Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

MadsL · 28-02-2012 7:46pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

At the same time a national hospital project is allowed to proceed quite far before a planning body shoots it down in flames.

This planning body warned quite clearly in early meetings about the project.

It is noted from the minutes of the pre-planning meetings with the promoters that An Bord Pleanála requested that the issue of the site selection criteria and the statutory requirement of Environmental Impact Assessment that alternatives for the proposed development be considered.

http://www.heritagecouncil.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/Planning/Planning_temp/Planning_submission_14092011.pdf

MadsL · 28-02-2012 7:55pm

rodento wrote: »

An ambulatory care approach means more children can be cared for as close to home as possible, with only the sickest children having to be admitted to the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland where they can get the required care and attention.The Ambulatory and Urgent Care Centre at Tallaght, though a separate facility, is an integral part of the new children’s hospital organisation. It will be under the governance and management of the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland.

Thought the idea was to have everything under one roof, so to speak

Seems the co-location argument was a little 'overstated';

http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/officials-misrepresented-report-on-childrens-hospital-185269.html

Past and present government officials have been accused of misrepresenting a 2007 report on where the National Children’s Hospital should be based by wrongly claiming the structure of international facilities examined supported an "integrated" co-location site.

The New Children’s Hospital Alliance, a group of medics and parents opposed to the Mater Hospital location, has claimed the 17 facilities reviewed in the 2007 RKW report did not show the site was the best place for the facility.

This claim is in contrast to repeated public statements by senior current and former government officials.

Since 2007, the RKW report, and a 2006 report by outside consultants McKinsey, has formed the basis for the view that the hospital should be based at the Mater.

This is because of comments by former minister for health Mary Harney, former HSE chief executive Brendan Drumm, and current Health Minister James Reilly, that 15 of the 17 hospitals examined in Europe, North America, and Australia supported an "integrated" co-location with an adult hospital.

However, according to the NCHA, the report does not make any such claim. Instead, it says of the 17 facilities, only four are "integrated" child-adult co-location sites like the Mater proposal.

Great Ormond Street is not co-located for example.

Medical oncologist Senator John Crown said on Today FM he may put down a private member’s bill to overturn the ruling.

Or 'throwing his toys out of the pram' as it is sometime known. I note the phrase 'may'.

Good luck with that John....

fly_agaric · 28-02-2012 9:42pm

MadsL wrote: »

So there shouldn't be any standards?

Why are people finding the role of ABP so difficult to grasp?

ABP doesn't design buildings, plan infrastructure, or talk to developers - it performs a limited function under the various Planning and Development Acts.

Yes, An Bord Pleanala are doing their job as a cog in a mad bureaucratic system, I get that...

The upshot is that alot of time + money was wasted here.

Without opening a big can of worms, if Mater is actually the best site in terms of how good a job the hospital will do treating Ireland's sick children, this is more important than what ABP is considering.

The things that ABP is considering are continuously undermined both in Dublins north inner city and around the country, usually for reasons of greed or indifference rather than utility/public good.
However no planning body is able or willing to put a stop to it in these cases.

MadsL · 28-02-2012 10:27pm

fly_agaric wrote: »

Yes, An Bord Pleanala are doing their job as a cog in a mad bureaucratic system, I get that...

The upshot is that alot of time + money was wasted here.

Not by ABP who were doing their job.

Without opening a big can of worms, if Mater is actually the best site in terms of how good a job the hospital will do treating Ireland's sick children, this is more important than what ABP is considering.

Nope, patently untrue. This is the best site given the very limited terms of reference given to the review board. They were not allowed to consider the best site, only what the Government were prepared to ring-fence 420m for.

Can we stop talking in emotive terms about 'sick children' because I could equally make the emotive argument that a limit of 420m is all we care about and not the needs of 'sick and dying children' etc.

The things that ABP is considering are continuously undermined both in Dublins north inner city and around the country, usually for reasons of greed or indifference rather than utility/public good.
However no planning body is able or willing to put a stop to it in these cases.

Applied properly planning law should be able to stop it...the Derelict Sites Act for example. ABP has done a good job by and large at protecting protected structures (unlike DCC) but what constantly baffles me is that were this a city in the UK (like Bath for example) these protected structures would be prime real estate.

