Children's Hospital to be located at St James'

MadsL

Common sense prevails.

Hopefully this will also bring some regeneration to the Liberties/Thomas St area.

MadsL

Really. No comments? Such a long thread on this for the Mater site decision, not a peep on this.

Are we happy? Does it make sense now?

I guess the big question is the writing off of 70 million and the bloodymindedness of pushing ahead with the Mater site. But as ever no-one will be held accountable.

L1011

Swapped one overly constrained site where the building will be out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic... for a more constrained site where the building will be more out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic.

Except its on the southside (critical for shutting many consultants up) and free from any "Bertie put it there" allegations. That's about the only benefits.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Swapped one overly constrained site where the building will be out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic... for a more constrained site where the building will be more out of scale and the local road network is locked with traffic.

Except its on the southside (critical for shutting many consultants up) and free from any "Bertie put it there" allegations. That's about the only benefits.

Nope. Benefits include:

Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. Benefits include:

Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.

Site isn't bigger, Mater was co-located with teaching and would have had a maternity on site rather than half a kilometre down the road. Ambulance down the bus lanes on the R132 and R148 to the M50 is seriously much of a muchness speed wise, Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.

We've basically picked somewhere that is not-Mater but otherwise meets its criteria. People who were opposed to the Mater should be equally opposed to James's - but as most were opposed on "its too far from Crumlin" and "I don't like the northside" issues, they're staying shut.

The only worse proposals of the set they looked at were Connolly and Belcamp.

Mater site has 3 hectares available - James's has 1.1 and requires expanding the site by moving buildings which do not need to be moved, eating up part of a public park, and will still end up with the children's hospital on a smaller site.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Site isn't bigger, Mater was co-located with teaching and would have had a maternity on site rather than half a kilometre down the road. Ambulance down the bus lanes on the R132 and R148 to the M50 is seriously much of a muchness speed wise, Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.

We've basically picked somewhere that is not-Mater but otherwise meets its criteria. People who were opposed to the Mater should be equally opposed to James's - but as most were opposed on "its too far from Crumlin" and "I don't like the northside" issues, they're staying shut.

The only worse proposals of the set they looked at were Connolly and Belcamp.

Mater site has 3 hectares available - James's has 1.1 and requires expanding the site by moving buildings which do not need to be moved, eating up part of a public park, and will still end up with the children's hospital on a smaller site.

Capacity is not the same as size. And James' already has planning permission for a new hospital on site.

My objection to the Mater site was based on the overscaled development and cultural/heritage disaster of the proposed scheme - other than the Chapel, there is little such impact with the James' site.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Capacity is not the same as size. And James' already has planning permission for a new hospital on site.

My objection to the Mater site was based on the overscaled development and cultural/heritage disaster of the proposed scheme - other than the Chapel, there is little such impact with the James' site.

The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.

So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?

Gumbo

Its on the soutside, that will keep the moaners happy now.
Personally, i would of preferred the Blanch site (Connolly Hospital) as it has a vast amount of land around it to accomadate it and allow for future expansion.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.

So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?

Context. A nine story will do fine in hospital grounds, not so much right over a Georgian streetscape.

Does Hueston Gate look out of place to you?

Scortho

MYOB wrote: »

The only way to get more capacity from the same or less size is to go up up up. And that area of the city is much more low-rise than the city centre.

So how, exactly, is a 9 storey hospital at James's going to not be "overscaled" but a 9 storey at the Mater was?

St James's has planning permission for a hospital (was meant to be a private co-located one) that was to be this height. Also this area already has a lot of buildings of this height in the form of Guinness's.

MYOB wrote: »

Heuston has far less trains than Connolly and Steevens is a listed building - as well as having another hospital and some privately held buildings in the way.

Heuston services more areas outside of Greater Dublin Area (kildare wicklow louth and meath) though.

Connolly goes longford, sligo, wexford, mullingar and belfast.
Heuston goes to cork, limerick, tipperary, athlone, offaly, laois, mayo, roscommon, galway, clare, kerry, kilkenny).
Also for those commuting up from the connolly station, they can hop on the luas at connolly or bus aras and get of at the luas stop at St James's.

In relation to privately held buildings they could compulsory purchase order them or they may just work around them.

kceire wrote: »

Its on the soutside, that will keep the moaners happy now.

Im from Kildare. I don't care where its built so long it gets built. It's the children of the country who need this hospital built.

kceire wrote: »

Personally, i would of preferred the Blanch site (Connolly Hospital) as it has a vast amount of land around it to accomadate it and allow for future expansion.

In order for this to happen connolly would have needed a serious investment in money to bring up to scratch. Its not a specialised hospital to the extent that James's or the Mater is. This would require an investment of capital that we do not have.

It also is nowhere near a maternity hospital. The Coombe is literally 2 mins drive from the back of St james's, so its not too hard to put an entrance there. It mightn't be collocated but its fairly close. As well as that you do have that 20 acre site on the SCR which has the potential to be a medical research hub in the future! that won't happen for at least 10 years though but their is room to expand.

While Connolly does offer expansion room, the other required investment to bring it up to standards is not something that we can fund at this moment in time.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Context. A nine story will do fine in hospital grounds, not so much right over a Georgian streetscape.

Does Hueston Gate look out of place to you?

Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.

The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.

Scortho wrote: »

St James's has planning permission for a hospital (was meant to be a private co-located one) that was to be this height. Also this area already has a lot of buildings of this height in the form of Guinness's.

Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.

And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.

This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.

Scortho wrote: »

Heuston services more areas outside of Greater Dublin Area (kildare wicklow louth and meath) though.

Connolly goes longford, sligo, wexford, mullingar and belfast.
Heuston goes to cork, limerick, tipperary, athlone, offaly, laois, mayo, roscommon, galway, clare, kerry, kilkenny).
Also for those commuting up from the connolly station, they can hop on the luas at connolly or bus aras and get of at the luas stop at St James's.

In relation to privately held buildings they could compulsory purchase order them or they may just work around them.

Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.

Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.


How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.

JustinDee

MadsL wrote: »

Nope. Benefits include:

Greater site capacity
Co-located with the largest teaching hospital
Corridor access to the Coombe Maternity Hospital
Conditions for a level 4 neonatal intensive care unit
Better M50 access
Heavy rail access via Hueston
Positional advantage to also incorporate Steevens.

Central indeed. However, would there be an A&E dept there?
St James has possibly the worst access routes that a hospital experiences. For emergencies anyway. Hopefully any accidents going that way only happen between outside of 7-10am and 3.30-6.30pm because otherwise they are in trouble.

Scortho

MYOB wrote: »

Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.

And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.

This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.



Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.

Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.


How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.

Guinness's is less than 1 km away. Now I don't know about you but in my books but that to me is actually very close.
also this is a hospital for the children of this country. Not just for the people of dublin. The site at St james's is much better in terms of transport links. As i mentioned before, heuston station serves a much wider area of the country. Yes it does have less commuter services within the GDA but this isnt a hospital just for the GDA.There is also a park and ride facility at many stops along the red line in which people can commute from if they so wish.

Tell me what CURRENT transport links the Mater site has?

Does it have its limitations?
Yes it does. its located in an area thats close to the city centre. CPO's may have to carried out on some buildings but then again they might not. It all depends on the architects design for the new NCH which we haven't got yet.

Out of curiosity where would you suggest it be located, remembering now that it has to be in the best interest of the children of this country?

When it was announced that the Mater site wasnt getting planning permission and that they were looking for new sites, I was convinced myself that tallaght hospital was an ideal one. Especially considering that the CEO of the hospital was the former CEO of the NCH board. But it doesnt have a maternity hospital co-located or near it so that ruled it out.

Scortho

JustinDee wrote: »

Central indeed. However, would there be an A&E dept there?
St James has possibly the worst access routes that a hospital experiences. For emergencies anyway. Hopefully any accidents going that way only happen between outside of 7-10am and 3.30-6.30pm because otherwise they are in trouble.

I can get from the n4 roundabout to James is less than 15 mins at 8 in the morning

Turpentine

MYOB wrote: »

Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.

It's about a ten minute walk from Heuston station less if you take the Luas. I wouldn't really consider that "rather far" in the general scheme of things.

MYOB wrote: »

The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.

I don't know what you're talking about here, the site is within the boundaries of the hospital walls beside Rialto Luas stop. I don't know how you personally would define "in hospital grounds", but it is going to be actually "in hospital grounds".

MYOB wrote: »

And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.

No it's not "quite far away". Do you actually know the area at all?

MYOB wrote: »

Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital? Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.

If they're taking "cheaper coach services", they'll probably land in or around Busaras, which is also connected by the Luas. Or they could be on a train which winds up in Connolly station, which is also connected by the Luas.

