University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

(USC Thesis Other)

Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

SOCIAL CONSTUCTION OF THE EXPERIENCE ECONOMY:

THE SPATIAL ECOLOGY OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING

IN LOS ANGELES

by

Bryce C. Lowery

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT)

May 2014

Copyright 2014

by

Bryce C. Lowery

All rights reserved.

For
Mom and Dad

and

Eryk

You inspire me to dream of bright lights and equitable cities.

iii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation investigates the impact of outdoor advertising on Los Angeles and community response
to a proposal to regulate its placement through zoning. Some suggest that outdoor advertising is an
economically significant component of contemporary urban development, an important signal of the
emerging experience economy. Despite claims of its financial resilience, outdoor advertising has been
shown to negatively impact both social and environmental qualities of community through its placement
and content. Notably, the nuisance created by outdoor advertising is heightened in non-white, less well off
communities. Using a combination of temporal, spatial, and social approaches, this study answers the
question: How might planners account for the ambiguity of outdoor advertising as a component of the
urban landscape?
First, this dissertation provides background on the current state of outdoor advertising in Los
Angeles and the previous planning processes that contributed to its impact. Outdoor advertising policy is
documented using newspaper articles, public documents, and public comments submitted since 1910,
when the first outdoor advertising regulation in the city was promulgated. Evidence suggests that efforts to
protect residents from the nuisance of outdoor advertising were frequently thwarted by those suggesting
the primacy of economic benefits.
In the contemporary context, this study investigates the impact of outdoor advertising to
determine if harmful content is more prevalent in particular types of communities. The impact of outdoor
advertising is analyzed using a longitudinal, geo-referenced, photographic database of outdoor
advertisement in a variety of communities in Los Angeles. Although regulated by identical land use, a
disproportionate number of advertisements promoting negative messages were observed in non-white,
lower-income communities.
iv

Finally, this dissertation investigates community response to the most recent proposal to regulate
outdoor advertising to determine if its presence or other social and economic factors influence public
participation in its formulation. Logistical regression is used on a dataset of the location of outdoor
advertisements found citywide as well as public comment records related to the recent sign ordinance
revision. Community response to outdoor advertising is positively associated with communities that are
older, white, educated, and well off but negatively associated with impact.
Despite land use controls intended to limit the nuisance created by outdoor advertising, there
exist spatial disparities in both the impact and the types of communities that participate in regulating its
placement. By focusing attention on economic outcomes, local officials and outdoor advertising interests
prevent the implementation of innovative land use regulation that might better serve the economic, social,
and environmental interests of Los Angeles. If both the impact and response to outdoor advertising are
spatially organized in ways that suggest disparity it becomes incumbent upon planners to engage
communities in ways that help individuals understand the benefits and risks associated with the
contemporary experience economy.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract iii

List of Figures viii

List of Tables ix

Acknowledgements x

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

/1 Focus 1

/2 Overview 4

/3 The Setting: Los Angeles 2008-2012 5

/4 Theoretical and Practical Contribution 9

Chapter 2 Literature Review 11

/1 Theoretical Framework 11

/2 The Market and the Landscape 13

/3 The Consumable Landscape 14

/4 Outdoor Advertising 19

/5 The Impact of Outdoor Advertising 21

/6 Outdoor advertising: an ambiguous amenity 26

/7 Response to Outdoor Advertising 28

/8 The Archetype: New York 31

Chapter 3 Methodology 34

/1 Introduction 34

/2 Independent Variables and Site Selection 35

/3 Data: Analysis of Impact 37

vi

/4 Approach: Analysis of Impact 39

/5 Data: Analysis of Response 43

/6 Approach: Analysis of Response 45

Chapter 4 Regional Center to Sign District 49

/1 Introduction 49

/2 Approach 50

/3 Business Amenity, Residential Nuisance 50

/4 Keeping up with Chicago 55

/5 The Vermont Situation and Zoning in Los Angeles 60

/6 From Lights Out to Legal Victory 64

/7 From Regional Center to Sign District 68

/8 Discussion 70

Chapter 5 The Impact of Outdoor Advertising 72

/1 Introduction 72

/2 Approach 75

/3 Results 76

/4 Discussion 84

Chapter 6 The Response to Outdoor Advertising 87

/1 Introduction 87

/2 Approach 92

/3 Results 93

/4 Discussion 98

Chapter 7 Conclusion: Planning for Consumable Landscapes 101

Summary 101

Looking Ahead 102

vii

Limitations 107

Future Opportunities 108

Appendix 109

A1 Descriptive Statistics for Population Variables in Census
Tracts within 500 feet of Los Angeles Regional Centers 110

A2 Descriptive Spatial Statistics for Point Pattern Analysis 111

A3 Descriptive Statistics for Response by Neighborhood Council 115

A4 Descriptive Spatial Statistics of Cumulative Impact 119

A5 Nearest Neighbor Analysis Case Study Communities 123

Bibliography 124

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1/3-1: Map of proposed sign districts 8

Figure 2/3-1: Spatial organization of global advertising networks 16

Figure 3/1-1: Research model 35

Figure 3/3-1: Outdoor advertisements per square mile by neighborhood, month, and type 39

Figure 3/4-1: Misogyny on a junior poster and “other” content on a small bulletin 40

Figure 3/4-2: Public service announcement on a bus bench 41

Figure 3/5-1: “Outdoor advertising” articles in the Los Angeles Times, 1905-2012 44

Figure 3/6-1: Boolean overlay model 46

Figure 4/3-1: “Outdoor advertising” articles per capita in the Los Angeles Times by type 52

Figure 5/3-2: Large bulletin advertising addictive behavior 78

Figure 5/3-3: Violence on a small bulletin 79

Figure 5/3-4: Unhealthy food advertised on a bus shelter 80

Figure 5/3-5: Adult themes on a kiosk 81

Figure 7/2-1: Small bulletins advertising addictive behavior 104

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2/5-1: Creative-industry exports (goods and services) by growth rate, 1996 - 2005 24

Table 3/2-1: Census tracts by dominant racial/ethnic group 36

Table 3/2-2: Census tracts by population in poverty in the past year 36

Table 3/2-3: Census tracts by adult population with a diploma or equivalent 37

Table 3/2-4: Census tracts by population older than 18 37

Table 3/4-3: Environmental variables by Los Angeles regional center 42

Table 3/5-2: Public comments by type 45

Table 3/6-1: City of Los Angeles Off-site Sign Listing by billboard typology 47

Table 3/6-2: “Outdoor advertising” articles in the Los Angeles Times: 1881-2012 48

Table 5/2-1: Descriptive Statistics for Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet 75

Table 5/3-1: Square Foot Area Harmful Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet by Content 77

Table 5/3-6: Square Foot Area of Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet by Type 82

Table 5/3-7: Square Foot Area of All Outdoor Advertising by Population and Content 83

Table 6/3-1: Number of billboards by census tract and racial/ethnic group 93

Table 6/3-2: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of population in poverty 94

Table 6/3-3: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of adult population with a diploma 94

Table 6/3-4: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of population older than 18 95

Table 6/3-6 Logistic Regression Results Predicting Non-Response 95

x

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the members of my committee, exemplars of scholarship, mentorship, and camaraderie in
the academy. I am thankful for the guidance, freedom, financial and emotional support provided by my
advisor David Sloane. His interests in cities, human well being, and history are contagious. I am truly
blessed to be your student; you came into my life at the perfect time and helped me accomplish what once
seemed insurmountable. I am also grateful for the support for Professor Tridib Banerjee, whose
knowledge of design and its implications for the future of cities served as an important foundation for my
own work. I will always be thankful for the opportunity to meet with you during the publication of the
Companion to Urban Design. Our discussions were thought provoking, provocative, and foundational to my
own appreciation of the capabilities and limits to urban design. Last, but certainly not least, I am thankful
for the support of Professor Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo with whom I was lucky enough to share a love of
the landscape and the lives of those who tend it – stewardship comes in many forms, the care of
immigrant gardeners and the protest of billboard activists. Thanks for your guidance, over tea, in one of
the most comfy offices on campus. My dissertation is a reflection of each of your areas of expertise, your
influence, and your commitment to the transformational power of knowledge. I will do my best to be as
wonderful for my own students as you were to me.
I am grateful for the support of students and faculty at the Sol Price School of Public Policy. I am
particularly thankful to Lisa Schweitzer, whose guidance was instrumental in getting my first article from
this dissertation published. I am thankful to Terry Cooper for his mentorship during my time at USC and
Marlon Boarnet for his support as I finished my dissertation and began my career at the University of
Oklahoma School of Architecture. I am also thankful to members of my qualifying exam committee,
Jenny Schuetz and Juliet Musso for their early involvement in this endeavor.
xi

School is just not the same without friends. I am grateful to Erin McMorrow for being there first
and last – from our introduction at Café Figero to editing final drafts at Groundworks DTLA. I am
grateful to Vivian Wang for her love and support, sass and style – proof that even a New Yorker can come
to love Los Angeles. I am also thankful to Ellen Shiau for her friendship and scholarly collaboration.
I am grateful to those who aided me in my search for historical records including Todd
Gaydowski and Michael Holland at the Los Angeles City Archives and the City Records Center as well as
staff at the John W. Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising & Marketing History in the David M.
Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library at Duke University. I am particularly thankful to Todd
Gish, Kathy Kolnick, and Stephanie Frank for generously sharing their historian superpowers.
I am indebted to the staff and faculty at the University of Southern California Spatial Sciences
Institute, particularly Karen Kemp and Jennifer Swift who both provided feedback in the early stages of
this dissertation. I also want to thank staff at the Neighborhood Engagement Initiative, who provided
shapefiles for the network of neighborhood councils in Los Angeles.
I am thankful too for the staff at the University of Southern California Von Kleinsmid Library for
International and Public Affairs. I am particularly grateful to Sherry Mosley, for her contagious
happiness, and Katharin Peter for assistance with data.
I am most thankful for my parents, who sacrificed to make sure I could go to college, even though
they never had the opportunity to do so. My accomplishments are a reflection of their love and support.
Most of all, I am thankful for my spouse Eryk and our family Iggy, Greta, and Olive. You make me smile
even on the saddest days and bring more joy than I could possibly deserve.
1

Chapter 1: Introduction

…Sometimes we pride ourselves on our simplicity, plainness and
economy, thus characterizing our actual neglect and ignorance of
civic and natural beauty.
McFarland 1904a, 15

1/1 Focus

Research into urban life is frequently concerned with understanding the relationship between
people and the environment. Scholars and practitioners alike want to know how the
environments we design and build impact human behavior and quality of life as well as how
individuals and groups respond or fail to respond to an environment or specific environmental
factor. One perspective suggests that human communities are successional (McKenzie 1924) built
upon the remnants of previous natural and human-made processes. In this regard, context and
culture matters, our surroundings supply the materials and humankind alters the environment in
order to survive, both culturally and physically (Sauer 1925). From an ecological perspective,
“the city is not… merely a physical mechanism and an artificial construction. It is involved in the
vital processes of the people who compose it; it is a product of nature, and particularly human
nature” (Park 1967, 1). More recently, scholars have elaborated on these ideas, suggesting that
such a perspective stresses the importance of a hierarchical system of nested relationships
(Vasishth and Sloane 2002) that are constantly evolving, making, and remaking the environment
and our life together (Tuan 1980; Cannavo 2007).
Scholars continue to build upon this work by investigating the specific aspects of the
interplay between urban form and social function. An important area of study concerns the
sustainability of land use dedicated to the experience economy (Pine and Gilmore 1999), previous
2

sites of agricultural labor, industrial production, and commercial consumption are transformed
into consumable landscapes, sites of cosmopolitan leisure, commercial tourism, and consumer
experience (Urry 1995, Judd and Feinstein 1999; Glaeser, Kolko, and Saiz 2001). In some
instances, changes result in the transformation of neglected and forgotten landscapes into sites of
economic, ecological, and social vibrancy. In other instances, these changes create unwanted
forms of gentrification (Zukin 2010) and generate resistance among local residents who fear a
change to neighborhood character (Ahlfeldt 2011). If its true that the city is “rooted in the habits
and customs of the people who inhabit it” (Park 1967), understanding how social processes and
the urban milieu give rise to these places, habits, and movements becomes an important part of
broadening our understanding of city form and generating innovative land use strategies to
enhance the quality of life and sustainability of cities.
Outdoor advertising provides a particularly salient visual indicator of the transformation
of space brought about by the demand for consumer experiences. Signage such as billboards,
posters, vinyl supergraphics, and digital displays serve as a form of urban stimuli, activating and
lighting space while simultaneously generating social meaning and cultural significance (Venturi,
Scott Brown, and Izenour 1977; Jakle and Sculle 2004). To some, outdoor advertising both
reflects and inspires life (Cronin 2008) and serves as an agent of social change (Cronin 2004) that
is increasingly seen as an integral part of the economic sustainability of urban development
(Lopez-Puarejo and Bassell 2009). Others contest this depiction, suggesting outdoor advertising is
a nuisance that shrouds our understanding of complex, global, economic processes (Mattleart
1991, Goldman 1992; Abrahamson 2004) and erodes community well being through its
messaging and placement (Barbeau, et al 2005; Kwate and Meyer 2009; Yancey, et al 2009). As
either nuisance or amenity, outdoor advertising serves as an increasingly important visual
3

indicator of commercial activity and consumer opportunity when one considers places like Times
Square, the Ginza, Nanjing Road, the Las Vegas Strip, or similar consumable landscapes around
the world enshrined in outdoor advertising.
In the American context, any nuisance resulting from the proliferation of consumable
landscapes would elicit response from communities empowered through democratic planning
practices. When the potential impacts of such a transformation are perceived to be negative,
individuals adopt a land ethic that recognizes the interdependence of human communities and
the environment (Leopold 1949). Here neighborhoods unhappy with a nuisance such as outdoor
advertising have the opportunity to exercise voice (Hirschman 1970) as a means of improving the
landscape through collective action. As individuals coalesce around a set of ideals and work
collectively toward determining the appearance of the nearby landscape, their stewardship would
be prominent in the popular press (Neustadt and May 1986) and salient in local social
agreements that become codified into law (Park 1972). In this way, the experience economy and
the consumable landscape foment of set of social norms and beliefs that inform public policy
about where these landscapes go and how they look.
Here, I quantify the impact of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles and the response by
local communities to a proposal to regulate its placement through zoning. This project is
designed to answer the question: Does the impact of outdoor advertising elicit community
response to a policy proposal to regulate its placement? This question is supported by additional
questions: What is the current state of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles and how did it get that
way? Is outdoor advertising perceived as an amenity or as a nuisance? Are the patterns of impact
and response equitably distributed? And, one question intended to provide practical approaches
4

to the placement of outdoor advertising based on the findings: How might planners begin to
account for the ambiguity of outdoor advertising as a component of the urban landscape?

1/2 Overview

To address these questions I provide evidence from three empirical projects. Chapter two
provides the theoretical foundation that situates outdoor advertising as an integral part of
contemporary the appearance of cities, a visual indictor of experiential, consumable landscapes
that constitute a model from of commercial development. I suggest that the impact of outdoor
advertising can be measured by both its content and its spatial arrangement. Chapter two will
also suggest that response to outdoor advertising can be seen as a form of participatory planning,
a type of stewardship concerned with the physical appearance of the environment, measured
through public records and journalistic accounts. Chapter three discusses the research approach,
methodology, and justification. Chapter four answers the first and second supporting research
questions by providing both a historical and contemporary perspective of how outdoor
advertising came to be in Los Angeles. Chapter five explains the spatial nature of outdoor
advertising in terms of both concentration and content in relation to neighborhood socio-
demographic characteristics as a means of answering the third supporting question. Chapter six
answers the last supporting question by investigating the relationship between community
response, the impact of outdoor advertising, and key population characteristics.
Together, these chapters seek to address the central point of this investigation: outdoor
advertising is an poorly understood component of the urban landscape, worthy of renewed
consideration by both the planning scholars and professionals. I set out to understand how the
proliferation of outdoor advertising influences the way we live our daily lives, think about the
5

landscape, and care for the environment and ourselves. Chapter seven addresses the primary
research question and suggests a set of policy considerations for planners confronting the
proliferation of outdoor advertising and the response (or lack of response) by local communities.
Visual nuisance is certainly not pleasant but emptied-out cities void of bright lights, tall buildings,
and life are not pleasant either. Like almost every other component of the landscape, land use is
employed to manage the placement of outdoor advertising. Understanding how communities
value the experience of outdoor advertising is central to designing and planning aesthetically
appropriate environments that can support the local quality of life and the sustainability of cities.

1/3 The Setting: Los Angeles 2008-2012

But there is a higher than financial argument for bettering the city
which is your home and which your children will inherit. The one
thing needed is something which Los Angeles is said to have, viz:
That sprit which looks ahead, which grasps big ideas, which is
ready to pull together for the city’s good.
Robinson 1909

Los Angeles serves as an important context for this study for a number of reasons. First, Los
Angeles is one of the largest markets for outdoor advertising in the United States. While the exact
cost and coverage – a term used to denote the number of potential viewers of outdoor advertising
– remain closely guarded industry secrets, New York and Los Angeles remain the most sought
after locations for outdoor advertising in the United States. According to the outdoor advertising
industry, New York provides the largest potential adult market, with an estimated adult
population of 15,842,911 and Los Angeles follows closely behind with 13,106,258 potential adult
viewers.
1
However, according to the 2008 Clear Channel Media Planning Guide the cost of a four-

1
CBS Outdoor. 2009. “Top 50 Market Coverage.” Retrieved October 2, 2013 from
www.cbsoutdoor.com/tools/documents/top%2050%20market%20coverage_cbsoutdoor3-09.pdf

6

week outdoor advertising campaign in Los Angeles costs $327,980.00 while similar coverage in
New York City costs $146,720.00.
The disparity in cost becomes even more pronounced given particular ethnic and racial
markets. According to the same report, the cost of an outdoor advertising campaign directed at
Latino and Hispanic consumers in Los Angeles would cost $148,180.00 but only $20,330.00 in
New York and the cost of a campaign targeting African Americans would cost $27,900.00 in Los
Angeles but only $15,980.00 in New York. Regardless of market share or value, Los Angeles is
arguably one of the most important locations for outdoor advertising in the country.
Additionally, some suggest that the landscape of the city is predisposed to posters, neon
lights, billboards, supergraphics, and digital signage because of its spatial arrangement, physical
character, and culture. On his visit to Los Angeles, Reyner Banham decreed, “the proliferation
of advertising signs is an essential part of the character of Los Angeles” (1971, 139). At that time,
the Marlboro Man and the billboards of the Sunset Strip defined the city as much as the
landmarks of any other famous locale, a signature of the city much like the Eiffel Tower of Paris or
the Opera House of Sydney. Traversing the city by car, Banham experienced first hand how the
city’s polycentric form, auto-centric network of streets, and media-rich consumer culture
contribute to the prominence of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles.
In addition, Los Angeles experienced an unprecedented increase in outdoor advertising
as supergraphics, affixed to the façades of buildings, and digital billboards, glowing with LED
technology, appeared across the landscape of the city. Both the City of Los Angeles and local
communities took notice. In response to the proliferation of outdoor advertisements, opponents
and advocates alike squared off over new land use regulations in an effort to control the
appearance of the landscape of Los Angeles. Beginning in 2006 and continuing until the present,
7

the city has been revising its land use regulations related to outdoor for the first time in almost 20
years. Situated in an environment that hosts the Hollywood Sign, arguably one of the most
famous outdoor advertisements (Braudy 2012), billboards and other forms of off-site advertising
seem perfectly suited to a place like Los Angeles. But to local residents, property owners,
politicians, and planners they represent something much more complex. The proposal to
regulate the placement of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles provides a unique opportunity to
investigate how existing and proposed changes to the landscape encourage people to outwardly
present their beliefs about land use and the impact of outdoor advertising on the landscape of the
city.
Los Angeles has a long history of addressing concerns about outdoor advertising through
public policy. Starting in 1906, social reformers called for stringent controls over their placement
and content and characterized them as “eyesores to civic beauty”(Los Angeles Times 1906). Since
that time, the city has revised its signage ordinance only a handful of times, relegating outdoor
advertising to fewer and fewer locations in an effort to protect residential property owners from
the nuisance created by billboards and other signs while simultaneously attempting to
accommodate the economic desires of the local business community by designating areas where
signs are allowable.
But, as the city and technologies changed, older zoning laws became ineffective at
regulating outdoor advertising in Los Angeles. In 2013, media companies challenged the right of
the city to regulate outdoor advertising, suing for the right to maintain a set of illegally installed
digital signs. Like past efforts, the current proposal relies on zoning to guide the placement of
outdoor advertising; it designates approximately 2.5 square miles or .4% of the total land area of
the city found in each of the 21 regional centers of the city as sign districts (see Figure 1/3-1).
8

Much like the model generated by Times Square, Los Angeles is in the process of clustering
outdoor advertising into spatially defined areas of the city. Despite suggestions that this solution
represents a compromise, the ordinance remains controversial, as community members fear
more advertising while billboard advocates suggest the proposal allows communities far more
control over the appearance of local neighborhoods.

Figure 1/3-1: Map of proposed sign districts

Finally, Los Angeles is also home to a system of neighborhood councils that serve as a
conduit between City Council Members and local constituents. These networks of elected
volunteers foster information sharing and facilitate mobilization among local communities as a
means of reforming public institutions and policies (Musso et al. 2006). While the outcome of
9

these councils overall is somewhat unclear, the overall dissemination of information about
localized land use issues, such as the placement of outdoor advertising, is advanced by the
network created by the councils (Musso 2012). The decisions of neighborhood councils, their
planning and land use committees, and beautification activities provide an important perspective
into the response by local communities and the City of Los Angeles to the process of developing a
new signage ordinance and determining if outdoor advertising is either alien or icon, nuisance or
amenity, or something in between.

1/4 Theoretical and Practical Contribution

In the pages that follow, I build upon previous scholarship regarding the trajectory of
community development, the role of physical planning in improving the well being of local
communities, and the interplay between the planning profession and local residents in the
formulation of land use policy. Theoretically, I contribute to the ongoing discussion of the role of
capitalism in generating the form and function of cities. While landscapes dotted in outdoor
advertising may serve to advance the economic well being of individuals, their impact socially
and environmentally serves to widen the chasm between the well off and the less well off, by
elucidating what it means to have and have not, a message that only serves to further alienate
individuals from their environment and the democratic processes that hold the potential to
remedy the disparity of the situation.
Practically speaking, the impact of capitalism on the landscape raises important concerns
regarding emerging forms of urban development. If landscapes of the experience economy, like
those created by outdoor advertising, serve to disadvantage rather than improve the quality of life
in local communities, a tendency to rely on outdoor advertising to stoke economic development
10

may not be sustainable, particularly if communities are resistant or unaware of the consequences
of this type of development or if it serves as a conduit for further inaction. I assert that a path to
more resilient communities can be found in an approach to planning that takes into account
economic, social, and environmental context, an approach that situates planning as a didactic
practice, helping to elevate the role of individual and collective stewardship over the ongoing
development, transformation, and preservation of local neighborhoods.
11

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2/1 Theoretical Framework

Research into urban life is frequently concerned with understanding the relationship between
social life and the environment. Scholars and planning practitioners alike want to know how the
environments we design and build impact human behavior and quality of life. At the same time,
we are concerned with how individuals and groups respond to particular environments whether
through advocacy and use or through abandonment and neglect. From the perspective of land
use, this process begins to take on a reiterative character, as we collectively make and remake our
surroundings and our life together (Tuan 1980; Cannavo 2007). The built environment and
social values reify and cause us to reflect on the progression of the urban environment and the
ways we care about it and either ensure its sustainability or contribute to its decay.
Prominent among early efforts at understanding the way we react to and interact with our
environment is an approach that suggests that human communities, like other ecological systems,
are successional; developing over time through processes of invasion and resistance (McKenzie
1924) as communities defend themselves, responding to structural and political forces (Suttles
1972). Others suggest that such a vision constricts our understanding of cities because it fails to
recognize the unique character of “anthropocentric reconfiguration” of urban space (Dear and
Flusty 1997), where the environment supplies materials and human communities alter the
landscape in order to culturally, as well as physically, survive (Sauer 1925). Here, biological
categorization oversimplifies a complex system of socio-cultural values that are seen at a different
scale of observation (Vasishth and Sloane 2002). Land use, materials, modes of development, and
12

use of space are all part of an interconnected and overlapping system that records and guides the
progression of urban design and development.
Looking around any city one sees remnants of past inhabitants in the traditions, customs,
and form of the built environment, the result of human interaction and inaction. Contemporary
environments are alive with physical and social “combinations of the modern and traditional”
(Giddens 1990, 36), manifestations of shared beliefs and values influence both the prospects and
outcomes of human action and become layered in the urban landscape as groups imprint on the
space over time (Carr and Servon 2007). The urban landscape is both a place we see and
experience, as much as it is a product and reflection of the values and ideas about utopia that
exist in our mind (Lynch 1960; Rodwin and Hollister 1984; Clay 1994). Collectively, humanity
takes part in the construction and destruction of the places by inhabiting them physically,
socially, and imaginatively, constantly refashioning the environment through our actions and
refashioning our actions to cope with environmental change.
The way these changes impact the quality of life and the way communities respond to
these changes become an important part of the scholarship and practice of planning. Only by
understanding the making and remaking of the landscape and its associated values can we
understand how and why parts of the urban landscape become suited to particular uses and the
way these uses transmit social meaning (Cuthbert 2007). As John Gardner cautions us, “it would
be a grave mistake to imagine that, in a great burst of energy, we can rebuild our communities
and then turn to other tasks,” when in reality “we can never stop rebuilding” (1985, 178). In this
way, planning scholarship and practice continue to develop approaches aimed at understanding
how the making and unmaking of place are represented in the values of a particular community.
13

Interpreting and engaging these processes allow us to both teach and learn from the values that
make community significant and identify instances when these values are not being represented.

