Vancouver Lighting

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Here we go with the latest round of stupidity coming from 12th & Cambie

Vancouver Eyes Return to Dark Ages

By Ada Slivinski, QMI Agency Vancouver
Tuesday, February 3, 2015 4:54:41 PST PM

A City of Vancouver councillor wants to limit outdoor light at night to minimize the reportedly detrimental effects on both humans and animals. On Tuesday, council unanimously passed a motion by the Non-Partisan Association’s Elizabeth Ball to have the city develop recommendations for an outdoor lighting strategy, which would preserve “dark sky,” and reduce light pollution in the city.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/02/03/vancouver-eyes-return-to-dark-ages

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

She starts talking about how "until the 19th century...blah, blah, blah..." Hey Loonie tunes, we can't go back to the way things were in the 18th century. We're competing for tourist dollars in the modern world with cities who don't give a rats ass about how things were done in the 18th century.

She also speaks of something called the "Illuminating Engineering Society." What in the blue hell is that? More like another "social engineering society" trying to impose its personal preferences on the rest of us.

As a side note, the article ran a poll regarding the issue and almost 70% of readers weren't worried about the "issue" at all or not enough to care to do anything about it what-so-ever.

.............

F{expletive deleted}ing hell !! Go tell that loonie hippy dippy to pack up and go live in a cottage in the woods out in the valley or on the back side of Grouse Mountain!!
Vancouver is already underlit and gloomy as is, and people from outside the city have posted remarks to that effect here on SSP Vancouver.
If she wants a country lifestyle, go live in the country, stupid bimbo!!!! You can't have your cowpie and eat it, too. duuuuh.

[GMasterAres]

Just playing devil's advocate here, why is this a bad thing?

Moreover, why do you think it is a good thing to not put restrictions on light pollution in the city?

I don't say I agree or disagree, but I'm just curious as to some of the reasoning other than "cuz I hate that person!" or "cuz it is change!"

I see benefits and negatives to all the light. I'm sure if you went and asked anyone in the AstroPhysics department of UBC, they'd be all for us reducing light pollution just for their own benefit not to mention it would be nice to not have to drive all the way to Gang Ranch just to see the true sky.

But there are benefits to light too as it does reduce crime and humans have horrible night-vision so it allows us to get around without smacking into things.

I don't buy the argument as to it hurting humans/animals though. That's what curtains are for and last I checked, the fat Raccoons running around in Vancouver don't seem to be hurting much. I'm sure the McDonalds they scrounge for hurts them far more...

But I'd just be interested to hear a more logical and valid counter than just calling them hippie dippie loonies that needs to go back to the country.

[osirisboy]

Dumb. In the winter it gets dark at 4:30. It's nice walking or driving around in brightly lit places. It would be great if they could light the sea wall

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm pretty disappointed with the Green Party at all levels.

As somebody who wants the environment respected, I think it's going to be an important part of future development - being energy conscious, properly costing out pollution and limited resources, etc.

But every time they open their mouth in public they sound like fools. This is foolish. Not supporting the transit referendum is foolish. I just don't get it. Too hippie dippy.

We have some really weird people

I won't vote Green - ever. I love the environment, and I want our world to participate in respecting the environment. But this is a crazy.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Just playing devil's advocate here, why is this a bad thing?

There are plenty of places to go if you don't want so much light. Cities take up such a small proportion of land on this planet, particularly in Canada.

To me this falls under the "Wow, I guess you've solved everything else that is wrong in Vancouver" category.

[jlousa]

I read the details and it doesn't sounds like a bad proposal to me. They aren't calling for a reduction of light intensity at ground level so much as they are calling for better placed and better directed lighting. Instead of undirectional lighting pointed in every direction switching to light that illuminates only the areas that require illumination.

[osirisboy]

And that's new? I thought the city already had policies about that. I know lots of cities that address unidirectional lighting

[Sheba]

I see unidirectional lighting all over Burnaby. I have no problem with lighting the ground - where we need it - but I don't see the point of shooting light out into the sky. That's a big waste of electricity.

[Bcasey25raptor]

Ugh really? This city is so dark most of the year that it boggles my mind that someone would propose making it darker.

[Klazu]

Originally Posted by osirisboy

It would be great if they could light the sea wall

That's something I have never understood why they haven't already done that. Has it ever been considered? I find it so strange that the stretch from Stanley Park to Burrard Bridge is pitch black after dark.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Ugh really? This city is so dark most of the year that it boggles my mind that someone would propose making it darker.

As a bizarre example of that, when asked why the lighting around the Art Gallery at Robson Square was rather underdone, the reply I got was that
"they did not want to give it too much sparkle." (???????)

Originally Posted by Klazu

That's something I have never understood why they haven't already done that. Has it ever been considered? I find it so strange that the stretch from Stanley Park to Burrard Bridge is pitch black after dark.

I could never understand that either. In European cities such a walkway would be lit, not necessarily with arc lights, but enough to make it inviting and safe to walk at night or in the evening.

[Vin]

I'm speechless.....

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Bcasey25raptor

Ugh really? This city is so dark most of the year that it boggles my mind that someone would propose making it darker.

Perhaps due due its proximity to nature, or for whatever other reason, there is a contingent of people
in Vancouver that cannot reconcile themselves to the fact that a city is a city, that it needs to be sufficiently lit, and that a quantity of "light pollution" will result.
In cities in flatter places, like Toronto, Dallas, etc, there isn't the omnipresence of nature everywhere, so perhaps the impact is less noticeable.
Several posts on several threads here have already remarked how dark a city Vancouver is, compared to many others.
A city is a city, and although extraneous light (pointing upwards, as in decorative beeacons) could be mitigated, sufficiently bright lighting, both on roads and
on pedestrian ways is necessary not only for good navigation, but necessary for public safety.
I think people who want to "dumb down" the city's lighting infrastructure might do well to be aware of all this, with all due respect.

[osirisboy]

Originally Posted by Klazu

That's something I have never understood why they haven't already done that. Has it ever been considered? I find it so strange that the stretch from Stanley Park to Burrard Bridge is pitch black after dark.

It's so bizarre! They should at least light it from burrard to second beach. Anyone know why the park board hasnt?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

A city is a city, and although extraneous light (pointing upwards, as in decorative beeacons) could be mitigated, sufficiently bright lighting, both on roads and on pedestrian ways is necessary not only for good navigation, but necessary for public safety.

Why is it that anyone who is against light pollution is accused of wanting to make the city darker? I agree with trofirhen on the need to light the ground - you know, the area where we need it. I've written to Burnaby quite a few times about the need to light bike paths (which they now agree with - it's just a matter of getting the money to add lights to the BC Parkway). Hell I even think this would be fantastic - visible from a distance and with limited light pollution. What I'm against is lights pointing up to the sky where the only use is as landing lights for orbiting alien spaceships.

[s211]

What about the new LED light fitures that the city's been installing on certain roads/intersections? Oak and 12th is so bright now I have to shield my eyes when I drive though that area, no word of a lie.

[osirisboy]

Those are intersections with the new led lights are amazing. I live them you can actually see when pedestrians are crossing and not hit them lol.

You have to shield your eyes?? Lol awe you poor thing. I love walking through those intersections too. I GE a burst of energy almost it's great!

However those led stret lights are not unidirectional lighting, they actually seem pretty good at directing light where it is supposed to

[Vin]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Why is it that anyone who is against light pollution is accused of wanting to make the city darker? I agree with trofirhen on the need to light the ground - you know, the area where we need it. I've written to Burnaby quite a few times about the need to light bike paths (which they now agree with - it's just a matter of getting the money to add lights to the BC Parkway). Hell I even think this would be fantastic - visible from a distance and with limited light pollution. What I'm against is lights pointing up to the sky where the only use is as landing lights for orbiting alien spaceships.

Everything's wrong with that..... what's the limit to this kind of nonsense? Perhaps you should know that even a single light source can cause migratory birds to be confused. So what's the solution? Shut down the entire city at night and stay indoors like those London folks during the Blitz? Vancouver is not bright by any means, so when a looney-tune starts insisting that we must curb light-pollution, then you know someone has really sunk into the deeper end, ie. become cuckoo.

Maybe those who insist such a move should stop using all light source after dark? Nothing like back to nature in complete darkness right? And my advice is: Buy really thick and dark curtains.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by s211

What about the new LED light fitures that the city's been installing on certain roads/intersections? Oak and 12th is so bright now I have to shield my eyes when I drive though that area, no word of a lie.

I haven't seen them yet so I can't say - but I like that they're a directional light.

Originally Posted by Vin

Everything's wrong with that..... what's the limit to this kind of nonsense? Perhaps you should know that even a single light source can cause migratory birds to be confused.

Maybe those who insist such a move should stop using all light source after dark? Nothing like back to nature in complete darkness right?

Have I ever said there should be no artificial light outside at night - no. Have I ever said anything about birds - no. Perhaps I'm not the one who's a cuckoo.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Sheba

I haven't seen them yet so I can't say - but I like that they're a directional light.




Have I ever said there should be no artificial light outside at night - no. Have I ever said anything about birds - no. Perhaps I'm not the one who's a cuckoo.

Maybe not you, but the city councillor is hinting at pretty much that. That means no bright signs, or lit up buildings. The last thing this city needs is more things that make it less lively, cause it does plenty of that on its own already