulldozer. Why should a glorified billboard have greater protection?

up
Voting closed 0

I thought that building was denied landmark status. Of course, I could be completely wrong - I don't know anything about a lot of things.

up
Voting closed 0

Scroll down after the article on 185 Franklin St
http://www.bostonartdeco.org/

up
Voting closed 0

Old = "landmark"

up
Voting closed 0

If an advertisement can be landmarked when a grand building is denied something is very wrong with the commission.

up
Voting closed 0

Then there's something very wrong with the "historical preservation" process.

up
Voting closed 0

That building should have some more preservation.

up
Voting closed 0

the Shreve Crump and Low building that it deserves landmark status? In a word, nothing.

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(https://elmercatdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/citiesservicesign2.jpg)
          See it larger

up
Voting closed 0

Or a Neon Designer create a new even better landmark! Think Times Square. Calling RISD !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_School_of_Design

Calling all Design School !
https://www.google.com/search?q=design+schools+boston

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

I have hated that advertising for a shitty oil company for decades. It should not be a source of pride just because it's familiar.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sympathetic to the cause, but corporate names and symbols don't necessarily last very long these days. Suppose another company buys CITGO and decides to get rid of the brand name, or CITGO just decides to change its name or its logo? (They already did that once, as they used to be "Cities Service" with a clover-shaped logo.)

up
Voting closed 0

We'll probably take the CITGO off of it and maybe change the colors slightly but if it's a landmark we leave it there because it's a landmark.

I mean look at how San Francisco repurposed the Rice-o-Roni ads into working streetcars for the tourists and St. Louis took down half that McDonald's ad and repainted the rest and New York left the King Kong set and even made it into a functional building. We could do the same.

up
Voting closed 0

was better with the ape on it.

Seriously, has anyone ever tied a King Kong balloon to the Empire State Building?

up
Voting closed 0

the oil company. Not unless Venezuela decides to sell it.

up
Voting closed 0

sshhh! don't give Walsh any ideas.

up
Voting closed 0

At the rate Venezuela's going there won't be anything left of Citgo to sell except drilling rights.

up
Voting closed 0

PDVSA (Petroleos de Venezuela (and Citgo's parent)) put Citgo up for sale in 2014, but the bids they received were no where near what PDVSA was looking for, so the sale was called off.

up
Voting closed 0

Other cities have kept iconic signs in their original forms despite name and logo changes. For example, the Amoco sign in St. Louis lives on despite becoming part of BP.

https://goo.gl/maps/uzQAXEGb8Wy

up
Voting closed 0

You mean that ugly sign in Kenmore Sq. that advertises a company owned by a communist dictator. Where do I sign?

up
Voting closed 0

According to the CIA World Factbook, Venezuela is a republic, whose president is "directly elected by simple majority popular vote for a 6-year term." If you have a more authoritative source, bring it.

up
Voting closed 0