HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 1:50 AM
antinimby antinimby is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: In syndication
Posts: 2,098
One lady's crusade to darken New York

Tilting at Lampposts



Susan Harder in her East Village apartment: “It seems like everything we do is fear-based.”



By BEN GIBBERD
Published: December 17, 2006

Susan Harder, a former photo gallery owner who has lived for decades in the same walk-up apartment on East 10th Street, is the first to acknowledge that she is all of 57 years old, but she emanates an air of schoolgirlish mischief. Her blue eyes twinkle, her blond ponytail bounces, and she punctuates her sentences with what can only be described as giggles.

Nevertheless, unlike many schoolgirls, Ms. Harder is a woman with a mission.

The mission, which has absorbed her energies 40 hours a week for the past decade, is the fight against what is known by the somewhat anodyne term “light pollution” or, as Ms. Harder puts it with typical vigor, “our insane, just insane love of lighting absolutely everything up.”

From streetlights to billboards to parking lots to private properties, she contends, in cities, suburbs and rural areas, the country is awash in excess light. This light, she claims, squanders money and energy, upsets the ecological balance, causes accidents, makes people sick and diminishes the beauty of the environment, both natural and man-made. The problem may be especially noticeable during the dark days of winter — Thursday is the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year — but in the eyes of crusaders like Ms. Harder, it exists year round.

“One day,” she said on a recent evening, over dinner in a small restaurant on Second Avenue across the street from her apartment, “we’ll look back at light pollution in the same way we do the recycling or ecology movements, and wonder how we ever could have thought otherwise. “I really do believe that,” she continued, tapping the table of the restaurant decisively.

Ms. Harder’s evolution as a crusader against light pollution began 20 years ago. It was then that St. Mark’s Church in-the-Bowery, which sits on 10th Street near Second Avenue directly across from her apartment, installed a series of “wall pack” fixtures around its exterior. Wall packs are those ubiquitous orange floodlights from which emanate as much as 1,000 watts of power; three of them shined directly up into Ms. Harder’s apartment.

She eventually complained. Church officials responded by saying that they were merely trying to prevent assaults and robberies in the St. Mark’s graveyard. Ms. Harder countered that no assaults or robberies were taking place in her bedroom, so why light it up?

Church officials finally agreed to tape over the top of the lights, and Ms. Harder went so far as to paint over her windowpanes and install triple-layer blackout curtains, but to little effect. “I mean, I was being tortured by it,” she said. (Jimmy Fragosa, church sexton, confirmed that St. Mark’s had modified the lights in response to her objections, adding, “We haven’t had any more complaints.”)

The following year, a second “light trespass” incident, as such events are technically known, took place outside the house in East Hampton that Ms. Harder owns with her partner, John Imperatore. A full-time fighter in the battle against light pollution was born.

“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”

Since then, she has come a long way. She has plunged into the byzantine ways of Albany, where three times, unsuccessfully so far, she has lobbied for and contributed information to legislation that would control exterior lighting levels. (Ever hopeful, she plans to try again next year.)

She has delved into the arcane world of lumens, foot-candles and uniformity ratios. She has analyzed the pros and cons of high-pressure sodium bulbs versus metal halide ones, and become intimate with the properties of the semi cut-off luminaire — a luminaire is engineer-speak for a light — versus the full cut-off luminaire.

She eagerly spouts statistics on subjects like a possible link between prolonged exposure to artificial light at night and breast cancer (the correlation exists, she says, citing a 2005 article in the journal Cancer Research) or the connection between additional street lighting and decreases in crime (that connection doesn’t exist, she says). Elected officials in the city and beyond have grown accustomed to her combination of sweet talk, cajoling and bullying.

In short, Ms. Harder has become a virtual one-woman dark-sky mover and shaker in a city and state that she describes as “way, way behind the curve” in their lighting policies. “The whole Czech Republic has a lighting law,” she pointed out. “Lombardy has a lighting law. Malta has a lighting law. Long Island’s done wonderful things. But there’s something about New York.”

