[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by WillyC

So more people biking or walking equates people enjoying the river is meaningless? More people drive to work downtown than those that take public transport. Does that mean we should ignore public transit and focus on parking garages?

No. That's a clear strawman argument in light of what I have written.

Real stretch there. Only kayakers are going to want to live in riverfront property? I guess every single unit of the other riverfront residential complexes must only be filled with avid kayakers.

Again, you seem to be deliberately avoiding my actual points. Riverfront offices and residences will both be desirable, but I would suggest for most people, that will largely be because of the views of the other side, and again such views are not necessarily limited to the parcels immediately adjacent to the river.

It is moronic, you dismissed an entire point by another poster because of your personal preferences, ignoring a growing community in the city.

I'd suggest it is you who have taken this personally, not me. If you were actually reading my posts you would realize I have not ignored your community, but apparently any sort of attempt to put the importance of the rivers as recreational amenities into proportion to other values is simply too much for you to handle emotionally.

Now you are falling back to a ridiculous argument that if there was demand, it would be filled, as if that has ever been the case with development areas in the city.

Isn't it? Individual parcels can have complex histories, but overall developers have responded to the demand for new apartment units by providing a lot more units, with many more in the pipeline. So what is keeping them from focusing more on the riverfronts, if those are in fact such premium locations for most people?

It must be "demand" that is causing such a craptastic development on the former civic arena site. "Demand" is why we have been getting three story BS in the north shore.

I agree when land is handed out to sports teams on a no-bid basis, that is not reflective of market outcomes. That still doesn't answer the question I raised--what is systematically forcing developers to put new units so many other places besides the riverfronts if you are right?

You're a smart guy, but the way you jump at people that disagree takes you out at the knees and makes people root against you even when you are correct. I mean really, dismissing river residential development because of "river smell" and accusing people of being plants for Point Park? That only alienates. You're smarter than that.

I'll take your constructive criticism under advisement. Perhaps I should call more people "moronic", since apparently that is a good way not to alienate people.