HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-75-03861-lonorable Nlembers
of the City Commission
ij
P. W. Andrews
City Manager
!.w •.1,,
APti 4 12/5
Kennedy Park -
Lighting Comparison
Et,,:.t.fct.;•!:1;. Comparison Chart
At the March 12th Commission meeting the lighting for Kennedy Park was
discussed. Dr. Robert Mennis of the Tigertail Association appeared to object
to the i.nstallation of sodium vapor lighting in Kennedy Park. Following the
discussion, the City Administration WAS instructed to study and report hack
to the Commission the typ,-! and quality of area lighting recommended to be
provided in City of Miami parks.
A committee composed of
George J. Acton, Jr. , Planning Department.
Albert 11. [toward, Parks and Recreation,
C. E. Cox, Public Properties,
William E. Parkes, Public: Works,
Grover Larkins, Electrical Engineer, Public Works,
C. C. flays, Assistant City :Manager
met on the evening of April 1st in Kenn, -,fly Part: to evaluate the three test
installations of lighting. Tile types of lig,hting studied were sodium vapor,
metal halide and mercutw v;, 0:Yr. For this studl„ in each case a 400 watt
light was used. Attached is a comparison chart indicating the cost, lumen
output. and power consumption of each source.
At the couclusion of this field evaluation, the majority of the committee was
of the opi non that the City should continue a program of sodium vapor area
lighting for the parks system. This opinion is based on the following facts.
1. A 400 watt sodium vapor fixture produces more light than
either of the other two types.
2. The glare factor of sodium vapor light source is considerably
• -•-i•
less than that of either metal halide or mercury vapor.
. The bull) life of nociium vapor is almost tv:ice that of metal
halide and almost equal to the mercury vapor.
The maintenaiwe costs for sodium vapor a re considerably
less than that of metal halide.
Page 1 of 2
Honorable WI ennbers
of the City Commission
it is recognized, however, that even kith an overall sodium vapor area
lighting, because of unusual landscape characteristics in some of our park
installations, it tvould be desirable to dramatize these focal paints with a
different color of light. In these cases. it is recommended that in addition
to sodium vapor area lighting, metal halide or incandescent accent lighting
should be provided for aesthetic reasons. It is further recommended that
accent lighting not be installed for Kennedy .Park until. such focal points of
landscaping have been developed.
PARK L:CrINTIti - .. P7.1 THE y=i PARK DESIGN - 1_975
Color i birect Visual
(mental impression)
Color - On Objects
(mental impression)
LAMP LIFE
lit n
Pressure F'etai Mercury
Sbdlu- ,Halce�.�mTao.. �.
Warttl
Wh i e
Cold. -White or
t31ueWhite
unli ;ht at Whiter than Harsh -Cold
early Morning Noon Sun Bluish
or EVening
5 5years
2=7 years 6.6 years
Lumens per lam (400 watt) 453000 273000 19,000
(One Lumen per scUare foot produces one Foot Candle)
Lamp Cost (each)
Number of Lamps and Poles
required. (To attain the.
0.1 average foot candle
for which this park was
designed. This low level
was felt adequate but
unobtrusive)
System Installation Cost
System Maintenance Cost (5.
Material (est..)
Labor (est.)
Elec. Power
TOTAL
$55.00 $32.00 $1500:
25
36 60
33 000, - $119j000. $197,000.
yrs)
2,000, $33900, $1,850.
$1,000. $2,900. $2,400.
+.I,, f'L
,,.,.1,�. 2.5,782. $9,636.
$7,015. $12,582. $13,886.
It is noteworthy that the fixture and pole chosen for
Kennedy Park cost almost twice vas much as some other fixtures.
However, since they are much more efficient, fewer were required
and the sharp cut-off, low glare, and esthetics are a very real
bonus for the park neighbors
Coif 'ssion Meeting, City of Miami
Tues. , Apr, 22, 19750 ca. 5;00 pm
In view of the late hour
the considerable nitmber of agenda items retraining to be discussed,
and our inability to remain personally present in the Commission chambers,
I wish to submit this.. ,
STATEMENT
on Behalf of the Board of Directors
of the Tigertail Association
Regarding
•Sodium Vapor Lighting at Kennedy Park
Agenda Item # 17
We oppose the installation of sodium vapor lighting, or any other form of high-
inten ity, "anti -crime" lighting, in the park, on the following grounds:
1) Lighting for the deterrence of crime is not needed in this park -- the park
has not, and does not now, constitute a police problem. According to the Dept.
or Records of the City of Miami Police Dept. , there has been no recorded instance
of police intervention needed, either for crime or for accident, in the years 1974
and 1975. Frequent pablic observation on the part of several of our members
substantiates this -- the use of the park by the public is consistently quiet, involves
primarily individuals, couples, or small groups, and even on Sunday, when atten-
dance in the park is higher, involves activites that are unprovocative and incite
few if any unpleasant incidents.
In view of this tranquil history, installation of anti -crime lighting in this park
would be a glaring example of municipal overkill.
2) Anti -crime lighting generates a feeling of technology, of over -urbanization, of
concretization, of destruction of natural values, and dominance of our way of
life by products of industry. This will very effectively abort and destroy the
value of Kennedy Park and other parks like it. The raison-dretre of such parks
is to provide a relief, a counter -foil to urban existence -- to grace the community
with stretches of green, of quiet, of open undeveloped space which will keep us
all healthier by keeping us a little closer to nature. This natural atmosphere is
fragile and vulnerable -- it will easily be destroyed by the harsh, ugly atmosphere
generated by anti -crime lights.
3) High -intensity lighting will merely encourage use of the park far into the night
hours -- a time when the park is supposed to be closed.
We therefore respectfully request that the Commission reject the use of high -
intensity lighting for Kennedy Park.
We would recommend that there be no additional lighting in the park in addition
to that already present. However, if — despite the above considerations -- a
decision is reached that additional lighting must be considered, we request
that study and design input be obtained from the City Planning Department,
In addition to the cost and structural considerations that would likely (if
our understanding is correct) be obtained from the Public Works Dept, ,
there are a host of other factors such as compatability with community
use and maximal preservation of natural values, that must enter into
any decision as to the most appropriate lighting to install. The Planning
Dept, has in the past demonstrated admirable ability to reconcile social
and natural values with municipal needs. We feel that their input in this
decision would be essential,
• Development Plan, Park at 2800 S.W. 22d Av.
Agenda Item # 38
T h e designed use of this park is to be for transitory play periods for
children, probaU y not exceeding an hour or two. We feel therefore that
provision of toilet facilities is unnecessary and unjustified. There is ample
precedent in other parks of similar use but much larger size (such as
Jaycee Park or Merry Christmas Park), to the effect that bathroom
facilities are not needed in such a park.
If, despite these considerations, the decision is made to include toilets,
we would recommend that the structure be kept very small (no more than
about 35 sq. ft. floor area total), with only one toilet each, and no sink,
in both the Boys' and the Girls' section.
This park is quite sr 11 and will not at any one time be likely to be visited
by large numbers of children. We feel therefore that a full-time attendant
on the grounds would be unnecessary, unjustified, and a waste of Parks
Department resources. We would recommend that an attendant servicing
other parks be scheduled to check this park 2 or 3 times a day -- and that
the park be observed for the first 6 months to a year to see if this level
of supervision does not prove adequate.
Respectfully submitted, on behalf of the Tigertail Association.
•
Wm. Jakob, Vice -President