PDA

View Full Version : One lady's crusade to darken New York


antinimby
Dec 18, 2006, 1:50 AM
Tilting at Lampposts


http://graphics10.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/17/nyregion/light600.jpg
Susan Harder in her East Village apartment: “It seems like everything we do is fear-based.”


By BEN GIBBERD
Published: December 17, 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/nyregion/thecity/17ligh.html)

Susan Harder, a former photo gallery owner who has lived for decades in the same walk-up apartment on East 10th Street, is the first to acknowledge that she is all of 57 years old, but she emanates an air of schoolgirlish mischief. Her blue eyes twinkle, her blond ponytail bounces, and she punctuates her sentences with what can only be described as giggles.

Nevertheless, unlike many schoolgirls, Ms. Harder is a woman with a mission.

The mission, which has absorbed her energies 40 hours a week for the past decade, is the fight against what is known by the somewhat anodyne term “light pollution” or, as Ms. Harder puts it with typical vigor, “our insane, just insane love of lighting absolutely everything up.”

From streetlights to billboards to parking lots to private properties, she contends, in cities, suburbs and rural areas, the country is awash in excess light. This light, she claims, squanders money and energy, upsets the ecological balance, causes accidents, makes people sick and diminishes the beauty of the environment, both natural and man-made. The problem may be especially noticeable during the dark days of winter — Thursday is the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year — but in the eyes of crusaders like Ms. Harder, it exists year round.

“One day,” she said on a recent evening, over dinner in a small restaurant on Second Avenue across the street from her apartment, “we’ll look back at light pollution in the same way we do the recycling or ecology movements, and wonder how we ever could have thought otherwise. “I really do believe that,” she continued, tapping the table of the restaurant decisively.

Ms. Harder’s evolution as a crusader against light pollution began 20 years ago. It was then that St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery, which sits on 10th Street near Second Avenue directly across from her apartment, installed a series of “wall pack” fixtures around its exterior. Wall packs are those ubiquitous orange floodlights from which emanate as much as 1,000 watts of power; three of them shined directly up into Ms. Harder’s apartment.

She eventually complained. Church officials responded by saying that they were merely trying to prevent assaults and robberies in the St. Mark’s graveyard. Ms. Harder countered that no assaults or robberies were taking place in her bedroom, so why light it up?

Church officials finally agreed to tape over the top of the lights, and Ms. Harder went so far as to paint over her windowpanes and install triple-layer blackout curtains, but to little effect. “I mean, I was being tortured by it,” she said. (Jimmy Fragosa, church sexton, confirmed that St. Mark’s had modified the lights in response to her objections, adding, “We haven’t had any more complaints.”)

The following year, a second “light trespass” incident, as such events are technically known, took place outside the house in East Hampton that Ms. Harder owns with her partner, John Imperatore. A full-time fighter in the battle against light pollution was born.

“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”

Since then, she has come a long way. She has plunged into the byzantine ways of Albany, where three times, unsuccessfully so far, she has lobbied for and contributed information to legislation that would control exterior lighting levels. (Ever hopeful, she plans to try again next year.)

She has delved into the arcane world of lumens, foot-candles and uniformity ratios. She has analyzed the pros and cons of high-pressure sodium bulbs versus metal halide ones, and become intimate with the properties of the semi cut-off luminaire — a luminaire is engineer-speak for a light — versus the full cut-off luminaire.

She eagerly spouts statistics on subjects like a possible link between prolonged exposure to artificial light at night and breast cancer (the correlation exists, she says, citing a 2005 article in the journal Cancer Research) or the connection between additional street lighting and decreases in crime (that connection doesn’t exist, she says). Elected officials in the city and beyond have grown accustomed to her combination of sweet talk, cajoling and bullying.

In short, Ms. Harder has become a virtual one-woman dark-sky mover and shaker in a city and state that she describes as “way, way behind the curve” in their lighting policies. “The whole Czech Republic has a lighting law,” she pointed out. “Lombardy has a lighting law. Malta has a lighting law. Long Island’s done wonderful things. But there’s something about New York.”