With a jaundiced eye, she gazed at the small park across the street from the restaurant. “I mean, imagine what they’d make of that in Paris,” Ms. Harder said. “But here some lighting designer just dropped down a few standard unshielded high-pressure sodium lights, and the result is a mess. A total mess.”

Despite major victories on Long Island — the towns of Riverhead, Huntington, East Hampton and most recently Brookhaven have all implemented dark-sky legislation in the past three years, largely based on her suggestions — Ms. Harder has found New York a tougher nut to crack. This, she and others contend, is because the city’s Department of Transportation, which oversees the installation of New York’s streetlights, has regularly opposed dark-sky legislation introduced in Albany, citing safety issues.

“The real buzz saw we come up against repeatedly is the city,” said Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island and who three times in the past four years has sponsored dark-sky legislation in Albany with State Senator Carl Marcellino, a Republican from Long Island. “They have a certain type of approach that theirs is the only way to deal with the issue and ‘we’re not going to change.’ ”

In response, Iris Weinshall, the transportation commissioner, said in a statement that the city was taking measures to reduce the wattage of its 180,000 streetlights. But Ms. Weinshall added: “Our streetlights are critical to keeping pedestrians, motorists and cyclists safe at night, and we’ll continue to do our best to make sure that our streets are safe and well-lit." A department spokeswoman, Kay Sarlin, said the agency receives hundreds of requests a year for new streetlights “from residents concerned that their streets are too dark.”

And Steven Galgano, executive director of engineering for the agency’s Traffic Operations Division, described as “unacceptable” any of the new designs for street lighting he had seen from dark-sky advocates. Those designs, he added, were less bright and focused light more directly downward. The fixtures currently used by the department, he said, are only partly shielded and create a uniform blanket of light with no dark patches between the bright spots.

On a major urban highway, like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, he added, if motorists had to rapidly adjust their eyes as they move from bright area to dark areas, it could be dangerous. “But if anyone can show us a full cut-off luminaire that needs less energy and produces the same amount of light,” Mr. Galgano said, “we’d be happy to look at it.”

Nor is the Transportation Department the dark-sky movement’s only adversary. Opposition also comes from some of the city’s business improvement districts, as was apparent one evening a few weeks ago when Ms. Harder conducted a little tour of what she regards as some of the city’s dark-sky trouble spots. At the wheel was her partner, Mr. Imperatore, a real estate developer and patient chauffeur.

The first stop was Midtown. “The whole area around Penn Station all the way to Grand Central is just insane,” Ms. Harder said. “They put up all these drop-pendant double jobbers using metal halide. It’s just sick.”

The “double jobbers” were twin-headed 250-watt fixtures that emitted an intense blue-white light, and had been installed by the 34th Street Partnership, a business improvement district. These lights, combined with the lighting on storefronts and billboards in the district, many of them outfitted with 10 or more thousand-watt bulbs, produced a glow that seemed uncannily similar to daylight. People and objects were clearly visible, yet strangely indistinct. Depth of field seemed to disappear.

At Seventh Avenue and 36th Street, Ms. Harder pointed out three double-headed fixtures on one corner. “A cluster glare bomb!” she announced brightly.

Two blocks south, she noted a spot where 11 thousand-watt lights beneath a billboard did battle with a combined 500 watts of street lighting on the corner. Ms. Harder sighed. “I mean, which responsible human being would design lighting like this?” she said.

Farther downtown, she stopped to comment on what she saw as yet another troublesome area. Lining both sides of Broadway from Fulton Street to the Battery stood fixtures that resembled giant cigarettes placed on end.



BROADWAY NEAR FULTON STREET “It’s Obi-Wan Kenobi’s
swords!” Ms. Harder says.



“It’s Obi-Wan Kenobi’s swords!” Ms. Harder said with a giggle. “Seriously, lighting designers love this stuff. Their creed is ‘Glare is Good.’ And there’s no light hitting the ground, see? It all hits these beautiful old buildings and washes them out. You can’t see a thing.”

Gently, Mr. Imperatore intervened. “Honey,” he said, “I think it’s time to head elsewhere.” He turned south past City Hall, at which point Ms. Harder let out a squeal: “Ohh! O.K.! There’s a great example of good lighting.”