Out of interest, which cases do you mean?

I think we need to look at how we support re purposing of these buildings (we have Hume hospital lying empty for example within reasonable distance of Holles St.)

Equally, I liked James Nix's idea of co-location at Heuston.

This has a number of key advantages;

There is already a stalled high-rise on site so foundations for a highrise have been dug and underground car park is in place.
It is right next to Heuston rail links and dual carriageway access to the M50 and on the Luas line.
There is ground level very open helipad access at the big site next to Kilmainham.
The eircom building (how long before they give up the ghost) could be rented or bought to facilitate administration staff.
An all weather under/overground link to James' Hospital could be constructed easily with some co-operation/landswaps with Guinness.
Kilmainham Hospital could be brought back to medical use for either juvenile terminal hospice care and/or family accommodation, with a decent city centre Modern Art Museum created from an empty building in need of restoration.

@John Crown....Regarding challenging/changing the decision.

50.—(1) Where a question of law arises on any appeal or referral, the Board may refer the question to the High Court for decision.

(2) A person shall not question the validity of—

(a) a decision of a planning authority—

(i) on an application for a permission under this Part, or

(ii) under section 179 ,

(b) a decision of the Board—

(i) on any appeal or referral,

(ii) under section 175 , or

(iii) under Part XIV,

otherwise than by way of an application for judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts ( S.I. No. 15 of 1986 ) (“the Order”).

That is a process by which the legal procedure can be challenged (ie ABP did not consider the legal requirements correctly) and not to be taken if you don't like the result.

Begreene · 29-02-2012 9:44pm

I totally agree with you. Bar one thing
At the time Thornton hall was bought didn't the cash and carry beside the prison go for 29ish million .
Leave the Mater where it is and update temple street
Expand prison , because criminals aren't in a hurry with the courts only down the road sick children are a reason to be in a hurry .
As you said this is all bought and paid for with surveys done to make sure they are able to use it.
Would you agree that the people in charge of making these decisions are either completely blind and narrow minded that they can't see what is looking straight at them . When it comes to health can they really afford not to just do it. What's the hold up, problem solved , next problem please.
Any ideas why a decision like this takes so much time. For the life of me I don't .

Begreene · 29-02-2012 9:50pm

There seems to be a catalogue of reasons why not to have hospital there and nearly the mirror of reasons why they don't use thorntonhall. Why are mistakes starting to be repeated.?

fly_agaric · 29-02-2012 11:30pm

MadsL wrote: »

Nope, patently untrue. This is the best site given the very limited terms of reference given to the review board. They were not allowed to consider the best site, only what the Government were prepared to ring-fence 420m for.

Can we stop talking in emotive terms about 'sick children' because I could equally make the emotive argument that a limit of 420m is all we care about and not the needs of 'sick and dying children' etc.

Was not getting into discussion of what site is best.

I was appealing to emotion somewhat to try to stress the absurdity of a planning process where the ultimate decision on a unique project like this is made by a body like ABP, considering a limited set of criteria.

MadsL wrote: »

Applied properly planning law should be able to stop it...the Derelict Sites Act for example. ABP has done a good job by and large at protecting protected structures (unlike DCC) but what constantly baffles me is that were this a city in the UK (like Bath for example) these protected structures would be prime real estate.

Out of interest, which cases do you mean?

Don't think I need to give examples or name names on the internet, always better not to I think!

There's no money to be made from applying planning law properly (unless its to halt a state project like this hospital; whatever the govt might be saying now I'm sure saving EUR 500million or so by shelving this project until a sunnier day would make our benefactors happy and make us the best little PIGgy in the show).

FreudianSlippers · 01-03-2012 12:59am

By far my favourite thing (echoing my views as well) is a post from archiseek:

Frank Taylor wrote:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0229/1224312524371.html
children's hospital to be scaled back to avoid impairment of historic views from Mountjoy exercise yard

Relief was expressed outside the historic Big Tree alcohol interpretative centre which had risked overshadowing and serious harm to its artistic endeavours.

The planners have managed to protect Fay's Dancing Shoes from the menace of a tall building across the street.

No to mention WE BUY GOLD, whose aesthetic integrity was under threat.

