Riverside Info » About Riverside

Outdoor lighting in Riverside

(10 posts)

  1. spatny
    Member

    Any comments about the way outdoor lighting of homes and publc buildings and spaces is going? Preservation is having a Special Meeting next week to discuss the lighting for the Water Tower. I'll start the comments off by suggesting they adhere to the old Mies slogan - "Less is More."

    This town is starting to look like Las Vegas. Not only do we get the bounce from the freeway and crime lights that now allow you to read at midnight in the Swam Pond, but we have all manner of garish lamp post candelabra, wall washers and floods - some even hung up in the trees - sprouting all over town. The Village should start enforcing the ordinances we have -or put in some new ones to regulate the amount of light that is allowed to bleed off into the public spaces. Those sunken lights at the VC are far too bright for their intended purpose and are misdireced, just as that flood in front of the Methodist church - and they both seem to stay on all night. Up on Scottswood are some really appalling examples of overkill. Why do these people want this garbage lighting in such a sylvan setting. How about our building department enforcing the regulations we have?

    Posted Tuesday Oct 14, 2008 16:53 #

  2. Catherine
    Member

    I agree.

    I can understand lighting that is intended to deter crime. There is going to be that now, of necessity. The rest is tacky beyond belief, and I cannot believe that people do not realize it.

    Posted Wednesday Oct 15, 2008 10:40 #

  3. spatny
    Member

    Tonight at 7 PM or a bit after there will be a partial demo of the lighting suggested/considered for Centennial and the Water Tower. I some some "artist's misconceptions" of it last night in print, but I think this will be the only chance to see it in real life before a choice is made. Interested parties should attend....

    Posted Wednesday Oct 15, 2008 12:23 #

  4. idic5
    Member

    The flood light, for example, at the library washes out the soft light of that nice hanging lamp that matches and coordinates so well with the charming cotswolds look of the library. With that soft light, then, the library is as beautiful thing to behold at night as well as in the day.

    I think that the point is not to corrupt, ruin, or destroy important aspects of Riverside that distinguish Riverside from other places. Light is such a key aspect of Riverside+. If we try to maintain those distinguishing aspects, Riverside will remain itself, and can, in fact, be a destination (it is not ludicrous to imagine Riverside as a destination for visitors or for permanent residents).

    .
    .

    +
    I recently saw Nicholas Cage on a talk show and he was speaking about having a house in the French quarter of New Orleans. In responding to the question of why he lived in the French quarter, he said that this place is the only place in the US which still had the natural gaslamps and that old timey look and feel is what he liked about the French quarter.

    Of course, when I heard his answer, I knew better and knew that it was not the only place in the land with that feature. So let's not blank it up! Imagine putting a flood light in front of one of those neato streets in the French quarter. It would not make economic nor aesthetic sense. In this case, as well as the case in Riverside's case with lighting, aesthetic sense translates to cents!

    Posted Wednesday Oct 15, 2008 12:40 #

  5. spatny
    Member

    I saw the demonstration of lighting techniques for the water tower being held this evening. I would urge those tasked with making this decision to consider the effect of the total lighting package - including all those overbright electrified streetlights and the VC wall washers and how bright this light formation will really be - not for just those that pass by but also for those that live in that area and will have to endure this cloud of brightness shining in their windows whenever this the water tower is lit. I didn't see any of the people there going up into any of the apartments or homes that will be so effected, but maybe they did.

    I think it would be fruitful for everyone concerned in this decision making process to take a comparative look at two churches in Riverside that are lit at night - the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches. If they do, I expect they will find that the lighting at the Presbyterian church is far more friendly to the eye and easier to live with on a nightly basis, while the glare and bounce of the overbright floodlight on the tower facade of the Methodist church is very disturbing. While one can walk or drive on Scottswood or Barrypoint Roads in the vicinity of the Presbyterian Church with no problem it is quite difficult to walk or drive up Woodside toward the floodlight at the Methodiist Church, and walking up Kimbark toward that light in winter can be very intimidating. If one looks at how the light on the steeple of the Presbyterian Church does not offend its neighbors by bouncing light in the windows of neighboring homes it is a sharp comparison to what happens to the homes of people that live across from the Methodist church, where that terrible floodlight paints the walls and windows of the homes on the west side of Kimbark with a glare that requires them to keep their shades, blinds and draperies drawn. (That the people in charge seem unable or unwilling to keep this lighting confined to reasonable hours and instead allow it to run all night long is another question hat should be considered. What hours will this new lighting on the Water Tower operate? Will there be lights on the well houses as well as on the tower? Has anyone ever looked at how many lumens the lights at all these sites - and indeed at some of the more exuberantly lit homes in Riverside such as 203 Scottswood - generate at the sidewalk? Are our vaunted revamped codes in this regard being enforced?

    Riverside was not intended to compete with Broadway, Las Vegas or The Great White Way. In my view we lost an important quality when the CBD street lamps were electrified. Unless this lighting is done carefully and with great restraint, I feel it has the potential to be another costly step in the wrong direction. Surely few homeowners in Riverside would like to have the new street-oriented floodlight in front of the library aimed at their home, or live next to any building lit as brightly as the VC is. UI urge those involved in making this choice to really drive around Riverside at night and see what areas are appealing and restful, and which are disturbing. Then consider what this will mean for the people that live near what is now labeled Water Tower Campus. I suspect there is an inflated sense of grandeur permeating this project, and I hope it won't cause us to be burdened with another eyesore.

    Posted Thursday Oct 16, 2008 23:37 #

  6. idic5
    Member

    What is motivating this attempt to re-light Riverside? Do we know how much money does it cost?

    Posted Friday Oct 17, 2008 00:09 #

  7. spatny
    Member

    Planning commission tonite will discuss this...

    Posted Tuesday Oct 21, 2008 15:58 #

  8. Catherine
    Member

    The only rationale could be the pursuit of tourism to Riverside: the Tower would be visible to train riders at night. If that is the goal, I suggest they shut off the lights on the VC.

    Posted Tuesday Oct 21, 2008 16:28 #

  9. spatny
    Member

    The lights I saw them considering are much more potent than the VC lights, which are far too overpowering and change the whole center of town. These will light the tower completely from ground to top, with some additional LED lights behind the upper portion railing. There was a lot of bounce light coming back from the light colored walls of the tower when I saw it. It seems like real overkill to me. The people in the surrounding buildings will have this outside their windows reflecting back at them whenever it is on, as we do from the Metodist church. Subtle it is not. But maybe they will tone it down - hope so.

    Posted Tuesday Oct 21, 2008 17:52 #

  10. Catherine
    Member

    So much for the BIG GREEN INITIATIVE. How outrageous is that? While they have this nonsense on the ballot, they are planning to burn coal to generate electricity to no good purpose, damaging the atmosphere and contributing to global warming. I guess such behavior proves that was a scam to get the tax increase. I hope we did not pay a consultant for this light show.

    Posted Wednesday Oct 22, 2008 08:33 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.