What more commuter services would you be talking about? Should they have planned to build the hospital on a new super bus/train station with redirected traffic from all over the country? Maybe include an international airport while they're at it?

As far as public transport is concerned it couldn't really be any more connected.

L1011

Scortho wrote: »

Guinness's is less than 1 km away. Now I don't know about you but in my books but that to me is actually very close.

Turpentine wrote: »

It's about a ten minute walk from Heuston station less if you take the Luas. I wouldn't really consider that "rather far" in the general scheme of things.

Just as close as there are tall buildings to the Mater then, so claims about scale are invalid.

Scortho wrote: »

Out of curiosity where would you suggest it be located, remembering now that it has to be in the best interest of the children of this country?

Either back at the Mater, seeing as all the legitimate reasons people objected to it (parking, site size, height, green space) are not different here; or Tallaght if and only if they could have got significant extra space. As the Report shows, Allied Foods did submit their site, which adjoins the hospital.

Tallaght would have had the colo maternity as once the NCH opened, there'd be space freed up there which the Coombe was to move to.

None of the other proposals give a credible chance of full trilocation.

Turpentine wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about here, the site is within the boundaries of the hospital walls beside Rialto Luas stop. I don't know how you personally would define "in hospital grounds", but it is going to be actually "in hospital grounds"

"in hospital grounds" was being used to defend the height and difference relative to the very low rise locality. The Mater site was "in hospital grounds" too, so this is another invalid claim.

Turpentine wrote: »

As far as public transport is concerned it couldn't really be any more
connected.

When the Mater plan was submitted with a heavy reliance on public transport, we were told it was irrelevant and everyone would use cars.

When James's is selected in an area with worse traffic and with less parking, we're told everyone will use public transport.

Another invalid claim. Every reason now being used to justify James's over the Mater was used against the Mater. We're then left with vested interests (Crumlin, southside) and people claiming vested interests (Bertie) as the only reasons to move it. Very expensive move to shut a few people up when the fundamentals haven't changed one bit.

JustinDee

Scortho wrote: »

I can get from the n4 roundabout to James is less than 15 mins at 8 in the morning

A acquaintance of mine died last week as emergency crew couldn't get to him on time at afternoon/evening rush hour due to traffic being so heavy and unmoving.
Not blaming anyone, by the way. Just pointing out that the Sth Circular is a virtual car park during rush hour.
I travel N4 route to Ballsbridge myself daily.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Do you actually know where the NCH site is? Heuston Gate is really rather far away from it. There are buildings as tall within the same distance from the Mater. Between the site and HSQ you have low rise and listed buildings.

No need for the sarcasm. I'm using Hueston as an example of tall buildings in context. I'm not suggesting that the eircom building is on the James' campus.

The site is at the very edge of the hospital, adjoining residential areas, rather than being site in "grounds". If you take purely being on a hospital site as being "in hospital grounds" then the Mater was absolutely identical.

And it plainly isn't the same as the Mater. Do I have to explain that to you?

Much smaller building which would have had far less traffic impact.

I believe there was permission granted for a 9 storey building. The Mater was forced up to 15 odd as a result of the cramped footprint. With a redesign on this site I see no reason why a 9-11 storey would not fit without having to build the carbuncle that was the original Mater plan.

And again - Guinness is quite far away, with the area in between filled with low rise and listed buildings.

If you mean far away meaning nearby, and low rise and listed meaning Corporation flats, then yes, yes it is.

This site is absolutely and utterly no lower impact than the Mater in this regard.

Impact on what? A protected Georgian streetscape or Mount Brown and Edwardian terraces?

Are you expecting people to take lengthy train journeys (all of which have faster, cheaper coach services these days as it happens) to a hospital?

As opposed to what? Let me ask you, if a child is in the NCH for extended treatment doesn't it make sense that the hospital is within public transport links so that relatives can visit with ease?
Are you somehow confusing ambulances with buses?

Its far more important to have access to commuter services, which Heuston has an absolute dearth of.

There is a LUAS linking Connolly to the site as well!! Look at a map once in a while.

Having to CPO modern apartments to allow them to remove listed buildings to expand isn't going to be a particularly popular option.

Sorry what? Where? What buildings are being "removed"? And by the way, there is no such thing as "listed" in Ireland, they are "Protected Structures".

How people will ignore and attempt to justify away the limitations of one site while screaming about them at another astounds me.

How professional heathcare people can blindly dig dig dig a hole for themselves and waste 70 million after being told repeatly that the site isn't suitable astounds me more than your keyboard posturing.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

No need for the sarcasm. I'm using Hueston as an example of tall buildings in context. I'm not suggesting that the eircom building is on the James' campus.

Its as close to James's as there are tall buildings to the Mater - which was what your claim was based on.

MadsL wrote: »

And it plainly isn't the same as the Mater. Do I have to explain that to you?

Do explain, I'm interested in the logic of how one hospital site is "hospital grounds" and another... isn't.

MadsL wrote: »

I believe there was permission granted for a 9 storey building. The Mater was forced up to 15 odd as a result of the cramped footprint. With a redesign on this site I see no reason why a 9-11 storey would not fit without having to build the carbuncle that was the original Mater plan.

Again - the footprint proposed by James's to the Dolphin Committee for the NCH is smaller than that proposed by the Mater. If its 11 storeys on the same footprint, massive concessions will have had to be made.


If you mean far away meaning nearby, and low rise and listed meaning Corporation flats, then yes, yes it is.

MadsL wrote: »

Impact on what? A protected Georgian streetscape or Mount Brown and Edwardian terraces?

Impact on the location is impact, regardless of the age of the buildings. You may also have noticed that north/east side of Eccles St. doesn't have much of a Georgian streetscape left.

MadsL wrote: »

As opposed to what? Let me ask you, if a child is in the NCH for extended treatment doesn't it make sense that the hospital is within public transport links so that relatives can visit with ease?
Are you somehow confusing ambulances with buses?

The main argument against the Mater for transport was that "nobody goes to hospitals on public transport", yet now its being argued as the #1 issue - because car access to James's makes the Mater look like a dream.

MadsL wrote: »

There is a LUAS linking Connolly to the site as well!! Look at a map once in a while.

If "its near a station" can devolve to "its linked to a station", then arguably every site in the city is "linked" to Heuston/Connolly by Luas or bus.

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry what? Where? What buildings are being "removed"? And by the way, there is no such thing as "listed" in Ireland, they are "Protected Structures".

You are proposing that it can be extended 'towards Steeven's' which would require demolition on James Street as well as St Patricks.

You knew exactly what I meant regardless.

MadsL wrote: »

How professional heathcare people can blindly dig dig dig a hole for themselves and waste 70 million after being told repeatly that the site isn't suitable astounds me more than your keyboard posturing.

The James's site is no more or less suitable than the Mater was.

Turpentine

MYOB wrote: »

Just as close as there are tall buildings to the Mater then, so claims about scale are invalid.

MYOB wrote: »

"in hospital grounds" was being used to defend the height and difference relative to the very low rise locality. The Mater site was "in hospital grounds" too, so this is another invalid claim.

There are seven-storey (I think) apartment buildings on the other side of the Luas line adjacent to James at the Fatima stop. There's an eight storey building at the corner of Basin St and Grand Canal Place

There's an even taller apartment building a minute away in Dolphin's Barn.

The area isn't all cottages, and the NCH won't be the first tall building in the vicinity.

You can check it on Google maps if you want. Maybe you should.

MYOB wrote: »

When the Mater plan was submitted with a heavy reliance on public transport, we were told it was irrelevant and everyone would use cars.

What public transport did the Mater have to rely on that is even close in reliability to a Luas that connects with Dublin's main train and bus stations? Dublin Bus? James' has several bus routes as well.

MYOB wrote: »

When James's is selected in an area with worse traffic and with less parking, we're told everyone will use public transport.

Worse traffic than Dorset street?

How do you know there will be less parking?

L1011

Turpentine wrote: »

There are seven-storey (I think) apartment buildings on the other side of the Luas line adjacent to James at the Fatima stop. There's an eight storey building at the corner of Basin St and Grand Canal Place

There's an even taller apartment building a minute away in Dolphin's Barn.

The area isn't all cottages, and the NCH won't be the first tall building in the vicinity.

You can check it on Google maps if you want. Maybe you should.

You are massively failing to get my point.

There are already plenty of tall buildings near the Mater - including the new Mater adult hospital for starters. Neither it nor the James's plan is out of scale - yet people insist one is and one isn't. The entire support for James's relies on doublespeak.

Turpentine wrote: »

What public transport did the Mater have to rely on that is even close in reliability to a Luas that connects with Dublin's main train and bus stations? Dublin Bus? James' has several bus routes as well.

Metro. Remember exactly when the plans were being done up. The streets surrounding the Mater also have several bus routes.

