“Made in Oregon” sign should stay the same

The “Made in Oregon” sign that has become a landmark for the Willamette waterfront may have inhaled its last neon breath. The University of Oregon’s plans to change the sign, which they now own along with the building it sits on, have citizens of Portland fuming.

The controversy has several sides—those that believe the sign should stay the same, those that believe that the sign should be changed, and those that believed it should be changed to something neutral that will appease all parties.

Many believe that the sign should be changed. After all, every business that has owned the building thus far has done it, why shouldn’t the University of Oregon be allowed to?

This is a good point, however it doesn’t change the fact that the sign as it is has been considered a landmark for a very long time. “Made in Oregon” is a universal message, after all, wasn’t the University of Oregon made in Oregon? I am unsure as to how the sign is detracting from the university in any way, shape or message.

Another argument is the tired, old, “Fight the man!” Sure, the city government would like to use eminent domain to step in and buy the right to keep the sign, at a cool $500,000. However, how is the Oregon University System any less “the man?”

They don’t want to change the sign for admirable reasons; they want to change it to advertise. If you are going to rally against the forces of corporate takeover, at least realize that changing a sign that reflects Oregon pride to a neon billboard for the school isn’t an example of rebellion or “taking back power.”

There is also a group of people who believe in compromise. Perhaps we should leave the sign as is, but remove the White Stag and add something that will reflect the University of Oregon, like a logo?

This is a good idea, however it complicates matters as to who will pay for the sign, what is acceptable to put on the sign, and other factors. It steps on the toes of both the city of Portland and the University of Oregon. It could take eons to figure out what will happen with the sign. In the meantime, the people of the city of Portland should just enjoy the sign as it stands.

There are also many, including myself, who believe the sign should be left as is. As previously mentioned, there is no need to advertise the University of Oregon on a giant neon sign. It isn’t as if U of O is a small business that desperately needs the attention. It is true that they have a right to change the sign, but does that mean that they should? If U of O had any real pride in Portland or Oregon, they wouldn’t want to remove such a landmark.

The real question here is the University of Oregon’s aims. Obviously from a business standpoint, having a gigantic lit-up sign above the Burnside Bridge is a great marketing tool. However, changing something that has been a symbol of downtown Portland for many years is not the best way to promote the school’s image.