Who needs a grandiose children's hospital anyway? Sure what have children ever done for us?

Truth.

MadsL · 01-03-2012 1:32am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Truth.

Someone's 'truth'.

About has helpful as a photograph of a litter bin with the same sentiment ascribed to it...

Now, if you will tell me the last time you made an planning enforcement complaint or a submission on the Dublin Development Plan I'll allow you some slack in your cynicism.

But, to be cynical myself I doubt you have...

fly_agaric wrote:

Don't think I need to give examples or name names on the internet, always better not to I think!

You do know that ABP and DCC publish the cases on the internet. So just link to them...

There's no money to be made from applying planning law properly

On the contrary, tourism is one of Ireland's great competitive advantages...

Cultural tourism is a vital component of the Dublin economy and
contributes in a unique and dynamic way to the city’s cultural mix. 5.6m
visitors came to Dublin in 2008, many of whom were attracted by the
city’s unique literary image, contributing €1.7bn to the local economy.
Tourism is an important employer in the Dublin area employing 22%
of the national industry total. Indeed, civic planners now recognise the
value of driving growth through a creative economy, generating both
employment and entrepreneurial activity.

http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/pdf/CCN_Dublin_Application_Literature_en.pdf

Protecting cultural heritage is a net gain. I'm just saddened that a fraction of that money wasted could not have gone towards the sad state of Moore St, with just 4 years to go to the Centenary.

As far as the Mater is concerned I'm not sure why the hospital must go here, when it will be absolutely crippled from expanding further. Unless, as FreudianSlippers seem to be implying we knock a few sites on Dorset St.

FreudianSlippers · 01-03-2012 1:38am

MadsL wrote: »

Someone's 'truth'.

About has helpful as a photograph of a litter bin with the same sentiment ascribed to it...

Now, if you will tell me the last time you made an planning enforcement complaint or a submission on the Dublin Development Plan I'll allow you some slack in your cynicism.

But, to be cynical myself I doubt you have...

For multiple reasons I'm not going to be specific, but I have involved myself in Dublin planning issues.

In any event, it's not my job to enforce shopfronts and planning... look at the mess that is Dublin enforcement ("temporary sign" problems, etc.).
Which leads to...

As far as the Mater is concerned I'm not sure why the hospital must go here, when it will be absolutely crippled from expanding further. Unless, as FreudianSlippers seem to be implying we knock a few sites on Dorset St.

It's not about knocking Dorset Street... it's about the ludicrous assertion that they are somehow protecting some key cultural and visually stunning neighbourhood from visual pollution.

MadsL · 01-03-2012 2:27am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For multiple reasons I'm not going to be specific, but I have involved myself in Dublin planning issues.

In any event, it's not my job to enforce shopfronts and planning... look at the mess that is Dublin enforcement ("temporary sign" problems, etc.).

Somebody else's job eh? Or we could be active citizens of a city...enforcement is desperately stretched in Dublin, with the absurdity of only 3 enforcement officers because of retirements, and an Acting Manager; with the Planning Dept scratching their hole. No flood of applicants for transfer naturally enough...

Funny how those that do actively get involved to improve the built environment become shunned as 'loudmouths' and 'busybodies'.

protecting some key cultural and visually stunning neighbourhood from visual pollution.

If the visual pollution were restricted to the neighbourhood, we wouldn't be having this debate. I doubt there would be a spot North of the Liffey where you could fail to see the proposal.

FreudianSlippers · 01-03-2012 10:08am

MadsL wrote: »

Somebody else's job eh? Or we could be active citizens of a city...enforcement is desperately stretched in Dublin, with the absurdity of only 3 enforcement officers because of retirements, and an Acting Manager; with the Planning Dept scratching their hole. No flood of applicants for transfer naturally enough...

Funny how those that do actively get involved to improve the built environment become shunned as 'loudmouths' and 'busybodies'.

If I spent all day going around a reporting non-compliant shopfronts, I'd have no time for anything else. I, and others, have been calling for more compliance officers and real fines to be given out and pursued.

Go ahead and be "active" and report all of these places, it won't get you anywhere and you know it.

If the visual pollution were restricted to the neighbourhood, we wouldn't be having this debate. I doubt there would be a spot North of the Liffey where you could fail to see the proposal.

And that's a bad thing?

MadsL · 01-03-2012 4:38pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

If I spent all day going around a reporting non-compliant shopfronts, I'd have no time for anything else. I, and others, have been calling for more compliance officers and real fines to be given out and pursued.

Jesus, cynical much?? I support your stance on more fines and compliance officers, but as planning enforcement have told me, without people reporting things they can't send warning letters. I'd love to see a legion of enforcement personnel policing the streets - but it ain't gonna happen.

I have a good working relationship with planning enforcement, and they have effected a number of improvements (which I'm not going to list here, as the cases are confidential) based on complaints that in all honesty took me 5 minutes to shoot an email across.

Go ahead and be "active" and report all of these places, it won't get you anywhere and you know it.

Wow, that is quite the most cynical thing I have ever read on boards.

Analogous to the line 'there's no point ringing the cops as they never do anything' as you watch someone smash up a bike parked on the pavement.

I find that actually a very sad statement from someone who clearly understands the planning process, that in order to justify your own lack of civic action, you try and dissuade and dishearten someone from trying to improve the city they live in. What an utterly, utterly depressing statement. I guess you deserve the city you get. Totally sad point of view.

And that's a bad thing?

As evidenced above you clearly don't give a flying rats crap about the city, so I don't see the point in trying to convince you otherwise.

FreudianSlippers · 02-03-2012 8:33am

I want a modern city that protects and rebuilds the historic core. That means medium rise buildings like the children's hospital are surrounded by beautifully restored period architecture.

Not a ****ty, bland and already dated structure (and you full well know that any proposed replacement on site will be just that - one only has to look at ABP's track record) in a run down neighbourhood.

My cynicism comes primarily from the "temporary sign" bunch that never change regardless of emails or otherwise. Have a look at the 'shop front race to the bottom' thread on archiseek. You may have an in there, but I've never seen any positive action. There also seems to be a close enough mentality. A recent shop put up something on OCS that doesn't comply but it is similar to planning permission so it's ok.

MadsL · 02-03-2012 3:29pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I want a modern city that protects and rebuilds the historic core. That means medium rise buildings like the children's hospital are surrounded by beautifully restored period architecture.

Not a ****ty, bland and already dated structure (and you full well know that any proposed replacement on site will be just that - one only has to look at ABP's track record) in a run down neighbourhood.

Then clearly the Mater is the wrong site from an architectural point of view, why there is a political slavery to that site is beyond me. Talking of Archiseek the poll result is 75% in favour of ABP's decision.

My cynicism comes primarily from the "temporary sign" bunch that never change regardless of emails or otherwise. Have a look at the 'shop front race to the bottom' thread on archiseek. You may have an in there, but I've never seen any positive action. There also seems to be a close enough mentality. A recent shop put up something on OCS that doesn't comply but it is similar to planning permission so it's ok.

I agree planning enforcement is a mess. But giving up is hardly the solution, and the 'close enough' attitude comes from having a city run by Roads and Traffic and engineers rather than architects and planners. We have to say 'enough'.

Make a noise about the shop on OCS...at least it will be one more squeak in the wheel...an email takes 5 minutes. And if they do nothing you at least get the satisfaction of actually standing up about it.

I'm waiting for the first person to start a court proceeding in their own name, the Planning and Development Amendment Act 2010 allows for taking on only your own costs in a case based on the visual ‘pollution’ of something DCC have failed to act on, that has no planning permission.

33.—The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following
new section after section 50A:
“50B.—(1) This section applies to proceedings of the following
kinds:
(a) proceedings in the High Court by way of judicial
review, or of seeking leave to apply for judicial
review, of—
(i) any decision or purported decision made or purportedly
made,
(ii) any action taken or purportedly taken, or
(iii) any failure to take any action,
pursuant to a law of the State that gives effect to—

<snip>

(III) a provision of Directive 2008/1/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of
15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control to which
Article 16 of that Directive applies;

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2010/en.act.2010.0030.PDF

'

pollution' means the direct or indirect introduction, as a
result of human activity, of substances, vibrations, heat or
noise into the air, water or land which may be harmful to
human health or the quality of the environment, result in
damage to material property, or impair or interfere with
amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:024:0008:0029:en:PDF

Bolds mine

(bah...quick re-read shows that restricted to Article 16...dammit.)