2/2 The Market and the Landscape

The relationship between the values associated with capitalism and the form and function of
American cities is an ongoing area of interest for planning scholarship and practice. Despite a
foundation steeped in socialism (Friedmann 1987), the practice of planning in America is
increasingly seen as an extension of the capitalist, market-oriented democracy that exists here
(Dear and Scott 1981, Fogelsong 1986; Dakin 1993). While some suggest that market planning is
needed, if not obligatory, (Richardson and Gordon 1993) others are skeptical and suggest that a
market approach to improving environmental and social conditions is of questionable value
(Banerjee 1993). While those who design and construct cities are guided by capitalistic ideals,
their influence manifests in both the form and function of American cities.
Beyond the impact the market has had on the profession, lies the impact capitalist ideals
have had on the built environment. The Urbanization of Capital is conducive of a landscape that
reflects both the dominant modes of production and consumption (Harvey 1985) as well as the
market-oriented values of use and exchange (Logan and Molotch 1987). Skyscrapers, clustered in
the urban core, both inform and enforce our image of downtowns as centers of commerce while
they are simultaneously being created by a myriad of private interests (Loukaitou-Sideris and
Banerjee 1998). In the United States, the built environment articulates and reflects outcomes
associated with both the relationship between the well off and the disadvantaged and the values
associated with our system of governance. In this regard, the landscape becomes an important
indicator of both influence of capitalism on the city as well as a means of understanding the value
assigned to land as its function transforms under demands for new consumer experiences.
14

The landscape provides an important scale to study the visual changes generated by
capitalism. As a source and reflection of the values, celebrations, and sadness of a particular
society (Wilson and Groth 2003) and an indicator of the characteristics that are significant in a
particular locale (Lynch 1960) landscape reveals dominant characteristics of the capitalist society.
Through buildings, streets, sidewalks, and neighborhoods, cities physically and visually construct
capitalist culture.
In this regard, the appearance of the landscape is inherently normative, comprised of a
network of impressions and associated values. “Ideologies and stereotypes which govern…
relations… are anchored in cultural standards” (Lewin 1946) and these standards manifest
physically through the design, character, and aesthetic quality of place. At the scale of landscape
it is possible to understand how emerging forms of urban development reflect and inform the way
we consume and experience place.

2/3 The Consumable Landscape

This is not to suggest that the influence of capitalist consumerism or outdoor advertising is
new to the American landscape. Rather, its intensification and spatial reorganization are part of
the cumulative nature of urban development (Suttles 1984), in this case reinforcing patterns of
economic development around “consumption-biased complexes” (Zukin 1990). Once productive
landscapes, sites of agricultural labor and industrial production, are being transformed into
consumable landscapes, sites of cosmopolitan leisure and commercial tourism (Harvey 1973,
Urry 1995, Judd and Feinstein 1999; Glaeser, Kolko, and Saiz 2001, Zukin 2010), as the
landscape becomes the principle object of human consumption (Cosgrove 2006), a conduit of
capitalist accumulation (Britton 1991), and an increasingly valued part of the experience of
shopping.
15

Despite a foundation grounded in agrarian ideals, the act of consuming quickly became
an integral part of the capitalist democracy taking shape in America. In the wake of the Civil
War, consumption came to characterize a newfound desire and a new way of achieving
happiness for many Americans (Leach 1993). The turn of the twentieth century welcomed new
modes of industrialization, which required increased consumer demand for material goods in
order to remain sustainable (Shi 1985). Overtime, both production and demand continued to
shift away from wholly agrarian land uses, intended to sustain life, first toward goods and
services, needed to make life easier, and more recently toward consumer experiences that are
valued for the sensation and memories they create rather than the physical materiality they
generate (Pine and Gilmore 1999). Today, cities provide opportunities to consume both material
goods and memorable experiences.
As the experience-driven economy progresses, the landscape and the appearance of place
becomes an increasingly powerful signal of cultural significance. Our ability to purchase
conspicuously and display positional goods has long been understood to influence one’s social
status (Veblen 1908; Hirsch 1976). The act of consuming goods and services is a source of culture
(Douglas and Isherwood 1979) and one of the most salient and meaningful ways that individuals
convey value (Zukin 2004). Today, conspicuous consumption elevates the preference for
particular environments that support consumer actions and experiences (Glaeser, Kolko, and
Saiz 2001, Moss 2007). Whether as visitors or residents, we are in the process of reinventing
places abandoned by processes of the decline in American production in the late 20
th
century,
transforming the landscape into a visual smorgasbord of settings that facilitate the consumption
of goods, services, and experiences.
The past is alive with examples of the transformation of abandoned industrial areas into
16

sites for purchasing goods, amusements, sights, sounds, smells, and experiences. Factories, air
fields, rail yards, landfills, forgotten places (Markusen 2004) and drosscapes (Berger 2006),
landscapes that once transformed communities through the mechanisms of production and
industrialization, are transforming into sites of consumption and leisure; playgrounds for children
and adults are now integrated into the remnants of these once labor intensive landscapes.
Consumer amenities become landmarks designating affluence; outdoor advertising serves
as a global visual indicator of enclaves that house the well off, identifiers of the consumable
landscape and mechanisms by which economic disparity is exacerbated. (see Figure 2/3-1).

Figure 2/3-1: Spatial organization of global advertising networks

Scholars recognize that this reorganization of physical and social structure of society may be
problematic, particularly its acceptance by both the public and members of the design
17

professions. Emerging forms of consumerism poignantly impact the landscape because the design
professions are particularly prone to the power of capitalism (Baker 2007) as designers engage in
the commodification of architecture (Waldheim 2006) and the process of “redifferentiating urban
space” (Zukin 1987) to suit the needs of the experiential capitalist economy.
While change is inevitable to some degree, community development grounded in
consumer experience evokes response from both scholars and local communities. Patronage to
consumerism could lead to undesirable outcomes for cities and their inhabitants. For some, the
“consumption of mass culture leaves no lasting trace; it affords a kind of experience which is not
cumulative but regressive” (Habermas 1989, 166). Places designed and constructed for
consumption are equated to undesirable forms of gentrification (Zukin 2010), the privatization of
public space and public amenities (Banerjee 2001) and resistance to changes in neighborhood
character often result (Ahlfeldt 2011). Here, “the physical landscape created at one point in time
may be suited to the needs of society at that point but become antagonistic later” as the value
embodied in the property changes with changing social relations (Harvey 1985, 173). This
concern motivates continued investigation into the social processes that accompany the
transformation of the American landscape from labor-driven Fordist production to experience-
based Veblenian consumption.
Cities competing to maintain or enhance economic well being are confronted by a
problematic paradox. As cities work to maintain their status in the global urban hierarchy, their
push to provide for the consumer lifestyle leaves the city blanketed in the great blight of dullness
(Jacobs 1961), the city as a “theme park” where “unimagined sameness” disregards earlier forms
of living embodied in remnant social and physical structures of the past (Dear and Flusty 1997,
156) and threatens the very survival of urban life (Swyngedouw and Kaika 2003). Situated
18

between global forces of competition and local characteristics of community, cities are often
required to engage powerful external influences more meaningfully while disengaging from local
forces resistant to the changes brought about by globalization (Sites 2000). The global race to
provide consumer experiences cloaks urban form and urban experience in sameness that hides
the unique character of a locale and its people while further distancing individuals and
communities from the municipal institutions charged with improving the quality of life locally.
Ultimately, the consumable landscape is the culmination of forces of human development
over time, processes that predate our recognition of their importance. One perspective for
understanding the role of consumable landscapes in the urban context is provided by John Urry,
who has four claims about the impact of consumption on place: places can be restructured as
sites of consumption, be visually consumed, be literally consumed (i.e. depleted), or become all-
consuming (e.g. socially significant) (1995). In the context of contemporary society capitalism is
transforming the physical components of the landscape and “demanding” its own environment
(Cuthbert 2010) in much the same way previous modes of agricultural and industrial production
did in the past. Today, practically every part of the environment is consumed in some way,
reflective of the dominant discourses of capitalism; even cities are marketed for consumption
(Harvey 2006). The transformation of the landscape under these conditions serves as a visual
reference for understanding the potential of social forces and built form to influence the quality of
life.
Understanding how social and historical forces contribute to the physical and social
landscape of cities becomes increasingly important as the power of consumer preference and
consumer economies becomes more pronounced. “The management of collective consumption
by means of the built environment… becomes a crucial part of the planner’s task” (Harvey 1985,
19

181) that requires innovative approaches that shed light on these behavioral and material aspects
of cities. As these processes become integrated into social and physical systems their influence
tends to erode the connection between individual and place (Dear and Flusty 1997) with
enduring repercussions on both the use of land and the sustainability of urban environments void
of stewardship.

2/4 Outdoor Advertising

Outdoor advertising, or out-of-home advertising, is a term used to denote a category of signage
that advertises goods or services that are not made or sold at the location of the sign. In legal and
regulatory terms these signs are often referred to as off-premise
2
or off-site signs
3
and they are
generally subject to a different set of land use regulations than signs that promote the business at
that location or goods being sold on the same premises as the sign.
Outdoor advertising has long been a part of the urban experience in America. While its
connection to the American highway system cannot be denied (Jakle and Sculle 2004), evidence
suggests that outdoor advertising has been present in American cities, like American
consumerism, since the time of the civil war, when bills and signs could be seen hanging from any
number of human and natural components of the urban environment (Gudis 1994). Early
outdoor advertisements amounted to little more than poster size banners and hand painted
murals. Overtime and through technological innovation outdoor advertising became more and
more spectacular as localized craftsmanship gave way to digital globalization.
Today, both the futuristic digital billboard and more traditional paper posters found at
bus shelters provide a particularly salient visual indicator of the continued transformation of the

2
Outdoor Advertising Association of America. “Glossary of Terms.” Retrieved June 1, 2013 from
www.oaaa.org/OutofHomeAdvertising/OOHGlossaryofTerms.aspx.
3
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 4.4, Section 14.4.18.
20

American landscape as a result of consumerism. Outdoor advertising, like other forms of signage,
efficiently communicates meaning and significance through visual associations (Venturi, Scott
Brown, and Izenour 1977; Jakle and Sculle 2004) and, like all advertising, is eloquent in its
persuasiveness (Goldman 1992). Its presence in cities serves as a “deep driver” of consumer
values on a local and global scale (Held and McGrew 2007), publicly displaying the values of a
particular society (Henderson and Landau 1981). Outdoor advertising signals the continued
advancement of capitalism and more specifically the physical changes brought about by the
experiential, consumption-based economy.
Outdoor advertising is both applauded for the financial gains associated with its
placement and lamented for the social and environmental consequences of proximity to its
presence. To some, billboards amount to little more than visual clutter; detracting from the
inherent beauty of nature and architecture and instilling consumer values, while others see them
as an essential part of community development and the economic vitality of place (Tuan 1973).
Visually impactful, the aesthetic changes brought about by the emergence of the experience
economy as well as cities blanketed in outdoor advertising result from a complex set of individual
and shared beliefs about what is appropriate in a given context at a given time.
In his investigation of aesthetic environmental change, John Costonis suggests that
aesthetic controversies such as those generated by the placement of outdoor advertising involve
communities defending icons, which embody a set of highly regarded values, against aliens, which
denigrate one or more icons (1989). While foundational to any conception of landscape
appearance, this dichotomy fails to fully capture the impact of outdoor advertising. For some,
outdoor advertising is very much alien, sent to destroy the existing beauty of the landscape but,
21

for others it is an icon of the experience economy and an integral part of commercial
development.

2/5 The Impact of Outdoor Advertising

The impact of outdoor advertising has been the subject of both national and local policy
discussions as well as scholarly debates, precisely because of its ambiguity. Common among this
work, agreement that regardless of its classification as nuisance or amenity, alien or icon, the
institutions, policies, and physical components of outdoor advertising effect the urban
environment in notable ways (Cronin 2008). As an icon, the outdoor advertising constitutes an
important part of the city life; it signals opportunity for those looking to taste, touch, feel, hear,
and buy experience. But, as an alien, outdoor advertising blights the landscape and weakens
foundational cultural ideals of society. The progression of the consumable landscape is marked
by the replacement of preexisting scenery and values with physical features and beliefs grounded
in consumption.
Outdoor advertising and other forms of mass media exert powerful influence over our
understanding of our own existence. In contemporary society, advertising might be considered
an “essential actor within public space” (Mattelart 1991, ix), an actor whose vision of happiness
and culture “trickles down” to “those being subjugated” by the dominant rhetoric of capital and
consumerism (De Certeau 1997, 87). Here outdoor advertising is portrayed as a manipulative
force that influences our relationship with the landscape based on a capitalist vision of corporate
visual identity and influences our shared consciousness and beliefs about our society (Abrahamson
2004; Sunstein 2007), causing us to value the material nature of goods rather than their
workmanship or character (Schudson 1984). The uncoupling of production and consumption by
corporations challenges consumers seeking to distinguish and support modes of production that
22

are important to their own well being and happiness. By blurring the spatial relationship between
the source and the destination of goods, advertising distorts our understanding of the impact of
these economic processes on both the globe and our locality.
More practically speaking, outdoor advertising represents a nuisance that negatively
influences the well being and quality of life of localized communities. In this regard, outdoor
advertising does more than exploit public space for private gain, distract drivers with its size and
repetition, and denigrate our perception of the environment around us (Flad 1997), it also has
quantifiable effects on human health. Some outdoor advertising content endorses the
misogynistic portrayals of women (Rosewarne 2007; Rosewarne 2005) and promotes adverse
health behaviors such as violence (Anderson and Bushman 2002; Drabman and Thomas 1974;
Rule and Ferguson 1986), smoking (Schooler, Feighery, and Flora 1996), excessive drinking
(Anderson, et al 2009; Kwate and Myer 2009; Truong and Sturm 2009; Pasch, et al 2007), and
unhealthy eating (Yancey, et al 2009; Hillier 2008; Both, Mayer, and Sallis 2001). In addition,
outdoor advertising may have negative impacts created by the artificial light it creates (Chepesiuk
2009; Pauley 2004; Longcore and Rich 2004). Repeated exposure to environments rich in
outdoor advertising negatively influence the quality of life in nearby communities.
Further, evidence suggests that disadvantaged and vulnerable communities experience
the impacts of outdoor advertising disproportionately. Advertising presents a heightened
nuisance in communities with lower educational attainment (Hackbarth, et al 2001), places dense
with children (Pucci, Joseph, and Siegel 1998) and minorities (Hackbarth, et al 2001; Pucci,
Joseph, and Siegel 1998), as well as communities having a lower socio-economic status, as
defined by income and occupation (Barbeau, et al 2005). Additionally, harmful advertising with
portrayals of alcohol and tobacco appear to be disproportionately located in minority
23

communities (Stoddard, et al 1998; Altman, Schooler, and Basil 1991; Hackbarth, Silvestri, and
Cosper 1995; Mitchell and Greenburg 1991; Kwate, Jernigan, and Lee 2007), often adjacent to
child-serving places, such as schools and playgrounds (Kwate, Jernigan, and Lee 2007; Kelly, et
al 2008; Hillier, et al 2009; Scott, et al 2008). And, research shows that wealthier neighborhoods
tend to be protected against outdoor advertising; specifically advertising that promotes tobacco
use (Hackbarth, et al 2001; Luke, Esmundo, and Bloom 2000) and obesity (Yancey, et al 2009).
Despite these concerns, outdoor advertising serves as an icon for those who believe it an
essential component of the economic vitality of place. The rising value of outdoor advertising,
coupled with the new digital technologies that give advertisers the ability to present new ads
continuously create an opportunity to remake the urban landscape and make profit (Sexy
Signage 2013). Cities looking to enhance the financial sustainability of urban development or
prevent the further demise of currently vacant space are lured to the potential for outdoor
advertising to ensure long-term profitability (Christensen 2006). The professional football
stadium proposed in downtown Los Angeles suggests how critical outdoor advertising has
become for major development projects. The current proposal finances part of the project
through revenue from 41 outdoor advertisements that require special permits and approvals
(Kudler 2011). Locally, outdoor advertising bolsters the likelihood of economic success by
providing a steady revenue stream even if the profitability of urban development is uncertain.
On a global scale, advertising is one of the fastest growing sectors of the creative economy
(see Table 2/5-1). According to the United Nations Council on Trade and Development, “the
average growth rates of creative services are increasing faster than those of other more
conventional services. While the growth rate of total world exports of services rose 12 per cent for
the period 2000-2005, the performance of creative services increased much more rapidly: 22 per
24

cent for advertising” (2008, 42). These global trends are likely to influence the organization of the
global workforce and influence the spatial arrangement of these services within the urban
hierarchy and the local landscape.

Table 2/5-1: Creative-industry exports (goods and services) by growth rate, 1996 - 2005

Subgroup
Value
% of
creative
industries
% of total
world
exports

Value
% of
creative
industries
% of total
world
exports
Growth
rate

1996 2005

Performing Arts
music goods
5,100 2.17 .09

14,924 3.35 .14 13.5

Heritage
cultural services
1,022 .44 .08

3,448 .77 .14 12.9

Creative
Services
advertising
5,008 2.13 .38

15,703 3.53 .63 12.1

Creative
Services
architectural
9,828 4.19 .74

27,722 6.23 1.11 10.9

Audiovisual
services
6,327 2.69 .48

17,518 3.93 .70 10.7

Creative
Services
personal cultural
and recreational
10,064 4.29 .76

27,364 6.15 1.10 10.5

Source: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. 2008.

As an amenity outdoor advertising is being used with increasing frequency to enhance the
quality of life in places that are commonly associated with entertainment, tourism, and the
consumption of material goods. Long touted as “the real art gallery of the people” (Poster
Advertising Association 1922, 67), today outdoor advertising represents a new form of urban flux,
one way of enabling the built environment to cater to contemporary demands for visually
stimulating places (Hack 2011). Once believed to be a fantasy relegated to the special effects of
cinema, landscapes of outdoor advertising are employed around the world to encourage
25

development and bolster the sustainability of urban land investment (Lopez-Puarejo and Bassell
2009). Economically, outdoor advertising is frequently considered an amenity, used to spatially
define the location of consumer experiences and consumable landscapes.
A few studies also suggest that outdoor advertising may have positive health effects by
communicating health information and influencing perceptions of activity. In one study, outdoor
advertisements about sun protection were found to compliment other media, such as television
and magazine advertisements, in promoting actions that guard against skin cancer (Smith, et al
2002). In another study, outdoor advertising in a community correlated positively with physical
activity and walking (Boarnet, et al 2011). The researchers suggest that outdoor advertisements
like billboards may serve to increase the perception that a place is pleasant, a community of
human activity.
As for concerns that outdoor advertising influences our behavior and distorts our
understanding of the consequences of consumption, some suggest that these ideas exaggerate the
influence of outdoor advertising. Outdoor advertising is one among a myriad of factors that
inform consumer behavior and codify cultural norms. While, the spatial arrangement of outdoor
advertising may be “calculative” it is not simply an all-powerful force meant to brainwash society
(Cronin 2008). Rather, outdoor advertising can serve as an agent for social change (Cronin
2004), and “an art that enhances human and humane values” (Schudson 1984, 242). Outdoor
advertising has the capacity to reflect and inspire life, enforce the commercial nature of public
space, and support improvements to city form (Cronin 2008). Advertising can serve to give voice
to a number of societal discourses that arise out of the experience of living together, making
decisions together, and sustaining life on our planet. Innovations in outdoor advertising point to
the potential for future financial gain and newfound ability to enable revolutionary urban
26

experiences. Because of the uncertainty of its impacts, knowing when outdoor advertising enables
instead of hinders the well being, vitality, and sustainability of local communities becomes and
important part of the practice of planning.

2/6 Outdoor advertising: an ambiguous amenity

While seen as a sustainable way of bolstering the economic outcomes of development, the milieus
that result from outdoor advertising influence the visual landscape of the city in potentially
detrimental ways. Anyone who has ever visited Times Square can attest to the incredible number of
economic and social transactions that occur in that place: trinkets are bought and sold,
information is sought and provided, many forms of social and economic capital are exchanged.
Problematically, evidence suggests that outdoor advertising has the potential to create both
environmental and social externalities that are frequently not considered when determining the
placement of consumable landscapes.
Because of these concerns and the latest innovations in outdoor advertising (i.e. digital
billboards and supergraphics), there is increasing interest in the role of outdoor advertising within
the field of planning. Sign regulations remain an important part of American land use planning
(Lucero 2010) leading American experts to look to other countries to develop national standards
for sign control (Soule 2010). For practicing planners, consumer amenities like outdoor
advertising are an increasingly important part of the economic vitality of cities in the early 21
st

century, an icon of the experience economy, a moneymaker for local land owners and a tourist
attraction for local businesses. Conversely, evidence suggests that outdoor advertising is an alien,
influencing the quality of life in detrimental ways; creating visual blight and environmental
nuisance that cloaks the landscape and mars our sense of place.
27

The difficulty from a planning perspective is that determining what is an icon and what is
an alien is a complicated task. There is little public agreement on issues of beauty and order
(Blake 1964) making such considerations one of the more contentious aspects of American land
use planning (Cullingworth and Craves 2003). The growth of wind power in the United States
presents a similar conundrum for planners (Throgmorton 1987, Kennedy 2005, Andrews 2008).
Despite evidence suggesting their importance in alleviating global carbon dioxide and air
pollutants (Keith et al 2004), public understanding of the impacts of wind farm proliferation
remains low (Klick and Smith 2010), fueling complaints from nearby residents concerned about
the presence of turbines (Pasqualetti 2001, Pasqualetti 2011). Wind turbines, much like outdoor
advertising, create localized nuisance despite suggestions of being a form of global amenity.
Uncertain outcomes associated with physical aspects of the built environment merit
consideration for planning scholarship and practice precisely because of the public tension
resulting from this ambiguity.
As suggested earlier, outdoor advertising is prone to similar ambiguity, economic benefits
but social and environmental costs. Borrowing from James Marston Fitch, outdoor advertising is,
at best, an ambiguous amenity (1984). Fitch first used the term to describe the subjective nature of our
attempts to evaluate the value of the skyscraper as an urban form. Here, he suggested that while
pleasing from a distance, skyscrapers are homogenizing up close, creating monotonous space
designed purely as a locale for the white-collar workforce and nothing else. From a distance,
outdoor advertising too seems economically viable as a means of financing consumer space and
reenergizing urban design and development. However, when looked at from the perspective of
people who live in the vicinity of outdoor advertising, its impacts are felt through both its
placement and its content. As part of the neighborhood, outdoor advertisements create a
28

homogeneous landscape comprised of a barrage of potentially unhealthful images and messages
intended solely to drive consumer values.

2/7 Response to Outdoor Advertising

Outdoor advertising generates political and social tension because it is precariously positioned in
the middle ground between icon and alien, nuisance and amenity. Local residents view outdoor
advertising as a form of urban blight that infringes on the integrity, value, and appearance of
their neighborhoods, while local business interests and advertisers view outdoor advertising as an
essential component of economic growth and development, and a source of vitality for urban
landscapes.
One perspective for understanding the conflicting values associated with outdoor
advertising in Los Angeles is to identify “the working parts… of human social behavior as well as
the underlying… rules, biophysical laws and community” (Ostrom 2005, 30) that make the
proliferation of signs in communities so contentious. Here, the landscape becomes an important
vantage point from which to understand the visual politics of place construction (Hayden 1995); the
way that social movements and institutions serve to construct and reconstruct the landscape that
we see today. Landscapes dotted with outdoor advertising are the result of structural forces found
both in the identity of neighborhoods as well as the residents’ shared “fate at the hands of the city
planners, realtors, politicians, and industry” (Suttles 1972, 35). The regulations and policies
promulgated by these actors serve to determine the spatial quality of outdoor advertising and, in
turn, the appearance of the city.
History suggests that white, well-off communities are overly represented in planning and
policy discussions of outdoor advertising. Some of the earliest opponents of outdoor advertising
were members of elite society, female members of garden clubs and civic organizations (Gudis
29

1994). As outdoor advertising gained economic and political relevance in Los Angeles, it was
integrated into local land use regulation, where white, affluent members of society wielded their
influence as members of local planning commissions, zoning boards, and other institutions to
promote individual property interests (Fogelson 1967). Affluence and access shaped many of
policies intended to control outdoor advertising.
Critical response to outdoor advertising is largely motivated by perceptions that it creates
nuisance. As early at the late 19
th
century, landscape architects, planners, and other members,
many affiliated with the City Beautiful Movement, began to explore regulatory options for
controlling outdoor advertising, labeling it a nuisance and seeking legal remedies to its
proliferation and impact (Wilson 1987). This vision gave way to one of the most significant
responses to outdoor advertising in American history. Guided by a concern that billboards were
degrading the visual landscape, Lady Bird Johnson launched a national movement intended to
eradicate billboards along the Federal Highway System (Gould 1986). While largely viewed as
unsuccessful at curbing the blight caused by outdoor advertising (Floyd 1982), it remains the
pinnacle of American policy responses to outdoor advertising from an aesthetic perspective.
Concurrently, another movement was aligned to principles of social reform. Those who
viewed outdoor advertising as a source of dysfunction and decay in a democratic society believed
its presence was detrimental to public morals and morale. The Progressive Movement reasserted
the role of public space as a remedy for the ills confronting society; members dedicated
themselves to social, institutional, and physical reform as a form of stewardship (Baker 2007). In
this regard, the built environment served as an indicator of community health and a conduit of
community well being. For Progressives outdoor advertising was a public display of greed,
30

indulgence, and capitalism – a force capable of endangering the social fabric of democratic
society and undermining efforts to improve individual and collective well being.
These two perspectives continue to drive public concern about the impact of outdoor
advertising. This is likely because the visual landscape represents a common pool resource that
some suggest is experiencing a ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Nasar and Hong 1999, Hardin 1968).
As outdoor advertisements proliferate for individual gain, communities are deprived of a
communal enjoyment of a visual landscape without signs. When these impacts become
overwhelming, individuals adopt a land ethic that recognizes the interdependence of human
communities and the environment (Leopold 1949). As physical evidence of heavily trafficked
human destinations- marked with outdoor advertising –increases, it is likely that local
communities will experience negative impacts on commonly held resources such as the landscape
because of human use (Healy 1994). This increase in the growth of tourists, who want to
experience place rather than just visit it, requires locales that “retain a sense of unique identity”
(Corner 2006, 23), not a homogenized landscape of outdoor advertising. While outdoor
advertising serves as a signal for sites of human economic activity, the social and environmental
consequences that result are often a point of contention and cause for response from local
communities whose daily experience involves public displays of advertising.
Individuals and communities who view outdoor advertising as a nuisance have options
when confronted with its proliferation. Some suggest a dichotomous choice for those facing a
nuisance like outdoor advertising, residents can either stay or leave (Tiebout 1956) but a more
empowering perspective suggests that another option is available to those who do not want to
leave but would rather work toward resolution. Here individuals and communities unhappy with
31

a nuisance such as outdoor advertising have the opportunity to exercise voice (Hirschman 1970) as
a means of improving the landscape through collective action.
As individuals coalesce around ideals and work collectively toward determining the
appearance of the nearby landscape, their stewardship would be prominent in the popular press
(Neustadt and May 1986) and salient in local social agreements that become codified into law
(Park 1972). Here, I suggest that action is tantamount to one’s perception that outdoor
advertising is a nuisance. If outdoor advertising is recognized as a detriment to well being, its
social and environmental impacts should result in a willingness of individuals and communities to
take action in defense of their own health (Kaplan and Peterson 1993). In this way, the nuisance
created by the consumable landscape becomes a driver of a set of social norms and beliefs that
inform where these landscapes go and how they look.

