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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]
Comments
-
-
-
I didn't know that I was assigning categories. I have yet to see a person who has a good reason for disliking the building other than it being a "monstrosity" or dislikes the site for a good reason other than its location (in the city & "ruining the aesthetic of North Dublin").No Sir, you said they are either "generally anti-"high rise" or they are against the site and criticise the building. So you classified anyone who disagrees with you as either hating tall buildings or hating the Mater site(is this tied into your earlier silly claims that everyone who disagrees with the Mater site is a suburbanite and hates Inner City Dublin?).
You left no room for people who
A)Dislike the design but have no problem with high rise and don't approve of the site.
B)Dislike the design, have no problem with high rise and approve of the site.
You claimed they don't exist.
I happen to belong to A), I'm also a suburbanite who doesn't hate the inner city which again, according to you is seemingly impossible.
I don't think I ever said suburbanites "hate" the inner city either.
Why be so hypersensitive about it? Can't you just come on here like a rational human being and say "I don't fit in that category... I don't like the design because ____ and the location because ____ and here's why ______ would be a better site"?
Nope, instead you MUST get up to high do and act as if I'm assigning categories. Maybe deep breathing and some soothing rainforest music would help...
:D 0 -
-
16 story is not "high rise"
There was quite a bit of "greenery/open spaces"
There was going to be a hospital school to facilitate undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing professional education facilities, a National Children's Research Centre and adjacent family housing provided by the Ronald McDonald House.
The more I think about it, the more I am ashamed to be from Dublin.0 -
Advertisement
-
I can't comment on the design from a medical/operational perspective(can anyone, realistically?) but I do find the lack of a research centre and little provision for greenery/open spaces worrying.
Almost 450 beds in private single rooms with 13 new and child oriented operating theatres and onsite cardiac and neurosurgical critical care beds (62) with "soft-space" built into the site to allow for expansion post 2030 demand to over 500 beds.
Hell of a lot better than the nothing we're going to have until 2020 at the absolute earliest now. 0 -
-
-
Aesthetically, I just completely dislike it. From the Cruise Liner sitting on a rectangle, to the half arsed attempt at making the Cruise Liner look organic/streamlined, I just do find it to look like a melted plastic box sitting on a concrete plinth. I don't have an issue with it being high rise, but I would be curious to see the footprint of the 16story high section compared with the footprint of skyscrapers from the UK/USA.
I can't comment on the design from a medical/operational perspective(can anyone, realistically?) but I do find the lack of a research centre and little provision for greenery/open spaces worrying.
See, I'm the opposite to you.
I love the boat-like shape to the building. I like how it rises above the rectangular shapes below, almost like a ship cresting a wave of "old" Dublin below.
I would share your concerns on open spaces, but then taking your child to play in the 10th storey outdoor playground is pretty cool. I would like to see more ground level spaces though this is unlikely because of the site itself.
What do you think of the Gherkin in London?
I guess it's personal taste really.
I should add however that I have no building or architectural training, or even close. I just like watching Grand Designs really.
As for the operational or medical design, well tbh I haven't seen very much on this at all. I will take a look and see what I think.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Talking about the whole complex (Adult, Maternity, Eye, Children's etc).
This is another view of part of the children's hospital:
This is another view:
AFAIK other parts of the complex or more or less high rise depending on their operational requirements and design briefs.0 -
-
I've asked some of this before, but;
A. How do you operate a helicopter pad with the existing fleet at 70m above a capital city?
B. How would these rooftop greenspaces be safe with active helicopter landings above them, particularly of the class required to operate this site?
C. Why was this helipad put on the renders when it was not submitted in the plans?
D. What is the point of a National hospital with no air ambulance access?
To address the accusation above, I'm not anti-rise; I'm anti-high rise where the context and urban fabric does not support it. Docklands or Heuston are fine for high-rise in Dublin as respected by the DEGW study in 2000. For some reason DCC wanted to push for a definition of high-rise as 50m or more, when a 30-40m building in inner-city Dublin would be one of the highest around.0 -
-
-
My wife now works in Healthcare here in the US...
The medical company she works for just this year built this hospital (on a greenfield) but there is a interesting tour here on the psychological effects of hospital building design.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Could be just a personal thing on the stores thing. Just looked like a bit of a nightmare. My experience on different theatres tells me that trying to find a specific ortho screw in among all the urology hear would be a pain in the ass. .
My take on the video was that they have a stores team (and I assume the computerized barcoding to flash up inventory and shelf location) who are airlocked out of the OR so the Surgical team dont have to go rooting around in the urology gear (pun intended
)
Biomass is just a nice to have really..no biggie.0 -
Sadly I think a stores/inventory team like that will be a bridge too far. Sure what would we use student nurses and doctors for if we had that?
Seriously though, that sort of system would be good alright, in all but an emergency situation.
There does appear to be quite a bit of thought going into minimising patient and visitor flow through clinical areas. I particularly like how the wards have the 8 room pods. Great idea from an infection control POV. I'd say your might agree when I say that an awful amount of the bugs in a hospital are carried in and/or spread by visitors.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
And moreso from someone who is supposed to be anti highrise, rather than this:
I would greatly prefer this:
Its still too bulky and could do with a bit more shaping but its basically the ward block split into three and stacked to make the building 32 storeys instead of creating a giant wall. Im not saying that this is what should go on the site (as clearly any building double the height of the current tallest building in the state would be asking for controversy), just that its an alternative approach that might have had a better chance of being in some way elegant, visually appealing and a truly impressive landmark than what was proposed.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I don't disagree. It's just ridiculous to call this building high rise. It's a low-rise building masquerading as a skyscraper. Build it up, you'll get people scrambling back to this design in no time.citycentre wrote: »And moreso from someone who is supposed to be anti highrise, rather than this:
I would greatly prefer this:
Its still too bulky and could do with a bit more shaping but its basically the ward block split into three and stacked to make the building 32 storeys instead of creating a giant wall. Im not saying that this is what should go on the site (as clearly any building double the height of the current tallest building in the state would be asking for controversy), just that its an alternative approach that might have had a better chance of being in some way elegant, visually appealing and a truly impressive landmark than what was proposed.
It's an anti high rise culture here. If you take that as a personal insult, that's up to you. I'm not saying it specifically to anyone nor have I - what I'm saying is (and what I've always said on this thread) is that GENERALLY the only real complaint is that of a vague anti-height issue. Your complaint may well be different, but it's unique as far as this thread and the general consensus has been.0 -
FreudianSlippers wrote: »I don't disagree. It's just ridiculous to call this building high rise. It's a low-rise building masquerading as a skyscraper. Build it up, you'll get people scrambling back to this design in no time.
It's an anti high rise culture here. If you take that as a personal insult, that's up to you. I'm not saying it specifically to anyone nor have I - what I'm saying is (and what I've always said on this thread) is that GENERALLY the only real complaint is that of a vague anti-height issue. Your complaint may well be different, but it's unique as far as this thread and the general consensus has been.
But what you don't seem to be getting is that its also about context. It IS high rise in the context of Dublin - Even at just the 16 storeys it would be the tallest building in Dublin by some distance, also sitting on one of the most elevated sites in the city. If its going to be so huge and so visible then it should at least be a thing of beauty in itself surely. Unfortunately you did attack me specifically, claiming that I am anti high rise and that I was somehow contradicting myself - seemingly without even reading my post! Hence the "cheek" comment - it was a bit cheeky in fairness!
I don't want to fall out with anyone over this, I just want to give a strong critique of what was proposed and some reasoning as to why I disliked it so much. There are so many other debates to be had about the location etc. but I feel that ABP deserve to be praised in this instance rather than complained about for preventing a poorly considered and, in my opinion, very badly proportioned building from going ahead unchallenged.0 -
-
-
If you don't like 50m, then you should have made more of representation at Development Plan consultation time.
You have advised supporters of high rise to make more noise at various meetings and consultations. Just out of interest, do appeals boards take into consideration the views of people who aren't against a proposal? For instance would my support cancel out your concerns? The impression I've always gotten was that public consultation was always an avenue for people to say no or suggest amendments rather than a forum to voice support.
Just on another posters objection to the 'proportionality' of the proposal. Many buildings are wider than they are taller, and many are tall structures in and of themselves - stadia for example. In this very area, Croke Park rises above all else, is wider than it is taller but doesn't 'destroy the skyline'.
Destroying the skyline really needs to have some objective measure because complaints that say this plan would ruin the vistas from many locations in the city don't stack up for me when I look at pictures like this
I really can't see how a building extending across maybe 5 degrees of visual angle can destroy the skyline. Although granted in that picture it is hard to see anything, I mean with the sun being blocked out and the street being in complete darkness....oh no that's not the case.
