Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Children's Hospital to be located at St James'
Options
Comments
-
Really. No comments? Such a long thread on this for the Mater site decision, not a peep on this.
Are we happy? Does it make sense now?
I guess the big question is the writing off of 70 million and the bloodymindedness of pushing ahead with the Mater site. But as ever no-one will be held accountable.0 -
Swapped one overly constrained site where the building will be out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic... for a more constrained site where the building will be more out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic.
Except its on the southside (critical for shutting many consultants up) and free from any "Bertie put it there" allegations. That's about the only benefits.0 -
Swapped one overly constrained site where the building will be out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic... for a more constrained site where the building will be more out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic.
Except its on the southside (critical for shutting many consultants up) and free from any "Bertie put it there" allegations. That's about the only benefits.
Nope. Benefits include:
Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.0 -
Nope. Benefits include:
Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.
Site isn't bigger, Mater was co-located with teaching and would have had a maternity on site rather than half a kilometre down the road. Ambulance down the bus lanes on the R132 and R148 to the M50 is seriously much of a muchness speed wise, Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.
We've basically picked somewhere that is not-Mater but otherwise meets its criteria. People who were opposed to the Mater should be equally opposed to James's - but as most were opposed on "its too far from Crumlin" and "I don't like the northside" issues, they're staying shut.
The only worse proposals of the set they looked at were Connolly and Belcamp.
Mater site has 3 hectares available - James's has 1.1 and requires expanding the site by moving buildings which do not need to be moved, eating up part of a public park, and will still end up with the children's hospital on a smaller site.0 -
Site isn't bigger, Mater was co-located with teaching and would have had a maternity on site rather than half a kilometre down the road. Ambulance down the bus lanes on the R132 and R148 to the M50 is seriously much of a muchness speed wise, Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.
We've basically picked somewhere that is not-Mater but otherwise meets its criteria. People who were opposed to the Mater should be equally opposed to James's - but as most were opposed on "its too far from Crumlin" and "I don't like the northside" issues, they're staying shut.
The only worse proposals of the set they looked at were Connolly and Belcamp.
Mater site has 3 hectares available - James's has 1.1 and requires expanding the site by moving buildings which do not need to be moved, eating up part of a public park, and will still end up with the children's hospital on a smaller site.
Capacity is not the same as size. And James' already has planning permission for a new hospital on site.
My objection to the Mater site was based on the overscaled development and cultural/heritage disaster of the proposed scheme - other than the Chapel, there is little such impact with the James' site.0 -
Advertisement
-
Capacity is not the same as size. And James' already has planning permission for a new hospital on site.
My objection to the Mater site was based on the overscaled development and cultural/heritage disaster of the proposed scheme - other than the Chapel, there is little such impact with the James' site.
The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.
So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?0 -
Its on the soutside, that will keep the moaners happy now.
Personally, i would of preferred the Blanch site (Connolly Hospital) as it has a vast amount of land around it to accomadate it and allow for future expansion.0 -
The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.
So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?
Context. A nine story will do fine in hospital grounds, not so much right over a Georgian streetscape.
Does Hueston Gate look out of place to you?0 -
The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.
So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?
St James's has planning permission for a hospital (was meant to be a private co-located one) that was to be this height. Also this area already has a lot of buildings of this height in the form of Guinness's.Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.
Heuston services more areas outside of Greater Dublin Area (kildare wicklow louth and meath) though.
Connolly goes longford, sligo, wexford, mullingar and belfast.
Heuston goes to cork, limerick, tipperary, athlone, offaly, laois, mayo, roscommon, galway, clare, kerry, kilkenny).
Also for those commuting up from the connolly station, they can hop on the luas at connolly or bus aras and get of at the luas stop at St James's.
In relation to privately held buildings they could compulsory purchase order them or they may just work around them.Its on the soutside, that will keep the moaners happy now.
Im from Kildare. I don't care where its built so long it gets built. It's the children of the country who need this hospital built.Personally, i would of preferred the Blanch site (Connolly Hospital) as it has a vast amount of land around it to accomadate it and allow for future expansion.
In order for this to happen connolly would have needed a serious investment in money to bring up to scratch. Its not a specialised hospital to the extent that James's or the Mater is. This would require an investment of capital that we do not have.