2/8 The Archetype: New York

Everyone has heard about the incandescent path cutting diagonally
across Manhattan… Electricity reigns, but is it dynamic here,
exploding, moving, sparking, with lights running white, blue, red,
green, yellow. The things behind it are disappointing. These close-
range constellations, this Milky Way in which you are carried
along, lead to objects of enjoyment which are often mediocre. So
much the worse for advertising! There remains a nocturnal festival
characteristic of modern times. I remember that the light filled our
ears, and that the intense, powerful color excited us and gave us
pleasure.
LeCorbusier 1947, 102

While speaking about his visit in the middle of the 20
th
century, LeCorbusier’s description of
Times Square remains relevant, even today. Times Square is the most poignant example of the
transformation of the landscape as a result of outdoor advertising. Beginning in 1916, passage of
a municipal zoning code set in motion a series of events that would usher in “the era of enormous
32

billboards” (Charyn 1986). In this space, signage is architecture (Tell 2007) situated in “a
nonarchitectural place, with one of the strongest images of place in the world” (Huxtable 1991,
358). Enormous signs of neon, paper, and vinyl transform the appearance and culture of the
space, making it the epicenter of outdoor advertising in America and an archetype of the
consumable landscape.
Times Square is significant because it was the first American example of a landscape
specifically created to host outdoor advertising. Nestled far enough away from the posh residents
on 5
th
Avenue, the landscape of Times Square is the result of commercial developers,
landowners, and politicians who served as “brokers” in transforming Times Square into
“capitalist space” through profit-seeking actions and relationships (Leach 1991a, 101). The
aesthetic of the consumable landscape markets and sells goods, entices consumption, and
generates curiosity in those passing by (Leach 1991b). Aesthetic considerations were largely set
aside in favor of market considerations; “commercial extravaganza rather than aesthetic
discipline set the prevailing tone” (Harris 1991, 82). The billboards create a physically uniform
environment capable of evoking emotions and creating spectacle.
More recently, Robert A.M. Sterns Architects 1992 vision for Times Square continued
this tradition, transforming the landscape into striations of commercial signage. In Times Square,
indicators of consumption like billboards become economically beneficial landmarks of the
consumable landscape that represent a “model for urban development worldwide,” a means of
alleviating “bleakness” through the activation of the landscape with signs and lights (Robert A.M.
Stern Architects 2013). For its champions, outdoor advertising chased the sexual deviance, drugs,
and unwanted uses out of the square to create one of the most vibrant experiences in the world.
Today the once car-dominated square is a pedestrian thoroughfare complete with a viewing
33

platform and outdoor seating so visitors can take in the outdoor advertisements in much the same
way they would view a museum exhibit.
Response to the transformation of Time Square has been both positive and negative. The
billboards in the square are significant precisely because of the experience they provide, allowing
us to escape the quotidian experience of everyday life to experience the spectacular (Mokagon
2004). Our shared fascination with experience creates a “culture of congestion” where people,
material goods, cultural and symbolic meaning assemble (Berman 2006). Paradoxically, while the
square hosts a diverse set of users and uses, the resultant landscape is largely a homogenous
theme-park for tourists (Reichl 1999) constructed by the ruling elite to civilize city and purify its
identity (Smith 1998). Rather than creating anything fulfilling, the “buildings as billboards”
provide a fleeting means of satisfying our hopes, dreams, and desires (Huxtable 1991, 359).
34

Chapter 3: Methodology

3/1 Introduction

Outdoor advertising serves as an indicator of the transformation of the visual environment into
consumable landscape by the forces of capitalist consumerism. I suggest that response to its
proliferation is a form of landscape stewardship, rooted in a concern for place. I also suggest that
temporal, social, and spatial nature of outdoor advertising creates a unique human geography
(Soja 2010). My methods trace the history of outdoor advertising regulation in Los Angeles,
explore the local policy manifestations of social perception of outdoor advertising, and determine
if the arrangement of outdoor advertising and community response to its proliferation are
differentially situated in particular types of communities.
Practically speaking, understanding the impact of outdoor advertising illuminates how
past and current planning practice contributes to its spatial arrangement while understanding the
response to outdoor advertising reveals the ways communities, planners, and developers
influence land use policy through action and inaction. The impact of outdoor advertising will be
documented photographically and spatially; I analyze its quantity and content. Response reflects
the actions of institutions and individuals gleaned from regulations, public records, and personal
interactions with those involved in regulating the visual landscape of Los Angeles.
To determine if the impact of outdoor advertising elicits community response to a policy
proposal to regulate its placement I developed a set of questions grounded in a model that links
the impact of and response to the consumable landscape with the formulation of contemporary
land use regulation (see Figure 3/1-1).

35

Figure 3/1-1: Research model

3/2 Independent variables and site selection

Exploring how communities differentially experience and politically engage the proliferation of
outdoor advertising requires a set of independent variables for making comparisons. Following a
process of landscape assessment (McHarg 1969), I employed esri ArcGIS 10.2 and data from the
2010 U.S. Census and the 2010 American Community Survey estimates to select the sites based
on previously identified indicators of outdoor advertising impact.
As discussed previously, the impact of outdoor advertising, as measured by both quantity
and content, has been shown to be more prominent in places with concentrations of children and
people of color and in places where residents tend to be poorer and lack access to advanced
formal education. In addition, previous research suggests a need to control for advertising
potential when measuring impact, here three measures will be employed: district area, street
36

network size and number of intersections. Community response to outdoor advertising, while not
as empirically modeled as impact, has historically been prominent in well-off, white communities.
Data on race and ethnicity were derived from the United States Census 2010 Profile of
General Population and Housing Characteristics (DP-1). Census tracts were coded to indicate
areas of racial and ethnic homogeneity. Coding reflects areas in which one race or ethnicity
serves as a majority (greater than 50% of the total population). The data provides preliminary
evidence of the likelihood of particular types of communities to be selected (see Table 3/2-1).

Table 3/2-1: Census tracts by dominant racial/ethnic group

Asian Black Latino White Non-White

Number of Census Tracts 123 (5%) 66 (3%) 1,079 (46%) 1,157 (50%) 1,168 (50%)

Data on income were derived from the United States Census 2010 American Community
Survey Five Year Estimates for Selected Economic Characteristics (DP03). Census tracts were
coded to indicate areas of concentrated poverty. Coding reflects areas where the “percentage of
families and people whose income in the last 12 months is below poverty level” is greater than
25.40% - one standard deviation (11.94) from the population mean (13.46%). A review of the
data provides preliminary evidence of the likelihood of particular types of communities to be
selected (see Table 3/2-2).

Table 3/2-2: Census tracts by population in poverty in the past year

< 1.52% 1.52% - 25.40% > 25.40%

Number of Census Tracts
+
249 (11%) 1,704 (73%) 361 (15%)

+
20 Tracts were without poverty estimates.

Data on education were derived from the United States Census 2010 American
Community Survey Five Year Estimates for Selected Social Characteristics (DP02). Census tracts
37

were coded to identify communities with less formal education. Coding indicates areas where the
“percent high school graduate or higher” is less than 54.91% - one standard deviation (19.18)
from the population mean (74.10%). A review of the data provides preliminary evidence of the
likelihood of particular types of communities to be selected (see Table 3/2-3).

Table 3/2-3: Census tracts by adult population with a diploma or equivalent

< 54.91% 54.91% - 96.28% > 96.28%

Number of Census Tracts
+
466 (20%) 1611 (69%) 246 (11%)

+
11 tracts were without educational estimates.

Data on age were derived from the United States Census 2010 Profile of General
Population and Housing Characteristics (DP-1). Census tracts were coded to identify
communities with greater number of youth. Coding indicates areas where the percentage of
individuals over age 18 is less than 68.62% - one standard deviation (7.40) from the population
mean (76.02%). A review of the data provides preliminary evidence of the likelihood of particular
types of communities to be selected (see Table 3/2-4).

Table 3/2-4: Census tracts by population older than 18

< 68.62% 68.621%- 83.41% > 83.41%

Number of Census Tracts 406 (17%) 1,610 (69%) 318 (14%)

3/3 Data: Analysis of Impact

To understand the impact of outdoor advertising on the landscape and people of Los Angeles, I
employ a geo-referenced database of photographs of outdoor advertisements found in the vicinity
of a sample of the proposed sign districts. This dataset includes 3,416 photographs of the content
of 585 outdoor advertisements found within 1000 feet of a sample of seven of the proposed sign
districts. Census tracts within 500 feet of each of the proposed sign districts were included (see
38

Appendix A1). Photographs were taken monthly, during the last week of each month, for six
months at the seven proposed sign districts.
The selected regional centers include: Baldwin Hills (community of African Americans),
Boyle Heights North (Latino American community with a concentration of youth), Boyle Heights
South (Latino American community with less formal schooling), Chinatown (community of Asian
Americans), City West (community of Latino Americans at increased risk of poverty), Encino
(concentration of Caucasian-Americans), and Van Nuys (community of Latino-Americans).
Included in this dataset are images of off-premise
4
or off-site
5
advertising, signage that
advertises goods or services that are not made or sold at the location of the sign. The list contains
locations for billboards, posters and junior posters ranging in size from 18 square feet to 3,600
square feet as well as advertisements on benches and transit kiosks that range in size from 12
square feet and 22 square feet in area (see the List of Figures for examples of each of the types of
outdoor advertising included in this study).
The number of outdoor advertisements photographed in each neighborhood was not
always stable over time. In four of the districts, the number of benches increased in the last three
months of data collection (See Figure 3/3-1). This is likely the result of two policy actions: 1) a
moratorium placed on the erection of new billboard advertising in the city, while the city
considers the pending sign ordinance, and 2) an agreement between a street furniture company
and the city that allowed for the rearrangement and refurbishment of bus bench advertising that
took effect during this study.

4
Outdoor Advertising Association of America. “Out of Home Advertising Glossary of Terms.” Retrieved May 1,
2013 at http://www.oaaa.org/outofhomeadvertising/oohglossaryofterms.aspx.
5
City of Los Angeles. Municipal Code, Chapter 1, Article 4.4, Section 14.4.18.
39

Figure 3/3-1: Outdoor advertisements per square mile by neighborhood, month, and type

3/4 Approach: Analysis of Impact

To determine if harmful content is differentially situated in the communities in this study, I
employ urban tomography (Krieger 2011); using a longitudinal sample of 3,416 photographs
representing the location and changing content of approximately 585 outdoor advertisements
found in the seven selected regional centers. Since people living within 500 feet of a regional
center may be exposed to outdoor advertising outside the district, a second 500-foot buffer is
included to ensure full representation of the outdoor advertisements experienced by local
residents. Outdoor advertisements found within 1000 feet of each of these proposed sign districts
are included in the analysis (See Appendix 2). I photographed outdoor advertisements monthly,
during the last week of each month from June 2012 until December 2012.
40

I developed an analytical construct for coding the content of billboards based on both
personal experience with the data as well as established theories derived from the literature
(Krippendorff 1980). I coded harmful content into five categories, based on previous research
from the field of public health, including outdoor advertisements that encourage: 1) addictive
behaviors such as alcohol use, tobacco use, and gambling; 2) violence through the depiction of
weapons or crime; 3) unhealthy eating by promoting high calorie, low nutrition food; 4) unsafe
environments for women through misogynistic portrayals and advertisements for strip clubs; and
5) content that has been deemed inappropriate for young children such as the mature themes of
R-rated movies and television programming aired after 10:00 p.m. during “safe harbor” hours.
6

Figure 3/4-1: Misogyny on a junior poster and “other” content on a small bulletin

6
Federal Communications Commission. “Regulation of Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity.” Retrieved May 01,
2013 at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/oip/.
41

In addition, I coded positive and seemingly benign advertisements into three categories
based on my experience with early results from this study. In some cases, non-harmful
advertisements were either 1) empty or available to rent; 2) used to promote a community event,
public service, or non-profit organization; or 3) used to advertise other movies, television and web
series, clothing, material goods, real estate, tourist destinations, local attractions and businesses
that are not linked to potentially negative public health outcomes. More exploratory than
analytical, these categories may provide further insight into the value advertisers place on
particular communities – empty signs and non-profit signs may indicate the lack of a market –
while a strong presence of consumer goods may be indicative of a well-off enclave.

Figure 3/4-2: Public service announcement on a bus bench

42

To generate comparisons across districts, I derive values for sign district area, street
length, and number of intersections from calculations taken from esri ArcGIS 10.2 (see Table
3/4-3). Measurements include roadways within 500 feet of each sign district including residential
and commercial roadways that intersect the sign district. To confirm these measurements, I
conducted field observations to estimate roadway volume. To do this, I divided each roadway
into block segments and coded each segment according to the number of 24 hour dedicated
through lanes. Values, indicated in lane miles, indicate the total number of lanes per segment
multiplied by segment length.

Table 3/4-3: Environmental variables by Los Angeles regional center

Area of Sign
District
(Sq. Miles)
Street
Length
(Lane Miles)
Total
# of
Intersections

African American
(Baldwin Hills)
1.93 16.06 25

Asian American
(Chinatown)
3.00 34.61 67

Caucasian American
(Encino)
7.45 31.98 48

Latino American
(Van Nuys)
1.82 12.90 25

Latino American - Youth Population
(Boyle Heights North)
1.32 8.46 30

Latino American - Poverty Risk
(City West)
2.49 40.43 87

Latino American - Multiple Risks
(Boyle Heights South)
1.92 9.46 23

Average 2.85 21.99 44

I conduct spatial pattern analysis on this sample of outdoor advertisements to determine if
harmful content clusters in particular areas of each of these communities (see Appendix A2). I
measure spatial autocorrelation (Moran 1950) of both the distribution of sign size and the
43

distribution of harmful content. Each outdoor advertisement is assigned two values: one, the size
of the sign and, the other, the size of harmful content summed cumulatively across the six months
of data collection. I employ esri ArcGIS 10.2 to obtain area measurements of the 1000 feet buffer
for each sign district and calculate the significance of the variation in expected and observed
values based the size of the buffer. To determine if harmful advertising is clustered, I conduct
significance tests on the spatial qualities of outdoor advertisements by size as well as by hosting
harmful advertising.

3/5 Data: Analysis of Response

To understand the response by individuals and institutions to outdoor advertising in Los Angeles,
I employ three datasets and qualitative data gleaned from public records, journalistic accounts,
and discussions with those involved in the process of regulating outdoor advertising in the city.
The first dataset reflects the number and content of articles found in the Los Angeles Times
containing the words “outdoor advertising” from 1881 to 2012. The second dataset is geo-
referenced account of the number and content of comments made at public meetings about the
sign district proposal. I use data derived from the City of Los Angeles Department of Building
and Safety to reveal community characteristics associated with residential response to billboards
citywide. Qualitative data is derived from a review of policies and documents related to outdoor
advertising in Los Angeles as well as interviews with individuals associated with the regulation of
outdoor advertising in the city.
The first dataset is constructed from a sample of 1,669 articles related to outdoor
advertising from the Los Angeles Times. I use this information to develop a timeline illustrating the
important events and changing nature of the response to outdoor advertising in Los Angeles
overtime (Neustadt and May 1986). Beginning with the issue published on December 4, 1881
44

and ending with the issue published on December 31, 2012, I employ ProQuest to identify
articles containing “outdoor advertising” (see Figure 3/5-1). The articles reflect a variety of
public and private actions, including social commentary, stock prices, court cases, photographs,
and reports about political activity related to outdoor advertising.

Figure 3/5-1: “Outdoor advertising” articles in the Los Angeles Times, 1905-2012

The second dataset is constructed from a review of 1,389 public comment records related
to the recent sign ordinance revision. Comments were extracted from the City of Los Angeles
Council File Management System
7
Comments reflect letters, public testimony, and electronic
correspondence to the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission and the Los Angeles City
Council for council files 08-2020, 09-2717, and 11-1705 from September 8, 2008 until January
24, 2013. I removed 375 duplicate records and the remaining 1,012 comments were coded by

7
City of Los Angeles. “LA City Clerk Connect.” Retrieved from cityclerk.lacity.org/lacityclerkconnect/.
45

type (resident/resident association, for-profit/business, non-profit/government, or neighborhood
council) (see Table 3/5-2), and location (appropriate neighborhood council) (see Appendix A3).

Table 3/5-2: Public comments by type

Resident
Private
Organization
Neighborhood
Council
Other

Number of Comments 597 (59%) 255 (25%) 100 (10%) 60 (6%)

The third dataset is a list of 8,908 billboard addresses derived from the City of Los
Angeles Department of Building and Safety Off-Site Sign Listing
(www.ladbs.org/LADVSWeb/off-site-signs.jsf). This list includes addresses or intersections for
billboards found within the City of Los Angeles as well as information about the size of each sign.
Point locations for each billboard were obtained using the address matching capabilities of esri
ArcGIS 10.2. Included in this dataset are billboards, posters, and junior posters ranging in size
from 18 square feet to 3600 square feet but not advertisements that appear on transit benches
and kiosks.

3/6 Approach: Analysis of Response

To determine if response to the proposed ordinance is the result of the localized quantity of
billboards or other socio-economic factors, I employ logistical regression on a sample of the 8,909
billboard addresses derived from the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Off-
Site Sign Listing. I spatially matched each address on the list to two types of data. First, I
categorized each billboard according to the independent variables identified previously. For race
and ethnicity, I grouped billboards as either situated in either a non-white majority community
or not. For the other independent variables, I categorize values greater than one standard
46

deviation from the mean in the direction of increasing educational and poverty risk and
increasing number of youth.

Figure 3/6-1: Boolean overlay model

I spatially matched the dependent
variable, public response, to the associated
neighborhood council and assigned each
council a value based on whether or not
comments were submitted as a community
impact statement, the official mechanism
for neighborhood councils to advise city
commissions, boards, and the city council,
8

or as a letter, email, or public testimony.
Values were aggregated to assign each
billboard in Los Angeles a value (see
Figure 3/6-1).
Outdoor advertisements were coded by size in order to more fully understand impact, as
larger signs suggest increased visibility. Each point was coded by rounding its dimensions to the
nearest common area generated from a list of standard billboard typologies as specified by the
Outdoor Advertising Association of America (see Table 3/6-1). These typologies were used to
categorize areas of billboard concentration. Here, values were summed for the total area of
billboards within each neighborhood council. Like response, values were sorted to code values
greater than one standard deviation from the mean and all other values.

8

City of Los Angeles. “Community Impact Statement.” Retrieved from cityclerk.lacity.org/cis/.

47

Table 3/6-1: City of Los Angeles Off-site Sign Listing by billboard typology

Description
Typical
Dimensions
9

(inches)
Typical
Area
(feet
2
)
Number in
Off-site
Sign Listing

Junior Poster
60 × 132 < 110 3,784 (41.5%)

Square Poster (small)
120 × 132 110 – 235 18 (.2%)

Poster
125 × 272 236 – 399 3,238 (35.9%)

Bulletin (small)

126 × 432
120 × 480
400 – 600 40 (.4%)

Square Poster (large)
294 × 294 600 – 671 137 (1.5%)

Bulletin (large)
168 × 576 672 1,650 (18.3%)

Spectacular

240 × 720
192 × 720
> 672 158 (1.8%)

I employ coded qualitative data obtained from the Los Angeles Times as well as documents
associated with the outdoor advertising in the city to understand the trajectory of localized
response over time. First, the content of each article from the Los Angeles Times is coded according
to theme. Carl Abbott suggests that the history of cities are representative of three realms: civitas,
the political and civic society; societas, the social and cultural nature of society; and urbs, the
physical and material differentiation of space (2006). With this rubric, I quantify the proportion
of local, public discussion dedicated to processes that shape the political, social, and physical
relationships that characterize the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles (see
Table 3/6-2). Because public opinion and private action are important in understanding
community response to outdoor advertising, stories about the social characteristics of outdoor
advertising in Los Angeles were coded again to articulate the differences between public actions
(opinion and news) and private actions (business transactions).

9
Outdoor Advertising Association of America. “Out of Home Formats.” Retrieved from
oaaa.org/OutofHomeAdvertising/OOHMediaFormats/OOHMediaFormats.aspx
48

Table 3/6-2: “Outdoor advertising” articles in the Los Angeles Times: 1881-2012

Civitas Societas Urbs

Number of Articles 752 (45.1%) 916 (54.9%) 1 (<.1%)

Next, to gain further insight into the historical foundation of the city’s response to
outdoor advertising, I reviewed publicly available personal and city records related to outdoor
advertising in Los Angeles. In Eden By Design: The 1930 Olmsted-Bartholomew Plan for the Los Angeles
Region, Greg Hise and William Deverell employ a similar approach; relying on both public
records and personal effects to illustrate the way that civic pride, politics, and private interests
launched and doomed the innovative plan for the city (2000).
I obtained past proposals and changes to the city’s signage code and zoning ordinances
through the City of Los Angeles Records Center and the Council File Management System. I
reviewed public documents to identify instances of competitive, hierarchical strategies employed to
regulate the “proper” placement of outdoor advertising well as instances of fragmented and
opportunistic tactics employed in resistance to signage proliferation (De Certeau 1984). The
records include comments to proposed policies by local community groups, property owners, and
developers, as well as the actions of elected officials and outdoor advertising companies.
I obtained additional information about the institutional response to outdoor advertising
from the Robert A. Hamer Papers and the Outdoor Advertising Association of America Archives
housed at the David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library: John W. Hartman Center
for Sales, Advertising, and Marketing History at Duke University. Both collections provided
insight into the response by outdoor advertising companies to the city’s efforts to regulate their
activities.
49

Chapter 4: Regional Center to Sign District

4/1 Introduction

I provide the history of local outdoor advertising regulation to illustrate the planning and policy
decisions that informed the current proposal to designate the regional centers of Los Angeles as
sign districts and to understand its role as an ambiguous amenity over time. Outdoor advertising
assumed an important role in the American landscape following the Civil War. In Los Angeles,
efforts to control outdoor advertising were developed alongside the first land use regulations,
linking the two in the eyes of advocates and opponents, homeowners and business people.
In Los Angeles, outdoor advertising became part of a larger movement toward localized
land use regulation, pitting the aesthetic demands of homeowners against the economic interests
of the business community. Enacted in 1908, these early regulations set up a system that
segregated outdoor advertising by land use, allowable in industrial areas but prohibited, except
by variance, in residential areas. Land use would dictate the size, spacing, and placement of
outdoor advertising from that point forward, regardless of social or environmental context. As a
result, outdoor advertising emerged an economic force that found its place as part of the
commercial landscape of the city.
While zoning has a long history of concern for health and well being, its reliance on
segregation and clustering of outdoor advertising based solely on its economic benefits ignores
important contextual social and economic aspects of a community. Spatially segregating outdoor
advertising because of its economic character restricts the development of potentially sustainable
and innovative land use regulations that may serve to enhance the environment and our
interactions with each other in addition to the financial well being of our neighborhoods.
50

4/2 Approach

To gain further insight into the historical foundation of the city’s response to outdoor
advertising, I reviewed publicly available personal and city records related to outdoor advertising
in Los Angeles. Here, I code a sample of 1,669 articles related to outdoor advertising from the
Los Angeles Times. I use this information to quantify the proportion of local, public discussion
dedicated to processes that shape the political, social, and physical relationships that characterize
the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles overtime.
I also obtained past proposals and changes to the city’s signage code and zoning
ordinances through the City of Los Angeles Records Center, including comments to proposed
policies by local community groups, property owners, and developers, as well as the actions of
elected officials and outdoor advertising companies. Additional information was gleaned from the
archival documents housed at the John W. Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising, and
Marketing History at Duke University as well as my own experience as a participant in the public
discussions related to the proposal to transform the regional centers of Los Angeles into sign
districts. Together, these materials reflect a variety of public and private actions, including social
commentary, stock prices, court cases, photographs, and reports about political activity related to
outdoor advertising.

