IlluminaleBoston08

All great points. When I was watching the NBA finals this year they had tons of shots of Boston from the blimp. It was awsome at sunset, but once darkness descended upon the city, you couldn't tell which building was which...not to mention what was land, where the Charles River was located, the Zakim, the Longfellow. It just appeared like a mess of yellow Christmas lights. I work near North Station and am used to the surroundings...and I could hardly tell what was what. Such a shame.
 
I am not an environmentalist by any means... anything that an unusually ignorant dolt like Al Gore embraces has got to to be strictly for idiots -BUT- I do care about the cost of electricity/fossil fuels etc.

So perhaps my "environmentalism" is based purely on "capitalism", and saving money is good. I kind of think using a ton of electricity/fossil fuels to Las-Vegas-ize our city is a waste of money and resources and is a great hazard to our planet/wallets (depending on your POV).

I remember the Empire State Building when it wasn't cannon-bathed in its entirety in light - just the set-backs at the upper levels had lights, facing down that faded out. The result was a floating, heavenly appearance punctuated by a well-lit gothic spire. Now, the entire building, every single brick is bathed in bright light. An improvement?
 
There are two different issues here:

- Should there be a short, temporary festival of lights?
- Should some of our bridges and buildings be lit permanently?

One can support the first without necessarily supporting the second. (But why not have the temporary festival in January when people really need it?)
 
I would support anything that can be paid for by private property owners/businesses that drives tourist dollars into the city in the dead winter months. That's a good idea.

If a company wants to pay to light up the Zakim (or other public assets) in their corporate colors perhaps (Hertz Yellow, Coke Red, ATT Orange) I say give them a huge billboard over the highway at the entrance of it and let them pay for the lights, installation and electricity.
 
Ron - on your comment - Why not both?

The temporary lighting should be the full-blown, spectacular, extravagant lighting. The long-term/permanent lighting should be more like what Pelham was talking about - the the way the ESB used to be lit before it went Vegas on us... subtle yet effective lighting that accentuates the beautiful features of certain buildings and bridges.
 
I prefer the Prague model of urban lighting. Dim, but even, consistent coverage throughout the city.

3018554-Travel_Picture-Prague.jpg
 
My main concern about permanent lighting is energy use and expense (and the resulting global environmental impact). We could actually do with a lot less lighting in some places.
 
Has anyone noticed the Marriot Courtyard Inn at City Square in Charlestown? To make sure it's visible from the highway, the entire building is cannon-bathed in bright, bright, intense white light. I can't imagine what it must be like to open your shades in one of the rooms at night. The light is intense.

I worked on this development back in the day - and why would they do this?

Because they can't have a sign on their building that is lit-up or viewable from the highway. The neighborhood crazies wouldn't allow it even though it would not be facing their neighborhood or impact them in any manner at all, whatsoever. So, the only way to capitalize on the location near I-93 is to make damn sure that the smaller sign they were allowed to have was lit as brightly as possible.

I would hope that LEED points would be deducted for any building with such an extravagant lighting system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top