Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
I am sorry, but it's highly inappropriate to call someone a NIMBY simply because they don't like something.
|
I'm not. Its an issue of what arguments they're using to attempt to justify not building it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
As far as I know, the Sears Tower is in no one's backyard, so there are no NIMBYs.
|
Then why are people complaining about not being able to do a 360 walk aounrd the building to look at unobstructed sides?
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
There is a huge difference between people going out of their way to voice educated points of view on a subject that will affect the whole city, versus someone who is whining because they don't want to lose some personal convenience.
|
I've heard all of the latter and none of the former. This building has tremendous value to the city and the Southwest Loop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
I have to tell you, these are perfectly legitimate opinions, even if they don't happen to agree with your personal agenda.
|
My agenda is the advancement of Chicago. Whats yours?
...and just because they agree with your weak arguments does not make thier points valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte
You are essentially arguing that anyone can have carte blanche right to do whatever they feel like in the city, so long as there will be an increase in density and streetlife. Are these the values that drive all positive change in an urban environment - so much, that they should go unchecked. It should be perfectly obvious that this is an unacceptable situation
At this point, someone will surely point out astutely that the owners of the Sears Tower own the land and they have every right to do what they see fit with their property, within applicable zoning etc. Yes, of course they do. But there is still validity in discussion and questioning if this is right for the future of the city, especially around one of its most noted landmarks. In fact, I would argue that this is precisely the type of "NIMBY" dialogue that is so glaringly absent from Chicago in general these days - yielding rather disgusting results in neighborhoods citywide.
|
I never argued for a blank check. Such overdramatism isn't constructive, especially if you're trying to present a credible argument. I said a tiny building and redevelopment of a completely useless plaza would provide drastic support to both revamp Sears (of whose future you
claim to be so concerned about) and to expand the dead end skyline.
I really fail to see how not being able to see every effing square inch of Sears' facade qualifies as a significant loss to the city and how the aforementioned benefits of such a building is an unessecary gain. So, if the reasons against the building can't seem to get off the BLOCK the building is being built on, I really don't see any of your points. This is a tremendous opportunity for the area. Whining about views and how the new building (which greedily encompasses a third of the lot) might "clutter" the butchest building in the world is simply baseless NIMBYism.
Threaded Mode