With a jaundiced eye, she gazed at the small park across the street from the restaurant. “I mean, imagine what they’d make of that in Paris,” Ms. Harder said. “But here some lighting designer just dropped down a few standard unshielded high-pressure sodium lights, and the result is a mess. A total mess.”

Despite major victories on Long Island — the towns of Riverhead, Huntington, East Hampton and most recently Brookhaven have all implemented dark-sky legislation in the past three years, largely based on her suggestions — Ms. Harder has found New York a tougher nut to crack. This, she and others contend, is because the city’s Department of Transportation, which oversees the installation of New York’s streetlights, has regularly opposed dark-sky legislation introduced in Albany, citing safety issues.

“The real buzz saw we come up against repeatedly is the city,” said Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island and who three times in the past four years has sponsored dark-sky legislation in Albany with State Senator Carl Marcellino, a Republican from Long Island. “They have a certain type of approach that theirs is the only way to deal with the issue and ‘we’re not going to change.’ ”

In response, Iris Weinshall, the transportation commissioner, said in a statement that the city was taking measures to reduce the wattage of its 180,000 streetlights. But Ms. Weinshall added: “Our streetlights are critical to keeping pedestrians, motorists and cyclists safe at night, and we’ll continue to do our best to make sure that our streets are safe and well-lit." A department spokeswoman, Kay Sarlin, said the agency receives hundreds of requests a year for new streetlights “from residents concerned that their streets are too dark.”

And Steven Galgano, executive director of engineering for the agency’s Traffic Operations Division, described as “unacceptable” any of the new designs for street lighting he had seen from dark-sky advocates. Those designs, he added, were less bright and focused light more directly downward. The fixtures currently used by the department, he said, are only partly shielded and create a uniform blanket of light with no dark patches between the bright spots.

On a major urban highway, like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, he added, if motorists had to rapidly adjust their eyes as they move from bright area to dark areas, it could be dangerous. “But if anyone can show us a full cut-off luminaire that needs less energy and produces the same amount of light,” Mr. Galgano said, “we’d be happy to look at it.”

Nor is the Transportation Department the dark-sky movement’s only adversary. Opposition also comes from some of the city’s business improvement districts, as was apparent one evening a few weeks ago when Ms. Harder conducted a little tour of what she regards as some of the city’s dark-sky trouble spots. At the wheel was her partner, Mr. Imperatore, a real estate developer and patient chauffeur.

The first stop was Midtown. “The whole area around Penn Station all the way to Grand Central is just insane,” Ms. Harder said. “They put up all these drop-pendant double jobbers using metal halide. It’s just sick.”

The “double jobbers” were twin-headed 250-watt fixtures that emitted an intense blue-white light, and had been installed by the 34th Street Partnership, a business improvement district. These lights, combined with the lighting on storefronts and billboards in the district, many of them outfitted with 10 or more thousand-watt bulbs, produced a glow that seemed uncannily similar to daylight. People and objects were clearly visible, yet strangely indistinct. Depth of field seemed to disappear.

At Seventh Avenue and 36th Street, Ms. Harder pointed out three double-headed fixtures on one corner. “A cluster glare bomb!” she announced brightly.

Two blocks south, she noted a spot where 11 thousand-watt lights beneath a billboard did battle with a combined 500 watts of street lighting on the corner. Ms. Harder sighed. “I mean, which responsible human being would design lighting like this?” she said.

Farther downtown, she stopped to comment on what she saw as yet another troublesome area. Lining both sides of Broadway from Fulton Street to the Battery stood fixtures that resembled giant cigarettes placed on end.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/17/nyregion/glare450.jpg
BROADWAY NEAR FULTON STREET “It’s Obi-Wan Kenobi’s
swords!” Ms. Harder says.


“It’s Obi-Wan Kenobi’s swords!” Ms. Harder said with a giggle. “Seriously, lighting designers love this stuff. Their creed is ‘Glare is Good.’ And there’s no light hitting the ground, see? It all hits these beautiful old buildings and washes them out. You can’t see a thing.”

