View Single Post
  #1141  
Old Posted May 16, 2018, 4:28 PM
s211 s211 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: The People's Glorious Republic of ... Sigh...
Posts: 5,109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prometheus View Post
Apparently, the reason for the reduction in height may be even more absurd than that.

This proposal (even when reduced in height) will extend into a city-made viewcone. Therefore, if this project proceeds, it will constitute a rare exception to the city's rigidly-applied viewcone policy. But in addition to obstructing a protected slice of the mountains, the taller version would have extended into some of the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. The shorter version, by contrast, will still block the same protected slice of the mountains but stop short of extending into the empty air above the top of the mountain ridge. Apparently, the idea is that obstructing a protected view of the mountain may be supported by the city in this case but blocking the view of the empty air above it will not. So, the reduction in height is for the sake of our view of the empty air above the mountain, not the mountain itself.

But if someone knows better, then hopefully they can set the record straight.
If true, then this validates one of the many of my reasons for not pursuing a Masters degree in Planning. I saw the writing on the wall almost 30 years ago. Planners exist in a bubble largely filled to the brim with blindness-causing principles.
__________________
If it seems I'm ignoring what you may have written in response to something I have written, it's very likely that you're on my Ignore List. Please do not take it personally.
Reply With Quote