Jump to content

Downtown Skyscraper Lighting


ricco67

Recommended Posts

Gaudy gets my vote every time, if for no other reason than I worry about the Good Taste Police running things and making everything beige. I always thought the white lighting on some of the downtown skyscrapers was rather drab, so the blue LEDs on the Chase building sound like a cool change.

So you're arguing that a tall building without decorative lighting defies convention and that a conventional tall building is superior to an exceptional tall building. Is it not equally plausible that the opposite is true?

(All hail the spaghetti monster!)

*facepalm*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I drive right by downtown every morning while it's still dark, and I prefer the buildings that appear ghostly, rising up in the night lit only by muted interior lighting. It just looks and feels cool to me. The overtly flashy lit ones usually stand out the first time I notice them, but after seeing it many times I kind of want them to turn it down and highlight another one that maybe I haven't noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you're a fan of the gigantic crosses now set up on each side of the St. Joseph Professional Building, then.

4205995037_5fa47edc91_m.jpg

Formerly Catholic hospitals that resemble protestant megachurches are happenin' places to party.

Whenever I bring visitors in from out of town and drive past St Joe's, they always say to me, "Man, I wonder how big the dancefloor is in there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Formerly Catholic hospitals that resemble protestant megachurches are happenin' places to party.

Whenever I bring visitors in from out of town and drive past St Joe's, they always say to me, "Man, I wonder how big the dancefloor is in there."

Yes, our visitors from India have commented likewise. Why don't Presbyterians dance anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, our visitors from India have commented likewise. Why don't Presbyterians dance anyway?

Yeah southern baptists and pentacostals, not presbyterians from what I've observed. And the reason, of course, is that dancing makes kids irresponsible and all want to have sex. Didn't you see Footloose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah southern baptists and pentacostals, not presbyterians from what I've observed. And the reason, of course, is that dancing makes kids irresponsible and all want to have sex. Didn't you see Footloose?

Yes, I did see Footloose, and that's all I've wanted to do ever since ... have sex. I suppose the S.B.'s and Pentecostals would object to that too. I visited a Prebyterian church with a friend once, and a lady sang a beautiful solo, but no one clapped? What is that? Hey! Speaking of downtown skyscraper lighting ( Before we get edited )...I would agree we need to cut back, but I would like to see some lighting design that would cut the light polution, but be visually atractive as well - creative! I'll work on some ideas... meanwhile, NO DANCING, OR SEX!!

Edited by Hanuman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gaudy gets my vote every time, I always thought the white lighting on some of the downtown skyscrapers was rather drab, so the blue LEDs on the Chase building sound like a cool change.

*facepalm*

Agree 100% and C2H made some good points too. No disrespect to The Niche and Attica Finch but you guys are being a little ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh no, there's been an ad hominem attack upon us. Surely we will perish. :lol:

you sure got some thin skin if you consider that an attack. It seems you Niche used to be a lot tougher. Your well earned nickname on HAIF "The Pedant" was more of an attack than what I said. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you sure got some thin skin if you consider that an attack. It seems you Niche used to be a lot tougher. Your well earned nickname on HAIF "The Pedant" was more of an attack than what I said. :lol:

Not to be pedantic... but technically that was an ad hominem attack.

Even by the loosest rules.

Even if you didn't mean any disrespect.

Even if no one was offended.

Perhaps we should change the wording from attack to assault (class B misdemeanor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gaudy gets my vote every time, if for no other reason than I worry about the Good Taste Police running things and making everything beige. I always thought the white lighting on some of the downtown skyscrapers was rather drab, so the blue LEDs on the Chase building sound like a cool change.

*facepalm*

I'd like to point out that at around the same time as you posted this statement, you also stealthily modified someone's colorful yet inherently harmless expressions in the 'Big Head on Main Street' thread. You made the world a little bit more beige...and tried to cover it up until called out on it, whereas moderators are supposed to indicate when they've edited content (i.e. "Edited for inappropriate language").

I myself am not suggesting that the questionable content necessarily ought to be restored, but in light of your statements here and your actions in the other thread, the evidence would suggest that you're a hypocrite who can't seem to follow the rules.

*facepalm*

Edited by TheNiche
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to be pedantic... but technically that was an ad hominem attack.

Okay fair enough but going by that same logic, we could say that's what you guys were doing to C2H.

He also evidently didn't pick up on the approximately thirty one metric tonnes of concentrated sarcasm.

I picked up on it just fine. That's why i used a lol smiley face at the end of my post. Just because i challenged you on that B/S "sarcasm" as you so put it, didn't mean that i didn't understand what you were doing. :)

I'm done with this. Moving on....

