//* */

Flatiron update: Surely this violates the Landmarks Preservation regulations?

Swedish adblog Researcher tips us to this update of the flatiron H&M story.

Coonrod.net asks: "Surely this violates the Landmarks Preservation regulations?"
He sent a photo to the Landmarks Preservation Commission and witjin a week, they replied that he was right! The huge H&M poster is five out of the nine violations in total that the Department of Buildings issued the Flatiron building.

1. Sign creates hazardous wind load.
2. Prohibited advertising sign on scaffold.
3. Sign exceeds the 40-foot height limit.
4. Surface area for the sign is too large.
5. Failure to get permit from Buildings Department.
AnonymousCoward's picture
Files must be less than 500 KB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png txt doc xls pdf ppt pps odt ods odp wav avi mpeg mpg mov rm flv wmv 3gp mp4 dir dcr ogg m4v.
aiiobo's picture

True and very depressing. No wonder people hate us machiavellian scheming ad-people more than lawyers. That is low.

kurtberengeiger's picture

As I'm sure the good people at researcher.se know, this kind of "building permit" violation occurs relatively often in the Swedish capital of Stockholm. The idea being that the cost of a fine is less expensive than the ROI gained from the awareness and buzz that the banner creates. Also, if an advertiser (or their agency) were to go through the long and tedious permit process, there's a good chance of it being rejected. And if you dared execute the idea after a rejection, it would result in far higher fines (and possible court proceedings) that greatly exceed the costs involved in not seeking a permit to begin with.
Swedish bureaucracy in a nutshell - go figure