Comments on: Canal Tourism — Canal Fever Runs Amok?

By: R. Elgin

R. Elgin — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:20:05 +0000

“Gordsellar”, the environmental impact is a big problem. I believe most Koreans are against this already.

Additionally, since LMB’s people have promoted the idea of turning Saemanguem into another Dubai, one must note that while Dubai has roughly 420 species of migratory birds, the Saemanguem project has, rather, driven out the many migratory birds that once found refuge there.

I wonder if the “bulldozer” will really know what to “bulldoze” and what to preserve (?).

By: gordsellar

gordsellar — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:27:38 +0000

How many people visit the St. Lawrence Seaway? The Panama Canal? Who the hell would visit this one?

Oh, maybe the same people who fly to Seoul to see the Cheonggyecheon.

Yeah, nobody.

(And if the Cheonggyecheon is a precedent, Lee’s gonna push the schedule ahead to get it done during his term, and the environmental impact will be way worse, with much higher upkeep costs…)

By: bulgasari

bulgasari — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 06:08:38 +0000

Interestingly enough, a friend told me the other night that he had just had a conversation with a friend who works for the company that did the environmental impact assessment. Apparently they found problems, but gave a thumbs up anyways. I can’t imagine why…

By: Konglick

Konglick — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:43:16 +0000

Additional development could help tourism, but it with will also serve to aggravate the negative environmental impact of the canal.

By: Wedge

Wedge — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:39:18 +0000

Tourism is the ONLY thing it’ll be used for after a short while. As I said before, it’ll be the world’s most expensive Disney ride, and I can’t wait.