Owners Flout Law With Sidewalk Shed Ads

By Andrea Appleton
POSTED DEC. 4, 2006

Standing at Wall and Broad, shutterbug tourists have only to spin in place to capture some of the city’s most iconic images. There, in that landmark-rich vista, is Federal Hall, the New York Stock Exchange, Trinity Church...and an ad featuring giant cans of ice tea.

The billboard-size ad, covering a sidewalk shed that wraps around 14 Wall Street, stretches halfway down the block in both directions, fluorescent green and over eight feet tall. Before it appeared late last month, an equally large Bank of America ad graced the shed. Before that, it was North Fork Bank. Ads like these, erected on sidewalk construction sheds, are not only startlingly out of context. They are also illegal.

The owner of 14 Wall Street is Leviev Boymelgreen, one of the city’s most prolific residential developers. Shaya Boymelgreen, who heads the company with diamond magnate Lev Leviev, is not the only developer who ignores the signage law. But he may be Downtown’s poster child, so to speak.

Leviev Boymelgreen is reportedly developing more than 5 million square feet of properties in the city. One of these is 20 Pine Street, which also features a sidewalk shed with an illegal ad. A nearly block-long ad hung for months on the shed at 88 Leonard St., another Leviev Boymelgreen property, until late last month, when it disappeared. Immediately prior to its removal, a Trib reporter had made inquiries about the sign. Building department inspectors had also been on the premises on Nov. 21 following a scaffolding accident. The city’s Buildings Department (DOB) has issued illegal signage violations at all these addresses, often multiple times. The developer also previously received violations at 15 Broad Street, which no longer has a sidewalk shed. Boymelgreen did not return repeated calls seeking comment.

Eric Deutsch, president of the Downtown Alliance, which manages Downtown’s Business Improvement District, says the Alliance periodically reports offenders to the DOB or intervenes directly with building owners, though the group has no enforcement authority. He said he did not know if the Alliance had contacted Boymelgreen.

“The corner of Wall and Broad is one of the most important intersections in America. It’s not an appropriate place for that type of advertising,” he said.

Arthur Piccolo, a Bowling Green activist who has been fighting illegal signage for years, came before a Community Board 1 committee last month seeking action on 14 Wall Street, which he called, “perhaps the most egregious example” in the entire city. “Wall Street is arguably the most important street in the world, and it’s a mess,” he told the board as he displayed a photo of the building. Later in the month, the full board passed a resolution calling on the city to enforce new rules stipulating that illegal advertisers be fined as much as $25,000 per day. A $2,500 fine is now the maximum penalty issued to building owners. According to city building code, no advertising is allowed on protective structures at construction sites.

No signs of any kind are permitted unless the structure obscures an existing sign for a business inside the building. Even then, signs are limited to three and a half feet tall, and must be directly in front of the affected business.

According to the DOB Web site, three illegal signage violations were issued at 14 Wall St. alone, most recently in November 2005. According to the DOB, inspectors investigated the site last month, in response to community complaints. The following weekend, the Bank of America advertisement came down, only to be immediately replaced by the Nestea ad.

“They are able to cure the initial violation by removing the sign,” said Jennifer Givner, a DOB spokeswoman. Fines are waived if building owners remove the particular ad targeted in a violation. “If they put up another sign, that’s a separate violation.”

A banner for luxury condominiums at 20 Pine Street wraps halfway around the building it promotes. Though much of the ad appears to be the allowable height, other portions are nearly two-stories tall. And the sign clearly does not serve to replace an obscured nameplate. A violation was issued last February. The owner failed to appear at a hearing and was fined $2,500, DOB records show.

Penalties are stiffer for outdoor advertising companies, if they can be found. These can run as high as $25,000, but such instances are rare.

The sidewalk shed at 88 Leonard is lined with stencils that read “Post No Bills." This message is apparently meant to deter “wall-scrapings,” poster-size ads pasted on construction fences. A Nissan advertisement that stretched three-quarters of a block, the SUVs in the ad nearly as large as those driving by, hung undisturbed until late November. Leviev Boymelgreen failed to show at hearing dates in October regarding sign violations at this address, and was consequently fined $5,000.

Opponents can only speculate about how much money building owners make from the ads. “Basically it’s a big booming business and it’s just proliferating all over the place,” said Vanessa Gruen, of the Municipal Art Society. “I’ve heard that a large sign can generate as much as $30,000 a month.”

Elected officials and community groups throughout the city are speaking out about sidewalk shed advertising.

In August, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer called for a crack down. The Municipal Art Societyheld a competition, and compiled a list of 44 offenders. They urge residents to call 311 with complaints, and to contact them, too. The Society follows up with the DOB to ensure violations are issued.

In a statement, the DOB said it is “mindful” that some sidewalk sheds are left up longer than needed by developers who are “motivated by the revenue gained in placing illegal advertising signage upon them.” The first permit for the shed at 14 Wall Street was issued in April of 2003, and it has been up continuously since then. The current permit expires in April 2007.

Records that would have revealed what type of work the permits were issued for were unavailable from the DOB at press time, as accessing them, the Trib was told, would have required a physical search by the agency.

Complicating matters is Local Law 11 of 1998, requiring that owners of large buildings conduct periodic inspections of exterior walls, and report back. The owners of 14 Wall Street, a landmark building, filed an “unsafe” inspection this summer, which means the contentious sidewalk shed isn’t coming down anytime soon. Permits for sheds are generally issued for one to two years, but can be renewed, particularly if the owner calls his building “unsafe” per Local Law 11.

New DOB rules may help address the sign problem. As of Nov. 27, all outdoor advertising companies must have registered with the DOB and provided an inventory o certain signs. Under the rule, building owners coul be treated as outdoor advertising companies, and thus fined much more. But it is unclear when and if enforcement will take effect. The DOB is currentl involved in litigation with advertising companies over the new rule.

In the meantime, pedestrians will continue walking in the shadow of enormous enticements to buy, buy, buy.

As Clear Channel Outdoor, a prominent advertising company pushing the litigation, proclaims on its Web site: “Outdoor advertising is great because you can’t turn it off, throw it away, or click on the next page.”