DCC got their asses kicked on a Section 160 many moons ago, they have been gun-shy ever since. I can PM you the case if I can find it. I consisted of an advertiser completely reassembling a hoarding, increasing size and bulk, lighting etc and then claiming it was exempt from permission. DCC took it to the courts and disgracefully, the court took the view that because there once was a sign painted on the gable end, they were exempt.

DCC then started putting time limits on advertising hoardings. And 'forgetting' to enforce them.

That monstrosity on Parkgate St (the big trivision) was illegal for 7 years; DCC failed to act so now we are stuck with it forever.

seagullinthesky · 03-03-2012 2:05am

Heard there is a 20 acre site at back of coombe hospital where it could go.

n900guy · 03-03-2012 5:19pm

I think one of the best ways of pushing on with the Mater site is to also demolish the complete hole that is most of north central Dublin. Nothing to overshadow then.

McDave · 03-03-2012 6:04pm

n900guy wrote: »

I think one of the best ways of pushing on with the Mater site is to also demolish the complete hole that is most of north central Dublin. Nothing to overshadow then.

There are plenty of beautiful Georgian streets in NCD. The Dorset St area is beset by some pretty poor flats and a shambolic streetscape. If it were possible to sort out Dorset St and environs, that part of the city would be an excellent place to live, as would the inner suburbs adjacent to them.

In fact the Mater itself is responsible for much of the destruction of northside Georgian Dublin with their demolition of Eccles St. That hospital should not be allowed inflict any more harm on the neighbourhood.

MadsL · 03-03-2012 7:16pm

n900guy wrote: »

complete hole that is most of north central Dublin.

DUB%20Dublin%20-%20Capel%20Street%20view%20towards%20Grattan%20Bridge%20and%20City%20Hall%20from%20Capel%20Street%203008x2000.jpg

cFOGCzJZZRuDbHCQSYlD0abxhHv37uK7ll5cXJ9wTG9tPXBpZSZlPTQwMHgzMDA=.jpg

Sure, complete hole....

FreudianSlippers · 04-03-2012 10:37am

The problem is that these beautiful houses have been let go to absolute ****. The suburbanisation brigade prefers a new build semi-d to restoring and modernising inner city buildings.

You need activity and services and money put into an area to ignite that revival. It won't happen without the mater development or something else similar.

McDave · 04-03-2012 2:41pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The problem is that these beautiful houses have been let go to absolute ****. The suburbanisation brigade prefers a new build semi-d to restoring and modernising inner city buildings.

You need activity and services and money put into an area to ignite that revival. It won't happen without the mater development or something else similar.

IMO the problems of the Dorset St catchment area far exceed the capacity of one development to rectify. (For all the difference the current Mater has made!)

There's simply too high a concentration of dodgy flats and dodgy types hanging around. Prosperous restorers aren't going to take punt on neighbourhoods with substantial deprivation and a general feeling of malaise. It's hard enough to get people to commit to moving into the south inner city!

rodento · 04-03-2012 4:06pm

MadsL wrote: »

Sure, complete hole....

Goota love Henietta street

GUEsBfswDb8eNq3suu37GRjedF4Af5mIO1txaIg_TqNtPXBpZSZlPTQwMHgzMDA=.jpg

FreudianSlippers · 04-03-2012 4:35pm

rodento wrote: »

Goota love Henietta street

Too bad it doesn't look that good

McDave · 05-03-2012 9:41am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Too bad it doesn't look that good

I walk past it quite a lot. It's a cut and paste apartment building. Quite a banal building to stick on the corner of one of Dublin's most historic streets. Not a 'Pillar of Hercules' by any means!

FreudianSlippers · 05-03-2012 3:33pm

McDave wrote: »

I walk past it quite a lot. It's a cut and paste apartment building. Quite a banal building to stick on the corner of one of Dublin's most historic streets. Not a 'Pillar of Hercules' by any means!

