The harshness came mostly with the use of fluorescent lamps, specially early ones, which were very hard to modulate and control the spectrum and intensity of.
With today's LEDs the ability to change the color temperature by switch or app makes it so much easier to spec one device for multiple areas. With fluorescent you would need to relamp, or with the earlier LEDs use a different luminaire. Any decent commerial stuff plays nice with lighting control systems as well now, clearly not the case early on.
Your last paragraph reminds me of observations from my time on a historic district design review board. As a rule of thumb, women preferred indirect and what I'd call "dappled" lighting, or highlights of particular features. Men preferred direct and bright lighting. Of course, there were individual tastes, but this 1950's vintage SP diner-lounge shows that the men who would have designed it had all the lighting distributed from up by the ceiling.
I find the planks above the windows on the SL2 much better. Makes it feel almost classy (the ceiling kind of ruins it -- I really wish they could change the ceiling it is incredibly ugly). The lack of the new carpet I don't mind too much, although the new carpet is much better. And just for some extra class I think they should change the boring grey walls by the galley to wood or something.
Sorry, but did you mean SL2 or SL1? My photo is of an SL2, and the dark reddish color is actually carpet and not wood unfortunately. SL1 diners have wood planking along the walls and above the windows.
I believe they were the table numbers.
Ah, yes I did mean the carpet. I think it looks better then the wood on the SL1's. I find the color a bit tacky.
