this is the south bridge of wooded island with the sky where obama's tower will rise.

i was talking about the park, and the changes looming, and s. says, sorry not as "bothered" as you. i say i olmsted would be sorely bothered too. s. says, what did they do to the island olmsted would have objected to? it didn't look structurally different to me, though i'm not as intimately familiar with it as copper and you. central park looks pretty manicured today, more than the island.
i reply, so far, maybe he would have not stripped it of vegetation where animals live, maybe not put scenic overlooks, maybe not concrete roads, maybe not a metal death lotus sculpture in a manicured lawn, maybe not surveillance cameras, maybe not poisoner levy with his poison spray driving onto the island in his bmw like a dwarfish king. olmsted actually thought of a haven of quiet and a nature sanctuary. it really is vastly different. you could look back on the blog and see the differences are stark, and heartbreaking. where copper and i first walked and met a coyote was a lush meadow then, now it's bare. they removed over 300 trees. the park district and the obamas want a millennium park, with no sightlines obscured by annoying trees and vegetation. now one can see every direction, and hear the traffic, where once it was dampened by the trees. now they will clear cut all the trees on the twenty-six acre bootprint of the obama complex. there were no animals or birds except a few gulls yesterday. one kestrel and a cardinal today. i think the sad thing is not enough people are intimate with our green space, and aren't bothered by a private enterprise taking them, turning them into manicured gardens, great lawns, and golf courses.
i haven't seen central park for a long time, but if it is manicured does that mean all green space should be manicured, and open to development? from city park to national?

project 120 lied. said they were fulfilling olmsted's vision, when in fact they were fulfilling obama's.

i think the heart of the matter is in the intimacy felt or not felt with nature, with sanctuary, with green space. if we don't feel intimate we aren't really in it, we see from an aesthetic distance, we don't get involved. being with the dogs and the birders i feel the place intimately, as a place of reflection, engagement, renewal, and wonder. when i see things cleared, destroyed, the animals poisoned or chased away, i feel it intimately. but if people don't feel connected to their environment in a natural way, they will not feel bothered, and they will let it be taken, reasoning that a tower, a music pavilion, a golf course playground for the rich, and all the development and utilization will only enhance our sanctuary. but the animals won't agree.

then s. says wooded island was the same now as in the 70's, and i say i wasn't here, but doubt it. then we get onto the developer's dream that is hyde park in a nutshell today, on which we can agree. a lot of these developments are due to the money magic charm of obama. it's like the second coming. if you build it, he will come back. well, he will have his park, and his penthouse apartment in tower obama, but he ain't coming back for good.