Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]
Options
Comments
-
The objectors are the usual anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths who care more about having to travel to the northside of the city (the Mater area is congested mainly because of the Mater's current inadequate parking) than the health of children. They will veto any impact on Dublins skyline, as if we have a skyline to be proud of, and as if a building having impact is a bad thing. ABP should be disbanded, they have no authority, they are responsible for the urban sprawl, the ghost estates, the horrid monotone development we saw during the boom. They have no vision, they are afraid of change. The photo-montages they use are stupid, as if the view of sky above characterless rooftops on O'Connell street etc determines the character of that street. They cannot see how any hi-rise could improve the sky line and provide much needed landmarks. Frank McDonald is possible the biggest eejit among the objectors. They have the kind of foresight that made the m50 two lanes. No consideration of the public transport plan and contribution of the metro north in making this a good site. They comment on the plans with no idea of the details, and alternative suggestions of 'greenfield' sites which are daft.
A negative impact on the skyline?
What does that mean, how does one judge that? When midtown Manhattan was mid rise and the Empire State Building was suggested it was to tower above everything around it, ABP and these vested interest objectors would've said no.
The Mater would be over-developed?
Explain what exactly that means?
The site is too squashed!
What does that mean? The floor space is 108,467m², you cannot squeeze that into a smaller space
Where would we park?
nearly 1000 parking spaces will be provided. Why do you think that is not enough? How many do you think are necessary?
The greenfield site will have greenery!
Have these people ever been to this area of Dublin? There is a park across from the Mater, the canal is a short walk away, the Phoenix Park is a few minutes drive.
Have they looked at the plans? The gardens, courtyards and green play areas in the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland are approximately 7,500m², how much more do they want, why do you think this is not enough?
The area is dangerous!
Get over yourself.
A much needed Children's Hospital stopped by a bunch of incompetent conservative planners who believe the skyline in a city should be uninterrupted. The biggest infrastructural project in the state stopped by people who think it is too big for such a small location. We need to get over our obsession with building out rather than up.
The government should ignore ABP0 -
Like it or not Planning Permission has been refused.I don't like the thought of the Oireachtas overturning the decision as it sets a dangerous precedent.I think the findings from the Planners were reasonable.Surely, the architects of this Project should have had detailed meetings with Planners beforehand to ensure Approval!(or is that just for the little people)
Anyway,I think the best way forward is the Tallaght Site where there is lots of space and excellent transport links from Luas and roads to the whole country.I agree that the current skill mix of specialities is not sufficient but that can be rectified.There are also plans in place for the Coombe Hospital to relocate to this site.However there may also be a case for a smaller Paediatric A+E on the Temple St site to serve highly populated N Dublin and the North East
We need to get on with this asap and no plan is perfect0 -
Annabella1 wrote: »I think the findings from the Planners were reasonable.
What was reasonable about the decision?0 -
Could a simple phone call not have been made. "here buddy,I don't think this will get passed". it would have saved downwards of 35 million.0
-
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the decision....it is unfathomable that a large scale infrastructure project like this could be planned to this stage without being sure of securing PP. ABP should be involved from day one on a project of this scale and it should never happen that they do all this planning and then get a "REJECTED" letter back. This is where taxpayers money gets wasted folks-complete incompetence.0
-
Advertisement
-
Whatever about the rights and wrongs of the decision....it is unfathomable that a large scale infrastructure project like this could be planned to this stage without being sure of securing PP. ABP should be involved from day one on a project of this scale and it should never happen that they do all this planning and then get a "REJECTED" letter back. This is where taxpayers money gets wasted folks-complete incompetence.Frank McDonald wrote:In the view of An Bord Pleanála, echoing numerous objections made at the oral hearing last autumn and the findings of its own planning inspector, Una Crosse, this would “result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure” that would have a “profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline” and the northside Georgian core of the capital.
They were involved, but why should we listen to Una Crosse, why should we get her vision for the city? I could easily say ' the dominant, visually incongruous structure would have a profound positive impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline'. Since when has this 'northside Georgian core' even been cared about? The area is run down, it is not a tourist hub, it does not have a beautiful skyline worthy of conservation. The aesthetic preferences of Una Crosse and her civil servant unaccountables shouldn't trump the need for this Hospital.
