Letters about lights

I posted the other day about a couple articles in the News Tribune about whether or not lights should be a permanent fixture highlighting the Tacoma Narrows bridge(s). I got a few opinions in a related poll and the paper has so far published five letters to the editor on the topic.

11/16 - Lights put on a show for airline passengers
11/15 - Lights are nice, but they aren't a high priority
11/15 - Wind-driven turbines could power span lights
11/15 - Let those who benefit from lights pay for them
11/14 - Skip lights and spend money on more important things

Seems like the biggest issue so far is that it's a frivolous expense. I consider how highlighting architectural beauty can lend toward anchoring a place in the mind's of its residents and visitors. These are called icons and for good reason because something like a lit Tacoma Narrows truly would be an important and enduring symbol. What comes to mind with people think of Seattle? San Francisco? New York? Paris? Egypt? All brilliant symbols. Smaller places have no reason to ignore the impact of such shapes and figures solidifying the place in people's minds.

Costs will always be a concern but if LEDs are the lighting technology of choice you can count on lower electrical costs and less maintenance. Although now commonly used in electronics and now in many traffic lights and on mass transit and commercial vehicles, LEDs will become common in lighting your home because they're about 10 times more efficient than normal incandescent bulbs. They stay at room temperature too so you're now starting to even see them on strings you decorate your Christmas tree with. They're small and are actually solid not filled with gas and with no filaments.

Anyway, think about benefits beyond just an up-front cost and think icon. Besides, I think the grand old and new bridges deserve a little positive recognition especially since the elder of the two bridges has such a relatively sour reputation.

Comments (5) | To Top

11/16/2006 @ 7:57am

totally agree. The aesthetic value cannot be ignored.

by Momquote

11/16/2006 @ 10:39am

The cost is so small compared to the cost of the project, just over 1/10th of one percent of the project. Yet, the impact is pretty incredible and can be seen for miles.

Plus, lighting up the bridge is a tried and true way to make a city and a big structure look better in a classy way.

Someone should start a "Light Up the Bridge" committee and start gathering public support for it. It looks like alot of people are already enthused about it.

by Erik

11/16/2006 @ 10:43am

By the way, lighting up bridges is far from novel. Click on the above link for images of bridges around the world which light their bridges up. They all look very nice. -Erik

by Bridges lit up around the world

11/20/2006 @ 8:00am

I must admit that I do not totally agree with this: “Increase the property taxes on those homeowners with views of the bridge”. That’s because there are not only them that benefit from it. The passers by do benefit a lot and there are a lot of couples that kiss. Maybe they should put a tax on that as well.
----------
UK flowers - Online Florist

by Abigail

11/20/2006 @ 4:51pm

If Portland isn't already lighting all of their bridges, it is only because they haven't gotten to them yet; the plan is to light them all. Most of the bridges aren't suspension, so the lighting is on the supports (which isn't quite as romantic, but is still nicer than nothing). I don't really notice the lights anymore, except when visiting friends/relatives mention them, but I think they might change the colors periodically or with the seasons.

Anyway, it may be that the money could be better spent elsewhere, but giving people something nice to look at is pretty valuable.

by Marshall

Latest Entries

Thu. November 16, 2006, 07:13am PST