pundit
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One of the things that occured to me on a recent visit to Belfast is what a miserable place it really is.
A glaring omission from the above postings is that, regardless of architecture, if Dublin was still under British rule, can you imagine the type of terrorist activity that would be common place. Surely many of the anglo-architectural gems would have been obliterated by an guerilla war campaign 100 times more intense than up north.
Given this logic all British-architectural enthusiasts can count their lucky stars that we live in a republic.
Regarding the initial posting complaining of lack of metro service and sufficient infrastructure etc. Why do visitors always presume that Dublin should have these systems already in place?
There is an expectation by european visitors that metros and an efficient infrastructure are standard features in cities across the globe.
This, of course, is nonsense. Dublin is not built for the population explosion of recent years, and its infrastructural shortcomings are a result of poor planning procedures implemented by british planners in the 18th/19th centuries.
It is home-spun hokem to suggest that urban planning would have suffered in Dublin had it not been for British rule. It is stereo-typing of the most ignorant nature, and such typical right-wing rants are not suitable on an architecture website.The dilemma is that prosperity has brought about a demand for services that were never required throughout the majority of the 20th century. Anyway, like it or lump it. Besides, the author of the initial complaint should count himself lucky to be in Ireland at all, because were it not for the recent economic boom he most definitely would never have visited Ireland. Now that he has – all he can do is complain. To you sir I brandish a red card!