4/3 Business amenity, residential nuisance

Outdoor advertising has a been a part of the American landscape dating back to the middle of
the nineteenth century. According to the Resource on Outdoor Advertising Descriptions the first
outdoor advertising company opened in Boston in 1850 (ROAD 2009). Early outdoor
advertisements amounted to little more than poster size banners and hand painted murals. Such
51

advertisements frequently appeared in proximity to the businesses they were intended to promote
and were found primarily in the urban context. Their situation within the public view coupled
with their private ownership frequently generated tension between local residents, who wanted to
protect the integrity and appearance of their homes and neighborhoods from nuisance, and local
business interests, who viewed outdoor advertisements as amenities, essential components of
economic development and an indicator of consumer opportunity.
As early as the late 1800s, groups had already formed to support and oppose the growing
number of outdoor advertisements dotting the landscape, first abroad and then here in America.
The American Park and Outdoor Art Association was founded by landscape architects who
coalesced around a belief that billboards “obliterated picturesque urban and rural scenery,”
“affronted the eyes” and were “as much a nuisance as any offense to the other senses” (Wilson
1987, 397). Founded in 1891 the Associated Bill Posters’ Association of the United States and
Canada countered these claims to “promote a greater understanding of the poster medium,
provide… nationwide organization,” and “address the ethical concerns of… industry leaders”
(OAAA 2013).
In Los Angeles, accounts of outdoor advertising in the Los Angeles Times have grown
sporadically but steadily since an article on the topic appeared in 1905 (see Figure 4/3-1). At that
time, a series of articles featured social reformers lamenting the “popular disapproval” but
“business sentiment” toward outdoor advertising. Social commentary foreshadowed a series of
infrequent, politically-motivated articles beginning in 1910, just before the city began formulating
the earliest citywide sign ordinance.
52

Figure 4/3-1: “Outdoor advertising” articles per capita in the Los Angeles Times by type

Beginning in 1925, socially focused discussions broadened to include reports on the
business activities of outdoor advertising companies, including stock quotes, reports of changes in
industry structure and management, and other financially focused articles. In addition, a lone
article about the quickly changing nature of development in the city and its impact on urban
form and the spatial arrangement of the urban landscape included mention of the placement of
outdoor advertising (Los Angeles Times 1923). The Great Depression and the mandated dimming
of cities for safety and security reasons during World War II appears to have diminished business
interest and tempered public concern about outdoor advertising in Los Angeles.
Starting in 1950, fluctuation in public and private concern for outdoor advertising is
marked by two distinct peaks, each coinciding with proposals to regulate outdoor advertising in
the city through land use. In 1971, public opposition to outdoor advertising instigated a lengthy
53

civic discussion that resulted in an environmental impact report
10
detailing the “economic and
non economic impacts” of outdoor advertising. In this instance, the city council failed to
promulgate new regulations for outdoor advertising. In 2001, community concern peaked again
when changes in advertising technology increased the intensity of outdoor advertising citywide as
vinyl super graphics were mounted to buildings and digital billboards replaced illuminated
posters. The city council passed a moratorium on all new billboards, muffling discussion until
2009 when a series of court rulings provided an opportunity to revisit the regulation of outdoor
advertising anew.
Over the course of the past 100 years, these accounts reveal periods of heightened
political mobility when Los Angeles, along with other cities across southern California, attempted
to formulate land use regulations meant to control outdoor advertising proliferation. Like most
cities, Los Angeles turned to zoning to regulate outdoor advertising. However, land use
regulation in Los Angeles was a unique result of paradoxical forces; a culmination of the
progressive culture of local residents, whose civic pride was epitomized by the single-family
home, and a collective belief that business, urban growth, and development create a great city
(Fogelson 1967). Familiar with the corruption of east coast cities from which they came, newly
settled white Angelinos wielded zoning to control nuisance, promote well being, and segregate
communities by land use, social class, and race (Princetl 1999). Promulgating rules for outdoor
advertising was part of a larger movement by both homeowners and businesses to control the
spatial structure and appearance of the City of Los Angeles through land use.
Enacted in 1908, the first land use regulations in the city segregated residential and
industrial districts. These rules set forth a list of allowable uses as well as a system for property

10

Special Studies Unit. Draft Environmental Impact Report: Proposed Revisions to Existing Sign Regulations, 1974, CPC 23174,
Council File 70-1990. Los Angeles: Department of City Planning.
54

owners to procure a variance to deviate from the regulations. Outdoor advertising was permitted
in industrial and commercial districts but permits to erect and maintain outdoor advertising in
residential districts could be obtained from the city (Williams 1922). Despite this attempt to
control outdoor advertising, proliferation continued haphazardly, culminating in an editorial
published by the Los Angeles Times suggesting that recent court victories signaled a time for the city
to exercise “police power” to halt the continued “intrusion” of outdoor advertising on local
communities (1910c). The segregation of land uses generated by the first zoning rules proved
foundational in future efforts by the city to regulate outdoor advertising, as private interests went
about using zoning as a means of capitalizing on the city and home owners appealed to zoning to
reign in the billboard nuisance and encourage growth.
Problematically, land use regulation in the city has been slow to keep pace with changes
occurring in cities, communities, and neighborhoods. There is increasing movement away from
past ideals that covet “single home units” that allow us to “regain our heritage of beauty”
(McFarland 1904b, 15), toward balancing social, economic, and physical demands (Jacobs 1961)
with a conception of beauty found in places that function economically, environmentally, and
socially (Campbell 1996; Birch and Wachter 2008). In Los Angeles today, the chances of
encountering a commercial corridor or shopping center without an adjacent residential district
are limited, zoning treats these uses as discrete despite changes to the landscape that situate them
in close proximity to one another.
Current approaches to regulating outdoor advertising in the United States are grounded
in the tradition of segregating land uses into discrete districts through zoning, an approach that
fails to consider adjacent and nearby uses. For all their hope of orderliness, efficiency, and
manageability, “zoners… failed to recognize the dynamic character of urban development. In
55

their commitment to the idea that different uses were inherently incompatible, they ignored the
more profound problem of how they were related to one another” (Fogelson 1967, 257). Despite
land use regulations that suggest otherwise, neighborhoods are open systems, connected to
nearby and distant communities through networks that are both social and physical (Chaskin
1997). Regardless of use, these places are part of an urban hierarchy that situates them as the
center of a neighborhood, an ecosystem with relationships that extend beyond economic
mechanisms of exchange, production, and consumption.

4/4 Keeping up with Chicago

Outdoor advertising assumed an important role in the landscape of Los Angeles beginning in the
early part of the 20
th
century. While the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society
predicted that outdoor advertising would be abandoned as a failure (Los Angeles Times 1905), it
would remain an enduring part of American cities, plaguing residential communities while
bolstering economic development. Starting in 1906, local social reformers called for an ordinance
to regulate both the placement and content of advertising posters (Los Angeles Times 1906) and
business interests countered by suggesting any such ordinance would inhibit the prosperous
economic environment outdoor advertising represents (Los Angeles Times 1908). Thus began the
contentious relationship between two of the most influential groups in the city, homeowners and
businesses, and a physical reordering of the landscape of Los Angeles that is currently set to
transform the city’s regional centers to sign districts.
Early efforts to control outdoor advertising languished in various committees and
ultimately failed to do much to protect residential communities. Councilmember Martin
Betkouski became known as the “father of the anti-billboard ordinance” when he introduced
legislation to regulate the placement of posters and billboards in the city (Los Angeles Times 1910a).
56

His fight with billboards began when “snipers” illegally placed advertisements on his business
without his permission and without paying him “a cent” (Los Angeles Times 1910b). The first
attempt to reign in outdoor advertising in the city resulted in an ordinance that simply limited the
height of outdoor advertising to six feet (Los Angeles Times 1910d) but failed to truly protect the
city; soon thereafter billboard interests mocked the city by posting boards along a fence erected
directly across from City Hall while the City Hall Annex was being constructed (Los Angeles
Times 1911).
It would take seven years before an ordinance with more residential protections would be
approved by the City Council, ushered in by a court decision about regulating land use. Between
1910 and 1917 cities across the country engaged in efforts to regulate the placement of outdoor
advertising. In most cases, outdoor advertising interests fought in court for the right to erect signs.
Los Angeles waited cautiously for decisions on the various cases (Los Angeles City Council
1917a, 289-291). On Tuesday, February 27, 1917 the city attorney reported to the city council
on the outcome of a billboard ordinance in Chicago, heard before the Supreme Court of the
United States.
11
In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that cities possess the police power to
regulate outdoor advertising, validating the Los Angeles City Charter subsection 21, section 2,
article I, which permitted the city “to license, regulate, or prohibit the construction and use of
billboards, signs and fences” within its jurisdiction (Los Angeles City Council 1917a, 289). The
decision set in motion the passage of the first sign ordinance in Los Angeles, modeled after the
ordinance that existed in Chicago.
Empowered by the Supreme Court ruling, the City Council acted quickly to investigate
the impact and response to outdoor advertising in the city. The Chamber of Commerce was

11
Thomas Cusack Company v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526, 1917.
57

selected to lead a committee comprised of residents, non-profit organizations, government
institutions, businesses and outdoor advertising interests to evaluate evidence and make
recommendation to the council. According to a report filed with that committee by the City
Clerk, the city licensed $2,523.44 worth of outdoor advertising on 1,150 billboards or 1,009,375
square feet of advertising space (Los Angeles City Council 1917b, 360). The City Council would
come to rely heavily on the Supreme Court decision, setting aside the Chamber of Commerce
recommendations in favor of an ordinance constructed “along exactly the same lines as the
ordinance known as the Chicago ordinance” (Los Angeles City Council 1917c).
The Chicago ordinance as it would come to be called on the floor of the city council,
provided the foundation for regulations in Los Angeles. On May 14, Councilman James Simpson
Conwell introduced “An Ordinance regulating billboards, advertising sign-boards and other
similar structures” setting forth parameters for land uses where outdoor advertising would be
permitted. In business districts, along any block wherein more than 50% of the frontage on both
sides were occupied by businesses, and along the forty-three streets exiting downtown billboards
were allowed “go-as-you-please,” “legalized without any restriction whatsoever.” In suburban
districts or any part of the city not subdivided into blocks or on lots and all blocks with 75%
vacant or agricultural land, billboards were required to be smaller than 12 square feet and spaced
at least 300 feet from of any residence. Most notably, all other parts of the city were deemed
residential, where, despite calls for greater control, billboards were permitted but required to be
smaller than 12 square feet and spaced at least 15 feet apart (Los Angeles City Council 1917c,
210-212). Twenty-nine letters regarding the ordinance were submitted, sixteen opposed to the
ordinance, seven in favor, and six thanking the council for taking action on the matter. The
58

proposal was viewed with trepidation by both business and homeowner groups, all of whom were
unfamiliar with zoning and the logistics of crafting a sign ordinance.
A majority of those opposed to the ordinance suggested that regulations were
unnecessary, and would result in a loss of jobs and economic growth in the city. However, they
were also keenly aware of public perceptions of the Chicago ordinance and demands that the
politicians of Los Angeles do at least as much to protect its landscape and scenery. Arguing that
his industry is a legitimate business with a great deal already invested in the city, George W.
Kleiser, the president of Foster & Kleiser, suggested that time be taken to “work out a practical
solution” that is more appropriate for the city than replicating the Chicago ordinance, which was
the result of a “very, very bad situation as far as billboards were concerned” (Los Angeles City
Council 1917d, 493-509). Also opposed to the regulation of outdoor advertising were those who
profited from outdoor advertising: the Los Angeles Central Labor Council, the Building and
Trades Council, the Bill Posters and Billers Local 32, the Council of Painters, the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters, as well as those holding parcels of land on which outdoor advertising
might be erected.
Individuals and organizations convinced that some form of regulation was better than
nothing were the most supportive of this effort to control outdoor advertising. Prominent among
them were the Southern California Chapter of the American Institute of Architects, the City
Planning Association, various individual homeowners and civic associations, and local
newspapers, whose advertising revenues were threatened by outdoor advertising. But, more
importantly, residents and civic organization maintained that outdoor advertising was
detrimental to the moral, social, and physical fabric of the city. A letter from the Municipal Art
Commission is suggestive of the feeling among those opposed to further delay:
59

Whereas, this commission is unalterably opposed to the erection
and maintenance of billboards within the city limits, from the fact
that they are a menace to the health, morals and safety of our
citizens; and

Whereas, the maintenance of billboards is unquestionably
undesirable from an aesthetic standpoint;

Now therefore, be it resolved; that the Honorable City Council use
its power to immediately eliminate, as far as practicable, this
intolerable nuisance.
Los Angeles City Council 1917e, 319

Along with others, the commission was supportive of the ordinance proposed by Councilmember
Conwell even if it did not achieve a perfect solution; it seemed to place Los Angeles on a policy
trajectory favoring greater control over the placement of outdoor advertising.
Council discussion about the proposed ordinance centered on concerns about the impact
the regulation would have on residential communities. Even Councilmember Foster C. Wright
suggested the council’s intent was to “eliminate billboards where objectionable, particularly in
the residence sections,” despite his motion, given to him by “the Attorney for the billboard
interests” which reduced the distance between residential districts and billboards from 50 feet to
20 feet (Los Angeles City Council 1917d, 493-509).
Ultimately, the 50-foot buffer remained part of ordinance 37050 that passed by a vote of 5 to 4
on June 19, 1917. Three members suggested their support of the ordinance echoed public
support of the Conwell ordinance and the need for limits on outdoor advertising in the city. Only
one dissenting member suggested that he believed residential communities deserved even greater
protection.
Due to increased legal scrutiny, the new ordinance underwent several iterations in
discussions between the City Attorney and various interests. It was not until 1918 that Mayor
Frederick T. Woodman signed ordinance 38315, “An ordinance regulating billboards, and
60

advertising sign boards” and paved the way for the removal of six miles of signs in Los Angeles.
(American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society 1919). However, rather than providing
protection to homeowners as suggested, passage of the ordinance was viewed as a display of
power by newspapers, who supported anti-billboard politicians in the most recent local elections
(The City Election 1917).
Despite the removal of numerous miles of signs, this version of the ordinance buffered
economic protections but further eroded residential protections by scaling back the buffer
between homes and outdoor advertisements in suburban zones to 50 feet rather than 300 feet
that was originally proposed. Rather than protect residential neighborhoods from the nuisance of
outdoor advertising the ordinance further codified zoning by advancing “business” and
“suburban” districts citywide.

4/5 The Vermont situation, and zoning in Los Angeles

Between 1918 and 1934, the regulation of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles remained
largely unchanged despite calls for greater municipal control both locally and around the
country. During this time a number of other American cities enacted ordinances to regulate
outdoor advertisements. Progressives and beautification advocates became empowered by the
Chicago ordinance and the outcome of an “epochal” (Nason 1923, 1) ruling by the Supreme
Court of Minnesota in Twin City Building and Investment Company v. the City Building
Inspector James G. Houghton in which the court ruled that aesthetic considerations are an
important aspect of city planning (Crawford 1920). Nationwide, cities explored options available
to them in the wake of these and other judicial decisions that suggested that outdoor advertising
could be regulated in a number of ways (Haskin 1920). As had happened previously with the
61

Chicago ordinance, land use innovation by one municipality provided a legal foundation for
regulating outdoor advertising elsewhere.
Proposals to limit the impact of outdoor advertising in cities included more stringent
zoning, state involvement, and taxation. Nationwide there was a growing sense that outdoor
advertising was unattractive and detrimental to beautification efforts and home values (Los Angeles
Times 1925). In Los Angeles, members of the local Women’s Club suggested that outdoor
advertising should be eliminated from residential neighborhoods and only allowed in business
and commercial districts (Los Angeles Times 1924). Members of the American Civic Association
agreed, suggesting that the move to regulate billboards was only one phase in the long-term
process of zoning American cities (American Civic Association 1925). Building on earlier legal
precedent, zoning became increasingly codified as the policy par excellence to regulate outdoor
advertising.
Some states became involved in protecting both the landscape of rural areas and
promoting the safety of the growing number of motorists. As the private automobile and
highways allowed people to escape the city, some suggested that billboards distracted the
“legions” of drivers taking their families on vacation across America (James 1924). Within a year
a bill in Pennsylvania was hailed a model for promoting automobile safety because it placed
outdoor advertising along state roadways under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Highways
(McFarland 1925). By 1939, only seven states were without some form of regulation concerning
roadside advertising but most state regulations were applied to unincorporated areas and the
corridors along the nascent highway system (Printers’ Ink 1929). Local regulations were still needed
to regulate outdoor advertising inside cities.
62

Local taxation presented another possible way of controlling the nuisance created by
outdoor advertising. As early as 1917, Bernice V. Brown suggested a formula to calculate where
the visual impact of billboards, the area of projection, as a means of taxing outdoor advertising. The
approach focused on measuring the intrusion of outdoor advertising on public space and public
property, rather than on the billboard itself. Already used widely in Europe to control outdoor
advertising, taxes became a popular recommendation to limit or eliminate billboards from the
landscape (Newcomer 1924).
Proposals to tax outdoor advertising were met with swift opposition by outdoor
advertising interests. Vermont was one of the first states to pass a tax on outdoor advertising that
prompted an investigation of the Vermont situation, which would set a calamitous precedent for the
industry if it were allowed to replicate elsewhere (Poster Advertising Association 1924). In an
address before the Boston Advertising Club in 1931, Lee H. Bristol, President of the Association
of National Advertisers blustered at the numerous legislative measures proposed that year in
twenty-two states to tax outdoor advertising, he suggested that to levy a tax on outdoor
advertising would be to transform a private industry into a public utility.
Despite these objections, Los Angeles too set about taxing outdoor advertising through
licenses and fees. Starting in 1924, the city would pass ordinance 56,600, setting in motion a
licensing system for those engaged in “billposting, sign advertising by means of billboards, or
advertising by means of posting… upon street cars” by charging a scaled fee based upon annual
gross receipts of the business (Los Angeles City Council 1934b, 645). When the great depression
began, billboards were seen as a way of bolstering the financial stability of cities. On January 15,
1934, Councilman Charles Winchester Breedlove requested the finance committee and city
63

attorney prepare recommendations for taxing outdoor advertising to address the “depleted”
financial resources of the city (Los Angeles City Council 1934a, 472).
Less than six months later, the council passed ordinance 73,830 amending the previous
ordinance to include sign painters among a list of licensed professions, requiring a semi-annual
fee of $6.00 per business and increasing the other fees associated with operating an outdoor
advertising business (Los Angeles City Council 1934d, 645). Despite this attempt to control
outdoor advertising through taxation “location” was still seen as the primary problem (Los
Angeles Times 1933); homeowners in Los Angeles remained hopeful that the city would do more
to remove billboards that encroached on residential neighborhoods and scenic areas.
In spring of 1937, the city reopened its 1918 sign ordinance and began the process of
amending it. On Thursday, March 25 the original ordinance was declared “obsolete and, in
some respects, unworkable” by a committee coordinated by The Board of Public Works and
comprised of representatives from the city, the outdoor advertising industry, and others interested
in the issue (Los Angeles City Council 1937a, 706). The ordinance was enacted on September
27
th
, after being vetted by the Planning Committee and the City Attorney (Los Angeles City
Council 1937b, 205). The new ordinance reflected the intersection of outdoor advertising and
land use, eliminating the suburban district, extending the commercial districts into areas
previously not designated, and aligning the semi-business district with commercial and industrial
development. The new ordinance introduced 16 new sections to the Los Angeles Municipal
Code (Los Angeles Council 1937b, 205). To the delight of homeowners the ordinance prohibited
the construction of outdoor advertising in residential districts, but to their chagrin the outdoor
advertising industry gained non-conforming recognition for all existing outdoor advertisements,
making them legal regardless of location.
64

4/6 From lights out, to legal victory

Outdoor advertising regulations in Los Angeles remained unchanged until after World
War II. American involvement in the war directed attention toward defense and, like other
industries, outdoor advertising contributed to the cause by “going dark” to conceal land based
targets (Los Angeles Times 1942) and by promoting war bonds to conserve energy (Los Angeles Times
1945). Their cooperation through the war earned the industry the respect of the federal
government (DunLany 1947) just as it was embarking on plans to create an interstate highway
system. While unsure of the full potential, the outdoor advertising industry was quick to monitor
the systems already in development in California and more specifically Los Angeles (Blake 1951).
Efforts were initiated at the local, state, and federal levels to protect the highway system
from billboards. Opponents of outdoor advertising were quick to recognize the need for reform
and policies to protect the roadsides of America from an industry run by “overlords,” (Desmond
1947) who carelessly “blot” (Katz 1947) the landscape with signs. Los Angeles and the State of
California collaborated to pass a local ordinance to prohibit outdoor advertising along highway
corridors within city limits. Ordinance 98938 established a buffer, free of outdoor advertising,
within 500 feet of freeways within the city limits “regardless of the district or zone” (Los Angeles
City Council 1951). Non-conforming signs were removed under the watchful eye of the city
attorney, three years later as required by the ordinance (Los Angeles Times 1954). As the highway
system took shape, efforts to control outdoor advertising increasingly shifted from the city to the
suburban and rural parts of America, where freeways provided seemingly endless opportunities
for outdoor advertising.
The next twenty years saw little activity regarding outdoor advertising regulation in Los
Angeles. Shifting concern for the proliferation of outdoor advertising along freeways redirected
65

advocacy to state and federal regulations (Los Angeles Times 1957a). The California Senate
considered a bill to limit billboards along the new interstate highway (Los Angeles Times 1957b) and
seven years later the governor signed into law the first state scenic highway bill. While it opened
approximately 5,000 miles of state highways to scenic designation, attempts to strengthen
billboard controls were unsuccessful (Los Angeles Times 1963).
In 1965, President Johnson signed the Highway Beautification Act, providing funds for
states to eliminate billboards and junkyards and to beautify the landscape along the growing
network of highways (Los Angeles Times 1965) His wife Lady Bird dedicated much of her time as
first lady to the “war on ugliness,” in response the outdoor advertising industry “went after her
and she got burned out” turning her attention to wild flowers and native plants” (Los Angeles Times
1988). As these efforts attest, outdoor advertising became increasingly prominent in many parts
of the United States. While policies in Los Angeles remained unchanged during this time, the
landscape did not. Outdoor advertising proliferation continued apace and in the early 1970’s the
residents revisited the way it regulated off-site advertising.
Also during that time, outdoor advertising proliferation shifted away from Los Angeles to
other local municipalities. Most notable was an ordinance in Pasadena that outlawed all roof top
off-site signage. When outdoor advertising companies sued, the city prevailed when the Supreme
Court
12
ruled that the law did not infringe on the free speech rights of outdoor advertising
companies (Los Angeles Times 1964a). The ruling emboldened nearby municipalities, like Pomona,
where local government officials and public committees pushed outdoor advertising regulations
similar to those in Pasadena (Los Angeles Times 1964b). Despite regulations in Santa Barbara, San

12

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of Pasadena - 376 U.S. 186 (1964)

66

Bernardino, Santa Fe Springs and Burbank, signage regulations in Los Angeles remained
unchanged.
In the summer of 1970, a small community on the outskirts of Los Angeles protested
billboards, prompting a city-wide planning process that would last nearly six years culminating in
an environmental impact report and a failed proposal. Councilmember Robert Wilkinson, who
represented Chatsworth at that time, suggested that his neighborhood was transforming into
“billboard alley” (Los Angeles Times 1970). After he received 411 signatures from residents of his
district asking that Chatsworth be declared an “off-site business signboard free district,”
Wilkinson proposed a citywide study of signage to be conducted by the Planning Department
(Los Angeles City Council 1975). Permitted in almost all commercial and industrial zones by
building permit, Wilkinson suggested the elimination of billboards in “scenic districts” where
“people wanting to live in billboard-free areas could circulate petitions calling for such actions in
much the same manner as zone change petitions” (Los Angeles Times 1970). It would take four
years the City Council to vote on a final policy recommendation, with a slight semblance
remaining of Wilkinson’s proposed scenic districts.
After many iterations including a proposal to eliminate all outdoor advertising over five
years (Los Angeles Times 1971a, Los Angeles Times 1971b), the planning department submitted a
draft environmental impact report on a proposed policy. Over the course of 20 pages, the report
burgeoned with analysis of economic impacts but quickly summed up social impacts in less than
five pages. The report revealed that Los Angeles was home to 7,568 off-site signs, worth between
$5,844,411 (according to the County Assessor) and $23,548,000 (according to members of the
billboard industry) (Department of City Planning 1974). “Psycho-social factors affecting man’s
driving perception” are discussed briefly and only a few paragraphs discuss “the economic
67

subsidy” paid by the public in “damage to property values, to trade, to tourism and to the urban
landscape” caused by outdoor advertising” – its value is never quantified. (Department of City
Planning 1974, 42). Ultimately the City Council continued to assert that billboards created an
“ugly mess” that needed to be regulated aesthetically but also requested a more conservative
approach to protect the economic well being of sign companies and their supporters (Los Angeles
Times 1972).
The final proposal created a set of districts, where the degree of outdoor advertising
would be determined according an existing city master plan rather by community consent. The
Concept Plan created a long term vision for the city that would enhance the “pleasant style of
life, characterized by the ownership and occupancy of the single-family house” and maintain a
“commercial establishment of the first magnitude” (Department of City Planning 1970, 4). To
accomplish this the city proposed the “the development of 29 high intensity activity centers and
their satellites and the preservation of low density suburban areas” and their sleepy residential
neighborhoods (Department of Planning 1970, 7). In keeping with this plan, outdoor advertising
would be concentrated in a set of polycentric nodes would serve as locally centralized sites of
commerce for communities throughout the city. Residential neighborhoods, void of outdoor
advertising, would be situated in between.
The final proposal went before the City Council on December 16, 1975. Planning
director Calvin J. Hamilton suggested that while it left the total number of billboards in the city
at about 7,800 the remaining billboards would be “clustered… in areas more compatible with
their presence” (Los Angeles Times 1975), in “sign districts,” areas “considered a community or
regional commercial center” (Hamilton 1975). The city council rejected the proposal largely
because “stiffer regulations would accelerate unemployment and contribute to an economic
68

tailspin” despite evidence in the environmental impact report that suggested otherwise (Los Angeles
Times 1975). Los Angeles, wary from the effort invested in this failed endeavor would not revisit
signage regulation for 10 years.
In the meantime, proponents and opponents of outdoor advertising focused much of their
attention on San Diego, a “test case” (Mann 1981a) for outdoor advertising regulations that
would make its way to the United States Supreme Court. Two outdoor advertising firms
challenged revisions to a 1972 zoning revision that banned all off-site advertising in city limits
(Los Angeles Times 1980). In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled on behalf of the sign companies,
suggesting the ordinance did not do enough to differentiate between political speech and
commercial speech.
13
The ruling was seen as a victory for the outdoor advertising industry
despite criticism from within the court that the decision provided “no definitive principles” for
cities attempting to address outdoor advertising (Mann 1981b). The San Diego decision marked
an important turn in the behavior of outdoor advertising proponents, the threat of legal action
would influence the future decisions of Los Angeles and other cities.

