7 ms·

I live near downtown New York with a beautiful view of the financial district. Most of the towers stay fully illuminated throughout the night every night. Some

by pesenti 10y ago

I live near downtown New York with a beautiful view of the financial district. Most of the towers stay fully illuminated throughout the night every night. Some turn off some floor at times but a majority do not (e.g all floors of the Goldman Sachs building stay constantly brightly illuminated). It always puzzles me, I can't help thinking that it's an obvious energy waste.

clydethefrog 10y ago
They're just one big advertisement nowadays Money handlers, that's what these enormous buildings were for. And at this point in time with our use of a fiat currency, money is just a digital construct. So what is the need for having a physical space to house all of these people booting up their computers and networking and playing around with these numbers in a virtual environment? Perhaps at one time when computers were not a thing it would be necessary to collect those types into a consolidated area for the purpose of communication and organization, but we are no longer at the mercy of physical proximity being necessary for that. We continue to utilize these structures and maintain this method of worker placement and organization past their relevance, for seemingly no other reason than perpetuating an archetype of the "business building". Why else would there be a need to have these monuments to the conquerors of finance? Goldman Sachs maintains them as monuments so that we continue to look upon them as monuments, and the institutions they represent as being deserving of such reverence. They never turn off the lights because they can, not because they need to.
- paki123 10y ago
  That was worded beautifully.
- unixhero 10y ago
  This reminds me of an idiom I particular liked by Ralph Waldo Emmerson from Self Reliance "You see great works — statues, buildings, machines, books, and you feel belittled by them, put in your place, puny, unworthy. But you're looking at it all wrong. Their greatness awaits your judgment. Emerson wrote, "The picture waits for my verdict; it is not to command me, but I am to settled its claims to praise."
- thedufer 10y ago
  In most other electronic industries, sure. But in finance it is legally very difficult to avoid - traders have to be supervised, for example.
- Tarq0n 10y ago
  I don't know if this is a strange perspective for software engineers or what, but the building doesn't just exist to facilitate the work being done within it. Networking, knowledge sharing, consensus building and control are all indispensable to running a business like that. Having a physical shared space is indispensable for them. I'd argue that it's necessary to maintain a company culture at a certain scale as well.
aaron695 10y ago
I think you're not getting the value of the assets vs energy cost. People on $200,000 left a 5 cent light on pp? Meh. You could work on using that $200,000 more efficiently if you want to save money. I think you are falling for the stupid marketing. Wow we pulled 100 cars worth off the road by turning lights off at night! (as a one million car per year organization)
- user5994461 10y ago
  To give some numbers. The building of JP Morgan in London was bought for £500M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bank_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bank_Street Hope that someone here knows the price of lightning so we can get some comparison going on :D
  - bearbin 10y ago
    Price of 24 hour lighting is about £1 - £2 per watt year (standard overhead fluorescents). For typical office building lighting intensity, that's around £15 - £50 per m^3. Assuming the high end of that scale, for the building you mentioned, the yearly lighting bill would be £5 million.
jfoutz 10y ago
I'm not sure it's true, my grandfather asserted glass and steel skyscrapers relied on the heat from lighting being on all the time.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  With incandescent bulbs, perhaps. Definitely not with the florescent lights that are now typical.
  - deegles 10y ago
    I believe the issue is that fluorescent bulbs last longer if they are left on, so you would actually spend more money/energy (factoring in the cost to produce and humans to replace the bulbs) if you're switching them off regularly. They can be dimmed to increase the life even more.
    - mianos 10y ago
      This myth is was busted years ago. Here is a reference from Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turn-fluorescent-lights-off-when-you-leave-room/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turn-fluorescent-...
      - deegles 10y ago
        I stand corrected :)
mnutt 10y ago
In the last two large NYC buildings I've worked in, the lights are on at all times. Even the "all off" switches leave about 1/3 of the lights on. The reason provided by the building owners has usually been fire safety regulation related.
- digler999 10y ago
  probably liability factors in too. One guy slipping and breaking his elbow because he couldn't see would negate years of cost savings in power.
digler999 10y ago
> I can't help thinking that it's an obvious energy waste. Probably depends on who pays the power bill. Maybe some commercial leases include power ? Also, in NYC a lot of people work insane hours, so even one person staying till 9 or 10pm pretty much requires all the lights to be on. The housekeeping staff usually start about 7-8pm and assuming an 8 hour shift, thats 2-3am at least that they'll be there. Overall I bet lights are a very small fraction of a building's electrical bill. Think of an elevator and how many amps it requires to power a motor the size of small car lifting 900+lbs of people 30+ stories all day. One guy going to the top floor probably uses enough power to light the building for half a day.

