Comments on: 7th District Town Hall meeting

By: Angryman2000

Angryman2000 — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:11:51 +0000

and filled with hordes of yuppies….creating a drain on our society, invading our parks for their children’s games of “soccer” and refusing to let us walk our dogs anymore because the poo might ruin their scenic park… We should lynch them all.

By: 100 word minimum

100 word minimum — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:51:30 +0000

Even in a rendering based on the nominal dimensions of a building, it’s easy to manipulate the perspective to make the scene look very different from how it would look in reality.

If someone is showing you a rendering that makes a 200 foot building look not so much taller than a 30 foot tree (and refusing to make the drawing widely available), they may be doing exactly that.

I also encourage people to go to the park and see for themselves. There are a number of warehouses near the foot of the hill for handy reference. Try to imagine buildings three times the height of the warehouses and only slightly farther away.

By: Archie Bunker

Archie Bunker — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:40:15 +0000

I know what a rendering is.

I find it hard to believe that someone who also knows what it is (i.e., “an artist’s interpretation”) would accept it at face value. Face it, a rendering is nothing more than marketing.

Let me repeat, feel free to make your own decision about the impact of the towers, but please have the good sense to actually visit Libby Hill Park and to see what the impact will be in reality rather than some artist’s fantasy.

By: Heather

Heather — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:23:52 +0000

Archie – a “rendering” is an artists interpretation of what the finished product will look like based on the information (deminsions, material,etc) given by the architect and developer. It is a very standard part of development.

By: jc

jc — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:05:04 +0000

Though others here may disagree, I think the renderings are an important part of this proposal and also think that the developers did themselves a disservice by not having a better presentation for the public. I was at the Church Hill Association meeting and saw the developers’ rendering and the homemade version that was put together by some local residents. They obviously showed very different versions of what the skyline would look like with the buildings, but I had to question them both. I question the homemade version, because it was just that, homemade. It was just some photos taped together to show a panoramic view from the park with the approximate location of the building sketched on them. These images wouldn’t be corrected for lens distortion and only approximate the size of the buildings in the distance with no ability to provide any scale relative to the real world. It’s just not a reliable way to discredit something submitted by an architecture firm. But then again, with all of the technology available to the developers they should have had a 3D rendering on screen so they could show what the skyline would look like from any perspective on Libby Hill. These guys are supposed to be pros and it makes me wonder why they didn’t do this unless A) the didn’t want to show more than the one view for a reason B) they are not the pros that they should be. Jeez any nerd in the neighborhood could put together a 3D model of the buildings in Google Earth and share it for the neighbors to see.

By: Archie Bunker

Archie Bunker — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:10:33 +0000

Renderings? Geez, what turnip truck did you folks fall off of? You want to know what the towers will look like and how much of the view they’ll block, go to Libby Hill Park with a map of the proposed development and take a look for yourself. Personally, I think the towers would be a gigantic eyesore, but I implore you all to go and look for yourselves rather than rely on a “rendering”.

By: Heather

Heather — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:02:57 +0000

As I said earlier, I saw the presentation twice. Once at the 7th Distict meeting and another at the SBNA meeting. Both were the same renderings. As I understand, most of the view from Libby Hill of the river at the site is already blocked by trees. The rendering shows a gap between the towers to allow view of the river that is currently visible past the trees.

By: John m

John m — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:48:14 +0000

This is why they should release the image publicly. They may be showing different images around to folks.

By: b

Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:45:50 +0000

Hold on now, John M.

The rendering by the Echo Harbour developers minimized the views that would be blocked, but a different one done by some Church Hill Association members showed there would be massive blockage of the views.

Futhermore, I was shocked to learn the the tallest section of this development would be almost TWICE AS HIGH as the cement building. Just stand at the edge of Libby Hill and you will get a sense how massive in scale these buildings would be.

By: John m

John m — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:43:44 +0000

In the rendering, the develpoment was prominent but not necessarily view blocking. They really should make the rendering more public.

By: gj

gj — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:59:19 +0000

What effect did Echo Harbour seem to have on the Libby Hill view in the rendering from Libby Hill the developer showed in the meeting?

By: mark

mark — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:57:02 +0000

B… I’m with you. McQuinn is trying to have “presence” in the district now that she knows her seat on Council is in jeopardy. Make sure that your frustration translates into a vote against McQuinn on November 7th.

By: dwight

dwight — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:07:37 +0000

Well, I went to the meeting and it was not political at all. The meeting was very informative and was well attended. Every council member has quarterly meetings. Regardless of what you think, the 7th distirct is on the move. It’s about time.Thank you Rev.Mcquinn and a special thanks to the community as a whole.

By: b

Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:48:00 +0000

I’m sorry, but I am APPALLED that Reverend McQuinn or any other sitting member of Council is allowed to send out taxpayer funded mailings less than 1 month before an election. The mailing she sent to “inform” her constituents of this meeting was clearly political and as a taxpayer I just don’t think it’s right.