I thought this billboard was very offensive! I'm so glad its gone!
Does anyone know of any other objectionable advertising in public places in Rego Park?
-------------------------------------
Here is the article about it:
The giant billboards on two sides of Queens Boulevard Tower Condominium at 92-29 Queens Boulevard, both featured a headless model, over 100 feet tall. In one ad, the scantily clad anonymous woman is wearing blue panties and a bra, in the other, lingerie.
The advertisements were for Elle Macpherson Intimates, which has begun a large-scale publicity blitz around the city. The company, based in New Zealand, did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.
The advertisements on the 17-story Rego Park building were relatively tame compared to ones that were banned last year in England, featuring a model with her fingers hooked in her lingerie bottoms. The Advertising Standards Authority complained it was ?“likely to cause serious or widespread offense.?”
In Rego Park, content was not the reason the city ordered the ads to be removed. Instead, because the signs were installed without a permit in an area where such advertisements are prohibited on residential buildings, the Department of Buildings issued five violations. The agency does not regulate content.
By issuing the violations, the DOB, sought to pressure building management to take the advertisements down, which apparently worked. ?“The goal of our enforcement is to gain compliance with zoning regulations,?” said Jennifer Givner, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Because management removed the signs within 35 days of receiving notice, they most likely will not have to pay fines. There will still be a hearing, however, to determine whether hazardous conditions were present.
The scaffolding that went up around the building was required by city regulations, because of facade work that was being done.
Building management negotiated with a sign company, which agreed to cover the cost of the scaffolding and pay an additional, undisclosed sum of money to Queens Boulevard Tower Condominium.
While Managing Agent Donald Schuck would not reveal the name of the sign company or the amount paid, the location, visible from the Long Island Expressway and Queens Boulevard, is highly desirable for advertisers.
The mutually beneficial arrangement was meant to raise money for capital improvements to the building, including facade work, elevator renovations, security and intercom upgrades.
?“I had a chance to make money for the building and save money for the building, so I took it,?” Schuck said.
He added that the city?’s requirement to erect scaffolding is the equivalent of an unfunded mandate. ?“The city requires us to put scaffolding up through local law 11, and then they fine us for having scaffolding.?”
Schuck?’s only concern was with the content of the advertisement, which he was told would be for the U.S. Open.
The mesh advertisement covered bathroom windows, which was a concern of some tenants. But building management said the mesh was part of the city?’s safety requirement.
A number of building residents were also outraged by the content and the very idea that there was an advertisement where they live.
?“Just because the building needs money, it doesn?’t mean they should put up an advertisement that doesn?’t belong there,?” said Rmr Bijapur, a tenant. ?“It is wonderful that they have taken it down.?”
Does anyone know of any other objectionable advertising in public places in Rego Park?
-------------------------------------
Here is the article about it:
The giant billboards on two sides of Queens Boulevard Tower Condominium at 92-29 Queens Boulevard, both featured a headless model, over 100 feet tall. In one ad, the scantily clad anonymous woman is wearing blue panties and a bra, in the other, lingerie.
The advertisements were for Elle Macpherson Intimates, which has begun a large-scale publicity blitz around the city. The company, based in New Zealand, did not reply to an e-mail seeking comment.
The advertisements on the 17-story Rego Park building were relatively tame compared to ones that were banned last year in England, featuring a model with her fingers hooked in her lingerie bottoms. The Advertising Standards Authority complained it was ?“likely to cause serious or widespread offense.?”
In Rego Park, content was not the reason the city ordered the ads to be removed. Instead, because the signs were installed without a permit in an area where such advertisements are prohibited on residential buildings, the Department of Buildings issued five violations. The agency does not regulate content.
By issuing the violations, the DOB, sought to pressure building management to take the advertisements down, which apparently worked. ?“The goal of our enforcement is to gain compliance with zoning regulations,?” said Jennifer Givner, a spokeswoman for the agency.
Because management removed the signs within 35 days of receiving notice, they most likely will not have to pay fines. There will still be a hearing, however, to determine whether hazardous conditions were present.
The scaffolding that went up around the building was required by city regulations, because of facade work that was being done.
Building management negotiated with a sign company, which agreed to cover the cost of the scaffolding and pay an additional, undisclosed sum of money to Queens Boulevard Tower Condominium.
While Managing Agent Donald Schuck would not reveal the name of the sign company or the amount paid, the location, visible from the Long Island Expressway and Queens Boulevard, is highly desirable for advertisers.
The mutually beneficial arrangement was meant to raise money for capital improvements to the building, including facade work, elevator renovations, security and intercom upgrades.
?“I had a chance to make money for the building and save money for the building, so I took it,?” Schuck said.
He added that the city?’s requirement to erect scaffolding is the equivalent of an unfunded mandate. ?“The city requires us to put scaffolding up through local law 11, and then they fine us for having scaffolding.?”
Schuck?’s only concern was with the content of the advertisement, which he was told would be for the U.S. Open.
The mesh advertisement covered bathroom windows, which was a concern of some tenants. But building management said the mesh was part of the city?’s safety requirement.
A number of building residents were also outraged by the content and the very idea that there was an advertisement where they live.
?“Just because the building needs money, it doesn?’t mean they should put up an advertisement that doesn?’t belong there,?” said Rmr Bijapur, a tenant. ?“It is wonderful that they have taken it down.?”
