How Awful Will the Broadwater Terminal Look?
Go to the Anti-Broadwater Coalition’s website and scroll down. You’ll see the following paragraph, highlighted in red type:
The proposed facility would be 75 to 100 feet tall. It would be four football fields long and larger than the QE2. It would be anchored 10.5 miles from Cosey Beach Park in East Haven, about 17 miles from the Long Island Sound Ferry, and 18 miles from Hammonasset Beach.
Clearly this is meant to make you think that Broadwater’s LNG terminal would be an intolerable visual blight.
Right underneath the red paragraph, though, is a map that shows parts of the Long Island and Connecticut shores. Halfway in between, in the middle of the Sound, is a black dot that is small enough and far enough away to make you think that maybe the terminal wouldn’t be such an eyesore after all, at least to those of use who don’t plant to sail past it very often.
Therein lies a problem. If the LNG plant is such a visual blight, why can’t we see how bad it will be? An interesting blog called DesignObserver has a recent post about the very same problem as it relates to a proposal for a big cement plant in the Hudson Valley.
“… there is no single rendering ominous enough to establish public fear; no image so compelling as to create political momentum; and no symbol so memorable as to unite the opposition. Whether through artistic renderings or information design, no one has made a visual case against these plants that is wholly effective. This is, I believe, a fundamental failure of design.”
The anti-Broadwater people should read it and figure out a better way to depict their concern, or consider dropping what is probably an ineffective tactic.
The proposed facility would be 75 to 100 feet tall. It would be four football fields long and larger than the QE2. It would be anchored 10.5 miles from Cosey Beach Park in East Haven, about 17 miles from the Long Island Sound Ferry, and 18 miles from Hammonasset Beach.
Clearly this is meant to make you think that Broadwater’s LNG terminal would be an intolerable visual blight.
Right underneath the red paragraph, though, is a map that shows parts of the Long Island and Connecticut shores. Halfway in between, in the middle of the Sound, is a black dot that is small enough and far enough away to make you think that maybe the terminal wouldn’t be such an eyesore after all, at least to those of use who don’t plant to sail past it very often.
Therein lies a problem. If the LNG plant is such a visual blight, why can’t we see how bad it will be? An interesting blog called DesignObserver has a recent post about the very same problem as it relates to a proposal for a big cement plant in the Hudson Valley.
“… there is no single rendering ominous enough to establish public fear; no image so compelling as to create political momentum; and no symbol so memorable as to unite the opposition. Whether through artistic renderings or information design, no one has made a visual case against these plants that is wholly effective. This is, I believe, a fundamental failure of design.”
The anti-Broadwater people should read it and figure out a better way to depict their concern, or consider dropping what is probably an ineffective tactic.
posted by Tom Andersen at 3:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home