The thumbnail of the design is not terribly appealing to me. But other images I have seen are pretty nice. I am not a fan of the stained glass portion.
I doubt it brings much tourism, but I like the idea of grand monuments generally. People mention the St. Louis arch, Eiffel Tower, etc. They don’t necessarily drive tourism, but they add to the list of things you do when you visit those cities. Frankly, I am generally fine even if grand edifices use public money. This one appears to be privately funded, so even better.
Criticisms of how the money could be better spent are lame. I guarantee every person making such criticisms spends money on “inefficient” things or indulgences–it just is not public. This is at least something that is intended to benefit the area (whether you agree with the aesthetic, the intention behind it seems altruistic). Could it be spent better elsewhere? That is totally subjective, but not my place to decide how someone else spends their money. Unless you are spending only on your necessities and giving the remaining money to the causes you want this person to support, your criticisms is disingenuous and hypocritical.
Again, I am fine if you don’t like the aesthetic, but to criticize this on the basis that the funder could find better uses of the money is weak. Wealthy people have numerous self-serving indulgences, this one at least has the intention of inspiring and benefiting others (instead of being spent on a luxury yacht or private jet). Frankly, all of the same critics should be chiming in every time NIL money is spent (crickets). There are far better causes than paying people to move a ball around a field or court.
There are too many critics in this world. I support anyone that wants to donate money to improve the world–even if it does not align with my top causes.
.
Loading ...