It also is nowhere near a maternity hospital. The Coombe is literally 2 mins drive from the back of St james's, so its not too hard to put an entrance there. It mightn't be collocated but its fairly close. As well as that you do have that 20 acre site on the SCR which has the potential to be a medical research hub in the future! that won't happen for at least 10 years though but their is room to expand.
While Connolly does offer expansion room, the other required investment to bring it up to standards is not something that we can fund at this moment in time.0 -
Context. A nine story will do fine in hospital grounds, not so much right over a Georgian streetscape.
Does Hueston Gate look out of place to you?
Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.
The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.St James's has planning permission for a hospital (was meant to be a private co-located one) that was to be this height. Also this area already has a lot of buildings of this height in the form of Guinness's.
Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.
And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.
This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.Heuston services more areas outside of Greater Dublin Area (kildare wicklow louth and meath) though.
Connolly goes longford, sligo, wexford, mullingar and belfast.
Heuston goes to cork, limerick, tipperary, athlone, offaly, laois, mayo, roscommon, galway, clare, kerry, kilkenny).
Also for those commuting up from the connolly station, they can hop on the luas at connolly or bus aras and get of at the luas stop at St James's.
In relation to privately held buildings they could compulsory purchase order them or they may just work around them.
Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.
Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.
How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.0 -
Advertisement
-
Central indeed. However, would there be an A&E dept there?Nope. Benefits include:
Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.
St James has possibly the worst access routes that a hospital experiences. For emergencies anyway. Hopefully any accidents going that way only happen between outside of 7-10am and 3.30-6.30pm because otherwise they are in trouble.0 -
Guinness's is less than 1 km away. Now I don't know about you but in my books but that to me is actually very close.
Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.
And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.
This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.
Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.
Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.
How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.
also this is a hospital for the children of this country. Not just for the people of dublin. The site at St james's is much better in terms of transport links. As i mentioned before, heuston station serves a much wider area of the country. Yes it does have less commuter services within the GDA but this isnt a hospital just for the GDA.There is also a park and ride facility at many stops along the red line in which people can commute from if they so wish.
Tell me what CURRENT transport links the Mater site has?
Does it have its limitations?
Yes it does. its located in an area thats close to the city centre. CPO's may have to carried out on some buildings but then again they might not. It all depends on the architects design for the new NCH which we haven't got yet.
Out of curiosity where would you suggest it be located, remembering now that it has to be in the best interest of the children of this country?
When it was announced that the Mater site wasnt getting planning permission and that they were looking for new sites, I was convinced myself that tallaght hospital was an ideal one. Especially considering that the CEO of the hospital was the former CEO of the NCH board. But it doesnt have a maternity hospital co-located or near it so that ruled it out.0 -
I can get from the n4 roundabout to James is less than 15 mins at 8 in the morningCentral indeed. However, would there be an A&E dept there?
St James has possibly the worst access routes that a hospital experiences. For emergencies anyway. Hopefully any accidents going that way only happen between outside of 7-10am and 3.30-6.30pm because otherwise they are in trouble.0 -
Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.
It's about a ten minute walk from Heuston station less if you take the Luas. I wouldn't really consider that "rather far" in the general scheme of things.The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.
I don't know what you're talking about here, the site is within the boundaries of the hospital walls beside Rialto Luas stop. I don't know how you personally would define "in hospital grounds", but it is going to be actually "in hospital grounds".And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.
No it's not "quite far away". Do you actually know the area at all?Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.
If they're taking "cheaper coach services", they'll probably land in or around Busaras, which is also connected by the Luas. Or they could be on a train which winds up in Connolly station, which is also connected by the Luas.
What more commuter services would you be talking about? Should they have planned to build the hospital on a new super bus/train station with redirected traffic from all over the country? Maybe include an international airport while they're at it?
As far as public transport is concerned it couldn't really be any more connected.0 -
Guinness's is less than 1 km away. Now I don't know about you but in my books but that to me is actually very close.Turpentine wrote: »It's about a ten minute walk from Heuston station less if you take the Luas. I wouldn't really consider that "rather far" in the general scheme of things.