Gently, Mr. Imperatore intervened. “Honey,” he said, “I think it’s time to head elsewhere.” He turned south past City Hall, at which point Ms. Harder let out a squeal: “Ohh! O.K.! There’s a great example of good lighting.”

She pointed to a number of gaslights set in historical fixtures, flickering faintly yet clearly illuminating City Hall Park. “Those are sensitive,” she said. “They do their job. They don’t blind you, but you can see where you’re going.”

It’s hard to imagine how dark the city was until well into the 19th century. The first public lighting company, the New York Gas Company, was sanctioned by the city in 1823 to light the streets south of Grand Street. Gaslight was dangerous, flickering and dirty, and most New Yorkers, with good reason, feared the night as a time of disorder. By 1880, crude electric arc lights were set up between 42nd and 53rd Streets along Broadway, the first avenue in the country to be so illuminated, later giving rise to the label “The Great White Way.”

New inventions began arriving in a frenzy. In 1882, Thomas Edison opened the world’s first electric generating station, on Pearl Street. The following year brought a new gas mantle with an incandescent burner that emitted a white light three times as bright as the old gaslights; it, too, would be vanquished by the march of electric lighting.

Lest one imagines this light was all for “serious” purposes, New Yorkers showed their true concerns early on: By the 1890s, Madison Square was home to a giant electric billboard advertising a Coney Island hotel, 80 feet by 50, consisting of 15,000 individual lights controlled by an operator, and another, 47 feet long, promoting Heinz pickles. In the 1880s, Lady Liberty’s hand was so brightly illuminated by electric light that mariners complained and it was toned down. The city’s romance with electric light was instant and all-consuming.

With all this in mind, the question arises: Are Ms. Harder and her colleagues merely tilting at windmills? Some public-minded people seem genuinely surprised by her views, among them Daniel Biederman, president of the 34th Street Partnership.

In the 1990s, when up to four times as many murders and robberies were reported in the city as now, Mr. Biederman’s organization installed the “double-jobbers” that Ms. Harder found so offensive.

“Safety was our major goal when we began,” Mr. Biederman said. “The area was incredibly dark, and crime was very high. We deliberately chose metal halide because it doesn’t impart a sickly glow. The sodium vapor lights made people look as if they were ill.”

Crime statistics over the years have borne out his assumptions, he said, with an overall decrease in street crime in the area since 1991 “of about 85 to 90 percent.”

For Ms. Harder, such tactics are merely “overkill.”

“It seems like everything we do is fear-based,” she said. “Look, I don’t want to switch off all the lights — this is New York City — but I am against excessive and wasteful lighting. You could cut back those wattages by 50 percent and it wouldn’t make a difference.”

In response, Mr. Biederman said he was not aware “of a single letter” from anyone requesting less light, but added that he would be happy to discuss ways to address the situation while still keeping things safe. “I’d be absolutely receptive to it,” he said. “And I’d do it at some cost, too, if we felt it was right.”

Given New York’s early sweet tooth for electric advertisements, it’s not surprising that bright ads and billboards continue to be a major part of the city’s light pollution problem. Councilman Alan Gerson, whose district includes SoHo, NoHo and the Lower East Side, is drafting legislation to control certain flashing illuminated billboards, private security lights on roofs and other such “nuisance” lights.

“It’s a growing problem,” said Mr. Gerson, who hopes to introduce his legislation early next year and is optimistic about its chances. “Buildings are putting up intense lights on their facades and rooftops, for commercial or security reasons, and they forget it shines into people’s windows.”

Despite these and other obstacles, Ms. Harder remains an optimist.