by pesenti 10y ago

clydethefrog 10y ago

They're just one big advertisement nowadays Money handlers, that's what these enormous buildings were for. And at this point in time with our use of a fiat currency, money is just a digital construct. So what is the need for having a physical space to house all of these people booting up their computers and networking and playing around with these numbers in a virtual environment? Perhaps at one time when computers were not a thing it would be necessary to collect those types into a consolidated area for the purpose of communication and organization, but we are no longer at the mercy of physical proximity being necessary for that. We continue to utilize these structures and maintain this method of worker placement and organization past their relevance, for seemingly no other reason than perpetuating an archetype of the "business building". Why else would there be a need to have these monuments to the conquerors of finance? Goldman Sachs maintains them as monuments so that we continue to look upon them as monuments, and the institutions they represent as being deserving of such reverence. They never turn off the lights because they can, not because they need to.

paki123 10y ago
That was worded beautifully.
unixhero 10y ago
This reminds me of an idiom I particular liked by Ralph Waldo Emmerson from Self Reliance "You see great works — statues, buildings, machines, books, and you feel belittled by them, put in your place, puny, unworthy. But you're looking at it all wrong. Their greatness awaits your judgment. Emerson wrote, "The picture waits for my verdict; it is not to command me, but I am to settled its claims to praise."
thedufer 10y ago
In most other electronic industries, sure. But in finance it is legally very difficult to avoid - traders have to be supervised, for example.
Tarq0n 10y ago
I don't know if this is a strange perspective for software engineers or what, but the building doesn't just exist to facilitate the work being done within it. Networking, knowledge sharing, consensus building and control are all indispensable to running a business like that. Having a physical shared space is indispensable for them. I'd argue that it's necessary to maintain a company culture at a certain scale as well.

aaron695 10y ago

I think you're not getting the value of the assets vs energy cost. People on $200,000 left a 5 cent light on pp? Meh. You could work on using that $200,000 more efficiently if you want to save money. I think you are falling for the stupid marketing. Wow we pulled 100 cars worth off the road by turning lights off at night! (as a one million car per year organization)

user5994461 10y ago
To give some numbers. The building of JP Morgan in London was bought for £500M. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bank_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/25_Bank_Street Hope that someone here knows the price of lightning so we can get some comparison going on :D
- bearbin 10y ago
  Price of 24 hour lighting is about £1 - £2 per watt year (standard overhead fluorescents). For typical office building lighting intensity, that's around £15 - £50 per m^3. Assuming the high end of that scale, for the building you mentioned, the yearly lighting bill would be £5 million.

jfoutz 10y ago

I'm not sure it's true, my grandfather asserted glass and steel skyscrapers relied on the heat from lighting being on all the time.

greglindahl 10y ago
With incandescent bulbs, perhaps. Definitely not with the florescent lights that are now typical.
- deegles 10y ago
  I believe the issue is that fluorescent bulbs last longer if they are left on, so you would actually spend more money/energy (factoring in the cost to produce and humans to replace the bulbs) if you're switching them off regularly. They can be dimmed to increase the life even more.
  - mianos 10y ago
    This myth is was busted years ago. Here is a reference from Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turn-fluorescent-lights-off-when-you-leave-room/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/turn-fluorescent-...
    - deegles 10y ago
      I stand corrected :)

mnutt 10y ago

In the last two large NYC buildings I've worked in, the lights are on at all times. Even the "all off" switches leave about 1/3 of the lights on. The reason provided by the building owners has usually been fire safety regulation related.

digler999 10y ago
probably liability factors in too. One guy slipping and breaking his elbow because he couldn't see would negate years of cost savings in power.

digler999 10y ago

> I can't help thinking that it's an obvious energy waste. Probably depends on who pays the power bill. Maybe some commercial leases include power ? Also, in NYC a lot of people work insane hours, so even one person staying till 9 or 10pm pretty much requires all the lights to be on. The housekeeping staff usually start about 7-8pm and assuming an 8 hour shift, thats 2-3am at least that they'll be there. Overall I bet lights are a very small fraction of a building's electrical bill. Think of an elevator and how many amps it requires to power a motor the size of small car lifting 900+lbs of people 30+ stories all day. One guy going to the top floor probably uses enough power to light the building for half a day.