Quote:
Originally Posted by Cappy
I don't know if I agree with this. I think the city has come along way in defining what type of city it wants to be and aiming high. There are so many projects that have been embraced by the people here, among those you mentioned, like the Bow building, East Village, River Walk, the green corridor, etc., and the people have more to be excited about on the horizon!
I think most Calgarians have just matured when it come to what makes the city great, and what it takes to make a great city. We focus now on quality of life, street-scapes, parks, public art, and public/free goods rather than the monoliths of years past. We have also become more discernable on what and how we expect the government to spend our money.
This is not aimed at you but I can't help shake the feeling that the people criticizing opponents of CalgaryNEXT as "small-minded" or "small-city oriented" as a bit of a reverse.
Small-city people are the ones who think a city needs a grand vision of something. A monolith or some defining event to establish credibility. They think that to be a Paris/NY, you need an Eiffel Tower / Empire State Building; but the opposite is true. What people love about those cities, what makes them world class is the streetscapes, the density, the vibe of the place. CalgaryNEXT (in whatever form) won't change that in Calgary.
|
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why are only the things that you value important?
I agree with much of what you posted here. But I also want to see a cutting edge arena and gathering area, like LA and others. They also add to a city.
A vibrant city needs parklands, AND streetscapes, AND an arts community, AND museums, AND sports facilities, AND...
Listing subsets and claiming they are what is important seems to me to be what is small-minded. (not directed at you)