Edited by scarface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well maybe i can't make you care but for example, downtown Houston has got to be one of the blandest looking downtowns in the country at street level due to the stupid ordinance for lack of signs and lighting displays at street level. I'll give credit to Bayou Place, Main Street, Houston Pavilions, and the areas around Discovery Green for doing it but the fact that too much of downtown has no lighting displays at street level creates a giant VOID between these areas. People complain of often feeling unsafe while walking these between voids.

Also the lack of skyscraper lighting at night makes downtown look devoid of character. If i was a visitor, I would think the TMC and the Uptown/Galleria area is where the action is at night, definitely not downtown. Downtown sits in a shadow of these areas at night. Even though i'm glad they quit with the cheap white christmas lights, it still looks like a black hole.

So, what you are saying is that those visitors who follow the lights will invariably end up in the wrong place as far as the "action" goes. Lighted skylines is therefore not a good indicator of the potential for "action", thus obliterating your argument for a lighted skyline.

As for your "one of the blandest downtowns in the country" comment, I invite you to google images of the top 10 largest cities...or, 11, if you want to include Detroit. You won't have to look far to find bland. New York is great, but then there's LA. Booooring! Chicago is nice. Of course, then there is Houston, your self-proclaimed blandest downtown. Next up Phoenix. HA! There's some excitement! Philly, not bad. San Antonio? Please. Then Dallas, which you probably think looks good, but I think looks like a Vegas hooker. San Diego? Keep looking. San Jose? Do they even have a downtown? Pulling in ay Number 11 is Detroit. They actually DO have some lighted buildings. Look what lighting has done for them! Hey everyone, let's light our skyline, so we can be like Detroit!

Come on, find a better reason to demand lighting. A beacon for tourists is perhaps the worst argument ever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay fair enough but going by that same logic, we could say that's what you guys were doing to C2H.

Nope. We couldn't say that.

I didn't use any formal or informal logical fallacies in my arguments with C2H, whereas you did use an informal fallacy in your argument against me.

I picked up on it just fine.

I happen to believe otherwise. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't. The consensus among most major US cities is to have a more progressive lighting scheme. Houston doesn't and there's nothing "wrong" with that. But some people want more lighting in downtown Houston. I for one am glad that someone over in the Chase building hasn't given up on outdoor lights for their building, and I hope that the other skyscrapers in downtown follow suit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't. The consensus among most major US cities is to have a more progressive lighting scheme. Houston doesn't and there's nothing "wrong" with that. But some people want more lighting in downtown Houston. I for one am glad that someone over in the Chase building hasn't given up on outdoor lights for their building, and I hope that the other skyscrapers in downtown follow suit.

I think your use of the word progressive to describe more lighting is misguided. As the term is often ascribed to liberalism, and as liberalism in general deplores wasted energy and destructive environmental practices, and as having a boatload of lights on at night is wasteful and potentially destructive, I think what you're a proponent of is actually a regressive lighting scheme. No amount of LEED certifications will negate the fact it makes more sense environmentally to leave the lights off than on.

I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday* (without having to go to the boondocks to do it).

*Why won't anyone think about the children?!!

Edited by AtticaFlinch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like i have to have a reason for feeling the way I feel. Houston could stang to light up more. That's my opinion. I have to respect that you, Niche, or A/F may not understand that, but just respect mine and not attack me because of it.

I'm in total agreement with Hanuman on this issue. Let's have more dark space in the city. I'd like to be able to point out Orion or the Big Dipper to my children someday (without having to go to the boondocks to do it).*

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

Edited by C2H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

How do you figure? Is a progressive lighting scheme an antiquated throwback to a bygone era? Hanuman's idea is as simple a flipping a switch, and if enough people think it's a worthwhile idea it'll happen, regardless of geography or place in time.

And if you can't get people to change voluntarily, there's precedent for legislation. During droughts, municipalities have no problem limiting water usage. You can only have your stereo so loud before getting a ticket for noise violation. It wouldn't be that difficult to enact similar measures for nightly light output.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, find a better reason to demand lighting. A beacon for tourists is perhaps the worst argument ever.

I don't feel that i have to have a good reason for feeling the way i feel to meet your expectations. Houston could stand to light itself up more. That's my opinion and my right. You, Niche, and A/F have the right to not understand my view but just respect that I have that same right and not attack me for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel that i have to have a good reason for feeling the way i feel to meet your expectations. Houston could stand to light itself up more. That's my opinion and my right. You, Niche, and A/F have the right to not understand my view but just respect that I have that same right and not attack me for it.

