94 replies to this topic

[jefffwd]

This was posted on pegasusnews.com... This is going to be awesome when finished!!!





Photos by Laura Seewoester

Artilce below by Laura Seewoester

Pegasus News Article

[texastrill]

Cool!I got to go check em out.

[Brian Luenser]

Sure enough, really fantastic lit up in color. Took my crappy scooter down Lancaster on my way to work and took some daytime pics. I see 2 of the 6 installed. I will attach one pic, and a slide show for 9 others to keep from bogging down this thread.



And here is my slide show. Do remember it was in poor lighting and in a big time construction zone.
As far as my pics go, no new high plateau mark set in terms of photography as I was in a big hurry. But please do give me bonus points for being timely with these.

http://flickr.com/ph...420831494/show/

[mmiller2002]

I wonder how much they cost us. Or were they a private donation?

[Recyclican]

I wonder how much they cost us. Or were they a private donation?

These public art pieces were funded through Fort Worth Public Art: http://www.fwpublica...u_site/home.php

FWPI's source of funding:

Each year, FWPA receives a 2% allocation from the Water and Sewer Operating Fund for the cash financing of capital projects. On March 20, 2006, the Fort Worth Art Commission recommended its Long Range Public Art Plan for the Water Fund, which seeks to “fill in the gaps” by providing funding for conservation of the Fort Worth Public Art Collection, undertaking new public art projects in locations not included in the Long Range Public Art Plan for the 2004 CIP and for program administration. City Council adopted the plan in May of 2006.

[longhornz32]

Sure enough, really fantastic lit up in color. Took my crappy scooter down Lancaster on my way to work and took some daytime pics. I see 2 of the 6 installed. I will attach one pic, and a slide show for 9 others to keep from bogging down this thread.
http://flickr.com/ph...420831494/show/

I thought that was you. I spy myself in your picture. I took a detour this morning since traffic was bad. Lancaster was backed up enough that I could have said hi to you.

[safly]

Cool!
Guess I have been out of town for a good while. Noticed them for the first time yesterday while in town.

Had not seen them lit up yet, until these pics. Can't wait to see them up close at night.

[Fort Worthology]

Did this shot for Fort Worth Public Art for a magazine note about the sculptures.

[BlueMound]

Anyone know the date when the sculptures will remain lit permanently ?

[Fort Worthology]

April 7th is the lighting date, I believe. Don't know if that's the official lighting ceremony thing or not.

[longhornz32]

It looks like the date is back on... June 25th.

More here.

http://www.fwpublica...e.php/id/events

[longhornz32]

So does anyone know what happened last night? I went down to Lancaster around 10 and stayed for 20 minutes and they still weren't lit up. People were heading home and the party was wrapping up but no lights. Did I miss it?

[UncaMikey]

I don't know about last night, but I will say this: I am a big believer in public art. I was excited by this idea when I first saw the drawings a couple years ago. But now that the light towers are up, I am bothered by the way they partially block the view of oncoming traffic in some places, when you're on Lancaster and want to turn left.

[Fort Worthology]

Took photos and video for Fort Worthology:

http://fortwortholog...light-ceremony/



http://fortwortholog...light-ceremony/

[360texas]

Thanks Kevin, Great Presentation.

Guess I am going to have to go down and take a full 360 panorama of the lighting and the surrounding neighborhood scene.

[djold1]

I've been driving down Lancaster during the day fairly often trying to get a feel for the new avenue. I like much of what I see.

During the day, there isn't much art to the light towers in my opinion. Kind of blah. Nothing that really attracts a second glance or when it does, there isn't much there of a decorative nature during the day.

From Kevin's excellent picture, I would say that the night time display may be more artistic and interesting. I will get down ther this weekend after dark.

Curious... I assume that the towers are of something like stainless steel or a light non-ferrous metal. The construction is fairly intricate and interwoven. How will it be possible to keep these structures relatively clean so that they reflect the lighting to the max? I'm sure someone has thought of this.

