Letters | April 8, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - April 8, 2011

Letters

Cell-phone 'rules'

This story contains 974 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe

Comments

Like this comment
Posted by Derek
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 8, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Cell phone towers for AT&T. Palo Alto's dislike of towers may be hyper-sensitive and a little crazy, but there is a cure. Just use Verizon. Problem solved and no more cell towers needed.


Like this comment
Posted by Nonprofit indeed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 8, 2011 at 11:31 pm

The Catholic church is described above as a non-profit institution. Deceptive language. It is also a very very rich institution, a very very influential institution, and one with a certain amount of serious institutionalized corruption all over the world. Not one bad apple, a whole freight train of bad apples.
Not everyone shares the view that helping this particular nonprofit is a good idea.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 9, 2011 at 4:23 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I saw that tower picture. the criticism by the architectural review board was wimped out, utter balderdash! the tower was an asset to the church and surroundings, elevating a nondescript structure to genuine churchy status. Seems to me the board was just looking for an excuse, and not very hard.
I believe we need to tone down architectural review to genuinely architectural matters, and to apply height limits to habitable story heights. Everyone knows it is all about radiation health effect, which ain't.


Like this comment
Posted by Nonprofit indeed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2011 at 5:59 pm

The photograph is imaginary, submitted by AT&T. It is chicanery to pretend that a photoshopped image of the future is reality. The tower doesn't exist and cannot be photographed. If they submitted a drawing it would be more honest.
More trickery by AT&T.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2011 at 5:35 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Sorry nonprofit but such imagery is the way it is done today in architecture. It is exactly the way the tower would appear from that aspect. You probably could not read a conventional two dimensional drawing.


Like this comment
Posted by Nonprofit indeed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm

>You probably could not read a conventional two dimensional drawing.
Wrong again, Walter.
>such imagery is the way it is done today in architecture.
Wrong again, Walter.
See Web Link
and
Web Link
Makebelieve photographs are sometimes used when the intention is to convince or in this case, to deceive.


Like this comment
Posted by svatoi
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Apr 11, 2011 at 1:02 pm

Why is the ARB afraid of Stuart/Love? has mr Stuart threatened to cut off the ARB's internet access? Agree with Walter, the ARB wimped out.
Of course you know the saying--those who cannot do, teach--well, those who cannot design as architect's, sit on ARB's and tear down other's work (probably out of jealousy for "real" architects)


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Nonprofit, you are nuts! Revision to an existing photo, or Photoshop if you will, is a legitimate architectural tool. Of course the photo was make believe, and everyone knew it. The purpose of the rendition I saw was to illustrate what the addition would look like and it was adequate for that purpose. I believe the council should overturn the ARBs decision and get on with it.


Like this comment
Posted by Nonprofit indeed
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 11, 2011 at 4:21 pm

You said "I saw that tower picture." An honest person would assume you meant an actual picture. The "picture" was in the paper. Now you pretend that you knew it was a "rendering."
Walter, I do understand it is difficult to be a Know It All, but you try. Can't win em all, Walter.


Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Apr 12, 2011 at 4:35 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Nonprofit, you are nuts, too.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.