RedScare just said that your reason was flawed, but he didn't reject your idea altogether. It appears to me Niche has just been playing devil's advocate and doesn't really care one way or the other, but he did want to hear a compelling reason for your position. I think of the people you listed, I may be the only one who actively disagrees with you, and I don't think I've made one attack. I'm just expressing a differing viewpoint from your own. Why is it you expect me to respect your opinion, but you don't wish to grant me the same regard? I don't understand the mentality of a person who will express a potentially contentious point-of-view and then get upset when people actually have the audacity to disagree. Just because you and I disagree does not mean I'm attacking you. And just because other people want to hear legitimate reasons for your point-of-view doesn't mean they're attacking you either.

Geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but no one needs to have a fact-based preference. You either prefer a more progressive lighting scheme in downtown, or you don't.

That's a false bifurcation, akin to GWB's claims that "You're either with us or against us."

No. There's a third way. I don't care.

You're in the wrong trype of city for that my friend. You should be living in a rural, small town if that's what you want. That's almost like saying you want to ride a horse to get everywhere you want to go in a big city.

Weak analogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak analogy.

Entirely your opinion.

And just because other people want to hear legitimate reasons for your point-of-view doesn't mean they're attacking you either.

Geez.

Nobody's mad. It's not that big of a deal. Either you are an advocate of better lighting or you aren't. I stand by my original statement though. It seems to create voids. Disagree or not.

Edited by C2H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me Niche has just been playing devil's advocate and doesn't really care one way or the other, but he did want to hear a compelling reason for your position.

I think that that was Attica's PC way of saying that my primary purpose on HAIF is to act as a logician/troll hell-bent on undermining preconceived notions of coolness and/or righteousness.

And yeah, that's pretty close. Every now and then I'll tell you what I actually think. But most of the time, I'm just jacking with people who invoke bad logic to support their positions (using a logical system that is itself necessarily incomplete or inconsistent), or as in this case, trying to draw someone's opinion out into the open where I can attack it. It doesn't really matter who is right. At the end of the day, I am the spaghetti monster. The only thing that matters is that I am inexplicably delighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entirely your opinion.

Nobody's mad. It's not that big of a deal. Either you are an advocate of better lighting or you aren't. I stand by my original statement though. It seems to create voids. Disagree or not.

My opinion is that clouds are made of cotton candy. Disagree or not, it's my opinion and therefore no one can dispute it. I'll never need to justify my words because they're opinions. Reasoned justifications are for those fact-obsessed sociopaths, amirite?

Other opinions I have (and that are therefore impossible to disagree with):

The Holocaust never happened.

Frogs and toads are the same thing, and their urine will give you warts.

2 + 2 = 1 bazillion.

Prayer will cure cancer so doctors are unnecessary.

All Katy residents are racists.

Water is poison; people can survive on Coca-Cola alone.

Adult brown bears make excellent playmates for children.

A barbed-wire tattoo is unique.

The current pope is as good and moral as the last pope.

Mountain tops all need to be removed - regardless of whether or not coal is present beneath.

Other people have valid opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion is that clouds are made of cotton candy. Disagree or not, it's my opinion and therefore no one can dispute it. I'll never need to justify my words because they're opinions. Reasoned justifications are for those fact-obsessed sociopaths, amirite?

Other opinions I have (and that are therefore impossible to disagree with):

The Holocaust never happened.

Frogs and toads are the same thing, and their urine will give you warts.

2 + 2 = 1 bazillion.

Prayer will cure cancer so doctors are unnecessary.

All Katy residents are racists.

Water is poison; people can survive on Coca-Cola alone.

Adult brown bears make excellent playmates for children.

A barbed-wire tattoo is unique.

The current pope is as good and moral as the last pope.

Mountain tops all need to be removed - regardless of whether or not coal is present beneath.

Other people have valid opinions.

:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entirely your opinion.

You're comparing two things in the context of a big city, 1) a preference for viewing the night sky for recreational purposes, and 2) an individual's personal mandate that equine transportation be used as the sole mode of transportation, whether for recreational or commuter purposes, to any place that that individual would want to go.

Some practical problems assert themselves on the equine analogy. For instance, the individual may not desire to go very many places or too far afield in a big city to begin with. Also, it presupposes that a small rural town would be more equine-friendly than would be a big city and that the individual would have anywhere in the small rural town that they would want to go. Compare the problematic equine analogy to the baseline scenario where an individual merely has a preference to be able to view stars in the night sky and acknowledges that there are multiple ways to fulfill that entirely aesthetic but also entirely achievable goal.

Do you not see how these comparisons are weak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...