Truist - New HQ (BB&T-SunTrust Merger)

[CLT2014 2670]

It looks like a cardboard sign.

Edited November 24, 2020 by CLT2014

[captainjack 670]

4 hours ago, Urban Cowboy said:

So far, no one with any “influence” will share the petition. No one will even touch it - they’re worried about the potential business ramifications. Too worried about ruffling feathers - this is the South after all. Or "it's just business." Let’s not poke the bear.

When ad dollars, career, or business opportunities could potentially be impacted...There’s no such thing as a free "press."

I get it. And I can’t blame them. We just need more eyes on this petition somehow. I was hoping its existence would be newsworthy in itself and get picked up. But everyone is worried about offending the company that chose Charlotte without incentives. Which is why this signage was approved.

https://www.change.org/remove_truist_signs

If we all go quietly into the night then the signs stay. It unfortunately has to become uncomfortable for Truist in order for any action to occur. We're already over 100 signatures and that's with zero publicity. 

My thoughts exactly. There’s the petition and funny Twitter account gaining traction. But it’s clear that no one of any major influence has the courage to join in or at least promote those two things. Someone with a name needs to step up because it needs to reach all audiences of Charlotte for any potential change to occur. Let’s not just sweep this under the rug. We all hate this thing. Charlotte influencers have gone after far more controversial topics. At least share or write about the movement. It needs a light shown on it and some people that hate the sign have that spotlight available and aren’t using it.

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

On today's episode of Label Maker, Kelly King goes overboard. 

[atlrvr 4319]

5 hours ago, Urban Cowboy said:

...Too worried about ruffling feathers - this is the South after all. Or "it's just business." Let’s not poke the bear...

I get it. And I can’t blame them. We just need more eyes on this petition somehow. I was hoping its existence would be newsworthy in itself and get picked up. But everyone is worried about offending the company that chose Charlotte without incentives...

I'll bite...

Makes sense to me.  I'd like to say one of Charlotte's main competitive advantages is pro-business attitude and with that comes the lack of trying to regulate really trivial things.

This...is a sign.  On a building they paid > $400mm for and pay property taxes on.  They will employ many thousand jobs paying above market salaries.  They could have chosen to locate anywhere, but chose Charlotte with no incentives...

Is it ugly?  Sure. 

It's a mentality though, where we decide if we are "entitled" to a group think view of good aesthetics, or if we reserve rights to those that have earned them (by buying the building).

I'd rather the message be we pro-business rather than petty.

Lastly, as a company that stated years ago after the US supreme court case decided in favor of New Haven on the landmark eminent domain case, that they would never lend on any project with acquisition via eminent domain, they are probably about as unconcerned about people's views on what they do with their property as a company can be. 

That said, I enjoy all sorts of IG feeds of ugly architecture, so I look forward to this making the rounds.

[JorgiPorgi 6234]

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

@atlrvr It's a very trivial thing to get worked up about, I get that.  And I agree with your sentiments. But damn! these signs look terrible. I fully expect them to be there for at least the next 10-15 years. I just think they could have designed them so much better... Removing the backing and floating them in the same spot would be a marked improvement. Just an unnecessary vanity project executed in the worst possible way.

[norm21499 794]

11 minutes ago, Urban Cowboy said:

@atlrvr It's a very trivial thing to get worked up about, I get that.  And I agree with your sentiments. But damn! these signs look terrible. I fully expect them to be there for at least the next 10-15 years. I just think they could have designed them so much better... Removing the backing and floating them in the same spot would be a marked improvement. Just an unnecessary vanity project executed in the worst possible way.

Floating letters without the backing would be a HUGE improvement. I think they went with the backing color they did to try to match the color of the building. 

[captainjack 670]

Take a look at the comment section of the petition

[KJHburg 69545]

No one showed up for the public meeting about this rezoning for the signage. Nobody.  Here is the final staff analysis. 

2020_064_Final_Staff_DONE.pdf (charlottenc.gov)

Now the Zoning committee was more split on this approving it 4-3 however there was a dissent opinion.  