4/7 From Regional Center to Sign District

The contemporary state of outdoor advertising regulation in Los Angeles can be traced to one of
the regional centers of the city; a community in the San Fernando Valley known as Encino. In
1984, residents there asked that something be done to curtail the billboards along Ventura that
gave the community a “Las Vegas look” (Barker 1984). The local councilperson, Marvin Braude,
was supportive of their demands and ushered in both a proposal to limit the billboards in Encino
as well as a citywide ordinance to restrict the size and placement of billboards to areas at least
200 feet from homes and 500 feet from each other (Simon 1985). Outdoor advertising companies

13

Metromedia Incorporated v. City of San Diego, 453 US 490 (1981).
69

challenged the proposals, eventually helping to defeat the stricter controls in Encino and gutting
prohibitions on future sign construction (Simon 1986). The events of 1985 set in motion a series
of public meetings and proposals -championed by Councilmember Braude- that would ultimately
result in a ban on the construction of new billboards and further legal action by outdoor
advertising companies.
Over the course of the next several years, outdoor advertising companies expanded their
offerings at a dizzying pace, worried that the city might institute a ban. Some members of the
outdoor advertising industry “In the fall of 2000, the Planning and Land Use Management
Committee put forth two motions: one, an interim control ordinance for billboard, the other, a
plan to remove and exchange billboards in an effort to cluster them in industrial areas (Los Angeles
Times). Despite these proposals, outdoor advertising companies continued conversion of existing
static signs and suggested publicly a future city “sprinkled in high tech billboards” (Stein 2001).
By 2002, the city instituted a ban on all new signage and created an inventory and inspection
program for off-site advertising citywide. Billboard companies sued, arguing that the fees
associated with the program were excessive and violated free-speech protections (Fry 2006).
These cases were ultimately settled out of court in an agreement brokered by the City Attorney
Rockard J. Delgadillo.
Viewed skeptically by local communities, the settlements seemed overly beneficial to
outdoor advertising interests. It was revealed that the settlement was the result of the powerful
advertising lobby that bankrolled the campaigns of numerous local politicians, including
Delgadillo (Palisek 2009). In the next election, Delgadillo was defeated by Carmen Trutanich,
who campaigned on a platform of reducing the influence of outdoor advertising within the city –
both politically and visually. The settlement agreements have since been revoked and the digital
70

signs erected according to the terms of those agreements were shut down and ordered removed
(Los Angeles Times 2013). As a result of the publicity created by these events, the City Planning
Department was instructed to prepare a draft ordinance to update the signage code to address
emerging advertising technologies as well as best practices in the field of planning, seen in other
American cities.
Like past efforts, the current proposal relies on zoning to guide the placement of outdoor
advertising, promoting commercial, economic development and doing little to protect residential
quality of life. The proposal clusters future signage into the regional centers of Los Angeles to
create “a unique quality, theme or character… that have a distinctive regional identity and that
serve as regional destinations or hubs of commerce, culture, entertainment or international
transport” (Department of City Planning 2011). The most recent proposal maintains the current
standards for proximity to residential requiring a buffer of 200 feet for any sign over 80 square
feet in size. The lack of protection afforded residential communities is likely the result of the
involvement of outdoor advertising lobbyists, who are accused of helping write the latest revisions
(Los Angeles Times 2012). Despite its promise of protecting residential interests, zoning in Los
Angeles appears to favor economic development over social and environmental outcomes.

4/8 Discussion

A proposal to create sign districts in the regional centers of Los Angeles results from the
uncertainty regarding the impact of outdoor advertising and policies that isolated land uses in
order to protect residential neighborhoods from desired commercial development. The history of
outdoor advertising regulation in Los Angeles highlights both the fallibilities inherent in land use
zoning and the need for more innovative solutions for regulating outdoor advertising in an urban
setting. While zoning has a long history of concern for health and well-being (Corburn 2009;
71

Sloane 2006; Greenberg, et al 1994), efforts to better protect residents from the nuisance of
outdoor advertising were frequently thwarted by those suggesting the primacy of economic
benefits. By focusing attention on economic outcomes, local officials and outdoor advertising
interests prevented the implementation of new forms of land use regulation that might better
serve economic, as well as social and environmental interests of the citizens of Los Angeles.
There are important lessons to be gleaned from the continually evolving sign ordinance
that governs Los Angeles that should influence the evolution of land use zoning and the practice
of planning. Despite the flaws, the policies that exist today are the result and remnants of the past
history of planning (Mandelbaum 1985), a direct reflection of the past struggles over the visual
landscape of Los Angeles and victories for economic development. As planners, we must
acknowledge that the choices available to residents are influenced by “explicit public policies and
private practices,” these choices are not stagnant and are continually changing as a result of
public policy (Squires and Kubrin 2005). I suggest that the spatial arrangement of outdoor
advertising capitalizes on its own ambiguity to elevate economic considerations above other
community development goals. A more balanced perspective that considers the social and
physical context of outdoor advertising would enable more innovative public policy and help
advance the practice of land use zoning.
72

Chapter 5: The Impact of Outdoor Advertising

5/1 Introduction

Outdoor advertising provides an important perspective for understanding how land use decisions
impact community well being. While economic factors and zoning determine its placement, a
growing body of evidence suggests that harmful content can have adverse effects on
neighborhood environments, residential quality of life, and human well-being. Due to its
connection to fundamental, intermediate, and proximate determinants of health promotion,
outdoor advertising is an important indicator of the ways social processes, land use, and the built
environment interact to influence public health (Northridge, Sclar, and Biswas 1983).
While outdoor advertising represents a key moneymaker for landowners as well as a
tourist attraction for local businesses accumulated evidence suggests that outdoor advertising with
harmful content serves to disadvantage particular communities, similarly to other studies
documenting toxic facilities (Mohai, et al 2009), liquor stores (Berke, et al 2010), and food deserts
(Morland, et al 2002). Given this evidence, the recent increase in billboards in many cities
around the United States, and especially around the world (Lopez-Puarejo and Bassell 2009),
raises important public health concerns. In this way, billboards are part of the neighborhood
effect (Sampson 2012) that inhibits positive public health outcomes for vulnerable communities.
Studies demonstrating the adverse effects of outdoor advertising generally focus on a
specific area of public health such as obesity, smoking cessation, or substance abuse, some are
cross sectional, and a number compare outdoor advertising in areas that are regulated by
different zoning and land use regulations. Developing a methodology that allows public health
73

and planning professionals to examine the issue longitudinally, over neighborhoods governed by
similar land use regulations aids in determining the extent to which land use and zoning
contribute to outdoor advertising proliferation. A coding procedure that systematically examines
the breadth of related public health concerns is critical to understanding how outdoor advertising
functions collectively to create nuisance and promote unhealthy behaviors.
Linkages between outdoor advertising and a range of public health issues include problem
drinking (Kwate and Meyer 2009; Anderson et al 2009; Truong and Sturm 2009; Pasch et al
2007), tobacco use (Schooler, Feighery, and Flora 1996), environmental pollution caused by the
intense light (Chepesiuk 2009; Pauley 2004; Longcore and Rich 2004), and the obesity epidemic
(Yancey et al 2009; Hillier 2008; Booth, et al 2001). Additionally, when used to promote alcohol,
gambling, entertainment, and clothing, outdoor advertising also promotes the potential exclusion
– or at least harassment – of women in public spaces (Rosewarne 2007; Rosewarne 2005).
Repeated exposure to media, such as outdoor advertising, that depict guns and gun related
violence may contribute to aggressive behavior (Anderson and Bushman 2002), tolerance of
violence (Drabman and Thomas 1974), and desensitization to weapons (Rule and Ferguson
1986), reducing the perceived risks associated with guns through their commonplace occurrence
in public space. Outdoor advertising thus has been related to themes that are opposed to health
promotion and harm reduction, instead endorsing the misogynistic portrayals of women and
promoting adverse health behaviors such as violence, smoking, excessive drinking, and unhealthy
eating.
Further, evidence suggests that disadvantaged and vulnerable communities experience
the impacts of outdoor advertising disproportionately. Advertising presents a heightened
nuisance in communities with lower educational attainment (Hackbarth et al 2001), places dense
74

with children (Pucci, Joseph, and Siegel 1998) and minorities (Hackbarth et al 2001; Pucci,
Joseph, and Siegel 1998), as well as communities having a lower socio-economic status, as
defined by income and occupation (Barbeau, et al 2005). Additionally, harmful advertising with
portrayals of alcohol and tobacco appear to be disproportionately located in minority
communities (Stoddard et al 1998; Altman, Schooler, and Basil 1991; Hackbarth, Silvestri, and
Cosper 1995; Mitchell and Greenberg 1991; Kwate, Jernigan, and Lee 2007), often adjacent to
child-serving places, such as schools and playgrounds (Kwate, Jernigan, and Lee 2007; Kelly, et
al 2008; Hillier et al 2009; Scott, et al 2008). And, research shows that wealthier neighborhoods
tend to be protected against outdoor advertising, specifically advertising that promotes tobacco
use (Luke, Esmundo, and Bloom 2000; Hackbarth et al 2001) and obesity (Yancey, et al 2009).
A few studies suggest that outdoor advertising may have positive health effects by
communicating health information and influencing perceptions of activity. In one study, outdoor
advertisements about sun protection were found to compliment other media, such as television
and magazine advertisements, in promoting actions that guard against skin cancer (Smith, et al
2002). In another study, outdoor advertising in a community correlated positively with physical
activity and walking (Boarnet, et al 2011). The researchers suggest that outdoor advertisements
like billboards may serve to increase the perception that a place is pleasant, a community of
human activity.
This research builds on previous studies in two important ways. First, by selecting spatial
sampling units from the proposed regional centers in Los Angeles it addresses concerns regarding
the complications of making land use comparisons across municipalities because of differences in
population density, urban form, and land use regulations (Hillier, et al 2009; Yancey, et al 2009).
Second, the study employs multiple measures to capture how residents experience outdoor
75

advertising along the sidewalks and streets in the community, street length (Altman, Schooler,
and Basil 1991; Mitchell and Greenberg 1991) and number of intersections (Frank, et al 2005).

5/2 Approach

As previously mentioned, to determine if harmful content is differentially situated in the
communities in this study, I employ a longitudinal sample of 3,416 photographs representing the
location and changing content of approximately 585 outdoor advertisements found in the seven
selected regional centers. Photographs were taken monthly, during the last week of each month
from June 2012 until December 2012
I selected seven sites based on previously identified indicators of outdoor advertising
impact. Key indicators included race/ethnicity, formal education, poverty, and number of
children. To generate comparisons across districts, I derive values for sign district area, street
length, and number of intersections in each community. To understand variation within each
district, I conduct spatial pattern analysis on this sample of outdoor advertisements to determine
if harmful content clusters in particular areas of each of these communities.

Table 5/2-1: Descriptive Statistics for Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet

Total Number of Ads
In December
Total Area of Ads
(Square Feet)
In December
Total Area of Ads
(Square Feet)
June to December

Baldwin Hills 59 5,964 69,486

Chinatown 106 8,363 49,792

Encino 114 17,236 103,126

Van Nuys 64 11,581 69,486

Boyle HeightsNorth 29 2,765 16,368

Boyle Heights South 26 4,786 28,714

City West 190 14,937 88,924

Average 84 9,393 60,842

76

I coded harmful content into five categories, including outdoor advertisements that
encourage: 1) addictive behaviors such as alcohol use, tobacco use, and gambling; 2) violence
through the depiction of weapons or crime; 3) unhealthy eating by promoting high calorie, low
nutrition food; 4) unsafe environments for women through misogynistic portrayals and
advertisements for strip clubs; and 5) content that has been deemed inappropriate for young
children such as the mature themes of R-rated movies and television programming aired after
10:00 p.m. during “safe harbor” hours.
14

In addition, positive and seemingly benign advertisements were categorized into three
categories. In some cases, advertisements were either 1) empty or available to rent; 2) used to
promote a community event, public service, or non-profit organization; or 3) used to advertise
other movies, television and web series, clothing, material goods, real estate, tourist destinations,
local attractions and businesses that are not linked to potentially negative public health outcomes.

5/3 Results

Table 5/3-1 provides a generalized account of the quantity of each content type within 1000 feet
of each of the selected sign districts by community population characteristic. I aggregate monthly
data from each site; sum the area over time for each type of advertising and divide by the total
area of all outdoor advertising in that district multiplied by the number of months.

14
Federal Communications Commission. “Regulation of Obscenity, Indecency and Profanity.” Retrieved May 01,
2013 at http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/oip/.
77

Table 5/3-1: Square Foot Area Harmful Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet by Content

Addictive
Behavior Violence
Unhealthy
Eating
Unsafe for
Women
Not
Appropriate
for
Children
All
Unhealthy
Ads

African American
1,273
3.6%
870
2.4%
6,619
18.6%
236
.7%
1,766
5.0%
10,764
30.2%

Asian American
11,220
22.5%
1,716
3.4%
3,520
7.1%
2,021
4.1%
3,805
7.6%
22,283
44.8%

Latino American
1,602
2.3%
1,227
1.8%
8,102
11.7%
1,841
2.6%
3,915
5.6%
16,686
24.0%

Latino American
Youth Population
2,994
18.3%
13
.1%
2,080
12.7%
0
0%
167
1.0%
5,254
32.1%

Latino American
Poverty Risk
5,088
5.7%
2,412
2.7%
9,282
10.4%
2,803
3.2%
5,459
6.1%
25,044
28.2%

Latino American
Multiple Risks
7,815
27.2%
43
.1%
1,715
6.0%
236
.8%
352
1.2%
10,160
35.4%

All Non-Caucasian
29,991
10.4%
6,281
2.2%
31,317
10.8%
7,138
2.5%
15,464
5.4%
90,190
31.2%

Caucasian
American
6,433
6.2%
3,558
3.4%
9,266
9.0%
5,646
5.5%
5,486
5.3%
30,397
29.5%

The percentage of outdoor advertising space dedicated to unhealthy forms of advertising
is greatest (44.8%) in the neighborhood where a majority of residents identify as Asian American.
The community facing multiple risks – income insecurity, educational risk, rich in youth - is
exposed to slightly fewer (35.4%) unhealthy ads. This was followed by the community with a
greater proportion of residents under age 18, where (32.1%) of advertising space contained
harmful content. The prevalence of harmful outdoor advertising in the other communities
ranged from 28.2% in the community at risk for poverty to 30.2% in the community of African
American residents.
Comparing predominantly white communities to communities of color, disparities are
more muted. While advertising depicting addictive behavior is more prominent in non-white
communities (10.4%), white communities experience greater amounts of advertising that is
78

violent or potentially misogynistic. Among communities in this study, non-white communities
experience harmful advertising in slightly greater proportion (31.2%) than does the Caucasian
community (29.5%) overall.

Figure 5/3-2: Large bulletin advertising addictive behavior

Results suggest that different types of harmful advertising are more prevalent in different
types of communities. Images portraying addictive behaviors like drinking and gambling (see
Figure 5/3-2) appeared with greater frequency in the Asian American community in Chinatown
(22.5%), and the Latino American communities with multiple risks in the southern section of
Boyle Heights (27.2%) and with a concentration of youth in the northern section of Boyle
Heights (18.3%). Notably, none of the advertising surveyed contained advertisements for tobacco
because of the 1997 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. While much less prevalent overall,
79

outdoor advertising that features guns or violence (see Figure 5/3-3), typically to promote movies,
television, video games, or other media content, is more prevalent in the Asian American
community in Chinatown (3.4%) and the Caucasian American community in Encino (3.4%).
Figure 5/3-3: Violence on a small bulletin

Advertisement featuring unhealthy food options (see Figure 5/3-4), depicting foods that
are high calorie and of questionable nutritional value, are most prevalent in the African
American community in Baldwin Hills (18.6%) and the Latino community more dense with
young people (12.7%). Most frequent among these are advertisements that promote fast food
options (e.g. hamburgers, fried foods) and advertisements for soft drinks, flavored beverages, and
candy.
80

Figure 5/3-4: Unhealthy food advertised on a bus shelter

In addition, images that create an unsafe environment for women and children were
observed with greater frequency in particular neighborhoods. The Asian American community
in Chinatown (7.6%) and Latino community at increased risk for poverty (6.1%) saw more
advertising for content that is not appropriate for children including R-rated movies and adult-
themed television programming that is aired after 10:00 p.m. than did residents of other
communities (see Figure 5/3-5). Misogynistic content was observed in greater concentration in
the Asian American community in Chinatown (4.1%) as well as the Caucasian American
community in Encino (5.5%).
81

Figure 5/3-5: Adult themes on a kiosk

Advertisements that promote community service, such as non-profit and for-profit health
and human services organizations and charities, appear in greater proportions in one of the
Latino American communities (see Table 5/3-6). The Latino American community at risk for
poverty in City West experiences notably more of these advertisements per area regardless of
areal unit. The African American in Baldwin Hills and Caucasian American community in
Encino were ranked last or second to last under all three dependent variables for total number of
public service advertisements.
82

Table 5/3-6: Square Foot Area of Outdoor Advertising within 1000 feet by Type

All Unhealthy
Ads
Community
Service Other
Available or
For Rent

African
American
10,764
30.2%
2,619
7.4%
21,093
59.2%
405
1.1%

Asian American
22,283
44.8%
7,526
15.1%
18,698
37.6%
988
2.0%

Latino American
16,686
24.0%
8,654
12.5%
40,966
58.9%
3,189
4.6%

Latino American
Youth Population
5,254
32.1%
2,582
15.8%
8,060
49.2%
472
2.9%

Latino American
Poverty Risk
25,044
28.2%
17,639
19.8%
43,491
48.9%
2,751
3.1%

Latino American
Multiple Risks
10,160
35.4%
2,597
9.0%
15,816
55.1%
141
.5%

All Non-Caucasian
90,190
31.2%
42,290
14.6%
148,088
51.3%
7,933
2.7%
Caucasian American
30,397
29.5%
3,843
3.7%
67,065
65.0%
1,821
1.8%

When I compare predominantly white communities to all communities of color results
appear consistent. Advertising depicting community service (14.6%), advertising that is available
or for rent (2.7%) and harmful advertising remain elevated in comparison to the content in the
predominantly Caucasian community included in this study. Consequently, the Caucasian
community experienced more forms of other types of advertising.
Results from areal analysis are presented in Table 5/3-7. We summed monthly data from
each sign district and calculate unit per area measurements for each of the suggested measures of
urban form (area of the sign district, lane miles of the sign district, and number of intersections).
Here, the difference in urban form between communities becomes apparent when looking at
Encino – a large sign district along a single corridor with few intersections – and Chinatown – a
relatively small but dense sign district with many intersections.
83

Table 5/3-7: Square Foot Area of All Outdoor Advertising by Population and Content

Square Feet of
Unhealthy Ads
Square Feet of
Community Service
Ads
Square Feet of
Other Ads

^ ^^ ^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^ ^ ^^ ^^^

African American
(Baldwin Hills)
5,586 670 431 1,359 163 105 10,946 1,313 844

Asian American
(Chinatown)
7,440 644 333 2,722 522 421 6,243 540 279

Caucasian
American
(Encino)
4,080 951 633 538 145 105 9,002 2,097 1,397

Latino American
(Van Nuys)
9,188 1,293 667 4,775 691 367 22,553 3,175 1,638

Latino American
Youth Population
(Boyle Heights N.)
3,989 621 175 2,054 646 460 6,120 953 269

Latino American
Poverty Risk
(City West)
10,058 619 288 9,380 4,179 3,996 17,466 1,076 500

Latino American
Multiple Risks
(Boyle Heights S.)
5,295 1,074 442 1,446 447 297 8242 1,672 688

Average 6,519 839 424 3,182 970 822 11,510 1,547 802

^ = miles
2
^^ = lane miles ^^^ = intersections

The Latino American community in Van Nuys without distinguishing characteristics with
regard to age, income, and education ranks either 1
st
or 2
nd
for all types of advertisements under
each of the three dependent variables except for square foot of community service advertisements
by intersection. Members of this community are exposed to a greater amount of outdoor
advertising regardless of areal unit.
Of communities in this study, the neighborhoods of Latino Americans at increased risk
for poverty and Latino Americans facing multiple risks are exposed to a greater proportion of
unhealthy advertisements than the other communities when using area of the sign district and
84

lane miles as the denominator, respectively while the Caucasian American community
experiences greater exposure per intersection to harmful advertising. Notably, the community
with a Latino American community in the northern part of Boyle Heights with a higher
percentage of youth residents ranks last in terms of total unhealthy advertisements under all areal
units except lane miles.
Results of spatial pattern analysis do not suggest that the clustering of harmful outdoor
advertising is prominent in any of the seven communities included in this study. The area of
harmful content was summed across time to generate a cumulative score for each sign (see
Appendix A4). In all but one case, both the distribution of outdoor advertising, as measured by
size, and the distribution of cumulative harmful content are clustered (see Appendix A5). Despite
significance in the difference between observed and expected values for the density of harmful
content, the differences in density of outdoor advertising overall are stronger as demonstrated by
the absolute value of the associated z-scores. This suggests that the clustering of harmful content
is no greater than the clustering of outdoor advertising in general.

5/4 Discussion

I found harmful content on outdoor advertising is inequitably distributed among a diverse set of
Los Angeles neighborhoods. Although these communities are all regulated by the same land use
zoning and regulations, which are intended to protect residents from nuisances, a
disproportionate number of advertisements promoting negative messages were observed in non-
white, lower-income communities. Thus, advertisements with harmful content are more likely to
be present in non-white communities where residents confront a wide range of other challenges,
including heightened financial, educational, and health risks.
85

For example, outdoor advertising that depicts sexualized portrayals of women and
violence are seen with greater frequency in the Asian American neighborhood in Chinatown,
while outdoor advertising promoting addictive behaviors such as alcohol consumption and
gambling are disproportionately situated along a commercial boulevard in the African American
community of Baldwin Hills. These findings suggest that current models of outdoor advertising
regulation, most importantly land use zoning, may not be supportive of efforts to promote
community health and well being, and that new models are needed.
The findings presented here suggest that and planners need to consider the ramifications
of the potential adverse impacts of outdoor advertising. Given the rising economic value of
outdoor advertising to developers and property owners, the new digital technologies that give
advertisers the ability to continuously present new ads, and the belief among many public officials
that outdoor advertising enlivens public spaces in a cosmopolitan city (Sexy Signage 2013), the
proliferation of outdoor advertising likely will increase. If, as we found here, the current reliance
on land use zoning as a determinant for the location of outdoor advertising results in an
inequitable distribution of harmful content, the current approach to regulating the placement of
outdoor advertising has the potential to disadvantage the well being of poorer, minority, and at-
risk communities.
A growing number of researchers believe that the built environment is capable of
collectively constituting a cumulative barrier to healthy living. Individuals who are continually
confined- physically, financially, or socially -to harmful environments are at increased risk for
functional decline and mortality (Clarke, et al 2014). In this way, outdoor advertising becomes
one component of a localized environmental riskscape (Morello-Frosch, Pastor, and Sadd 2001),
one factor among many that adversely impacts human health and well being. For non-white,
86

low-income residents, repeated and continued exposure to junk-strewn vacant lots (Cohen,
Farley, and Mason 2003), liquor outlets (Romley, et al 2007), unhealthy food options (Moore, et
al 2009) and harmful advertising inhibits the attainment of personal and collective health and
well-being.
Traditional zoning practice that segregates land into discrete, functionally-homogenous
districts seemingly fails to contribute to positive health outcomes for all communities, suggesting a
need for reform. Some researchers suggest that form-based codes and conditional use permits
provide an avenue for reducing the health risks confronting communities (Lejano, Ballesteros,
and Tallod 2012). An alternative approach treats outdoor advertising around sensitive
populations much like tobacco-free and drug-free schools zones, creating a buffer where either
outdoor advertising in general or specific types of outdoor advertising are not permitted (Hillier
et al 2009). Of course, as in places like Hawaii and Maine, a more dramatic approach bans
outdoor advertising altogether, which means forgoing any potential economic benefits generated
by off-site advertising. In support of the development of new models, researchers need to conduct
further studies to reveal how the current system of outdoor advertising adversely or positively
impacts at-risk and vulnerable communities.
87

Chapter 6: Response to Outdoor Advertising

6/1 Introduction

Outdoor advertising provides an important perspective for understanding how changes in the
visual environment influence community response to land use decisions. Despite evidence
presented earlier in this dissertation, suggesting negative consequences associated with its
placement and content, some communities remain unengaged in land use discussions regarding
the regulation of outdoor advertising. If community opposition frames outdoor advertising as a
form of blight, then there is necessarily a “geography of blight” that interacts meaningfully with
other economic, social, and environmental systems (Lewis 1973). Here, “proximity of social
concern” is of central importance (Lowenthal 1973) because it serves as an important indicator of
community awareness and perception of what is blight in a particular context. Due to its
potentially harmful impact, understanding how individuals respond collectively to visual changes
in the environment brought about by the ongoing transformation of productive landscapes into
consumable ones becomes an important consideration of both planning scholarship and practice.
The impact of outdoor advertising is an important driver of community response to its
proliferation. Scholars suggest that individuals do not have a preference for landscapes dotted in
signage and billboards (Carr 1973; Nasar 1998) and are particularly concerned with how
obtrusive signs are in a particular context (Nasar and Hong 1999). In this regard, billboards are
seen by many communities as a source of setting aggravation, a visual nuisance perceived to be
“offensive, objectionable, and irritating” by local residents (Banerjee and Baer 1984, 141). As
outdoor advertising encroaches on areas valued by communities for purposes other than
88

economic advancement, such as residential neighborhoods and natural areas, impacts become
more pronounced, particularly in districts marked by abrupt changes in land use regulation.
Concern for the proliferation of outdoor advertising is likely because appearance of the
landscape represents a form of public amenity, shared and shaped collectively by those who
experience it. The visual environment represents a common pool resource, a “visual common”
(Costonis 1989) that is collectively constructed and consumed by individual, collective, and
institutional decisions. The reciprocal relationship between humans and the environment
engenders participation by both individuals and communities (Zube 1987) whose satisfaction and
dissatisfaction with a particular place manifests as a result of past experience and future
expectations (Jakle 1987). In this way, consumable landscapes are both producer and product of
a set of social norms and beliefs that inform where these landscapes should go and how they should
look.
Response to changes in the visual landscape is heightened by perceptions that the
appearance of collectively valued landscapes is prone to neglect and decay. To some the visual
landscape is experiencing a tragedy (Nasar and Hong 1999) akin to the demise of natural
ecosystems (Hardin 1969). As physical evidence of heavily trafficked human destinations, such as
shopping centers and tourist destinations marked with outdoor advertising, increases, local
communities will likely experience the demise of locally valued, collective resources (Healy 1994)
such as the visual landscape. Changes that are seen as dramatic, unwanted, and undesirable are
frequently met with resistance by local communities who see the degradation of the visual
environment as harmful to the vitality and sustainability of a particular way of life.
Individuals and communities who view outdoor advertising as a nuisance have options
when confronted with its proliferation. Some suggest that residents can either stay or leave
89