Overall, not a bad addition to Lancaster. Whether or not it qualifies as 24/7 public art is another question...

[Brian Luenser]

I've been driving down Lancaster during the day fairly often trying to get a feel for the new avenue. I like much of what I see.

During the day, there isn't much art to the light towers in my opinion. Kind of blah. Nothing that really attracts a second glance or when it does, there isn't much there of a decorative nature during the day.

From Kevin's excellent picture, I would say that the night time display may be more artistic and interesting. I will get down ther this weekend after dark.

Curious... I assume that the towers are of something like stainless steel or a light non-ferrous metal. The construction is fairly intricate and interwoven. How will it be possible to keep these structures relatively clean so that they reflect the lighting to the max? I'm sure someone has thought of this.

Overall, not a bad addition to Lancaster. Whether or not it qualifies as 24/7 public art is another question...

I agree. I like them a lot at night but in the day visitors will wonder what they are. (Special antenna's is the likely guess.) There surely is something to be said for Art that looks nice night and day.

And I too am liking the whole strip more each day. A couple of years of tree growth and it will be fantastic.

[Fort Worthology]

The key to some of these comments, I think, is "driving." I think the sculptures are meant to be enjoyed as a pedestrian on the avenue, not a driver passing through (which makes sense, given that the entire point of the Lancaster project is to encourage new infill on the south end of downtown and the large increase in pedestrians that would bring). On foot, you're able to study them more and view different angles and distances, and they look quite cool even during the day.

Now that everything's done and public, here's some bonus photos. I was hired by Cliff Garten, the artist, to do photography of the test lightings a while back, and here's a few of those along with some I did for him of them during the day.

[djold1]

Glee...

Your very excellent photographs, two of which I hijacked to use as examples, really tell the whole story between night and day. In my opinion during the day, the towers have no definition or focal point or zing to grab the eye.

As has been said, they could be any untilitarion thing. I thought the first time I saw them in the day, that these could certainly be super radiators for the free downtown Fort Worth Wi-Fi system . Or, inverted old fashioned egg beaters. Again, they aren't that bad. They just don't have much presence. By night, another story if your pictures are accurate, and I'm sure they are. The color differentation is the focus and eye candy.

While I respect your intense personal vision on repopulating the downtown sidewalks with proper stick people and agree myself with a good deal of the theory, I think you entirely miss the boat with your walking vs. driving comments.

Public art if this is what it really is, rather than a pronouncement by authoritarion wanna-be's, is by definition public. It is not a calculated device to influence its admirers into walking the walk rather than driving it. It may however eventually have that effect, but to create art with the advance intent of coercing a population into changing their habits is devious and not acceptable. Instead of art, it becomes politics.

The whole premise of the light towers, day or night, being pedestrian oriented is a fallacy in my opinion. This art should be intended for the 24/7 appreciation of all those who pass, no matter what their conveyance or lack thereof.

Now that it is open, more individual bodies will see these towers from powered vechicles of all kinds in one week than will be seen by pedestrians in one or two months or perhaps a year. The vehicular viewer will probably have a different perception of the towers than the pedestrian. But that does not mean that one or the other viewpoint or perception is wrong, it will just be different.

Art, after all, is subjective. There will be as many different perceptive views between individual pedestrians as there will be between those in a vehicle and the pedestrian.

I will give you this: If those towers were located in the pedestrian sidewalk stream on either side of Lancaster, then possibly the close up daytime appreciation of the techno aspects might be benefical and appreciated. Unfortunately and thoughtlessly the towers were placed in the median which makes it somewhat life threatening to visit and hug. Especially during the day when unredeemed drivers will insist upon traversing the public throughfare in an easterly or westerly direction even though there is an ongoing effort by dedicated narrowista's to cast guilt upon their actions.