2020_064_ZC_Reco_DONE.pdf (charlottenc.gov)

when this signage was announced it was announced a rezoning was required and noted in articles about it.  

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

In all fairness KJ, Truist only had square footage outlines/footprints approved during the rezoning and city council vote. Truist didn’t show what the signage would look like in terms of material or design.

The public comment period was also during a pandemic and presidential election - hypothetical signs weren’t on the top of people’s lists.  So I’m not surprised there wasn’t an outcry. But there is now.

[King of the Queen City 4391]

[joenc 170]

Kind of reminds me a TRUMP tower

-----

Is white on beige their corporate colors?

On their website, the logo is Purple.

I think it's a different font too!

Edited November 25, 2020 by joenc

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

I’m hearing that Truist allegedly pushed to have their rezoning hearing on a day when there was nothing contentious. And they pushed to get the hearing before there was robust opportunity for virtual opposition. Truist made sure it was as quiet as possible and the city was complicit.

@captainjack Thank you for sharing Charles Hull’s NEWSWORTHY words. Hopefully the news reports them!!!

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

Up to 350...!

 

[Nick2 5629]

@Urban Cowboy I shared it a few times on a reddit post about this.

[krazeeboi 193]

Such a travesty.  

I really hope their attitude isn't "you're getting the jobs so suck it up." The signage is craptastic. 

[MarcoPolo 78]

Defending all capital investments as good/beneficial economically at the community level can be shortsighted in some instances especially where real estate is concerned.  The same is true at the individual building level, too. History, shows, that unintended, often hidden consequences do result.  Eventually the results become not so hidden for both the community and the building.  One need only look back at the late 60’s, 70’s and all the 80’s as building after building received “upgrades” by developers and cities, covering over and, or removing brick, granite, marble, frescos, tile, stain glass, copper, ornate parapets….I can go on and on…. with plastics, cement block, metal siding, faux brick, dryvit, asphalt shingles, and yes, the occasional “craptatsic” sign (krazeeboi), in the name of investment and jobs.

Individually these acts of improvement were innocuous and did represent investment/jobs.  However, taken together over time the accumulation of these “improvements” ended up devaluing local area real estate markets when compared to markets of similar land use and building inventory, which did not receive such “improvements”.   In fact, the per square foot and per acre valuations remained higher for buildings and local area markets that did not “upgrade” as described above, even if they struggled with higher vacancies and building maintenance issues, in comparison to those places that did upgrade and achieved higher occupancies.  That may seem counterintuitive, but the numbers bear out.   Snapshots of tax valuations pre and post “improvements”, holding other attributes constant, are measurable, impactful over time, and important for the following reason.

In North Carolina, at the community level, as we all know, property taxes represent the vast majority of municipal revenue; more than fees, utilities, retail sales, etc, combined.  The proxy of “employment generation” is not a clear indicator of return on investment at this level of analysis.  At the scale of the building, valuation is also important and one of several reasons why in the late 90’s and the 00’s developers pealed back most of the “upgrades” pasted, nailed, glued and taped, to buildings that had received them.  Appearance matters because it does have implications on value, taxes and therefor revenue.   Appearance of the public and private realms in a community are major ingredients in the “secret sauce” that separates “world-class” from “also-ran, poser” communities.

As regards the Truist sign, offering the bank a pass because they are bringing jobs without incentives does not fully reconcile the implications of the “upgrade” attached to their building.  The key word here being “attached”, as opposed to “incorporated”.   It is not that the presence of a sign is, by itself, problematic.  A fun and spirited debate can be had between us all as to whether a building that could be considered a “sign/symbol” unto itself, requires additional symbolic embellishment.   In fairness, I was actually keen to see the outcome.   What is not debatable is the outcome (as has been expressed by many on this thread).  The architectural style selected for this building necessitates a glorification of setbacks and materiality vis-a-vi its own facade plains, and that of the sky silhouetted by its profile.  The attached sign vandalizes the essence of the buildings architectural purpose, breaking all the fundamental lines that compose its character.  It did not require rocket scientists to properly do what they intended to do.  It required care and thought.  The outcome displays lack of both and is, unfortunately for Charlotte, prominently visible.