I could have told you from that image posted that in a few months time it would look drab and discoloured. It may work in Spain or Portugal, but you have to factor in the dirt, rain and pollution in Dublin.

later12 · 05-03-2012 4:11pm

McDave wrote: »

There's simply too high a concentration of dodgy flats and dodgy types hanging around.

What's a dodgy type?

McDave · 05-03-2012 7:07pm

later12 wrote: »

What's a dodgy type?

?

Come now. Surely you can make a decent stab at answering that yourself.

MadsL · 05-03-2012 7:36pm

I sense this descending into Northside/Southside debate. Can we not do that please.

later12 · 05-03-2012 7:44pm

McDave wrote: »

?

Come now. Surely you can make a decent stab at answering that yourself.

Well I don't want to derail this thread, the childrens' hospital is an important topic; but no... not at all, in fact. I was in Dublin over the weekend, I was up around Parnell Square. I wasn't aware I was being surrounded by dodgy types. Perhaps dodgy types can be identified in some way? Clothing, perhaps? Accents?

I hope I'm not detecting some sort of class hauteur.

MadsL · 05-03-2012 7:46pm

MadsL wrote: »

Can we not do that please.

^

later12 · 05-03-2012 7:55pm

MadsL maybe you should report a post instead of quoting yourself. I think many arguments should be taken into account in discussing the merits or otherwise of the North Inner City as a location for the Childrens' Hospital... if some people think the character of the local residents is one such argument then that should be challenged/ debated.

MadsL · 05-03-2012 8:02pm

later12 wrote: »

MadsL maybe you should report a post instead of quoting yourself. I think many arguments should be taken into account in discussing the merits or otherwise of the North Inner City as a location for the Childrens' Hospital... if some people think the character of the local residents is one such argument then that should be challenged/ debated.

Wasn't trying to mod...just setting a signpost for where I fear this is going.

I'm astonished that you think that we could actually have a serious debate on the merits or otherwise of the North Inner City as a location for the Childrens' Hospital based on the character of the local residents.

Mind, boggled.

McDave · 05-03-2012 8:04pm

later12 wrote: »

Well I don't want to derail this thread, the childrens' hospital is an important topic; but no... not at all, in fact. I was in Dublin over the weekend, I was up around Parnell Square. I wasn't aware I was being surrounded by dodgy types. Perhaps dodgy types can be identified in some way? Clothing, perhaps? Accents?

I hope I'm not detecting some sort of class hauteur.

Junkies. Drunks. Swearing. Attitude. Pyjamas. Litter.

I'm up around Dorset St, Parnell St, Parnell Sq, Capel St, Bolton St. on a regular basis. There's no getting away from the tone.

It's all very well to dismiss 'middle class' perceptions of behaviour as snobbery, but people make decisions on where they live based on neighbourhoods and the kind of people their children are likely to associate with.

I'm pretty much a middle class guy myself. I've lived in the inner south city centre for nigh on two decades now. As a resident I have no misconceptions about the atmosphere on the inner city streets. It's not all bad by any means. But it's fairly obvious to me that very few people opt to move in and stay long term in the inner south city, let alone the northern quarters.

I'm afraid that affects many of the streets directly around the Mater. Which of course is no reason to drop an aircraft carrier in the area. After all, if some of the area's past glories are retained, it may in due course enjoy positive development.

McDave · 05-03-2012 8:10pm

later12 wrote: »

MadsL maybe you should report a post instead of quoting yourself. I think many arguments should be taken into account in discussing the merits or otherwise of the North Inner City as a location for the Childrens' Hospital... if some people think the character of the local residents is one such argument then that should be challenged/ debated.

Some, not all.

To be fair to me, earlier in this thread, I was criticising John Crown for suggesting the area was nothing special and that consequently there was little reason not to dump this development there. I saw that as a gratuitous dismissal of local concerns. I also interjected to defend the positive Georgian and other features of the north inner city.

However, neither am I going to ignore the problems that beset the areas around Dorset St.

later12 · 05-03-2012 8:17pm

McDave wrote: »

Junkies. Drunks. Swearing. Attitude. Pyjamas. Litter.

Ok, that's that answered so. I don't personally recall any serious swearing calamities on the Northside of the inner city during my incursions there. I wasn't aware that wearing a pair of PJs was dodgy activity. I don't find alcoholics so much dodgy as tragic, and I wonder what evidence there might be to suggest a greater incidence of alcoholism in that region than elsewhere.

However, I'm with you on the litter. Those oafish, suited public officials responsible for the degeneration of the North Inner City up to and including the present day certainly have much to answer for.

How and ever, I should thank you for explaining who the dodgy set are.

But I still don't know why "too high a concentration of... dodgy types" should affect the recuperation of sick children and the ability of the medical staff to do their jobs.

FreudianSlippers · 05-03-2012 8:21pm

In fairness, the Mater site and surroundings have a reputation of being "dodgy" even around the North city. However, I only ever find that it could be perceived that way at night and I don't feel particularly uncomfortable whenever I've been around there in the evening.

MadsL · 05-03-2012 8:23pm

Always thought the other end of NCR was 'dodgier'.

Never had any serious issues living 6+ in the North Inner city..(Smithfield)

McDave · 05-03-2012 8:39pm

later12 wrote: »

Ok, that's that answered so. I don't personally recall any serious swearing calamities on the Northside of the inner city during my incursions there. I wasn't aware that wearing a pair of PJs was dodgy activity. I don't find alcoholics so much dodgy as tragic, and I wonder what evidence there might be to suggest a greater incidence of alcoholism in that region than elsewhere.

However, I'm with you on the litter. Those oafish, suited public officials responsible for the degeneration of the North Inner City up to and including the present day certainly have much to answer for.

How and ever, I should thank you for explaining who the dodgy set are.

But I still don't know why "too high a concentration of... dodgy types" should affect the recuperation of sick children and the ability of the medical staff to do their jobs.

From living in another part of the inner city, I'd venture to say it's the cumulation of these factors which can wear down your willingness to commit to living there permanently, not any one in isolation. While the economy was on the so-called 'up', I was prepared to buy into the potential for the sustainable development of inner city Dublin. Now I'm not so sure any more.

The 'dodgy' point isn't meant to speak to the ability of a hospital to function. It is more to illustrate that a relatively beleaguered area won't [IMO of course] be enhanced by a greater depersonalisation of the local environment brought about by an outsized development dominating the skyline of a mostly residential area, blocking sunlight and bringing in yet more traffic and congestion. If anything, the Mater proposal may devalue the area further. Whether one agrees or not, we are talking on one level about serious planning and environmental issues.

My feeling is that the Mater proposal is basically a decent concept, but badly located for all the wrong reasons. I'd rather see the north inner city developed in a manner which improves the quality of life for the people who live there and make it likelier to attract a wider class make-up which it hasn't witnessed since its heyday two centuries ago. I don't think the Mater proposal does this at all.

FreudianSlippers · 05-03-2012 8:39pm

MadsL wrote: »

Always thought the other end of NCR was 'dodgier'.

Never had any serious issues living 6+ in the North Inner city..(Smithfield)

I don't find either dodgy myself, just saying that there may be a disagreement about the area (whether it is or isn't is subjective IMO) but that is at least a rumour that you hear often about the Mater area. Again, I have no problems with it whatsoever; but I understand that people may have heard that or may believe it themselves for whatever reason. I've lived half of my life on the southside and half on the almost inner northside and I'm not uncomfortable around Dorset Street or the Mater.

rodento · 05-03-2012 9:00pm

I'm not concerned with the aesthetics of the project, just think that it would be better if they located it elsewhere off the M50. That site should be able to accommodate a full childerns hospital and not one with some elements in one hospital and a day treatment centre elsewhere.

The mater site would be a complete traffic nightmare and all I can see is the ambulance service been turned into a taxi service as childs get sent from one hospital to another

FreudianSlippers · 06-03-2012 1:13pm

rodento wrote: »

I'm not concerned with the aesthetics of the project, just think that it would be better if they located it elsewhere off the M50. That site should be able to accommodate a full childerns hospital and not one with some elements in one hospital and a day treatment centre elsewhere.

But this was going to be a full children's hospital.

The mater site would be a complete traffic nightmare and all I can see is the ambulance service been turned into a taxi service as childs get sent from one hospital to another

What? Why would the child need to be sent elsewhere? Or are you meaning the children being brought into the hospital; the ambulances have these lights and make noises quite often. Doesn't seem to be an issue in any other western city that I can think of to be honest.