In my view, Lancaster Avenue is a grand portal to the southern end of the downtown area. The original planning in 1936 which included the Trinity bridge envisioned this entrance with its stately and monumental buldings on the south. Now with the old overhead gone and the revitalization under way, we certainly don't want this entry to become pedestrian in another sense. Any art that is planted along this way should be designed to be able to be appreciated by all its users no matter what their means of transportation.

[John T Roberts]

Great shots, Kevin! I was down there last night until 11:30 PM taking photographs, including other buildings on the south end of downtown. I'm just now downloading them to my computer. I will let you know how they came out later.

[Keller Pirate]

Photographs have a hard time capturing the scale of these towers. The first picture I saw of them in the S-T made them look huge. Because of the looking up perspective the camera makes them look as tall as or taller than the surrounding buildings. Having since seen them in person, they are big but not as big as they look in photographs, especially to someone that has never seen them.

Kevin's photos are terrific, the best I have seen, but they still have the height illusion.

I like The Avenue of Light, it is one of the best art installations Ft Worth has done with public money. They are almost as good as a 4th of July fireworks show. If I was a Ft Worth taxpayer, or city employee at risk of losing my job, I might not like it as much as I do now. Hopefully these hard times won't last and the budget issues of today will be forgotten about in a few years.

[Dismuke]

Photographs have a hard time capturing the scale of these towers. The first picture I saw of them in the S-T made them look huge. Because of the looking up perspective the camera makes them look as tall as or taller than the surrounding buildings. Having since seen them in person, they are big but not as big as they look in photographs, especially to someone that has never seen them.

Nor are the lights as bright as they appear in the photos. Somehow, yesterday was the very first time I noticed this thread's existence - most of its activity dates back to a period when I was not following the Forum. I have seen the lights during the daytime and wondered what their purpose was. I guessed that they might be some sort of lights but really wasn't sure. So when I saw the photos, I immediately drove to Lancaster to take a look. But when I got on Lancaster from the I-30 exit ramp, I was initially disappointed and thought: "Gee - they are not turned on tonight. Maybe they will only be turned on for special occasions and such." Then, all of a sudden, I could see a very faint suggestion of color that grew brighter as I drove closer.

Can't say that I am all that fond of taxpayer dollars being used to pay for them - it would be much better if such things were funded by some sort of local civic organization supported on an entirely voluntary basis. But I do think the lights are kind of cool. I think that people are starting to get the right idea that downtowns at night need LIGHTS -- LOTS of them. That is what makes them look ALIVE. I like how they have lit up that parking garage near the Omni - which is also a VERY nice parking garage and proves that such garages do not HAVE to be eyesores. Now if they could just light up the top floors of The Fair/Commerce Building. And it would be nice if the new Omni had some sort of night time lighting scheme as well.

And it would also be great if there were more neon lights. There have been several neon signs put up in recent years and they look great. But we still have a long way to go to get back to the sort of light show that night time visitors saw back during downtown's heyday.

Here is a short 24 second video clip on YouTube from a 1936 tourist film of the neon lights of Vienna.



The clip is entirely in black and white - but it is still pretty impressive. Imagine what it must have looked like in color. Not that Vienna was a happy place to be in 1936 - but such nighttime light displays were commonplace in all big cities during the period. I especially think it would be nice if downtown Fort Worth could have some animated neon signs along the lines of some of the ones seen in the clip.

[djold1]

Still curious about mundane things..

In addition to curiosity about the plans for keeping these towers clean enough to reflect light well..

What about lightning?

I'm sure some thought has been given to the potential to host lightning strikes.

This has nothing to do with the height of the structure because they are located away from other tall structures and so I presume they are potential ground-to-air conductor targets.

Is there special grounding or protection that was part of the construction?

If these were self supporting broadcast towers they would have to be fenced to keep people from being in contact in bad weather.

[Recyclican]

Can't say that I am all that fond of taxpayer dollars being used to pay for them - it would be much better if such things were funded by some sort of local civic organization supported on an entirely voluntary basis.

I believe I've mentioned it on this thread (or at least this forum) at some time or another, though in case it's been buried (or I'm mistaken), I'll rehash.

City Council created the Fort Worth Public Art Program back in 2001 with the passing of an ordinance. I don't remember the outcome of the vote for this program, though I can imagine there was an overwhelming support (I bet Silcox voted against this one).

The funds for this project, along with other public art projects, were voted for and approved by the residents of Fort Worth back in each bond election held since 2001. For each bond to fund Capital Improvements Programs (CIP), such as long-range water and sewer infrastructure in the city, 2% was added to the CIP and devoted to the creation of public art in the city.

More info on Fort Worth Public Art can be found here: http://www.fwpublica...ge.php/id/about

[Dismuke]

The funds for this project, along with other public art projects, were voted for and approved by the residents of Fort Worth back in each bond election held since 2001.

Even if the voters did approve it (as opposed to it being unilaterally decided upon by officials) that still doesn't justify it.

Just because one gathers together the support of a large enough mob to form a majority, that doesn't mean that it has any moral right to confiscate assets from the minority in order to fund whatever projects it deems desirable. Unlimited majority rule is every bit as much a form of tyranny as any dictatorship. In some respects it is even worse as the tyrants are many and are much more difficult to dislodge than a single dictator or cabal. All sorts of horrors have been rationalized away on the grounds of the "will of the majority" including slavery and Jim Crow laws. And remember, Hitler was democratically elected to office and enjoyed broad popular support among the German public.

There are certain specific functions of government that are absolutely necessary in order to secure, protect and defend the rights of the individual citizens - and public art most certainly does NOT rise to that level. A government's power and its funding should be limited ONLY to those specific functions necessary to protect individual rights. The ONLY matters that are properly subject to a democratic vote in a free society are issues of HOW those functions are best executed and WHO should fill the necessary government offices as our elected representatives. In a free society, a democratic vote is NOT a license for the majority to impose its will and worldview upon the minority. And I don't care how "worthy" the objective one is attempting to obtain through compulsion allegedly is. It doesn't matter. The ends do NOT justify the means.

Those lights along Lancaster are VERY cool - but if the only way that it is possible for them to exist is to force people into funding them, then they have no business being there. There are all sorts of wonderful things in this world which are funded entirely on voluntary basis by private individuals and organizations of like-minded individuals. And there would probably be a lot more such wonderful things that would be funded but are not because so much of what we produce is looted away from us by various methods to support sundry "ends justifies the means" schemes that other people deem "necessary."

[cbellomy]

Dismuke, I enjoy so much of what you contribute to the forum, but I am going to have to ask you more directly now -- please cut out the libertarian lectures from your posts. They're off-topic and frankly off-putting to me, largely because I want to rebut your points but know this isn't the place for that. So we have the net effect of your opinions going unrebutted, as though there is consensus approval. There is not.

I suppose we could go to the Miscellaneous forum and hash out the finer points of democratic rule, but maybe let's do that with a "I have more to say about this in Miscellaneous" tag or something?

Thanks and best regards,

cb

[Dismuke]

cbellomy:

I am sorry but it is NOT off topic to explain WHY I might be opposed to something that is being discussed here and to provide the REASONS for my opposition. Whether you disagree with my views or find them "off putting" is irrelevant in this context.

NOBODY is stopping you from rebutting my views or preventing viewpoints that oppose mine from being aired. Indeed, it is YOU who are demanding ME to be silent when it comes to discussions of projects that I disagree with. And on what grounds? Because YOU disagree with where I am coming from and find it "off putting"? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If it is ok to suggest that government funded art is a good thing - then it is just as ok for me to disagree and to explain WHY I disagree.