She pointed to a number of gaslights set in historical fixtures, flickering faintly yet clearly illuminating City Hall Park. “Those are sensitive,” she said. “They do their job. They don’t blind you, but you can see where you’re going.”

It’s hard to imagine how dark the city was until well into the 19th century. The first public lighting company, the New York Gas Company, was sanctioned by the city in 1823 to light the streets south of Grand Street. Gaslight was dangerous, flickering and dirty, and most New Yorkers, with good reason, feared the night as a time of disorder. By 1880, crude electric arc lights were set up between 42nd and 53rd Streets along Broadway, the first avenue in the country to be so illuminated, later giving rise to the label “The Great White Way.”

New inventions began arriving in a frenzy. In 1882, Thomas Edison opened the world’s first electric generating station, on Pearl Street. The following year brought a new gas mantle with an incandescent burner that emitted a white light three times as bright as the old gaslights; it, too, would be vanquished by the march of electric lighting.

Lest one imagines this light was all for “serious” purposes, New Yorkers showed their true concerns early on: By the 1890s, Madison Square was home to a giant electric billboard advertising a Coney Island hotel, 80 feet by 50, consisting of 15,000 individual lights controlled by an operator, and another, 47 feet long, promoting Heinz pickles. In the 1880s, Lady Liberty’s hand was so brightly illuminated by electric light that mariners complained and it was toned down. The city’s romance with electric light was instant and all-consuming.

With all this in mind, the question arises: Are Ms. Harder and her colleagues merely tilting at windmills? Some public-minded people seem genuinely surprised by her views, among them Daniel Biederman, president of the 34th Street Partnership.

In the 1990s, when up to four times as many murders and robberies were reported in the city as now, Mr. Biederman’s organization installed the “double-jobbers” that Ms. Harder found so offensive.

“Safety was our major goal when we began,” Mr. Biederman said. “The area was incredibly dark, and crime was very high. We deliberately chose metal halide because it doesn’t impart a sickly glow. The sodium vapor lights made people look as if they were ill.”

Crime statistics over the years have borne out his assumptions, he said, with an overall decrease in street crime in the area since 1991 “of about 85 to 90 percent.”

For Ms. Harder, such tactics are merely “overkill.”

“It seems like everything we do is fear-based,” she said. “Look, I don’t want to switch off all the lights — this is New York City — but I am against excessive and wasteful lighting. You could cut back those wattages by 50 percent and it wouldn’t make a difference.”

In response, Mr. Biederman said he was not aware “of a single letter” from anyone requesting less light, but added that he would be happy to discuss ways to address the situation while still keeping things safe. “I’d be absolutely receptive to it,” he said. “And I’d do it at some cost, too, if we felt it was right.”

Given New York’s early sweet tooth for electric advertisements, it’s not surprising that bright ads and billboards continue to be a major part of the city’s light pollution problem. Councilman Alan Gerson, whose district includes SoHo, NoHo and the Lower East Side, is drafting legislation to control certain flashing illuminated billboards, private security lights on roofs and other such “nuisance” lights.

“It’s a growing problem,” said Mr. Gerson, who hopes to introduce his legislation early next year and is optimistic about its chances. “Buildings are putting up intense lights on their facades and rooftops, for commercial or security reasons, and they forget it shines into people’s windows.”

Despite these and other obstacles, Ms. Harder remains an optimist.