Just as close as there are tall buildings to the Mater then, so claims about scale are invalid.Out of curiosity where would you suggest it be located, remembering now that it has to be in the best interest of the children of this country?
Either back at the Mater, seeing as all the legitimate reasons people objected to it (parking, site size, height, green space) are not different here; or Tallaght if and only if they could have got significant extra space. As the Report shows, Allied Foods did submit their site, which adjoins the hospital.
Tallaght would have had the colo maternity as once the NCH opened, there'd be space freed up there which the Coombe was to move to.
None of the other proposals give a credible chance of full trilocation.Turpentine wrote: »I don't know what you're talking about here, the site is within the boundaries of the hospital walls beside Rialto Luas stop. I don't know how you personally would define "in hospital grounds", but it is going to be actually "in hospital grounds"
"in hospital grounds" was being used to defend the height and difference relative to the very low rise locality. The Mater site was "in hospital grounds" too, so this is another invalid claim.Turpentine wrote: »As far as public transport is concerned it couldn't really be any more
connected.
When the Mater plan was submitted with a heavy reliance on public transport, we were told it was irrelevant and everyone would use cars.
When James's is selected in an area with worse traffic and with less parking, we're told everyone will use public transport.
Another invalid claim. Every reason now being used to justify James's over the Mater was used against the Mater. We're then left with vested interests (Crumlin, southside) and people claiming vested interests (Bertie) as the only reasons to move it. Very expensive move to shut a few people up when the fundamentals haven't changed one bit.0 -
I can get from the n4 roundabout to James is less than 15 mins at 8 in the morning
A acquaintance of mine died last week as emergency crew couldn't get to him on time at afternoon/evening rush hour due to traffic being so heavy and unmoving.
Not blaming anyone, by the way. Just pointing out that the Sth Circular is a virtual car park during rush hour.
I travel N4 route to Ballsbridge myself daily.0 -
Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.
No need for the sarcasm. I'm using Hueston as an example of tall buildings in context. I'm not suggesting that the eircom building is on the James' campus.The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.
And it plainly isn't the same as the Mater. Do I have to explain that to you?
I believe there was permission granted for a 9 storey building. The Mater was forced up to 15 odd as a result of the cramped footprint. With a redesign on this site I see no reason why a 9-11 storey would not fit without having to build the carbuncle that was the original Mater plan.Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.
If you mean far away meaning nearby, and low rise and listed meaning Corporation flats, then yes, yes it is.And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.
Impact on what? A protected Georgian streetscape or Mount Brown and Edwardian terraces?This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.
As opposed to what? Let me ask you, if a child is in the NCH for extended treatment doesn't it make sense that the hospital is within public transport links so that relatives can visit with ease?Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital?
Are you somehow confusing ambulances with buses?
There is a LUAS linking Connolly to the site as well!! Look at a map once in a while.Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.
Sorry what? Where? What buildings are being "removed"? And by the way, there is no such thing as "listed" in Ireland, they are "Protected Structures".Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.
How professional heathcare people can blindly dig dig dig a hole for themselves and waste 70 million after being told repeatly that the site isn't suitable astounds me more than your keyboard posturing.0 -
No need for the sarcasm. I'm using Hueston as an example of tall buildings in context. I'm not suggesting that the eircom building is on the James' campus.
Its as close to James's as there are tall buildings to the Mater - which was what your claim was based on.And it plainly isn't the same as the Mater. Do I have to explain that to you?
Do explain, I'm interested in the logic of how one hospital site is "hospital grounds" and another... isn't.I believe there was permission granted for a 9 storey building. The Mater was forced up to 15 odd as a result of the cramped footprint. With a redesign on this site I see no reason why a 9-11 storey would not fit without having to build the carbuncle that was the original Mater plan.
Again - the footprint proposed by James's to the Dolphin Committee for the NCH is smaller than that proposed by the Mater. If its 11 storeys on the same footprint, massive concessions will have had to be made.
If you mean far away meaning nearby, and low rise and listed meaning Corporation flats, then yes, yes it is.Impact on what? A protected Georgian streetscape or Mount Brown and Edwardian terraces?
