Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

MadsL

Dr Galen wrote: »

Can I just say, having worked in operating theatres, I hate the layout of the Rust centre ORs. Was the one thing that I saw in that video and didn't like tbh. Other than that, it looks like a good facility.

Why is that? As a civilian, I thought the central supply was ingenious...I also remember my mother telling me stories of having to carry limbs down to the basement for incineration after amputations. (She she did 40 years as a nurse, 6 in ER, 3 in OR, and the rest in Family Planning)

Biomass heating? Why would that be a standout for you?

In designing a major facility we need to set a pointer to reduce fossil fuel reliance. There was an opportunity here to use biomass with a supply chain agreed with the likes of Coilte. It would have kick-started some industrial biomass use economies of scale.

Dr Galen

MadsL wrote: »

Why is that? As a civilian, I thought the central supply was ingenious...I also remember my mother telling me stories of having to carry limbs down to the basement for incineration after amputations. (She she did 40 years as a nurse, 6 in ER, 3 in OR, and the rest in Family Planning)



In designing a major facility we need to set a pointer to reduce fossil fuel reliance. There was an opportunity here to use biomass with a supply chain agreed with the likes of Coilte. It would have kick-started some industrial biomass use economies of scale.

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.

Waste management, particularly in the OR has moved on a good bit since the days your mum describes. She is right though, that sort of thing would have common.

As for the biomass thing. Totally nice to have stuff IMHO and very admirable. Would 1 site of that size really change things that much though? Wouldn't be a good reason to criticise the site though.

MadsL

Dr Galen wrote: »

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.

Dr Galen

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.

Tragedy

I'd suggest most is carried by staff to be honest. Even people who should know better(NCHDs I'm looking at you) can be quite lax about hand hygiene when doing rounds.

citycentre

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)

"Modern and pretty"? Now theres architectural criticism at it's finest. Please don't presume to tell me what I think of this building. I'm far from "anti high rise" or any of the other cheap shots you feel like using to rubbish anyone who dares disagree with your viewpoint. In my opinion, anyone with even an ounce of visual sense can see that the insane disproportionality of this proposal would destroy views of the city from many vantage points.

"High Rise" buildings by nature should obey some rules of proportion, slenderness ratio and contextual appropriateness. This, if constructed would at 74m high have been the second tallest building in the state, 14m taller than Liberty Hall, only 7m shorter than the Elysian in Cork. Are people unable to get their head around the sheer ridiculousness of the size of this thing or something? Imagine liberty hall, 14m taller stretched to about 12 times the width! It wouldnt be a tower, it would be a 74metre high WALL dominating the city from every angle.

Can anyoneone name me a high rise building which is considerably wider than it is tall that looks good? I love modern architecture, skyscrapers and megastructures and I honestly cannot think of any. I really don't give a damn about the sexy curves or the shiny glass or the clearly fantastic layout and space planning that have managed to cram a huge hospital onto a site which is probably a bit too small for it. This particular proposal was completely wrong for the Northside and for Dublin as a whole and should never have gotten beyond sketch design stage.

Who knows though, perhaps if the building was 32 floors high and a third the length it may have worked, been the landmark they were obviously aiming for and had some semblance of elegance and proportion. Guys in London (whilst being an ugly concrete box) was built 40 years ago and has 34 storeys, showing that a truly high rise hospital can work effectively.

Ignoring the sheer wrongness of the basic form and scale, the actual architecture and detailing isnt terrible, they have managed to polish the giant turd reasonably well. However the splashes of yellow everywhere are definitely not to my taste and would date horribly as they have on Belfast City Hospital. Also the elevation to the east for some reason reminds me of some sort of multi-mouthed manta-ray sea monster looming over Dorset St. The whole composition feels threatening and overbearing and I feel it gives off the wrong image for what should be a welcoming, comforting place for children to be treated and to recover from serious illness.

Also, its really frustrating to read people trying to justify the proposal on the basis that the northside has already been ruined, is a kip or whatever. Really, since when have two wrongs made a right? Shoehorning in one of the most inappropriate and badly proportioned buildings ever conceived in this country would simply reinforce the decline of the area and cement its general ugliness in place for the next fifty years or so.

Anyway, I hope this sufficiently explains my hatred of the design and my relief that An Bord Pleanala (an organization that I'm more often cursing than praising) saw sense and put a stop to it. Those on the various boards and committees who spent so much money and allowed this travesty of a proposal to go so far need to be dealt with severely. Unfortunately its hard to think of any more suitable sites that meet the criteria of being next to an adult teaching hospital. I dont envy those that have to make sense of this mess.

FreudianSlippers

citycentre wrote: »

"Modern and pretty"? Now theres architectural criticism at it's finest. Please don't presume to tell me what I think of this building. I'm far from "anti high rise" or any of the other cheap shots you feel like using to rubbish anyone who dares disagree with your viewpoint. In my opinion, anyone with even an ounce of visual sense can see that the insane disproportionality of this proposal would destroy views of the city from many vantage points.

I'm not even going to read any further than this. I never presumed to tell anyone what they thought of the building. Fair enough if you have reasons for not liking the design, but don't accuse me of "cheap shots" when right after saying you're "far from anti high rise" your ONLY valid complaint is the height and 'scale' of the building.

Cheap shot all you want, but are you reading what you write before you post? You're rubbishing your own points by saying you're not anti high rise and then complaining about the height lol.

Also this building is medium rise at the very best, and what views of the city is it destroying exactly? You won't be able to see Phibsboro shopping centre any more? Can't see the 3rd floor crumbling rooftops of North Circular Road?

Scofflaw

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not even going to read any further than this. I never presumed to tell anyone what they thought of the building. Fair enough if you have reasons for not liking the design, but don't accuse me of "cheap shots" when right after saying you're "far from anti high rise" your ONLY valid complaint is the height and 'scale' of the building.

Cheap shot all you want, but are you reading what you write before you post? You're rubbishing your own points by saying you're not anti high rise and then complaining about the height lol.

Also this building is medium rise at the very best, and what views of the city is it destroying exactly? You won't be able to see Phibsboro shopping centre any more? Can't see the 3rd floor crumbling rooftops of North Circular Road?

I hate to say it, FS, but you started the whole business of throwaway blanket statements about people who disagreed with your personal views. If you don't like it, don't do it - and since you've done it, you really can't complain about it.

If tempers are getting heated, feel free to go outside for a while to chill out. Because otherwise there will eventually be a prize for everybody in the handbag circle.

moderately,
Scofflaw

citycentre

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not even going to read any further than this. I never presumed to tell anyone what they thought of the building. Fair enough if you have reasons for not liking the design, but don't accuse me of "cheap shots" when right after saying you're "far from anti high rise" your ONLY valid complaint is the height and 'scale' of the building.

Cheap shot all you want, but are you reading what you write before you post? You're rubbishing your own points by saying you're not anti high rise and then complaining about the height lol.

Also this building is medium rise at the very best, and what views of the city is it destroying exactly? You won't be able to see Phibsboro shopping centre any more? Can't see the 3rd floor crumbling rooftops of North Circular Road?

You have the cheek to accuse me of contradicting myself? PMSL. Where do I mention height? Its the PROPORTION thats important! Try actually reading and absorbing before making knee jerk reactions!

citycentre

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.

FreudianSlippers

citycentre wrote: »

You have the cheek to accuse me of contradicting myself? PMSL. Where do I mention height? Its the PROPORTION thats important! Try actually reading and absorbing before making knee jerk reactions!

You're right. A high rise building that was wider than it was tall would look ridiculous. However, this is not high rise, it is at best medium rise. There are plenty of buildings around the world that are 16 floors that are wider than they are tall...


PS: Have the cheek? Who are you exactly? :rolleyes: I didn't know you were the big shot that we're all supposed to mind our tongues in their presence. Pardon me.

FreudianSlippers

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.

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.

citycentre

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.

K-9

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You're right. A high rise building that was wider than it was tall would look ridiculous. However, this is not high rise, it is at best medium rise. There are plenty of buildings around the world that are 16 floors that are wider than they are tall...


PS: Have the cheek? Who are you exactly? :rolleyes: I didn't know you were the big shot that we're all supposed to mind our tongues in their presence. Pardon me.

Ah now, 16 stories is high rise in Dublin, tiny in New York.

Whatever you think about that particular criteria, obviously this hospital has to tie in with the existing architecture, within reason.

MadsL

50m is the definition of high-rise according to the Dublin Development Plan, a legal document.

Discussion of all other cities is interesting, but not a speckled hen. The Development Plan is all that is relevant. That's what ABP considered in making their decision.

If you don't like 50m, then you should have made more of representation at Development Plan consultation time.

Laminations

MadsL wrote: »

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?

MadsL

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 guidelines

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.

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.

Destroying the skyline really needs to have some objective measure

It does, read the development plan.

