Downtown Skyscraper Lighting

[musicman]

Casinos are a dime a dozen

...as are bright lights.

[webdude]

Whenever houston floods, we get twice the bright lights, from the reflection that is, (actually four times more if you include the lighting strikes like yesterday), so its all good.

Well, better than nothing.

Edited May 11, 2007 by webdude

[KinkaidAlum]

Very interesting stats from KinkaidAlum. Where did you find those? I've always marveled at the overbuilding in DFW. It was the same situation when I lived in Dallas years ago.

As to the topic: I would love for Houston to at least find more of a middle ground on the lighting of DT's major buildings. It does make a city look better and arguably creates an 'attraction factor'. DT Houston needs that. Could making the skyline look better at night increase the possibility of a residential surge? Who knows. I live near DT and think about the topic of lighting nearly every night when I'm taking a walk. It really is pretty bad compared to other major cities (and even a few relatively minor ones like Austin).

Those came from a national real estate investment firm and were the latest I could find. However, the HBJ had a small blurb today from O'Connor and Associates about the Houston market in the first quarter of 2007. 2,100,000 square feet were absorbed. Overall occupancy rates for class A space citywide sits at 91.7%. The office market is very healthy and prime for major development...

[scarface]

How many of you have or will write a letter?

Supporters- you can either pm me or just reply to this thread.

Non- Supporters- i don't wanna hear it! :closedeyes:

[musicman]

with the talk and comparison to dallas' lit skyline, i had to go see for myself. here's a pic from wfaa's website of downtown dallas. i dont see anything out of the ordinary.

[feufoma]

with the talk and comparison to dallas' lit skyline, i had to go see for myself. here's a pic from wfaa's website of downtown dallas. i dont see anything out of the ordinary.

Well, actually, that picture is of the Stemmons Corridor looking north. It's not DT Dallas.

[H-Town Man]

LOL, typical day at HAIF! People saying the most nonsensical things in order to be difficult!

One person says that while Dallas may have a brightly lit skyline, they have really high vacancy rates, and it's better to have low vacancy rates and not have a brightly lit skyline. As if you can't have a brightly lit skyline AND low vacancy rates!

Another person says that Las Vegas is brightly lit, and would we want to end up like Las Vegas, with drunks on our sidewalks and prostitutes? Oh no, it appears that if we light up our skyline, we'll end up just like Las Vegas!!

Then we're told that all those new downtown residents probably won't like the bright lights. Yup, I'm sure they would have chosen to live DOWNTOWN if they couldn't stand having bright lights outside!

Keep 'em coming, folks! Keep telling us why we shouldn't light up our skyline and show it off to the world!

[H-Town Man]

As long as we're posting pictures...

Downtown Dallas at night:

Downtown Houston at night:

[musicman]

Well, actually, that picture is of the Stemmons Corridor looking north. It's not DT Dallas.

my bad. the wfaa's website described that as downtown. guess they aren't sure either.

[RedScare]

As long as we're posting pictures...

Downtown Dallas at night:

Downtown Houston at night:

Hmm...let's see...a perfectly framed DUSK view versus a badly framed, crooked, dead of night view, taken from a moving vehicle. Yeah, THAT ought to make my point!

[H-Town Man]

Hmm...let's see...a perfectly framed DUSK view versus a badly framed, crooked, dead of night view, taken from a moving vehicle. Yeah, THAT ought to make my point!

Yes RedScare, I'm sure the fact that it is badly framed, crooked, and taken from a moving vehicle has a lot to do with how many lights are on.

[H-Town Man]

Here's a dusk pic for ya. And it's perfectly framed.

[bach]

Anyone work for or know anyone at Hines? Since they own, manage and/or lease One Shell, 2 Shell, BOA, 1100 Louisiana, Chase Tower, Chase Center, Chase Bank and the old Bank One, they could make a big dent in the complaints here. Surely someone in this forum knows them -- or even someone within Hines who can tell us what the deal is.

[TxDave]

i think you've made an assumption that people are coming because of the lights....i think the people came first is all i'm saying.

I tend to agree. Flashy lighting may get someone's attention (an important task), but it does not necessarily draw them downtown.

I think Houston would be better served by focusing on the lighting and "effects" on the ground - capturing the interest of the people who are already there. A good experience in the neighborhood will pay off more than one or two glimpses of a flashy building from a distance.

[musicman]

I tend to agree. Flashy lighting may get someone's attention (an important task), but it does not necessarily draw them downtown.

I think Houston would be better served by focusing on the lighting and "effects" on the ground - capturing the interest of the people who are already there. A good experience in the neighborhood will pay off more than one or two glimpses of a flashy building from a distance.

there sure were quite a few people downtown last night. we ended up leaving because the post baseball crowd was too loud. but it was fun prior to that!

[TheNiche]

Funny how the note to Bob Eury cited Dallas as an example of what you want even as the Dallas City Council is considering turning off the lights.

[RedScare]

Funny that Niche just posted that article. After seeing this thread reappear periodically for the last several weeks, I was about to post that this is not the right climate for a request like this to gain traction. The City is trying to reshape its image as an environmentally conscious one, not a wasteful one. Pleading with downtown building owners to turn lights ON, as opposed to OFF, is tilting at windmills in this day and age.

Aside from the cost of adding whatever lighting scheme desired, the cost of electricity has doubled in this decade. Try to figure out how much power it would take to light a 900 foot tall building on each of 4 corners, plus the outer roof perimeter of 150 feet per side. Then multiply that figure by 10 hours per night and 30 days per month. Multiply this figure by $0.15 per KwH. Then put yourself in the position of the building owner trying to keep the building maintanance budget in line, and see if you think this is a good use of valuable resources.

[GovernorAggie]

Funny that Niche just posted that article. After seeing this thread reappear periodically for the last several weeks, I was about to post that this is not the right climate for a request like this to gain traction. The City is trying to reshape its image as an environmentally conscious one, not a wasteful one. Pleading with downtown building owners to turn lights ON, as opposed to OFF, is tilting at windmills in this day and age.

Aside from the cost of adding whatever lighting scheme desired, the cost of electricity has doubled in this decade. Try to figure out how much power it would take to light a 900 foot tall building on each of 4 corners, plus the outer roof perimeter of 150 feet per side. Then multiply that figure by 10 hours per night and 30 days per month. Multiply this figure by $0.15 per KwH. Then put yourself in the position of the building owner trying to keep the building maintanance budget in line, and see if you think this is a good use of valuable resources.

Point taken. But couldn't that be addressed with technology? Can't LEDs be used whenever possible? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are quite better as far as the use of electricity goes.

By the way, the article doesn't say that they would turn them off completely, just from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m., when no one sees them but the night owls and truckers blowing through town.

I'd be happy if downtown Houston was well-lit for the same amount of hours that Dallas is talking about shutting down--4. 8 pm to 12 am is a good start IMO. Plus it looks as if the ordinance isn't limited to downtown Dallas, but would include nearly all businesses except those open between 2 and 6.

Edited May 21, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[RedScare]

GA, the proposed Dallas ordinance does not affect businesses that are open, such as Taco Bell. There is the issue of light pollution in addition to power consumption to consider as well.

Certainly, the use of neon or fluorescent lighting, as opposed to a 100 watt incandescent placed every foot would be cheaper. LEDneon may even be better. There is also the cost of the technology, plus installation of 4,200 feet of lighting (in my example above) to be considered. All things considered, would the benefit of lighting the building, plus the ongoing cost of maintanance and power consumption, pay dividends to the building owner in the form of increased rent or higher occupancy?

Somehow, I doubt it, or we would see lit up buildings already.

[H-Town Man]

Funny how the note to Bob Eury cited Dallas as an example of what you want even as the Dallas City Council is considering turning off the lights.

It doesn't matter what their City Council is considering; the fact is that right now, with more lights on, it looks better. But RedScare is right, this would be an uphill battle with all the concerns over energy usage.

And by the way, this was never about trying to attract more people downtown. It's simply about showing off our skyline to the world.

[GovernorAggie]

GA, the proposed Dallas ordinance does not affect businesses that are open, such as Taco Bell. There is the issue of light pollution in addition to power consumption to consider as well.

