snapper wrote:
which could have been built on any number of unused landspaces could it not? (I did mean replaced by something as visually impressive that people could've, y'know, *enjoyed*. Quoting me out of context you scoundrel!).
CraigA wrote:
And in which case you'd have all the hippy bastards up in arms about green land being used for industry.
I couldn't give a toss what the hippies think but if it makes them feel warmer inside then I'll change "unsused" to "derelict".
Quote:
What's a better tribute, a renewable energy source or a white elephant?
In black and white terms like that obviously the former. It needn't have become a white elephant though and in my opinion with people like Gormley & Kapoor on board probably wouldn't have been.
Quote:
And it's ok people saying Eon should have spent the money on preserving the towers. Eon are a business and you'd have been the first to complain when you're electric bills went up.
Eon are a business yes, with their main responsibility being to turn a profit for their shareholders. Thing is this industry has been rightfully getting a good kicking for maintaining it's ridiculous profits & bonuses to shareholders & CEO's whilst doubling their prices. If the price of power on the market is rising then they, as well as the public, should take a hit. That's what I complain about and the whole industry should be renationalised along with every other essential service that the hag Thatcher sold off (oh, sorry wrong thread). But anyway, for a multinational to forgo that bit of land & build the power station elsewhere would not have taken such a big mouthful of food away from them + would have given them some badly needed good PR. But it's "oh no, lets blow them up.." Pfft..