Impact on the location is impact, regardless of the age of the buildings. You may also have noticed that north/east side of Eccles St. doesn't have much of a Georgian streetscape left.As opposed to what? Let me ask you, if a child is in the NCH for extended treatment doesn't it make sense that the hospital is within public transport links so that relatives can visit with ease?
Are you somehow confusing ambulances with buses?
The main argument against the Mater for transport was that "nobody goes to hospitals on public transport", yet now its being argued as the #1 issue - because car access to James's makes the Mater look like a dream.There is a LUAS linking Connolly to the site as well!! Look at a map once in a while.
If "its near a station" can devolve to "its linked to a station", then arguably every site in the city is "linked" to Heuston/Connolly by Luas or bus.Sorry what? Where? What buildings are being "removed"? And by the way, there is no such thing as "listed" in Ireland, they are "Protected Structures".
You are proposing that it can be extended 'towards Steeven's' which would require demolition on James Street as well as St Patricks.
You knew exactly what I meant regardless.How professional heathcare people can blindly dig dig dig a hole for themselves and waste 70 million after being told repeatly that the site isn't suitable astounds me more than your keyboard posturing.
The James's site is no more or less suitable than the Mater was.0 -
Just as close as there are tall buildings to the Mater then, so claims about scale are invalid."in hospital grounds" was being used to defend the height and difference relative to the very low rise locality. The Mater site was "in hospital grounds" too, so this is another invalid claim.
There are seven-storey (I think) apartment buildings on the other side of the Luas line adjacent to James at the Fatima stop. There's an eight storey building at the corner of Basin St and Grand Canal Place
There's an even taller apartment building a minute away in Dolphin's Barn.
The area isn't all cottages, and the NCH won't be the first tall building in the vicinity.
You can check it on Google maps if you want. Maybe you should.When the Mater plan was submitted with a heavy reliance on public transport, we were told it was irrelevant and everyone would use cars.
What public transport did the Mater have to rely on that is even close in reliability to a Luas that connects with Dublin's main train and bus stations? Dublin Bus? James' has several bus routes as well.When James's is selected in an area with worse traffic and with less parking, we're told everyone will use public transport.
Worse traffic than Dorset street?
How do you know there will be less parking?0 -
Turpentine wrote: »There are seven-storey (I think) apartment buildings on the other side of the Luas line adjacent to James at the Fatima stop. There's an eight storey building at the corner of Basin St and Grand Canal Place
There's an even taller apartment building a minute away in Dolphin's Barn.
The area isn't all cottages, and the NCH won't be the first tall building in the vicinity.
You can check it on Google maps if you want. Maybe you should.
You are massively failing to get my point.
There are already plenty of tall buildings near the Mater - including the new Mater adult hospital for starters. Neither it nor the James's plan is out of scale - yet people insist one is and one isn't. The entire support for James's relies on doublespeak.Turpentine wrote: »What public transport did the Mater have to rely on that is even close in reliability to a Luas that connects with Dublin's main train and bus stations? Dublin Bus? James' has several bus routes as well.
Metro. Remember exactly when the plans were being done up. The streets surrounding the Mater also have several bus routes.
Additionally, until Veoila do something about security, the Red Luas isn't exactly something I'd want to be reliant on for safe transport.
But the point still stands - "everyone will use cars!" has turned in to "everyone won't use cars! They'll use the Luas!" when the site moves. Neither site has particularly good vehicular access, but James's is definitively worse.Turpentine wrote: »Worse traffic than Dorset street?
Significantly so.Turpentine wrote: »How do you know there will be less parking?
Based on the submissions, there will be less.
Two other issues that other posters used here to criticise the Mater site were "no natural green space" - which seeing as the James's plan involves using part of the linear park to build on, there certainly won't be, and "reliance on lifts", which a minimum 9 storey building wil. Yet those posters support James's...
The long and short of it is that, for massive sums of money, we've moved from one site with issues to another site with the same issues. And yet people are willing to accept that one is the "wrong site" and the other is the "right site" and, indeed, defend that. Illogical.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its as close to James's as there are tall buildings to the Mater - which was what your claim was based on.
Oh for god's sake - it was an example of a tall building that is OK in context. I could have said Sears Tower in Chicago.