“More and more advocacy groups are adopting lighting pollution as part of their collective agenda,” she said. “The fact that the Sierra Club has taken on the issue, the fact that the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council both came out behind Grannis’s legislation — this is fantastic.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:00 AM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Cant really say I disagree with her. Most of the lighting out there today is wildly inefficient, lighting up the sky rather than the ground where it should be focused.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:06 AM
brian_b brian_b is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,572
It makes sense to me that focusing 100% of light towards the ground would allow less energy to safely light the same amount of street and reduce the annoyance to residents above street level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:31 AM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Certainly streetlamps should be focused downward to minimize environmental light pollution, but having been mugged and knowing others who have been mugged, raped, or otherwise assaulted....I think it's an awful idea to not fully light up a city's public spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:35 AM
bobdreamz's Avatar
bobdreamz bobdreamz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miami/Orlando, FL.
Posts: 8,132
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.
__________________
Miami : 62 Skyscrapers over 500+ Ft.|150+ Meters | 18 Under Construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:40 AM
MonkeyRonin's Avatar
MonkeyRonin MonkeyRonin is offline
¥ ¥ ¥
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,916
She's just old and grumpy. I think we can all ignore her.
__________________
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:56 AM
donybrx donybrx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,966
As it happens, I know Ms. Harder though not well... she has been plugging away at this here in eastern Long Island for a while...determined lady who I find....offputting. She's well spoken and surely determined.Gained some weight. I suppose she could sit on ya if you didn't do what she wanted.....I always dismissed her as nutty but have to concede that she's raised consciousness about the being able to see the night sky (which I find very worthwhile) and has gotten some otherwise hideously self serving folks (those with recent mega-bucks) to not install insanely expensive upward light shows in the newly planted landscapes of their 12-20,000 sq. ft. grotesquerias.....

I'm not sure she'll have much success in any major city....seems an impossible challenge to my mind.....all those people, all those lights, airports, shopping areas and so on....in Manhattan, we're lucky to see the moon from time to time let alone stars..other than the likes of Julia Roberts, e.g.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 3:02 AM
WesTheAngelino's Avatar
WesTheAngelino WesTheAngelino is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Washington and Main, Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 2,239
What we really need to do is push for year round daylight savings time. Won't solve this particular problem, but would help reduce energy consumption for sure.
__________________
Drop Bush, Not Bombs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 3:35 AM
Le1000 Le1000 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 270
I agree 100%, so much energy is wasted because street lampts illuminate in every direction, and not just torwards the ground.
Plus, look at what were missing:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:14 PM
donybrx donybrx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobdreamz View Post
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.

She actually lives much of the time nearly 90 miles east of NYC, in an area where stars are clearly visible.....so far....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 2:19 PM
ajmstilt ajmstilt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova CA
Posts: 74
Complaining about light pollution in manhatten is a bit.. uh... what's the word i'm lookign for?... dumb

While light pollution is a problem across the country High mast freeway lighting being the worst offender. In a cities urban core it's a price you have to pay, like having sidwalks, hearing sirens or having people walk by.

I do really like the Lightsaber lights she was complaining about tho.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 4:29 PM
AZheat's Avatar
AZheat AZheat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Posts: 2,164
The term light pollution sounds rather foolish to me. When you think about pollution you generally think about things like rivers with toxic waste and garbage or smokestakes spewing soot into the atmosphere. In other words, it's something that someone needs to clean up. When you flip off a light switch the light just goes away! No cleaning crew is required. There's all sorts of real problems that a concerned citizen could help society with. This just isn't one of them. Maybe she needs to go live in the middle of a dark forest or possibly a cave.
__________________
"If this is a blessing, it is certainly very well disguised" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 4:42 PM
BTinSF BTinSF is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: San Francisco & Tucson
Posts: 24,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobdreamz View Post
although I do understand some of her points she sounds like a NIMBY with this statement "“That’s when I became a full-time dark-sky advocate,” Ms. Harder said. “That’s when I knew there was no escape wherever you were.”....sorry but move to Montana instead of the most populous city in North America then.
I have to support the above. I have it both ways. San Francisco has plenty of night lighting and could use even more IMHO. I love the neon in big cities and I wish we had more (but the Sierra Club influence is too powerful). But you generally can't see stars.

Pima County (Tucson) on the other hand, has a "dark skies" ordinance because of there being several important obervatories on the surrounding mountains and the U. of AZ which has a significant optics research effort. There, we don't have conventional street lights but rather some streets are lined with what looks like airport runway lights and they held up a new Wal-Mart for a year or so while they argued about how much and what kind of lighting would go in the parking lot. The night skies are wonderful with millions of stars.

