Comment 78742

By ScreamingViking (registered) | Posted June 20, 2012 at 23:03:17 in reply to Comment 78734

Perhaps less costly remediation for the land the stadium would have been built upon. For a mixed-use development on other parcels (both what's available now and the land the yard occupies) we'd still have to deal with expensive environmental issues. I don't see how the stadium would have helped with that.

I don't think that land needs an "anchor" - to me that suggests the same kinds of large redevelopment projects that have not worked elsewhere, like downtown. To me this isn't a case of "if we build it, they will come" - it's already a signature area with so much potential, especially if the rail yard can be moved. I think the uncertainty of what the city will do has been the sticking point for realizing that potential.

A more measured approach, planned with a variety of structures, perhaps incrementally, would probably be more sustainable and manageable. And the city needs to ensure that public space, including parkland and some type of pedestrian corridor to downtown, is foremost in any plans. Those who say the city has one chance to get this right are correct, in my opinion.

Comment edited by ScreamingViking on 2012-06-20 23:05:11

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds