Here is a four-minute report about communities that require cell phone towers to be disguised as other structures. According to CBS’ report, the cost is about four times greater than “naked” cell towers. I do not think those costs can be passed onto customers in the local areas, though.
So some communities have required better aesthetic integration of these ugly cell towers into the city landscape, and they do not have to pay more for it. Why shouldn’t we try to mandate that? If there is a large customer market, the cell companies will grumble but not shy away from investing a little more. I think we could mandate aesthetic camouflage for all new towers and existing towers when they require certain key equipment upgrades.
What camouflage would you like to see around Idaho Falls? I think the towers disguised as tall evergreen trees would probably be the simplest, the least-noticeable, and would integrate the best.
What do you think?
Popularity: 6%
Related posts:
Gato got runned over by Marcus many moons ago. Be ye daft, 2486? 
Let's have a new poll, alright, Joe?
:@:)
Loading ...
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree totally. Great find, Joe.
Some of those disguises are quite impressive, and imaginative.
I think a clock tower would be a perfect fit in Taylor’s Crossing, if the need ever arises.
Or how about a windmill, like the ones on the east hills? I wonder if they could generate enough energy to be self-powered.
I don’t have a cell phone, so it wouldn’t bother me if they passed the cost of the camouflage on to their customers. But I think that collectively, we should demand that all parties consider aesthetics when installing any type of permanent fixture.
Now if we could only get rid of the billboard variety of visual pollution in our area…
I used to site and build out cell tower networks in a past life.
The utility of camouflage depends on both the height of the tower and the environment around it. I’ll submit, Joe, that a 200 foot spruce would look pretty darned ridiculous among our 60 foot trees. The ones in the video sure did.
Equipment upgrades wouldn’t trigger the need for camouflage – only the building of a new tower. And there are federal restrictions on what communities can demand.
A clock tower would fit in to Taylor’s Crossing, but it wouldn’t provide very much coverage unless it was much taller than the surrounding buildings. It would be much more efficient to put the antennas atop the new Marriott.
The windmills on the east hills are 1.5MW units, so they could each provide power for dozens of towers – when the wind’s blowing. They’d be poor choices, however, because of (1) electromagnetic interference, (2) the cost of those windmills is HUGELY more than a monopole, and (3) in any case, they’re too far away for effective coverage for IF.
Personally, monopoles don’t bother me very much. How many towers do you notice around town?
Frankly, I never notice cell phone towers, except for the cluster of six around the old smokestack north of Rigby. Billboards are much more of a nuisance.
Just FYI — There’s a “disguised” cell phone tower in St. Anthony; it’s a nice rusty color that blends in with the huge power poles in the area as well. If you want to see it (what an exciting field trip) take the St. Anthony exit off Hwy 20, turn right, then look at the pole behind the old “Bottle Stop.”
I agree with John. The disguised poles would have to blend in, or else they look goofy.
I like the idea of putting cell phone towers in existing structures; check every water tower in the area and you’ll see they’re not used just for water.
Good point, John. One thought I had, which I failed to mention, is that I can’t recall a single cell phone tower that I can locate.
But in general, I think it’s a good idea. I’m all for spiffing up the landscape.
And I was being somewhat facetious about the windmills. Good info, though.