I like both policies in their place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 6:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZheat View Post
The term light pollution sounds rather foolish to me. When you think about pollution you generally think about things like rivers with toxic waste and garbage or smokestakes spewing soot into the atmosphere. In other words, it's something that someone needs to clean up. When you flip off a light switch the light just goes away! No cleaning crew is required. There's all sorts of real problems that a concerned citizen could help society with. This just isn't one of them. Maybe she needs to go live in the middle of a dark forest or possibly a cave.
Light pollution is real. The term might sound funny, but its nothing new. Same with sound pollution. Both can have a real effect on the quality of life.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 6:48 PM
LostInTheZone's Avatar
LostInTheZone LostInTheZone is offline
Do you like... Huey Lewis
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Phila.
Posts: 3,062
Why are there street lights in Times Sqare? It's one of the great mysteries of New York.
__________________
"I'm exceedingly pro-growth, but I have to respectfully dissagree. Growth is not the holy grail, smart growth is. Uncontrolled, careless growth which ends up creating problems in the long run is called cancer." -Eigenwelt

Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 7:00 PM
EtherealMist's Avatar
EtherealMist EtherealMist is offline
Cold Bottles of Becks
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boston / Northern NJ
Posts: 356
Its easy to label her a NIMBY but I think she brings up some good points. We have to listen to people's complaints about living in an urban enivironment or else it wont be livable. Cities need to be functional not just for business but also as a place to live. Especially in a places like th East Village, and Lower East Side which are some of the oldest neighborhoods in the country. The livability of these areas need to be preserved.

Although complaining about the lights in Midtown is another issue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 9:17 PM
SLKRR SLKRR is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Recife, Brasil
Posts: 22
I agree that light radiating upwards is wasted and needs to be focused/reflected towards the ground, but even with that, you're never gonna see the stars in NYC. If you really want a "dark sky", move to the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 9:33 PM
Kilgore Trout's Avatar
Kilgore Trout Kilgore Trout is offline
菠蘿油
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: hong kong / montreal
Posts: 6,137
light pollution is a problem and the lighting we have really needs to be made more efficient... but the problem i have with people like susan harder is that they absolutely fail to see the cultural, aesthetic and social benefits of urban lighting.

imagine the architectural loss to paris if all of the monuments that are currently illuminated -- the eiffel tower, notre-dame cathedral, sacré-coeur basilica -- were completely dark after sunset. imagine if the empire state building turned off all of its lights. imagine hong kong without any neon whatsoever. the loss of these lights, i would argue, would have just as much of a negative impact as the loss of the night sky in urban areas.

so basically, what i'm saying is this: attack inefficient light sources. get rid of useless lights like those that illuminate vast wal-mart parking lots after closing hours. but you MUST recognize the cultural, aesthetic and historical importance of some forms of lighting such as neon!
__________________
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 10:38 PM
donybrx donybrx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,966
---another possibility is to turn off lights that do not affect safety after hours..........also saves energy.......remember that one consequence of the last energy crisis (1970s) was the turning off of most unnecessary urban lights....the Empire State included.....

Last edited by donybrx; Dec 18, 2006 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2006, 10:42 PM
AZheat's Avatar
AZheat AZheat is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Posts: 2,164
Via Chicago,
I'd agree with you regarding sound pollution but I think another word would be more appropriate. Loud sounds can go right into your living area and be a real annoyance, I know that from experience. I can also agree with wasteful amounts of energy being used for lights that aren't really necessary. I just honestly can't think of a particular example of what light pollution could really be. It sounds like this woman is annoyed that America's largest city is well lit. Should ambulances and patrol cars which have some of the brightest night lights be banned? Should parking lots be darkened so we can't find our cars and maybe provide a hiding place for potential criminal activity? Most of the lighting needs are really quite practical and serve a purpose and whoever is paying that light bill must feel that it's necessary. And what does this woman do when the Mother of All Light Polluters, the sun, rises every morning? I'm always open to new ideas but this whole thing just seems silly.
__________________
"If this is a blessing, it is certainly very well disguised" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:08 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.