|
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on November 25, 2006, 11:13:57 pm quote: Drove around that block Saturday night. Couldnt find the curb on Indianapolis... had there been a parked car there... I have to say that even if the lights were properly aimed, there comes a point where aiming is almost irrelevant when you are using dozens of 1,000-watt floodlights. ...But those lights (on tall poles that project well over the embankment and "privacy" fence) are pretty much at 45-degree angles in all directions. When you consider the floodlight beam spread is well in excess of 100-degrees tall, the math doesnt favor the neighborhoods quality of life or safety. Without exaggeration, it's one of the worst examples of what Zoning code 1303-C was intended to address, and I invite anyone to drive by and make their own observations. Emergency rooms arent lit this bright. Ill post some pictures this week. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: aoxamaxoa on November 26, 2006, 08:13:44 pm Hey! What F and M wants, F and M gets....
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: AVERAGE JOE on November 27, 2006, 06:25:14 pm quote: Sorry to hear that. I hate obnoxious lighting. Shouldn't be allowed. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 02, 2006, 12:13:40 pm This is the residential neighborhood along Indianapolis Ave behind the McDonalds. I dont think it's a happy place now [V]
(http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass1a.jpg) Not even a privacy fence on the residential side shields light trespass this severe. (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass2a.jpg) The mist near the floodlights gives you an idea as to how huge their beam spread is, and why floodlights should never be used when businesses actually care about controlling indiscriminate spill light. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: circassia on December 03, 2006, 08:37:59 pm You can almost make out my car in those pics. The light pollution is bad, but in some defense it does add some security having light filter towards our dark backyard area.
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 03, 2006, 11:29:02 pm quote: If you have to use thick curtains to block the light trespass in the front, is it really a good trade-off? I spent about a half hour taking various angles, mostly in people's driveways. Did anyone notice me walking back and forth among all their parked cars? For all intents and purposes, I was invisible. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: Rowdy on December 04, 2006, 07:50:02 pm You could operate in the street with that brightness.
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: cannon_fodder on December 05, 2006, 08:45:42 pm That's pretty crappy of them. I'm sure a McDonald's isnt an ideal neighbor, but is it better than an abandoned bank drive-thru?
I'd probably want the bank back I suppose. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 09, 2006, 12:17:56 pm quote: It's also keeping the streetlight on the corner from turning on (to give you some idea how bright it is there). Looks like public housing now. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: Dana431 on December 12, 2006, 11:54:31 am Has anybody from the neighborhood complained about the lights yet?
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 12, 2006, 04:51:06 pm quote: Yes, from what I gather from an electrical inspector. Since McD uses a dozen 1,000-watt floodlights to 'outshine' the competition, it wont be as simple a fix as if it were your neighbor's errant backyard light (but I suspect they already knew that and took a chance no one would stand up for the neighborhood). Correcting a violation that severe will likely involve modifications that utilize shielded (Full-Cutoff) lighting, much reduced intensity, an overnight curfew of non-essential fixtures, using the the Kennebunkport Formula (http://"http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/kennebunkport_formula.gif") for abating nuisance light, or any combination of the above necessary to accomplish compliance with city zoning. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: perspicuity85 on December 12, 2006, 06:05:33 pm As we near Christmas, I can't help but think of Chevy Chase's Christmas Vacation movie.
Good luck with your zoning investigation. If that falls through you would probably have a shot at suing the McDonald's franchisee to cover the cost of a buffer between them and your neighborhood. The court would possibly see the lights as an object occupying physical space on your property. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: PonderInc on December 18, 2006, 10:35:11 am As a comparison, drive around Hilcrest Hospital at night sometime. They have the best lighting in town. Totally shielded, no light pollution, but every area is well lit. (You don't have to simulate the light of the sun to make an area safe and well lit at night.) This should be our model for how ALL parking lots should be lit....regardless of whether they abut residential streets or not.
Lights that shine horizontally are not safe because they blind drivers and pedestrians, make life miserable for older people, and the sharp light creates deep shadows in which you can see nothing. Not to mention they're just frickin' annoying! Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 18, 2006, 12:30:23 pm quote: Isnt that amazing? [;)] Hillcrest is a good example, as is St John's Hospital and just about all our area hospitals. (VA hospitals seem to be the glaring exception though). The difference between outdoor lighting at a hospital and a fast-food place is, while they both say they're lighting for safety, the hospital's priority is to help people see while the burger joint's priority is to be seen. ...and somehow hospitals make lighting work even for patients with less-than-perfect vision or severe night blindness. Without glare or outrageous light levels, pedestrian areas are not only more eye-friendly but inviting spaces to use at night (something we missed with the "pocket park" idea, among others). Businesses will fear-monger their "need" for more and brighter lights, but sometimes it takes a night stroll through the hospital grounds to bring us back down to earth. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: PonderInc on December 18, 2006, 04:01:48 pm I drove by this McDonalds today. It was overcast and the lights were on during the day. They were BLINDING! At noon! Looking at them hurt my eyes as I drove down Harvard! I don't know why they need bulbs this bright...and the angle of the light fixtures is ridiculous. (Next time, I'm going to wear shorts and see if I can get a tan and some hair removal just by walking under them!)
Do lighting ordinances fall under the comprehensive plan? If so, we need to make sure the city includes lighting guidelines in the new CP. I was just in Austin a few weeks ago, and it was refreshing to be in a city with an obvious understanding of the importance of smart lighting! Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on December 20, 2006, 08:54:03 pm quote: McDonalds began installing trespass shields on some of their floodlights this week, and I must say the difference is quite dramatic. They missed a few, but they have gone from being an egregiously contemptible zoning violation to a more run-of-the mill one. (Hint: The floodlights farthest from the R district may not have seemed that important, but they are pointed directly at the R district and still an in-your-face nuisance). Their choice of 1,000-watt floodlights just makes the task of compliance all the more difficult (would have just been easier to scrap the floodlights for something designed for use near a neighborhood, and back off the watts to something more sane) but they may have been testing the waters for future designs. quote: If hospitals can design safe outdoor lighting that even the visually impaired could benefit from, then there's simply no excuse for hiding behind bogus "safety" claims when businesses resort to Moth-Effect Marketing to dazzle customers at the neighborhood's expense. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: SoonerRiceGrad on January 05, 2007, 01:40:37 am I have never seen lights that bright before except on gamedays in Norman.
It's like putting Gaylord Memorial Stadium in the middle of Florence Park. It's insane. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on February 14, 2007, 04:55:19 pm I promised a follow-up when Neighborhood Inspections made McDonalds add some shields to their horrific floodlights.
Here's some before and after photos: (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass1a.jpg) (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass_shielding_attempt1a.jpg) . and another view . (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass2a.jpg) (http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1116161/mcdonalds_Ltrespass_shielding_attempt2a.jpg) Since McDonalds started with notoriously hard-to-control floodlights, their "after" photos might look like another area's "before" photo, but at least it's a step in the right direction. (Shoebox-style lights would have been easier to tame, as would using something considerably less than 10 1,000-watt Metal Halide glare bombs). Since this seems to be the cookie-cutter model for all the McDonalds makeovers, does anyone want to take bets that they repeat this violation all over town? As for safety -- with any luck the neighbors might be able to step off their porches without being blinded. Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: janle on February 15, 2007, 09:21:04 am It is good they got something done. The urgent care centers (yes both St John and MedCenter) on Utica is also intolerable. Why don't these builders read the zoning codes?
Title: 13th & Harvard McDonalds Post by: patric on February 15, 2007, 10:45:09 am quote: I looked at the MedCenter last week at the request of a neighborhood association, and even though they fail the 1303c zoning law it's apparent they made the effort from the start, in stark contrast to McDonalds where it is apparent they ignored zoning until there were complaints. MedCenter's goof stems from the placement of fixtures too close to the property line with too little house-side shielding. They could either add more shielding, reduce pole height (and wattage proportionately) move the fixtures away from the property line, or replace them with shielded bollards. In all cases they should re-evaluate their wattage. A better model is just down the street at 19th & Utica at the J.A. Chapman Tower at St. John Medical Center. On that corner alone you find several good examples of shielded outdoor lighting. It should be mentioned that, other than the perimeter lights and unnecessarily high levels, MedCenter did a decent job. You only have to look to the property just to the north for a really bad example of utility-installed glare and nuisance lighting that is a much more egregious zoning violation. |