Anytime you follow a discussion that is open to all people and all points of view, you are going to be exposed to views you disagree with. If you find them off putting, you are free to either disagree, to ignore the discussion, to ignore the particular poster or to jump in and challenge the poster. NOBODY has any basis to assume that, just because you don't take time out your life to refute something, that you must necessarily agree with it.

If the viewpoints I express are so utterly repugnant to you, then my suggestion is to use the "ignore user" feature that is provided with this board. Simply go to "My Controls" click on "Manage Ignored Users" and enter "Dismuke" in the box that is provided. And, presto, my viewpoints completely disappear just as effectively as if you got your way and had them censored.

Now, I will be the first person to agree that conversations can and frequently do get bogged down over specific points or objections and that the points and objections sometimes evolve into an entirely separate direction. In those cases, it is entirely appropriate for those postings to be split into a separate thread, as you suggest. But most often the need for such a split becomes evident only AFTER the conversation has started to digress beyond a certain point. When that happens, it is only the moderators who have the access to make such a split - and my guess is their time is limited which makes it difficult for them to be too vigilant in that regard.

But this thread, in particular, does not even BEGIN to rise to that level. Every single posting I have put up in this thread has been SPECIFICALLY about the Lancaster lights and WHY I think they should have been privately financed. The only "problem" with my postings is that you find my reasons why to be "off putting." Well, I am afraid that is YOUR "problem" - not mine. I would venture to guess that I would probably find some of YOUR viewpoints to be "off putting" as well. But I am the LAST person in this world to suggest that you refrain from expressing them. If you wish to rebut my views as you say you do, then DO SO. If you think your rebuttal is going to take the thread too far off topic, then follow your own suggestion and start a new thread and post a link to it in this one.

[djold1]

" In a free society, a democratic vote is NOT a license for the majority to impose its will and worldview upon the minority. And I don't care how "worthy" the objective one is attempting to obtain through compulsion allegedly is. It doesn't matter. The ends do NOT justify the means. "

Dismuke: You're a little off on this, I think. A democratic society works on majority/minority relationships. It must do this or else democracy becomes anarchy.

In every poilitical issue that comes to a vote there is always a minority and understandably that minority is not comfortable with the result of the vote. Some of that minority will be very vocal about their feelings. Others of this minority will exercise the powerful tool that is a part of all real democracies and work to convince enough people that their viewpoint should hold sway in the next vote on the issue.

This is the genius of democracy as practiced in the United States. There's always an opportunity for change that will let you and others of your viewpoint to predominate for a time. The process is far from perfect, evil and greedy minds can distort it for a while, but eventually the process works.

The result of a vote is not a "license", it is just a compromise that does not please the members of one of one or more minorities that could not muster enough support to carry their opinions into a majority themselves.

In America, if you don't like something, there is always the opportunity to turn things around to your viewpoint. When your viewpoint on a issue predominates then it would be interesting to see what means you would use to jusitify your ends.

[Recyclican]

I've created a topic in the "City Issues" section to discuss the merits of public art. You can find it here: http://www.fortworth...?showtopic=3789

[Dismuke]

In every poilitical issue that comes to a vote there is always a minority and understandably that minority is not comfortable with the result of the vote. Some of that minority will be very vocal about their feelings. Others of this minority will exercise the powerful tool that is a part of all real democracies and work to convince enough people that their viewpoint should hold sway in the next vote on the issue.....

The result of a vote is not a "license", it is just a compromise that does not please the members of one of one or more minorities that could not muster enough support to carry their opinions into a majority themselves.

djold1 -

I do not really disagree with anything you are saying. You are correct, those on the minority side of an election ARE going to be uncomfortable with the results and they will often be very vocal about their feelings. That is what the next election cycle is about.

My point is merely that there has to be a limit on the scope of the power that the majority may exercise over the minority. A free society is one which protects the rights of the minority against encroachments by the majority - and the smallest minority that exists is you, the individual citizen.

