Jo, shoot, how do I say this kindly... I am so sorry that your tolerance for oppressive, high-population-density urban architecture is much higher than mine. I would never be able to live in Chicago or New York. I had to even get out of Salt Lake City, and I was born and raised there. I now only go downtown about two or three times a year, and only when I HAVE to. 5-storey buildings actually ARE a concrete canyon to my little provincial mind, thank you. I guess I have a good imagination, eh? And- I was blaming it on Standard Time, not the architecture. The urban "experience" (or what passes for one, in these parts anyway, I know it's nothing compared to your metropolitan history) was just icing on the cake. 50-storey buildings couldn't have made it any worse when you don't go outside and have no window all day, anyway. On 6/4/07, Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> wrote:
Chuck, Warn me when you are going to make a joke! I almost choked on my coffee.... 22 years ago, before the American towers were built, and the Walker building was the highest thing outside of the LDS business tower, concrete canyons were pretty much umm, well, ah, (shoot, how do I say this kindly...) imaginary.... I remember when we moved here in 75, we couldn't believe how few buildings there were in downtown more than 5 stories tall. The Boston building and the Continental bank building were considered "high rises" by the locals.... And with the wonderfully wide roads, it was hard to feel canyon like. Now in Chicago, New York and Boston; THOSE were concrete canyons..... A friend in New York pointed out to me that she had a longer vertical commute to where she worked, than a horizontal (She lived a few buildings away from the World trade towers, and worked on the 92nd floor of one of them.) In Chicago, I worked in the loop, and you would get incredible winds funnelled down the streets by the buildings. The shortest building on the block was in the neighborhood of 25 stories, and average was closer to 50. So, While I would absolutely agree that working in a dark room all day in the winter in downtown SLC would make one yearn for a little sunlight, and I would certainly want to have time changed to make it light after 5 o clock, I think that blaming it on concrete canyons might be a bit of a stretch....
Jo
Quoting Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com>:
Joe, 22 years ago, I worked in downtown SLC, in the "concrete canyons". During the winter, I arrived at work in the morning in the dark, and went home in the early evening, in the dark. Lunchtime was the only time I had a chance of getting any daylight in my life, for a week at a time. And if I had to work through lunch (a common occurrance), there went that opportunity.
I always longed for Daylight time through the dead of winter, just so I could have an hour of daylight after work.
And BTW, I worked in a darkroom back then!
On 6/4/07, Joe Bauman <bau@desnews.com> wrote:
Hear, hear. I fully agree. Maybe we should start a drive to "turn back the clock" -- making it a reasonable instrument instead of a political device. I really can't understand the reason for the time change. It's a ridiculous exercise apparently intended to goof up our internal clocks twice a year. jb
Actually, in light of the typical buisness/school day, I would prefer Daylight Saving Time year-round. Standard Time is the silly time- especially from mid-November to about mid-February.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com