Portland Awaits Final Decision on Iconic Sign
By Margaret Foster | Online Only | Aug. 28, 2009
The 1940 sign's message changed from ?White Stag Sportswear? to ?Made in Oregon? in 1997.
There's a heated debate under way in Portland over a beloved neon sign that reads "Made in Oregon."
The sign, known for a leaping stag whose nose turns red in December, has topped the 1907 White Stag Building since 1940. Last year the University of Oregon moved into the renovated, LEED-gold-certified White Stag Building. In December, Ramsay Signs, the owner of the "Made in Oregon" sign, filed an application with the city to change its wording to reflect the building's new tenants. (Because the sign was designated a local landmark in 1978, the city must approve any alterations.)
Almost 30,000 people have become members of the "Save Made in Oregon Sign" group on Facebook.
"For all these years [the sign has] represented the city of Portland," says Pat Mobley, a resident who created the group in April. "That's why people are so up in arms about this and have been able to really let the elected officials know."
The proposed new design
In an April compromise between the city and the University of Oregon, the sign was slated to be changed to read simply "Oregon." Ramsay also proposed to add two letter Os to the White Stag Building's 100-year-old water tower.
But last month the city's historic landmarks commission tentatively rejected those plans, citing concerns about changes to the water tank. In response, Ramsay requested a 120-day delay on a final vote, scheduled for Sept. 14.
According to City Planner Tim Heron, Ramsay is reconsidering its proposal. (Ramsay didn't return phone calls from Preservation.) "Landmarks [commission] will likely deny the water tower proposal and potentially approve the changes to the Made in Oregon sign," he says. "At least half the commissioners are on board with the changes to the sign."
Some say neither the sign nor the water tower should be altered.
"I hope they deny the entire application," Mobley says. "I would love for it to stay the way it is, but I also understand private property rights. … But here I think the common good outweighs the private party's interest."
For more photos, stories, and tips, subscribe to the print edition of Preservation magazine.
Subscribe to the Today's News RSS feed
Comments
Submitted by BWChicago at: August 28, 2009
It's only had this message since 1997? What can be the justification for not changing it again 12 years later?