Re: Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower
But i would appreciate if you would explain it[/HTML]
First off, my comment was flippant, I accept that. I will go to hell, that is not in doubt.
You normally don’t have to explain flippant begrudgery, people just accept it for what it is, but you are two long standing archiseekers and I am not, so I will give it a shot.
What I was trying to express in that post was that I am not at all comfortable with being in any way supportive of this scheme, because it seems to me that it started with the flawed premise that you can just buy whatever you want if your banks have enough money.
There is nothing in the original Development Plan that would support the notion that a mega-development of this scale would be on for a site like this, but they went ahead and bought it anyway for astronomical money and to hell with what the rules say, we’ll get around that.
In a strictly just world, that manouver wouldn’t work, although, as I have said, I was wrong to suggest that we should take pleasure in it’s failure.
Where it gets complicated is the fact that the scheme has obvious architectural and urban planning merit. The more you examine it and the more you consider what the alternatives might be, the more you start to admire the boldness of the whole thing, even though it is wrong on so many levels.
I am not one of those Luke Gardiner advocates, but you can see the parallels that can be made with other episodes in the development of Dublin, where it can be claimed that the old vision just wasn’t visionary enough.
So that comment comes from the little demon within that knows that if you or I made a horrible mistake and paid too much for a dodgy time share apartment in Bulgaria, that would be just our tough luck, we wouldn’t be able to change the rules, double our profit and get away with it.
Maybe that’s the way the system works, maybe that’s the only way it can work, maybe that is why some people are multi-milionaires and other people are unsuccessful and inadequate, but we can still begrudge, we’ve got that.