Archive

Marquee Benedum | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Marquee Benedum

Unionized stagehands at Pittsburgh’s Benedum Center for the Performing Arts are waxing nostalgic for the old marquee whose guts soon are to enter the digital age. But in attempting to make their argument for preserving, in toto, the historic message board, the facts cement the rationale for its upgrade.

The Pittsburgh Cultural Trust, which bought The Stanley Theatre and renovated it nearly 30 years ago, will incorporate a high-resolution digital display into a marquee superstructure that will be restored to its original grandeur. LED lighting will replace traditional light bulbs around the perimeter.

The city’s Historic Review Commission has approved the $500,000 project. Even Pittsburgh’s grand marshal for all things historic preservation — Arthur Ziegler, president of Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation — supports the change.

Members of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 3 are lamenting the project. Some cite aesthetics. Others cite the “loss” of history (never mind the nifty restoration). Still others fear job losses.

But here’s the kicker: Updating the current plastic letter tiles that announce upcoming shows takes up to four unionized stage hands up to four hours. And that’s done up to 100 times a year.

‘Tis hardly the emulatable exercise in productivity. We’re sure the Benedum and the Cultural Trust can find far more productive uses for these stagehands.


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.