LightSoundJournal.com: As London emerges from the coronavirus crisis, its public spaces are in the spotlight. Preventing the spread of the virus will mean spending more time outdoors when meeting others as we head into autumn. This is a chance to review how London is lit and to enhance its attractiveness, making it an even more enjoyable place to be.
10 comments:
This article was interesting as it let me think about the theatrical aspects outside of the actual theater. Although I was aware that light could bring upon a huge change to the scenery, I did not know it was this effective when impacting the actual city scape. I think there would be more difficulties since there are more obstacles than the indoor-stages (since there would be other natural lights, limitation on the location of the lights, etc.), and I was surprised how effective was their attempt to change the atmosphere (though I think it would still be greatly affected by other natural factors; I see a huge difference in the sky color in their example shots). I wish they had more content regarding the actual technique that were used and perhaps more interviews from designers, but I still enjoyed reading this. I also liked how they are looking into not only the practical aspect but also the environmental aspect. I know sustainability is rising up as an important feature to consider when it comes to technology, and I think it embodies their motto to be a 24-hour city as well.
I found it really interesting to read about lighting in urban planning. Every time I fly home to Chicago, I try to get an evening flight so I can see the amber glow over the city. As the city began upgrading to LED fixtures to save on energy costs, the view became more of a patchwork of amber and cold white, which I don't like as much. Of course, light pollution is an issue in any urban area. The article explains that "Lighting is one of the most overlooked aspects of urban design. For the most part, city authorities have historically taken a narrowly utilitarian approach, looking to lighting to makes roads and streets brighter, but with little thought for creative or environmental dimensions of light." As such, seeing London make a conscious effort to light their city both efficiently and creatively is a gratifying sensation. Outside the entertainment industry, I feel that lighting is something that often gets overlooked, even by architects and the like. Yet, it is so so so important to the end look of any creation or scene!
I have mixed feelings regarding the Centre for London’s new research project. On one hand, I believe it is wonderful that London is trying to make its city feel more homely and welcoming with different levels and kinds of lighting. All too often, lighting is overlooked in the ways of boosting an environment’s atmosphere and it can really make or break a setting. Back home, my city’s welcome sign is lit up with rings around palm trees that enliven the mood of the area. On the other hand, I am a person who thoroughly enjoys astronomy. The night sky is naturally beautiful and stargazing is one, if not the, favorite night time activity of mine. In major cities, the light pollution drowns out the ability to do so. The claim “to become the best lit major city in the world” slightly saddens me because the coverage of the stars will not allow them to be as visible as much, if at all.
I think it is a wonderful thing for London to be using the time this pandemic has allotted for the transformation of public spaces. Bringing in new aesthetics and beautifying the city is wonderful for its social environment and attraction. However, I do not think they should be promoting an active nightlife during this time of the pandemic. They argue that because people cannot be in inside spaces in a social setting, they must promote outside spaces and gatherings. However, I think that London should not do this. Though it is outside, sitting together, talking, and eating is what spreads the virus the most. In outside spaces, people are not as regulated to staying six feet apart or even wearing a mask for that matter. Additionally, the article did not mention how this would affect light pollution and the environment. I think that the city should take a second thought about if this is the right time to implement such attractions.
The main thing I thought about while reading this was light pollution and how that has been a debate for the longest time. The next thought was about safety. In looking at the picture's of Peter's Hill, I would much rather walk through the left image at night than the right. Warmer light is not something I am big fan of and thinking about how quickly lighting fixtures get dirty, I worry about these already dull colors getting darker quicker. Now the Illuminated River project looks really cool and makes any type of night time travel that much more interesting and fun (plus it would make for some great photos). I think it's also interesting how Amy Lamé mentioned the night economy is also vital for recovery and the implications that they are also directing their focus on making sure that part returns to normal as well. I am, however, slightly confused as to why this article started with a brief discussion of the coronavirus and feel like that was a very throwaway opening line.
Lighting can drastically change the environment someone is in, both in theatre and in everyday life. I’m glad they are taking the time to reimagine how they utilize fixtures to create a “calmer and more welcoming space.” From what I read, they are also reducing the amount of lighting in certain areas which can help a little with light pollution. I appreciate that the article included quotes from different people involved in the various projects because it gave me the chance to hear other perspectives. They talked about sustainability, safety, and technology. While it’s important for outdoor spaces to be lit for safety, it’s odd to me that the city would want to draw people out of their houses into public spaces. I understand that things are worse in America, but COVID is still spreading there too and now is not the time to attract crowds of people, even if it is outside.
I think this is a great project to take place throughout London, and demonstrates a way in which the government can invest city-wide in a project that will be beneficial to business and individuals alike. It is also great to see that London is putting money into aesthetically improving the city, not just creating new buildings. I think focusing on lighting is a great way to help improve outdoor use of space and to transform spaces that might not have been areas to gather before into an area people would want to hang out with friends. It is also great to see that London is prioritizing sustainability during this design, a factor that is all too often not included as a priority. I am very interested to see where this project in London will go, and curious if it will become a catalyst for other cities to improve their outdoor gathering spaces amidst the pandemic.
This article was super interesting! I’ve never thought much about city lighting design, and how much of an impact it can have. The picture examples really showed the difference- warm lighting created a much more welcoming and well lit space. It reminded me of lighting design in theater, how the temperature of the light makes a huge difference on the emotional impact of it. This is something more cities/places should think about doing: how well are they lighting their outdoor spaces to accommodate people spending more time outside? Especially in this pandemic, I know I have spent a lot more time outside to be able to see friends (safely of course!). The other thing this article made me think about was pure safety. For me, I rarely go on walks alone at night (even though it is a really nice time to walk) and particularly if there isn’t enough light where I’m walking. Hopefully, this initiative in London will help create better outdoor spaces for everyone!
I’m so excited that London is looking at it lights its public city from a citywide cohesive perspective. I hope this inspires other major cities to really think about what the lighting communicates about their city. In theater, lighting designers can take hours contemplating the exact shade of gel they want to use and what the angle means for the play, but so often in public spaces, the lighting is just an afterthought. The though process for city planners seems to just be is it bright enough so there are no dark corners for drug dealing, and then sometimes they’ll stick pink LED PARs on the ground pointed up at trees. I am a little concerned how many of those quotes mentioned London being a 24/7 city. That felt a little too post-capitalist apocalypse where are only measure of success is how we productive we are, and sleep has been done away with. Also, my biggest pet peeve is large office skyscrapers that are empty at night and yet ever light is on. Hopefully this movement pushes against that and perhaps we could even have stars again.
Post a Comment