|
|
|
Go 
|
Post 
|
Find 
|
Notify 
|
|
Reply 
|
|
Admin 
|
New PM! 
|
Gold Enthusiast

|
|
| |
| Posts: 2399 | Location: Ontario, Canada | Registered: 10-27-06 |    |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
quote: I know, isn't it hideous?
I disagree dg, I think it is beautiful. I heard about this last year, and saw it on television the other night. My wife saw the sheer glee on my face and commented that she will wait for me on safe ground while I check it out. The views must be spectacular  ! We have always wanted to go to the Grand Canyon, and now this gives me more of a reason. We are thinking of going this summer. Oh, Fourbrick I believe it is about 2,000 meters (3,939 feet) straight down to the Colorado River . Appropriate that Astronaut Buzz Aldrin took the first ceremonial step out the other day. At least he knows how to fly  .
|
| |
| Posts: 3647 | Location: Long Island, New York USA | Registered: 06-03-02 |    |
|
Platinum Enthusiast
|
As a tourist observatory I wouldn't call it hideous -- it's a high-tech and aesthetically pleasing design. I'm sure it's a very cool experience (though Buzz Aldrin brought the media down to earth by commenting that it was "not exactly like floating on air"). No doubt it is, or soon will be, shamelessly commercial and exploitive: Exit thru the gift shop, etc. But I share frankvan's sentiment about there being nothing wrong with American Indians making a few bucks from it.
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast

|
quote: 2,000 meters (3,939 feet)
There's something off there, and I think it's the meters measurement. The round number they've been giving is 4000 feet, which is 1219 meters.
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast


|
It's quite a structure and I'm a little unsure how effective it will be. The supports are so large that you really don't get a clear view below as the original design drawing shows. The depth of the beams is the height of a person - they can be inspected from the inside. I just can't see how that doesn't obstruct the view so much that you lose the effect.
It's a really remote area of the Canyon and most people have never visited it. I'm not crazy about the idea of cantilevering a structure over a National Park, but hopefully the exemption given to an Indian tribe won't be passed on to any old developer. I highly doubt that it would. If it really is spectacular, I think they might want to consider building one (only one) on the South Rim where most of the tourists visit.
I was at the Grand Canyon last year and it's so incredibly big, and it twists and turns so much that this isn't going to destroy anything.
|
| |
|
Platinum Enthusiast

|
quote: Originally posted by methos: There's something off there, and I think it's the meters measurement. The round number they've been giving is 4000 feet, which is 1219 meters. Dare to compare?
|
| |
| Posts: 1834 | Location: 39° -84.5° | Registered: 06-28-02 |    |
|
Site Administrator

|
I agree that the best way to see the Grand Canyon is by helicopter. However, from what I can tell, the building seems to blend in with the canyon wall itself, minimizing aesthetic clash. Some factors for those who dislike the building to take in account:
The Grand Canyon is 277 miles long and anywhere from ¼ mile to 15 miles wide. Given the twists and turns of the canyon, it may be that the Skywalk isn't even visible from a mile or so away.
The development opens up a long-inaccessible 100-mile stretch of countryside along the canyon's South Rim. There is (was?) a 14 mile stretch of dirt road necessary to travel to get to the site; the site wasn't generating much income for the tribe.
I don't like 'despoiling nature' either, but it is done, regardless of my feelings. This at least benefits the original people of the Canyon (or the only ones left, anyway). My biggest concern is where the water will come from. The entire western US is using water faster than it is being replaced in underground aquifers. In fact, the largest one went past the point of no return about a decade or so ago. It will probably run out within the lifetime of some of those reading this thread. (But those fountains in Vegas sure do look good, don't they?)
|
| |
| Posts: 17018 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02 |    |
|
Platinum Enthusiast
|
Or the helicopter's virtual equivalent: Google Earth. Choose the "Colorado River View" near "Grand Canyon" in "Sightseeing." By any chance, was that glass walkway made by the Acme company? 
|
| |
|
Diamond Enthusiast


|
Hate to be a spoil sport about the Helicopter tours but I have to say what I have to say. You are visiting a great natural monument. Touring via helicopter is the least environmentally friendly way to do it. And while I was there I talked to some tour guides, one who had worked at the South Rim for 20 years, who told me that there are several outfitters that don't take proper care of their helicopters and that there are several crashes each year. If you'd like to read the statistics see this post at google http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=17078In short form there are a lot more helicopter crashes with these touring outfitters than is expected in the rest of the country. About 1 fatality per 100,000 hours in the air. I thought my hike was spectacular... I have also flown over the Canyon... hiking is the way to go.
|
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
© 2002-2008 AnswerPool.com
Visit DiscussionPool.com! |