VL
I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not. Curious what theories of mine you were talking about though?
Cameras aren't replacing the human eye/brain, those will still be used intensively. Cameras will be used to maximise the field of view for controllers (more so than a traditional tower can). This view can then, "at the touch of a button", be overlaid with additional information to aid situational awareness - which you yourself have said is so important.
I agree wholeheartedly that situational awareness is a key factor, as is the ability to oversee the entire movement area during routine ops. (Situational awareness becomes even more important in other situations, such as low vis, when neither the view from cameras nor the view from a traditional VCR would be sufficient.)
You could argue that the existing view could be improved by building a new traditional glass tower at the airport - and I'd agree with you.
But that new tower wouldn't readily support the additional tools which are purportedly available and indeed the further tools envisaged and under development.
I'd reiterate that digital towers are not a cheap option (although, in most cases, I would expect the capex to be less than building all but the simplest traditional tower).
Providing their redundancy and resiliency are satisfactory then I believe digital towers are a better option, especially with a view to "future-proofing".
If the proposed digital tower at LCY is deemed a success (as judged on a variety of criteria - the most important of which is of course safety) it will be interesting to see what the uptake of digital towers is after the first few entrants into this brave, new world. It will also be interesting to see where other airports decide to locate them (on-site or remote). But those are choices, as indeed is building a traditional VCR, when a new tower is required.
The operating efficiencies envisaged "down the line" by the ANSP are, in this case, a long, long way off IMHO.
But only time will tell.