James' has a campus and grounds, even a LUAS line running through it. Mater is a very confined urban site. Let's compare the "campus" if you like - Mater has no real sense of being in it's own "campus".Do explain, I'm interested in the logic of how one hospital site is "hospital grounds" and another... isn't.Again - the footprint proposed by James's to the Dolphin Committee for the NCH is smaller than that proposed by the Mater. If its 11 storeys on the same footprint, massive concessions will have had to be made.
You are ignoring the possibilities of extending/renewing other facilities at James' and the Coombe.Impact on the location is impact, regardless of the age of the buildings. You may also have noticed that north/east side of Eccles St. doesn't have much of a Georgian streetscape left.
Let's not rehash the Mater site, ABP disagree with your view about visual 'impact'.
I think the argument was nobody will go to the Mater/NCH on a bus. Heavy Rail linked by LUAS is a different proposition. Don't make the arguments cartoonish.The main argument against the Mater for transport was that "nobody goes to hospitals on public transport", yet now its being argued as the #1 issue - because car access to James's makes the Mater look like a dream.
You can easily walk to James' from Heuston. Two stops on the LUAS. Same LUAS as ConnollyIf "its near a station" can devolve to "its linked to a station", then arguably every site in the city is "linked" to Heuston/Connolly by Luas or bus.
.
Clutching at straws tbh to argue that James' is only as connected as anywhere else. Who would win a public transport race from say, Maynooth to the Mater/James'?You are proposing that it can be extended 'towards Steeven's' which would require demolition on James Street as well as St Patricks.
Very little required, CPO of Toni's takeaway on James St and the warehouse behind it would give direct road access to the grounds of Steevens. It could also facilitate an ambulance route between Steeven's and James' NCH.
Unfortunely "protected" means very little in Ireland compared to "listed" in the UK.You knew exactly what I meant regardless.
The Dolphin Report begs to differ.The James's site is no more or less suitable than the Mater was.The long and short of it is that, for massive sums of money, we've moved from one site with issues to another site with the same issues. And yet people are willing to accept that one is the "wrong site" and the other is the "right site" and, indeed, defend that. Illogical.
The massive sums of money were wasted trying to bullheadedly shoehorn a massively overscaled development into an urban historic streetscape, to such an extent that it overshadowed a good portion of the city.
James' will easily work and has scope for expansion. Yet you want to argue, what exactly? That the Mater is still the right site and that Metro North is still an option? Or are you a greenfield advocate.0 -
-
Oh for god's sake - it was an example of a tall building that is OK in context. I could have said Sears Tower in Chicago.
You were implying that the Mater had no tall buildings anywhere near it. Now you're changing tack.James' has a campus and grounds, even a LUAS line running through it. Mater is a very confined urban site. Let's compare the "campus" if you like - Mater has no real sense of being in it's own "campus".
And once this is built, it will have no empty grounds to speak of. Won't even have some expanses of asphalt above ground (carparking) as that's all going under.You are ignoring the possibilities of extending/renewing other facilities at James' and the Coombe.
Extending to what land? Renewing by moving their existing uses where? The land isn't there. The site isn't bigger and is hemmed in on all sides. It has no advantages over the Mater.Let's not rehash the Mater site, ABP disagree with your view about visual 'impact'.
And for all we know, they'll disagree at James's too. The colo private hospital that got permission was much smaller; and required far less urgent vehicular access. There are many, many grounds for refusal still.I think the argument was nobody will go to the Mater/NCH on a bus. Heavy Rail linked by LUAS is a different proposition. Don't make the arguments cartoonish.
Except that the Mater was to have a high frequency underground train line....
Clutching at straws tbh to argue that James' is only as connected as anywhere else. Who would win a public transport race from say, Maynooth to the Mater/James'?
Mater hands down. Train to Drumcondra and a short bus journey vs a lengthy bus journey, a walk, and the Luas or a longer train journey and a significantly longer Luas one.
Both sites are 50/50 by car - as I drive to both frequently for work. Mater is the easier one to get parked up for, and that's before its new parking is built at that.Very little required, CPO of Toni's takeaway on James St and the warehouse behind it would give direct road access to the grounds of Steevens. It could also facilitate an ambulance route between Steeven's and James' NCH.
