I hope you and all the rest of the Fed Hill folks who are complaining about this logo remember this day as the day you bit the hand that feeds you.
For Baltimore, UA = jobs, passion, innovation, commitment, growth. How many other international corporate HQs are left in the city?
As a lifetime Baltimorean, I thought we treated our neighbors better.
Don't drive them away.

Give me a break!

Speaking of biting the hand that feeds you, the City broke the law of its own zoning ordinance. If YOU do that, then everyone else can too. They get great tax breaks so give it a rest! How would you like ALL your city parks and historic sites covered with ads? Not much, I'm sure.

Although, there is an ordinance that prohibits this, the key to any law is enforcement. The city, in particular, the executive branch has the right to selective enforcement of any law that has been violated. The don't stop every speeder, so every company does not have the right to do this. I thought this was a great way to advertise a local company to out of town athletes. This uproar is outrageous and hurts the image of Baltimore. Maybe people should embrace this company as a promotion of Baltimore so that people think of other things besides "The Wire."

I agree that this was all about promotion, but was it different when the Ravens logo was painted on Fed Hill when they were in the playoffs?

They are both local businesses with distinctive logos who would benefit from free advertising on public land. The city's problem is once they opened this opportunity up, who is to say who is/is not allowed to put their logo up there.

Would Blue Hippo have been able to do so if they had given enough money to parks? The were a local company who once made a lot of money and created a lot of jobs. UA and the Ravens are no Blue Hippo, but what city official would be responsible for determining this?

I guess this will have to mean no more painting on the Hill period.

I agree with mdoud. Under Armour is a great corporate citizen to Baltimore. They tried to create a unique promotion (it worked by the way) and when they got negative feedback, they took it down. Under Armour provides so many positive things to this city, let's not get carried away.

I remember a similar "welcome" sign someone burned into the grass at Memorial Stadium. It said "SOX SUX" and was simply welcoming the Red Sox to town... what's the harm?

Simply put, Under Armor was looking for free advertising which is just what they got. If a corporation wants to display their logo in one of the highest visibility areas to tourists, that would be federal hill.

Regardless of how much Under Armor has done for the city of Baltimore, it would have been a nice gesture for their company to at least donate some money to Federal Hill park.

Nothing is free in this world, especially advertising. I bet if you follow this back to the park approval committee their pockets would look a little bit fatter.

I used to live in the Fed. Hill area and the logo isn't a big deal.

Without UA in Locust Point, the city would have less tax revenue and lower employment.

If you are complaining, then something is wrong with you.

I think it would be funny if UA moved its HQ to Balt. Co. because of these warrantless complaints about the logo. Then the complaining would really begin...