Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
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.
|
Sorry, chief, but it still relates, and isn't irrelevant. Lots of options were considered in the study, possibly even the options you brought up. With a roof, it's simply not feasible. I brought it up because you were talking about what to do with that space, and I know for fact that other uses have already been discussed - hence the study.
Your options were for outside; fine. The study still relates, since the options the Stampede has explored were indoor. If they thought exploring outdoor options were feasible, they would have done that too, but they didn't.