“More and more advocacy groups are adopting lighting pollution as part of their collective agenda,” she said. “The fact that the Sierra Club has taken on the issue, the fact that the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council both came out behind Grannis’s legislation — this is fantastic.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Via Chicago
Dec 18, 2006, 2:00 AM
Cant really say I disagree with her. Most of the lighting out there today is wildly inefficient, lighting up the sky rather than the ground where it should be focused.

brian_b
Dec 18, 2006, 2:06 AM
It makes sense to me that focusing 100% of light towards the ground would allow less energy to safely light the same amount of street and reduce the annoyance to residents above street level.

VivaLFuego
Dec 18, 2006, 2:31 AM
Certainly streetlamps should be focused downward to minimize environmental light pollution, but having been mugged and knowing others who have been mugged, raped, or otherwise assaulted....I think it's an awful idea to not fully light up a city's public spaces.

bobdreamz
Dec 18, 2006, 2:35 AM
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.

MonkeyRonin
Dec 18, 2006, 2:40 AM
She's just old and grumpy. I think we can all ignore her. :)

donybrx
Dec 18, 2006, 2:56 AM
As it happens, I know Ms. Harder though not well... she has been plugging away at this here in eastern Long Island for a while...determined lady who I find....offputting. She's well spoken and surely determined.Gained some weight. I suppose she could sit on ya if you didn't do what she wanted.....I always dismissed her as nutty but have to concede that she's raised consciousness about the being able to see the night sky (which I find very worthwhile) and has gotten some otherwise hideously self serving folks (those with recent mega-bucks) to not install insanely expensive upward light shows in the newly planted landscapes of their 12-20,000 sq. ft. grotesquerias.....

I'm not sure she'll have much success in any major city....seems an impossible challenge to my mind.....all those people, all those lights, airports, shopping areas and so on....in Manhattan, we're lucky to see the moon from time to time let alone stars..other than the likes of Julia Roberts, e.g.

WesTheAngelino
Dec 18, 2006, 3:02 AM
What we really need to do is push for year round daylight savings time. Won't solve this particular problem, but would help reduce energy consumption for sure.

Le1000
Dec 18, 2006, 3:35 AM
I agree 100%, so much energy is wasted because street lampts illuminate in every direction, and not just torwards the ground.
Plus, look at what were missing:
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2003/20aug03/Carlson1.jpg

donybrx
Dec 18, 2006, 2:14 PM
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.


She actually lives much of the time nearly 90 miles east of NYC, in an area where stars are clearly visible.....so far....

ajmstilt
Dec 18, 2006, 2:19 PM
Complaining about light pollution in manhatten is a bit.. uh... what's the word i'm lookign for?... dumb

While light pollution is a problem across the country High mast freeway lighting being the worst offender. In a cities urban core it's a price you have to pay, like having sidwalks, hearing sirens or having people walk by.

I do really like the Lightsaber lights she was complaining about tho.

AZheat
Dec 18, 2006, 4:29 PM
The term light pollution sounds rather foolish to me. When you think about pollution you generally think about things like rivers with toxic waste and garbage or smokestakes spewing soot into the atmosphere. In other words, it's something that someone needs to clean up. When you flip off a light switch the light just goes away! No cleaning crew is required. There's all sorts of real problems that a concerned citizen could help society with. This just isn't one of them. Maybe she needs to go live in the middle of a dark forest or possibly a cave.

BTinSF
Dec 18, 2006, 4:42 PM
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.

I have to support the above. I have it both ways. San Francisco has plenty of night lighting and could use even more IMHO. I love the neon in big cities and I wish we had more (but the Sierra Club influence is too powerful). But you generally can't see stars.

Pima County (Tucson) on the other hand, has a "dark skies" ordinance because of there being several important obervatories on the surrounding mountains and the U. of AZ which has a significant optics research effort. There, we don't have conventional street lights but rather some streets are lined with what looks like airport runway lights and they held up a new Wal-Mart for a year or so while they argued about how much and what kind of lighting would go in the parking lot. The night skies are wonderful with millions of stars.

I like both policies in their place.

