Lively and sometimes-contradictory debate within the Historic Preservation Committee ended Thursday with a vote to evict the controversial I-heart-STT display in Vendors’ Plaza — with participants calling the installation “cheap,” “cheesy,” and a “gimmick.”
The decision was not unanimous. The committee, an advisory body to the Department of Planning and Natural Resources, couldn’t even agree what to call the brightly painted metal structure.
Vincent Richards, deputy commissioner at the Department of Property and Procurement, said it was a sculpture and asked the committee to retroactively approve the tourist attraction unveiled in Charlotte Amalie’s Vendors’ Plaza Aug. 13.
Similar aluminum installations have sprouted at other cruise ports, spelling out CUBA, BARBADOS, #stkitts, and #NEVISNICE, and, at Yacht Haven Grande, USVI, Richards said.
The problem with the Vendors’ Plaza sign was that almost every structure in the Charlotte Amalie historic district needs committee approval ensuring shape, size, and color standards are met. Richards had been bumped off a crowded Aug. 8 meeting agenda, the commission acknowledged, but that was moot as, by then, metal fabrication was complete, the structure was on island, and plans were set to put it in the historic district, he acknowledged.
Committee Chair Akil Petersen called the brightly painted display corny and out of place.
“When people visit downtown, they don’t need those cheap-looking signs to take pictures of,” Petersen said. “We don’t need a cheesy sign like that literally in our historic downtown district.”
When it came to a vote, however, Petersen was one of two who voted against the measure to remove the sign. Committee member Enrique Rodriquez said the object was art and voting to remove it amounted to censorship.
“The argument was put forth that that wasn’t actually signage, it was modern-day art. It’s a sculpture. It’s art. It’s very relevant today in our media, our electronic age with our Instagram and our Facebook that all the generations are using. I kind of think it’s appropriate for our downtown area,” Rodriquez said. “I’m not here to judge whether it’s ugly or not. My personal opinion on whether it’s ugly or whether instead of those colors they could have used the madras colors of our community — I’m not here to judge that.”
As art, he said the committee didn’t have authority to approve or reject it.
“I’m not going to be one that basically tells any entity whether their art should be put in a public space or not. In this regard, I wish only that the department had come to us prior to that sign going up,” he said. “I want to follow the law.”
Longtime committee member David Knight Sr. was having none of it, reminding his colleagues they had fought hard against plans for a similar sign in Cruz Bay.
“You know, so I won’t harp on it, that we should have been consulted on the promotional gimmick signage that you’ve placed in Vendors’ Plaza,” Knight said. “That sign is a promotional gimmick for tourism. But I will tell you, I’m not opposed to it. Matter of fact, I’ll tell you how much I’m not opposed to it: I think you should make another one.”
Knight said the appropriate places for the signs were cruise piers and airports.
“Have them as a colorful photo-op for tourists coming off the ships,” he said. “It’s got to be removed.”
Petersen suggested putting the sculpture on Magens Bay, Coki Point, or Brewers Beach — which Knight pleaded against.
“Don’t put that sign in one of our parks or on our natural beaches. You know, on a dock, at a mall — don’t put it on one of our natural locations. Those don’t need any more incentive for people to take pictures and pose in front of. Matter of fact, I think that is defiling our natural beauty and landscape by putting something like that in those type of locations. Don’t put them on a beach, don’t put them at Magens, don’t put them on Brewers. They belong at gateways. They belong right where the ships come in, where the taxis are, where people come in. Put one at the airport. I like it so much, let’s make three and let’s put them in appropriate places,” Knight said.
It’s not the first time the committee has complained about other government agencies failing to heed the importance of the historic district and the committee’s work. In 2022, Rodriguez said he sent photos of numerous violations to sister organizations and nothing changed. It also wasn’t the first time I Love St. Thomas signs have been at issue. In 2021, a business owner tried to rename a building to I Love St. Thomas in order to hang a large sign that had been rejected.
The committee did approve plans to create a food truck parking area on the eastern side of Fort Christian to allow for increased shade in Vendors’ Plaza and safety measures at a crumbling building on Norre Gade.
Committee members attending Thursday’s meeting were Petersen, Knight, Rodriguez, William Newbold, and Sean Krigger.
