News RSS Feed


Mobile news, sport and travel from the Daily Echo Coverage of the swine flu outbreak The Daily Echo is now on Facebook Southampton Cenotaph Memorial Wall Campaign


Southampton's laser plan dubbed 'imaginative' by Eastleigh council chief

5:30am Friday 5th January 2007

comment Comments (25)   Have your say »


EASTLEIGH'S civic chiefs have thrown their weight behind plans to blast the skies of Southampton with laser light.

Eastleigh Borough Council has backed the plans to bring the so-called "wow" factor to the city by projecting laser beams from the civic centre's Grade II listed clock tower.

The laser light project is imaginative, has a relatively low cost and would be something distinctive and different for the area."

Eastleigh Council leader, Keith House.

Two weeks ago, civic leaders unveiled the groundbreaking £249,000 project to illuminate the skies over the city from dusk to midnight each day.

A Daily Echo poll comes to a close today after receiving hundreds of comments on the project.

The results of the poll will be revealed in tomorrow's Echo.

On Monday the idea will be debated by Southampton council before a final decision is made on January 22.

Eastleigh council leader Keith House dubbed the project an "imaginative plan" which would "shout Southampton's achievements from the rooftops".

Mr House said: "When any project is put forward that involves risk and change it inevitably attracts criticism about whether it is a waste of money.

"The laser light project is imaginative, has a relatively low cost and would be something distinctive and different for the area.

"Southampton has improved greatly as a city in recent years but has not always shouted it from the rooftops - the laser gateway will be a way of doing this.

"The lasers will be a beacon for the city and its region."

The laser light scheme - the brainchild of the Southampton Partnership - would see lasers shining from the tower which would be visible for up to 14 miles from the city centre.

They would be fired up in early April as part of the city's 95th commemorations of the sinking of the Titanic.

However, the project has come under fire in recent weeks from local astronomers who claim the project is a form of "sky vandalism", obscuring the view of stars over Hampshire.

Greenwich Observatory entered the debate, stating that its laser projection - which uses the same as the ones the Southampton project would use - has not obstructed stargazers.

The costs of the scheme, dubbed Southampton Laser Gateway, are being met with a £249,000 grant from the South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA).

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourDaily Echo

Robert, says...
6:48am Fri 5 Jan 07

As if there isn't enough vandalism going on at ground level - with cars and fences being smashed, destruction of changing rooms and newly-planted trees, not to mention countless innocent citizens being duffed up. This OFFICIAL vandalism of the night skies will just encourage the yobs in the streets - as if they needed it!

Report this post »

Mark, says...
8:13am Fri 5 Jan 07

How on earth is this going to encourage the "yobs" on the ground??? it sounds to me that your a star spotter, who are the majority of people complaining about this. Times are changing, what have we got in Southampton with the "WOW" factor...NOTHING...I think people ages 18-38 will be all for this, so i would imagine that your collecting your pension.

Report this post »

Colin Henshaw, says...
8:31am Fri 5 Jan 07

Mark,
You have completely missed the point. It is your so-called "star spotters" who were first alerted to the broader environmental problems caused by street lighting and crass acts of civic vansalism such as these. The evidence is out there in the public domain, so I strongly suggest you go out there and look before you make such naive statements about those who are concerned with protecting the environment.

Report this post »

Mark, says...
8:43am Fri 5 Jan 07

This isnt going to harm the environment more that the normal street lights is it... and there on for another 6 hours more in an evening.

Report this post »

Colin Henshaw, says...
10:25am Fri 5 Jan 07

Mark,
At least you are admitting that street lights cause harm. So why then add to the problem?

Report this post »

Robert, says...
10:31am Fri 5 Jan 07

Since reading Mark's pieces I've suddenly become more concerned about protecting the English language!!

Report this post »

David Conner, says...
10:44am Fri 5 Jan 07

"The lasers will be a beacon for the city and its region."

