Prospect Church Sign
(I'm glad someone other than me started this thread)
The new sign is hideous. Actually, I realized how lousy the front area of the church has looked for quite a while -- baby Jesus and cattle lowing were there looking rather sad for months after Christmas and the current banners or whatever look like leftovers from in front of Dunkin Donuts.
There is a fairly new, beautiful sign right in front of the church already. I don't get the neon signage at all. I kind of doubt that its an effective communication technique for a church anyway.
The new sign is hideous. Actually, I realized how lousy the front area of the church has looked for quite a while -- baby Jesus and cattle lowing were there looking rather sad for months after Christmas and the current banners or whatever look like leftovers from in front of Dunkin Donuts.
There is a fairly new, beautiful sign right in front of the church already. I don't get the neon signage at all. I kind of doubt that its an effective communication technique for a church anyway.
Apr 9, 2015 at 9:34am Edited
Unfortunately, as with many things IT-related, the start-up of the sign has not gone well. Believe me, it is being worked on. When the kinks are worked out, the sign will be able to inform passersby of events at the church, sermon topics, or other current information about the church via a WiFi connection to the church office. It will also have brightness/dimmer controls. (For now it is on a timer to be turned off at night in order to minimize impact on neighbors and if anyone is aware of continued problems in that vein, please contact the church office or PM me.) You probably don't remember the old sign that was in its place, but take my word for it when I tell you that it was pretty forgettable and desperately needed to be replaced. I personally also hope that we will be able to raise additional money to enclose the new sign in a stone or wood frame of some sort to make it blend in a bit better.
Re the manger scene - that was a victim of the winter weather. It was actually frozen in the ground and physically unable to be removed until quite recently.
The banners are a collection called "Easter People" which are put out for display each year at this time.
Of course, everyone has different taste and may or may not like the banners or the electronic sign, but please don't take them as signs of neglect (intentional or otherwise.)
Re the manger scene - that was a victim of the winter weather. It was actually frozen in the ground and physically unable to be removed until quite recently.
The banners are a collection called "Easter People" which are put out for display each year at this time.
Of course, everyone has different taste and may or may not like the banners or the electronic sign, but please don't take them as signs of neglect (intentional or otherwise.)
I was kind of wondering about that. The weather makes sense. And I certainly can't judge since I asked my husband if we could celebrate Easter this year by taking down the Christmas lights.sac said:
Re the manger scene - that was a victim of the winter weather. It was actually frozen in the ground and physically unable to be removed until quite recently.
#-O
Noticed the new sign the other night. It really is ugly. Really ruins the aesthetics of the facade of the church.
Appreciate the church making improvements but agree, the sign does nothing for the church or the neighborhood.
I imagine a sign like that cost a pretty penny so I doubt that it is going away even if many of us hate it
That church is just so stunning, which makes the sign that much more of an affront to the senses. I understand the frozen Christmas stuff, and do not cast stones; we have experienced that with the lighted sidewalk candy canes, as well as dog poop, in the past. A new, similar to the church aesthetic, non electronic sign could've been beautiful, with plantings around, and a light shining up from the ground on it at night, for legibility. I know it was expensive, and I feel bad because of that, but it is really heinous.
I would call it an aesthetic insult. But seriously, too bad they couldn't come up with a less visually jarring solution.
Beautiful church. Absolutely horrible sign. Terribly jarring disconnect right there.
spontaneous said:
I was kind of wondering about that. The weather makes sense. And I certainly can't judge since I asked my husband if we could celebrate Easter this year by taking down the Christmas lights.sac said:
Re the manger scene - that was a victim of the winter weather. It was actually frozen in the ground and physically unable to be removed until quite recently.
#-O
+1
The neon sign is an eyesore- a shame since it was likely expensive and it detracts from one of the loveliest buildings in our neck of the woods. The new wooden sign is very attractive and in keeping with the aesthetic of the church. I can almost guarantee that if I put a similar neon sign in a prominent, or not so prominent, spot on my property, the township would have me remove it in short order. I wonder if the township weighed in on this one.
I haven't seen much of the sign but the super bright flood lights are pretty obnoxious in such a residential area.
No real strong feelings, one way or the other, about the sign ... But admittedly curious that it would be allowed in a residential neighborhood.
the sign caught my eye the other day--as in, "caught my eye with a fish hook"--no, really...ouch...I was going to make a slightly mean joke that I think is funny but I'm wearing the "Pay if Forward" bracelet from Laura's repast and I've thought better of it--anyway, I don't see that it's really useful for disseminating info at that busy intersection...
I respect the right of the church community to place this sign on their property. That written, I really think that sign looks out of place in its present surroundings. Perhaps as sac suggested something can be done to modify the exterior of the sign by placing it in some kind of frame that is more in keeping with the aesthetic of the building and grounds.
Agree - a stone frame that matches the building maybe, and then if they can turn down the brightness of the light a little bit?
Maybe a GoFundMe site to buy the sign and replace it with one that is more suitable to MOL tastes.
The sign could then be put at Ricalton Park as a community bulletin board.
The sign could then be put at Ricalton Park as a community bulletin board.
I don't understand why anyone who builds anything in town doesn't hold a referendum to make sure it fits with the aesthetics of the majority of people in town. Ideally, it should be unanimous consent, but let's not get crazy.
mod said:
Let's ask Richard Meier
they should have repurposed the old sign. if you modified it sufficiently, it wouldn't look anything at all like the old sign.
I'm sure the new sign will allow the church to more effectively communicate with the public. It may take a little getting "use to" but think it's probably long overdue.
You presume the public wants to be communicated with, particularly in such a garish out-of-place fashion. Bit presumptuous, if you ask me.
The sign is very tacky and the lighting is a bit offensive. I wonder even at the need for a sign like this these days, if the purpose is to communicate, wouldn't it just be more effective through the church's website? No need to inflict it on the neighborhood.
Reminds me of the comments that greeted the electronic sign in front of Columbia HS a few years ago - plus there, most of us didn't like the bright red letters.
I don't object to the sign by Prospect Presbyterian, but it is such a beautiful building that I so hope they can put a stone surround around the sign eventually.
I don't object to the sign by Prospect Presbyterian, but it is such a beautiful building that I so hope they can put a stone surround around the sign eventually.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
callista