Additionally, until Veoila do something about security, the Red Luas isn't exactly something I'd want to be reliant on for safe transport.

But the point still stands - "everyone will use cars!" has turned in to "everyone won't use cars! They'll use the Luas!" when the site moves. Neither site has particularly good vehicular access, but James's is definitively worse.

Turpentine wrote: »

Worse traffic than Dorset street?

Significantly so.

Turpentine wrote: »

How do you know there will be less parking?

Based on the submissions, there will be less.

Two other issues that other posters used here to criticise the Mater site were "no natural green space" - which seeing as the James's plan involves using part of the linear park to build on, there certainly won't be, and "reliance on lifts", which a minimum 9 storey building wil. Yet those posters support James's...


The long and short of it is that, for massive sums of money, we've moved from one site with issues to another site with the same issues. And yet people are willing to accept that one is the "wrong site" and the other is the "right site" and, indeed, defend that. Illogical.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Its as close to James's as there are tall buildings to the Mater - which was what your claim was based on.

Oh for god's sake - it was an example of a tall building that is OK in context. I could have said Sears Tower in Chicago.

Do explain, I'm interested in the logic of how one hospital site is "hospital grounds" and another... isn't.

James' has a campus and grounds, even a LUAS line running through it. Mater is a very confined urban site. Let's compare the "campus" if you like - Mater has no real sense of being in it's own "campus".

Again - the footprint proposed by James's to the Dolphin Committee for the NCH is smaller than that proposed by the Mater. If its 11 storeys on the same footprint, massive concessions will have had to be made.

You are ignoring the possibilities of extending/renewing other facilities at James' and the Coombe.

Impact on the location is impact, regardless of the age of the buildings. You may also have noticed that north/east side of Eccles St. doesn't have much of a Georgian streetscape left.

Let's not rehash the Mater site, ABP disagree with your view about visual 'impact'.

The main argument against the Mater for transport was that "nobody goes to hospitals on public transport", yet now its being argued as the #1 issue - because car access to James's makes the Mater look like a dream.

I think the argument was nobody will go to the Mater/NCH on a bus. Heavy Rail linked by LUAS is a different proposition. Don't make the arguments cartoonish.

If "its near a station" can devolve to "its linked to a station", then arguably every site in the city is "linked" to Heuston/Connolly by Luas or bus.

You can easily walk to James' from Heuston. Two stops on the LUAS. Same LUAS as Connolly
.
Clutching at straws tbh to argue that James' is only as connected as anywhere else. Who would win a public transport race from say, Maynooth to the Mater/James'?

You are proposing that it can be extended 'towards Steeven's' which would require demolition on James Street as well as St Patricks.

Very little required, CPO of Toni's takeaway on James St and the warehouse behind it would give direct road access to the grounds of Steevens. It could also facilitate an ambulance route between Steeven's and James' NCH.

You knew exactly what I meant regardless.

Unfortunely "protected" means very little in Ireland compared to "listed" in the UK.

The James's site is no more or less suitable than the Mater was.

The Dolphin Report begs to differ.

The long and short of it is that, for massive sums of money, we've moved from one site with issues to another site with the same issues. And yet people are willing to accept that one is the "wrong site" and the other is the "right site" and, indeed, defend that. Illogical.

The massive sums of money were wasted trying to bullheadedly shoehorn a massively overscaled development into an urban historic streetscape, to such an extent that it overshadowed a good portion of the city.

James' will easily work and has scope for expansion. Yet you want to argue, what exactly? That the Mater is still the right site and that Metro North is still an option? Or are you a greenfield advocate.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Additionally, until Veoila do something about security, the Red Luas isn't exactly something I'd want to be reliant on for safe transport.

This. I suppose Dorset St buses are full of model citizens.
And you criticise others for doublethink?

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Oh for god's sake - it was an example of a tall building that is OK in context. I could have said Sears Tower in Chicago.

You were implying that the Mater had no tall buildings anywhere near it. Now you're changing tack.

MadsL wrote: »

James' has a campus and grounds, even a LUAS line running through it. Mater is a very confined urban site. Let's compare the "campus" if you like - Mater has no real sense of being in it's own "campus".

And once this is built, it will have no empty grounds to speak of. Won't even have some expanses of asphalt above ground (carparking) as that's all going under.

MadsL wrote: »

You are ignoring the possibilities of extending/renewing other facilities at James' and the Coombe.

Extending to what land? Renewing by moving their existing uses where? The land isn't there. The site isn't bigger and is hemmed in on all sides. It has no advantages over the Mater.

MadsL wrote: »

Let's not rehash the Mater site, ABP disagree with your view about visual 'impact'.

And for all we know, they'll disagree at James's too. The colo private hospital that got permission was much smaller; and required far less urgent vehicular access. There are many, many grounds for refusal still.

MadsL wrote: »

I think the argument was nobody will go to the Mater/NCH on a bus. Heavy Rail linked by LUAS is a different proposition. Don't make the arguments cartoonish.

Except that the Mater was to have a high frequency underground train line...

MadsL wrote: »

.
Clutching at straws tbh to argue that James' is only as connected as anywhere else. Who would win a public transport race from say, Maynooth to the Mater/James'?

Mater hands down. Train to Drumcondra and a short bus journey vs a lengthy bus journey, a walk, and the Luas or a longer train journey and a significantly longer Luas one.

Both sites are 50/50 by car - as I drive to both frequently for work. Mater is the easier one to get parked up for, and that's before its new parking is built at that.

MadsL wrote: »

Very little required, CPO of Toni's takeaway on James St and the warehouse behind it would give direct road access to the grounds of Steevens. It could also facilitate an ambulance route between Steeven's and James' NCH.

And then St Patrick's in the way... where do you propose moving its health services and the offices in Steevens btw?

MadsL wrote: »

Unfortunely "protected" means very little in Ireland compared to "listed" in the UK.

English Heritage may want you to believe that, but its not true. Guinness Brewery in London for one quick example.

MadsL wrote: »

The Dolphin Report begs to differ.

No it doesn't. The report doesn't make any single recommendation. Have you actually read it yet?

MadsL wrote: »

The massive sums of money were wasted trying to bullheadedly shoehorn a massively overscaled development into an urban historic streetscape, to such an extent that it overshadowed a good portion of the city.

James' will easily work and has scope for expansion. Yet you want to argue, what exactly? That the Mater is still the right site and that Metro North is still an option? Or are you a greenfield advocate.

There is zero scope for expansion, unless you completely give up trilocation - 600M down the road is not colocation. If you consider mass CPOs and demolition to be "scope" well - guess what? Every site has that scope.

The footprint available if trilocation goes ahead is smaller - you keep ignoring this. This will require even more 'bullheaded shoehorning'

At this stage, James's will do - but it is absolutely and utterly no better a site than the Mater proposal was. The only other option that made any sense was Tallaght if the land to the north could be obtained - Belcamp, Beaumont, rebuild at Crumlin, etc were all unworkable.

Greenfield (but not at Belcamp) would probably be best if we could afford to build all three hospitals (particularly as parts of James's are quite old) but we can't.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

This. I suppose Dorset St buses are full of model citizens.
And you criticise others for doublethink?

You clearly haven't been on the red line in quite some time if ever if you think the two are even close to comparison.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

You clearly haven't been on the red line in quite some time if ever if you think the two are even close to comparison.

Please. I spent 6 years living in Smithfield until the end of 2011.

If "the nasty men on the LUAS" is your best argument against James', I'd stop now if I were you.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Please. I spent 6 years living in Smithfield until the end of 2011.

If "the nasty men on the LUAS" is your best argument against James', I'd stop now if I were you.

If you think that was even meant to be a fragment of my argument, you've clearly misread everything I've posted.

Are you going to read the Dolphin Report or continue to make assumptions on its contents? And remember, that when RTE read the leak, they thought it was 'recommending' Connolly. It doesn't explicitly recommend anywhere, but it should clarify your misconceptions of just how crammed James's is going to be.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Extending to what land? Renewing by moving their existing uses where? The land isn't there. The site isn't bigger and is hemmed in on all sides. It has no advantages over the Mater.

Top of the head.
Land swaps with Guinness could be an option, they have large areas of under-utilised land opposite Steevens. And it looks likely that eircom will just go out of business eventualy and give up that HQ to move Steeven's office workers into.

Demolition of Corporation flats in the Liberties has been earmarked for some time now, there is also the lands of the two schools in the Basin St area that could be CPO'd.

Guaranteed there are NAMA'd apartments opposite James' Walk that could be repurposed or used for Parents.

And for all we know, they'll disagree at James's too. The colo private hospital that got permission was much smaller; and required far less urgent vehicular access. There are many, many grounds for refusal still.

It already has an A&E on site so it is unlikely that urgent vehicular access could be a problem. It has access from multiple entry points.

Except that the Mater was to have a high frequency underground train line...

