Quote:
Originally Posted by allovertown
I'd agree but capping 95 and 676 would cost far more than a Love Park redo. Besides Love Park's redo shouldn't be costing taxpayers much of anything. I believe the bulk will paid for by the owners of the garage located beneath the park. They need to do work on the actual structure of the garage and whilst doing these structural fixes they will also be making aesthetic improvements to the park itself. I believe the city will also be putting money made from the sale of the garage to the park.
|
Everyone keeps talking about an all or nothing scenario. They are capping a single part it 676 (the smallest). What if they did an additional analysis to ask, "what other sections would get the biggest bang for their buck?" or "What section might be the most important to cap in the next 10 years when construction continues to grow northward in the city?" They don't need to do a boston tunnel to make a better city.
They can't cap in front of the mormon skyscraper easily since there is an off ramp there, but the could cap the section in front of the temple without on or off ramps to help be the "conduit" or "connection" for what you might can "eastern-west-center city" with "south eastern callowhill/fairmount".
Then, they could cap between 10th and 11th for chinatown/callowhill/easerhood" northward expansion. OR, they could cap between 11th and 12th for the viaduct ease of access.
Realistically, we don't need EVERY hole capped to help make an improvement to the connection between north and center center city. Just doing these two extra caps would probably connect us enough to increase land values northward and make a better city.
Maybe instead of demanding a full analysis to cap everything, we plead for an analysis to add 1 or two more sections to the capping project.