Descriptions of it as gargantuan, grotesque, an edifice, are subjective and belie the distain of the commentators towards the site moreso than the building. You could just as easily call it a landmark, distinctive, a cultural icon - words used to describe the Empire State which pierced the skyline and could have similarly been called a monstrosity for its ambitious size.0 -
THE HEIGHT, bulk, scale and mass of the proposed children’s hospital of Ireland on the already elevated Mater site in Dublin “would have a profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline”, according to An Bord Pleanála.
In what An Taisce described as “one of the most significant planning decisions in its history”, the board refused permission for the €650 million scheme, saying it would result in a “dominant, visually incongruous structure” in the northside Georgian core.This would contravene the Dublin City Development Plan (2011-2017), which “seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city”.The limited site area available at the Mater to accommodate the hospital’s substantial floor of 100,000sq m (1,076,400sq ft) had resulted in a building of “very significant” bulk and height, including a 164m-long ward block, rising to 74m above ground.
Notwithstanding its design quality, this would “adversely affect” the area and “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”.Although An Bord Pleanála referred to the “general acceptability of the proposal in terms of medical co-location on this inner-city hospital site”, the project “would constitute overdevelopment of the site . . . having regard to the site masterplan for the Mater campus submitted with this application”.
The board – now reduced to just four members – considered the matter at five meetings and made its decision to refuse by three votes to one, saying the proposed scheme “would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area” for the reasons already given.However, it did not agree with senior planning inspector Una Crosse, who presided at an oral hearing last autumn, that the hospital would contravene Dublin City Council’s Phibsborough-Mountjoy Local Area Plan (LAP) or that the provision of off-street car parking on the site was inadequate.At the end of her 132-page report, Ms Crosse concluded that the application before the board was “the culmination of a process where the consideration of the impacts on the receiving environment have been second to clinical requirements”, and that this was “the crux of the issue”.
She argued that the architects (O’Connell Mahon) had taken just one element of the LAP – its allowance for a building of “exceptional height” to accommodate the children’s hospital – and applied it right across the site “in order to provide for the clinical requirements of the proposed facility”.Ms Crosse also noted that there would be “little change in the visual impact of the proposal should the board decide to remove two floors . . . In addition to not solving the visual impact of the problem, removing floors would militate, in my opinion, against the provision of a suitable facility.”Even the environmental impact statement submitted by the applicants had shown an “adverse impact on the internationally significant St George’s Church of the highest order”, and she believed that such impacts would “negatively affect” Dublin’s candidacy as a Unesco World Heritage Site.Referring to traffic issues, Ms Crosse said the applicants’ assumption that only 13 per cent of the hospital’s staff would travel to work by car was “unrealistic and without adequate foundation”, as 36 per cent of staff at the adjoining Mater hospital, “with limited on-site parking” used their cars.
She prefaced her conclusions by stating that the need for a children’s hospital was not in dispute. “I consider it essential that our country’s children are provided with a facility of exceptional standard, a centre of excellence”. It was just that this was “outweighed” by the proposal put forward.
An Bord Pleanála decided that the National Paediatric Hospital Development Board would have to pay a total of €128,437.50 as a “reasonable contribution” towards its own costs and those of others – including Dublin City Council and third-party objectors – in dealing with the application.Some €30 million has already been spent by the hospital board – mainly in fees to architects, engineers and other consultants or experts – in progressing its plans. The Government was prepared to allocate €200 million from the proceeds of a sale of the National Lottery to the hospital project.
source
What is her reasoning for nearly 1,000 off-street parking spaces being inadequate? ABP don't present arguments, they present statements, which would mean the exact opposite by just replacing one word.
would this, would that, her opinion, her belief - funny that she talks about assumptions without 'adequate foundation', it is a total assumption that this would negatively impact the skyline.0 -
Why don't we just abandon Dublin City Centre and leave it to rot? All this "move it to the M50" talk really bugs me: not everyone is in a position to own a car. The hospital's location should not be determined by "how easy is it to get to by car".
Sometimes the harder option is the right one: develop the Mater site and provide the quality public transport a capital city like Dublin actually needs anyway to get to it. We always seem to look for the easy option in Ireland, whcih is why the country is such a shambles probably.
