Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo
Age and “should” have nothing to do with it. And just because I said I would like one viewpoint to not be destroyed, it does not follow that none should be destroyed. We have lost some as the neighborhood developed; we will lose more as the neighborhood continues to develop. It would be very nice to preserve some views from public gathering places.
I enjoy views from public parks much more than I enjoy tall buildings. Frankly, I’d prefer destroying old buildings to build tall modern buildings instead of destroying views from public parks.
|
Having been on the discussion about the Fields Park since before Tanner Creek was even under construction, there has never been talk about preserving viewpoints from any one of the Pearl District parks. Same argument could have been used on Tanner Springs and stopped the Cosmo, and now some of the Cosmo owners now want to stop the "next Cosmo" from going forward. Views in a central city should not be expected to be preserved in the vast majority of cases. Those that are preserved should be made through a public process and again, should be limited in the central city.
As for your point about the "one viewpoint" you'd prefer not to be disrupted, there's tens of thousands of citizens that live in the central city. Should each person have just "one viewpoint" they want to preserve, it would literally stop all development.
Threaded Mode