Well, you can dream now...

Mater hands down. Train to Drumcondra and a short bus journey vs a lengthy bus journey, a walk, and the Luas or a longer train journey and a significantly longer Luas one.

Reliable that bus?
17 minute ride direct to James' from Connelly every 3-7 minutes.

Both sites are 50/50 by car - as I drive to both frequently for work. Mater is the easier one to get parked up for, and that's before its new parking is built at that.

James' campus would easily support underground parking, and already has park and ride facilities on the LUAS.

And then St Patrick's in the way... where do you propose moving its health services and the offices in Steevens btw?

Ah, ya have me stumped. Gee. Scrap the project.
How about finishing the stalled develpment at HSQ if you really feel Dublin is short of office space.

English Heritage may want you to believe that, but its not true. Guinness Brewery in London for one quick example.

Right. If you say so.

No it doesn't. The report doesn't make any single recommendation. Have you actually read it yet?

Have you?
"Whether the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a high quality maternity hospital as well as a children's hospital remains a concern", the group concluded.
That's their conclusion on the Mater site.

There is zero scope for expansion, unless you completely give up trilocation - 600M down the road is not colocation. If you consider mass CPOs and demolition to be "scope" well - guess what? Every site has that scope.

What potential for expansion does the Mater have? You seem to have a habit of trying to dismiss every argument as being able to be universally applied and therefore no longer an advantage. My dog can run fast. Sure every dog can run fast if you stick a rocket up it. See how that works?

Simple fact is that there is way more industrial/institutional land around James' than the Mater.

The footprint available if trilocation goes ahead is smaller - you keep ignoring this. This will require even more 'bullheaded shoehorning'

"the existing Dublin area teaching hospital that best meets the criteria to be the adult partner in co-location because it has the broadest range of national specialties and excellent research and education infrastructure".
Coombe can be upgraded and monorailed/skywalked/underground corridor linked to NCH if necessary.
You seem to be ignoring these facts in tri-location.

At this stage, James's will do - but it is absolutely and utterly no better a site than the Mater proposal was.

Oh, so you are passionately arguing for the Mater, but they are the same???

The only other option that made any sense was Tallaght if the land to the north could be obtained - Belcamp, Beaumont, rebuild at Crumlin, etc were all unworkable.

Greenfield (but not at Belcamp) would probably be best if we could afford to build all three hospitals (particularly as parts of James's are quite old) but we can't.

So James' it is then. Problem?

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

If you think that was even meant to be a fragment of my argument, you've clearly misread everything I've posted.

Then why even start with the snobby red line comments?

Are you going to read the Dolphin Report or continue to make assumptions on its contents? And remember, that when RTE read the leak, they thought it was 'recommending' Connolly. It doesn't explicitly recommend anywhere, but it should clarify your misconceptions of just how crammed James's is going to be.

James' just needs rationalising, it is a typical organically grown hospital with low rise poor quality campus. This is just the impetus that James' needs to reorganise.



Looks reasonable given that it is a quick sketch up job...

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

Top of the head.
Land swaps with Guinness could be an option, they have large areas of under-utilised land opposite Steevens. And it looks likely that eircom will just go out of business eventualy and give up that HQ to move Steeven's office workers into.

Demolition of Corporation flats in the Liberties has been earmarked for some time now, there is also the lands of the two schools in the Basin St area that could be CPO'd.

Guaranteed there are NAMA'd apartments opposite James' Walk that could be repurposed or used for Parents.

Right, lets spend vast sums of money we don't have and cause massive disruption to business, education and families to deal with the fact that we've selected a smaller site. That's logical and rational...

MadsL wrote: »

It already has an A&E on site so it is unlikely that urgent vehicular access could be a problem. It has access from multiple entry points.

Increased urgent vehicular access could be.

MadsL wrote: »

Well, you can dream now...

You're the one providing a litany of off the wall suggestions for expanding a hemmed in site.

MadsL wrote: »

Reliable that bus?
17 minute ride direct to James' from Connelly every 3-7 minutes.

Yes.

MadsL wrote: »

James' campus would easily support underground parking, and already has park and ride facilities on the LUAS.

Guarantee you its still going to have chronic parking issues. Would lay money on it if there was an independent way of verifying.

MadsL wrote: »

Ah, ya have me stumped. Gee. Scrap the project.
How about finishing the stalled develpment at HSQ if you really feel Dublin is short of office space.

Scrap your Don Quixote dreaming of implausible expansion, perhaps.

MadsL wrote: »

Right. If you say so.

Translation: "I don't want to be corrected"

MadsL wrote: »

Have you?
"Whether the site is sufficiently large to accommodate a high quality maternity hospital as well as a children's hospital remains a concern", the group concluded.
That's their conclusion on the Mater site.

Now that you've read it, do you see the concerns about the size of (let me remind you one last time) smaller James's site?

MadsL wrote: »

What potential for expansion does the Mater have? You seem to have a habit of trying to dismiss every argument as being able to be universally applied and therefore no longer an advantage. My dog can run fast. Sure every dog can run fast if you stick a rocket up it. See how that works?

CPO half the area surround it - just like your suggestions for James's.

If people made rational arguments rather than trying to use the same arguments they used against the Mater as positives for James's, maybe we'd get somewhere. But it appears nobody can - as the site is no better.

MadsL wrote: »

Simple fact is that there is way more industrial/institutional land around James' than the Mater.

Mountjoy. Which is planned to close, unlike everything else you've listed. Rather disproves that. Simple fact is that you're bluffing now.

MadsL wrote: »

"the existing Dublin area teaching hospital that best meets the criteria to be the adult partner in co-location because it has the broadest range of national specialties and excellent research and education infrastructure".
Coombe can be upgraded and monorailed/skywalked/underground corridor linked to NCH if necessary.
You seem to be ignoring these facts in tri-location.

You seem to be ignoring that a 600M walkway/whatever is not the same site

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, so you are passionately arguing for the Mater, but they are the same???

I'm arguing that the people who were screaming that the Mater was dreadful are now wholeheartedly support something that is no better - proving that their opposition to the Mater was baseless.

MadsL wrote: »

So James' it is then. Problem?

No problem, if people admit that they were opposed to the Mater because it was Northside/too close to Temple Street/all the other vested interest reasons for opposing it. As they're now supporting just as constrained and troubled a site.

MadsL wrote: »

Then why even start with the snobby red line comments?

Snobby? Get real.

MadsL wrote: »

James' just needs rationalising, it is a typical organically grown hospital with low rise poor quality campus. This is just the impetus that James' needs to reorganise.

Money we don't have, space it doesn't have to move people to whole "rationalising".

If you want to rationalise James's it needs to be done before you start the NCH. Which means the site isn't suitable for something which needs to be built quickly. If you want to build it quickly, you are left with an utterly compromised design on a completely locked site.

MadsL wrote: »

Looks reasonable given that it is a quick sketch up job...

Looks about as 'out of place' for the surrounds as the Mater did.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Right, lets spend vast sums of money we don't have and cause massive disruption to business, education and families to deal with the fact that we've selected a smaller site. That's logical and rational...

When you say smaller, what square footage will be reduced by selecting the James' site? Approx?

Increased urgent vehicular access could be.

So could exploding skyclowns. You are asking me to argue against what might happen. Seriously?

You're the one providing a litany of off the wall suggestions for expanding a hemmed in site.

As I said top of the head. Which ones are "off the wall"? And why? Which ones would require a budget equivalent to Metro North?

Yes.

Now do the same calculation with Cork, Limerick and Galway. National hospital as I recall.

Guarantee you its still going to have chronic parking issues. Would lay money on it if there was an independent way of verifying.

Chronic? Last time I checked underground car parks were pretty easy to build.

Scrap your Don Quixote dreaming of implausible expansion, perhaps.

I'll trade you for your dream of Thornton Hall and Metro North.
No reason why that abandoned HSQ tower (with planning permission already granted) could not open up Steevens for other uses. Can you think of one?

Translation: "I don't want to be corrected"

You gave one example in London. Here are dozens of underprotected structures in Dublin, knock yourself out.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152134461055457.918548.68916935456&type=3

Now that you've read it, do you see the concerns about the size of (let me remind you one last time) smaller James's site?

Have you read the James' submission yet?

CPO half the area surround it - just like your suggestions for James's.

What DCC/State properties do you suggest? Or do you want to prop up the local housing market? Imagine trying to CPO at 2012 prices - they would be war - which means paying 2005 prices.

If people made rational arguments rather than trying to use the same arguments they used against the Mater as positives for James's, maybe we'd get somewhere. But it appears nobody can - as the site is no better.

But..But..you are arguing that the Mater is better because of the same criteria!!!

Mountjoy. Which is planned to close, unlike everything else you've listed. Rather disproves that. Simple fact is that you're bluffing now.

