cactus flower wrote:

Last year all this looked very costly, but with oil and gas prices going the way they are that is less the case. Government should invest in a good grant system for people on low incomes and should upgrade the social housing stock. Its a no brainer investment for a country like Ireland with no oil even without the climate change issue. One thing we should look at in a postive way is that finally real substantial investment is going into improving the technology of renewables and into better construction.

As you say it is becoming relatively less costly than oil, but still costly yet.

I guess it is upper class housing and social housing who will be able to follow, but many average households will ultimately lose their property. They will try to make works on their houses themselves, but few will be able to follow.

Most housing in Ireland is so badly built that the only way is up. Better roof insulation, draught proofing and fitting porches are cheap and easy to do.
Planting a good shelter belt to the north can be done for nothing, at rural houses. A quarter of an acre of pollarded willow would go some way towards keeping a stove going.

Cost is a real issue, but it is an investment we need to make.

cactus flower wrote:

Most housing in Ireland is so badly built that the only way is up. Better roof insulation, draught proofing and fitting porches are cheap and easy to do.
Planting a good shelter belt to the north can be done for nothing, at rural houses. A quarter of an acre of pollarded willow would go some way towards keeping a stove going.

Cost is a real issue, but it is an investment we need to make.

The Green Party in government is particularly positive in this regard. They have stipulated through legislation that the insulation standards in new builds will have to be 40% better than previously. The Greens are making significant policy changes to ensure that our housing stock becomes less energy intensive.

905 wrote:

I hate architecture for architecture's sake. Or for the architect's sake more like. God they have big egos, some of them.

So you'd say that about all architecture then? What about our Georgian core? What about the Custom House? What about the Four Courts? Leinster House? An Áras? All of these are architectural creations which are beautiful, are icons of Dublin and have had significant international influence. The Four Courts and Custom House being in a style which directly influenced the construction of the Capitol Building and the White House.

And would you say that about the Eiffel Tower? That building was reviled by many Parisians and Parisiennes at the time. That was built under the instructions of Gustave Eiffel, an architect of ego and pomp. Yet the Eiffel Tower is now hailed as a masterpiece, a centre-piece to Paris' beautifully organised skyline, a triumphant expression of the ambition, scale and ingenuity of French architecture.

And these monuments are still being created. The CCTV Tower is a fantastic logistical and technical achievement and its unique structure will be appreciated for decades to come. The Petronas Towers are marvellous examples of symmetry. Taipei 101 is a great synthesis of old and new Taiwanese construction. The Swiss Re building is already an essential part of the London skyline and it is an augur for a new and exciting era in British architecture where new, interesting and challenging edifices rise up to be counted.

I love architecture and it is an essential art form. It is as much a part of the human experience as poetry, sculpture and music. It is the art of living.

Atticus wrote:

Can you elaborate on your thoughts on design for disabled legislation, Squire ? Thanks.

My observations are not expert, but it strikes me that there is an over concentration on wheelchairs and wheel chair access and overall I am starting to question if the costs of some of it is excessive.

A very low percentage of those that are disabled (I think 7%) are in wheelchairs and all the ramps and lifts cost serious money. I have seen some hideous examples of ramps up the front of historic buildings. I know we all grow old, but designing everywhere for possible disabled employees or possible visitors is seriously expensive. You cannot possibly design for all possible ailments? Should we have doors for people are 2m tall?

Ramps and level access don’t necessarily work on all sites. If you are building on the side of a hill this is going to influence the entire layout and can often radically reduce density. It can be extremely costly. Also if you have a level access into a building you are right up at damp proof course level. For a single door fine, but for a row of, say, small shops it means the ground level is virtually at damp proof course level and that is bad detailing. Somewhere you have to draw a line with some of this. Do we build a ramp up Ben Nevis?

But that is only the start of it, you have wheelchair waiting points with intercoms and corridors wide enough for two wheelchairs to pass, now how often does that happen? Of course there is the disabled toilets. They go in everywhere. In larger buildings not a problem, but can be a real problem in a small building? In existing buildings trying to provide disabled provision can seriously damage the ambiance of the building or may not be at all practical.

In all houses you need a toilet for the ambulant disabled on the principal access floor. So ground floor toilet; large house no problem, small house quite a few are buying the house and pulling them out to increase the size of the kitchen! What a waste of money. The regulations effect door widths, location of switches (a good thing that), corridor widths, bathroom sizes, fenestration in some buildings, signage, ironmongery, colours of nosings on stairs, textured floor finishes in certain locations as warning, guarding rails in case someone blind walks into an open door or window ........... and on and on.