Ancient Athens was a pure democracy - and they voted to put Socrates to death because he said things which were unpopular and refused to shut up. How is that any different than had a Joseph Stalin simply ordered him shot? A lynch mob is also an instance of a majority demanding that its will be obeyed. Surely you can see what is wrong in principle with both instances.

That which is illegal for citizens to do individually ought to be illegal for them to do when they gather enough people together to form a majority. If it is criminal for me to say that you, djold, spend too much of your money on silly old maps and not enough on some art project that I am promoting and, therefore, take that money from you - well, how is it any morally different if I manage to get the matter put on the ballot and get a majority to go along with me? Again, the Lancaster lights are VERY cool. But why should you be FORCED to pay for them?

We DO need a government - but it needs to have very strict limits on the scope of its authority. Yes, within the realm of its proper authority, a majority vote IS the best and only practical way of deciding things. And if the scope of governmental authority is properly limited, then the minority does not have to worry about its rights being violated even if it does lose an election because the whole point of limiting the authority of government in the first place is to protect the rights of the very smallest minority in any society, the individual.

[Dismuke]

I've created a topic in the "City Issues" section to discuss the merits of public art. You can find it here: http://www.fortworth...?showtopic=3789

Cool - didn't see that until after my last posting went up. And I have zero objection to my last posting being moved to that thread if a moderator has time to do so.

[djold1]

"My point is merely that there has to be a limit on the scope of the power that the majority may exercise over the minority"

Scope or power limitation is a consitutional consideration. Any individual or group can work to change the US Constitution in well understood ways. Understandably, changing the Constitution is an arduous process, as it should be. Other alternatives are challenging the interpretation of an existing consitutional right through the federal courts.

The word democracy has to have modifers to keep it in context. While Greece may have had what is called a "pure" democracy, it is not the same thing that has evolved in the US any more than US democracy is the same as any other relatively free democracy in our current time.

While the US system of democracy has great failings and is far from perfect, it tends to work about as well as anything going now, if not better. And it has for a while.

That it works fairly well can be measured by the intense verbal and physical attacks on the US system by countries whose people are visibly less free in their actions than ours and by the continuous attempts by hoards of individuals in other countries to legally or illegally become a part of our system.

I hope I don't sound too much like an over the top flag-waver who knows the 4th of July is coming. I am well aware of the failings of our country and there are a number of issues past and present on which I have tried to exert what pressure I have to get modified or changed. I tend to be skeptical but try not to be cynical.

And thankfully is is not illegal for you to knock my silly old maps. Any more than it is criminal for me to say that I feel that your admiration of the frivolous, frothy and mindless music of the F. Scott Fitzgerald era is misguided.

I'll meet you in boater and spats on the field of honor with dueling megaphones at ten paces..

[NThomas]

I drove by Lancaster the other night and the lights weren't on Do they shut off after a certain time? Or are they just not always on?

[Brian Luenser]

I drove by Lancaster the other night and the lights weren't on Do they shut off after a certain time? Or are they just not always on?

The kickoff was Thursday night. (June 25) and they stated they would be on dusk to dawn 7 days a week.
Could just be they are adjusting timers etc...

Or then again, maybe there were off to commemorate the passing of Farrah Fawcett.

[Dismuke]

I drove by Lancaster the other night and the lights weren't on Do they shut off after a certain time? Or are they just not always on?

Were you actually on Lancaster right next to the lights? Or were you just in the area and looked towards Lancaster to see the lights? I initially thought they were turned off the other night when I went to look. But they were actually on. You just can't see them from more than a very few blocks away.

[Fort Worthology]

That's correct - one of the effects of the design is that as distance from the sculptures increases, the arrangement of the plates and such makes them become more and more transparent in appearance.

[Dismuke]

That's correct - as distance from the sculptures increases, the arrangement of the plates and such makes them become more and more transparent in appearance. (The artist told me this was intentional.)