You might have missed that Thornton Hall is cancelled. Sure - let em out.

You seem to be ignoring that a 600M walkway/whatever is not the same site

Does it bother you when you are at the airport?

I'm arguing that the people who were screaming that the Mater was dreadful are now wholeheartedly support something that is no better - proving that their opposition to the Mater was baseless.

My opposition was based on effectively wrecking Dublin for a fucking eyesore visible from all over. That was entirely held to be the case by ABP.

No problem, if people admit that they were opposed to the Mater because it was Northside/too close to Temple Street/all the other vested interest reasons for opposing it. As they're now supporting just as constrained and troubled a site.

Where did I ever mention North/Southside? Or Temple St?

Snobby? Get real.

What else would you call it? A social witticism?

Money we don't have, space it doesn't have to move people to whole "rationalising".

If you want to rationalise James's it needs to be done before you start the NCH. Which means the site isn't suitable for something which needs to be built quickly. If you want to build it quickly, you are left with an utterly compromised design on a completely locked site.

Given the way we are going it won't be built in a hurry anyway. There wouldn't be too much involved in rationalising James' to prepare for the Pediatric Hospital.

Looks about as 'out of place' for the surrounds as the Mater did.

Except it isn't visible from half of Dublin at that site. That also isn't the final plan.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

When you say smaller, what square footage will be reduced by selecting the James' site? Approx?

Square footage depends on the height. All the figures on the size of the site available to the NCH are in the report - which you appear to have read now.

MadsL wrote: »

So could exploding skyclowns. You are asking me to argue against what might happen. Seriously?

You don't think that putting a second hospital on the site will increase urgent vehicular access??

MadsL wrote: »

As I said top of the head. Which ones are "off the wall"? And why? Which ones would require a budget equivalent to Metro North?

Eircom's purchasers not needing a HQ

Guinness not needing the space, seeing as they've frozen plans for Leixlip and are expanding at that site

DCC finding it easy to move tenants from apartments without the standard promise of getting the replacement units once rebuilt

Pretty much all of them, actually.

MadsL wrote: »

Now do the same calculation with Cork, Limerick and Galway. National hospital as I recall.

Difference will be within the margin of error in each case - the bulk of the journey is getting to Dublin in the first place.

MadsL wrote: »

Chronic? Last time I checked underground car parks were pretty easy to build.

What relevance does the ease of construction of the car parks have to do with there not being enough of them on the proposal? The existing parking facilities are already hugely over-subscribed at busy times.

MadsL wrote: »

I'll trade you for your dream of Thornton Hall and Metro North.
No reason why that abandoned HSQ tower (with planning permission already granted) could not open up Steevens for other uses. Can you think of one?

Because the HSE haven't got the cash to rent it?

MadsL wrote: »

You gave one example in London. Here are dozens of underprotected structures in Dublin, knock yourself out.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152134461055457.918548.68916935456&type=3

I direct you to the Nooks & Corners column in Private Eye to find hundreds in the UK.

MadsL wrote: »

Have you read the James' submission yet?

I read the entire damn document well before you did, by the looks of things.

MadsL wrote: »

What DCC/State properties do you suggest? Or do you want to prop up the local housing market? Imagine trying to CPO at 2012 prices - they would be war - which means paying 2005 prices.

Guinness and private apartment owners are DCC/State now?

MadsL wrote: »

But..But..you are arguing that the Mater is better because of the same criteria!!!

No, I'm arguing that it is absolutely no different

MadsL wrote: »

You might have missed that Thornton Hall is cancelled. Sure - let em out.

Postponed, but still needed and likely to proceed before any expansion is needed.

However, Guinness not needing space at James Gate is, however, cancelled.

MadsL wrote: »

Does it bother you when you are at the airport?

I'm generally not on a hospital trolley at the airport. Ryanair don't like them.

MadsL wrote: »

My opposition was based on effectively wrecking Dublin for a fucking eyesore visible from all over. That was entirely held to be the case by ABP.

I don't consider it to be an eyesore at all.

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I ever mention North/Southside? Or Temple St?

They were the main actual reasons behind the squeals and screams from the majority of protesters to the Mater site. Your protests are based on even worse grounds.

MadsL wrote: »

What else would you call it? A social witticism?

Fact.

MadsL wrote: »

Given the way we are going it won't be built in a hurry anyway. There wouldn't be too much involved in rationalising James' to prepare for the Pediatric Hospital.

So you're willing to add another 2 to 3 years (minimum) delay and significant further cost, just to get a site you think will look nicer? Dear god.

MadsL wrote: »

Except it isn't visible from half of Dublin at that site. That also isn't the final plan.

The Mater wasn't visible from "half of Dublin" either.

Damien360

I still think it is wrong to put it in the city centre. It will get more and more congested over the years until the James site is slap bang in the middle of heavy congestion and they will have to re-think the site.

The Dublin Fire Brigade (which is also an ambulance service) did a report some years ago citing the mater as the worst choice for speedy access in emergencies. They felt that Tallaght or Blancharstown were best sites based purely on speed of access.

Citing ease of access for day patients is not the way to decide a site. Ease of access for emergnecy vehicles with critical patients should be considered.

Also, how many people with sick kids, older adults etc , take public transport to the hospital...none. There is no parking in that area. Staff currently park off-site and the place is stacked full of every drug user you can think of. Now add the public looking for spaces on the street and you have trouble.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Square footage depends on the height. All the figures on the size of the site available to the NCH are in the report - which you appear to have read now.

The James' submission suggests that it will be 108k sq m. hospital EXACTLY the same size as the Mater proposal and also deliver a 40k sq m. Maternity hospital.

So smaller, meaning the same size?

You don't think that putting a second hospital on the site will increase urgent vehicular access??

No, I'm suggesting that ABP will not use that as a basis for refusal, try not to put words in my mouth.

Difference will be within the margin of error in each case - the bulk of the journey is getting to Dublin in the first place.

Objectively, rationally, every which way, James' has better transport links.

What relevance does the ease of construction of the car parks have to do with there not being enough of them on the proposal? The existing parking facilities are already hugely over-subscribed at busy times.

The James' proposal would deliver 1500 new parking spaces compared to the 970 in the Mater site.

Because the HSE haven't got the cash to rent it?

I'm pretty sure it is in NAMA - just build it and gift it to the nation ffs.

I read the entire damn document well before you did, by the looks of things.

Gold Star

Guinness and private apartment owners are DCC/State now?

Where did I suggest private owners apart from one chipper and a warehouse???

No, I'm arguing that it is absolutely no different

No you aren't. You have been and continue to argue that the Mater site was better, bigger, stronger, faster etc. Not sure why you are so worked up if they are the same?

Postponed, but still needed and likely to proceed before any expansion is needed

.
They have been talking about closing Mountjoy for years I would not hold my breath.

However, Guinness not needing space at James Gate is, however, cancelled.

Did I or did I not suggest landswaps??

I'm generally not on a hospital trolley at the airport. Ryanair don't like them.

But a 600m stroll is not excessive in your view, I thought we were expanding into Mountjoy, a similar distance.

I don't consider it to be an eyesore at all.

ABP disagree with you.

They were the main actual reasons behind the squeals and screams from the majority of protesters to the Mater site. Your protests are based on even worse grounds.

ABP disagree with you. This is getting repetitive.

Fact.

Yes, the green line is the worst place in the world ever. Fact.

So you're willing to add another 2 to 3 years (minimum) delay and significant further cost, just to get a site you think will look nicer? Dear god.

No, the team and Govt were so adamant about the Mater site, despite being repeately told it was the wrong place. The fact they didn't listen cost 2-3 years delay and 70 million.

The Mater wasn't visible from "half of Dublin" either.

Forgive my hyperbole, but it was one mother****in ugly pile of shit you have to admit.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

The James' submission suggests that it will be 108k sq m. hospital EXACTLY the same size as the Mater proposal and also deliver a 40k sq m. Maternity hospital.

So smaller, meaning the same size?

Same size on a smaller site. So serious compromises will have to be made as goes height, floor pan shapes, etc.

Why are you continuing to bang on about floor space now when you were originally arguing about being "shoehorned" on to too small a site? Is it because you finally read the report?

MadsL wrote: »

Objectively, rationally, every which way, James' has better transport links.

Its road access is significantly inferior. No bus lanes from most directions, main access routes locked for 6-8 hours a day.

MadsL wrote: »

The James' proposal would deliver 1500 new parking spaces compared to the 970 in the Mater site.

And currently there's significantly more parking problems there, there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem.

MadsL wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is in NAMA - just build it and gift it to the nation ffs.

Money required to build it too.

MadsL wrote: »

Gold Star

You were the one complaining about sarcasm earlier - more double standards eh?

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I suggest private owners apart from one chipper and a warehouse???