Of course all signage has to be in Braille, fair enough and loops for those with hearing difficulties. In Hotels fire alarms can’t just be rely on sound, they also have to be visible in case someone is deaf. You will like this, some bright spark realised that the deaf person may be asleep and won’t see the flashing lights so enter the vibrating pillow which starts when the alarm goes off. Also in hotels there have to be bedrooms to cater for disabled and if you have several of them they can’t be together near the lift. It just goes on and on and from what I can gather from Architects some of it contradicts other regulations.

Cactus Flower

Here is an example of madness, and is from the UK Building Regs which we eventually tend to follow.

If you carry out work to an existing building you are meant to try to upgrade the insulation of that element. So let us imagine you owned a fine Rendered Georgian house with period interiors. Let us imagine you need to re-render how do you upgrade the thermal insulation of the walls? If you try internally you wreck the plasterwork and end up moving skirtings radiators, socket outlets etc. Not practical; so can you do it on the outside? If you render on top of insulation you are in serious problems with window sills, gully traps, all waste pipes and what happens up at roof level? It is a nightmare. So what you are supposed to do is show that such work is not cost effective, that the costs of doing it would outweigh any savings as a result of reduced heating costs. Care to have a go at such a calculation?

I mentioned elsewhere about CO2 calculations and the time and futility of much of it. If we want to be energy efficient part of that equation should be in creating an efficient system and stop wasting peoples' time on pointless exercises.

It is a pleasure to read your architecture posts, Squire.

About the disabled, I think our civilization is in a dead-end. Either you transform buildings into real clinics, or you are called an insensitive monster. I hear projects of reinserting the heavily handicaped children in primary schools too, because it's supposed to be "fascist" now to "exclude" them. But then you have to import all the medical gear into the school...

About your "fine rendered Georgian house" example, you will end up having historical houses with no market value, because since they won't have the thermal label you won't be able to sell them.

Arnauldherve

It does not have to be a fine house imagine a simple stone farm house. Insulate all the walls internally; batten out replaster, move all socket outlets and radiators and skirtings etc etc on the outside walls. Alternative; use some propriety method on the outside and replace all window sills, take out and refit windows, drainage pipes etc. Heaven knows what you are supposed to do at roof level if there is no overhang. It is obviously impractical.

Some things you can do easily, like upgrade the insulation of a ground floor if it is being replaced, but if you live in a stone cottage and say need a new damp proof course you are into stripping 1m of the lower plaster off and you are back to proving that insulating the external walls is again impractical.

The problem is giving some of this to bean counters and the risk averse to monitor and make decisions.

How does the average person who wants to end rising damp prove that insulating the external wall is not cost effective? Well first of all you would need someone to draw up a schedule of necessary work and someone to put a price on that work. Now here is the part that I can't quite get my mind around; You would also need another person to calculate the potential energy saved from such an upgrading over the next 10 years and place a cost on it! Such a person would be worth their weight in gold in energy futures or they are guessing. Work that are obviously impractical should not need to be proved.

But there is a bigger problem, I may be of limited income and whilst I want to live in a dry house and can only afford to reslate the roof but cannot afford to upgrade the insulation. (and it is not always easy to insulate a roof). In my opinion I have a right to maintain MY house as I can afford and run around with two jumpers on in the winter. It is more important that the roof is repaired.

What happens with daft legislation is it is ignored.

Reducing energy consumption could have been done a lot more simply, why calculate the CO2 omissions of many modern houses? All you need to do is add a few solar panels or similar, So why not have that in the regulations and ALL will pass SAP ratings. In the UK they are wasting about half the cost of installation of a solar panel on pointless calculations etc. That is insane.

What I think is happening is that the Building related regulations are being used to perform functions that they were never meant to and that vested interests are driving such moves. Health and safety has become a self perpetuating industry. Has it meaningfully reduced the accidents on Building sites? That I doubt. Energy policing and legislation has been ill considered and unnecessarily complicated. With provision for disabled it is political correctness gone mad. With the amount of money being WASTED in provision that is NEVER used you could buy every person using a wheelchair one of those motorised ones that can climb stairs and still have enough money to fund all of them in very comfortable retirement for the rest of their lives. The waste and costs of all this is criminal. It is appallingly inefficient. They are a hidden tax.

