I am currently taking a history class about cities and suburbs in the 20th century, and one of the earliest time periods we covered was the reform minded era of the early 1900s. At the time, cities were experiencing massive growth, both in population, but also in height. New buildings were larger than ever and towered over the streets below. The financial district downtown was of particular concern for New York City’s urban planning officials, who saw massive structures rise so far that they would block out any sunlight, leaving the streets in total darkness. This posed many problems, from danger for people on the streets, to financial burden for the city in having to light streets for almost twenty four hours a day. Business owners next to these towering constructions were particularly distraught, as the lack of light repelled patrons and increased the costs necessary to maintain constant indoor lighting where before they were able to rely on natural sunlight. To resolve this issue, the city passed the 1916 Zoning Resolution, and this article talks more in-depth about the architectural consequences of the policy. In short, it mandated that all building of certain height have “setbacks”, meaning they do not rise straight up, to provide for light access to areas below. This is why so many skyscrapers stand in front of plazas or detract like pyramids as they rise.
What struck me most was that even over a hundred years ago we recognized the need for natural lighting to be accessible indoors. Not only does it provide for more pleasant working environments, as we all know having spent our fair share of hours sitting in Baruch’s windowless classrooms, but it also alleviates the need for constant and in my opinion quite annoying fluorescent lighting. Indoor lighting, no matter how many times we upgrade to more energy efficient light bulbs, is still less efficient than natural light, and we have it on all the time. I understand that the advent of electricity during the industrial revolution forever changed our lifestyles and societies, but perhaps it is time to re-evaluate our reliance on this technology. Though reducing this energy consumption is a substantial challenge, it may be worth consideration.
Hi Ingrid,
This photo is beautiful and really captures the whole pyramid-top appearance of skyscrapers, similar to the Chrysler and Empire State Buildings that we still see today because of this law. Not to mention the class seems very interesting. I agree with you-natural light is much better than the artificial light that wastes energy and racks up costs. The only natural light we seem to notice sometimes is the one that barely shines between buildings. With NYC’s population continuing to grow and the fact that we keep building vertically, we will have even more artificial light that makes us sleepy and unproductive. Is that one of the reasons why fluorescent light is annoying? Haha. Diminishing air quality seems to also be an additional problem. It will be interesting to see how future zoning laws addresses these issues. Maybe they’ll deal with width, area, or having less spaces between buildings.