Apartments, Guinness, buildings on James St, Eircom's HQ...

MadsL wrote: »

No you aren't. You have been and continue to argue that the Mater site was better, bigger, stronger, faster etc. Not sure why you are so worked up if they are the same?

No, I'm arguing that people are trying to act as if James's is many times better when, clearly, it is not.

MadsL wrote: »

They have been talking about closing Mountjoy for years I would not hold my breath.

Expect the EU to require us to either close or seriously modify it shortly - I've forgotten the exact term for it, but the bucket toilets etc are an issue.

MadsL wrote: »

Did I or did I not suggest landswaps??

They're not going to build a second facility when they're quite specifically reducing the number of facilities they have.

MadsL wrote: »

But a 600m stroll is not excessive in your view, I thought we were expanding into Mountjoy, a similar distance.

Mountjoy is directly across the road from the Mater. Closer than the apartments you've suggested.

MadsL wrote: »

ABP disagree with you.

No, they think its too tall. Which the revised plan reduced.

MadsL wrote: »

ABP disagree with you. This is getting repetitive.

As is you claiming that reports say things that they don't and ABP judgements say things that they don't!

MadsL wrote: »

Yes, the green line is the worst place in the world ever. Fact.

The Red line has known, serious, antisocial behaviour issues which Veoila and the Guards are slowly trying to tackle. If you read Irish media you'd be well aware of this.

The green line does not. Neither do buses on the Dorset street corridor, despite your claims.

MadsL wrote: »

No, the team and Govt were so adamant about the Mater site, despite being repeately told it was the wrong place. The fact they didn't listen cost 2-3 years delay and 70 million.

Repeatedly told by people with serious vested interests, using arguments that they now are ignoring when another site picked that has the same problems. THIS is what my problem is with and THIS is what I'm arguing on.

The site was selected as the best by a skilled group and it was not rejected out of hand by any other group. It was not the "wrong" site except to seriously pissed off Crumlin/southside consultants.

If it was the "wrong site" for the reasons those objecting gave, James's would also be entirely wrong.

MadsL wrote: »

Forgive my hyperbole, but it was one mother****in ugly pile of shit you have to admit.

No, it was modern architecture which some people dislike. That is all. You are trying to force your opinion of design on everyone else AND projecting it on to ABP.

I find the James's proposal fairly bland bordering on ugly, and can guarantee it'll look absolutely dreadful after about five years of weathering. However, I'm not going to repeatedly insist that you must find it the same.

We also need to get over the obsession with keeping Dublin ridiculously low rise.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

Same size on a smaller site. So serious compromises will have to be made as goes height, floor pan shapes, etc.

Why are you continuing to bang on about floor space now when you were originally arguing about being "shoehorned" on to too small a site? Is it because you finally read the report?

You were the one disingenuously painting the James' site as smaller, when in fact the space delivered is the same. Wonder why you din't mention that?

Its road access is significantly inferior. No bus lanes from most directions, main access routes locked for 6-8 hours a day.

Oh please. Locked? This isn't 2006.

And currently there's significantly more parking problems there, there is no guarantee that this will solve the problem.

Oh, more "future" issues that you cannot quantify. 1500 is more than 970 last time I looked.

Money required to build it too.

Less than required to rehouse Mountjoy.

You were the one complaining about sarcasm earlier - more double standards eh?

Replying to your sarcasm with sarcasm, my bad. :rolleyes:

Apartments, Guinness, buildings on James St, Eircom's HQ...

All potentials, not part of the proposal.

No, I'm arguing that people are trying to act as if James's is many times better when, clearly, it is not.

No. You are pretty much throwing your toys out of your pram whilst trying to suggest you think the sites are the same.

Expect the EU to require us to either close or seriously modify it shortly - I've forgotten the exact term for it, but the bucket toilets etc are an issue.

As it stands it is not in the equation though is it?

They're not going to build a second facility when they're quite specifically reducing the number of facilities they have.

Go look at that "facility" sometime. It's a bunch of old sheds and a lorry park.

Mountjoy is directly across the road from the Mater. Closer than the apartments you've suggested.

Are you going to push patients across a road?
How long a tunnel is acceptable? 50m 100m? but not 600m?

No, they think its too tall. Which the revised plan reduced.

ABP most certainly did not say it was too tall What they actually said was:

Notwithstanding the general acceptability of the proposal in terms of medical co-location on this inner city hospital site, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its height, scale, form and mass, located on this elevated site, would result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure and would have a profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline.

As is you claiming that reports say things that they don't and ABP judgements say things that they don't!

They also said:

adversely affect, the existing scale and character of the historic city and the established character of the local area and would seriously detract from the setting and character of protected structures, streetscapes and areas of conservation value and, in particular, the vistas of O’Connell Street and North Great George’s Street.

Which was exactly my point about CONTEXT.

The Red line has known, serious, antisocial behaviour issues which Veoila and the Guards are slowly trying to tackle. If you read Irish media you'd be well aware of this.
The green line does not. Neither do buses on the Dorset street corridor, despite your claims.

I don't need to read Irish media, I lived and used it daily on it for almost six years. Seriously, wtf.

Repeatedly told by people with serious vested interests, using arguments that they now are ignoring when another site picked that has the same problems. THIS is what my problem is with and THIS is what I'm arguing on.

I may sell brakes, but me telling you to slow down on a bad bend is not a reason to ignore my advice. Nor should it excuse your negligence when you crash.

The site was selected as the best by a skilled group and it was not rejected out of hand by any other group. It was not the "wrong" site except to seriously pissed off Crumlin/southside consultants.

Have a read of the planning objections again.

If it was the "wrong site" for the reasons those objecting gave, James's would also be entirely wrong.
....and back to Greenfield -tis getting circular...

No, it was modern architecture which some people dislike. That is all. You are trying to force your opinion of design on everyone else AND projecting it on to ABP.

Read the APB decision.

I find the James's proposal fairly bland bordering on ugly, and can guarantee it'll look absolutely dreadful after about five years of weathering. However, I'm not going to repeatedly insist that you must find it the same.

It's a sketch, not the final design.

We also need to get over the obsession with keeping Dublin ridiculously low rise.

Because building landbanks and planning crazy highrise schemes worked SO well over the past few years.

L1011

MadsL wrote: »

You were the one disingenuously painting the James' site as smaller, when in fact the space delivered is the same. Wonder why you din't mention that?

Where did I ever say the space delivered will be less?

You were the one moaning about "shoehorned" until you realised that there'll be even more shoehorning going on here.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh please. Locked? This isn't 2006.

Try driving there now before making claims.

MadsL wrote: »

Oh, more "future" issues that you cannot quantify. 1500 is more than 970 last time I looked.

You're the one suggesting we move half of D8 in the future, so you're not really in a position to object here.

MadsL wrote: »

Less than required to rehouse Mountjoy.

Comparing something that needs to be done to something that doesn't isn't valid.

MadsL wrote: »

Replying to your sarcasm with sarcasm, my bad. :rolleyes:

One rule for some, another for you... again.

MadsL wrote: »

All potentials, not part of the proposal.

All part of your attempt to work around the site being constrained when you really, really want to act like its not. You were the one that went down that road.

MadsL wrote: »

No. You are pretty much throwing your toys out of your pram whilst trying to suggest you think the sites are the same.

You are clearly failing to read anything I write.

MadsL wrote: »

As it stands it is not in the equation though is it?

Its going to be replaced sooner or later. Far sooner than the buildings you want to subsume are.

MadsL wrote: »

Go look at that "facility" sometime. It's a bunch of old sheds and a lorry park.

Currently has major construction work going on and will continue to do so.

MadsL wrote: »

Are you going to push patients across a road?
How long a tunnel is acceptable? 50m 100m? but not 600m?

You wanted to push them across James St and the Luas line - more double standards.

MadsL wrote: »

ABP most certainly did not say it was too tall What they actually said was:

Yes, they said it was too tall. That's what "height" means, and the references to skyline. Their issues all come down to the height.

They never said it was too ugly - which is what you claimed.

MadsL wrote: »

They also said:

Which was exactly my point about CONTEXT.

And the James's proposal is just as out of context for its surrounds.

MadsL wrote: »

I don't need to read Irish media, I lived and used it daily on it for almost six years. Seriously, wtf.

Well, you appear to be completely unaware of the level of anti-sociali behaviour on the line.

MadsL wrote: »

I may sell brakes, but me telling you to slow down on a bad bend is not a reason to ignore my advice. Nor should it excuse your negligence when you crash.

In this case, when the objectors stopped objecting to the same problems, it became pretty clear their objections were invalid.

If your analogy was "I may sell brakes, but if I tell one person with worn pads to replace and not another, you should listen to me as if I'm entirely accurate in both cases". Which is exactly what the objectors are doing.