I actually support the need for better access for disabled but think we are going well beyond the practical and cost effective. I resent seeing money spent on provision that will NEVER be used or ripped out.

Squire wrote:

Cactus Flower

Here is an example of madness, and is from the UK Building Regs which we eventually tend to follow.

If you carry out work to an existing building you are meant to try to upgrade the insulation of that element. So let us imagine you owned a fine Rendered Georgian house with period interiors. Let us imagine you need to re-render how do you upgrade the thermal insulation of the walls? If you try internally you wreck the plasterwork and end up moving skirtings radiators, socket outlets etc. Not practical; so can you do it on the outside? If you render on top of insulation you are in serious problems with window sills, gully traps, all waste pipes and what happens up at roof level? It is a nightmare. So what you are supposed to do is show that such work is not cost effective, that the costs of doing it would outweigh any savings as a result of reduced heating costs. Care to have a go at such a calculation?

I mentioned elsewhere about CO2 calculations and the time and futility of much of it. If we want to be energy efficient part of that equation should be in creating an efficient system and stop wasting peoples' time on pointless exercises.

A reasonable solution would be to insulate and draught proof so far as possible without obscuring the original structure and to obtain a carbon free source of power. Bingo, a cosy and zero carbon building. Fire regulations are a problem for listed buildings too. Beautiful Georgian panelled doors have to be either replaced with expensive copies or panelled over on one side with a fire proof layer. There used to be some discretion about these things. Has that gone?
In the long run, this will tend to reduce the viability of listed buildings as it is it so expensive to adapt them for new uses. If we want to keep them, there should be VAT exemption on construction works at least.

The Eiffel Tower was constructed without a single worker's death. Construction sites are very dangerous places, but its possible to work safely on them and this doesn't add to the cost - a well run and tidy site is far more likely to mean the work is done on time and within budget.

There used to be a shocking lack of safety on sites in Ireland. This is still very visible with road works. I came upon some guys working on replacing a couple of cats eyes in the middle of a road with no reflective jackets and no warning signs. Their safety method seemed to be running out of the way if they heard something coming towards them. Hazard arrangements at road works are often barely existent and sometimes in themselves dangerous, even after a County Council was recently prosecuted over road deaths because of lack of safety arrangements.

The new safety conciousness in Irish construction has been a brilliant success - deaths dropped dramatically and construction workers in the UK are asking for the same processes to be introduced over there. When you take into account the increase in the amount of construction and the trend to higher buildings, the success is even more dramatic.

http://www.builderandengineer.co.uk/news/health-and-safety/construction-deaths-surge-in-britain-but-plummet-in-ireland-556.html

I agree with you Squire that there are a some daft aspects to Energy Ratings for buildings, but not about the safety aspect.

Also, roof insulation iis relatively cheap and gives the best bang for your bucks in energy conservation in an old building. A child can do it. We sent ours up into the attic with a few bales of treated sheep's wool and they made an excellent job of it.

Cactus Flower

I was referring to Britain's Health and Safety System. It is a monstrous system that far outweighs anything in Ireland, but it is centred around written reports and off loading responsibility. the costs are enormous and as I said has not produced any benifit, none at all. Poor legislation. To quote from your article;

Shocking figures released today by the Health and Safety Executive reveal that 77 people died on construction sites in 2006/7 a massive 20 per cent leap on the previous year. Construction deaths account for a staggering 31 per cent of all deaths at work.

I agree clean sites are efficient and safer, what causes accidents on building sites is;
1 Lack of training (not necessarily specifically safety related).
2 Poor equipment (and clothing).
3 Lack of proper coordination ie inexperienced people in charge.
4 People under pricing and trying to take short cuts. The whole grip system is driving standards down.
5 Teams of people who are not used to working together.
6 Working to over tight deadlines.
7 Lack of proper control of the trades so you don't know if a tradesman really is experienced.
8 Lack of personal accountability for those who actually cause the accident or defect. Plasters mate moves a ladder and does not secure it, someone falls so who ends up at the sharp end? Plasters labourer highly unlikely, no it will be the main contractor, possibly the sub contractor or the Architect or Health and Safety Planning Officer. Personal accountability is lacking or diminished.

With regards Thermal regulations the aims are good but the legislation in the UK is often impractical, costly and unnecessarily complex.

I have had no involvement in Irish construction for a few years (got out and many of my ventures were speculative) but our Regulations tend to follow the UKs. Green cover instead of red. If so we have a problem heading our way.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

905 wrote:

I hate architecture for architecture's sake. Or for the architect's sake more like. God they have big egos, some of them.