The irresponsible face of capitalism..?

Report this post »

Rob, says...
11:25am Fri 5 Jan 07

Although I can obviously think of better things to spend a quarter of a million pounds on, I think it will be a welcome addition to a city which is in desperate need of modernising and "livening-up". There is always going to be someone offended or upset by ideas such as this one.

Report this post »

David Conner, says...
12:43pm Fri 5 Jan 07

If blotting out the night sky were the only way of modernising and livening up the city then so be it. However, I do not believe that the case has been made that this display will achieve this or, even if it could, that it is the best method for doing this. As for being upset, how about the thousands of youngsters who are already deprived of the the sight of the night sky from their own home town. What will this teach them about caring for the wider environment that we must all share? The 'offence' and 'upset' come from seeing an ill conceived idea such as this that comes with a far higher price tag than the simple financial costs it will incur.

Report this post »

Rob, says...
1:14pm Fri 5 Jan 07

For the most part, I don't disagree with you. But I feel you're all overexaggerating the scale of the display. Just because it can be seen up to 14 miles away, it doesn't mean its going to block out a 14 mile radius of sky. Anything like this is simply a novelty but it can also bring character (if done properly) which one would assume can only boost Souhtampton as a thriving economic hub.

Report this post »

Rob, says...
1:36pm Fri 5 Jan 07

As an addition, does anyone here actually know anything about lasers, or done any research? Light pollution is a result of scattering of light from non-focused sources, such as street lamps, car headlights which simply block out the fainter stars in the night sky. Lasers are highly uniform, mono-directional point sources of light that in no way radiate out from their path and so cannot effect the observation of night sky objects. They are "light-pollution-free". The only quaestion here really is :- Are they an eyesore? Which is all a matter of personal opinion.

Report this post »

David Conner, says...
2:49pm Fri 5 Jan 07

'Lasers are highly uniform, mono-directional point sources of light that in no way radiate out from their path and so cannot effect the observation of night sky objects. They are "light-pollution-free".'

I must disagree here. As an amateur astrnomer for over 40 years I have much experience of light pollution, its causes and effects - including lasers. (Sorry, but laser displays are not new. They are old hat.)

I and others have seen the gradual but relentless erosion of our views of the night sky over that time. This laser display, including the example it would set to others, would be one more nail in the coffin.

Light pollution is not new, and neither is the desire to reduce its effects.

David Conner MSc (Astronomy)

Report this post »

No spread, says...
3:18pm Fri 5 Jan 07

If there was no dispersal at all, they'd be nothing to see ! Its got to scatter a bit other wise you wouldn't see it unless you were staring dead on the end of the beam !
Hey perhaps the council could also arrange for Jean Michel Jarre's Oxygene to be played from enormous speaker stacks during the laser light show ? Very 1970s Tomorrows World ! Can we have the launch party with some mime artists as well ?

Report this post »

john lund, says...
5:29pm Fri 5 Jan 07

This is just another way of hiding behind a curtain and not dealing with the real issue of why southampton is an unpleasent place to live.

Report this post »

Go on then, says...
5:48pm Fri 5 Jan 07

Go on then John Lund - tell us why Southampton is an unpleasant place to live ? I'm dying to know ...though my bet is on the prevalence of moaning minnies.

Report this post »

beekay, says...
6:34pm Fri 5 Jan 07

What a marvellous device for encouraging energy conservation - spent a quarter of a million needlessly burning the stuff.

Report this post »

Robert, says...
1:18am Sat 6 Jan 07

One thing is certain: it's bound to cost many times more what one might consider a reasonable sum. Without going into detail, I'll cite two fountains that were admirable in conception but disastrous in their execution. One is the Diana fountain in London and the other is the Queen Elisabeth fountain in East Park. This latter was a shocking example of "jobs for the boys".