People (and I'm saying people, not specifically people here) see big and new as bad. But imposing structures can become features of the skyline. This was evident when the Quinn building went up in Blanchardstown - local residents went mad. But I was at a photo expo years later in the Dublin CoCo offices in Blanchardstown on the theme of what Blanchardstown meant to the residents and guess what - the Quinn building featured extensively. It went from an eyesore to an integral part of the identity of the area. It isn't as conspicuous now with other developments around the centre there. Some buildings we can all agree are ugly - Hawkins House pops to mind, but seeing as this is like Marmite, I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics.And I'm not getting back into the aesthetics issues because pages ago I made it clear I disagree with MadsL et al.
So on the other points:
The day care facilities in Tallaght are a doubling up rather than an off-site 'extra'
The green spaces are not on ground level but there are 7500sq ms across roof gardens.
The helipad is possibly sited on the Adult hospital - unless that is not the case, that addresses that.
The biomass issue was no biggie as you said yourself.
Any other issues outstanding?0 -
Laminations wrote: »You have advised supporters of high rise to make more noise at various meetings and consultations.
That is everyone's right to do so, I would add duty but lets not go there.Just out of interest, do appeals boards take into consideration the views of people who aren't against a proposal? For instance would my support cancel out your concerns?
3rd parties can make an observations, the board may or may not consider then. This is a planning decision based on objective criteria as spelled out in the Development Plan and Regional Spatial Planning guidelinesThe impression I've always gotten was that public consultation was always an avenue for people to say no or suggest amendments rather than a forum to voice support.
Not the way DCC run it, they like to take a professional facilitator and craft 'approval' for the line they are taking. I actually takes a lot of work to have open discussions.Just on another posters objection to the 'proportionality' of the proposal. Many buildings are wider than they are taller, and many are tall structures in and of themselves - stadia for example. In this very area, Croke Park rises above all else, is wider than it is taller but doesn't 'destroy the skyline'.
I'd agree with them on proportionality, I aslo note that 75% of archiseek readers also approved of the refusal, Stadiums we could devote a whole thread to.
It does, read the development plan.Destroying the skyline really needs to have some objective measure
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/pages/citydevelopmentplan.aspxbecause complaints that say this plan would ruin the vistas from many locations in the city don't stack up for me when I look at pictures like this
Sorry you feel that way, ABP disagree.I really can't see how a building extending across maybe 5 degrees of visual angle can destroy the skyline.
Like this, proximity tends to multiply the effect. Renders also tend to make a building 'prettier'.
Although granted in that picture it is hard to see anything, I mean with the sun being blocked out and the street being in complete darkness....oh no that's not the case.
Are you trying to support your case by being ridiculous?
And others see old and heritage as old-fashioned.People (and I'm saying people, not specifically people here) see big and new as bad.
This is imposing in the same way Stalin was 'authoritive'But imposing structures can become features of the skyline.This was evident when the Quinn building went up in Blanchardstown - local residents went mad.
11 metres shorter than what is proposed here, and a tiny fraction of the width.
That doesn't make it good building, architecturally it is crap. Just because there isn't much else worthy of note in blanchardstown doesn't make it the Chrysler building ffs.But I was at a photo expo years later in the Dublin CoCo offices in Blanchardstown on the theme of what Blanchardstown meant to the residents and guess what - the Quinn building featured extensively. It went from an eyesore to an integral part of the identity of the area. It isn't as conspicuous now with other developments around the centre there.Some buildings we can all agree are ugly - Hawkins House pops to mind, but seeing as this is like Marmite, I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics.
So I can come build a 150m 60s concrete brutalist block at the end of your street because "I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics." What nonsense.
See above/And I'm not getting back into the aesthetics issues because pages ago I made it clear I disagree with MadsL et al.So on the other points:
The day care facilities in Tallaght are a doubling up rather than an off-site 'extra'
The green spaces are not on ground level but there are 7500sq ms across roof gardens.
The helipad is possibly sited on the Adult hospital - unless that is not the case, that addresses that.
The biomass issue was no biggie as you said yourself.
Any other issues outstanding?
The helicopter issue has not been resolved, I'm yet to see anything on that, why put a helipad so prominently on the published renders, very misleading.
The roof gardens will 100% end up closed as H&S and insurance concerns, they never work.
Traffic management and staff parking issues raised by ABP have not been addressed.
Why are you so adamant about this site??0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYvv89nn-PU
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement