Why Does the Hubert H Humphrey Metrodome Have a Label? #wilfare

Why do the vast majority of downtown buildings NOT have large signs advertising who resides within those businesses while the Hubert H Humphrey (named in his memory) Metrodome have on its roof for a mall in Minneapolis suburb?

If Minneapolis is going to allow advertising on downtown buildings, shouldn’t they put businesses who actually reside in downtown Minneapolis ahead of ads for businesses outside the city?

A few years ago, I did the Segway tour out of St Anthony Main and listened to question after question from people who wondered which businesses occupied the towers in downtown Minneapolis. People honestly don’t know which businesses are contributing to make Minneapolis’ core such a strong and vibrant downtown due to the lack of logos on buildings. Those businesses deserve the recognition that a certain dough boy doesn’t.

Which is why it’s extraordinarily weird that one of the only brands you can find on a downtown building is an ad sold by a private company to another private company for an ad that appears on a publicly financed and publicly owned building.

As I see it, both policies are too extreme. We should allow private businesses to promote themselves on privately financed buildings. And, we should not allow private businesses to sell advertising to private companies on publicly subsidized buildings (unless the revenue goes toward paying back the subsidies).

Is that too much to ask?

8 thoughts on “Why Does the Hubert H Humphrey Metrodome Have a Label? #wilfare”

  1. Did they need a variance for that sign? The rules of signage size are pretty complex in Mpls. And that one seems awfully large

  2. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer, Ed. Your idle musing probably rise to the level of serious policy issue for the City Council.

  3. The Rat’s fairly certain he could trick you into saying Target Field is a face to face conversation, Ed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.