Report this post »

Gerry, says...
7:43pm Sun 7 Jan 07

It is unwanted decoration. Graffitti on walls is even justified by street artists. Many do not want to live in an installation gallery.
The desire to do this is as artistically childish as drawing on a blank wall. At least Gormley had to sculpt and caste the Angle of the North, this thing is art by throwing a switch. And when Portsmaouth have done the same? Then Fareham, then Bournemouth, the sky will look like a Stuart tartan before long. All decent people nowadays want to live deep in the countryside, including Cllr Vinson I bet.

Report this post »

Dan, says...
1:18pm Mon 8 Jan 07

Southampton Clock Tower Lasers - Titanic Disaster Remembrance-

as a remembrance it makes me feel uneasy not going along with the Clock Tower Laser scheme

who'd of thought a remembrance to the lost souls of Southampton would cause so much angst

does anyone know how the Titanic remembrance has been narrowed down to this one plan?

a bit late and for what it's worth..

how about a project to reduce Southampton's carbon emissions in the name of the lost?

like replacing all lighting in Southampton with low power LED's

starting off with the back lighting of Southampton's Clock Tower

the latest LED's are far better than glow and halogen lamps in terms of power efficiency, and outpace fluorescent lamps in terms of life span

It maybe possible to replace all of Southampton's Street Lighting,

LED Street Lights can consume half the energy of 100 watt High Pressure Sodium luminaires and there is no bulb replacement for 50,000 hours or more than 10 years.

finally not as a remembrance replacement project, has anyone opinions on a Southampton Water " Laser Arch", low cost lasers from Calshot to Mayflower Park ?


Report this post »

Peter, says...
3:30pm Thu 11 Jan 07

I have done much research on the effects of these lasers on the cities environment, and there is little damage that will be done. Furthermore, it will be iconic, an addition to a thriving and clean city.

Report this post »

Dave, says...
12:15am Fri 12 Jan 07

Another pointless and useless expense in a city that has recently cut services and is largely bankrupt. This is a gimmick and nothing else. And how many people outside the city want to see it anyway? How is it "iconic" and how does it liven up or modernise the city? And as for adding the 'WOW' factor, er, no.

Report this post »

Alan, says...
10:55am Fri 19 Jan 07

There's been a number of interesting points raised on this site but there's also a lot of misconception about lasers which I feel needs to be addressed:
1. The dangers of lasers
2. The light pollution caused by lasers

Firstly, these lasers will be pointing horizontally along the lines of the compass. After a relatively short distance (I would guess half-a-mile for 5W green lasers in standard atmospheric conditions), the power of the lasers will be reduced below that considered dangerous by international safety standards.

Secondly, this is really only a grander project than that which sits on top of Greenwich observatory

That green laser has quickly become synonymous with Greenwich and has raised it's profile over the last few years and it's important to note that as it's the Royal observatory, I think the Royal Astronomers might have put their foot down had there been any real concerns.

Report this post »

David, says...
10:56am Fri 19 Jan 07

As an amateur astronomer I can assure everyone that the light pollution is minimum in this case. 532nm is a very common wavelegth and can be filtered out from any view of the heavens with a simple 532nm line filter.

Report this post »

Ashley, says...
10:56am Fri 19 Jan 07

It turns out that the moeny will now be spent on another City task!

Due to the lobbying of many people, the money for this project will now go into postponing the project for four months whilst people sit around and discuss all of the points that people with no real knowledge of this kind of technology have raised. So istead of having at least some memorial in place, we'll have nothing.

Report this post »

David Conner, says...
10:43pm Sun 21 Jan 07

As an amateur astronomer I can assure everyone that the light pollution is minimum in this case. 532nm is a very common wavelegth and can be filtered out from any view of the heavens with a simple 532nm line filter.


Perhaps David could advise the readers how much these filters cost, and explain why the general public should be expected to pay this in order to see a sky which has been visible to all mankind for tens of thousands of years for free.

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



Video News Food & Restaurant Reviews

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »