I interpreted it as directed at me and my comment, because you wrote it as a reply to my comment, rather than a reply to the article.

The rest… i will leave you with that. I still disagree with your perspective.

Why not both?

I’m not sure why your response is so hostile against my support of the idea, or why you make so many unfounded assumptions.

How do you know I don’t raise my voice against those views in public? And I never said anything about such spaces being “zones out of sight”, that was your addition. I didn’t say that this article’s idea was the limit of what I support.

Sure it could be “even better”… literally any idea could be even better. But if you attack everything less than perfection, we will never get anywhere.

Would be great for more sports (and cities) to offer spaces like this.