Perhaps you might know the answer to this: Where and what is the actual source of the light? It looks like the light is coming from within the plates. But from the photos and from what I have seen driving by in the daytime, the plates appear to be solid metal. If so then obviously the light has to shine towards them from someplace else. When I drove by the other night, I did see round colored lights in the ground at each corner of their base. But I could not see how just those ground lights alone could have pulled it off.

The point at which the lights just become very slightly visible is a bit odd. What I saw was just a very vague suggestion of color without any sort of solid form against the backdrop of darkness. I went there looking for the lights and concluded that they must not be on. For a very split fraction of a second, the slight little glimmer of color caught me off guard and made me wonder: what on earth is that? Then, of course, I realized it was the lights. I can imagine somebody at the very perimeter of their visibility in a building or in a parked car and not moving any closer being extremely perplexed as to what is going on.

[AndyN]

I think you are seeing the light reflected off the bottoms of the plates. From a distance, you are looking at the sides of the plates. As you get closer, you are looking up at the plates and seeing the light reflected from the bottom, which I suspect is coming from the lights mounted in the ground in the concrete around the base.

I imagine if you were above the sculptures, the plates would look dark and you would only see light coming directly from the fixtures. Someone take a picture from the 10th floor of the T&P and we'll test my theory.

[Fort Worthology]

The light in the sculptures comes from nine packs of LEDs:

Four on the ground, one at each corner of the pad around the sculpture.
Four in the base, one at each corner.
One in the center of the base, shooting up through the center of the sculpture.

Each of these LED packs has red, blue, and green LEDs. A computer in the concrete base of each sculpture controls their color mix to create the variety of colors and blends you see in the various settings. By turning off & on various combinations of the RGB LEDs and working the packs in concert, they create the solid colors (including solid white, if desired) and multi-colored effects you see on the sculptures.

[mmiller2002]

I wonder when someone's going to climb them?

[Fort Worthology]

The original design featured shorter bases - these were changed to the taller bases you see on the finished product to help dissuade people from climbing them.

[Dismuke]

I wonder when someone's going to climb them?

Or worse, deface them with cans of spray paint.

[Brian Luenser]

I wonder when someone's going to climb them?

I fear the same thing.

At the Main Street Arts festival I sure saw kids jerking around on yard art etc...

To parents these days, anything their kids do is cute and acceptable.

[Brian Luenser]

As my new camera is still in the shop (going on 438 weeks?) I am providing a link to a little movie my wife made of the lighting.
The music in the video is not from a soundtrack. It is the band playing there.

Credit to mrs. monee. (Debbie)

[NThomas]

I drove by Lancaster the other night and the lights weren't on Do they shut off after a certain time? Or are they just not always on?

Were you actually on Lancaster right next to the lights? Or were you just in the area and looked towards Lancaster to see the lights? I initially thought they were turned off the other night when I went to look. But they were actually on. You just can't see them from more than a very few blocks away.

I made about 2 loops up and down houston & commerce to lancaster. there wasn't any traffic so i even slowed down thinking that you had to be up close to see it lit up. They're less then a week old so I'm gonna let it pass... This time...

[mmiller2002]

I wonder how much they cost us. Or were they a private donation?

These public art pieces were funded through Fort Worth Public Art: http://www.fwpublica...u_site/home.php

Does that site say how much the project cost? i can't see the link.

[360texas]

Thanks Mrs Monee. Good Job !!

[mmiller2002]

Or worse, deface them with cans of spray paint.

I was surprised at the unusual brevity of your post!

[Dismuke]

I was surprised at the unusual brevity of your post!

Yes, it happens on occasion. But needless to say, I am not a good candidate for Twitter!

[Willy1]

I noticed there isn't anything around these towert to protect them from cars... What's the plan if a car or truck goes out of contron and plows into one of the towers? I think they need to put some sort of decorative barrier around them. Light post get TKO'd all the time. What's to think these won't take a hit too?