Originally Posted by
ghughesarch
I was against the Cloud, and against what's been built now - I don't see what was wrong with leaving the site empty. But there's the point - the site was, for whatever reason, empty, so building on it didn't involve sweeping something else away. There are lots of empty, or genuinely underused, sites in the city that could and should be filled, preferably by good, sensitive, modern buildings, or by the repair and reuse of what is currently derelict and decaying, before we start spouting about functionally redundant but visually important church towers and the like as "an impediment to progress and regeneration" - your precise words, and the ones that sparked my ire. Equally, there are a few empty sites that would be better left as open space.