All this talk of "if I have a screaming sick child in the back seat" is emotive and unlikely. If you have a seriously ill child you won't be taking the time to look for a parking space. You'll stop outside A&E and leave your car with the keys in the ignition as you run in with your child - you won't be looking for a pay and display machine ffs.
If we are talking about visiting chronically ill kids in hospital then we are back to the public transport debate.
I'm not talking about looking for parking I meant actually getting there. Getting through the city center in rushour, around Dorset St most days its very slow moving.0 -
I'm not talking about looking for parking I meant actually getting there. Getting through the city center in rushour, around Dorset St most days its very slow moving.
Because we all know that kids get sick en masse and need to be driven to hospital during rush hour.
Thousands of people brave the traffic and descend on the Point (O2) all at the same time and they do that just for a gig. People going to a hospital at different times of day for specialist care for their kids are not going to be put off if the trip happens to coincide with some rush hour traffic. Emergencies would involve ambulances which are used to traffic adults to the Mater and nobody talks about lack of access in these cases.0 -
Also the site is over what will be a metro station, just a short walk from Drumcondra train station and the proposed Phibsboro luas stop. If you value the 20mins journey time by car you save by having it on the outskirts of Dublin over providing the best care for your kids then I would guess you are in a minority
I mean you are presumably willing to sit in traffic for every other amenity you can find in the city, but not for the welfare of a child.0 -
Advertisement
-
Laminations wrote: »Also the site is over what will be a metro station, just a short walk from Drumcondra train station and the proposed Phibsboro luas stop. If you value the 20mins journey time by car you save by having it on the outskirts of Dublin over providing the best care for your kids then I would guess you are in a minority
I mean you are presumably willing to sit in traffic for every other amenity you can find in the city, but not for the welfare of a child.
Sticking a children s hospital in the middle of a big traffic bottleneck is incredibly dumb. Its only proposed to put it there because of Bertie.
Wouldn't be holding my breath about Metro North its been deferred already anyway. One developer is offering a free greenfield site, there must be Nama sites that would also be more suitable.0 -
Sticking a children s hospital in the middle of a big traffic bottleneck is incredibly dumb. Its only proposed to put it there because of Bertie.
Wouldn't be holding my breath about Metro North its been deferred already anyway. One developer is offering a free greenfield site, there must be Nama sites that would also be more suitable.
Bertie Smertie. The site has been independently judged to be the best. FG/Labour cabinet have concluded it is the best. Bertie may have pulled strings when he had power but to suggest it is being directed towards his constituency STILL for any other reason other than professional advice is obtuse. The Mater site is free, and it has an adult hospital there which the greenfield site does not have. Regarding metro, it is a necessary project, better to plan based on a public transport framework than plonk it on the outskirts because daddy doesn't like a 20min sit in traffic.
Do you travel into the city for gigs/shopping/restaurants? If the 'traffic' doesn't put you off for these frivolous ventures then it won't put you off when dropping off or visiting your kids in hospital.0 -
Just to correct a statement I made above re civil servants -Since its inception in 1977, a civil servant was also a member, but this ceased in 2009
source
I was wrong.
ABP board has recently been cut, salaries too. Maybe ABP are lashing back because they feel they are being targeted? Maybe this is the government reaping what it sows? You make ABP incompetent, you get incompetent decisions.One former board member said: “The concern is palpable. There is not just no architectural or urban design expertise, there isn’t even conservation expertise. And with the departure of long-serving board members, there has been a loss of corporate memory.”
Same source as above. I now really question their authority on judgements for city skylines0 -
Laminations wrote: »Bertie Smertie. The site has been independently judged to be the best. FG/Labour cabinet have concluded it is the best. Bertie may have pulled strings when he had power but to suggest it is being directed towards his constituency STILL for any other reason other than professional advice is obtuse. The Mater site is free, and it has an adult hospital there which the greenfield site does not have. Regarding metro, it is a necessary project, better to plan based on a public transport framework than plonk it on the outskirts because daddy doesn't like a 20min sit in traffic.
Do you travel into the city for gigs/shopping/restaurants? If the 'traffic' doesn't put you off for these frivolous ventures then it won't put you off when dropping off or visiting your kids in hospital.
How about just putting the thing somewhere away from traffic in the first place. Makes more sense. I live in the city center and wouldn't fancy driving there in an emergency. People from outside of Dublin having to drive into the city unnecessarily is crazy imo.0 -
oppenheimer1 wrote: »Preserving the Georgian core, but at what cost? The city must be useful for its current residents, not just a preserved relic of times past.
ESB head-quarters
0 -
How about just putting the thing somewhere away from traffic in the first place. Makes more sense. I live in the city center and wouldn't fancy driving there in an emergency. People from outside of Dublin having to drive into the city unnecessarily is crazy imo.
Because traffic isn't the primary concern. I see driving into the city as necessary because it is what is best medically for the kids. You value a more convenient location over the best possible care for kids. Rush hour maybe covers 4 hours of the day. And even during those hours you are exaggerating how bad the traffic is. AND in an emergency you use an ambulance.
Your argument amounts to:
What? Put my shoe on my foot? But I have to bend down to do that, its a pain, how about I stick it on my head and it will save me the hassle.The recent retirement of the previous long-serving chairman, the forthcoming retirement of the chief officer and the non-renewal of the terms of a number of existing board members, including the deputy chairman, gives rise to a real concern that there may be a loss of corporate memory at board level and within the management structure. This has the potential to impact upon decision-making by the board, particularly on complex cases, including strategic infrastructure development, and could leave it more vulnerable to successful legal challenge.
source
I say challenge APB. Or ignore them.0 -
Laminations wrote: »Bertie Smertie. The site has been independently judged to be the best. FG/Labour cabinet have concluded it is the best. Bertie may have pulled strings when he had power but to suggest it is being directed towards his constituency STILL for any other reason other than professional advice is obtuse. The Mater site is free, and it has an adult hospital there which the greenfield site does not have. Regarding metro, it is a necessary project, better to plan based on a public transport framework than plonk it on the outskirts because daddy doesn't like a 20min sit in traffic.
Do you travel into the city for gigs/shopping/restaurants? If the 'traffic' doesn't put you off for these frivolous ventures then it won't put you off when dropping off or visiting your kids in hospital.
Yes,the expert medical reports suggested that the Mater Site would be suitable but did anyone bother to ask ABP?? It is unbelievable that nobody had an inkling that this would have been refused by Planners.
Looks like the taxpayer have paid 35million for a set of Architectural Drawings which will never be built.
Time to look at a new site..I dont care where it's built as long as they get on with it0 -
Annabella1 wrote: »Yes,the expert medical reports suggested that the Mater Site would be suitable but did anyone bother to ask ABP?? It is unbelievable that nobody had an inkling that this would have been refused by Planners.
Looks like the taxpayer have paid 35million for a set of Architectural Drawings which will never be built.
Time to look at a new site..I dont care where it's built as long as they get on with it
How do you ask ABP to give you a 'heads up' on your plans before you have detailed plans? The planning guidelines and LAP allow for hi-rise in this area
http://www.irishtimes.com/focus/2012/abp/bordorder.pdf
Their report is ****e, no detailed argument, no depth. The 'reasons' for refusal are less than a pageThe proposed Children’s Hospital of Ireland, by its nature, requires a substantial floor area, in excess of 100,000 square metres, to accommodate the operational needs of the hospital. However, the footprint afforded to the proposed development on the Mater Campus, (circa 2 hectares), has resulted in a proposal for a very significant building in terms of bulk and height, including a 164 metre long ward block, rising to 74 metres above ground. 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. The proposed development would contravene policy SC18 of the Dublin City Development Plan, 2011-2017, which seeks to protect and enhance the skyline of the inner city and to ensure that all proposals for mid-rise and taller buildings make a positive contribution to the urban character of the city.
The red highlighted text is basically saying it is a big building. Well duh!
The green text is saying that it is 'considered' that it would have a 'negative' impact on the skyline.
And the blue text is saying, however, big buildings are okay if we consider them enhancing the skyline, if they have a 'positive' effect.
So 35m euro comes down to one word - negative, which they don't justify to any reasonable degree.
Like I've said above, it is equally legitimate to state with no reasoning - that the plan would result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure and would have a profound positive impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city skyline.
