Even ignoring UC's point, which isn't particularly relevant because a good ride should make every element feel like an intentional part of it's narrative
How does designing an element around an existing part of your park that you don't want especially disturbed automatically dictate that the element won't feel like "an intentional part of [a ride's] narrative?"
Give me a break. We barely know what the "narrative" here is, beyond the general theme. Besides, you basically said yourself (not more than a line later) that it'll be a nice touch to the ride's layout...
My point was that you shouldn't be judging an element simply by how it looks in a concept drawing, which doesn't take in to account the many viewpoints of that particular element, or, in this case, even the general area that the element will sit in. I was also pointing out that there are specific design reasons why this was put here - but at no point did I say it was the only possibility. They probably had multiple choices (up to, and including, just going around/avoiding the area altogether), but they decided that for what they wanted to achieve, this element best fit the needs of both their restrictions and the ride they wanted to create.
I don't call that "sacrificing narrative for practicality," I call it "proper planning and ride design."