Earlier this week, we reported the Fremont Bridge is getting artistic lights with plans to expand to the Ballard Bridge sometime in the future.
Last night SDOT tested the lights for a few minutes, and here’s what they look like:
The lights are designed to cast a colorful reflection on the water below, slowly changing hue and shifting with the seasons (watch this video for more). Beginning tonight, the Fremont Bridge lights will be illuminated full-time at night. The project cost $212,000: half of the money came from a rebate received from using energy-efficient lighting, reports the Seattle Times.
No date has been set for the Ballard Bridge lights, which will need private funding to proceed.
By the way, the Seattle Office of Arts & Culture is looking for an “artist in residence” — a composer and/or musician — in the northwest tower of the Fremont Bridge. This person will “undertake an in-depth exploration of the historic bridge’s role and meaning for the city of Seattle and create music in response to this residency.”
This is the fourth “artist in residence” project at the bridge since the 1990s.
![](https://www.myballard.com/wp-content/uploads/2024-My-Ballard-Tile-Ad-Troop-100.png")
So, if I’m understanding this correctly: the city is wasting electricity on aesthetic, non-essential lighting and our taxes are paying for it?
Does this mean I should start disregarding the Seattle City Light junk mail about “energy saving” that fills up my mailbox? I thought this city was all about green green green tree hugging eco blah blah. What gives?
Kind of funny to see this the day after Mike O’Briens throws a hissy fit about “expensive fences.” I’m all about having a beautiful, interesting city but when we have more than 4,000 people living in tents and filth around town it makes for pretty poor optics to be doing this kind of thing.
I think it is a great thing. Travel the world and look at how other cities light up their bridges or otherwise call attention to them and they are all things of beauty. I can’t wait for the Ballard bridge to get a similar treatment. While we are at it what about the Aurora Bridge I think it would look spectacular?
Looks great!
We rode down to check it out last night , but no lights. It was after midnight tho, so I guess they don’t go all night?
@ PREACHY ENVIRONMENTALISTS — No, this does not mean you should “start disregarding” energy-saving suggestions from City Light. You can’t “start” doing something that you’ve been doing all along.
@ I DON’T HATE LIGHTS, BUT… — This project cost $212,000; the city spends many tens of millions every year trying to help those homeless people. What ratio of expenditures would satisfy your sense of our moral obligation?
Maybe you both subscribe to that old Puritan ethic that nothing enjoyable is good unless it saves money or doesn’t cost anything.
The light pollution for those of us who live around these bridges and are bombarded with these bright and unnecesary lights is outrageous to behold . Yes , it’s a waste of electricity and yes light pollution is a real annoyance . Where for decades there was a peaceful black swath of night and a gently lit curvature if a beautiful bridge and deep sleep fir thousands of us that see it at night from our homes there is now bright garish LED light . It’s AWFUL!!! We need some sleep and a calm night sky .