Is the Truist sign the end of the world for Charlotte?  No, not yet.  But it does represent another of those “one step back” moments that need to be called out and remedied.  Lack of care and thought begets more of the same.  A Queen should not accept so many back steps on her march to greatness.

[Spartan 1523]

I highly doubt the  petition will make a difference. It's a private company, so they can do whatever they want. The best solution is to vote with your dollars. Personally, I was planning to open an account and move my $ away from my current bank. Not sure what I'll do now except to say I won't be moving to Truist because they destroyed my favorite building with shit lights and signage.

TBH, I'm more concerned that this set s precedent for larger signage across the rest of the skyline. All the buildings are getting signs these days, so the question is how much larger can they go? The LU1 people wanted a much larger sign than they got, and the new Duke Power Tower wanted a fairly large sign too.

[turbocraig 782]

If the order of branding and real estate procurement had happened differently, then perhaps they could have used a stylized silhouette of the tower as part of their logo, a la TransAmerica, instead of the double Ts.  Then they wouldn’t have needed to brand the building because the building would have been their brand.  

[JorgiPorgi 6234]

53 minutes ago, Spartan said:

I highly doubt the  petition will make a difference. It's a private company, so they can do whatever they want. The best solution is to vote with your dollars. Personally, I was planning to open an account and move my $ away from my current bank. Not sure what I'll do now except to say I won't be moving to Truist because they destroyed my favorite building with crap lights and signage.

TBH, I'm more concerned that this set s precedent for larger signage across the rest of the skyline. All the buildings are getting signs these days, so the question is how much larger can they go? The LU1 people wanted a much larger sign than they got, and the new Duke Power Tower wanted a fairly large sign too.

I actually didn’t mind the signage in the Duke tower as I thought it was appropriately placed. Was it denied? 

[Desert Power 964]

On 11/23/2020 at 2:12 PM, RugbyPike#11 said:

On 11/23/2020 at 9:53 AM, navigator319 said:

Agreed but should have kept SunTrust name. Either would have been better.

Truist still has not gotten any better to me after all this time. Still horrible.

I would have kept SunTrust, which is a great name for primarily southern bank. Or split the difference and go with Sun Bank & Trust (SBT), and adopt SunTrust’s better logo and color scheme. I was never a fan of BB&T’s brownish red.

They really have botched every conceivable step of their rebranding.

[Urban Cowboy 3958]

Brilliant

[JeanClt 176]

I highly doubt the  petition will make a difference. It's a private company, so they can do whatever they want. The best solution is to vote with your dollars. Personally, I was planning to open an account and move my $ away from my current bank. Not sure what I'll do now except to say I won't be moving to Truist because they destroyed my favorite building with crap lights and signage.
TBH, I'm more concerned that this set s precedent for larger signage across the rest of the skyline. All the buildings are getting signs these days, so the question is how much larger can they go? The LU1 people wanted a much larger sign than they got, and the new Duke Power Tower wanted a fairly large sign too.

The issue is not signs themselves. The problem with that Truist sign is the fact that it is such an eyesore. Signs that are designed with the building in mind are integrated into the building’s architecture. When I looked at Duke Energy 2, the sign definitely caught my attention but I did not see as if it were slapped on there. The sign on Truist is so proportionally large for the tower. Bet you can see that sign from space. The sign just doesn’t match that Hearst (now Truist) Tower...The photoshop by Twitter @bsheridanclt (middle) is more proportional and less intrusive on the tower’s unique design. That would have been more acceptable IMO.

[joenc 170]

This was posted by @Mgelbach in the Vantage South End thread.

Looks much nicer.

[nicholas 2665]

1 minute ago, joenc said:

This was posted by @Mgelbach in the Vantage South End thread.

Looks much nicer.

Think that's what @JeanClt was alluding to.  I might be wrong, but I don't think Vantage was designed with the LendingTree sign from the start.  However, it was likely designed with sign placement in mind, so the LendingTree sign looks fairly organic.  Hearst was not designed with the expectation that a sign would be attached to it, which is partly why it looks so bad.