And they want over 100,000 euro for that piece of **** report?0 -
Hey, it is Ireland after all. Maybe we should vote in Fianna Fáil again so they can have the craic while getting it done.0
-
If anything, the Mater should have been moved some time ago and not expanded.0
-
Advertisement
-
A few renders for the forgetful...
It's also worth remembering that the Mater hasn't exactly got a beautiful look on the skyline as it is.
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.358146,-6.266091&spn=0.009502,0.017123&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=53.358007,-6.265618&panoid=GnRLcezTuRA8NmeB8TiNRA&cbp=12,351.93,,1,-0.68
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.359409,-6.263303&spn=0.001194,0.00214&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.359409,-6.263303&panoid=8IVhmq91U1W-XsyttbbQjQ&cbp=12,278.02,,0,8.35
http://maps.google.ie/maps?q=Eccles+Street,+Phibsborough,+Dublin&hl=en&ll=53.360214,-6.264836&spn=0.000538,0.00214&sll=53.401034,-8.307638&sspn=9.730867,17.53418&oq=eccles+stre&hnear=Eccles+St,+Phibsborough,+Dublin,+County+Dublin&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=53.360214,-6.264836&panoid=mL4s3ZFOGs-XRcz0u8ee_g&cbp=11,251.57,,0,-4.4
That new building is a definite improvement, whether it's the best design or not is another question.0 -
The architects are not allowed to have polite chats with the ABP panel. It is a crazy situation. Clearly you are correct there should have been ABP & Planner involvement throughout the process but sadly even for a €650m project the same is as for you building a house. It is a case of you submitting a proposal without any feedback and hoping they like it. What a waste of taxpayers money!!!!!!
All the indications in the in the oral hearing were that the ABP guys had no major objections. It was clearly implied that planning would be granted with a provision for 2-3 floor reduction.
That is why this was such a shock.0 -
For people who claim access is not an issue, I would like to remind them that this is a NATIONAL Childrens hospital, not just a hospital for the North Side of Dublin city.
Most people in this country travel by car because it is the only option.
If you are from 80 odd % of this country then you are probably going to travel to Dublin by car and siting the hospital in one of the most inaccessible areas of the city was a joke.
If anything the older hospitals in Dublin city should be moved.
Speaking from experience the likes of Hollis St, the National Maternity Hospital is a joke both in terms of location and the actual building.
So rather than show a modicum of forward thinking and move the new hospital out of the city centre to a green field site, we compound it by sticking it in a very constrained site with very little future proofing.
In fact build it out near Tallaght and then move Hollis St out to it.
How about that for a bit of fooking forward thinking.
Is the Mater site accesible by helicopter at the moment ?
Would a new hospital be accessible by helicopter ?
Is there a security implication with closeness to Mountjoy ?
EDIT:
just as update on xflyer's points.
Having lived on dublin south side and worked in Glasnevin I know the travel implicatiosn would also be there for people who are on South side of the city.Firstly the permission was not denied because of access. location was not an issue for ABP in terms of access.
People need to understand the truth. Access would be easier to get to Tallaght, that is true. But just getting to the hospital is not the only important issue. What happens when you get there is vitally important too.
If you are not in a hurry then an increase in access time of approximately 30 minutes is hardly a critical factor. If you are in a hurry then you are in an ambulance and the difference is actually very little. Parking and access are only really issues for non time-critical journeys and visitors.
So ambulances don't get stuck in city centre traffic ?
Parking is important if you have driven up from the country and have to stay overnight with your sick child.
So would the provision of some form of residential accomodation for parents, etc.
Ehh where is the maternity hospital beside it ?Please, in your concerns about parking do not forget that the chance of saving a critical child's life is based on the standard of treatment. Would you really rather have easy parking and lower standard of treatment, than a bit of delay getting to a hospital to visit a seriously ill child who, when you get there, is receiving the best care available anywhere in Europe?
BTW it is just not people visiting children who need access and parking.
Ask anyone who has ever had to visit the mater for work what parking is like.
The chances of anyone in this country getting the best standard of care in Europe from a public hospital no matter where it is would not be great.
Trust me on that.Laminations wrote: »Because we all know that kids get sick en masse and need to be driven to hospital during rush hour.
