Some things are just not meant to last and Elon Musk's huge and glaringly bright new sign on top of Twitter/X's headquarters is one of them.
The tech billionaire proudly boasted about the X that was installed on the San Francisco building last week.
Not only was it large but it was also incredibly luminous and nearby residents didn't take too kindly to having a ginormous neon sign lighting up the city.
Patricia Wallinga, who lives opposite Twitter HQ, told CBS: “I thought it was lightning, and I was very confused.
"I went to my window, I looked around, I didn’t see anything. I thought it was maybe a police siren.”
Advert
She also described it as 'a danger' and 'a clown show'.
Jessica Xu told ABC7: "It is pretty annoying from my perspective. I think it's way too bright! It was flashing directly into my apartment and just lit up my entire place
But it isn't just locals who have been ticked off by the rebrand.
The San Francisco Department of Buildings has also expressed their grievances with Musk over the sign.
Advert
Shortly after it was installed last Friday (28 July), investigators tried to inform the company it was in violation of the city's building codes.
They requested access to the roof over concerns the sign was 'possibly unsafe' but the local authority is yet to have access.
CNN says the sign was erected without a permit.
Advert
A a notice of violation (NOV) was issued to Twitter HQ and an official complaint reads: “Site visited by MH and spoke with Tweeter (sic) representatives and Building maintenance engineer representatives.
"I explained BID’s complaint investigation process and requested access to roof area.
"Tweeter (sic) representative decline to provide access but did explain that the structure is a temporary lighted sign for an event.
"I explained to all representatives that the NOV requires the structure to be remove with a building permit or legalize."
Advert
Video footage from multiple news sites show the X has now been removed.
Patrick Hannan, from the Department of Building Inspection, explained to The Washington Post that permits are required and a review must be undertaken to 'ensure consistency with the historic nature of the building and to ensure the new additions are safely attached to the sign'.
Stewart Perrie