[sparkling]

A few months ago I argued on the curbed website with an opponent of the tower who was pretty much saying that it would cast a shadow over the whole Seaport for the entire day+ the shadow would also affect Brooklyn Bridge. I pointed out that the shadow effect was overblown way out of proportion and that could be proved with a simple computer simulation- surprise, surprise- I got no answer. Overzealously advocating your agenda and ignoring any evidence that goes against it seems to be the modus operandi.
Another one was saying that the city must pay for the rehabilitation of the piers and the new market building while a new tower should not be built due to Downtown's lack of infrastructure to support more people living there. I pointed out that these Hughes guys were ready to pay something like 100 million to renovate the seaport area if they built the tower. That meant that the city could save itself that 100 million and invest in upgrading the infrastructure to accommodate the influx of new residents (there are many more new buildings coming+ some office towers are being converted to residential so to single out the seaport tower as the straw that broke the camel's back is ridiculous) . Yet, complaining about lack of infrastructure but demanding that the city must spend its limited resources on fortifying the piers was quite logical to some people. Go figure!
I am ready to listen to coherent arguments for or against anything, there is no universal truth but the nimbys are falling short of coming up with them. The historical significance argument does not make me too excited either but that's just me.