Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

Laminations wrote: »

Just to correct a statement I made above re civil servants -
source

I was wrong.
ABP board has recently been cut, salaries too. Maybe ABP are lashing back because they feel they are being targeted? Maybe this is the government reaping what it sows? You make ABP incompetent, you get incompetent decisions.
Same source as above. I now really question their authority on judgements for city skylines

Lamintations wrote:

The objectors are the usual anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths who care more about having to travel to the northside of the city (the Mater area is congested mainly because of the Mater's current inadequate parking) than the health of children. They will veto any impact on Dublins skyline, as if we have a skyline to be proud of, and as if a building having impact is a bad thing. ABP should be disbanded, they have no authority, they are responsible for the urban sprawl, the ghost estates, the horrid monotone development we saw during the boom. They have no vision, they are afraid of change. The photo-montages they use are stupid, as if the view of sky above characterless rooftops on O'Connell street etc determines the character of that street. They cannot see how any hi-rise could improve the sky line and provide much needed landmarks. Frank McDonald is possible the biggest eejit among the objectors. They have the kind of foresight that made the m50 two lanes. No consideration of the public transport plan and contribution of the metro north in making this a good site. They comment on the plans with no idea of the details, and alternative suggestions of 'greenfield' sites which are daft.

Lamintations wrote:

The objectors are the usual anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths who care more about having to travel to the northside of the city (the Mater area is congested mainly because of the Mater's current inadequate parking) than the health of children.

They will veto any impact on Dublins skyline,

as if we have a skyline to be proud of,

and as if a building having impact is a bad thing.

ABP should be disbanded, they have no authority

they are responsible for the urban sprawl, the ghost estates, the horrid monotone development we saw during the boom.

They have no vision, they are afraid of change.

The photo-montages they use are stupid,

as if the view of sky above characterless rooftops on O'Connell street etc determines the character of that street.

They cannot see how any hi-rise could improve the sky line and provide much needed landmarks.

Frank McDonald is possible the biggest eejit among the objectors. They have the kind of foresight that made the m50 two lanes.

No consideration of the public transport plan and contribution of the metro north in making this a good site.

They comment on the plans with no idea of the details,

and alternative suggestions of 'greenfield' sites which are daft.

whatstherush wrote: »

Funny MadsL how you laud ABP's decision here yet you support protests against a company currently complying to ABP's decision in the north west of Mayo.

Laminations wrote: »

It's more logical if you understand what I said. They have no expertise in urban planning or conservation, there are no architects on the board, that as well as the drivel developments they presided over during the boom when they supposedly had that expertise makes them incompetent.

Remind me how architects have expertise in planning again. That's like saying there are no solicitors in the Supreme Court? Apologies if you are an architect, but architects are fundamentally technicians, very rarely an artist but mostly a technician.

ABP currently has no architects, awaiting new appointments. That is true.

However Angela Tunney was appointed to the Board on the 10th March, 2000. She was ended her five year term on 6th November, 2011. She is a graduate of U.C.D. holding a Bachelor of Architecture degree and a Masters in Regional and Urban Planning. She has worked as an architect in Germany and England for six years. Joining Aer Rianta in 1991, she has worked in an architectural and project management capacity prior to her appointment to the Board.

Karl Kent was appointed to the Board on the 1st January, 2002. He was reappointed for a five year term until 31st December, 2011. He qualified in architecture (B.Arch) and town planning (Dip.T.P) in UCD and has a post-graduate diploma in Environmental Impact Assessment Management and a Master's in Urban and Building Conservation from the same institution. He is a member of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and of the Irish Planning Institute. After working for some years as an architect in both the private and public sectors, he joined the local authority planning service before joining the Board's staff in 1989. He was a Senior Planning Inspector in the Board until his appointment as a Board member.

To say that ABP has no expertise in urban planning is, frankly, absolutely laughable. See my comments on the makeup of the board below.

Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline.

Hmm. Did you once have a job writing estate agent copy? You are aware then that ABP granted permission for this?

You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree.

No, I haven't claimed the project is ridiculous, you have claimed it is viable, and expect us to agree. This is why we have ABP to arbitrate. ABP have decided that it is inappropriate.

You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence

Interesting point of view, but could you show me where these 'innovative modern architecture' projects that were proposed were located? Because An Taisce accepted the DEGW study in 2000 which pretty much meant that there were no submission against anything proposed in the Docklands and Heuston SQ areas. So where are all these award winning 'innovative modern architecture' projects? Alto Vetro? That it? I'll give you the Grand Canal Theatre, but that didn't exactly need 20 storeys did it?

So, what project did ABP trample on that was going to be an 'innovative modern architecture'?

You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view.

Hmm..accuse me of rhetoric and then go to 'won't someone think of the children' argument...

Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites.

So at first 'they' don't want to go to the Northside, then 'they' are NIMBYs and then 'they' have vested interest in other sites. Care to be more specific, I'm having trouble tracking 'them' again.

I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments.

Or as we have seen recently, developers built the cheapest thing possible? Hence the mediocrity. Care to cite an example of something exciting ABP turned down? The redesign of Liberty Hall perhaps? Thrilling.

Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like?

Ohh, lets see. The Four Courts, the GPO, the Customs House, Trinity, Most of the Quays, O'Connell Street, Westmoreland St. Hardly 'featureless', it's not a desert.

They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big!

...within the context in which it is placed. Not hard to grasp.

They have not justified the negative impact comment.

Can you quote the relevant paragraph of the Inspectors report you are referring to please.

The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence.

ABP is very qualified in planning, spatial planning, engineering. Until the end of last year there were two architects on the board.

The Board consists of

The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011 provide for the appointment of nine other members of the Board. Eight of the members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from among persons selected from four groups of organisations prescribed by regulations and representative of :

Professions or occupations that relate to physical planning, engineering and architecture.
Organisations concerned with economic development, the promotion and carrying out of development, the provision of infrastructure or the development of land or otherwise connected with the construction industry.
Organisations representative of local government, farming and trade unions.
Organisations representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and of amenities/voluntary bodies and bodies having charitable objects /rural and local community development, the promotion of the Irish language or the promotion of heritage, the arts and culture/bodies representative of people with disabilities / bodies representive of young people.

The current board is light pending new appointments http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm
Here is the regular makeup of the board up to the end of 2011
http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members2.htm
Heavy with planners as it should be.

An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one

Of course, I felt the Clarence to be a bad one. You have the option of a Judicial Review of the process if you have the appetite.

thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity.

On the contrary, mediocrity does get objected, like recent cr@p in Smithfield. monolithic boring architecture. However, 51 storeys of mediocrity gets especially objected. Funny how overscaled high-rise coincides with the end of property booms worldwide.

So we get endless soulless ghost estates

Which developers wanted to build and local authorities granted permission for, nothing to do with ABP.

and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old.

Example of 'sparkles' please.

It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything.

Funny that. How did that happen??

Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design,

Because we have buildings with flair in Docklands and Heuston where they had a free hand to do what they wanted. Apparently they wanted shoeboxes and money. We got shoeboxes anyway. I guess even architects with flair have to listen to their clients budgets and profit objectives.

I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries.

Really, didn't think a small town in Wales was so cutting edge.

You and ABP will choose mediocrity.

I don't get to choose anything, only to make the same submissions you do. ABP get to say yay or nay depending on what is put before them, they don't design anything.

In fact many appeals to ABP were made to avoid mediocrity.

Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch.

You are accusing who of what? I'm confused again.

Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable.

Dereliction clearance philosphy hmm, a good few developers seemed keen on that landbank and let buildings rot technique to try and get some apartments in.

So if an area has been run down we should bulldoze and level it? Fan of 60s Brutalism perhaps?

Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid.

Hmm...so you are obliquely calling me stupid. We can argue over aesthetics but insults are a bit strong no?

So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President!

Now you are just restating the point of view in caricature. Not the most effective debating technique.

The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments.

Oh please :rolleyes:, I have lived in 'modern urban environments' all my life, in 4 different countries, but the pathetic excuse for 'landmark' buildings presented during the boom barely qualified. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a landmark building, the Mater design looked like a badly parked boat. Regardless of the other politics of the location you are surely not claiming it as world-class design. ROFL if so.

Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle.

And once again resorting to insult, well done.

You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile.

or even analogy :rolleyes:

It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me.

Grand, if it gets build within the next ten years I'll send you $50 for a pint.
If it doesn't...care to take the bet?

They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin.

Yeah, because the live-the-dream, highest-rise, build as much as you can on credit worked out so great for everyone!

The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care

Oh, I'm sorry. i thought you wanted the best? How much was MN going to cost again?

Laminations wrote: »

@madsL
You are obviously not reading my posts. The point on architects and planning experts refers to two different professions, neither of which is on ABP. it is a former member who is criticising the make up of the board and lack of expertise - I've quoted from them, read back, carefully.

The fact that they allowed the Clarence, a project i agree with shows that my virw of ABP arent the result of disagreement. They took the unique element out of the Dublin North Quarter redesign. I'd accept protecting the Moore St buildings but a south facing sloped roof park would be 'unique'. You would see it as ridiculous folly.

It's not rhetoric to say think of the children. It's recognising priorities. Children vs. Skyline - children come first.

ABP said the site was inappropriate because of the buildings size - I've quote the piece from the report and linked the report. Please give a justification as to why? Please point out what about the skyline in that area is worth conserving

There are many nice buildings in the docklands but restrictions on height made the whole place uniform.

I think it was the Mayor Street development that was objected to by a neughbouring developer and upheld by ABP.

they demanded height reductions and the maintenance of the campshire wall.

We couldve seen more diverse buildings but people have a tendency to object to hi-rise and so it is avoided to ensure projects aren't stalled. Funnily these same people object to urban sprawl so I'm not sure where they expect buildings to go? Welcome to Dublins newest quarter - mole town!

Unless you can give a more than subjective aesthetic reason for NCH to go at Mater than you and the ABP have unjustified stances. It has been repeatedly shown as the best site medically. I'm sure you respect John Crowns opinion in that regard.