That's the dayform planners want, but I think they often overlook that streetlighting in that era was incandescent (warm white, not cold blue) and not nearly as bright.
I think those planners overlook other factors, too -- such as the spacing of the fixtures.
To me, it appears as though the fixtures on the east side of Boulder were about 80 to 100 feet apart:
Source: The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society
I'm guesstimating the spacing based on the corners of the buildings which World Publishing and the Lortons chose to destroy.
On the west side of Boulder, I think the fixtures were about 100 feet apart, and it seems that they were at least partially
shielded covered, with small caps on their tops:
Source: The Beryl Ford Collection/Rotary Club of Tulsa, Tulsa City-County Library and Tulsa Historical Society
From the June 2014 Google Maps street view, I'm estimating that the new acorn lights are spaced along Fourth Street about 65 to 70 feet apart, instead of 100 feet. And, it seems as though the old-timey poles were taller than the current-timey poles are. But with fewer buildings now, it's difficult to know for sure.
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.1520221,-95.9917416,3a,75y,285.49h,88.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swz_PyC1PRYwnEMQ01MeXMQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Buried somewhere in my files, I have a Holophane brochure from the
1920s or '30s 1918, and I think it includes photometric charts for various fixtures and lamps. But as I recall, even in those days, Holophane recommended lenses that pointed down toward the pole, or double-lens fixtures mounted on short arms projecting from the pole, facing downward instead of toward the sky. I really don't comprehend why, decades later, with all of the advances in technology, the City of Tulsa is choosing to revert to such inefficient fixtures.
The day-timey, old-timey ambience is okay, I suppose. I understand what you're saying...but when I see those glaring fixtures around 4th & Boulder, or in the M.B. Blue Dome District, I see a waste of tax dollars. If the planners simply want an old-timey appearance that harkens back to Tulsa's days of codified racial segregation, oil booms, street cars, et cetera, then they could propose
a few "acorn" light fixtures (with no power connections to them at all or with much less intense light sources, as you suggested).
But how many "acorn" lights does Tulsa really need? My answer: zero. If we must have some, to keep up with Jenks, Joplin, or wherever, we certainly don't need the poles crammed together at 70-foot intervals along block after block. I'd like to see residential on the upper floors of buildings downtown, and I'd think that most downtown residents and hotel guests would not want an "acorn" light anywhere near their windows at night. I wouldn't.
In my opinion, the City should not install any more "acorn" lights. I've seen one in my neighborhood, near 17th & Cheyenne, recently installed. I have no idea why it's there!
You can have your (acorn) cake and eat it too by relegating decorative fixtures to decorative intensities, while supplemental shielded fixtures illuminate the streets. If done properly, you should be able to look directly at an acorn light at night without it smarting or wiping out your vision.
Your idea of re-fitting the fixtures we have with low intensity lamps would work. But please, whenever
an Owasso cheerleader crashes into one
(or into many, Lord willing) is damaged, let's not waste money on any repairs or replacements -- let's just remove it
(or them, Lord willing).
And, thanks, but I think I'll pass on having and eating any more (acorn) cake. I'll be more than happy to never have that recipe again.
I wish rain would have the devastating effect on Tulsa's acorn lights as I imagine it would have on acorn cake. But, alas, that's merely wishful thinking and a fleeting fantasy.
Because when someone leaves an acorn light out in the rain, it endures. Actually, the increased humidity enhances the patina and colorization of the pole, producing
even more old-timey ambience.
I don't think I can take it. Oh, no!