>
The Petition is entirely based on out-dated facts and
patently poorly informed ideas about transport
planning, conservation, and land use planning (all of
which are professional specializations not limited to
Architects)
it does no such thing. it comments on design aspects and interface aspects. these questions have been around since 1988 and will remain relevant. they are all asked, if you read further, in a specific megacities/megamachine narrative which is quite different from your planning discourse (at the least it has a methodology).
> On the other hand, it
makes no reference to issues thrown up by metro
property development constructions proceeding without
statutory approvals .... This is even though
ensuring statutory approvals falls within the scope of
architectural services and code of professional
conduct prescribed by the Council of Architecture.
does not have to, this is your private axe to grind, and in no way a part of the petition. why ought it be so? or do you intend to put your plannerly words into everybody's collective mouth?
suggest you stay within your discourse, rather than interfere with others'.
The Petition makes a sole prayer, for only underground
metro. This is implicitly a prayer for more metro
property development in the extant rationale wherein
since elevated metro is being justified primarily on
basis of being cheaper than underground metro and
metro property development is being justified in terms
of a financial plan that requires/allows raising a
percentage of total metro cost through it.
it also makes "implicitly a prayer" to delay the metro project by many years, as underground construction is considerably slower for technical reasons. the delay allowing for various types of financial plans canceling your implicit assumptions.
The Petition that registered architects are being
urged to sign thus appears to me to be a case of the
Register of Architects being put to dubious use that
ought to be brought to the notice of the Council.
how so? or do you have plannerly words on non-dubious use of the Register of Architects? it is a public domain document, and anyone can use it as they see fit. architects have started receiving lots of junk mail because of the publication as well.
gita, perhaps one ought not impose one's morality on others all the time :-)
- A
(now go ban us from your list again)