COMICSANDS
percolately
georgetakei
secondnexus
george's picks
The physical manifestation of Elon Musk's Twitter rebranding with an X didn't go over well at the San Francisco headquarters building.
A giant flashing X sign that was perched on the roof's edge of the building for the company formerly known as Twitter was removed for not having a permit days after it was installed on Friday.
The San Francisco Department of Building Inspection said it received 24 complaints over the weekend with "concerns about its structural safety and illumination."
Although a permit was required for the dismantling of the sign, it was allowed for removal "due to safety concerns," according to the department's spokesperson, Patrick Hannan.
It was a victorious moment for locals.
Musk's rocky rebranding strategy began last week when the X owner and CTO ditched the fluttering bird icon that was synonymous with the social media platform prior to his acquisition of Twitter.
On July 30, Musk announced that they "freed the bird and now the X marks his spot."
Coinciding with the announcement, Twitter-identifying signs and logos were removed from the building, but the project was temporarily halted as the company did not have the required permits and the company didn't tape off sidewalks to protect pedestrians.
When the X sign was installed, Musk showed it off on his platform.
But the neighbors were not happy seeing the ostentatious display, especially at night.
The city of San Francisco started an investigation after the complaints were filed.
In response to the demand for dismantling the sign, Musk tweeted–or X'd?–his response with a crying laughing emoji.
The sign was taken down three days after an inspector went to Twitter's headquarters on Friday to alert the company of the permit violation and requested to inspect the sign's structural safety.
According to the complaint, the inspector was denied access to the roof to inspect the sign and was told by a Twitter rep that it was a "temporary lighted sign for an event."
The inspector informed the representatives that any signage without a permit must be removed, and not complying would be a violation.
The inspector went to the building again on Saturday for a second attempt to inspect the sign but was told that "access was denied again by tenant."
By Monday, the inspector noted that after they were denied site access a third time, they observed the sign being dismantled from across the street.
"By the time I left the entire structure had been removed, I explained to Building management that a building permit was still required to remove the structure."