The contrast could not have been starker. Before lunchtime yesterday, it was slick presentations to An Bord Pleanala's oral hearing by Mr Dermot Desmond's consultants. Afterwards, it was back to basics with An Taisce's chairman, Mr Michael Smith, reading a seemingly endless script in monotone.
But there were still some good quotes peppering his statement. To him, the scheme proposed for Spencer Dock recalled the opening credits and theme music of Dallas. It made Liberty Hall look feminine compared to the machismo of what is planned down-river.
He said the vision presented by the eminent Irish-born architect of the scheme, Mr Kevin Roche, was disappointing and depressing, with massed ranks of tall buildings creating a repetitive and banal skyline. Who would come to Ireland to see Spencer Dock? he asked.
An Taisce had no slides, photomontages or any of the other whiz-bang gadgetry. But then, none of the seven third-party objectors to Spencer Dock - least of all the Docklands residents - have the resources to engage professionals such as those assembled by Mr Desmond.
The issue that crops up again and again at the inquiry was summed up in a phrase used some years ago by Mr Sam Stephenson, the architect of the Central Bank, in a commentary on Mr Roche's work: How big is it? And how big is it in relation to everything else?
The Dublin architect Mr Paul Keogh, who delivered the first broadside against the project in The Irish Times last March and was subsequently hired by Mr Desmond, yesterday kept returning to this issue of scale.
As he put it, a clear distinction had to be drawn between individual high-rise buildings, creating landmarks or focal points in the city, and a quarter built to the height and bulk proposed for Spencer Dock, where the buildings would have an overall mass at least twice the norm for Dublin and most European cities.
Mr Keogh argued that height was being used in this case not for architectural reasons but simply to bulk out a huge commercial and residential development.
Retained historic buildings on the Liffey frontage, such as the former Midland Hotel, would be reduced to fossils from another era in the landscape of corporate America, while the project's centrepiece, Conference Square, would be vacuous because it would lack the intensity of use needed to enliven public spaces.
When it was put to him by Mr Karl Kent, one of the three inspectors, that the River Liffey was much wider and straighter in the Docklands area than in the city proper and might, therefore, accommodate taller buildings, he replied that the European model of six to seven storeys should be the norm for development in the area.
Mr Keogh also complained that no attempt had been made to exploit the potential of the Royal Canal, on the western boundary of the site, in the way Amsterdam relates to its canals, and he suggested that the only solution - especially as Spencer Dock is in public ownership - was to draw up a new master-plan.
Though the developers' energetic planning sought to challenge his credentials, Mr Keogh pointed out that he had been involved in the visionary Dublin City Quays project (1986) and was a founder-director of Group 91, the consortium of architects who drew up the Temple Bar Architectural Framework Plan.
He also disputed the contention of Dublin Corporation's chief planning officer, Mr Pat McDonnell, that the Docklands area was a new city emerging to the east of the city centre, saying it should be seen rather as a series of new neighbourhoods. In that context, he said, the real issue is the precedent Spencer Dock would set.
All aspects of the proposed development will be teased out during the oral hearing, which may continue for three weeks.
Spencer Dock's architect, Mr Roche, was to have appeared on RTE's Late Late Show tomorrow but he pulled out after learning that many of the third-party objectors would also be present.