So you'd say that about all architecture then? What about our Georgian core? What about the Custom House? What about the Four Courts? Leinster House? An Áras? All of these are architectural creations which are beautiful, are icons of Dublin and have had significant international influence. The Four Courts and Custom House being in a style which directly influenced the construction of the Capitol Building and the White House.

It is as much about the overall townscape that is created as the building itself. It is about people and activity and creating interesting places. We could learn a lot from the Georgian squares and how they were coordinated. I like the Gherkin it is very much a design that follows function unlike some of the examples which are pure celebration of self. 'Hi look at what we can do aren't we clever". Fair enough but is it interesting to walk around these buildings? Are there activities that create a vibrant townscape. Some of the Dubai development is pure Disneyland and is about as tacky.

I love medieval cathedrals. They were a technological revolution on a power with any. They were built to impress, but in their context they were very much part of the community. The buildings were awesome but the overall townscape still had a human dimension and scale. Scale and interest at street level is important. I love London, it is a good mix of the styles, forms and uses. Central Paris is more of a museum. Parking lot development type cities just don't do it for me. There may be fine buildings which look great when going past in the car but do I want to wander and explore?

double trouble

Squire wrote:

Cactus Flower

I was referring to Britain's Health and Safety System. It is a monstrous system that far outweighs anything in Ireland, but it is centred around written reports and off loading responsibility. the costs are enormous and as I said has not produced any benifit, none at all. Poor legislation. To quote from your article;

Shocking figures released today by the Health and Safety Executive reveal that 77 people died on construction sites in 2006/7 a massive 20 per cent leap on the previous year. Construction deaths account for a staggering 31 per cent of all deaths at work.

I agree clean sites are efficient and safer, what causes accidents on building sites is;
1 Lack of training (not necessarily specifically safety related).
2 Poor equipment (and clothing).
3 Lack of proper coordination ie inexperienced people in charge.
4 People under pricing and trying to take short cuts. The whole grip system is driving standards down.
5 Teams of people who are not used to working together.
6 Working to over tight deadlines.
7 Lack of proper control of the trades so you don't know if a tradesman really is experienced.
8 Lack of personal accountability for those who actually cause the accident or defect. Plasters mate moves a ladder and does not secure it, someone falls so who ends up at the sharp end? Plasters labourer highly unlikely, no it will be the main contractor, possibly the sub contractor or the Architect or Health and Safety Planning Officer. Personal accountability is lacking or diminished.

With regards Thermal regulations the aims are good but the legislation in the UK is often impractical, costly and unnecessarily complex.

I have had no involvement in Irish construction for a few years (got out and many of my ventures were speculative) but our Regulations tend to follow the UKs. Green cover instead of red. If so we have a problem heading our way.

I agree with all your points 1 - 8 - but Ireland seems to have got it right with a combination of universal training and inspection. Hopefully we will hang on to the system we have as it seems to be working. The main complaint seems to be that when there is a really serious infringment/negligence and someone dies the penalties are derisory.

It seems incredible what the UK is doing with conservation policies by prioritising appearance over function - did I read it here that some old couple put double glazing pvc in their country house in England only to be told to restore the original wood units as they were living in a protected building ...?? Sounds impossible to circumvent something like that and like what you are saying above about the insulation of the walls inside. Surely to god a person is allowed to the privacy of their own home and may deal with the interior in whatever way they wish ?? In fact why isn't the exterior treated in a similar way within reason? It all sounds a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face in terms of energy.

Maybe it shouldn't be all about energy but there's no getting away from the grip energy has on our appetities for our properties. We are either heating them up or cooling them down and Ireland might be one of the better countries as once we have dealt with the main issue - dampness - then it should be a relatively low-volume energy footprint afterwards given the very temperate climate we live in, so it should be a bit of a no-brainer for our nation to house itself in a fashion that is comfortable yet energy efficient. You'd imagine ...

In Dubai they are building a new city or series of cities as is happening the world over - in China and India. The world is getting ready, I suppose, to fit in 3 billion more people...

In Ecogeek again he reports on what Dubai is able to do given its low planning restrictions (?) , money and most importantly, will. Design is everything and is very impressive and very much in tune with nature in this block below.

Quote :

I think that Dubai is worth studying. How, exactly, does an oil state become the home of green innovations. It takes more than just money, of course, there are plenty of oil states who have remained in the cleantech dark ages. But I'm going to have to file that thought away for later, because I must announce a NEW planned ultra-green city.

