- Joined:
- Sep 12, 2010
- Posts:
- 41,927
- Liked Posts:
- 15,379
It's true, you did say they must have had to do it this way. But I mostly disagree with your first reply. Faced with having to find a method to take a high rise down in a safe and unobtrusive way to the public, I think this method is pretty ingenious. I'm sure you could probably punch that building down with your hands for much less money, but I'd wager it would likely take you more than a year.
Point was it was never a matter of it being a best deal or being cost effective as the old coot was saying. Not hard to reason it’s obviously a very costly venture. And then to assume as proof of it being cost effective, that whoever owned the building was a professional who would only make the most cost effective decision, is also kind of asinine.