10 ms·

In the US, the state of Maine does not allow billboards. It's a thing I didn't notice until living elsewhere, and it's really nice.

Eumenes 3y ago
Vermont too!
endisneigh 3y ago
[flagged]
- ericmay 3y ago
  They’re not giving up much anyway regardless of their overall level of economic activity. These billboards are not just an eyesore but violate the public space at the expense of everyone else. Should be banned nationally (globally would be great too)
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    I'm curious - what's something that's not an eyesore? People think art is, graffiti, even buildings, etc. The difference is some of these generates money for governments to solve actual problems, and the others... do not.
    - jxf 3y ago
      Most people don't think that nature is an eyesore, and many national parks are significant tourism generators for their local economies.
      - endisneigh 3y ago
        I’m not sure concrete buildings are natural, and these ads were not found primarily in national parks so I don’t see the relevance. Ironically most of the arguments against ads also apply to housing which is why there’s a global housing crisis. A lack of nuanced thinking about trade offs
        jxf 3y ago
        > I don’t see the relevance. Your question was "What's something that isn't an eyesore?", then went on to suggest that "eyesores" are not all bad since they can provide public funding for fixing problems. I gave an example of something that isn't an eyesore and provides very large amounts of public funding.
        tchaffee 3y ago
        There are huge trees everywhere in São Paulo. Billboards would block the view of some of that gorgeous green. Nature doesn't exist just in national parks.
    - ericmay 3y ago
      One key difference is the scale. You can think of a billboard as really bad graffiti that’s shoved in your face to manipulate you. Graffiti is ugly too (not to be confused with urban art) and should always be removed. Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile). I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response. Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured. 1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28605/promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28... [2] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003031543/cognitive-architecture-ann-sussman-justin-hollander https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/97810030315...
      - Luctct 3y ago
        You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again. But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > So it's not like they really are giving up much with not having advertisements. Maybe the fact that they don't allow billboards is related to the fact that they are less consumerist? Seems like ads would stimulate the economy, and that is not what they want. I'm curious how they rank for happiness.
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    Subjectively and anecdotally, Vermonters I know are very proud of their no-billboard rule. I wouldn't expect VT to have a high happiness ranking however, given the (also anecdotal) drug problem in some places, and threat of a less-snowy winter climate damaging the ski and winter tourism industry.
- kibwen 3y ago
  Looks like tourism is 20% of Maine's economy, and keeping your landscape beautiful is an important part of attracting tourists. Billboards are eyesores that reduce the beauty of your surroundings, so it's natural to ban them.
- e-dt 3y ago
  Well, yes, but Maine and Vermont are also in the bottom ten states in terms of population. Surely there is not such a big difference in economic activity when you look at it per capita?
- ameister14 3y ago
  Wouldn't that mean the opposite? Billboards would make an outsized impact, so they are giving up more, rather than less.
- dahart 3y ago
  I can’t help but notice how much assumption and spin is heaped into that comment. FWIW, neither of those states is in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP. Is your claim based on absolute GDP, and if so, why? Most of the states that actually are in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP have a lot of billboard advertising, so how do you rationalize your suggestion that outdoor advertising is linked to economic activity? Texas and California are both in the list of states least friendly to billboards, and they are the top 2 states in absolute GDP. https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-toward-out-of-home-advertising/ https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-tow... > it’s not like they really are giving up much with not having advertisements. What a strange statement. I’m sure you’re aware that ranking states by GDP says nothing about their absolute economic measures. You cannot claim that being low in the rankings leaves them with nothing to lose, that’s just poor logic. The per-capita GDP of Vertmont is about $63k per year, while Colorado (which is in the top 10) for example is $82k per year.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  The city of Seattle banned billboards thirty years ago. During that time the city has experienced extraordinary economic growth. If we've given anything up with the ban, it's nothing anyone misses.
goodcanadian 3y ago
The state of Hawai'i also bans billboards and severely limits other outside signs and advertising.

Eumenes 3y ago

Vermont too!

endisneigh 3y ago

[flagged]

ericmay 3y ago
They’re not giving up much anyway regardless of their overall level of economic activity. These billboards are not just an eyesore but violate the public space at the expense of everyone else. Should be banned nationally (globally would be great too)
- endisneigh 3y ago
  I'm curious - what's something that's not an eyesore? People think art is, graffiti, even buildings, etc. The difference is some of these generates money for governments to solve actual problems, and the others... do not.
  - jxf 3y ago
    Most people don't think that nature is an eyesore, and many national parks are significant tourism generators for their local economies.
    - endisneigh 3y ago
      I’m not sure concrete buildings are natural, and these ads were not found primarily in national parks so I don’t see the relevance. Ironically most of the arguments against ads also apply to housing which is why there’s a global housing crisis. A lack of nuanced thinking about trade offs
      - jxf 3y ago
        > I don’t see the relevance. Your question was "What's something that isn't an eyesore?", then went on to suggest that "eyesores" are not all bad since they can provide public funding for fixing problems. I gave an example of something that isn't an eyesore and provides very large amounts of public funding.
      - tchaffee 3y ago
        There are huge trees everywhere in São Paulo. Billboards would block the view of some of that gorgeous green. Nature doesn't exist just in national parks.
  - ericmay 3y ago
    One key difference is the scale. You can think of a billboard as really bad graffiti that’s shoved in your face to manipulate you. Graffiti is ugly too (not to be confused with urban art) and should always be removed. Generating money for the government isn’t something to be concerned with in this context, and most likely a billboard doesn’t generate enough money for the government versus the drain it has on the public sphere. (I’d be shocked to find it worthwhile). I do think we need architectural standards and thankfully the federal government is looking to implement Greco-Roman architecture as mandatory for federal buildings [1]. Suburban houses for example are really awful architecture and continued research shows this [2]. Tall skyscrapers produce a fight or flight response. Beauty isn’t in the eye of the beholder. We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty. The Notre Dame Cathedral is objectively beautiful (this also answers your question about what is not an eyesore) and Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building. You can have an opinion that differs from this but it’s like having an opinion that gravity doesn’t exist. Likewise broad scale highway billboards meant to try and sell you something promote private profit at the public expense and transform otherwise beautiful landscapes into something that is jarring and disfigured. 1] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28605/promoting-beautiful-federal-civic-architecture https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/23/2020-28... [2] https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003031543/cognitive-architecture-ann-sussman-justin-hollander https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/97810030315...
    - Luctct 3y ago
      You see, you just said that "We just don’t have the tools yet to objectively define beauty" and "Boston City Hall is objectively an awful building" (and holy shit, it really is awful) in the same paragraph! Don't you see the contradiction? In another comment here, someone said, "I'm not arguing for or against that - I'm just stating a fact (...) I find it extremely ugly." Hey, "I find it extremely ugly" IS arguing against! There is the contradiction again. But you see, people are all apologetic because they are afraid of criticizing. The truth of the matter is that tagging, graffiti, murals or whatever you want to call these abominations are made by very poor youngsters who could have access to real art if they wanted (museums, libraries, internet), but they don't because they are brought up in a ghetto culture that basically forbids them from even getting interested in traditional art. And a lot of people cower when they criticize it (or never criticize it at all) because criticizing that garbage is considered politically incorrect. So that so-called "art" is only tolerated thanks to fear of reprisal and should be labeled "fascist art" because that's what it is.
Zambyte 3y ago
> So it's not like they really are giving up much with not having advertisements. Maybe the fact that they don't allow billboards is related to the fact that they are less consumerist? Seems like ads would stimulate the economy, and that is not what they want. I'm curious how they rank for happiness.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Subjectively and anecdotally, Vermonters I know are very proud of their no-billboard rule. I wouldn't expect VT to have a high happiness ranking however, given the (also anecdotal) drug problem in some places, and threat of a less-snowy winter climate damaging the ski and winter tourism industry.
kibwen 3y ago
Looks like tourism is 20% of Maine's economy, and keeping your landscape beautiful is an important part of attracting tourists. Billboards are eyesores that reduce the beauty of your surroundings, so it's natural to ban them.
e-dt 3y ago
Well, yes, but Maine and Vermont are also in the bottom ten states in terms of population. Surely there is not such a big difference in economic activity when you look at it per capita?
ameister14 3y ago
Wouldn't that mean the opposite? Billboards would make an outsized impact, so they are giving up more, rather than less.
dahart 3y ago
I can’t help but notice how much assumption and spin is heaped into that comment. FWIW, neither of those states is in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP. Is your claim based on absolute GDP, and if so, why? Most of the states that actually are in the bottom ten by per-capita GDP have a lot of billboard advertising, so how do you rationalize your suggestion that outdoor advertising is linked to economic activity? Texas and California are both in the list of states least friendly to billboards, and they are the top 2 states in absolute GDP. https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-toward-out-of-home-advertising/ https://billboardinsider.com/the-8-least-friendly-states-tow... > it’s not like they really are giving up much with not having advertisements. What a strange statement. I’m sure you’re aware that ranking states by GDP says nothing about their absolute economic measures. You cannot claim that being low in the rankings leaves them with nothing to lose, that’s just poor logic. The per-capita GDP of Vertmont is about $63k per year, while Colorado (which is in the top 10) for example is $82k per year.
marssaxman 3y ago
The city of Seattle banned billboards thirty years ago. During that time the city has experienced extraordinary economic growth. If we've given anything up with the ban, it's nothing anyone misses.

goodcanadian 3y ago

The state of Hawai'i also bans billboards and severely limits other outside signs and advertising.