Thousands of people brave the traffic and descend on the Point (O2) all at the same time and they do that just for a gig. People going to a hospital at different times of day for specialist care for their kids are not going to be put off if the trip happens to coincide with some rush hour traffic. Emergencies would involve ambulances which are used to traffic adults to the Mater and nobody talks about lack of access in these cases.
Let me guess you don't have kids or at least have never had them in the car whilst they are sick.
Normally you are one of the more sane posters around her, but FFS comparing adults driving to a gig at the O2 to driving with a child/children who are not well to a hospital.
If they were bloody well they would not be going to a hospital.
And you are not probably going to get an ambulance unless it is a huge emergency.
And once again I remind all the bleedin Dubs around here this hospital is supposed to be accessible to the entire country.
Yeah take 3 hours to drive the kids from Mayo to Lucan and another 1.5 hours to drive to the Mater.Laminations wrote: »Bertie Smertie. The site has been independently judged to be the best. FG/Labour cabinet have concluded it is the best. Bertie may have pulled strings when he had power but to suggest it is being directed towards his constituency STILL for any other reason other than professional advice is obtuse. The Mater site is free, and it has an adult hospital there which the greenfield site does not have. Regarding metro, it is a necessary project, better to plan based on a public transport framework than plonk it on the outskirts because daddy doesn't like a 20min sit in traffic.
Yeah lets do a Tallaght housing estates (no shopping etc for years) and build at the Mater because there might be public transport links in 20 years.
Do you seriously fooking think that someone is going to drive from Kerry, Galway, Leitrim, Wexford, Longford, etc to park up somewhere to then stand in the cold with their children (who face it aren't well if they are going to hospital) waiting for a fooking Luas or somesuch ?Laminations wrote: »Do you travel into the city for gigs/shopping/restaurants? If the 'traffic' doesn't put you off for these frivolous ventures then it won't put you off when dropping off or visiting your kids in hospital.
Now you really are pi**ing me off.
Are you seriously comparing driving somewhere with sick children to going to a gig or out to eat ?0 -
Good points, JMayo. But even for Dubs. It's appallingly situated. Unless you live in the nearby flats!
Looking at the photos earlier on in this thread which I hadn't seen before. I was amazed. It looks like an alien spaceship has landed on Dublin. Instantly you can see how the design was compromised to make it fit on the site. Yet again the usual Irish bodge.0 -
It's quote shocking that this plan was ever allowed off the ground. It's actually largely a residential area. And, regardless of John Crown's views on the matter, Mountjoy won't be a prison for ever.
We can rest assured that none of the hospital's backers would ever have to live on the north side of this monstrosity (deprived of light in perpetuity) or deal with the wind eddies the building would cause in the surrounding residential streets.
Really, the Mater Hospital has done enough damage to Eccles St already.0 -
-
wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park0
-
@jmayo
Tallaght doesn't have the specialist care that the Mater does nor does it lie between specialist centres like Beaumont and St Vincent's.
And it's laughable that you'd be happy driving from Mayo to Tallaght (4hrs) but not an extra 20mins to a better located (medically speaking) site. And what do you mean by most inaccessible area of Dublin?
Also you don't drive from Mayo to the NCH in an emergency - you go to your nearest A&E and the child will be transferred by ambulance if necessary.
Your points on parking are confusing - the plans contained ample off-street parking and, I'm open to correction, but the NCH had family rooms in the plan.
I think some people who drive are panicked by high levels of traffic, one way systems and afraid to drive into Dublin city.
It has been chosen as best site by medical expects, I'll believe you about Tallaght when you gain relevant qualifications and produce a comprehensive report.
On the point of perpetual darkness for the residents of Phibsboro? Lol. Have you ever visited a modern city? Alien spaceship? Hate to see you in NYC or London, you'd brick yourself at the site of a big building.0 -
wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park
Do people think the NCH will be a fecking drop in centre for sick kids with cut fingers and runny noses?
I hate to have to go near the city for anything on the day of a big match - so should we move everything out to the outskirts?0 -
Advertisement
-
All I hear is drive drive drive. Why don't we set up a huge park and ride on the M50 and bus people in, im sure it would not be two hard for the planners to develope a high quality bus corridor.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement