Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
I know for a fact that a feasibility study was conducted for that reason only a couple years ago - to build a roof between the grandstand / infield track, with modern modifications all-around. The cost was simply too prohibitive to do anything like that; you may as well have built a completely new facility for that price.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muta
Swing and a miss. The feasibility study done at the Grandstand relates directly to your original post, so now you're admitting you're just trolling for the sake of it. Keep up the quality posting.
|
You suggested that my idea wouldn't work because a feasibility study had already been done that showed it wasn't feasible. But the study was for an entirely different concept. Which makes it pretty much irrelevant as an attempt to dismiss the idea. It's fine to say that a feasibility study was done for a roof, and it didn't make sense. That is useful information. What I take issue with is you dismissing the idea based on an irrelevant study.
It's like saying we can't afford an underground green line, and a study has shown this, but dismissing that we could maybe afford an above grade one.
I'm not trolling, I'm trying to figure out how you don't see this.