The Myth of Sisyphus in Urban Lighting captures the efforts of major cities to repeat standardized solutions, hoping that, at some point, the outcome will be different. At night, urban lighting has become a cold tableau, devoid of contrast and emotion.
The Trap of Cool Light: Efficiency Remains the Sole Criterion
Urban design has fallen victim to an engineering formula that lacks empathy. Cool light provides greater brightness than warm light for the same energy consumption, but reducing consumption should come from how we use light. We need design that responds to people and the needs of urban life, including animals, aquatic life, and vegetation. We need optics and beam angles calculated for each location, so that light reaches the places where it is needed. When we light a road, the beam should not spill across the entire sidewalk, onto façades, and through people’s windows. Every area has its own distinct character, and areas of darkness are absolutely necessary. Energy savings should come from how we design lighting, while cool light is harmful to people after dark in most situations.
Cities are not production lines operating around the clock. They are living ecosystems, sensitive to the seasons and the rhythms of life and their inhabitants. Let’s stop lighting them like industrial warehouses!
The Consequences of Standardized Lighting Design
- Streets lose their charm and become monotonous and identical
- Historic buildings become invisible and visually flattened
- Public spaces cease to be places of relaxation and become mere spaces of transit and sadness
- Urban identity evaporates under uniform light
The Absurdity of Repetition: Why Do We Keep Making the Same Mistakes?
The myth of Sisyphus becomes relevant to urban planning when we see the same solution applied regardless of the project. We refuse to ask what went wrong and keep pushing the same stone up the same mountain.
This obsession with control and technical efficiency completely disregards artistic sensitivity and stems solely from the lack of specialized education among those who decide how our cities are planned.
What Could Lighting with Soul Look Like?
We need technology to be combined with greater empathy. Every place has a story, and it needs light that brings that story into focus.
Residential areas need warm, candle-like light, confined to circulation routes. Buildings need only subtle accents that convey the need for quiet and rest.
In parks and green spaces, accent lighting along walking paths can serve us well, while planted areas can remain mostly in semi-darkness. Uniform lighting simply shows that we haven’t put much thought into the design. Areas of darkness benefit both the visual environment and our health. A romantic evening scene can only do us good.
How Do We Break the Sisyphean Cycle?
There is a way forward, but it requires courage and openness. Three simple principles can change how we light our cities:
Diversity, Not Uniformity
Every area within every neighborhood deserves a different approach, adapted to its identity.
People at the Center of Decision-Making
We should ask not only “How much energy does it consume?” but also “How does a person feel in that space?”
Energy consumption and empathetic design are equally important.
Flexibility Instead of Rigidity
Lighting should adapt to its context: the season, the time of day, and the type of activity.
Sisyphus Reinvented: When Labor Becomes Creation
Perhaps Sisyphus was not only condemned to failure but also given the chance to create something new with each ascent. His labor becomes bearable and meaningful when the stone is no longer the same. The same applies to us: we would benefit from the courage to approach design responsibly. Let’s stop treating the city as a technical problem and start seeing it as a collective work of art.
An Honest Question
What story are we telling through light, and who will truly feel it?
Urban lighting can escape the trap of soulless efficiency and become, once again, an art form that lives alongside people and the spaces they inhabit.
x