Gary Farland wrote:
These ordinances say that buildings are limited to 35 feet tall within 1000 feet of our waterways, and were passed after the awful Lake Point building was built that destroys the view from the east side of Lake Calhoun, the most used part of our chain of lakes.
It's a difficult task to argue for preservation of the status quo on the
basis of aesthetics. It's twice as difficult when NYC has for the nonce
defined the modern city as a place of tall buildings. I would disagree
that the Lake Point building destroys the view, even though it does put
a hole in the summer sunset.
What is more at issue, around any of the chain of Minneapolis and
surrounding area lakes, is 'what does the land and water need to stay
healthy?' We've already pushed and prodded and poked the lakes into our
notions of order and utility with all of our building projects. Even at
this late date, it's possible to see what the water itself wants to do
and how much we have insisted on doing it our way. When, and with what
additional modifications, do we reach the point where we kill off this
section of the water system? The engineers, builders, and developers,
including the city, are likely to say they can build their way out of
any further damage and will concede some nod toward "ecology" to build.
What is the counter argument?
Actually, all developers in the area should oppose such degradation of this
amenity that is the big attraction to the area. We have lots of problems in
Minneapolis (such as muggings) and if we want to have condo development here we
need to preserve our assets. Some of us are tired of having to fight to have
the City uphold its ordinances; now we seemingly have to fight the Strib, too.
All developers in this area want to own the whole shebang, at least
until they make a killing. It's the nature of the beast, from the
littlest one to the biggest one. It was the nature of each and every
developer who put a house on the lakes' shores, from the first house to
the latest building. The late actor John Wayne, not necessarily known
for his mother wit, once opined that "we" should take the remaining
reservations away from the Indians because the Indians have had time to
develop the lands they hold, but have not done so. I don't think he was
alone in that opinion, perhaps more crass than others, but essentially
expressing the development line of assertions.
Is there a counter argument to marshall that will be strong enough to
hold sway?
WizardMarks, Central
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