MadsL wrote: »

Have a read of the planning objections again.

The objections from vested interests? The objectors that haven't (yet anyway) objected to the same issues at another site?

MadsL wrote: »

If it was the "wrong site" for the reasons those objecting gave, James's would also be entirely wrong.
....and back to Greenfield -tis getting circular...

Its only circular because you keep trying to argue points when you have since admitted your objection is aesthetic!

MadsL wrote: »

Read the APB decision.

I did. Clearly you didn't until now.

MadsL wrote: »

It's a sketch, not the final design.

Means nothing. You're the one promoting the sketch design as being good on here.

MadsL wrote: »

Because building landbanks and planning crazy highrise schemes worked SO well over the past few years.

If we'd allowed high-rise in the city we likely wouldn't have had some much woeful quality development in suburbia.


I'm not going to bother replying to you at this stage - because you'll just change tack minorly and come back with the same small list of complaints, none of which are valid.

MadsL

MYOB wrote: »

I'm not going to bother replying to you at this stage - because you'll just change tack minorly and come back with the same small list of complaints, none of which are valid.

I'm going to stop multiquoting you and simply say this.

You had your shot at your precious Mater and spent (wasted) 70 million in the process. Despite being warned over and over that the site would not work with the scale and massing required it was bloodymindedly and politically championed and eventually shot down as was repeatedly warned would happen.

Now, you want to simply caricature those who warned about that the issues with the Mater site because you feel it vindicates those who made bad decisions.

Tell you what, why don't you object to the planning at James' when it comes up, maybe it will help your spleen?

Solair

Whatever about which was the correct site, why did the state bullishly push through the design process at a cost of €70 million when they clearly had not finalised the site selection?!

That is absolutely insane stuff.

That €70 million could have been spent on all sorts of things in the health budget, and would have probably saved some lives and made others less miserable.

Slashing €70m of the people's money down the toilet is simply not good enough.
There needs to be some accountability here.

This is an expensive infrastructural project that's going to cost a huge amount of money, yet it was dealt with in the same way as someone getting their bathroom repainted or something!

It's ridiculous nonsense and just not good enough at all.

If this happened in a company, there would be a lot of people being asked to clear their desks!

What we witnessed was utterly pathetic in-fighting between groups of vested interests in different hospitals, constituencies and money was just thrown away in the process with absolutely no accountability whatsoever.

You do not make decisions on vast projects after you've started the design process. It's just utter madness.

The IMF should be alerted to this kid of absolute gross waste of borrowed funds.

SPDUB

main access routes locked for 6-8 hours a day.

I live in the area and I can see that's not true on a day to day basis

Mountjoy is directly across the road from the Mater. Closer than the apartments you've suggested.

Not that much further

The Red line has known, serious, antisocial behaviour issues which Veoila and the Guards are slowly trying to tackle. If you read Irish media you'd be well aware of this.

Are you seriously using media reports as the basis for this comment .Not saying there are no problems but if I went by media reports about shootings , bombings in Crumlin/Drimnagh I wouldn't step outside my door

Because the HSE haven't got the cash to rent it?

I hope you aren't serious with this comment .

In the Dublin 12 area they have taken out space in at least 2 new locations in the last 18 months

As for my preferred location for the hospital I think it should be on a greenfield location

astrofool

Private companies spend a lot of money on projects that never get off the drawing board, I don't see why a government would be different. If ABP had said yes to the Mater, we'd be building it by now.

Niall Keane

Id imagine there will be huge abortive costs while departments and transport routes get jigged around to cope with the build. Of course this might lead to more projects that attempt to resolve the scattered / broken and thus costly nature of James other departments. It will be massively costly compared to a green field site but i guess will provide an excuse and "no choice" argument to fix the rest of the hospital. We might end up with something approaching coohesion and have less out of date prefabs inhabiting the grounds, but someone will certainly make a killing.

Id imagine that the limitations especially health related - dust, noise, vibration, during the build will require a massive amount of out of hours work, at twice the cost, but i guess everyone getting paid will be happy.

As transport problems occur and gain public interest im sure a few more infrastructural projects will spring up for the main contractor (cheaper as hes already set up) off site.

I wonder how many years proof this proposal is? Will we need to expand beyond possibility in 50 years? And go for a greenfield option then? Ah well, we wouldnt want to master plan now! Doesnt our economy thrive on wasted effort! Didnt the matter fiasco spread some cash around?

jmayo

Damien360 wrote: »

I still think it is wrong to put it in the city centre. It will get more and more congested over the years until the James site is slap bang in the middle of heavy congestion and they will have to re-think the site.

The Dublin Fire Brigade (which is also an ambulance service) did a report some years ago citing the mater as the worst choice for speedy access in emergencies. They felt that Tallaght or Blancharstown were best sites based purely on speed of access.

Citing ease of access for day patients is not the way to decide a site. Ease of access for emergnecy vehicles with critical patients should be considered.

Also, how many people with sick kids, older adults etc , take public transport to the hospital...none. There is no parking in that area. Staff currently park off-site and the place is stacked full of every drug user you can think of. Now add the public looking for spaces on the street and you have trouble.

Your logic is wasted around here where some posters have used things like proximity to a major railway station as a determining factor.

I would seriously ask those posters how many fooking people take their kids to hospital via public transport, for course of treatment never mind in an emergency ?

This plan is just the same as every other plan in this country.
We are planning for yesterday nevermind today or God forbid the future.

What was wrong with a green field site near one of the two current hospitals out near the M50, the major mulitlane artery route that surrounds the capital ?

Instead we are dumping the new childrens hospital into a constricted site in the middle of the capital where access will once again be an issue.
Of course that is not a worry for the likes of parents around the country and even around the capital who will be taking their cancer suffering kids to the hospital via public transport.
And sure won't they take their sick kids on the Luas in case of an emergency. :rolleyes:

Then to solve the issue of having a maternity hospital on site our so called National Maternity Hospital, whose current site is a complete fooking joke, could also be moved.
How many people here have used that maternity hospital ?
I would like to know if the primary posters here did and if they decided that public transport was the way to get a pregnant woman in labour to hospital.

We are leaving one of the major maternity hospitals in the city stuck in a city centre site where they have to add on bits and pieces onto roofs, etc on an already cramped site and access is a compete joke.
And by access I mean car access.
Traffic is a major problem and on site parking is non existent.
Ever try keeping a meter fed during labour ? :mad::mad:

And I challenge anyone to claim that public transport access to a maternity hospital is used in preference to road car access.

This country and it's public systems are governed by morons and worse still we have muppets who back them and their short termed cack eyes plans.

OMD

The big problem is that it was mistakenly decided that the most important criteria when building a children's hospital was that it should be co-located. Not only that co location was the most important factor but that it was more important than all other factors combined. However once that decision was made then St James's is the only rational option.

By the way to the guy (MYOB) saying the SJH site was only 1.3 hectares and thus less than the mater one, the actual James site is over 6 hectares and thus is twice the size of mater site

Anita Blow

jmayo wrote: »

Your logic is wasted around here where some posters have used things like proximity to a major railway station as a determining factor.

I would seriously ask those posters how many fooking people take their kids to hospital via public transport, for course of treatment never mind in an emergency ?

This plan is just the same as every other plan in this country.
We are planning for yesterday nevermind today or God forbid the future.

What was wrong with a green field site near one of the two current hospitals out near the M50, the major mulitlane artery route that surrounds the capital ?

Instead we are dumping the new childrens hospital into a constricted site in the middle of the capital where access will once again be an issue.
Of course that is not a worry for the likes of parents around the country and even around the capital who will be taking their cancer suffering kids to the hospital via public transport.
And sure won't they take their sick kids on the Luas in case of an emergency. :rolleyes:

Then to solve the issue of having a maternity hospital on site our so called National Maternity Hospital, whose current site is a complete fooking joke, could also be moved.
How many people here have used that maternity hospital ?
I would like to know if the primary posters here did and if they decided that public transport was the way to get a pregnant woman in labour to hospital.

We are leaving one of the major maternity hospitals in the city stuck in a city centre site where they have to add on bits and pieces onto roofs, etc on an already cramped site and access is a compete joke.
And by access I mean car access.
Traffic is a major problem and on site parking is non existent.
Ever try keeping a meter fed during labour ? :mad::mad:

And I challenge anyone to claim that public transport access to a maternity hospital is used in preference to road car access.

This country and it's public systems are governed by morons and worse still we have muppets who back them and their short termed cack eyes plans.