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/pages/citydevelopmentplan.aspx

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

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?

People (and I'm saying people, not specifically people here) see big and new as bad.

And others see old and heritage as old-fashioned.

But imposing structures can become features of the skyline.

This is imposing in the same way Stalin was 'authoritive'

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.

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.

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.

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.

And I'm not getting back into the aesthetics issues because pages ago I made it clear I disagree with MadsL et al.

See above/

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??

citycentre

Laminations wrote: »

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'.

The complete denial by some people of the negative impact this would have on the city amazes me. Croke Park is 35m high, under HALF the height of the Childrens Hospital proposal. Croke Park utterly dominates the skyline of the northside already. Can you imagine it being twice the height and around a third again longer? That would be the impact of the proposed Childrens Hospital as seen from the southwest or the northeast.

The published images and viewpoints have been carefully selected to downplay the impact of the building. Also, as usual, everything is rendered as bright and shiny as possible when the reality of any glass clad building (where the glass isnt 80s style mirrored or sloping up to reflect the sky as on the AVIVA) is that it will look dark, even on the side facing the sun.

rodento

Am I wrong in thinking that if there was any merit to the application it would have been granted with conditions

So a slightly smaller version of the same may not actually pass the second time round, it also raises the question of what services should be dropped to accommodate the small design and if its worth building on the proposed site if certain services have to be dropped from it

Laminations

MadsL wrote: »

That is everyone's right to do so, I would add duty but lets not go there.
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 guidelines
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.

I doubt my objections to your objections would be noted. You certainly aren't noting them here.

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.

And their subjectivity is what? more objective then mine?
'A small vote but so far 75% back ABP decision re childrens hospital on archiseek'

It does, read the development plan.
http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/pages/citydevelopmentplan.aspx

Don't pretend you object based on it breaching DCC guidelines. If they changed the guidelines, then you would still object. Also QUOTE the direct piece which forbids high rise development. As far as I'm aware ABP said it was allowed unless it has a 'negative impact' on the skyline.

'The proposed development would contravene policy SC18 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017, which seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city.'

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.

Well YOU can't no. And maybe we'd all be in agreement about the ugliness of such a structure? Also it would depend on the purpose of such a building.

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.

So you have been misled. Another poster has since said it is to be located on the roof of the Adult hospital.

The roof gardens will 100% end up closed as H&S and insurance concerns, they never work.

Never work? Proof? Because to disprove you I just need to find one example of a roof garden.....and they pretty much exist on top of every apartment complex built during the 'boom'.... so unless I missed a spate of roof garden closures?

Traffic management and staff parking issues raised by ABP have not been addressed.

Did they not disagree over the traffic issues? What traffic issues did they highlight that would not be experienced in any other capital city?

'The board which is now comprised of just four members (none of whom are architects), made its decision to refuse by three votes to one, in disagreement with senior planning inspector Una Crosse. Crosse who presided at an oral hearing last autumn, that the hospital would contravene Dublin City Council’s Phibsborough-Mountjoy Local Area Plan (LAP) or that the provision of off-street car parking on the site was inadequate.'

Why are you so adamant about this site??

I want the best medical facility for the money we have. I also want this fast. You haven't suggested a better alternative.

Laminations

Re: opinion polls, most polls show the public is majority in favour of a different site.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/childrens-hospital-60pc-back-different-site-3038961.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-where-should-the-new-national-childrens-hospital-be-built-363511-Feb2012/

http://www.irishhealth.com/poll.html

and were against the mater site before ABP rejected the plans

http://www.irishtimes.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=yesnopoll&pollid=9561


But since when does majority opinion make a decision right? Especially since none of those polled were screened based on their medical knowledge or whether they knew why the Mater was chosen - they'd likely think it was 'for Bertie'. Show me a poll of expert medical professionals who deem the Mater to be the wrong site, people who know the most important criteria on which to judge such a decision.

Actually such a poll was conducted. The expert panel after a rigorous assessment chose the Mater site. Now we have people offering greenfield sites in Silloge and thinking thats all that is needed. And the public think 'Ooooh a free site, next to a motorway!!! that'll work'. Well are these farmers financing the replacement of the specialist services and consultants that would need to move from the Mater and nearby facilities? Or are they going to finance the hiring of all new specialist staff? A second site would require the duplication of services and would be more costly.

See here for the (second) expert review group's conclusion on cost

[Minister Reilly] said he noted the review's opinion that no site provided the perfect solution and that 'the enemy of excellence is perfection.'

