|Re: design as criteria?||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: truddick (truddickearthlink.net)|
|Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 05:08:31 -0700 (PDT)|
-----Original Message----- Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 22:44:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Lion Kuntz lionkuntz [at] yahoo.com >--- Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> Opt In >> Verification of Financial Capability >> Acquisition of Property >> Design >> Hiring of contractor >> Construction >> Move in >...R. Buckminster Fuller wrote a dozen books and travelled the globe >hundreds of times lecturing that design comes first above all other >priorities. Nobody got it then, and you still are not getting that. Even after your careful post, I'm not sure I get that. Is it your contention that design comes before property? I'm no expert but I was under the impression that the topography and substrate of the property had to be considered in design. Now, certainly a group will explicate some design values-like sustainable, eco-friendly, vehicular access, preferred common facilities-but lots of decisions will depend on how deep you must pour the footers, won't they? Also, how would this advice change if a group was focused on urban retrofit? Design must follow acquisition when you (for example) decide you're buying up an ubran city block, or an old warehouse, no? ___ ! _ Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ! !_) Nunquam Vadis Levis! ! \
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.