Mid-Hudson first Cable, then Media, now Fiber acquired the building at the corner of Third and Union streets sometime in the late 1990s. They bought it from the Masons. Originally known as St. John's Hall, the building was completed in 1889.
 |
| Photo courtesy Historic Hudson |
The picture below shows the sign in 2023.
So, here's the curious thing. In recent months, people have been noticing the sign as if for the first time. At an HPC meeting in June, Jan Egan, the HPC clerk, brought up the sign on the Mid-Hudson building, wondering how this sign could exist when the HPC had denied a certificate of appropriateness to an internally illuminated sign a block away, on the side of 251 Allen Street. Egan seemed not to realize the Mid-Hudson sign had been there for twenty years. Although she lives not far from the sign, Egan said she had only noticed it recently.
A few days ago, a reader sent Gossips this picture, taken that evening.
He, too, wanted to know what a sign like this was doing in a historic district. When I informed him that the sign, although the image has changed many times over the years, has been there since before the Union-Allen-South Front Street Historic District was created, he responded, "You mean it's old?! I have never seen it before."
This raises a couple of questions. First: What is it about the sign that makes it more noticeable now than it has been in the past? Has the brightness of the sign--the number of lumens emitted--increased? If so, what caused that increase?
Second: Were the HPC ever to grant a certificate of appropriateness to an internally illuminated sign such as the one on the Mid-Hudson building, would they need to make it a condition that the applicant had to return to the HPC to renew the certificate every time they wanted to change the image?
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
If the regulation concerned itself with the content of the message it would almost certainly be challenged on First Amendment grounds. And likely fail.
ReplyDeleteSigns in historic districts have been subject to HPC review from the beginning. It has to do with appearance and compatibility not content.
DeleteThat's obvious, Carole. My point was in response to your last sentence in the post. If any sign owner had to get approval to change the content of the sign -- simply because they change the content of the sign -- that would be unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It's not content-neutral if it's content-triggered, even if the content itself isn't being reviewed or "permitted." Any impingement of core constitutional rights, and particularly under the First Amendment, must be necessary and limited in their scope to achieve an important governmental objective. A content-trigger that's not content-oriented (since it pretty much can't be) is neither limited or necessary as it would achieve nothing defensible.
DeletePerhaps the sign switched to a high-fiber diet. It certainly looks brighter.
ReplyDeleteI’ve been wondering about this as well and wondering if Gossips would cover it. It seems to be more than an illuminated sign, it looks like it’s electronic, LED…? Which would be way different and a completely new sign, not just the content.
ReplyDelete