Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeed
So did anyone actually read the report?
Seems to me it mentions:
- cutting down on light pollution and promoting responsible environmental stewardship by requesting that office lights be turn off,
- an increase to architectural lighting of landmark institutional buildings in "warm" lighting,
- an increase in lighting architecturally non-landmark buildings in "cool" lighting,
This will create a 'background' and 'foreground'- and sense of depth to the skyline, while overall attempting to reduce light pollution or at the very least not increase light population with the increase in architectural lighting.
|
I haven't seen the report (I did not see a link to it in this thread, but will look for it myself), but from your summary this seems reasonable - on the surface, yet obvious political agenda.
---
As per light pollution from a human perspective for those concerned about it, red signals required on buildings over 45 metres for aircraft safety are more obnoxious (aka visible) than office lights. Hence, why they are used for signalling.
Thus, the "pollution" being spoken about seems to be more about Eco-friendly footprint stuff rather than how well people living in the city can sleep with all the lights turned.