Xeritown is green in both high and low-tech ways. They've centered the city so that the ocean breeze air-conditions the entire city. They've laid it out to be pedestrian friendly and inconvenient for cars. There's no road more than two lanes wide in the whole 60 acres. And, taking it's name from Xeriscaping, the city uses next to no water for non-domestic purposes. All landscaping is suitable for the desert and graywater will be used for industrial purposes.

But, of course, it comes with its fair share of photovoltaics to power the city. Panels will line the streets and shade the sidewalks.

Of course, unlike Masdar City, this project has not yet been approved for construction. But if Dubai's record for surprising me stands, they'll be breaking ground in no time.

Ecogeek

It may not be pretty but there is no getting away from the fact that humans consume space and energy and if they are to be housed somewhere then it might be best to house them with the lowest fingerprint or footprint on the natural world if at all possible.

Auditor #9 wrote:

It seems incredible what the UK is doing with conservation policies by prioritising appearance over function - did I read it here that some old couple put double glazing pvc in their country house in England only to be told to restore the original wood units as they were living in a protected building ...?? Sounds impossible to circumvent something like that and like what you are saying above about the insulation of the walls inside. Surely to god a person is allowed to the privacy of their own home and may deal with the interior in whatever way they wish ?? In fact why isn't the exterior treated in a similar way within reason? It all sounds a bit cutting off your nose to spite your face in terms of energy.

There are equally stringent requirements in Ireland. Try owning a protected Georgian building in Dublin City Centre and attempting to run your office out of it. Ceilings, Windows, Doors etc all have protection orders on them.

I'm not sure I'm convinced that Georgian buildings are big ecological villains. After all, they were built and lived in for a hundred and fifty years before there was mains electricity.
The have natural light and ventilation.
Compared to an office block of the 1990s to 2000s, with a deep footprint that means lights are on all day, and air conditioning all summer, they are cheap to run.

Georgian buildings all have attics that can be cheaply stuffed full of insulation and doors and windows can be draught proofed. After dark, they have timber window shutters that can be closed to keep the cold out. They were built out of non-toxic local materials. You can put solar panels on the roof.

The idea of conservation is to repair and maintain instead of replace.

cactus flower wrote:

The idea of conservation is to repair and maintain instead of replace.

That practical approach is not how it is working out in the UK and as I say we tend to copy their regulations (virtually word for word). Practical approach is maintain, do what is sensible or what someone can afford and ditch all the cost benifit nonsense. A bit of common sense and instead of insulation encourage people to put in a solar panel or two if they can afford it to compensate.

Auditor

I am in trouble with the planning lot over cast iron rain water goods. I used cast Aluminium and not cast Iron, don't rust, less maintenance and easier to lift. Once painted you can't tell the difference unless you have a thing about rust. Got one of their non compliance letters and sent them one back from a legal type expert in building matters.Haven't heard a squeak from them and a year has passed. I suppose they don't want to risk losing and set precedent so have backed down.

It is a question of what is reasonable, but some fanatics forget that people have to live in the buildings and pay for the repairs. In a high Grade listed building fair enough but some of the things they are listing are of dubious merit. Some uPVC windows look hideous and if you have a grade1 listed building they really are not suitable but that said I have seen very good uPVC windows that would do in a general conservation area as they look pretty well like the old timber sliding sash, you need to chose manufacture carefully. There are some excellent aluminium sash windows which are a lot slimmer than the uPVC and would fool 99.9% of people all of the time.

On legislation generally I think we over legislate and worse still often do so for no discernible purpose. A lot of it is very subjective.

Squire wrote:

Auditor

I am in trouble with the planning lot over cast iron rain water goods. I used cast Aluminium and not cast Iron, don't rust, less maintenance and easier to lift. Once painted you can't tell the difference unless you have a thing about rust. Got one of their non compliance letters and sent them one back from a legal type expert in building matters.Haven't heard a squeak from them and a year has passed. I suppose they don't want to risk losing and set precedent so have backed down.

On legislation generally I think we over legislate and worse still often do so for no discernible purpose. A lot of it is very subjective.

And less practical than what you did above with the aluminium. Why would they legislate against aluminium ?? It seems over-detailed and totally laborious in terms of detail. Fair enough as you say if it was a building of some prominence or obvious history but even then can't some reasonable compromise be reached? Sounds like madness in some cases not to.

You'd also wonder what your own case would look like to a Judge in a court of Law - not half as ridiculous as how the Media would paint it ...

I was just reading the Guardian there and thought I'd put some of the news in there in here. It's about skyscrapers, not about Dubai specifically. It's about China and how many skyscrapers they're going to be building over the next while - lots. This will have a massive impact on world demand for metals used in construction and for other raw materials. And cranes...

Quote :

Rio Tinto yesterday shrugged off talk of an impending collapse in the commodities market, pointing to recent research that suggested China will build up to 50,000 skyscrapers in the next 20 years, the equivalent of 10 New Yorks, creating sustained long-term demand for steel and other raw materials.

The mining group reported half-year profits of $5.5bn (£3bn), a 55% increase on the same period a year earlier, providing the company with ammunition in its battle to see off a hostile bid by BHP Billiton valued at about £70bn.

Rio's chairman, Paul Skinner, said the board's view was unchanged since BHP increased its bid in February. "The offer on the table is still short of what we would consider full value for Rio Tinto and its prospects, and these results emphasise that," he said. "We are demonstrating what Rio Tinto is really capable of."
..
Some analysts had been forecasting a dip in Chinese investment after the Olympics, but Rio is predicting that there will be a post-games boom. The company cited research from McKinsey, the management consultancy, which said the scale and pace of urbanisation would continue at an unprecedented rate.

By 2025, the report predicts that China will have 221 cities with more than a million inhabitants, compared with 35 in Europe today. As well as the need for huge spending on infrastructure, McKinsey projects that China will build between 20,000 and 50,000 skyscrapers, many of them in less developed interior provinces far from Beijing and Shanghai.

Guardian

10 New Yorks over the next 20 years .. Dubai might start looking like Limerick in comparison...

yep, meanwhile, most of the "landmark" skyscraper projects in London have been mostly mothballed for the time being, i believe.

Interesting update on the ongoing and never-ending Rio Tinto - BHP Billiton saga.

So what, is Dubai going to be absolutely economically devastated in a few years then? Considering all the fuss made about our construction boom, and this is like that x1000...

Firstly, I'm not sure I believe the China stats. 1) they spent loadsa money on the Olympics, while subsidising their fuel. Something's gotta give. 2) They depend on exports and the West is in a recession. That's going to lower the amount of moolah going into the country 3) the amounts of natural resources/commodities required may well NOT be available, full stop. 4) Oil exports are still falling, unlike Dubai, the Chinese aren't net exporters, they're importers. And despite massive domestic reserves, they also import coal. The price has doubled in the last six months. 5) They hold VAST amounts of dollars and US treasuries and the US economy is on the verge of collapse...or at least massive default.

The Dubai thing is interesting... apparently half of our developers are off there, leaving their debts behind 'em. At least according to David McWilliams

expat girl wrote:

Firstly, I'm not sure I believe the China stats. 1) they spent loadsa money on the Olympics, while subsidising their fuel. Something's gotta give. 2) They depend on exports and the West is in a recession. That's going to lower the amount of moolah going into the country 3) the amounts of natural resources/commodities required may well NOT be available, full stop. 4) Oil exports are still falling, unlike Dubai, the Chinese aren't net exporters, they're importers. And despite massive domestic reserves, they also import coal. The price has doubled in the last six months. 5) They hold VAST amounts of dollars and US treasuries and the US economy is on the verge of collapse...or at least massive default.

The Dubai thing is interesting... apparently half of our developers are off there, leaving their debts behind 'em. At least according to David McWilliams

You had me until you said McWilliams...

expat girl wrote:

Firstly, I'm not sure I believe the China stats. 1) they spent loadsa money on the Olympics, while subsidising their fuel. Something's gotta give. 2) They depend on exports and the West is in a recession. That's going to lower the amount of moolah going into the country 3) the amounts of natural resources/commodities required may well NOT be available, full stop. 4) Oil exports are still falling, unlike Dubai, the Chinese aren't net exporters, they're importers. And despite massive domestic reserves, they also import coal. The price has doubled in the last six months. 5) They hold VAST amounts of dollars and US treasuries and the US economy is on the verge of collapse...or at least massive default.

The Dubai thing is interesting... apparently half of our developers are off there, leaving their debts behind 'em. At least according to David McWilliams

So the good people of Dubai have crappy, infrastructure-free, cheaply thrown-together rubbish at artificially high prices to look forward to? They must be delighted!