Although the tower-on-parkland concept has been thoroughly “discredited” in a variety of ways, it’s hard to imagine that, if the land was dedicated and maintained as a public park with shoreline access, there would be much complaining. (I know, I know, there would be bickering, but people in general seem satisfied with Seattle’s shoreline parklands.)

With density, there comes a point where you need to increase height to keep space free at the base. If people like to swim in the lake, row and sail, or walk along the shore, that space can be preserved by putting people in taller buildings.

Alternately, we can all stay inside watching video games, or garden in clay pots in a postage stamp backyard. These also appear to be attractive options in Seattle’s Century 21.

I hear what you’re saying, not all towers bad but what makes the scale work here is the inequity between the development potential this site realized and the development potential the rest of the neighborhood never reached. This inequity is made permanent by the Shoreline Management Act put in place in 1972, because of buildings like this….so yeah, it works but at a pretty massive price.