Quote:
Originally Posted by ToonTownRob
Keep in mind that this is a forum, a place for discussion and sharing of ideas, and all contributions should be welcomed and encouraged (unless promoting hate and intolerance). Just because someone else’s ideas or opinions are different from yours, or even the majority, doesn’t make them wrong.
|
I like to think that we all choose to be here because we want what’s best for Saskatoon and are interested in the city’s future. Call it a form of digital, engaged citizenry, which entails that, as citizens, we treat each other with respect. These are stressful, politically-charged times, and social distancing has certainly helped to make clear (to me, speaking personally) the value, as well as the limitations, of social media like this forum. I know that I’ve felt more on edge than usual over the past however many months. The world has so many problems. Maybe a forum like this is so satisfying, especially now, because it offers a sense that we can meaningfully interact with local issues, etc., and thereby have some control or agency over our world. Maybe “Saskatoon Construction” is a convenient metaphor and vehicle for that kind of personal (and social) empowerment and engagement. Alternately, maybe the forum is a worthy escape from larger cares. Whatever the case might be, in these days when maintaining one’s mental health should be a special priority, I too hope that this forum can continue to be welcoming and positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToonTownRob
It is important to reread what people write before responding, as often first impressions are wrong and it’s important to respond to what other people actually say, not what your knee-jerk reactions assume was said.
A couple of examples: I mentioned a concern for the Knox tower blocking the view of the church, and a few posters jump to nimbyism, construction noise, rights to unimpeded views, etc.
Wow! A little thought before speaking please!
|
I worry that you might be doing here what you seek to prevent on this forum. I’ve re-read the forum’s conversation about the Knox tower development, and I think that the rest of your post misrepresents that conversation in a number of ways. The use of quotations might have helped to clarify your interjections. In general, though, that conversation is more thoughtful and nuanced than you suggest. The conversation seems to consist mainly of people weighing the pros and cons of the development, and then articulating their priorities. If someone disagrees with you, that doesn’t mean that they are being unduly impulsive with their replies, or that they are naive and haven’t thought things through. In an earlier post, you write the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToonTownRob
It strikes me as odd how often some people seem driven to form their opinions based on ideologies rather than looking at each opportunity based on its individual merits, with an understanding and acceptance that there is lots of grey in the world, and that’s okay. It is rare that anything is rightly just black or white.
|
I’m not sure that I see anyone doing that in the Knox tower conversation except, perhaps, you. You say that you hate the location of this proposed development, going so far as to say that this tower would have “the legacy of being the building that destroyed the Knox’s place in Saskatoon’s built environment.” Histrionics aside, your argument that the tower would partially block views of the church is true; from certain angles, it would. That’s worth considering, and others have brought it up too. Whether or not the project is aesthetically pleasing is entirely subjective, though. For my part, I think that juxtapositions of architectural styles can be beautiful and that the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. The proposal includes space for a bistro between the two churches, and you’d definitely find me there enjoying the scenery. In any case, I would love to see more renderings of the proposal to get a better sense of the project’s aesthetics in the context of its surroundings.
However, your posts have mainly focused on aesthetic concerns. You suggest that on this forum we should focus on and debate ideas (i.e. rather than make things personal). Again, beauty is subjective. Concern about an obscured view of the church is not really an idea that can be meaningfully debated. Likewise, you’ve reminded me of your last post on this development, which included the following musings on the relationship of Meridian and the church:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ToonTownRob
Unless the Knox site is a sweetheart of a deal because the church is desperate, but if that’s the case, a developer taking advantage of a church’s desperation (wow, that would be a news shattering headline wouldn’t it?) is in itself a shame.
|
As much as I want to believe that you are addressing this topic in good faith and not being entirely driven by your passionate dislike of the proposal’s location, I find rhetoric like this to be so distasteful. Again, you’ve asked us to “attack the post, never the poster,” but this pernicious narrative of yours (which, by the way, creeps again into the end of your most recent post) is completely fictitious unless you have evidence to support it. There’s nothing here to “attack” or debate because this is baseless speculation, so you shouldn’t be surprised when saying unscrupulous things like this turns the attention onto you, personally. I really don’t care to make things personal --- again, I think we’re all here because we care about the city, and “Saskatoon Construction” is all I care about --- but this is a forum for debate, and your “butter won’t melt in my mouth” approach seems insincere.
Having said that, what are the odds that this thing actually gets built? The church wants it. Meridian wants it. Most of us want it. I’m sure the city wouldn’t mind making some money from that land. I’d expect it to catch the attention of a lot of prospective renters. And yet....... this is such a slow city for things like this. Maybe after all is said and done, our views of the church will remain unobstructed. That is, maybe we’ll have another Third Avenue Church to look at: beautiful and endangered. Is that really what we want? Is that a month-old conversation that we really need to dust off and reopen?