Tragedy · 06-03-2012 1:26pm

FS, there was no proviso for research. None, zilch, nada. Research (according to the studies I've read) is as important as co-location with an Adult Hospital when it comes to how successful a large Children's Hospital will be.

citycentre · 06-03-2012 5:45pm

I honestly cant believe that anyone can try to justify this unbelievably ugly proposal. Notwithstanding any issues of practicality, suitability of location or co-location etc. its simply one of the ugliest and most inappropriate building proposals I have ever seen.

Someone mentioned Belfast City Hospital in an earlier post:

As he said, not a looker by any means and very dominant on the city skyline. Now imagine something like this looming over most approaches to the city from the north:

The National Childrens Hospital proposal was the same height and almost FIVE times longer than Belfast City Hospital. Seriously, it would have been a monstrosity by anyones standards, a massive shiny turd dropped on the North Inner City from a great height. Thank god someone finally saw sense and put a stop to what would have been the biggest ever act of vandalism to Dublin City. The scandal isnt the decision by ABP, its that such an utterly vile and ridiculous proposal ever got further than a scribble on an architects sketchbook.

Of course you will always have idiots making their enlightened argument that since the Northside is already so run down and ugly in places, it doesn't matter what effect this ridiculously overscaled piece of crap will have. Such nonsense just makes me despair at just how visually illiterate we can be.

rodento · 06-03-2012 7:25pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But this was going to be a full children's hospital.

Guess you look at this

www.newchildrenshospital.ie/

The Children's Hospital of Ireland will also include an ambulatory and urgent care centre at Tallaght which will provide out-patient, day-care and emergency care services primarily for families in the south-side of the city.

Reading this I think the plan is to have all day care treatments in another centre

McDave · 06-03-2012 8:07pm

citycentre wrote: »

I honestly cant believe that anyone can try to justify this unbelievably ugly proposal. Notwithstanding any issues of practicality, suitability of location or co-location etc. its simply one of the ugliest and most inappropriate building proposals I have ever seen.

I have to agree on the design aspect. To me it is a very ugly building. An architect can have an idea, sell it and then move on to the next project. But the city has to live with the consequences of the state-sponsored egotism of an aspiring starchitect.

later12 · 06-03-2012 8:11pm

"A Doctor can bury his mistakes, an Architect can only advise his clients to plant vines" - FL Wright

Dr Galen · 07-03-2012 11:48am

Am I the only one who actually quite likes the proposed building?

FreudianSlippers · 07-03-2012 1:50pm

Dr Galen wrote: »

Am I the only one who actually quite likes the proposed building?

I really liked it. People who complain about how it looks are generally anti-"high rise" and wouldn't like anything they built. Either that or they are just against the site and criticise the building. It's a very modern and pretty building that will never be built in Ireland because there is some weird attachment to ugly buildings (see: the current extension being built onto the Mater)

Tragedy · 07-03-2012 2:30pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I really liked it. People who complain about how it looks are generally anti-"high rise" and wouldn't like anything they built. Either that or they are just against the site and criticise the building. It's a very modern and pretty building that will never be built in Ireland because there is some weird attachment to ugly buildings (see: the current extension being built onto the Mater)

How about you stick to why you like it instead of pretending you know why everyone who doesn't like it - doesn't like it? If your opinion is so shallowly held that you can't take any disagreement with it, you might be better off not posting on a discussion forum where people can disagree with you.

This is hardly the first time on thread where you labelled all those who disagree with you :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers · 07-03-2012 2:37pm

Tragedy wrote: »

How about you stick to why you like it instead of pretending you know why everyone who doesn't like it - doesn't like it? If your opinion is so shallowly held that you can't take any disagreement with it, you might be better off not posting on a discussion forum where people can disagree with you.

This is hardly the first time on thread where you labelled all those who disagree with you :rolleyes:

Pretending to know? I said that people who don't like it are generally anti-"high rise". I haven't seen one opinion on the building's design other than "monstrosity" and "huge" and "ugly" - so generally no opinion other than being against "big" buildings.

Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

Comments