Ridiculous post. Do you actually think James' was chosen solely because it's near a railway station? Do you really think that posters here are only supporting it because it's near Heuston?
Here's why James' was chosen:

Co-location isn't an option. It's a necessity. NCH has to be located near the other primary hospitals of the country. Connolly in Blanch is not a Primary hospital and, ignoring all other facts, to locate it at Connolly would require massive investment to bring it up to standard.
Paediatric medicine requires a huge degree of specialisation and we simply do not have enough burns surgeons, or neurosurgeons etc. etc. to fully staff a hospital out in a greenfield site far away from the main hospitals in Dublin City. To put it into a practical situation, the time it takes for a paediatric burns victim, from receiving the injury to getting treated and stabilised, is critical in the survival rate of that child. St. James' is where the National Burns Unit is located so the time it takes for that child to be treated is minimal because the Burns Surgeon+Team etc. are on-site. In the case of a greenfield site, that child couldn't be treated until the Burns surgeon from James' makes his way out of the city to the NCH which is just completely impractical.
Each of the primary hospitals in Dublin have their own specialities and the NCH needs to be located near these to avail of these specialities.

The NCH is designed to be a teaching hospital. With all the Medical Universities of the region being located in (TCD, RCSI) or just outside (UCD), how do you propose undergraduate teaching takes place there?

While tri-location wasn't a necessity, it still needs to located near the Maternity hospitals of the region in case patients of these need urgent care.

The above are factors that can't be compromised on. You can argue about traffic problems all you want but at the end of the day it's a very small problem in comparison to any of the above being compromised and it is something which can be fixed. James' is a huge campus so more entrances can be added and surrounding roads can be upgraded.
I'm there 5 days a week and find the main entrance is consistently very quiet so see no reason why some upgrade work won't be able to compensate for the increased traffic that will come and for all the down-playing of public transport links it offers that you're going on with, I see a heck of a lot of people getting off the luas heading into the hospital.
The point of having public transport links to the hospital isn't that you're going to get everyone that's coming and going from surgery, or heading for cancer treatment, using the Luas. I doubt anyone would ever assert that that would happen. What Public Transport does do is alleviate the road traffic around the hospital.
A greenfield site with no rail or bus links means every single patient will be using the access road to that hospital, whether they're in for surgery or just going in for a routine check-up, disease management etc.
James' with it's Luas and bus links means access roads are kept mostly for those going in for invasive treatment, while those in for chronic disease management, check-ups etc. generally use public transport instead of clogging up the roads.

jmayo

Anita Blow wrote: »

Ridiculous post. Do you actually think James' was chosen solely because it's near a railway station? Do you really think that posters here are only supporting it because it's near Heuston?
Here's why James' was chosen:

Did I ever say it was the only bloody reason ?
I said posters had used the merits of various railway stations as a determining factor.
Get it "a determining factor", not the only factor.

And if you read my post, my point is that it is time to move a huge chunk of our hospital infrastructure out of central Dublin.
My big point in that post is that something will have to be done about the current maternity hospitals in the centre of Dublin.
Why not start doing a complete job now.
Or would you like Hollis St to be shoehorned into James as well ?

Anita Blow wrote: »

Co-location isn't an option. It's a necessity. NCH has to be located near the other primary hospitals of the country. Connolly in Blanch is not a Primary hospital and, ignoring all other facts, to locate it at Connolly would require massive investment to bring it up to standard.


Paediatric medicine requires a huge degree of specialisation and we simply do not have enough burns surgeons, or neurosurgeons etc. etc. to fully staff a hospital out in a greenfield site far away from the main hospitals in Dublin City. To put it into a practical situation, the time it takes for a paediatric burns victim, from receiving the injury to getting treated and stabilised, is critical in the survival rate of that child. St. James' is where the National Burns Unit is located so the time it takes for that child to be treated is minimal because the Burns Surgeon+Team etc. are on-site. In the case of a greenfield site, that child couldn't be treated until the Burns surgeon from James' makes his way out of the city to the NCH which is just completely impractical.
Each of the primary hospitals in Dublin have their own specialities and the NCH needs to be located near these to avail of these specialities.

The NCH is designed to be a teaching hospital. With all the Medical Universities of the region being located in (TCD, RCSI) or just outside (UCD), how do you propose undergraduate teaching takes place there?

While tri-location wasn't a necessity, it still needs to located near the Maternity hospitals of the region in case patients of these need urgent care.

The above are factors that can't be compromised on. You can argue about traffic problems all you want but at the end of the day it's a very small problem in comparison to any of the above being compromised and it is something which can be fixed. James' is a huge campus so more entrances can be added and surrounding roads can be upgraded.
I'm there 5 days a week and find the main entrance is consistently very quiet so see no reason why some upgrade work won't be able to compensate for the increased traffic that will come and for all the down-playing of public transport links it offers that you're going on with, I see a heck of a lot of people getting off the luas heading into the hospital.

So really you are a vested interest in James getting this since you spend 5 days a week in James.
Do you work there ?
Let me guess the Mater was an awful site. :rolleyes:
BTW you do know that you need to travel on the roads before you ever get to an entrance.

Anita Blow wrote: »

The point of having public transport links to the hospital isn't that you're going to get everyone that's coming and going from surgery, or heading for cancer treatment, using the Luas. I doubt anyone would ever assert that that would happen. What Public Transport does do is alleviate the road traffic around the hospital.
A greenfield site with no rail or bus links means every single patient will be using the access road to that hospital, whether they're in for surgery or just going in for a routine check-up, disease management etc.
James' with it's Luas and bus links means access roads are kept mostly for those going in for invasive treatment, while those in for chronic disease management, check-ups etc. generally use public transport instead of clogging up the roads.

You forgetting one big thing here James caters for Dublin area and people in Dublin area can use public transport.
This is a NATIONAL Childrens hospital and you do know people will be travelling from all over the country not just Dublin.
Also most parts of the country have sh**e public transport links so a hell of a lot of those people will have no choice but to use private cars.
Most of those won't like dumping their cars at Red Cow Roundabout to take the lovely Luas from Tallaght with their kids.

Anita Blow

jmayo wrote: »

And if you read my post, my point is that it is time to move a huge chunk of our hospital infrastructure out of central Dublin.
My big point in that post is that something will have to be done about the current maternity hospitals in the centre of Dublin.
Why not start doing a complete job now.
Or would you like Hollis St to be shoehorned into James as well ?

While it would be great to have all our hospital infrastructure out of the city with great transport links, it's not going to happen for the foreseeable future. The fact is that all the primary hospitals are in the city so therefore the NCH has to be aswell.

jmayo wrote: »

So really you are a vested interest in James getting this since you spend 5 days a week in James.
Do you work there ?
Let me guess the Mater was an awful site. :rolleyes:
BTW you do know that you need to travel on the roads before you ever get to an entrance.

I'm not an employee so no I am not a vested interest. I am however someone who experiences first hand the benefits of James' location.
I would'n't have been against the Mater site if they had decided to go ahead with it, but it would have been an even more central location than James' and had worse traffic problems. James' is in a quite quiet part of the city.
Also I was speaking specifically about surrounding roads of the hospital. A lot of patients going in for a check-up or other small appointments currently take the Luas or Bus. They are not using the surrounding roads of James'. If there was no Luas there, you'd have all those people in separate cars accessing the hospital causing traffic problems. Without any public transport links like that, the roads surrounding the greenfield site hospital would be subject to a lot more road traffic.

jmayo wrote: »

You forgetting one big thing here James caters for Dublin area and people in Dublin area can use public transport.
This is a NATIONAL Childrens hospital and you do know people will be travelling from all over the country not just Dublin.
Also most parts of the country have sh**e public transport links so a hell of a lot of those people will have no choice but to use private cars.
Most of those won't like dumping their cars at Red Cow Roundabout to take the lovely Luas from Tallaght with their kids.

40% of the population live in the Greater Dublin Area so a Dublin location for the hospital is more than justified. As the capital it also has the best transport links, whether that's public transport, or road links from most parts of the country.

If it's such a bad idea, how do you realistically propose a greenfield site outside of the city works and addresses the requirement of it being co-located and within distance of the Medical Universities? Keeping in mind that "we should start to move hospitals out of the city" is an ideal and a complete moot point because it would take decades due to the huge cost of it, and in the meantime we'd have a National Childrens Hospital miles from any of the specialist hospitals that are all located in the city.

MadsL

jmayo wrote: »

my point is that it is time to move a huge chunk of our hospital infrastructure out of central Dublin.

Do you also expect that delivered by 2016 as well? With the level of expertise built up as a major teaching hospital?

Solair

With the amount of argument, fighting and nonsense that went on and the money wasted, it might have made as much sense to build it at CUH and setup a helicopter link for patients from the northern half of the country.

I find it absolutely infuriating that so much money was spent when they clearly hadn't finalised the site selection.

This is an example of the worst possible way to make decisions on public infrastructure!

I wouldn't be surprised if the project gets long fingered or scrapped in favour of upgrades to existing facilities. The money is running out in the department of health with huge HSE overruns