Re: Re: DDDA / Docklands Miscellany

@PVC King wrote:

I’m a little curious as to why you raised this issue and why you raised it on this thread.

No mystery PVC, I raised the issue because the I.T. article [posted above] brought it up today . . . . and used the Duke-of-Ormond factor that should have killed it stone dead three years ago.

Why this thread?

. . . I couldn’t find the other thread.

@PVC King wrote:

What you neglect to say is that no application was ever made; hence why all the actors stayed off the stage. Big difference in cost between getting a practice to do a pitch c/w model and paying them to actually design it to the point of a full planning application. The latter would never have happened…

Maybe you’re right, maybe this was never going anywhere, but it didn’t feel like that at the time. At the time, nothing seemed to be capable of wounding, let alone killing, this scheme, it just seemed to gain acceptance with every new document that issued from the DDDA. I recall being at a presentation in Bolton Street where Dick Gleeson of all people included slides of the ”Liffey Island” scheme as part of future Dublin and gave no indication of being remotely uncomfortable with it.

My point is: if this scheme was all as damaging and ludicrous as Frank McDonald today said it was [ – and it was – ], why weren’t people in the wider architectural, planning and civic community saying this at the time?

One possibility is that there isn’t actually a wider, architectural, planning and civic community, . . . . . or at least one that gives a toss 😡