2008 Woodie Awards
Golden Gate threatened by ads
Jennifer Kennedy
Issue date: 9/5/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Our glamorous Golden Gate Bridge needs money, now.
The money is for repairs, maintenance and restoration, and so a sponsorship plan has been developed for consideration. Corporations as well as private and public businesses can purchase a sponsorship and in return they would receive ad space on the Golden Gate Bridge visitors center, on the nearby plaza, and on public transportation operated by the Golden Gate Bridge.
Driving south toward San Francisco on Highway 101 one's eye is caught by the boldness of the bay, the sailboats, the fog, and most importantly the bridge.
There are currently no ads and no billboards surrounding the bridge or its approach. It is a work of man-made art in nature, and a masterpiece. Our bridge is an icon of San Francisco and California as a tourist attraction.
Selling these ads for the bridge tarnishes the bridge's natural splendor and changes its image. By placing advertisements, especially before the bridge, the view is tampered.
The bridge is no longer a work of art but instead one giant commercial and becomes like any other place. While trying to admire the bridge and take it all in, one would become distracted by advertisements for soda companies, cell phones, fast food, gasoline, and so on.
A commercialized feeling is not what people are looking for when they enter San Francisco and cross the bridge. It takes away from the experience of the Golden Gate, especially for those seeing it for the first time in person.
If San Francisco commits to this sponsorship program, what is stopping people in the future from increasing the number of ads?
If the advertisements are profitable for the businesses advertising, they are going to want more ad space. It might also appear to be beneficial for the bridge because it creates more revenue for repairs. Who is to stop them from actually hanging banners or signs on the bridge itself? It has been said that the ads will never go this far but one thing tends to lead to another.
The ads will completely cover San Francisco's most famous piece of art.
Instead of offering ad space, why not just raise the toll by one more dollar? I would not mind paying an extra dollar if it kept the bridge from looking like someone's garbage. Also, we could apply more of our tax dollars toward the restoration. It is worth it to keep us safe while crossing the bridge as well as for us to have the same experience we have always had: commercial free.
Which is more reasonable: raising money through ads or maintaining a commercial free display of the city's most well known landmark?
The money is for repairs, maintenance and restoration, and so a sponsorship plan has been developed for consideration. Corporations as well as private and public businesses can purchase a sponsorship and in return they would receive ad space on the Golden Gate Bridge visitors center, on the nearby plaza, and on public transportation operated by the Golden Gate Bridge.
Driving south toward San Francisco on Highway 101 one's eye is caught by the boldness of the bay, the sailboats, the fog, and most importantly the bridge.
There are currently no ads and no billboards surrounding the bridge or its approach. It is a work of man-made art in nature, and a masterpiece. Our bridge is an icon of San Francisco and California as a tourist attraction.
Selling these ads for the bridge tarnishes the bridge's natural splendor and changes its image. By placing advertisements, especially before the bridge, the view is tampered.
The bridge is no longer a work of art but instead one giant commercial and becomes like any other place. While trying to admire the bridge and take it all in, one would become distracted by advertisements for soda companies, cell phones, fast food, gasoline, and so on.
A commercialized feeling is not what people are looking for when they enter San Francisco and cross the bridge. It takes away from the experience of the Golden Gate, especially for those seeing it for the first time in person.
If San Francisco commits to this sponsorship program, what is stopping people in the future from increasing the number of ads?
If the advertisements are profitable for the businesses advertising, they are going to want more ad space. It might also appear to be beneficial for the bridge because it creates more revenue for repairs. Who is to stop them from actually hanging banners or signs on the bridge itself? It has been said that the ads will never go this far but one thing tends to lead to another.
The ads will completely cover San Francisco's most famous piece of art.
Instead of offering ad space, why not just raise the toll by one more dollar? I would not mind paying an extra dollar if it kept the bridge from looking like someone's garbage. Also, we could apply more of our tax dollars toward the restoration. It is worth it to keep us safe while crossing the bridge as well as for us to have the same experience we have always had: commercial free.
Which is more reasonable: raising money through ads or maintaining a commercial free display of the city's most well known landmark?