The worst installations pictured

peterhoult · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:05 am **Posts:** 35

Indust wrote:

This is an Iridium heavy post, so if your eyes are easily offended, look away now!

I've posted a photo of this installation on the last forum I think, but I thought I'd add it in anyway as it is pretty horrible. The photo makes the Iridium look smaller probably due to the thick column and bracket but it looks massive in real life.

However last weekend, Phosco152 and myself were in Warminster and we discovered a nasty trend that had been catching on. I have one photo - Phosco152 has a few more.

You think that's bad?
Well today I was taking a walk through my town to see if anything has changed, and I was unfortunate to discover this...

It looks worse because the column is thicker (and older) than the Warminster one and the Iridium is fitted to a 1970s sleeve that has a much longer outreach. I really hope this is a one-off as I would not like to start seeing these everywhere I turn. I will be scarred forever. :shock: :(

What is with the hatred of the Iridium? It's basically Philips answer to the WRTL Arc (or vice-versa) which compared to the hateful Stela are beautiful lanterns IMHO.

Phosco152 · **Posted:** Fri Apr 11, 2014 10:25 am

The problem with the Iridium is that is an uninspiring piece of design - far too bulbous and bulky. The Arc is a smaller lantern.

The Iridium's bulk means that when used as a casual replacement on older columns, it is often out of proportion and dominates the street scene. This is the point Indust and I were referring to in those older posts.

The constant redesign of the Iridium - the mini-Iridium is a far better in terms of proportion, the Iridium 2 is more sleek than the original design - shows that Philips got the design wrong.

Further discussion on these topics should be in the Philips thread here.

peterhoult · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:05 am **Posts:** 35

OK point taken - I do prefer the Arc!

Alex · **Posted:** Sat Apr 12, 2014 1:02 am

I agree with Phosco152's points, but Peter you're not alone in liking the Iridium. I don't mind it under the right circumstances; it very much depends on the column/bracket supporting it, the type of bowl and the height of the installation itself. I also prefer them when they have a mini cell or no cell at all.

Of course, the main problem with Iridiums is... they're everywhere!

peterhoult · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:05 am **Posts:** 35

Can't argue with that Alex! I have seen an installation of Iridiums near Mansfield where they use the wrong "size". It looks hideous! In Derbyshire where I live the Arc was the SON lantern of choice, but now it's either the Libra or the awful Stela!

A13James · **Joined:** Tue Apr 22, 2014 6:04 pm **Posts:** 27

IMO, you can't shove a Thorn Beta 79 on a hockey stick.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=51.51 ... 2&t=h&z=11

However, Southend Council clearly think otherwise. Luckily, it has now been replaced as part of a scheme. This road, like so many others in the area, is now entirely lit by P567s.

Alex · **Posted:** Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:30 pm

Hi James,

Welcome to UKASTLE!

I can see why Beta 79s are installed on hockeystick columns as the authority can save money on bracket costs. I know what you mean though, they don't look particularly great.

What do you think of this example in London? The hockey stick column is slightly shorter than in your example and is painted black.

Acacia Cat · **Posted:** Thu Apr 24, 2014 4:33 pm

RE: Beta 79s

They look okay at first until you get a good look at them. The bracket is thick enough to create a ridge of sorts, making the lantern look far to small for the column. Here's a similar oddity in bristol. Beta 79s on stub brackets is not a very appealing combination in my opinion. what makes it worse is that it's an old fashioned S&L column and the column is to thick for the bracket.

This SGS203 from Chesterfield is pretty disproportionate. I normally like this type of lantern but councils persistently use them badly. Look at this one from Mansfield. it does't help that the bowl is deep fried either.

peterhoult · **Joined:** Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:05 am **Posts:** 35

Acacia Cat wrote:

RE: Beta 79s

They look okay at first until you get a good look at them. The bracket is thick enough to create a ridge of sorts, making the lantern look far to small for the column. Here's a similar oddity in bristol. Beta 79s on stub brackets is not a very appealing combination in my opinion. what makes it worse is that it's an old fashioned S&L column and the column is to thick for the bracket.

This SGS203 from Chesterfield is pretty disproportionate. I normally like this type of lantern but councils persistently use them badly. Look at this one from Mansfield. it does't help that the bowl is deep fried either.

Funny you should show this installation in Chesterfield Acacia Cat! It's where my dad plays golf. It is a Municipal Golf Course run by SIV (Sheffield International Venues) in conjunction with the local Borough Council. These were installed at the time when the council was in full control of the course. They are controlled by a switch in the golf club (not Photocell) and run SON.

Urbis Saturn Land · **Posted:** Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:44 am

Acacia Cat wrote:

This SGS203 from Chesterfield is pretty disproportionate. I normally like this type of lantern but councils persistently use them badly.

I'm surprised that someone hasn't 'nine ironed' the lantern yet :lol:

, saying that though it does look European on that bracket. Golf course near to me has them in use but on home made square brackets which are positioned at 45 degrees.

example one
exampke two

The worst installations pictured

Who is online