BeyondRevenue
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 1,142
The renders provided so far give a REALLY incomplete view... especially of the landing on the other side.
First, I do not want to see any state funds going to this if it drops in first on the casino primarily. It's fleecing the taxpayer twice.
Second, the existing design appears to have hikers and bikers crossing back over the rail to get to the trail. Not cool, not smart.
Third. If the casino only ponied up for direct access to the Gateway Center they would be closer to their actualprey customer base of regular people instead of acting out an opulent charade. It's a mid-rent clip joint. Period.
Fourth. Their plan now clockblocks future expansion.
That said, and acting as though I'm NOT trying to obfuscate the public to gain consensus, I found a wider angled counter-approach from the esteemed public-focused Fototfudge Engineering. Strangely, factored in for 'Futuring'.
Enjoy.
First, I do not want to see any state funds going to this if it drops in first on the casino primarily. It's fleecing the taxpayer twice.
Second, the existing design appears to have hikers and bikers crossing back over the rail to get to the trail. Not cool, not smart.
Third. If the casino only ponied up for direct access to the Gateway Center they would be closer to their actual
Fourth. Their plan now clockblocks future expansion.
That said, and acting as though I'm NOT trying to obfuscate the public to gain consensus, I found a wider angled counter-approach from the esteemed public-focused Fototfudge Engineering. Strangely, factored in for 'Futuring'.
Enjoy.
Last edited: