[PointSpecial]

I'm talking about the beauty of the lake, not the lakefront. Placing these turbines would obstruct views of the lake and horizon (albeit FROM the man made lake shore... but that already exists).

And as I researched more and more, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to create something at this cost when there are other options (i.e. in the MIDDLE of the lake) where the wind blows harder and more frequently than on the shore of Chicago, especially when this would take away from the natural beauty of the lake in what is likely the place where most visitors will see it.

I mean, it very well could be very neat to have this path stretching out into the lake. I'm not necessarily saying that I think this portion of the plan should be nixed. After all, it was an original part of the 1909 Plan. But creating what will amount to a novelty in terms of impact on the power grid, at quadruple the price of creating said land bridge would be a travesty and simply shouldn't be done.

And even though much of the lakefront is "man made," it created, by and large, a showcase of nature in an urban setting. We think of Chicago in our current 21st century context, but think about a 19th century context. Grant Park was a green space, granted without the trees we think of today as late as the 1920's, but from its inception in 1835, the land east of Michigan Avenue, dubbed Lake Park in 1847, was "public ground forever to remain vacant of buildings." It DID expand with the landfill from the Chicago Fire, and didn't initially become "Grant Park" until 1901, but even so, "Chicago's front yard" implies a green space, i.e. natural.

I mean, if you really want to get technical, think about the Northwoods of Wisconsin. The great majority of what we believe to be "natural" has been logged and replanted since the 19th century. Technically, it is largely in its present state due to the influence of man. But that really gets away from the main point... Nature is seen as plants, wild animals and water. It's not artificial. By and large it's growing without human care. We can mess around with the definition (by the second half of that definition, a garden wouldn't be nature, I suppose), but by and large, it's green space.

It would be in contrast to the brick and mortar, steel, cement and rebar buildings that certainly are not natural.

And it isn't to say that I don't find Chicago's skyline to be beautiful. I do. But one of Chi-town's great qualities IS this great contrast between man made and natural. The buildings stretch skyward against the flat lake, the whites, grays, and blacks of the buildings contrast against the blue sky. I'm all for more human creations. But this one doesn't make sense. It doesn't begin to achieve what it appears to intend to, and it comes at far to great a cost, both financially, and to the natural beauty found in the lake itself that will be tainted.