And then St Patrick's in the way... where do you propose moving its health services and the offices in Steevens btw?Unfortunely "protected" means very little in Ireland compared to "listed" in the UK.
English Heritage may want you to believe that, but its not true. Guinness Brewery in London for one quick example.The Dolphin Report begs to differ.
No it doesn't. The report doesn't make any single recommendation. Have you actually read it yet?The massive sums of money were wasted trying to bullheadedly shoehorn a massively overscaled development into an urban historic streetscape, to such an extent that it overshadowed a good portion of the city.
James' will easily work and has scope for expansion. Yet you want to argue, what exactly? That the Mater is still the right site and that Metro North is still an option? Or are you a greenfield advocate.
There is zero scope for expansion, unless you completely give up trilocation - 600M down the road is not colocation. If you consider mass CPOs and demolition to be "scope" well - guess what? Every site has that scope.
The footprint available if trilocation goes ahead is smaller - you keep ignoring this. This will require even more 'bullheaded shoehorning'
At this stage, James's will do - but it is absolutely and utterly no better a site than the Mater proposal was. The only other option that made any sense was Tallaght if the land to the north could be obtained - Belcamp, Beaumont, rebuild at Crumlin, etc were all unworkable.
Greenfield (but not at Belcamp) would probably be best if we could afford to build all three hospitals (particularly as parts of James's are quite old) but we can't.0 -
-
-
Please. I spent 6 years living in Smithfield until the end of 2011.
If "the nasty men on the LUAS" is your best argument against James', I'd stop now if I were you.
If you think that was even meant to be a fragment of my argument, you've clearly misread everything I've posted.
Are you going to read the Dolphin Report or continue to make assumptions on its contents? And remember, that when RTE read the leak, they thought it was 'recommending' Connolly. It doesn't explicitly recommend anywhere, but it should clarify your misconceptions of just how crammed James's is going to be.0 -
Extending to what land? Renewing by moving their existing uses where? The land isn't there. The site isn't bigger and is hemmed in on all sides. It has no advantages over the Mater.
Top of the head.
Land swaps with Guinness could be an option, they have large areas of under-utilised land opposite Steevens. And it looks likely that eircom will just go out of business eventualy and give up that HQ to move Steeven's office workers into.
Demolition of Corporation flats in the Liberties has been earmarked for some time now, there is also the lands of the two schools in the Basin St area that could be CPO'd.
Guaranteed there are NAMA'd apartments opposite James' Walk that could be repurposed or used for Parents.
It already has an A&E on site so it is unlikely that urgent vehicular access could be a problem. It has access from multiple entry points.And for all we know, they'll disagree at James's too. The colo private hospital that got permission was much smaller; and required far less urgent vehicular access. There are many, many grounds for refusal still.
Well, you can dream now...Except that the Mater was to have a high frequency underground train line...
Reliable that bus?Mater hands down. Train to Drumcondra and a short bus journey vs a lengthy bus journey, a walk, and the Luas or a longer train journey and a significantly longer Luas one.
17 minute ride direct to James' from Connelly every 3-7 minutes.
James' campus would easily support underground parking, and already has park and ride facilities on the LUAS.Both sites are 50/50 by car - as I drive to both frequently for work. Mater is the easier one to get parked up for, and that's before its new parking is built at that.
Ah, ya have me stumped. Gee. Scrap the project.And then St Patrick's in the way... where do you propose moving its health services and the offices in Steevens btw?
How about finishing the stalled develpment at HSQ if you really feel Dublin is short of office space.
Right. If you say so.English Heritage may want you to believe that, but its not true. Guinness Brewery in London for one quick example.
Have you?No it doesn't. The report doesn't make any single recommendation. Have you actually read it yet?
"Whether the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a high quality maternity hospital as well as a children's hospital remains a concern", the group concluded.
That's their conclusion on the Mater site.
What potential for expansion does the Mater have? You seem to have a habit of trying to dismiss every argument as being able to be universally applied and therefore no longer an advantage. My dog can run fast. Sure every dog can run fast if you stick a rocket up it. See how that works?There is zero scope for expansion, unless you completely give up trilocation - 600M down the road is not colocation. If you consider mass CPOs and demolition to be "scope" well - guess what? Every site has that scope.