Yeah, keep looking for your 'ideal' site....

MadsL

Laminations wrote: »

I doubt my objections to your objections would be noted. You certainly aren't noting them here.

So you didn't bother making an observation, now you are crying foul. You had a legal process that gave you a voice but you didn't use it, what do want me to do now?

As far as here is concerned your objections are duly noted. Now what?

And their subjectivity is what? more objective then mine?
'A small vote but so far 75% back ABP decision re childrens hospital on archiseek'

Just bringing it to your attention, naturally quite a number of architects read that forum.

Don't pretend you object based on it breaching DCC guidelines. If they changed the guidelines, then you would still object.

You are missing the point. They are not guidelines, but a legal contract. That is why there is a statutory public consultation and it takes many months of consulatation and many nights of council meetings to agree the plan. Read any observation by An Taisce, they always make the legal argument based on the Development Plan.

Also QUOTE the direct piece which forbids high rise development.

God you have me there...:rolleyes: Now I'm stumped. FFS. Are you that lazy? Go read the development plan! It is your contract with the city. If you can't be bothered to read it to know what is in, then how do you expect me to educate you after the fact. However, as I'm feeling gracious here is a history lesson;

‘Maximising the City’s Potential: A Strategy for Intensification and Height’ was prepared and put on public display as a draft discussion document for consultation with the agreement of the Economic Development, Planning and European Affairs Strategic Policy Committee in November 2007 and the City Council in December 2007.The public display and consultation period extended over a three month period from January to April 2008. Further consultations by way a Conference held in Croke Park in April 2008.

So you had ample opportunity to make your views heard by the city. The City Manager in particular would have been delighted had you made plea for 150m tall buildings.

However, residents of the city made their voices heard and after much back and forth and clever wording being proposed you will read in the Dublin City Development Plan such words as;

Dublin City Council acknowledges the intrinsic quality of Dublin as a low-rise city and it is policy that it should predominantly remain so.

It is an objective of the Council to promote streets and public spaces which are human-scaled,

For large developments (e.g. occupying more than 20m of street frontage) the height of buildings and how they positively relate to the scale of other buildings along the whole length and on both sides of the street must
be demonstrated.

Areas with Potential for 50m plus (12
storey office / 16 storey residential)
■ Docklands Cluster*
■ Connolly*
■ George’s Quay *
■ Heuston Area *
Areas with Potential for up to 50m
■ Digital Hub
■ Phibsborough
■ Grangegorman *
■ North Fringe*
■ Clonshaugh Industrial Estate *
■ Ballymun*
■ Pelletstown*
■ Park West / Cherry Orchard*
■ Naas Road Lands*

* Low-rise pending LAP/SDZ (see also 17.6.2) Within the identifi ed areas, a series of General Development Principles as well as a number of Key Development Principles specifi c to each identifi ed area shall apply
to guide the provision of high buildings within these areas. Where an LAP/SDZ is approved for an area identifi ed for height, the heights set in the relevant LAP/SDZ will be those against which planning applications are assessed. Proposals for High Buildings should be in accordance
with these principles and the policies and objectives of the relevant LAP/SDZ in addition to the assessment criteria for high buildings and general development standards.

The Guiding Principles are set out in section 16.4, Building Height in a
Sustainable City.

Anyway, go read it. You'll find it answers all those enraging 'only refused on aesthetic grounds' delusions you have been having.

http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/Documents/Dev_Plan_-_Vol_1_-_Written_Statement.pdf


As far as I'm aware ABP said it was allowed unless it has a 'negative impact' on the skyline.

'The proposed development would contravene policy SC18 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017, which seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city.'

Have you read SC18?

To protect and enhance the
skyline of the inner city, and to
ensure that all proposals for
mid-rise and taller buildings
make a positive contribution to
the urban character of the city,
having regard to the criteria
and site principles set out in the
Development Standards Section
(see Chapter 17).

They are very clear where and how high is permitted.

Well YOU can't no.

Given enough money and a planning application. Would you object?

And maybe we'd all be in agreement about the ugliness of such a structure? Also it would depend on the purpose of such a building.

Why does the purpose of a building 'excuse' it somehow?

So you have been misled. Another poster has since said it is to be located on the roof of the Adult hospital.

And we have any evidence for that?

Never work? Proof? Because to disprove you I just need to find one example of a roof garden.....and they pretty much exist on top of every apartment complex built during the 'boom'.... so unless I missed a spate of roof garden closures?

They are private spaces. Can you name any major public building in Dublin that has a roof garden or public space successfully opened to the public. Liberty Hall had one. Closed. Find me another successfully open.

Did they not disagree over the traffic issues? What traffic issues did they highlight that would not be experienced in any other capital city?

The capacity for parking at the site.

'The board which is now comprised of just four members (none of whom are architects), made its decision to refuse by three votes to one, in disagreement with senior planning inspector Una Crosse. Crosse who presided at an oral hearing last autumn, that the hospital would contravene Dublin City Council’s Phibsborough-Mountjoy Local Area Plan (LAP) or that the provision of off-street car parking on the site was inadequate.'

That quote is a mistake, ABP supported the inspectors decision. Read the report, stop relying on sloppy journalism.

I want the best medical facility for the money we have. I also want this fast. You haven't suggested a better alternative.

Ah the old quality triangle, you can have it cheap, fast, good. Pick two.

Actually I have supported the suggestion of a workable alternative site. You really are quite sloppy in your reading habits, you might want to review this thread again.

But since when does majority opinion make a decision right? Especially since none of those polled were screened based on their medical knowledge or whether they knew why the Mater was chosen - they'd likely think it was 'for Bertie'. Show me a poll of expert medical professionals who deem the Mater to be the wrong site, people who know the most important criteria on which to judge such a decision.

Ah, I see, medical knowledge is required to make a decision about planning. When can we expect the appointment of a doctor to ABP?

Actually such a poll was conducted. The expert panel after a rigorous assessment chose the Mater site. Now we have people offering greenfield sites in Silloge and thinking thats all that is needed. And the public think 'Ooooh a free site, next to a motorway!!! that'll work'.

Do you think if they had not had their choices limited they would have chosen the same site?

Well are these farmers financing the replacement of the specialist services and consultants that would need to move from the Mater and nearby facilities? Or are they going to finance the hiring of all new specialist staff?

They financed the planning cock-up, as did all other taxpayers.

A second site would require the duplication of services and would be more costly.

An empty site sure, not a different co-location site.

On that link you posted, what is your explaination for the expert group only considering Tallaght Hospital, Newlands Cross and aConnolly Hospital in Blanchardstown?

Why would other city-centre sites be rejected from even being considered in your view?

Yeah, keep looking for your 'ideal' site....

Yeah, cus it's all me, me, me :rolleyes:

MadsL

Looks like Reilly is getting sent a pretty clear message about including planning expertise in future..

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/future-of-new-childrens-hospital-in-doubt-if-government-fails-to-put-planner-on-special-review-group-experts-3045610.html

I see alternative sites are now being allowed consideration :rolleyes: €33m later.
It really is extraordinary how this project wasn't allowed to be properly considered by the Review panel with appropriate planning advice.

Tragedy

I see the person spearheading the review group is Dr. Frank Dolphin, latterly Chairman of CUH Temple Street and member of the Mater's board. Did they not think his appointment might appear a little bit suspect to people?

rodento

This is the view about the site by one of the previous chairpersons

http://www.thenewchildrenshospital.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Lynch.pdf

FreudianSlippers

There is something very smarmy about the people who start crawling out of the woodwork saying "I told you so" when these types of scenarios arise. Mr Lynch is probably the exact one who would be trumpeting his own achievements in getting the hospital built if it was going ahead.

Oh, and remember a few pages back where someone said I was generalising (or some other such nonsense) about there being a generally anti high rise mentality in Ireland as well as saying that they will just plonk down a 4 floor maximum sprawled out building on a greenfield site? Someone proclaimed, that will not happen! :rolleyes: FTA:

‘I could imagine a far better facility
built at one or two-storey level, no
underground car parking, plenty of
estate and gardens, and connectivity
to the Luas.

Sigh.

rodento

That article was written a year ago :rolleyes:

Sigh

FreudianSlippers

So it was. Lynch is still a massive knob with vested interest in this being built on his pal Noel Smyth's greenfield site.

MadsL

Regardless of who is a 'knob' why was the panel restricted in the choice of sites in the first place? And I mean from the point of view of co-location with James' or Crumlin rather than greenfield locations.

southsiderosie

rodento wrote: »

That article was written a year ago :rolleyes:

Sigh

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So it was. Lynch is still a massive knob with vested interest in this being built on his pal Noel Smyth's greenfield site.

MOD NOTE:

I don't see how tragic sighing, rolley-eyes and calling people knobs contributes to debate.

Please keep it civil, or refrain from posting.