(Tiebout 1956) but a more empowering perspective suggests that individuals and communities
unhappy with a nuisance such as outdoor advertising have the opportunity to exercise voice
(Hirschman 1970) as a means of improving the landscape through collective action. As
individuals coalesce around ideals and work collectively toward determining the appearance of
the nearby landscape, their stewardship would be salient in local social agreements that become
codified into law (Park 1972). Evidence of such concern would manifest through participation in
local land use policy discussions and zoning decisions.
An example of community response to the transformation of the consumable landscape in
the American context originates along two streets in New York City: 5
th
Avenue and Broadway.
The passage of the 1916 zoning code in New York City welcomed billboards to the iconic square
(Charyn 1986), starting in motion a series of policies that would ultimately turn it into a place
where signage is architecture (Tell 2007). Along Broadway, commercial developers, landowners,
and politicians served as “brokers” in transforming Times Square into “quintessential capitalist
space” (Leach 1991a, 101), consumable landscape par excellence and a model of urban commercial
development globally (Robert A.M. Stern Architects 2013).
Despite being in close proximity, outdoor advertising is strictly prohibited along 5
th

Avenue. Here, local residents protect their neighborhood from the unwanted intrusion of the
hustle and bustle of Broadway. While Broadway became known for its “vulgar advertising
excess” (Jakle 2001, 201), 5
th
Avenue remains the epitome of the “sedate tastefulness” (Jakle
2001, 200) of urban life. Despite the seemingly divergent paths of these urban corridors both are
commercially significant; Broadway remains one of the leading tourist attractions in the world
(Jakle 2001, 201) while 5
th
Avenue is considered among the most expensive global shopping
districts (Cushman & Wakefield 2012). Along the residential community of 5
th
Avenue
90

community response continues to protect the neighborhood from outdoor advertising while in
the commercial district of Times Square institutional actors remain instrumental in shaping the
regulatory response to outdoor advertising.
Central to my investigation of response is the lopsided history of opposition to outdoor
advertising. Some of the earliest opponents of outdoor advertising were part of elite American
society, female members of garden clubs and civic organizations (Gudis 1994). Also prominent
were members of the City Beautiful Movement, some of whom were among the first to pursue
legal remedies for outdoor advertising, labeling it a nuisance (Wilson 1987) and members of the
Progressive Movement, whose members dedicated themselves to social, institutional, and
physical reform as a form of stewardship (Baker 2007).
Through both their publications and their meetings, these organizations educated
members of their own social and racial class about the impacts of outdoor advertising on both
community appearance and public morale. Guided by a concern that billboards were degrading
the visual landscape, Lady Bird Johnson launched a national movement intended to eradicate
billboards along the Federal Highway System (Gould 1986). While largely viewed as unsuccessful
at curbing the blight caused by outdoor advertising (Floyd 1982), her work remains the pinnacle
of the response by affluent Americans to outdoor advertising.
Recently, a more diverse set of actors including artists, planners, and public health
professionals figure prominently in documented instances of response to outdoor advertising.
These individuals illuminate issues associated with the public display of material goods,
invigorating public perception about capitalism (Bray 2002) and multinational corporations
(Atkinson 2003) through the use of outdoor advertising itself. And, as already mentioned, scholars
are interested in the impact of harmful content such as tobacco (Barbeau et al 2005), alcohol
91

(Kwate and Meyer 2009), and unhealthy food choices (Yancey et al 2009) on behavioral and
health outcomes. This perspective suggests recognition of the lack of participation in these
discussions among members of at-risk and under represented communities.
As Chapter 4 illustrates, discussions of outdoor advertising gained political relevance
alongside the development of American zoning practice, magnifying the influence of white,
affluent members of society. These individuals held positions on planning commissions, design
boards, and other institutions, established to define and regulate outdoor advertising (Fogelson
1967). Unfortunately, zoning has typically seen as a mechanism of state power that disables
rather than enables communities lacking affluence and political power (Zukin 1995, Burby 2003,
Jacobs and Paulson 2009). More frequently than not, outdoor advertising was relegated to
sections of the city far removed from white, residential communities but closer to less desirable,
non-white, residential neighborhoods found adjacent to industrial zones.
John Costonis provides a framework for understanding the relationship between changes
to the visual landscape and response in the form of land use policy (1989). He suggests that the
legal dimension of aesthetics regulation concerns the “associational dissonance” created by
introduced components of the built environment. When iconic parts of the environment, imbued
with cultural significance and social meaning, become threatened by new development,
controversy ensues over aesthetic outcomes (i.e. where to allow outdoor advertising) rather than
the achievement of more important considerations of liberty, justice, or rights (Costonis 1989).
Ignoring foundational legal process issues stifles American approaches to regulating aesthetics.
Reliance on the traditional “beauty approach” creates incentives to 1) underemphasize
intellectual and cultural factors of landscape change, 2) necessitate a search for universal
conceptions of what is “pleasurable or offensive,” and 3) neglect the affective and emotional
92

dimension of land use change (Costonis 1989). Reliance on this system has allowed unwanted
components of the environment to “destroy land use patterns by eroding the ties that bind people
to places” (Costonis 1989, 99). Responses that reflect mandatory legal aspects of regulating
outdoor advertising (i.e. time, place and manner restrictions) demonstrate an unsustainable
approach to regulating outdoor advertising that may serve to undermine attempts to integrate
human concern into land use planning strategies.
This research builds on previous research in two important ways. First, it utilizes a robust,
contemporary sample in an attempt to substantiate previously existing qualitative knowledge
found in the literature. Second, by focusing on a public policy that is currently being considered
in a municipality that provides access to public records, I am able to spatially match community
response to a current proposal to the impact of outdoor advertising.

6/2 Approach

To determine if response to a proposed ordinance is the result of the localized quantity of
billboards or other socio-economic factors, I employ logistical regression on a sample of the 8,909
billboard addresses derived from the City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety Off-
Site Sign Listing. I spatially matched each billboard address on the list to two types of data.
Response, or more importantly, lack of response, by localized community serves as the
dependent variable.
First, I categorized each billboard according to the independent variables identified
previously. As noted in chapter three, billboards were coded into categories based on
dichotomous categorization based on localized characteristics of the residents of the Los Angeles
region. For racial ethnic group, signs were coded for white and non-white, for all other
independent variables coding identified billboards in communities greater than one standard
93

deviation from the sample mean in each category. In addition, 1,389 public comment records
were spatially matched to the appropriate neighborhood council and billboards were coded
based on whether or not comments regarding the sign ordinance were submitted by at least one
resident from that community.
Second, outdoor advertisements were coded by size in order to more fully understand
impact, as larger signs suggest increased visibility. Each point was coded by rounding its
dimensions to the nearest common area generated from a list of standard billboard typologies.
These typologies were used to categorize areas of billboard concentration. Here, values were
summed for the total area of billboards within each neighborhood council. Like response, coding
identified values greater than one standard deviation from the mean.

6/3 Results

As a review of the descriptive statistics from the analysis reveal, there appears to be disparity in
the number of billboards situated in particular types of communities. The percentage of outdoor
advertising situated in majority non-white communities is elevated when compared to majority
white communities (see Table 6/3-1). Almost two-thirds of the all billboards are situated in
census tracts where a majority of the population is non-white. The largest percentage of
billboards is situated in majority Latino communities of the city (53%) and the smallest
percentage is situated in majority Asian communities of Los Angeles (1%).

Table 6/3-1: Number of billboards by census tract and racial/ethnic group

Asian Black Latino Non-White White

Number of Census Tracts 123 (5%) 66 (3%) 1,079 (46%) 1,168 (50%) 1,157 (50%)

Number of Billboards 105 (1%) 426 (5%) 4,683 (53%) 5,585 (62%) 3,324 (38%)

94

Isolating communities with increased risk for poverty and poor educational outcomes, results also
suggest disparities. Communities at facing increased risk of poverty host more outdoor
advertising than financially well off communities (see Table 6/3-2). A greater number of
billboards appear in census tracts at risk for poverty (26%) when compared to those not at risk
(10%). Similar disadvantage is seen for communities with less formal schooling (see Table 63-3).
Educationally-disadvantaged communities are home to 2,756 (31%) billboards while
educationally advantaged communities host 450 (5%) billboards.

Table 6/3-2: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of population in poverty

Not at risk
< 1.52%

1.52% - 25.40%
At risk
> 25.40%

Number of Census Tracts
+
249 (11%) 1,704 (73%) 361 (15%)

Number of Billboards 840 (10%) 5,660 (64%) 2,324 (26%)

+
20 Tracts were without poverty estimates.

Table 6/3-3: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of adult population with a diploma

Educationally-
disadvantaged
< 54.91%

54.91% - 96.28%
Educationally-
advantaged
> 96.28%

Number of Census Tracts
+
466 (20%) 1611 (69%) 246 (11%)

Number of Billboards 2,756 (31%) 5,618 (64%) 450 (5%)

+
11 tracts were without educational estimates.

Youth-dense communities do not host disproportionately more billboards than communities that
are not youth-dense (see Table 6/3-4). In Los Angeles, the communities that are home to fewer
residents under the age of 18 hosted 2,000 (23%) of billboards while communities where more
than a third of the population is under age 18 have 1,420 (16%) of billboards.
95

Table 6/3-4: Billboards in Los Angeles by percentage of population older than 18

Youth-dense
< 68.62%

68.621%- 83.41%
Not youth-dense
> 83.41%

Number of Census Tracts 406 (17%) 1,610 (69%) 318 (14%)

Number of Billboards 1,420 (16%) 5,404 (61%) 2,000 (23%)

The results of the logistical regression suggest significant disparity in response for all
independent variables in the model (see Table 6/3-6). Most notably, there is a negative
relationship between response and overall area of outdoor advertising, suggesting that the
presence of outdoor advertising in a community is not necessarily a driver of localized
participation in efforts shape outdoor advertising policy in Los Angeles. Rather, participation in
the public debate surrounding the regulation of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles appears to be
more prominent in communities that are older, white, educated, and well-off.

Table 6/3-6 Logistic Regression Results Predicting Non-Response

B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B)

Impact Area 1.057 .097 119.670 1 .000 2.879
Poverty .560 .061 83.712 1 .000 1.750
Education -.356 .063 31.643 1 .000 .700
Non White .953 .055 301.911 1 .000 2.594
Youth 1.648 .082 406.918 1 .000 5.199
Constant -1.275 .043 889.860 1 .000 .280

Additionally, despite evidence that suggests increased numbers of billboards in non-white
communities, these communities are significantly less likely to respond to outdoor advertising
than white communities. Similar results can be seen for poverty and youth density, despite
evidence that these communities also face a greater quantity of billboards than to communities
not at risk for entering poverty.
Outdoor advertising interests continue to suggest that economic concerns are paramount
96

to any effort to regulate outdoor advertising. Characteristic of the 56 responses received by
outdoor advertisers, their lawyers, and unions representing their workers, Leslie Monves,
President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS Corporation, suggests the need for “reasoned
dialogue” in order to create “reasonable, effective regulation” that implements “time, place, and
manner” restrictions that are enforceable. In a letter submitted, December 9, 2009, he asserts the
economic primacy of his company and its role in the landscape of Los Angeles, stating: “CBS,
through its divisions… [such as] CBS Outdoor, is a major economic engine of the City of Los
Angeles. We directly employ over 4,000 people in the City… [and] annually contribute more
than a half billion ($5000,000,000) to the Los Angeles economy.” Other advertisers also asserted
the economic prowess of outdoor advertising. On August 9, 2011, Steven Pretsfelder of Van
Wagner Communications suggested the outdoor advertising serves as an important “economic
development tool to spur investment in blighted or other underperforming areas in Los Angeles”
despite a lack of evidence that this is the case.
Community response from the network of neighborhood councils to the proposed sign
ordinance was limited and echoed both outcome concerns about time, place, and manner
restrictions on outdoor advertising, as well as process concerns about the impact of these
decisions on rights and justice. In total, 13 (13.7%) officially recognized neighborhood councils
submitted 16 community impact statements (three were from one council) between 2009-2013.
Two of the statements were specific requests to eliminate digital billboards and two others sought
to eliminate the possibility of outdoor advertising in public parks and open space. The remaining
12 statements provide insight into the nature of a more generalized response to outdoor
advertising by local communities.
A majority of the responses focused on specific aspects of the proposed policy rather than
97

issues of justice or collective rights. The first, from the Mar Vista Community Council requested
that the Ballona Wetlands be removed from sign district designation. In late summer and fall of
2011, the city received a majority (13) of the community impact statements just prior to a reading
of the draft ordinance before the Planning and Land Use Management Committee. Typical
among almost all of the submissions is the following language, taken here from the submission
made by the Hollywood United Neighborhood Council:
[Name of neighborhood council] opposes adoption of the
revised Citywide Sign Ordinance, as currently written, because it
would allow a proliferation of commercial advertising on both
private and public property without a significant reduction in
existing billboard and signage blight, and would allow new
electronic signage without addressing energy use, light pollution,
traffic safety, and other issues that could negatively effect
communities throughout the City.

Some of the community impact statements contain more detailed explanations, included specific
recommendations regarding time, place, and manner restrictions. Most of these focused on the
outcomes of aesthetic land use policy rather than the foundational concerns about justice.
Despite a tendency to focus on the logistical aspects of controlling the placement of
outdoor advertising there were instances of public concern for the rights of individuals and
communities to social outcomes associated with landscape appearance. Both the Greater Griffith
Park Neighborhood Council and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council requested that the
proposal ensure the right of citizens to environmental review as well as the right to sue if outdoor
advertising becomes intrusive. In addition, members suggested that a citizen committee be
established in each sign district community to oversee implementation of the regulations.
While attending public meetings concerning the proposed sign ordinance, I encountered
other individuals concerned with the inequitable distribution of negative messaging in particular
communities. At the first meeting of the City of Los Angeles Planning Department Billboard and
98

Visual Landscape Visioning Group on February 23, 2013, two local community leaders
suggested that harmful advertising appear more frequently in the predominantly African
American neighborhood of Baldwin Hills. When they suggested regulations be designed to
address this disparity, members of the outdoor advertising industry began to argue that any
attempt to move beyond land use that regulates time, place, and manner would result in legal
action.
Another individual from the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles belonged to No
Alcohol Ads, a local coalition dedicated to banning alcohol advertising in public space. She
raised her concerns about the issue at a meeting of the Planning Land Use and Management
committee of the Los Angeles City Council and was told by members of the outdoor advertising
industry that her proposed content regulations were unconstitutional. Undeterred by the
remarks, she told me she was working through an individual council office to build support for
her proposal through other channels because she believes there is a way to shield the children of
her community from alcohol advertising.

6/4 Discussion

I found that community response to outdoor advertising is positively associated with communities
that are older, white, educated, and well-off but negatively associated with its impact. This seems
to occur despite results that also indicate that younger, non-white, less-educated, poorer
communities experience the impact of outdoor advertising to an increased degree. Given
previous evidence presented here, suggesting that harmful content is more concentrated in
particular communities, raises important issues regarding the development of land use policy.
The failure of communities who experience a differential impact from outdoor advertising to
participate in decisions regarding its placement signals an increased need for planning practice to
99

engage communities more meaningfully in discussions about the benefits and risks associated
with outdoor advertising.
It also appears that disparities in patterns of response may be contributing to this
imbalance by focusing on more technical aspects of land use regulation instead of more
foundational principles of ensuring residents a quality of life, liberty, and the opportunity to find
happiness. The failure of land use regulation to advance beyond the confines of traditional
Euclidean zoning may in part be the result of undervalued perspectives that suggest that justice
and equality are central to efforts to plan and create visionary cities.
This study enhances our understanding of how changes to the appearance of the
landscape engage individuals and communities in stewardship. Caring for the land may take
many forms (Scarfo 1988) but central to our ability to foster sustainable communities is an
understanding of the processes that lead people to participate in the creation of land use policy.
How and why local residents get involved in efforts to address changes to the visual landscape of
cities is essential to planning practice predicated upon open dialogue and participatory processes
(Innes 1995). The results reported here suggest that despite the harmful environments created by
outdoor advertising, at-risk and underrepresented communities attempting to respond to a policy
proposal to regulate the built environment may require additional assistance in understanding
the impact of outdoor advertising on quality of life.
A number of perspectives provide frames for better understanding the results of this
study. In some regards, the continued reliance on zoning as a remedy for communities seeking to
address outdoor advertising as a nuisance, focuses concern away from a locally generated idea of
health and well being, toward an expert driven paradigm predicated on quantifying knowledge
(Corburn 2009). What may be necessary is a more holistic view of risk that incorporates not only
100

expertise about the potential for harm but also on locally held ideals about what is important in a
given community and why. If, for instance, communities see benefits in the presence of outdoor
advertising, do opportunities exist for shielding at-risk populations from harmful content?
Finally, this research provides another perspective for understanding how particular
communities influence public policy through choice and privilege (Soja 2010). The approach
offered here provides a way for continuing our investigation into the people who reside in the
borderlands, outside the formal structures of state sponsored planning; individuals and groups
interested in reforming the role of privilege in the emerging multicultural, civil society
(Sandercock 1998). Despite the influence enjoyed by communities that are able to attend public
meetings and participate publicly on behalf of the visual environment, similar but less publicized
efforts are both intrinsic and instrumental aspects of the form and function of contemporary
cities.
101

Chapter 7: Conclusion

Introducing the social and moral factor into the definition of
landscape… will not itself do away with visual blight; but it will
enable us to see another kind of beauty and to recognize the
beautiful landscape, the beautiful city as a place which produces a
favorable setting for the self-fulfillment of men and women, both as
private individuals and as citizens.
Jackson 1973, 48

7/1 Summary

I began this investigation intent on understanding how changes to the visual environment
influence the collective construction of land use policies regulating city appearance. Here,
outdoor advertising serves as an indicator of the transformation of the landscape over time as a
result of the capitalist, experience economy. In this chapter, I respond to the research questions
posed at the start of this dissertation and reiterate the lessons learned through this process; I
discuss the limitations and opportunities to improve upon my research and suggest a set of
considerations for planning practice and scholarship.
I assert that from a policy perspective outdoor advertising is an ambiguous amenity:
economically vital but a nuisance socially and environmentally. As seen historically in chapter
four and in the contemporary period in chapter six, the benefits and risks associated with outdoor
advertising are difficult to quantify making arguments for and against outdoor advertising
difficult to fully resolve.
The uncertainty regarding the impact of outdoor advertising contributes to a reliance on
Euclidean zoning, isolating outdoor advertising in an attempt to protect residential
neighborhoods and promote desirable commercial development. The perception of outdoor
102

advertising as both a nuisance and an amenity is seen in both past and present comments about
its placement.
In chapter four I employed historical records to determine how past actions accumulated
over time to create the current environment of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles. Historically,
proposals to create sign districts in the regional centers of Los Angeles resulted from a demand
for increasing residential protection from the intrusion of outdoor advertising as well as insistence
that such regulation hampers the economic well being of the city.
By focusing attention on economic outcomes, local officials and outdoor advertising
interests prevented the innovation of land use regulation. The sustainability of contemporary
cities demands policies that serve economic, as well as social and environmental interests. A more
balanced perspective that considers the social and physical context of outdoor advertising would
enable more innovative public policy and help advance the practice of land use zoning.
To better understand outdoor advertising in the contemporary context, I present
empirical evidence to suggest that both the impact of outdoor advertising as well as response to a
policy proposal to regulate its placement are not equitably distributed. In chapter five I present
evidence suggesting that the spatial nature of outdoor advertising in terms of content is spatially
clustered in non-white communities where poverty and educational risk are heightened. Similar
results are seen in chapter six where despite elevated concentration of outdoor advertising,
communities that are poorer, less educated, and non-white are less likely to participate in the
creation of public policy intended to regulate its placement.

7/2 Looking Ahead

In his fantastical telling of Marco Polo’s adventures, Italo Calvino retells the tale of the explorer
emerging from the wilderness and happening upon mythical Tamara, a city shrouded in signs.
103

Finally the journey leads to the city of Tamara. You penetrate it
along streets thick with signboards jutting from the walls. The eye
does not see things but images of things that mean other things…

However the city may really be, beneath this thick coating of
signs, whatever it may contain or conceal, you leave Tamara with
out having discovered it.
1974, 13-14

Calvino illustrates the potential implications of a singular social force dominating the landscape.
In the case of Tamara, economic interests promoted by signage dominate the landscape,
concealing both social and environmental meaning of place under the homogenizing affect
created by signage and the experience it provides.
While signage is capable of supporting the financial sustainability of urban development,
its impacts can and do influence the social and environmental qualities of cities in important
ways. The question remains, how might planners begin to account for the ambiguity of outdoor
advertising as a component of the urban landscape? If both the impact and response to outdoor
advertising are spatially organized in ways that suggest disparity it becomes incumbent upon
those concerned with improving the quality of life to engage communities in ways that help
individuals understand the benefits and risks associated with community development.
When well-off, white communities are participating in a problem that seems squarely
situated in non-white, disadvantaged areas of the city, expertise in land use becomes an
important part of helping effected communities determine whether or outdoor advertising is
wanted in their neighborhood. If it is true that “people want their society to be and to look just”
(Nozick 1974, 158) and that “planning is not anything if not socially concerned” (Dakin 1993,
406), then it suggests a need for the continued evolution and vigilance of planning practice to
ensure that community values are supported by the intervention of those in the planning
professions.
104

Figure 7/2-1: Small bulletins advertising addictive behavior

This is not to suggest that planning should abandon hope in the American capitalist
system and work to counter demand for the experience economy. To suggest so would be to
abandon all connection to practice. Rather, planners must work within a system that elevates
financial concerns over other more humane ideals while focusing goals around “city building for
the benefit of nonelite groups… empowering those who are excluded not just form discussion but
from structural positions that allow them genuine influence” (Fainstein 2000, 461). If particular
communities are able to participate in planning practice because of some advantage, it is
incumbent upon planners to assist those at a disadvantage to understand how the built
environment impact community well being and quality of life.
105

Central to the spatial focus of this study, planners must begin to think more critically of
the inequity not only in historical and social contexts but also within the spatial context of the
built environment. Place and its physical arrangement serve as conduits of inequality that
“intensify and sustain our exploitation… support oppressive forms of cultural and political
domination… and aggravate all forms of discrimination and injustice” (Soja 2010, 19). Practicing
planners are crucial to this process because the concepts of land use and its connection to social
and environmental impacts may not always be apparent to those living in particular
communities. In a role designed to share expertise, rather than use it to advance uncertainty and
distrust, planners will help to make complex land use issues less ambiguous and empower
communities to understand what can and should be done in the face of uncertain risk and
unlikely gain.
Building on the communicative nature of planning (Innes 1995) and the push for
advocacy based planning (Davidoff 1965), I suggest a more didactic approach to designing cities
that positions the planner as teacher, one who reveals the economic, social, and environmental
costs and benefits associated with the public policies that shape and respond to the built
environment. Kevin Lynch illustrates the importance of planning as a didactic practice, noting:
It will be equally useful to improve this image [of the city] by
training the observer, by teaching him [or her] to look at [the] city,
to observe its manifold forms and how they mesh with one another.

Education and physical reform are part of a continuous process.
Although such a process can become sterile if not accompanied by
increasing control and judgment, even awkward “beautification” of
a city may in itself be an intensifier of civic energy and cohesion.
1960, 117

It through the process of teaching individuals and communities about land use that their actions
become the basis for future actions and concern for the city and its inhabitants. “The
106

development of environmental ethics can do some of the job that is proposed to be done through
compelling regulation” (Sen 1999, 270) and empowering communities to take action underpins
all other aspects of sustainability (Gaffikin and Morrissey 1999).
To envision a truly sustainable future, planners should engage communities in dialogue
about sustainability that goes beyond consideration of energy efficiency and water conservation.
While these are important goals for community development, communities need actionable
knowledge about land use that generates sustainability beyond the life of a single project and
fosters a sustainable commitment to place among the local residents.
As John Gardner so aptly reminds us, “We can’t know all the forms that community will
take, but we know the values and the kinds of supporting structure we want to preserve. We are a
community-building species. We might become remarkably ingenious at creating new forms of
community for a swiftly changing world” (1985, 178). Perhaps it is time to reflect on this message
and consider the ways that it might be possible to teach communities about the risk associated
with forms of urban development as a means of imbuing place with significance and meaning.
Doing so will allow us to design and create cities buttressed by community engagement and
concern for place.

7/3 Limitations

Several limitations offer opportunities to improve upon the methods and empirical evidence
presented here. First, because of its relatively small sample size and focused geographical scope,
researchers need to take care in comparing these findings to other municipalities. To suggest
otherwise contradicts one of the primary conclusions of this study: that context matters.
Researchers in other locales should consider how the methods applied here might be employed
107

in other socio-economic and political contexts to understand the localized impact of outdoor
advertising and response to its proliferation and regulation.
As with all spatial analysis, this study relies on proximity as a measure of impact. While
employed commonly to understand the relationship of elements of the environment, the use of
spatial buffers to investigate impact cannot be employed nonchalantly. In this case, a key
difficulty was isolating the range of locations from which each outdoor advertisement is visible –
either from the front as intended or from the back as one might appear from an adjacent
residential yard. Understanding the risk associated with exposure to outdoor advertising may or
may not necessitate consideration of a risk viewshed.
Finally, incorporating the changing nature of community and the built environment over
time is difficult in an analysis such as this one. While I incorporated history and tested spatial
relationships longitudinally, this study did not delve deeply into the history of each of the
communities of Los Angeles to understand who lived in these places and what the landscape
looked like at various points in time. While the evidence does suggest that here and now spatial
inequality exists the impact of outdoor advertising and the way communities respond to its
presence, this inequality may not have been the case previously or may not be the case in the
future. With advances in technology, someday researchers will be able to look at stored images of
the landscape overtime; at that point, they may be able to investigate whether or not these
patterns are chronic or acute.

7/4 Future Opportunities

The limitations and the quality of the datasets I generated provide a number of opportunities for
building upon the research presented here. Using the photographic database I hope to
investigate the spatial changes of each of the communities over time to better understand if
108

localized land use and other community characteristics (e.g. crime, property values) are sites of
increased amounts of harmful content. The photographs also provide an opportunity to more
thoroughly examine the specific types of content, particularly portrayals of violence following the
Sandy Hook tragedy and unhealthy food options given the rising obesity epidemic.
Additionally, the database of all outdoor advertising in the city provides an opportunity to
further investigate relationships between outdoor advertising and a number of urban
phenomena, including: crime, vacant lots, food deserts, open space, and sensitive populations
such as half way houses, homeless shelters, schools, playgrounds, and safe houses.
Finally, I am interested in delving more deeply into the affective relationship between
individuals, communities, and place. The public comment data remains a rich source of
information about how and why individuals, communities, and institutions get involved in the
processes that design cities. I plan to conduct a more detailed analysis of the spatial nature of the
content of the comments and the types of organizations participating in land use policy decisions.

109

Appendix

110

A1 Descriptive Statistics for Population Variables in Census Tracts within 500 feet of Los Angeles Regional Centers

# of
tracts
Total
pop.
African-
American
pop.
Asian-
American
pop.
Latino-
American
pop.
Caucasian-
American
pop.
Pop. Fell
Below Poverty
in Last Year
Youth
pop.
Pop. With HS
Diploma+

Baldwin Hills* 4 17,368 81% 4% 11% 5% 14% 20% 89%

Ballona 2 13,641 5% 10% 20% 77% 5% 8% 98%

Beverly Center 5 15,516 3% 7% 8% 84% <1% 8% 95%

Boyle Hts. N* 6 21,263 1% 3% 94% 48% 27% 32% 48%

Boyle Hts. S* 5 18,603 1% 2% 95% 51% 37% 32% 39%

Century City 6 25,520 2% 10% 5% 83% 3% 16% 97%

Chinatown* 7 23,954 15% 43% 31% 26% 28% 13% 51%

City West* 17 60,329 6% 16% 68% 34% 36% 22% 49%

Downtown
+
19 65,250 16% 25% 38% 36% 23% 13% 65%

Encino* 6 29,802 4% 6% 9% 83% 3% 19% 97%

Hollywood
+
16 53,792 6% 7% 26% 70% 15% 9% 87%

Hughes 5 28,877 34% 10% 12% 45% 5% <1% 96%

Koreatown 21 69,527 5% 37% 49% 27% 23% 20% 66%

LAX 6 16,939 14% 3% 76% 37% 19% 29% 61%

Miracle Mile 11 38,722 8% 18% 9% 67% 7% 16% 95%

Northridge 5 20,257 4% 15% 40% 58% 12% 23% 79%

Panorama City 9 33,745 3% 11% 78% 39% 24% 31% 54%

San Pedro 3 10,248 11% 6% 61% 46% 30% 23% 60%

Universal City 5 15,815 5% 8% 10% 80% 1% 13% 97%

Van Nuys* 6 25,448 5% 5% 63% 53% 19% 26% 63%

Warner Center 9 34,881 6% 15% 26% 62% 7% 19% 88%

Westwood 5 15,715 4% 25% 7% 63% 19% 7% 96%

* case study site
+
previously existing sign district
111

A2 Descriptive Spatial Statistics for Point Pattern Analysis

112

113

114

115

A3 Descriptive Statistics for Response by Neighborhood Council

Resident
Neighborhood
Council
For-profit or
Business
Non-Profit or
Government
Total

Arleta NC 0 0 0 0 0
Arroyo Seco NC 3 0 0 1 4
Atwater Village NC 0 1 0 0 1
Bel Air-Beverly Crest NC 18 1 0 0 19
Boyle Heights NC 2 0 0 0 2
Brentwood Community Council* 63 0 0 0 63
Canoga Park NC 1 0 0 0 1
Central Alameda 0 0 0 0 0
Central Hollywood NC 0 0 2 0 2
Central San Pedro 0 0 0 0 0
Chatsworth NC 0 0 0 0 0
Coastal San Pedro 0 0 0 0 0
Community and Neighbors for Ninth District Unity 0 0 0 0 0
Del Rey NC 0 0 0 4 4
Downtown Los Angeles NC 3 2 113 5 123
Eagle Rock NC 1 0 0 0 1
East Hollywood NC 3 2 0 0 5
Elysian Valley Riverside NC 0 0 0 0 0
Emp. Congress Central Area NDC 0 0 0 0 0
Emp. Congress North Area NDC 3 0 0 0 3
Emp. Congress Southeast Area NDC 0 0 0 0 0
Emp. Congress Southwest Area NDC 0 0 0 0 0
Emp. Congress West Area NDC 2 0 0 0 2
Encino NC 7 1 0 0 8
Foothill Trails District NC 1 0 0 0 1
Glassell Park NC 0 0 0 0 0
Granada Hills North NC 2 1 0 0 3
Granada Hills South NC 2 0 0 0 2

*unofficial neighborhood council
116

Resident
Neighborhood
Council
For-profit or
Business
Non-Profit or
Government
Total

Grass Roots Venice NC 42 1 1 2 46
Greater Cypress Park NC 1 0 0 0 1
Greater Echo Park Elysian NC 6 0 2 3 11
Greater Griffith Park NC 41 21 0 9 71
Greater Toluca Lake NC 0 0 0 0 0
Greater Valley Glen Council 1 0 0 0 1
Greater Wilshire NC 13 3 2 0 18
Harbor City 0 0 0 0 0
Harbor Gateway North 0 0 0 0 0
Harbor Gateway South 0 0 0 0 0
Historic Cultural NC 0 0 2 2 4
Historic Highland Park NC 3 1 0 3 7
Hollywood Hills West NC 25 1 5 1 32
Hollywood Studio District NC 0 0 4 0 4
Hollywood United NC 9 1 2 0 12
LA-32 NC 0 0 0 0 0
Lake Balboa NC 2 0 0 0 2
Lincoln Heights NC 1 0 10 0 11
MacArthur NC 0 0 0 0 0
Mar Vista CC 3 2 0 0 5
Mid City NC 4 1 0 0 5
Mid City WEST CC 8 0 9 0 17
Mid Town North Hollywood NC 1 0 0 0 1
Mission Hills NC 0 0 0 0 0
NC of Westchester/Playa del Rey 9 0 0 4 13
NC Valley Village 0 0 0 0 0
North Hills East NC 0 0 0 0 0
North Hills West NC 0 0 0 0 0
North Hollywood Northeast NC 0 0 0 0 0

117

Resident
Neighborhood
Council
For-profit or
Business
Non-Profit or
Government
Total

Northridge East NC 0 0 0 0 0
Northridge South NC 0 0 0 0 0
Northridge West NC 0 0 0 0 0
Northwest San Pedro 0 0 0 0 0
Olympic Park NC 0 0 0 0 0
P.I.C.O. NC 4 1 0 0 5
Pacific Palisades Community Council* 12 1 0 0 13
Pacoima NC 0 0 0 0 0
Palms NC 0 0 0 0 0
Panorama City NC 0 0 0 0 0
Park Mesa Heights CC 1 0 0 0 1
Pico Union NC 0 0 0 1 1
Porter Ranch NC 0 0 0 0 0
Rampart Village NC 0 0 0 0 0
Reseda NC 0 0 0 0 0
Sherman Oaks NC 6 0 12 1 19
Silver Lake NC 8 0 0 1 9
South Central 0 0 0 0 0
South Robertson NC 6 0 7 0 13
Studio City NC 24 11 6 1 43
Sun Valley Area NC 3 1 0 0 4
Sunland-Tujunga NC 2 0 0 1 3
Sylmar NC 0 0 0 0 0
Tarzana NC 10 1 0 0 11
United Neighborhoods of the Historic Arlington Heights 0 0 0 0 0
Van Nuys NC 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont Harbor NC 0 0 0 0 0
Vernon/Main 0 0 0 0 0

* unofficial neighborhood council
118

Resident
Neighborhood
Council
For-profit or
Business
Non-Profit or
Government
Total

Watts 0 0 0 0 0
West Adams 0 0 0 0 0
West Hills NC 1 0 0 0 1
West Los Angeles NC 4 1 1 0 6
Westlake NC North 0 0 0 0 0
Westlake NC South 1 0 0 0 1
Westside NC 13 3 7 19 42
Westwood NC 74 1 0 1 76
Wilmington NC 1 0 4 0 5
Wilshire Center-Koreatown NC 5 0 8 6 19
Winnetka NC 0 0 0 0 0
Woodland Hills-Warner Center NC 4 0 0 0 4

119

A4 Descriptive Spatial Statistics of Cumulative Impact

120

121

122

123
A5 Nearest Neighbor Analysis Case Study Communities

Buffer Area
(Sq. Feet)
Ratio Z-score P Value Expected Observed
Distance
Band
Description

Baldwin Hills 15,016,834 .28 -10.62 0.00 250 71 1,154 Clustered

Baldwin Hills Harmful .31 -7.02 0.00 366 112 Clustered

Boyle Heights N 9,502,656 .49 -5.25 0.00 286 140 1,560 Clustered

Boyle Heights N Harmful 1.14 .96 0.34 445 509 Random

Boyle Heights S 11,543,923 .17 -8.09 0.00 333 57 390 Clustered

Boyle Heights S Harmful .29 -5.79 0.00 400 115 Clustered

Chinatown 25,900,460 .32 -13.50 0.00 246 78 1,010 Clustered

Chinatown Harmful .51 -8.04 0.00 296 151 Clustered

City West 34,945,010 .34 -17.50 0.00 213 73 1,237 Clustered

City West Harmful .52 -9.77 0.00 278 144 Clustered

Encino 39,772,472 .17 -16.97 0.00 295 50 703 Clustered

Encino Harmful .35 -9.39 0.00 418 146 Clustered

Van Nuys 11,887,279 .17 -12.91 0.00 212 36 412 Clustered

Van Nuys Harmful .38 -7.47 0.00 273 104 Clustered

124

Bibliography

Abbott, Carl. 2006. “Urban History for Planners.” Journal of Planning History 5(4): 301-313.

Abrahamson, Mark. 2004. Global Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ahlfeldt, Gabriel M. 2011. “Blessing or curse? Appreciation, amenities and resistance to urban renewal.”
Regional Science and Urban Economics 41:32-45.

Altman, David G., Caroline Schooler, and Michael D. Basil. 1991. “Alcohol and cigarette advertising on
billboards.” Health Education and Research 6(4): 487-490.

American Civic Association. 1925. “Recent Billboard History in Three States.” Civic Comment 10: 5-7.

American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society. 1919. “The Los Angeles Billboard Ordinance.”
Twenty-fourth Annual Report of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society to the Legislature of the
State of New York, 187-193. Albany: L.B. Lyon Company.

Anderson, Craig A. and Brad J. Bushman. 2002. “The Effects of Media Violence on Society.” Science 295:
2377–2379.

Anderson, Peter, Avalon de Bruijn, Kathryn Angus, Ross Gordon and Gerard Hastings. 2009. “Impact of
Alcohol Advertising and Media Exposure on Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Systematic Review of
Longitudinal Studies.” Alcohol & Alcoholism 44(3): 229–243.

Andrews, Clinton J. 2008. “Energy Conversion Goes Local: Implications for Planners.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 74(2): 231-254.

Atkinson, Joshua. 2003. “Thumbing Their Noses at ‘The Man’: An Analysis of Resistance Narratives
About Multinational Corporations.” Popular Communication 1(3): 163-180.

Banham, Reyner. 1971. Los Angeles: The architecture of four ecologies. New York: Harper & Row.

Baker, Laura E. 2007. “Public Sites Versus Public Sights: The Progressive Response to Outdoor
Advertising and the Commercialization of Public Space.” American Quarterly 59(4): 1187-1213.

Banerjee, Tridib. 1993. “Market Planning, Market Planners, and Planned Markets.” Journal of the American
Planning Association 59(3): 353-360.

_____. 2001. “The Future of Public Space Beyond Invented Streets and Reinvented Places.” Journal of the
American Planning Association 67(1): 9-24.

Banerjee, Tridib and William C. Baer. 1984. Beyond the Neighborhood Unit: Residential Environments and Public
Policy. New York: Plenum Press.

Barbeau, Elizabeth M., Kathleen Y. Wolin, Elena N. Naumova and Edith Balbach. 2005. “Tobacco
advertising in communities: associations with race and class.” Preventive Medicine 40: 16-22.
125

Barker, Mayerene. 1984. “Curbs on Signs Gain Support: Encino Group Would Remove Unsightly
Advertising.” Los Angeles Times. September 16.

Berger, Alan. 2006. “Drosscape” in The Landscape Urbanism Reader, edited by Charles Waldheim, 197-217.
New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Berke, Ethan M., Susanne E. Tanski, Eugene Demidenko, Jennifer Alford-Teaster, Xun Shi and James
D. Sargent. 2010. “Alcohol Retail Density and Demographic Predictors of Health Disparities: A
Geographic Analysis.” American Journal of Public Health 100(10): 1967-1971.

Berman, Marshall. 2006. On the Town: One Hundred Years of Spectacle in Times Square. New York: Random
House.

Birch, Eugenie L. and Susan M. Wachter. 2008. “Introduction: Urban Greening and the Green City
Ideal” in Growing Greener Cities: Urban Sustainability in the Twenty-first Century, edited by Eugenie L.
Birch and Susan M. Wachter, 1-8. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Blake, Frank. 1951. A Report on the California Freeways and the Manner in Which the Facts Pertaining Thereto Affect
the Outdoor Advertising Industry. Outdoor Advertising Association of America.

Blake, Peter. 1964. God’s Own Junkyard: The Planned Deterioration of America’s Landscape. New York: Holt,
Reinhart, and Winston.

Boarnet, Marlon, Ann Forsyth, Kristen Day and J. Michael Oakes. 2011. “The Street Level Built
Environment and Physical Activity and Walking: Results from a predictive validity study for the
Irvine Minnesota Inventory.” Environment and Behavior 43(6): 735-775.

Booth, Sarah L., Jean Mayer, James F. Sallis, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, James O. Hill, Leann L. Birch,
Lawrence D. Frank, Karen Glanz, David A. Himmelgreen, Michael Mudd, Barry M. Popkin,
Karyl A. Rickard, Sachiko St. Jeor and Nicholas P. Hays. 2001. “Environmental and Societal
Factors Affect Food Choice and Physical Activity: rationale, influences, and leverage points.”
Nutrition Reviews 59(3): S21-S36.

Braudy, Leo. 2012. The Hollywood Sign: Fantasy and Reality of an American Icon. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Bray, Anne. 2002. “The Community Is Watching, and Replying: Art in Public Places and Spaces”
Leonardo 35(1): 15-21.

Bristol, Lee H. 1931. “Why Tax Advertising?” Speech presented at a meeting of the Boston Advertising
Club, Boston, MA, March 24.

Britton, Stephen G. 1991. “Tourism, capital, and place: towards a critical geography of tourism.”
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 9: 451-478.

Brown, Bernice V. 1917. “The ‘Area of Projection’ as a Basis for the Taxation of Billboards.” National
Municipal Review 6: 101-103.

126

Burby, Raymond. J. 2003. “Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 69(1): 33-49.

Calvino, Italo. 1974 (1972). Invisible Cities. Translated by William Weaver. Orlando: Harcourt. (Originally
published as Le città invisibili by Giulio Einaudi)

Campbell, Scott. 1996. “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities? Urban Planning and the Contradiction
of Sustainable Development.” Journal of the American Planning Association 62(3): 296- 312.

Cannavo, Peter F. 2007. The Working Landscape: Founding, Preservation, and the Politics of Place. Cambridge:
MIT Press.

Carr, James H. and Lisa Servon. 2009. “Vernacular Culture and Urban Economic Development:
Thinking Outside the (Big) Box.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75(1): 28-40.

Carr, Stephen. 1973. City Signs and Lights: A Policy Study. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Charyn, Jerome. 1986. Metropolis: New York as Myth, Marketplace, and Magical Land. New York: G.P.
Putnam’s Sons.

Chaskin, Robert J. 1997. “Perspectives on Neighborhood and Community: A Review of the Literature.”
Social Service Review 71(4): 521-547.

Chepesiuk, Ron. 2009. “Missing in the Dark: Health Effects of Light Pollution.” Environmental Health
Perspectives 117(1): A20-A27.

Christensen, Kim. 2006. “L.A. to ad firm: Off the wall: The use of huge vinyl wraps has grown in
popularity. A marketing executive says they enhance buildings. Foes see urban blight.” Los Angeles
Times. December 28.

Clarke, Phillipa, Jeffrey Morenoff, Michelle Debbink, Ezra Golberstein, Michael R. Elliott and Paula M.
Lantz. 2014. “Cumulative Exposure to Neighborhood Context: Consequences for Health
Transitions Over the Adult Life Course.” Research on Aging 36(1): 115-142.

Clay, Grady. 1994. Real Places: An Unconventional Guide to America’s Generic Landscape. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Cohen, Deborah, Thomas A. Farley and Karen Mason. 2003. “Why is Poverty Unhealthy? Social and
Physical Mediators.” Social Science & Medicine 57: 1631-1641.

Cosgrove, Denis. 2006. “Modernity, Community, and the Landscape Idea.” Journal of Material Culture
11(1/2): 49-66.

Costonis, John J. 1989. Icons and Aliens: Law, Aesthetics, and Environmental Change. Urbana: University of
Illinois Press.

Corburn, Jason. 2009. Toward the Healthy City: People, Places, and the Politics of Urban Planning. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.

127

Corner, James. 2006. “Terra Fluxus” in The Landscape Urbanism Reader, edited by Charles Waldheim, 21-
33. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Crawford, Andrew Wright. 1920. Important Advances Toward Eradicating the Billboard Nuisance, 2
nd
edition.
Washington: American Civic Association.

Cronin, Anne M. 2004. Advertising Myths: The strange half-lives of images and commodities. New York: Routledge.

_____. 2008. “Calculative spaces: cities, market relations, and the commercial vitalism of the outdoor
advertising industry.” Environment and Planning A 40: 2734 – 2750.

Cullingworth, John B. and Roger W. Craves. 2003 (1997) Planning in the U. S. A.: Policies, Issues and Processes
2
nd
Edition. New York: Routledge.

Cushman & Wakefield. 2013. Main Streets Across The World 2012/2013. New York: Cushman & Wakefield.

Cuthbert, Alexander. 2007. “Urban Design: Requiem for an Era – Review and Critique of the Last 50
Years.” Urban Design International 12: 177-223.

_____. 2010. “Urban Design and the Spatial Political Economy” in Companion to Urban Design, edited by
Tridib Banerjee and Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris: 84-96. New York: Routledge.

Dakin, John. 1993. “Inhumanities of Planning Revisited.” University of Toronto Quarterly 62(4): 404-440.

Davidoff, Paul. 1965 “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31(4):
544-555.

Dear, Michael and Allen J. Scott. 1981. “Towards a Framework for Analysis” in Urbanization and Urban
Planning in Capitalist Society, edited by Michael Dear and Allen J. Scott, 3-16. New York: Methuen.

Dear, Michael and Steven Flusty. 1997. “The Iron Lotus: Los Angeles and Postmodern Urbanism.”
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 551: 151-163.

De Certeau, Michel. 1984 (1980). The Practice of Everyday Life. Translated by Steven Rendall. Los Angeles:
University of California Press. (Originally published as L'invention du quotidien 1. Arts de faire' by
Gallimard).

_____. 1997 (1974). Culture in the plural. Translated by Tom Conley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press. (Originally published as La culture au pluriel by Union Générale d´Éditions).

Department of City Planning. 1970. “Concept Los Angeles: Concept Plan for the Los Angeles General
Plan.” City of Los Angeles.

_____. 1974. “Draft Environmental Impact Report.” City of Los Angeles. Council File: 70-1990.

_____. 2011. “Proposed Ordinance Revising Citywide Sign Regulations.” City of Los Angeles. Council
File: 08-2020, 08-3386-S1.

Desmond, Thomas C. 1947. “The Billboard Lobby.” The American Mercury. September: 344-350.

128

Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood. 1979. The World of Goods. New York: Basic Books.

Drabman, Ronald S. and Margaret Hanratty Thomas. 1974. “Does Media Violence Increase Children’s
Toleration of Real-Life Aggression?” Developmental Psychology 10(3): 418-421.

DunLany, Jacques. 1947. “Outdoor should tell its story of public service.” Printer’s Ink. May: 36-37.

Fitch, James Marston. 1984. “The Aesthetics of the Skyscraper Reconsidered Yet Again: Streetwise High-
Rise.” Metropolis 3(9): 22-23 & 36.

Flad, Harvey K. 1997. “Country Clutter: Visual Pollution and the Rural Roadscape.” The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 553: 117-129.

Floyd, Charles F. 1982. “Requiem for the Highway Beatification Act.” Journal of the American Planning
Association 48(4): 441-453.

Fogelson, Robert M. 1967. The Fragmented Metropolis: Los Angeles, 1850-1930. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

Fogelsong, Richard E. 1986. Planning the Capitalist City: The Colonial Era to the 1920s. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Frank, Lawrence D., Thomas L. Schmid, James F. Sallis, James Chapman and Brian E. Saelens. 2005.
“Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form:
Findings from SMARTRAQ.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28 (2S2): 117-125.

Friedmann, John. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Gaffikin, Frank and Mike Morrissey. 1999. “Sustainable Cities” in City Visions: Imagining Place, Enfranchising
People, edited by Frank Gaffikin and Mike Morrissey, 90-103. London: Pluto Press.

Gardner, John. 1985. “Building a Responsive Community” in Rights and the Common Good: A Communitarian
Perspective, edited by Amitai Etzioni, 167-178. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Giddens, Anthony. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

Glaeser, Edward L., Jed Kolko and Albert Saiz. 2001. “Consumer City.” Journal of Economic Geography 1:
27-50.

Greenberg, Michael, Frank Popper, Bernadette West and Donald Kreuckeberg. 1994. “Linking City
Planning and Public Health in the United States.” Journal of Planning Literature 8(3): 235-239.

Goldman, Robert. 1992. Reading Ads Socially. New York: Routledge.

Gould, Lewis L. 1986. “First Lady as Catalyst: Lady Bird Johnson and Highway Beautification in the
1960s.” Environmental Review 10(2): 76-92.

Gudis, Catherine. 1994. Buyways, Billboards, Automobiles, and the American Landscape. New York: Routledge.

129

Habermas, Jürgen. 1989 (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Translated by Thomas
Burger. Cambridge: MIT Press. (Originally published as Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. by
Hermann Luchterhand Verlag).

Hack, Gary. 2011. “Urban Flux” in Companion to Urban Design, edited by Tridib Banerjee and Anastasia
Loukaitou-Sideris: 446-462. New York: Routledge.

Hackbarth, Diana P., Barbara Silvestri and William Cosper. 1995. “Tobacco and Alcohol Billboards in
50 Chicago Neighborhoods: Market Segmentation to Sell Dangerous Products to the Poor.”
Journal of Public Health Policy 16(2): 213-230.

Hackbarth, Diana P., Daniel Schnopp-Wyatt, David Katz, Janet Williams, Barbara Silvestri and
Reverend Michael Pfleger. 2001. “Collaborative Research and Action to Control the Geographic
Placement of Outdoor Advertising of Alcohol and Tobacco Products in Chicago.” Public Health
Reports 116: 558-567.

Hamilton, Calvin J. 1975. Study of Offsite Advertising Signs (Billboards). Planning Committee of the Los
Angeles City Council. Council File 70-1990, Case Number 23174.

Hardin, Gareth. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162(3859): 1243-1248.

Harris, Neil. 1991. “Urban Tourism and the Commercial City” in Inventing Times Square: Commerce and
culture at the crossroads of the world, edited by William R. Taylor, 66-82. New York. Russell Sage
Foundation.

Harvey, David. 1973. Social Justice and the City. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

_____. 1985. The Urbanization of Capital: Studies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanization. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

_____. 2006 (2005). Spaces of Global Capitalism: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical Development. New York:
Verso. (Originally published as Spaces of Neo-liberalization by Franz Steiner Verlag).

Haskin, Frederic J. 1920. “Versus Billboards: Agitation Against the Unsightly Things Spreading All Over
the Country.” Los Angeles Times, June 7.

Healy, Robert G. 1994. “The ‘Common Pool’ Problem in Tourism Landscapes.” Annals of Tourism Research
21(3): 596-611.

Held, David and Anthony McGrew. 2007. “Introduction: Globalization at Risk?” in Globalization Theory:
Approaches and Controversies, edited by David Held and Anthony McGrew, 1-11. Cambridge: Polity
Press.

Henderson, Sally and Robert Landau. 1981. Billboard Art. San Francisco: Chronicle Books.

Hillier, Amy. 2008. “Childhood Overweight and the Built Environment: making technology part of the
solution rather than part of the problem.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
615:56-82.

130

Hillier, Amy, Brian L. Cole, Tony E. Smith, Antronette K. Yancey, Jerome D. Williams, Sonya A. Grier
and William J. McCarthy. 2009. “Clustering of unhealthy outdoor advertisements around child-
serving institutions: A comparison of three cities.” Health & Place 15(4): 935-45.

Hirsch, Fred. 1976. Social Limits to Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Hise, Greg and William Deverell. 2000. Eden by Design: The 1930 Olmstead Plan for the Los Angeles Region.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Huxtable, Ada Louise. 1991. “Reinventing Times Square: 1990” in Inventing Times Square: Commerce and
culture at the crossroads of the world, edited by William R. Taylor, 356-370. New York. Russell Sage
Foundation.

Innes, Judith. 1995. “Planning Theory’s Emerging Paradigm: Communicative Action and Interactive
Practice.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 14(3): 183-189.

Jackson, John B. 1973. “Commentary: Visual Blight – Civic Neglect” in Blight in America, Association of
American Geographers Resource Paper 23: 47-48.

Jacobs, Harvey M. and Kurt Paulson. 2009. “The Neglected Theme of 20
th
Century American
Planning.” Journal of the American Planning Association 75(2): 134-143.

Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Life and Death of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.

Jakle, John A. 1987. The Visual Elements of Landscape. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

_____. 2001. City Lights: Illuminating the American Night. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jakle, John A. and K.A. Sculle. 2004. Signs in America’s Auto Age: Signature of Landscape and Place. Iowa City:
University of Iowa Press.

James, Harlean. 1924. “Billboards and the Motorist.” National Municipal Review 13(7): 345-347.

Judd, Dennis R. and Susan S. Feinstein (editors). 1999. The Tourist City. New Haven: Yale University
Press.

Kaplan, Stephen, and Christopher Peterson. 1993. “Health and environment: a psychological analysis.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 26: 17-23.

Katz, Sidney. 1947. “Hilda Fox’s Battle of the Billboards.” Magazine Digest. December: 45-49.

Keith, David W., Joseph F. DeCarolis, David C. Denkenberger, Donald H. Lenschow, Sergey L.
Malyshev, Stephen Pacala and Philip J. Rasch. 2004. “The influence of large-scale wind power on
global climate.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101(46): 16115–16120.

131

Kelly, Bridget, Michelle Cretikos, Kris Rogers and Lesley King. 2008. “The Commercial Food
Landscape: outdoor food advertising around primary schools in Australia.” Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health 32(6): 522-528.

Kennedy, Scott. 2005. “Wind power planning: assessing long-term costs and benefits.” Energy Policy 33:
1661–1675.

Klick, Holly and Eric R.A.N. Smith. 2010. “Public understanding of and support for wind power in the
United States.” Renewable Energy 35: 1585-1591.

Krieger, Martin. 2011. Urban Tomographies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kudler, Adrian G. 2011. “NFL Stadium Includes 41 Billboards for Convention Center,” Curbed Los
Angeles, July 28,
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/07/nfl_stadium_plan_includes_41_billboards_for_convent
ion_center.php.

Kwate, Naa Oyo A., Meghan Jernigan and Tammy Lee. 2007. “Prevalence, proximity, and predictors of
alcohol ads in Central Harlem.” Alcohol & Alcoholism 42(6): 635-640.

Kwate, Naa Oyo A. and Ilan H. Meyer. 2009. “Association Between Residential Exposure to Outdoor
Alcohol Advertising and Problem Drinking Among African American Women in New York
City.” American Journal of Public Health 99(2): 228-230.

Leach, William. 1991a. “Brokers and the New, Corporate Industrial Order” in Inventing Times Square:
Commerce and culture at the crossroads of the world, edited by William R. Taylor, 99-117. New York.
Russell Sage Foundation.

_____. 1991b. “Introductory Essay: Commercial Aesthetics” in Inventing Times Square: Commerce and culture at
the crossroads of the world, edited by William R. Taylor, 234-242. New York. Russell Sage
Foundation.

_____. 1993. Land of Desire: Merchants, Power, and the Rise of a New American Culture. New York: Pantheon.

LeCorbusier. 1947 (1937). When the Cathedrals Were White: A Journey to the Country of Timid People. Translated
by Francis Hyslop, Jr. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock. (Originally published as Quand les
cathédrales étaient blanches. Voyage au pays des timides by Éditions Plon)

Lejano, Raul P., Florencio Ballesteros, Jr. and Rolando Tallod. 2012. “Patchwork of land use, tapestry of
risk.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55(1): 1-15.

Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Sketches from Here and There. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems.” Journal of Social Issues 2(4): 34- 46.

Lewis, Pierce F. 1973. “The Geographer as Landscape Critic.” Visual Blight in America, Association of
American Geographers Resource Paper 23: 1-8.
132

Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Longcore, Travis and Catherine Rich. 2004. “Ecological Light Pollution.” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2(4): 191–198.

Lopez-Puarejo, Thomas A. and Miles Bassell. 2009. “The Renaissance of Outdoor Advertising: From
Harlem to Hong Kong.” American Journal of Business 24(2): 33-39.

Los Angeles City Council. 1917a. Minutes 107: February 27.

_____. 1917b. Minutes 107: March 7.

_____. 1917c. Minutes 108: May 21.

_____. 1917d. Minutes 108: June 19.

_____. 1917e. Minutes 108, June 1.

_____. 1934a. Minutes 244, January 15.

_____. 1934b. Minutes 246, May 15.

_____. 1937a. Minutes 263, March 25.

_____. 1937b. Minutes 267, September 27.

_____. 1951. Minutes. November 14.

_____. 1975. Minutes. September 5.

Los Angeles Times. 1905. “Outdoor Advertising a Failure.” November 2.

_____. 1906 “Eyesores to Civic Beauty.” April 4.

_____. 1908. “Wise Talks: By the ‘Office Boy’.” May 25.

_____. 1910a. “Well Posted: Picture Story of Betkouski.” March 18.

_____. 1910b. “At City Hall: Billboard Law Passes.” March 19.

_____. 1910c. “The City Beautiful – Its Avenues, Streets, Parks, and Lakes.” May 1.

_____. 1910d. “Councilman has Trouble Also.” May 18.

_____. 1911. “Raid Stirs Teapot Tempest: Humphreys and Betkouski started Something.” January 14.

_____. 1923. “Migratory Billboards Grievance.” May 13.

133

_____. 1924. “Radio Held Home-maker.” June 12.

_____. 1925. “Fact and Comment.” July 5.

_____. 1933. “Whose Landscape?” April 9.

_____. 1942. “East Coast Lighted Ad Signs Banned.” June 2.

_____. 1945. “Billboard Blackout Ordered by Byrnes to Save Coal.” January 11.

_____. 1954. “Ad Companies Removing Signs Along Freeway.” December 20.

_____. 1957a. “Billboard Issue.” March 21.

_____. 1957b. “Billboard Foe.” December 5.

_____. 1963. “Brown Signs Bill for Scenic Highway Net.” July 18.

_____. 1964a. “Court Upholds Pasadena Ban on Roof Signs.” February 18.

_____. 1964b. “Billboard Ban Weighed by Pomona City Council.” June 7.

_____. 1965. “$66 Million for Beauty Alloted [sic].” November 5.

_____. 1970. “Councilman Joins Fight to Rid City of Billboards: Scenic Areas Asked.” June 15.

_____. 1971a. “Planners to Try Again to Regulate Billboards.” August 15.

_____. 1971b. “Yorty Receives 3 Proposals to Curb Billboards.” November 16.

_____. 1972. “Planning Chief Rebuked for Billboard ‘Pollution’.” May 25.

_____. 1975. “Council Kills Tighter Rules on Billboard.” December 17.

_____. 1980. “High Court to Review Ban on Billboard Ads.” October 15.

_____. 1988. “Washington Hails Lady Bird at 75.” April 28.

_____. 2000. “Hey, You’re Blocking the View.” November 23.

_____. 2012. “Billboard Firm Wrote L.A. Motion: Lobbyist Drafted a Plan OKd by City Council that
Could Preserve Many Signs.” October 27.

_____. 2013. Lights Out For Digital Signs: Judge orders 77 to go dark by Monday night.” April 13.

Loukaitou-Sideris, Anastasia and Tridib Banerjee. 1998. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form.
Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lowenthal, David. 1973. “The Offended Eye: Toward an Excrescential Geography.” Visual Blight in
America Association of American Geographers Resource Paper 23: 29-32.
134

Lucero, Lora A. 2010. “One Lawyer’s Crystal Ball: What our courts and legislatures are likely to be facing
over the next year or so.” Planning. November: 17-20.

Luke, Douglas, Emily Esmundo and Yael Bloom. 2000. “Smoke Signs: patterns of tobacco billboard
advertising in a metropolitan region.” Tobacco Control 9:16-23.

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. Image of the City. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mandelbaum, Seymour J. 1985. “Historians and Planners: The Construction of Pasts and Futures.”
Journal of the American Planning Association 51(2): 185-188.

Mann, Jim. 1981a. “San Diego Test Case. Billboards: Beauty vs. Free Speech.” Los Angeles Times.
February 25.

_____. 1981b. “Court Overturns Billboard Ban: San Diego Law Ruled Speech Right Violation.” Los
Angeles Times. July 3.

Markusen, Ann. 2004. “The Work for Forgetting and Remembering Places.” Urban Studies 41(12): 2303-
2313.

Mattelart, Armand. 1991 (1989). Advertising International. Translated by Michael Chanan. New York:
Routledge. (Originally published as L’Internationale publicitaire by Editions La Découverte)

McHarg, Ian. 1969. Design with Nature. New York: Wiley.

McFarland, J. Horace. 1904a. “Beautiful America.” Ladies' Home Journal 21(2): 15.

_____. 1904b. Beautiful America. Ladies' Home Journal 21(3): 15.

_____. 1925. “A Proposal to Control Billboards: Specially Devised for Pennsylvania but Applicable to
Other States.” National Municipal Review 14(6): 337-338.

McKenzie, Roderick D. 1924. “The Ecological Approach to the Study of the Human Community.”
American Journal of Sociology 30 (3): 287-301.

Mitchell, Olivia and Michael Geenberg. 1991. “Outdoor advertising of addictive products.” New Jersey
Medicine 88(5): 331-333.

Mohai, Paul, Paula M. Lantz, Jeffrey Morenoff, James S. House and Richard P. Mero. 2009. “Racial and
Socioeconomic Disparities in Residential Proximity to Polluting Industrial Facilities: Evidence
from the Americans' Changing Lives Study.” American Journal of Public Health 99(S3): S649-S656.

Mokagon, Daniel. 2004. Where the Ball Drops: Days and Nights in Times Square. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.

Moore, Latetia V., Anne V. Diez Roux, Jennifer A. Nettleton, David R. Jacobs and Manuel Franco.
2009. “Fast-Food Consumption, Diet Quality, and Neighborhood Exposure to Fast Food: The
Multi-Ethnic Study of Artherosclerosis.” American Journal of Epidemiology 170(1): 29-36.

135

Morello-Frosch, Rachel, Manuel Pastor, Jr. and James L. Sadd. 2001. “Environmental justice and
southern California’s ‘riskscape’: The distribution of air toxics exposures and health risks among
diverse communities.” Urban Affairs Review 36(4), 551–578.

Moran, Patrick A.P. 1950. "Notes on Continuous Stochastic Phenomena". Biometrika 37(1): 17–33.

Morland, Kimberly, Steve Wing, Ana Diez Roux and Charles Poole. 2002. “Neighborhood
characteristics associated with the location of food stores and food service places.” American Journal
of Preventive Medicine. 22(1): 23–29.

Moss, Mark. 2007. Shopping as an Entertainment Experience. Lanham: Lexington.

Musso, Juliet A., Christopher Weare, Nail Oztas and William E. Loges. 2006. “Neighborhood
Governance Reform and Networks of Community Power in Los Angeles.” The American Review of
Public Administration 36(1): 79-97.

Musso, Juliet A. 2012. “Neighborhood Councils” in Planning Los Angeles, edited by David C. Sloane, 53-61.
Chicago: American Planning Association Planner’s Press.

Nasar, Jack L. 1998. The Evaluative Image of the City. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Nasar, Jack L. and Xiaodong Hong. 1999. “Visual Preferences in Urban Signscapes.” Environment and
Behavior 31 (5): 671-691.

Nason, Wayne C. 1923. “Rural Planning – The Village.” United States Department of Agriculture Farmer’s
Bulletin 1441.

Neustadt, Richard E. and Ernest R. May. 1986. Thinking in Time: the uses of history for decision makers. New
York: The Free Press.

Newcomer, Mabel. 1924. “Taxation of Billboards.” National Municipal Review 13(7): 349-351.

Northridge, Mary E., Elliot D. Sclar and Padmini Biswas. 1983. “Sorting Out the Connections Between
the Built Environment and Health: A Conceptual Framework for Navigating Pathways and
Planning Healthy Cities.” Journal of Urban Health: 80(4): 556-568.

Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA). 2013. “History of Outdoor.” Retrieved May 1,
2013 from http://www.oaaa.org/about/historyofoutdoor.aspx.

Park, Robert E. 1967 (1927). “The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human Behavior in the
Urban Environment” in The City, edited by Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Roderick D.
McKenzie, 1-46. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

_____. 1972 (1904). The Crowd and the Public and Other Essays, translated by Charlotte Elsner. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Originally published as Masse und Publikum by University of
Heidelberg.

136

Pasch, Keryn E., Kelli A. Komro, Cheryl L. Perry, Mary O. Hearst and Kian Farbakhsh. 2007.
“Outdoor Alcohol Advertising Near Schools: What Does It Advertise and How Is It Related to
Intentions and Use of Alcohol Among Young Adolescents?” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs
68: 587-596.

Pasqualetti, Martin J. 2001. “Wind Energy Landscapes: Society and Technology in the California
Desert.” Society & Natural Resources: An International Journal 14(8): 689-699.

_____. 2011. “Opposing Wind Energy Landscapes: A Search for Common Cause.” Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 101(4): 907-917.

Pauley, Stephen M. 2004. “Lighting for the human circadian clock: recent research indicates that lighting
has become a public health issue.” Medical Hypotheses 63: 588–596.

Pine, B. Joseph and James H. Gilmore. 2011 (1999). The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.

Princetl, Stephanie. 1999. Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and Development. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.

Poster Advertising Association. 1922. Facts about Poster Advertising and the City Beautiful. Chicago: Poster
Advertising Association.

_____. 1924. “Resolutions and Motions Drawn from Minutes of Special Meeting of Executive Committee
Combined with Committee on Budget and Chairmen of other Committees.” New York,
September 24.

Pucci, Linda G., Herbert M. Joseph and Michael Siegel. 1998. “Outdoor Tobacco Advertising in Six
Boston Neighborhoods Evaluating Youth Exposure.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15: 155–
159.

Richardson, Harry W. and Peter Gordon. 1993. “Market Planning: Oxymoron or Common Sense?”
Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (3): 347-352.

Robinson, Charles Mumford. 1909. Los Angeles, California: The City Beautiful. Report to the Municipal Art
Commission for the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: William J. Porter.

Robert A.M. Stern Architects. 2013. “42nd Street Now!” Retrieved May 1, 2013 from
http://www.ramsa.com/projects-search/planning/42nd-street-now.html.

Rodwin, Lloyd and Robert M. Hollister. 1984. “Images, Themes, and Urbanography” in Cities of the
Mind, edited by Lloyd Rodwin and Robert M. Hollister, 3-18. New York: Plenum Press.

Romley, John A., Deborah Cohen, Jeanne Ringel and Roland Sturm. 2007. “Alcohol and Environmental
Justice: The Density of Liquor Stores and Bars in Urban Neighborhoods in the United States.”
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68(1): 48-55.

Rosewarne, Lauren. 2005. “The men’s gallery: Outdoor advertising and public space: Gender, fear, and
feminism”. Womens Studies International Forum 28: 67–78.

137

_____. 2007. “Pin-ups in public space: Sexist outdoor advertising as sexual harassment.” Womens Studies
International Forum 30: 313–325.

Rule, Brendan Gail and Tamara J. Ferguson. 1986. “The effects of media violence on attitudes, emotions,
and cognitions.” Journal of Social Issues 42: 29–50.

Sampson, Robert. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Sandercock, Leonie. 1998. Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.

Sauer, Carl O. 1925. "The Morphology of Landscape." University of California Publications in Geography 2 (2):
19-53.

Scarfo, Robert. 1988. “Stewardship and the Profession of Landscape Architecture.” Landscape Journal 8:
60-68.

Schooler, Caroline, Ellen Feighery and June A. Flora. 1996. “Seventh Graders’ Self Reported Exposure
to Cigarette Marketing and its Relationship to their Smoking.” American Journal of Public Health.
86(9): 1216–1221.

Schudson, Michael. 1984. Advertising, The Uneasy Persuasion. New York: Basic Books.

Scott, Molly M., Deborah A. Cohen, Matthias Schonlau, Thomas A. Farley and Ricky N. Bluthenthal.
2008. “Alcohol and Tobacco Marketing Evaluating Compliance with Outdoor Advertising
Guidelines.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(3): 203–209.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor House.

“Sexy Signage: Outdoor advertising.” 2013. The Economist 406(8820): 62.

Shi, David. 2007 (1985). The Simple Life: Plain Living and High Thinking in American Culture. Athens: University
of Georgia Press.

Simon, Richard. 1985. “L.A. Approves Restraints on Size, Number of Signs.” Los Angeles Times. December
14.

_____. 1986. “Encino Sign Controls Rejected.” Los Angeles Times. July 10.

Sites, William. 2000. “Primitive Globalization? State and Locale in Neoliberal Global Engagement.”
Sociological Theory 18(1): 121-144.

Sloane, David C. 2006. “From Congestion to Sprawl: Planning and Health in Historical Context.” Journal
of the American Planning Association 72(1): 10-18.

Smith, Ben J., Claire Ferguson, Jeanie McKenzie, Adrian Bauman and Philip Vita. 2002. “Impacts of
repeated mass media campaigns to promote sun protection in Australia.” Health Promotion
International 17(1): 51-60.

138

Smith, Neil. 1998. “Giuliani Time: The Revanchist 1990s.” Social Text 57: 1-20.

Soja, Edward W. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Soule, Jeff. 2010. “Sign World: What other nations can teach us about sign control.” Planning. July: 27-29.

Squires, Gregory D. and Charis E. Kubrin. 2005. “Privileged Places: Race, Uneven Development, and
the Geography of Opportunity in Urban America.” Urban Studies 42(1): 47-68.

Stein, Jeannine. 2001. “Signs of the Times: Advertisers envision a Los Angeles Sprinkled with High-tech
billboards that move, interact, and adapt.” Los Angeles Times. September 6.

Stoddard, Jacqueline L., C. Anderson Johnson, Steve Sussman, Clyde Dent and Tess Boley-Cruz. 1998.
“Tailoring Outdoor Tobacco Advertising to Minorities in Los Angeles County.” Journal of Health
Communication: International Perspectives 3: 137–146.

Sunstein, Cass. 2007. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Suttles, Gerald D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

_____. 1984. “The Cumulative Texture of Local Urban Culture” American Journal of Sociology 90: 283-304.

Swyngedouw, Erik and Maria Kaïka. 2003. “The Making of ‘Glocal’ Urban Modernities.” City 7(1): 5-21.

Tell, Darcy. 2007. Times Square Spectacular: Lighting Up Broadway. New York. Smithsonian Books/Harper
Collins.

The City Election. 1917. “Up and Down the State: In Greater Los Angeles.” California Outlook 21(4): 86.

Throgmorton, James A. 1987. “Community Energy Planning: Winds of Change from the San Gorgonio
Pass.” Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3): 358-367.

Tiebout, Charles. 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures." Journal of Political Economy 64(5): 416–
424.

Truong, Khoa Dang and Roland Sturm. 2009. “Alcohol Environments and Disparities in Exposure
Associated With Adolescent Drinking in California.” American Journal of Public Health 99(2): 264-
270.

Tuan, Ti-Fu. 1973. “Visual Blight: Exercises in Interpretation.” Visual Blight in America Association of
American Geographers Resource Paper 23: 23-27.

_____. 1980. “Rootedness versus Sense of Place.” Landscape 24: 3-8.

Urry, John. 1995. Consuming Places. New York: Rutledge.

Vasishth, Aswani and David Sloane. 2002. “Returning to Ecology: An Ecosystem Approach to
Understanding the City” in From Chicago to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, edited by Michael J.
Dear, 347-366. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

139

Veblen, Thorston. 1908 (1899). A Theory of the Leisure Class: An economic study of institutions. New York:
Macmillan & Company.

Venturi, Robert, Denise Scott Brown and Steven Izenour. 1977. Learning from Las Vegas: The Forgotten
Symbolism of Architectural Form. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Waldheim, Charles (editor). 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Williams, Frank Backus. 1922. The Law of City Planning and Zoning. New York: MacMillan.

Wilson, Chris and Paul Groth (editors). 2003. Everyday America: Cultural Landscape Studies after J.B. Jackson.
Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Wilson, William. 1987. “The Billboard: Bane of the City Beautiful.” Journal of Urban History 13 (4): 394-
425.

Yancey, Antronette K., Brian L. Cole, Rochelle Brown, Jerome D. Williams, Amy Hillier, Randolph S.
Kline, Marice Ashe, Sonya A. Grier, Desiree Backman and William J. McCarthy. 2009. “A
Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and General Audience Outdoor
Obesity-Related Advertising.” The Milbank Quarterly 87(1): 155–184.

Zube, Ervin H. 1987. “Perceived land use patterns and landscape values.” Landscape Ecology 1(1): 37-45.

Zukin, Sharon. 1987. “Gentrification: Culture and Capital in the Urban Core.” Annual Review of Sociology
13: 129-147.

_____. 1990. “Socio-spatial Prototypes of a New Organization of Consumption: The Role of Real
Cultural Capital.” Sociology 24(1): 37-56.

_____. 1995. The Cultures of Cities. Cambridge: Blackwell.

_____. 2004. Point of Purchase: how shopping changed American culture. New York: Routledge.

_____. 2010. Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Places. New York: Oxford University Press.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation investigates the impact of outdoor advertising on Los Angeles and community response to a proposal to regulate its placement through zoning. Outdoor advertising represents an economically significant component of contemporary urban development, an important signal of the emerging experience economy. However, outdoor advertising has been shown to negatively impact both social and environmental qualities of community through its placement and content. The nuisance created by outdoor advertising is heightened in non‐white, less well off communities. This study answers the question: How might planners account for the ambiguity of outdoor advertising as a component of the urban landscape? ❧ First, this dissertation provides background on the current state of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles. Outdoor advertising policy is documented using newspaper articles, public documents, and public comments submitted since 1910. Evidence suggests that efforts to protect residents from the nuisance of outdoor advertising were thwarted by those suggesting the primacy of economic benefits. ❧ In the contemporary context, this study investigates the impact of outdoor advertising to determine if harmful content is more prevalent in particular types of communities. The impact of outdoor advertising is analyzed using a longitudinal, geo‐referenced database of outdoor advertisement in Los Angeles. Although regulated by identical land use, a disproportionate number of harmful advertisements were observed in non‐white, lower‐income communities. ❧ Finally, this dissertation investigates community response to the most recent proposal to regulate outdoor advertising. A dataset of the location of outdoor advertisements found citywide as well as public comment records related to the recent sign ordinance revision is employed. Community response to outdoor advertising is positively associated with communities that are older, white, educated, and well off. ❧ Despite land use controls intended to limit the nuisance created by outdoor advertising, there exist spatial disparities in both the impact and the types of communities that participate in regulating its placement. If both the impact and response to outdoor advertising are spatially organized in ways that suggest disparity it becomes incumbent upon planners to engage communities in ways that help individuals understand the benefits and risks associated with the contemporary experience economy.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Health impact assessment, the concept, science, and application in China

PDF

Challenging migrant worker policies in Korea: settlement and local citizenship

PDF

Community development agreements: addressing inequality through urban development projects

PDF

The spatial economic impact of live music in Orange County, CA

PDF

Consuming landscape, consuming machine: state, capital, and outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

PDF

The impact of social capital: a case study on the role of social capital in the restoration and recovery of communities after disasters

PDF

Do sustainability plans affect urban sustainability outcomes in Santa Monica, San Francisco, and San Jose?

PDF

Urban conservation in the Middle Eastern historic cities: globalization and lack of identity

PDF

How does collaborative governance work? The experience of collaborative community-building practices in Korea

PDF

The role of social media for community-based organizations focused on environmental justice in southeast Los Angeles

PDF

Urban universities' campus expansion projects in the 21st century: a case study of the University of Southern Calfornia's "Village at USC" project and its potential economic and social impacts on...

PDF

On planning, place, and race: how trauma imaginaries reveal communal trauma and impact collective well-being

PDF

A miracle or a mirage? A study to evaluate the impacts of microfinance

PDF

The film industry and urban development in metropolitan Los Angeles, 1920-1975

PDF

The role of CALGreen codes and sustainable rating systems in practicing sustainability

PDF

The Wenchuan earthquake recovery: civil society, institutions, and planning

PDF

Essays on congestion, agglomeration, and urban spatial structure

PDF

The rhetoric of representation: planning Los Angeles' civic space, 1909-2009

PDF

Avoiding middle-class planning 2.0: media arts and the future of urban planning

PDF

Choice neighborhoods: a spatial and exploratory analysis of Housing Authority City of Los Angeles public housing

Asset Metadata

Creator Lowery, Bryce C. (author)

Core Title Social construction of the experience economy: the spatial ecology of outdoor advertising in Los Angeles

School School of Policy, Planning and Development

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Policy, Planning, and Development

Publication Date 04/29/2015

Defense Date 04/20/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag experience economy,OAI-PMH Harvest,outdoor advertising,Public Health,spatial inequality,urban development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Sloane, David C. (committee chair), Banerjee, Tridib K. (committee member), Hondagneu-Sotelo, Pierrette (committee member)

Creator Email bryce.lowery@usc.edu,bryce_lowery@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-407585

Unique identifier UC11297037

Identifier etd-LoweryBryc-2463.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-407585 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LoweryBryc-2463.pdf

Dmrecord 407585

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Lowery, Bryce C.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA