Since my photos of the horrible lighting at TU were taken without a tripod, I re-shot them tonight with the 'pod.
They make me really angry, so I'll try to just let these speak for themselves.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2407/2382432256_2f93e64575.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2381593455_8cb363840e.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/2382429484_2767eda017.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2381591983_387f97633c.jpg)
This one lights up Twin so bright that I'm thinking of performing surgery there. I'd hate to live in one of those rooms, though!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2382430970_ba4ac5e06b.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2397/2382430392_b42050720d.jpg)
It's so bright it casts a pretty strong shadow of this bike... to the right, looking North on Delaware.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2386/2381597853_30ba2c19cf.jpg) (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2188/2381596641_09fd82da7a.jpg)
I don't know what's worse... Today's acorns or yesterday's globes.
Through this whole mess, though, there used to be a glimmer of hope... Whoever chose the lights at the Case Tennis Center chose much better lights. See if you can find them through the glare of the acorn:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/2381598637_ca6ab06ca0.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2381600591_3d25c67e42.jpg)
For comparison purposes, know that it the exposure on my camera can auto-adjust in order to capture enough light. With the acorns and globes, most of the photos were taken at or under 1 second. For the last photo, though, it used a 4 second exposure. That, I think, speaks volumes.
I went by Riverside to take pictures of the new lights tonight, and none of them were turned on! So those will have to wait.
I agree the lighting is very bright at TU, but by design. As a student I often walked alone from the library to an outlying parking lot - as a 20 something male I was not too worried but I could certainly see an 18 y/o female from a small town, now in the middle of Tulsa and near the dreaded "North Side" being concerned. As part of a Universities evaluation safety on campus is always considered, I assume to do well on evaluations as well as to give students the feeling of safety they err on the side of brightness.
Most campuses seem to do the same, areas that are poorly lit are always complained about nearly always lit up like a torch in short order. A secondary purpose is of course to look good... well lit areas are more attractive than dim areas. It gives the allure of life, vibrancy, and again safety. They probably spent extra money to get to the brightness level you now complain about, as did any other residential campus.
That was my first thought, too. It wasn't so well lit where I went to school and often we would track down security to escort us to and from the dorms. You can't be too careful -- a college campus is just the kind of place for creeps to lurk about. So in this instance, the more light the better.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I agree the lighting is very bright at TU, but by design. As a student I often walked alone from the library to an outlying parking lot - as a 20 something male I was not too worried but I could certainly see an 18 y/o female from a small town, now in the middle of Tulsa and near the dreaded "North Side" being concerned. As part of a Universities evaluation safety on campus is always considered, I assume to do well on evaluations as well as to give students the feeling of safety they err on the side of brightness.
By design, maybe, but design by who? The trustees? Definitely not anyone with any knowledge of lighting, that's for sure. Campus safety is a concern, and that's why TU has taken the steps to install those blue emergency poles/phone stations about every 100 yards or so. And considering the fact that most
people on campus are pedestrians at many times during the day and night, I would have thought that they (whoever they are) would have considered pedestrian safety when they chose these monsters. When the light creates more glare and harsh light than it does good, it creates a safety problem... and not just for pedestrians, but for the motorists who can't see them through that glare.
quote:
A secondary purpose is of course to look good... well lit areas are more attractive than dim areas.
That is true,
well-lit areas are attractive, but that's the catch. These areas aren't well-lit, they're just brightly-lit.
quote:
They probably spent extra money to get to the brightness level you now complain about, as did any other residential campus.
There are examples of campuses who've gone against this "brightness=greatness" trend, like Ohio State and Georgia Tech.
quote:
According to IESNA, schools and institutions such as universities should maintain a minimum of 3 footcandles (the U.S. measurement of luminance; lux is the metric measurement) in all parking facilities. One footcandle should be maintained on sidewalks and footpaths.
The Lighting Research Center agrees with the IESNA recommendations. Its own research, which analyzed the effect of IESNA-recommended light levels with regard to how secure they made people feel, showed that 1 to 3 footcandles sufficed.
The research indicated that this level made people feel safe and that if more light was used, they did not feel more secure. In addition, these levels also make it possible to notice colors and features, notes Bullough. "There's no sense in floodlighting an area much higher than that because it's not going to help people see any better than they need to," he says.
Bullough adds that the research included tests in a small town and in unsafe areas in New York City. Interestingly, the light level that made people feel safe was the same, whether the environment was urban or not; the 1 to 3 footcandle-level was sufficient in both cases.
http://www.securitymanagement.com/article/shedding-light-university-security
quote:
Although maintaining a sufficient amount of light is important, maintaining lighting uniformity is also important. According to the IESNA guideline, "Uniformity in security lighting aids security perception, while reducing the necessity for eye adjustment when scanning or using the area."
To give a sense of consistency across contiguous areas, Georgia Tech uses transitional lighting, which gradually raises or reduces light levels across areas. Transitioning gradually allows people to adjust to the new light level. "We don't want people to go from a bright area to a dark area," says Robert F. Lang, CPP, of the school's police department.
I agree with you DS, that more light != better light. But I assume it was done on purpose by the trustees, building and grounds, the security service, and probably a few committees. Nothing gets done at such an institution without lots of hands giving it a blessing.
Also, the blue poles will help report crime. But the deterrent effect is probably dubious. If I grab a young woman in a dark corner do I really care if she can run to a blue pole whenever I decide to let her go? Anyway, the argument doesn't have to be rational to appeal to teenage girls and their parents.
I'm not arguing lighting up campuses like a whorehouse is a good way to go, but I'd rather it be brightly lit poorly than too dim. Just sayin'.
Well-lit, brightly lit. It seems both are the same thing. It's almost like a parody.
In in the interest of safety for your students, who are targets for an inordinate number of creeps, I don't have a problem with this.
I just shake my head at the lighting nazis. Hello! You're in a city! Bright lights are *supposed* to be there. Are the complainers ones that lived in the boonies all their lives, with no electricity and nothing but candles to light their way? (And I'm speaking as a former country bumpkin.)
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Well-lit, brightly lit. It seems both are the same thing. It's almost like a parody.
Not even remotely the same thing. That's like saying a small room in your house adequately lit by a 100-watt bulb is the same as lighting that room with a 1,000 watt halogen floodlight. The former allows you to see everything you need to see. The latter is excessively bright to the point of causing reduced vision because of glare (and is wasting resources to boot). It's not just that as you increase the amount of light you experience diminishing returns, you actually create a different kind of visibility problem. Too much light is just as bad as not enough light -- if you can't see, you can't see.
These are finer points that escape most decision-makers. All they do is drive past the campus at night and if it's lit up bright enough to land an airplane, they think it's safe. Not the case.
What is needed is enough light to do the job effectively, not an excess of light.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I agree with you DS, that more light != better light...
That's a statement that completely ignores how human vision works, but sadly, one that seems to be a universal panacea of the conspicuous consumption era.
Glare works against your vision, and Acorn lights produce much, much more glare than useful light. Utilities push them because it's an easy way to get municipalities to burn up (and pay for) off-peak generation, and not because they are good at what a streetlight is supposed to do (light streets).
quote:
I'm not arguing lighting up campuses like a whorehouse is a good way to go, but I'd rather it be brightly lit poorly than too dim. Just sayin'.
We could light up campuses where students and security could see with greater clarity, and do so with greater thrift by eliminating glare and waste. No one's advocating walking in the dark or living in the stone age.
That's what im Just sayin'
When I interviewed Bob Shipley, the Director of TU's Physical Plant when the Acorns were first going in, he said he had consulted "lighting experts" and had never heard of "Full-Cutoff" lighting, despite the fact that FCO was an accepted practice among knowledgeable lighting designers. TU's credibility dwindled at that point, and it became apparent that the purpose of the glary lights were for show -- to create the illusion of safety rather than real safety by actually assisting vision.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I agree with you DS, that more light != better light...
That's a statement that completely ignores how human vision works, but sadly, one that seems to be a universal panacea of the conspicuous consumption era.
!= means "not equal to", so I'm pretty sure the three of us are actually in accord with each other [^].
And yeah, Bob Shipley and his "experts" (read: trustees) don't know HID from LED.
quote:
TU's credibility dwindled at that point, and it became apparent that the purpose of the glary lights were for show -- to create the illusion of safety rather than real safety by actually assisting vision.
I don't even think they were chosen for safety. I think they were chosen for the same reason the City chose them for downtown: they look pretty (old-fashioned) in the daytime.
Yep, I think we are in agreement. Certainly in this day and age the illusion of safety is given much more credence than any overt action helping t ensure safety (or an admission that a proposed action won't really help safety). AND I think the lights are as much for show as anything else.
But I also think those things actually do matter when competing for students. You want to look flashy and APPEAR safe.
And with the != I guess I was showing my history of computer geeking. What is it - C+ and basic in which != means "does not equal" and then Java script it's <>? Not sure, but I have incorporated != into short hand for about ever.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
And with the != I guess I was showing my history of computer geeking. What is it - C+ and basic in which != means "does not equal" and then Java script it's <>? Not sure, but I have incorporated != into short hand for about ever.
Haha! <> is used in Microsoft Access, as well...
I'm actually in the middle of 'computer geeking' right now.
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
And with the != I guess I was showing my history of computer geeking. What is it - C+ and basic in which != means "does not equal" and then Java script it's <>? Not sure, but I have incorporated != into short hand for about ever.
Haha! <> is used in Microsoft Access, as well...
I'm actually in the middle of 'computer geeking' right now.
Count me in as well. (.NET Developer here)
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
!= means "not equal to", so I'm pretty sure the three of us are actually in accord with each other [^].
I was thrown a bit by the notation -- looked like the sort of character substitution that happens when email programs misinterpret someone?s apostrophe...
Sorry about the fang marks I put in your neck,
but Im a bit disappointed in rwarn's take on all this. He may be concerned about people forcing their lighting choices on him, but if you think about it, that's already being done by entities and corporations with a lot less regard or sympathy than you will find in this discussion.
I see it as a public issue not just from the safety standpoint, but as a well-established and seemingly endless waste of public resources that could be addressed by leadership with more "vision".
(I
do have too much fun with political clichés)
Exactly, patric... That's why I hope the City leaders, and perhaps some TU Trustees might notice the difference the new lights at the RiverParks trails are making/will make.
In addition to being beautiful and safer, they also save money on lighting costs... Lower-wattage bulbs spaced farther apart while providing better lighting. Better for safer? Genius!
Rwarn, I'm all about city lights as the next person, but I think we need to be smarter about how we light our urban environments. Let's light the ground instead of the sky, keep the lights out of drivers' eyes, and make our environment more attractive and safe. These decorative acorn lamps are not the way to do any of these.
When the lights at the RiverParks trails are turned on, I'm going to take some pictures (I went by last night and they weren't on) to illustrate that well-lit and brightly lit are indeed not the same things.
Oh, and, does anyone have a light meter??
quote:
Originally posted by dsjeffries
Oh, and, does anyone have a light meter??
Yup. And I also went to take photos of the lights but it really would have helped if they had been on. [B)]
The acorn lights at TU (and everywhere else in town) create the same problem. You can't see around them, and your eyes can't penetrate into the shadows. It would be much easier to "lurk" and hide in the deep shadows created by these lights, than if they had chosen full-cutoff lights.
I was recently walking near the Washingon Monument reflecting pond in DC...which has made the same mistake and installed Acorn lights. I felt threatened b/c I COULDN'T SEE MY SURROUNDINGS! All I could see were bright glare bombs.
You can experience the same problem when walking on a residential street at night facing traffic. When a car (especially with bright lights) approaches, you can't even see the ground at your feet. Everything but the headlights turns black, and you have the sensation that you might fall into a hole at any moment.
By the way, I went to TU back in the "dark ages" in the late 80's. Walked all over campus at all hours of the night. Always felt very safe (except for that one creepy janitor who worked at Ack-Ack at night...).