Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal
Evidently not. It seems we're about preserving views of the water from an old fortress in the middle of the peninsula, while homes lining Robie street, many used for housing multiple students, are bulldozed to provide vacant lots and a streetscape with lots of missing teeth.
|
but
Quote:
Originally Posted by eastcoastal
Cities are bad for wildlife - they don't co-exist well together... even if reserving swaths as "park," often the park isn't wild enough, and even when it is, wildlife doesn't stay contained and we can expect border skirmishes and garbage raids.
|
It's true. Anybody who lives in a city lives in an area previously inhabited by wildlife. We're all 'guilty' in that light.
Honestly, what bothers me a little bit is what do we do when we cut down massive swaths of previously natural forested area (as was recently done in Clayton Park where all those new [ugly] buildings were put up) within a city. There is wildlife there, but I have no idea whether there is a plan to deal with them humanely (a loaded term), i.e. taking them to a place more conducive to their survival, or are they just squeezed out into areas that are already built out and inhabited by people?
I didn't even read about the "Friends of whatever" because I'm sure there are some thinly veiled attempts at not getting something built by attempting to appeal to peoples' love of animals, but urban wildlife is a real thing, and doesn't just go away because we build upon their living area. So we can all theorize about what is better for them to prove a point and score a 'win' on SSP, but really as one who appreciates wild animals, I would like to know if anybody who makes the plans actually ever considers animals over and above the ones that gain clickable headlines.
OK... back to our pontifications and such.
Threaded Mode