Simple fact is that there is way more industrial/institutional land around James' than the Mater.
"the existing Dublin area teaching hospital that best meets the criteria to be the adult partner in co-location because it has the broadest range of national specialties and excellent research and education infrastructure".The footprint available if trilocation goes ahead is smaller - you keep ignoring this. This will require even more 'bullheaded shoehorning'
Coombe can be upgraded and monorailed/skywalked/underground corridor linked to NCH if necessary.
You seem to be ignoring these facts in tri-location.
Oh, so you are passionately arguing for the Mater, but they are the same???At this stage, James's will do - but it is absolutely and utterly no better a site than the Mater proposal was.The only other option that made any sense was Tallaght if the land to the north could be obtained - Belcamp, Beaumont, rebuild at Crumlin, etc were all unworkable.
Greenfield (but not at Belcamp) would probably be best if we could afford to build all three hospitals (particularly as parts of James's are quite old) but we can't.
So James' it is then. Problem?0 -
If you think that was even meant to be a fragment of my argument, you've clearly misread everything I've posted.
Then why even start with the snobby red line comments?Are you going to read the Dolphin Report or continue to make assumptions on its contents? And remember, that when RTE read the leak, they thought it was 'recommending' Connolly. It doesn't explicitly recommend anywhere, but it should clarify your misconceptions of just how crammed James's is going to be.
James' just needs rationalising, it is a typical organically grown hospital with low rise poor quality campus. This is just the impetus that James' needs to reorganise.
Looks reasonable given that it is a quick sketch up job...0 -
Top of the head.
Land swaps with Guinness could be an option, they have large areas of under-utilised land opposite Steevens. And it looks likely that eircom will just go out of business eventualy and give up that HQ to move Steeven's office workers into.
Demolition of Corporation flats in the Liberties has been earmarked for some time now, there is also the lands of the two schools in the Basin St area that could be CPO'd.
Guaranteed there are NAMA'd apartments opposite James' Walk that could be repurposed or used for Parents.
Right, lets spend vast sums of money we don't have and cause massive disruption to business, education and families to deal with the fact that we've selected a smaller site. That's logical and rational...It already has an A&E on site so it is unlikely that urgent vehicular access could be a problem. It has access from multiple entry points.
Increased urgent vehicular access could be.Well, you can dream now...
You're the one providing a litany of off the wall suggestions for expanding a hemmed in site.Reliable that bus?
17 minute ride direct to James' from Connelly every 3-7 minutes.
Yes.James' campus would easily support underground parking, and already has park and ride facilities on the LUAS.
Guarantee you its still going to have chronic parking issues. Would lay money on it if there was an independent way of verifying.Ah, ya have me stumped. Gee. Scrap the project.
How about finishing the stalled develpment at HSQ if you really feel Dublin is short of office space.
Scrap your Don Quixote dreaming of implausible expansion, perhaps.Right. If you say so.
Translation: "I don't want to be corrected"Have you?
"Whether the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a high quality maternity hospital as well as a children's hospital remains a concern", the group concluded.
That's their conclusion on the Mater site.
Now that you've read it, do you see the concerns about the size of (let me remind you one last time) smaller James's site?What potential for expansion does the Mater have? You seem to have a habit of trying to dismiss every argument as being able to be universally applied and therefore no longer an advantage. My dog can run fast. Sure every dog can run fast if you stick a rocket up it. See how that works?
CPO half the area surround it - just like your suggestions for James's.
If people made rational arguments rather than trying to use the same arguments they used against the Mater as positives for James's, maybe we'd get somewhere. But it appears nobody can - as the site is no better.Simple fact is that there is way more industrial/institutional land around James' than the Mater.
Mountjoy. Which is planned to close, unlike everything else you've listed. Rather disproves that. Simple fact is that you're bluffing now."the existing Dublin area teaching hospital that best meets the criteria to be the adult partner in co-location because it has the broadest range of national specialties and excellent research and education infrastructure".
Coombe can be upgraded and monorailed/skywalked/underground corridor linked to NCH if necessary.
You seem to be ignoring these facts in tri-location.
You seem to be ignoring that a 600M walkway/whatever is not the same siteOh, so you are passionately arguing for the Mater, but they are the same???
I'm arguing that the people who were screaming that the Mater was dreadful are now wholeheartedly support something that is no better - proving that their opposition to the Mater was baseless.So James' it is then. Problem?
No problem, if people admit that they were opposed to the Mater because it was Northside/too close to Temple Street/all the other vested interest reasons for opposing it. As they're now supporting just as constrained and troubled a site.Then why even start with the snobby red line comments?
Snobby? Get real.James' just needs rationalising, it is a typical organically grown hospital with low rise poor quality campus. This is just the impetus that James' needs to reorganise.
Money we don't have, space it doesn't have to move people to whole "rationalising".
If you want to rationalise James's it needs to be done before you start the NCH. Which means the site isn't suitable for something which needs to be built quickly. If you want to build it quickly, you are left with an utterly compromised design on a completely locked site.Looks reasonable given that it is a quick sketch up job...
Looks about as 'out of place' for the surrounds as the Mater did.0 -
Advertisement
-
When you say smaller, what square footage will be reduced by selecting the James' site? Approx?Right, lets spend vast sums of money we don't have and cause massive disruption to business, education and families to deal with the fact that we've selected a smaller site. That's logical and rational...
So could exploding skyclowns. You are asking me to argue against what might happen. Seriously?Increased urgent vehicular access could be.
As I said top of the head. Which ones are "off the wall"? And why? Which ones would require a budget equivalent to Metro North?You're the one providing a litany of off the wall suggestions for expanding a hemmed in site.
Now do the same calculation with Cork, Limerick and Galway. National hospital as I recall.Yes.
Chronic? Last time I checked underground car parks were pretty easy to build.Guarantee you its still going to have chronic parking issues. Would lay money on it if there was an independent way of verifying.
I'll trade you for your dream of Thornton Hall and Metro North.Scrap your Don Quixote dreaming of implausible expansion, perhaps.
No reason why that abandoned HSQ tower (with planning permission already granted) could not open up Steevens for other uses. Can you think of one?
You gave one example in London. Here are dozens of underprotected structures in Dublin, knock yourself out.Translation: "I don't want to be corrected"
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152134461055457.918548.68916935456&type=3
Have you read the James' submission yet?Now that you've read it, do you see the concerns about the size of (let me remind you one last time) smaller James's site?
What DCC/State properties do you suggest? Or do you want to prop up the local housing market? Imagine trying to CPO at 2012 prices - they would be war - which means paying 2005 prices.CPO half the area surround it - just like your suggestions for James's.
But..But..you are arguing that the Mater is better because of the same criteria!!!If people made rational arguments rather than trying to use the same arguments they used against the Mater as positives for James's, maybe we'd get somewhere. But it appears nobody can - as the site is no better.
You might have missed that Thornton Hall is cancelled. Sure - let em out.Mountjoy. Which is planned to close, unlike everything else you've listed. Rather disproves that. Simple fact is that you're bluffing now.
Does it bother you when you are at the airport?You seem to be ignoring that a 600M walkway/whatever is not the same site
My opposition was based on effectively wrecking Dublin for a fucking eyesore visible from all over. That was entirely held to be the case by ABP.I'm arguing that the people who were screaming that the Mater was dreadful are now wholeheartedly support something that is no better - proving that their opposition to the Mater was baseless.
Where did I ever mention North/Southside? Or Temple St?No problem, if people admit that they were opposed to the Mater because it was Northside/too close to Temple Street/all the other vested interest reasons for opposing it. As they're now supporting just as constrained and troubled a site.
What else would you call it? A social witticism?Snobby? Get real.
Given the way we are going it won't be built in a hurry anyway. There wouldn't be too much involved in rationalising James' to prepare for the Pediatric Hospital.Money we don't have, space it doesn't have to move people to whole "rationalising".
If you want to rationalise James's it needs to be done before you start the NCH. Which means the site isn't suitable for something which needs to be built quickly. If you want to build it quickly, you are left with an utterly compromised design on a completely locked site.Looks about as 'out of place' for the surrounds as the Mater did.
Except it isn't visible from half of Dublin at that site. That also isn't the final plan.0
Advertisement