Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workhouse Signage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Workhouse Arts signage plan draws mixed reactions from ARB over scale, location and maintenance
Summary
Designers proposed a 20‑foot primary digital monument and a family of wayfinding signs for the Workhouse Arts campus; board members praised the artful approach but raised concerns that the digital monument’s size and location resemble shopping‑center signage and questioned long‑term maintenance and phasing.
Designers for the Workhouse Arts campus presented a revised signage and wayfinding plan at the July 9 Architectural Review Board workshop that would consolidate campus identity into a single, prominent monument sign and a hierarchy of pedestrian and vehicular signs.
Bridal Amola of Ashton Design described the updated proposal, saying the overall sign package would include a triangular digital monument (overall height ~20 feet, with a shorter digital display panel) and a series of smaller interpretive and directional signs across the campus. “The overall height of the full sign is 20 feet,” the presenter said while walking board members through scale studies and mockups.
Board members and others found the design thoughtful but debated whether the primary monument’s scale and visual language risked reading like a shopping‑center sign at 65 mph on Ox Road. “It still looks to me like a shopping center sign,” said a board member during the exchange, and several members urged lowering the height or rethinking the monument so the campus does not convey a commercial retail tone.
Designers said they reduced the size of the digital portion from an earlier draft and proposed rotating curated artwork into the display cycle so the board and the campus could prioritize art over advertising. The design team also presented options for perforated metal and a top mesh panel to reduce the sign’s perceived mass and to allow artist installations and lighting.
Other concerns raised included: the monument’s proximity to underground utilities (designers were asked to verify available power and fiber conduits), the view shed at travel speeds on Ox Road, whether multiple pedestrian signs could clutter the site, and who would fund and maintain frequent content updates. One board member cautioned that the program’s many changeable elements and rotating art would require a sustainable maintenance plan and ongoing funding.
The ARB treated the presentation as a workshop. Designers were asked to return with additional materials — scaled site mockups or on‑site plywood mockups, utility‑location checks, cross‑sections showing grading and relative heights, phasing proposals that could include smaller interim signs, and a clearer maintenance/operations plan — before the board considers a formal approval.
What happens next: The designers will refine the proposal and return for a subsequent workshop or action meeting in September with additional visuals, evidence of underground utility capacity, and a proposed phasing and maintenance strategy.