Via Chicago
Dec 18, 2006, 6:15 PM
The term light pollution sounds rather foolish to me. When you think about pollution you generally think about things like rivers with toxic waste and garbage or smokestakes spewing soot into the atmosphere. In other words, it's something that someone needs to clean up. When you flip off a light switch the light just goes away! No cleaning crew is required. There's all sorts of real problems that a concerned citizen could help society with. This just isn't one of them. Maybe she needs to go live in the middle of a dark forest or possibly a cave.

Light pollution is real. The term might sound funny, but its nothing new. Same with sound pollution. Both can have a real effect on the quality of life.

LostInTheZone
Dec 18, 2006, 6:48 PM
Why are there street lights in Times Sqare? It's one of the great mysteries of New York.

EtherealMist
Dec 18, 2006, 7:00 PM
Its easy to label her a NIMBY but I think she brings up some good points. We have to listen to people's complaints about living in an urban enivironment or else it wont be livable. Cities need to be functional not just for business but also as a place to live. Especially in a places like th East Village, and Lower East Side which are some of the oldest neighborhoods in the country. The livability of these areas need to be preserved.

Although complaining about the lights in Midtown is another issue.

SLKRR
Dec 18, 2006, 9:17 PM
I agree that light radiating upwards is wasted and needs to be focused/reflected towards the ground, but even with that, you're never gonna see the stars in NYC. If you really want a "dark sky", move to the country.

Kilgore Trout
Dec 18, 2006, 9:33 PM
light pollution is a problem and the lighting we have really needs to be made more efficient... but the problem i have with people like susan harder is that they absolutely fail to see the cultural, aesthetic and social benefits of urban lighting.

imagine the architectural loss to paris if all of the monuments that are currently illuminated -- the eiffel tower, notre-dame cathedral, sacré-coeur basilica -- were completely dark after sunset. imagine if the empire state building turned off all of its lights. imagine hong kong without any neon whatsoever. the loss of these lights, i would argue, would have just as much of a negative impact as the loss of the night sky in urban areas.

so basically, what i'm saying is this: attack inefficient light sources. get rid of useless lights like those that illuminate vast wal-mart parking lots after closing hours. but you MUST recognize the cultural, aesthetic and historical importance of some forms of lighting such as neon!

donybrx
Dec 18, 2006, 10:38 PM
---another possibility is to turn off lights that do not affect safety after hours..........also saves energy.......remember that one consequence of the last energy crisis (1970s) was the turning off of most unnecessary urban lights....the Empire State included.....

AZheat
Dec 18, 2006, 10:42 PM
Via Chicago,
I'd agree with you regarding sound pollution but I think another word would be more appropriate. Loud sounds can go right into your living area and be a real annoyance, I know that from experience. I can also agree with wasteful amounts of energy being used for lights that aren't really necessary. I just honestly can't think of a particular example of what light pollution could really be. It sounds like this woman is annoyed that America's largest city is well lit. Should ambulances and patrol cars which have some of the brightest night lights be banned? Should parking lots be darkened so we can't find our cars and maybe provide a hiding place for potential criminal activity? Most of the lighting needs are really quite practical and serve a purpose and whoever is paying that light bill must feel that it's necessary. And what does this woman do when the Mother of All Light Polluters, the sun, rises every morning? I'm always open to new ideas but this whole thing just seems silly.

brian_b
Dec 19, 2006, 3:02 AM
AZHeat, I'll tell you what light pollution is. Light pollution is needing 3 layers of window covers in your bedroom so it's dark enough to sleep comfortably because the gigantic advertising banner on the building next door 14 floors below me has terribly inefficient lighting. Contrast that with my last place, in which I lived on the 10th floor and rarely bothered with the pathetic attempts at window blinds that came with the place. Partly because I wanted to wake up with the sun - the view of it rising over Lake Michigan is awe inspiring.

Anyway, on the roof of my previous building (in the middle of Chicago) you could see a pretty decent number of stars, all things considered. In my current place, despite being twice as tall, you can see fewer stars.

It's all about inefficient use of lighting. And that's really what I would prefer calling it. Lighting public places in the name of safety is a great thing and should not go away, by any means. What is needed is better designed public lighting that properly illuminates the ground while minimizing light that leaks upwards where it is wasted and at best simply annoys residents living above.

MSP
Dec 19, 2006, 4:14 AM
You live in Manhattan, the densest part of the US and are whining about this? I would expect it to be bright at night if I lived there.

Via Chicago
Dec 19, 2006, 6:54 AM
AZHeat, I'll tell you what light pollution is. Light pollution is needing 3 layers of window covers in your bedroom so it's dark enough to sleep comfortably because the gigantic advertising banner on the building next door 14 floors below me has terribly inefficient lighting. Contrast that with my last place, in which I lived on the 10th floor and rarely bothered with the pathetic attempts at window blinds that came with the place. Partly because I wanted to wake up with the sun - the view of it rising over Lake Michigan is awe inspiring.

Anyway, on the roof of my previous building (in the middle of Chicago) you could see a pretty decent number of stars, all things considered. In my current place, despite being twice as tall, you can see fewer stars.

It's all about inefficient use of lighting. And that's really what I would prefer calling it. Lighting public places in the name of safety is a great thing and should not go away, by any means. What is needed is better designed public lighting that properly illuminates the ground while minimizing light that leaks upwards where it is wasted and at best simply annoys residents living above.

Amen. And I know what you mean about those sunrises...hopefully one day I'll be able to wake up to that view.
http://newton-i.usefilm.com/1/1/9/119/30512-small.jpg

Rail Claimore
Dec 19, 2006, 8:18 AM
What's wrong with light pollution? I kind of like it as something that is evidence of the vibrancy of cities. Based on her attitude, I'm sure she's glad not to live in Asia.

miketoronto
Dec 19, 2006, 3:14 PM
I think we need more lights here in Toronto :)

We have this friggen program going to get people to turn off their lights to save the birds in flight. So most of the buildings downtown don't have special lighting anymore, like the CN TOWER(that hardly has its lighting on anymore, do to the birds).

jeb
Dec 20, 2006, 3:22 AM
While light pollution is a problem across the country High mast freeway lighting being the worst offender.

This is not exactly true. High Mast Lighting, when designed correctly, is actually more efficient than any other kind of outdoor lighting. This does not pertain to this conversation though.

My former company is the leader in High Mast, Roadway, and Streetscape lighting in the United States. Streetscape lighting design comes down to basically three elements: Energy consumption, safety, and aesthetics. A good balance of all three is the ideal situation for a particular environment. NYC, in particular, in what I have seen in pics, has older fixtures on the streets. That means that the fixtures have old technology that is not balancing the above three elements. They obviously need the light levels from a safety aspect, both personal harm and walking/driving. But since the lights have old technology, they have to use higher lumen outputs than needed in today's fixtures.

One of the first things that a municipality does when trying to rejuvinate an particular area of town is put in street lights of some kind. This attracts businesses which in turn attract people.

The lady's problem in the article with the church across the street from her is common. Electrical engineers and contractors will just use any light fixture to light up the area. It is just bad design.

PuyoPiyo
Dec 20, 2006, 5:52 AM
She's just old and grumpy. I think we can all ignore her. :)

:jester: :)

BnaBreaker
Dec 20, 2006, 5:58 AM
I'm afraid of the dark!

Lost Island
Dec 20, 2006, 6:10 AM
I know Tuscon is very conscious of light pollution and has taken measures. The lamps pointing down make a significant difference.

On a cloudy night in the NY metro, you don't even need street lights. You could actually read a book from reflected light. And when it snows, forget it! Have to put a blanket over the shade.

It's sometimes an eerie sight looking west (from 25 miles out here) when there are scattered high clouds. The undersides seem to glow with an orangey light of their own. The light proliferation continues out here as well. Security lights and landscape lighting has increased dramatically the last few years in the suburbs. Shopping centers are using ever brighter lamps it seems. Especially those gas station islands.

AZheat
Dec 20, 2006, 11:59 PM
I've never heard of anyone who lives in Las Vegas or Tokyo, two of the brightest lit cities I can think of, being rushed to the hospital suffering from acute light pollution. I guess it's not very dangerous.:rolleyes:

lawsond
Dec 22, 2006, 12:37 AM
artificial light is one of the true gifts of technology.
from space, the earth screams out...hey we got beings who can manipuilate their environmet...ovah here!
light is good.
in toronto, they stopped lighting up the CN tower and i think that is sad. how much longer will it be the tallest whatever in the world?
and we can't see it for half the day.

passdoubt
Dec 22, 2006, 1:34 AM
This woman should be forced to live in some ghetto-ass neighborhood and walk through unlit streets and see if her "lights don't reduce street crime" hypothesis is correct.

ocman
Dec 22, 2006, 5:35 AM
People shouldn't be afraid of the dark. A lit sky can be pretty but so is a dark night. Seeing the sky in the deserts of Arizona is a revelation to someone who has lived in the city their whole life. It's good and healthy to actually be able to see what's outside of planet earth, beyond the purple neon haze.

Kilgore Trout
Dec 22, 2006, 6:24 AM
People shouldn't be afraid of the dark. A lit sky can be pretty but so is a dark night. Seeing the sky in the deserts of Arizona is a revelation to someone who has lived in the city their whole life. It's good and healthy to actually be able to see what's outside of planet earth, beyond the purple neon haze.

yes, but the thing is, the night sky will always be there --- light just controls our access to it. but a beautiful church, if its facade is not lit in the evening, will always be dark. its architectural importance will be undercut.

i'm not trying to defend inefficient light sources but rather, as i explained before, the social, cultural and aesthetic importance of light.

Via Chicago
Dec 22, 2006, 7:38 AM
People shouldn't be afraid of the dark. A lit sky can be pretty but so is a dark night. Seeing the sky in the deserts of Arizona is a revelation to someone who has lived in the city their whole life. It's good and healthy to actually be able to see what's outside of planet earth, beyond the purple neon haze.

I know what you mean...I once camped up in the northwoods of Wisconsin. We were able to rent out this tiny raft that was anchored in the middle of lake for a night. You had to canoe out to it. Anyway, the night sky I saw that night was unlike anything I have ever seen. Since we were on a lake, there were no trees to obstruct the vision of the sky. No artificial lights for miles. Just a huge unobstructed dome of stars...millions and millions. There were shooting stars about every 5 seconds. You could see the sky slowly turning overhead. I didnt even sleep that night, i just layed on my back on that raft and stared up. I've been through the back country of New Mexico as well. Same deal.

Dont get me wrong, I love city living. But every now and then its important to be reminded of our sheer insignificance. Our artificial lights are going to burn out long before the ones overhead do.

Via Chicago
Dec 22, 2006, 7:42 AM
I know Tuscon is very conscious of light pollution and has taken measures. The lamps pointing down make a significant difference.

On a cloudy night in the NY metro, you don't even need street lights. You could actually read a book from reflected light. And when it snows, forget it! Have to put a blanket over the shade.

It's sometimes an eerie sight looking west (from 25 miles out here) when there are scattered high clouds. The undersides seem to glow with an orangey light of their own. The light proliferation continues out here as well. Security lights and landscape lighting has increased dramatically the last few years in the suburbs. Shopping centers are using ever brighter lamps it seems. Especially those gas station islands.

I go to school an hour away from Chicago, and I can still see an orange glow to the east.

bosmausasky
Dec 27, 2006, 4:47 AM
Poor lighting in areas of a city = increased crime.

A major reason building owners install lighting is to avoid lawsuits.

donybrx
Dec 27, 2006, 1:35 PM
^^^I think that the objective is appropriate lighting, without overkill, including safety, not plunging cities & towns into darkness....

PFloyd
Dec 27, 2006, 3:53 PM
light pollution is a problem and the lighting we have really needs to be made more efficient... but the problem i have with people like susan harder is that they absolutely fail to see the cultural, aesthetic and social benefits of urban lighting.

imagine the architectural loss to paris if all of the monuments that are currently illuminated -- the eiffel tower, notre-dame cathedral, sacré-coeur basilica -- were completely dark after sunset. imagine if the empire state building turned off all of its lights. imagine hong kong without any neon whatsoever. the loss of these lights, i would argue, would have just as much of a negative impact as the loss of the night sky in urban areas.

so basically, what i'm saying is this: attack inefficient light sources. get rid of useless lights like those that illuminate vast wal-mart parking lots after closing hours. but you MUST recognize the cultural, aesthetic and historical importance of some forms of lighting such as neon!

Amen. Here in Toronto, we don't have enough urban lighting illuminating our main buildings, including the few historical ones. Considering what they do with lighting in cities like London and Paris, Toronto in most areas looks embarrasingly provincial. We even turn off the lighting at the CN Tower during bird migration season! I cannot imagine Paris doing the same thing with the Eiffel tower, and we all love Paris, at night and day, don't we.

Tuckerman
Dec 28, 2006, 7:02 PM
Interesting discussion that has many dimensions. Years ago in Baltimore I was on a committee that looked at street lighting and crime - Baltimore at the time was putting sodium vapor lighting everywhere - on many streets it was almost daylight intensity - could have used it for a library reading room. relationship to crime was largely spurious - mostly just moved the crime around.

Real issue is that we have too much lighting, IMO, e.g. we light the streets and highways and then drive with our headlights on - really a needless use of light. Most urban lighting is omnidirectional, hence the loss of dark skies and the visibility of stars (in some places you are lucky to see the moon). Keeping all signs on, lots lit and all building lights on after late evening seems a particular waste of energy (how many people would keep all their house lights on after they have gone to bed?)

Night lighting is wonderful and the cityscape is beautiful when well lit - but at 3 a.m. A little compromise would be nice.

rockyi
Dec 29, 2006, 2:16 PM
A crusade to make lights more efficient is one thing, but she's just going overboard. Lady, you live in New York City for Christ sake!
It's like someone who builds their house in the woods then complains about the deer and raccoons in their yard.

antinimby
Dec 29, 2006, 4:51 PM
It's like someone who builds their house in the woods then complains about the deer and raccoons in their yard.Yes, there are people that do that too.

DaveofCali
Dec 29, 2006, 5:18 PM
PShaw, I've been around NYC at night and NYC outside of Times Square, and NYC's sky isn't even as bright as L.A. or Chicago.

antinimby
Dec 29, 2006, 6:01 PM
I guess that lady did her job.

Jasonhouse
Dec 30, 2006, 3:29 AM
The term light pollution sounds rather foolish to me. When you think about pollution you generally think about things like rivers with toxic waste and garbage or smokestakes spewing soot into the atmosphere. In other words, it's something that someone needs to clean up. When you flip off a light switch the light just goes away! No cleaning crew is required. There's all sorts of real problems that a concerned citizen could help society with. This just isn't one of them. Maybe she needs to go live in the middle of a dark forest or possibly a cave.
Seems to me that your problem is with the definition of the word "pollution", not whether the concept of 'light pollution' is a valid issue or not.

AZheat
Dec 30, 2006, 10:19 PM
Jasonhouse,
You're probably right about that. The term pollution only seems appropriate when you're talking about waste products, sewage and the like. I guess "light annoyance" doesn't have as catchy a sound to it but it seems more accurate. I had a neighbor across the street who had some kind of big spotlight on his garage that was set up as a deterrent to burglars but it must have been on a timer or something because it would start flashing off and on and it was really bright. That was annoying because it flashed right into my bedroom at night. It's probably similar to the guy on an earlier post who talked about a really bright sign that he also found irritating. So I'll agree there are instances when light can be used inappropriately, it's that phrase light pollution that needs improvement.

the pope
Dec 30, 2006, 10:34 PM
wasn't there a simpsons episode about this?