[fixthemlo] Amounts of light

[Jan Hollan <jhollan@amper....muni.cz>]

I am curious how close will the new draft be to the excellent version
contained in the comments submitted by Chris. He respected the existing
structure and made a good contents for it.

When I read it, I saw the only remaining problem:

 the lumencaps, being the same as in his Handbook.

I think the very idea that far more light is needed for a given purpose in
a more densely populated or visited area is wrong. Having more light on
streets with heavy traffic (during the peak times) and larger speeds, as
proposed by standards, is OK. But this differs from street to street, not
from one town part to the other, as to be covered by those queeer LZs.

I'm not sure if I have ever written about my own experience with the most
lively business streets in some cities. Here it is.


One is in Vienna, Mariahilferstrasse, there is no other like that in whole
Austria (a colleague from that land expressed it saying it's
``umsatzstärkste Einkaufstrasse Österreichs'', a business street with
highest turnover). It has fully shielded, not at all strong lights, and a
pleasant atmosphere. Lighting is modest, much lower than in streets with
quick traffic. The luminaires were made especially for this street, long
ago, to avoid glare interfering with business.

Another is Venice. The most popular parts of the town are lit with bulbs,
I guess 100W at most, often perhaps 40W, and are dim and wonderful. Again,
the turnover is exceptionally high there for sure.

Third one is Berlin, namely its main boulevard Am Kurfürstendamm. The
boulevard, as I saw it after midnight, is dimmer than any village street
in my country. Restaurants use large areas of on broad sidewalks, some
have no lighting of their own, and I guess the illumination goes to below
one lux on some places. There were still hundreds of people sitting by
tables in that mild September 2002 night I've been there.

The fourth one is Yong street in Toronto, the longest one in the world
(some 2500 km if I remember), which starts just there by the lake Ontario.
Some parts of the street in downtown Toronto, those with most people
moving there (around shops and pubs) have no streetlights at all! There is
just some light, mostly quite faint, from the shop windows, which are just
decently lit in their majority. A really pleasant street to be in the
evening. The only point-like sources are traffic lights at crossings and
automotive lamps. A lot of cars is there, it's no just pedestrian street.
I guess this is again the main business street of the city. All the
others streets have more light. Those with no shops at all, with almost
nobody moving there, have strongest lighting... evidently to make people
being less afraid, following the common myth.

I've never been in the US, so I am not sure if there are examples like the
above ones. But I'd be surprised if there were none.

Business profits from dim lighting, people feel better there, and like to
spend evenings or even nights at such streets and places. They are not
worried of the relative darkness there, as these central places are no
abandoned ones.

(Now I recall that even in my own city, Brno, the most lively pedestrian
downtown streets have the dimmest lighting. Even the lighting utility here
has some taste, or the architects moved them to use faint lights to get
pleasant environment. But the cities abroad I mentioned above are far
better.)

Therefore I dislike the idea of LZ4, or even some LZ4+. This idea, that
huge amounts of light help business, comes not from the local business
people, but from the lighting industry.

(Remember expensive restaurants. I often speak about a rule: the more
expensive meal, the less light to see it, up to the situation you almost
don't see what you eat. Lots of light at night are perceived as harsh and
unfriendly, and business people know that well, for centuries already.)

 clear skies for the expected tonight substorm (it's overcast here...)

jenik