Certainly, the use of neon or fluorescent lighting, as opposed to a 100 watt incandescent placed every foot would be cheaper. LEDneon may even be better. There is also the cost of the technology, plus installation of 4,200 feet of lighting (in my example above) to be considered. All things considered, would the benefit of lighting the building, plus the ongoing cost of maintanance and power consumption, pay dividends to the building owner in the form of increased rent or higher occupancy?

Somehow, I doubt it, or we would see lit up buildings already.

I don't disagree with the usefulness of lighting and any impacts on rents or occupancy. But, doesn't that same principle apply to architecture in general? Why pay extra for designs and shapes when you can build a box design off the shellf for the lowest cost possible? Along those same lines, we'll see more LEED-certified buildings in the future not because people have somehow become environmentally sensitive, but instead its because LEED buildings are easier on energy costs, and with tenants being more and more responsible for picking up the utilities tab as part of their leases, a developer has to offer buildings with lower energy costs. Lower costs -> lower overhead -> more profit.

[RedScare]

I agree completely. In fact, much of the gnashing of teeth on this forum is exactly because some developers are building mundane structures. That being said, some developers may decide an eye-catching design will actually enhance marketability. LEED certification is only catching on now that energy prices are forcing developers to consider maintance and energy costs. I have said for years that energy conservation will never become attractive until business people see the profit in it. They are not tree huggers first...they are profiteers.

Trammel Crow said one of the big reasons for building a LEED spec Discovery Tower is that they believe tenants will demand it in the future. 10 years ago, I never thought about energy consumption when renting office space. Now, I look at energy, maintanance, security and insurance costs, as the rent increases every year that those costs go up. The building owner does not pay those increases, the tenants do.

In an era when LEED buildings are gaining traction, it does not make sense that building owners will start ADDING outside lighting. Perhaps if they felt it was needed to attract tenants, they would consider it, but most tenants are looking for cost REDUCTION, not wasteful energy expense. I understand HAIF posters wishing for attractive lighting schemes for downtown buildings. I am merely pointing out that the people that own the buildings and the people that rent them make the call...and not many are clamoring for higher energy bills, regardless how good it may look.

[tierwestah]

what is LEED? Is it like Neon or the lighting on the Relaint Energy Plaza downtown (the building with the color- changing bars) ?

[musicman]

concur. LED technology is lowering energy use for applications such as this, but the techology is still relatively costly. when the ultimate goal is to make the most profit, decorative lighting doesn't justify itself.

what is LEED? Is it like Neon or the lighting on the Relaint Energy Plaza downtown (the building with the color- changing bars) ?

leed is leadership in energy and environmental design. it is the way a building is built to save energy and be environmentally friendly as possible.

[tierwestah]

leed is leadership in energy and environmental design. it is the way a building is built to save energy and be environmentally friendly as possible.

what does it look like?

[musicman]

what does it look like?

there's no specific look. it is a way of building energy efficiently and with earth friendly products.

[TxDave]

Back to the original topic,

I think it would be very beneficial for Houston to highlight its architectural gems at night.

As long as it is done tastefully, it will only help to enhance the city's brand identity and create excitement about downtown.

[Jax]

Another skyline at night shot...

[GovernorAggie]

Wells Fargo is lit again!

[flyingman]

THANKYOU for FINALLY mentioning LED lighting.

I'll just point you to colorkinetics

To light up downtown SMARTLY you could hope for a collaboration between all the businesses. It doesn't mean you need all this bright lighting peeping through your loft window as some people mentioned. LED gives off soft lighting and if used in the right way, could lead to something beautiful and spectacular. You just need to highlight a couple simple key elements of buildings to make it work. Simplicity would work.

People definitely aren't going to say "lets go to Houston to see the lit up downtown" but it does leave some kind of impression of the city. It might be tucked in the far back of the head and you might not be able to put your finger on it, but there's something about the city that left an impression on you. Even if it's something small. It would give the city some kind of character.

Lets just get rid of that disgusting neon green edge of that highrise we have now. It's been done.

Edited June 7, 2007 by flyingman