Residential developments beside the Spencer Dock project would "gradually become absorbed" into the project and "might be rebuilt, might be demolished, but will fall under the influence of the area", an architecture critic for the developers told the hearing yesterday.
Mr Martin Pawley said he didn't see that as a disadvantage as such absorption occurs in all major development schemes.
A former architecture critic of the Guardian and Observer newspapers, Mr Pawley said: "It would be foolish not to accept that a development of this size would not change and establish the identity of the area."
When questioned by Mr Karl Kent, one of An Bord Pleanala's inspectors, on the fact that there were inhabitants on the periphery of the site, Mr Pawley said there "are one or two problems on the periphery".
This reference drew vocal outbursts by some present at the hearing, and the chairman and senior inspector of the hearing, Mr Des Johnson, called for order.
Mr Pawley said his argument for the proposed development was an economic argument as opposed to an art/historical argument. He envisaged Ireland, specifically Dublin, as being "already part of the global information economy with an indisputable potential for further growth in this area, but that this potential is, and will continue to be expressed in a demand for commercial buildings of the type included in the . . . master plan for Spencer Dock".
He said modern high-rise office towers, which are a feature of the proposed development, are "perfect machines for working in".
"These buildings are instruments of commerce, their performance, their outline and their interaction with one another wind-tunnel-tested to perfection."
When questioned by Mr John Martin, deputy city planning officer of Dublin Corporation, on the effect of the development on Dublin's skyline as an economic asset for tourism, Mr Pawley replied: "Although tourism is important to Dublin, you have to balance one against the other. It is not clear how the Spencer Dock development would impinge upon the tourist trade."
He added that criticisms of Spencer Dock on the visual impact on Dublin "are not serious threats to the historic fabric of Dublin". He said the visual impact would not threaten the tourist trade; was "barely visible" and "would pass unnoticed".
When asked by Mr Martin if he had any criticisms of the development, Mr Pawley said he would not have anything critical to say at this stage, but "I may be critical at a later stage."
Mr Pawley said the development was "a kind of adventure, a daring thing to propose". He added: "In the whole of the city of Dublin, from its Georgian centre to it endless rows of terraced dwellings, there has been nothing for two centuries to match such a powerfully harmonious and contemporary delineation of a district.
"If this appeal is allowed, the resulting new quarter will constitute an aesthetic as well as an economic breakthrough for a city too long held back by its own past."
Mr Pawley said the type of high-rise buildings envisaged in the Spencer Dock development are to be seen everywhere in the world and are not national but international-style buildings. "They are everywhere, except perhaps in Dublin," he said.
Mr Michael O'Donnell, legal adviser to financier Mr Dermot Desmond, who is opposed to the development, questioned Mr Pawley on how the proposed National Conference Centre would react with the Conference Square, suggesting that access to the Conference Square would be limited.
Mr Pawley replied: "For the moment I am lost for words."