Quote:
Originally Posted by frinkprof
I'm with you up to here.Again, I think this is overly simplistic.
I can only speculate, but it seems to me that in the Brittania case, it is "how can I improve my/our view of the skyline," whereas in this case it is "how can I improve my/our view (and I would further contend that it is about more than the visual "view") of this property."
The subject providing the motivation in the Britannia case is the perpetrators' relationship with the skyline, whereas in this case it is the perpetrators' relationship with the property itself. In the Britannia case, the parcel of land is only a part of the equation because it is the one that happens to be in the way. In this case, the parcel of land and the interests involved in it are where it all begins and ends. The site of the land its circumstances is much less arbitrary.
Different issues and questions are raised, and the differences are lost in your presentation.
For example, it's "how important is a view of something if public (or private for that matter) property/assets obstruct that view," and "how important are the aesthetics of particular (especially underused or vacant) parcels of land to immediate neighbours, the nearby community, the whole City and those who hold title to that land?."
Speaking about views of things in general is pretty simple and I think it is more interesting to discuss the first two issues in and of themselves.
|
Ultimately I guess we just don't agree on one point here, intent/motivation. Or at least the justification of the actions.
The actions, very much not the same. (destructive VS constructive)
The results, very much not the same. (lost trees VS garden)
The tactics, very much not the same. (sneaking in at night VS broad day light)
You seem to feel the actions of one are more justified than the other, I simply do not.