Comments on: BoDo Offers New Library Scheme

By: Rod

Rod — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:20:31 +0000

The enemy now has a name: “looney massive density urbanists”. Well done, Pat. Here’s a partial list of things these looney massive density urbanists have inflicted upon us: row houses, traffic jams, giant apartment complexes, traffic jams, BoDo, traffic jams, urban sprawl, traffic jams, overpopulation, traffic jams, the idea to bury Front Street, traffic jams, the fact that the mall was put out in the middle of howhere 20 years ago instead of in the dust bowl where it belonged, and traffic jams, and the train to nowhere.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:45:13 +0000

This is just another insider deal to get around voters and have the loony massive density urbanists on the city council stick it to the voters.

By: Rod

Rod — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:21:10 +0000

I’ll re-iterate my comment from the first BoDo-Library article on BG. There is nothing wrong with the library building. They just need more parking there.

The city does not need to co-operate with developers (become their partner), the city just needs to regulate what developers do (and of course lean heavily toward what is in the public interest, and not in the developer’s interest).

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:22:42 +0000

Guardian, you are right in one respect. A community wide library system is the way to go. Many people never get downtown, and they need the same access as those that do. However, I think that there is room for both a community system and an “anchor” library in the heart of the city.

Bodo has a number of problems (they don’t keep it very clean to start with), but it is a heck of a lot better than what was there before. A development like Rivers is proposing could be the final link in tying downtown together with the park system and the university.