Casino Pylon

 Pylon Directory:  This is a list of our posts and Comments discussing the proposed 80′ x 38′ Schenectady casino signage pylon and its 32′ x 19′ digital display:

Pylon-PokeFusco

our Pylon in a Poke .

beware the Zombie Pylon” (March 23, 2016). It ain’t dead yet.
Mayor McCarthy defends the casino pylon” at the League of Conservation Voters forum (September 22, 2015)
.
bait and switch along the Mohawk” (July 31, 2015) suddenly we have a v-shaped pylon with an LCD screen on each wing.
.
– “casino site plan approved: pylon, too” (July 22, 2015). And, the pylon will be bulkier, brighter and wider than expected.
 .
– click here for a pdf version of David Giacalone’s Comments to the Commission regarding the Casino Pylon, dated July 22, 2015
 .
– “the Commission should require a better pylon” (July 20, 2015) The Planning Comn has the power to insist on a safer and better-looking pylon.
.
– “a Pylon Precis: too big, too bright, too  much” (July 16, 2015): a comparatively pithy summary.
 .
– This posting “pylon envy?“ (see below): compares the Sch’dy pylon to classic Las Vegas signs and a massive new sign in Cincinnati; it also compares the signage rules that apply to all other businesses in Schenectady but not to the Casino
.

– “phony pylon excuse“: uses photos, maps, and other images to explain why the excuse that  the STS Steel Building blocks the view of the casino is simply untrue

– “shrink that Casino pylon“: explains why the proposed pylon is the wrong size at the wrong location; looks at the Des Plaines Rivers Casino, which is too large and too bright at night although “only” 68 ft. tall; worries the Schenectady pylon would become an inappropriate symbol of Schenectady

– “how big is 80 feet by 38 feet?” (July 12, 2015), which points out that the proposed pylon sign is both taller and wider than Schenectady’s former Masonic Temple, at 302 State Street.

– other pylon-related materials:
  1. Comments submitted to the Planning Commission by David Giacalone, June 17, 2015, which stresses the inappropriate height and width and the serious traffic hazard from the huge digital display.
  2. A discussion of variables for evaluating the safety of roadside CEVMS (digital variable message displays).
  3. The Casino’s 2014 Visual Resources Assessment submitted by the Mohawk Harbor applicants as part of its environmental impact assessment, concluding that the project would have no negative visual impact on the City or any historically sensitive areas. It analyzed the proposed riverbank hotel, but  not the casino pylon sign.
  4. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Visual Impact Assessment Policy (2000). Both Metroplex and the Mohawk Harbor applicant purport to follow this important policy statement in reviewing the project’s likely visual impact off-site.