There is no major city in the world that is FURTHER from "Dallas at night." We're probably the darkest, most dimly-lit skyline anywhere. I certainly don't want "Dallas", but our city at night is so dim, it's depressing. A bunch of flat-topped rectangles, barely anything that resembles a "crown." There's no other major city like it...Not sure the red lines make it a fancier piece of architecture. Yes, the old one was a bit of a bore. But then what's next? Dallas-like at night?
View attachment 32640
There is no major city in the world that is FURTHER from "Dallas at night." We're probably the darkest, most dimly-lit skyline anywhere. I certainly don't want "Dallas", but our city at night is so dim, it's depressing. A bunch of flat-topped rectangles, barely anything that resembles a "crown." There's no other major city like it...
I would argue that a city should not be wildly illuminated at night. Light pollution is bad for humans and wildlife, particularly for bird and insect populations. There should be lights at street level (and certainly more illuminated signs like the Paramount sign), but there’s no need to kill the night sky by illuminating the tops of skyscrapers.preach!
There’s lots of middle ground between present-day Boston’s nighttime skyline and Dallas’ (or Shanghai, nyc, Hong Kong; etc.).I would argue that a city should not be wildly illuminated at night. Light pollution is bad for humans and wildlife, particularly for bird and insect populations. There should be lights at street level (and certainly more illuminated signs like the Paramount sign), but there’s no need to kill the night sky by illuminating the tops of skyscrapers.
I don’t even know where to start with this horseshit.There’s lots of middle ground between present-day Boston’s nighttime skyline and Dallas’ (or Shanghai, nyc, Hong Kong; etc.).
There can and should be many more lit crowns and other creative lighting schemes on Boston’s high rises. We could have 20x the lit up skyscrapers as we currently do and there would be no issues due to “light pollution.”
Birds fly into sliding doors all the time. Should we ban those? Anyone who can’t sleep bc of city lights can and should move the fuck out of the city. Plenty of affordable suburbs on or near public transport.
There’s lots of middle ground between present-day Boston’s nighttime skyline and Dallas’ (or Shanghai, nyc, Hong Kong; etc.).
There can and should be many more lit crowns and other creative lighting schemes on Boston’s high rises. We could have 20x the lit up skyscrapers as we currently do and there would be no issues due to “light pollution.”
Birds fly into sliding doors all the time. Should we ban those? Anyone who can’t sleep bc of city lights can and should move the fuck out of the city. Plenty of affordable suburbs on or near public transport.
Totally agree. I don't know anyone who'd want Dallas or Vegas, but there should be some middle ground. Right now, you'd think this is Amish City, USA.
Yet again you're proving yourself to be a rational, right-minded individual. Kudos!
Certainly compared to what had been. I saw it live from the same angle depicted in @DZH22's Jan 15 photo, and felt the same wayI think that this is a complete win from top to bottom.
Over five years since the start of this thread...
What is that area where it appears that there's no glass? A mechanical floor?
it might be the last tenant to leave