Laminations wrote: » The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care
Laminations wrote: » It's more logical if you understand what I said. They have no expertise in urban planning or conservation, there are no architects on the board, that as well as the drivel developments they presided over during the boom when they supposedly had that expertise makes them incompetent. Remind me how architects have expertise in planning again. That's like saying there are no solicitors in the Supreme Court? Apologies if you are an architect, but architects are fundamentally technicians, very rarely an artist but mostly a technician. ABP currently has no architects, awaiting new appointments. That is true. However Angela Tunney was appointed to the Board on the 10th March, 2000. She was ended her five year term on 6th November, 2011. She is a graduate of U.C.D. holding a Bachelor of Architecture degree and a Masters in Regional and Urban Planning. She has worked as an architect in Germany and England for six years. Joining Aer Rianta in 1991, she has worked in an architectural and project management capacity prior to her appointment to the Board.Karl Kent was appointed to the Board on the 1st January, 2002. He was reappointed for a five year term until 31st December, 2011. He qualified in architecture (B.Arch) and town planning (Dip.T.P) in UCD and has a post-graduate diploma in Environmental Impact Assessment Management and a Master's in Urban and Building Conservation from the same institution. He is a member of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and of the Irish Planning Institute. After working for some years as an architect in both the private and public sectors, he joined the local authority planning service before joining the Board's staff in 1989. He was a Senior Planning Inspector in the Board until his appointment as a Board member. To say that ABP has no expertise in urban planning is, frankly, absolutely laughable. See my comments on the makeup of the board below. Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline. Hmm. Did you once have a job writing estate agent copy? You are aware then that ABP granted permission for this? You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree. No, I haven't claimed the project is ridiculous, you have claimed it is viable, and expect us to agree. This is why we have ABP to arbitrate. ABP have decided that it is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence Interesting point of view, but could you show me where these 'innovative modern architecture' projects that were proposed were located? Because An Taisce accepted the DEGW study in 2000 which pretty much meant that there were no submission against anything proposed in the Docklands and Heuston SQ areas. So where are all these award winning 'innovative modern architecture' projects? Alto Vetro? That it? I'll give you the Grand Canal Theatre, but that didn't exactly need 20 storeys did it? So, what project did ABP trample on that was going to be an 'innovative modern architecture'? You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view. Hmm..accuse me of rhetoric and then go to 'won't someone think of the children' argument... Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites. So at first 'they' don't want to go to the Northside, then 'they' are NIMBYs and then 'they' have vested interest in other sites. Care to be more specific, I'm having trouble tracking 'them' again. I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments. Or as we have seen recently, developers built the cheapest thing possible? Hence the mediocrity. Care to cite an example of something exciting ABP turned down? The redesign of Liberty Hall perhaps? Thrilling. Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like? Ohh, lets see. The Four Courts, the GPO, the Customs House, Trinity, Most of the Quays, O'Connell Street, Westmoreland St. Hardly 'featureless', it's not a desert. They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big! ...within the context in which it is placed. Not hard to grasp. They have not justified the negative impact comment. Can you quote the relevant paragraph of the Inspectors report you are referring to please. The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence. ABP is very qualified in planning, spatial planning, engineering. Until the end of last year there were two architects on the board. The Board consists of The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011 provide for the appointment of nine other members of the Board. Eight of the members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from among persons selected from four groups of organisations prescribed by regulations and representative of : Professions or occupations that relate to physical planning, engineering and architecture. Organisations concerned with economic development, the promotion and carrying out of development, the provision of infrastructure or the development of land or otherwise connected with the construction industry. Organisations representative of local government, farming and trade unions. Organisations representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and of amenities/voluntary bodies and bodies having charitable objects /rural and local community development, the promotion of the Irish language or the promotion of heritage, the arts and culture/bodies representative of people with disabilities / bodies representive of young people. The current board is light pending new appointments http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm Here is the regular makeup of the board up to the end of 2011http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members2.htm Heavy with planners as it should be. An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one Of course, I felt the Clarence to be a bad one. You have the option of a Judicial Review of the process if you have the appetite. thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity. On the contrary, mediocrity does get objected, like recent cr@p in Smithfield. monolithic boring architecture. However, 51 storeys of mediocrity gets especially objected. Funny how overscaled high-rise coincides with the end of property booms worldwide. So we get endless soulless ghost estates Which developers wanted to build and local authorities granted permission for, nothing to do with ABP. and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old. Example of 'sparkles' please. It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything. Funny that. How did that happen?? Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design, Because we have buildings with flair in Docklands and Heuston where they had a free hand to do what they wanted. Apparently they wanted shoeboxes and money. We got shoeboxes anyway. I guess even architects with flair have to listen to their clients budgets and profit objectives. I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries. Really, didn't think a small town in Wales was so cutting edge. You and ABP will choose mediocrity. I don't get to choose anything, only to make the same submissions you do. ABP get to say yay or nay depending on what is put before them, they don't design anything. In fact many appeals to ABP were made to avoid mediocrity. Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch. You are accusing who of what? I'm confused again. Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable. Dereliction clearance philosphy hmm, a good few developers seemed keen on that landbank and let buildings rot technique to try and get some apartments in. So if an area has been run down we should bulldoze and level it? Fan of 60s Brutalism perhaps? Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid. Hmm...so you are obliquely calling me stupid. We can argue over aesthetics but insults are a bit strong no? So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President! Now you are just restating the point of view in caricature. Not the most effective debating technique. The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments. Oh please :rolleyes:, I have lived in 'modern urban environments' all my life, in 4 different countries, but the pathetic excuse for 'landmark' buildings presented during the boom barely qualified. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a landmark building, the Mater design looked like a badly parked boat. Regardless of the other politics of the location you are surely not claiming it as world-class design. ROFL if so. Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle. And once again resorting to insult, well done. You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile. or even analogy :rolleyes: It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me. Grand, if it gets build within the next ten years I'll send you $50 for a pint. If it doesn't...care to take the bet? They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin. Yeah, because the live-the-dream, highest-rise, build as much as you can on credit worked out so great for everyone! The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care Oh, I'm sorry. i thought you wanted the best? How much was MN going to cost again?
Remind me how architects have expertise in planning again. That's like saying there are no solicitors in the Supreme Court? Apologies if you are an architect, but architects are fundamentally technicians, very rarely an artist but mostly a technician. ABP currently has no architects, awaiting new appointments. That is true. However Angela Tunney was appointed to the Board on the 10th March, 2000. She was ended her five year term on 6th November, 2011. She is a graduate of U.C.D. holding a Bachelor of Architecture degree and a Masters in Regional and Urban Planning. She has worked as an architect in Germany and England for six years. Joining Aer Rianta in 1991, she has worked in an architectural and project management capacity prior to her appointment to the Board.Karl Kent was appointed to the Board on the 1st January, 2002. He was reappointed for a five year term until 31st December, 2011. He qualified in architecture (B.Arch) and town planning (Dip.T.P) in UCD and has a post-graduate diploma in Environmental Impact Assessment Management and a Master's in Urban and Building Conservation from the same institution. He is a member of The Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland and of the Irish Planning Institute. After working for some years as an architect in both the private and public sectors, he joined the local authority planning service before joining the Board's staff in 1989. He was a Senior Planning Inspector in the Board until his appointment as a Board member. To say that ABP has no expertise in urban planning is, frankly, absolutely laughable. See my comments on the makeup of the board below. Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline. Hmm. Did you once have a job writing estate agent copy? You are aware then that ABP granted permission for this? You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree. No, I haven't claimed the project is ridiculous, you have claimed it is viable, and expect us to agree. This is why we have ABP to arbitrate. ABP have decided that it is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence Interesting point of view, but could you show me where these 'innovative modern architecture' projects that were proposed were located? Because An Taisce accepted the DEGW study in 2000 which pretty much meant that there were no submission against anything proposed in the Docklands and Heuston SQ areas. So where are all these award winning 'innovative modern architecture' projects? Alto Vetro? That it? I'll give you the Grand Canal Theatre, but that didn't exactly need 20 storeys did it? So, what project did ABP trample on that was going to be an 'innovative modern architecture'? You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view. Hmm..accuse me of rhetoric and then go to 'won't someone think of the children' argument... Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites. So at first 'they' don't want to go to the Northside, then 'they' are NIMBYs and then 'they' have vested interest in other sites. Care to be more specific, I'm having trouble tracking 'them' again. I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments. Or as we have seen recently, developers built the cheapest thing possible? Hence the mediocrity. Care to cite an example of something exciting ABP turned down? The redesign of Liberty Hall perhaps? Thrilling. Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like? Ohh, lets see. The Four Courts, the GPO, the Customs House, Trinity, Most of the Quays, O'Connell Street, Westmoreland St. Hardly 'featureless', it's not a desert. They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big! ...within the context in which it is placed. Not hard to grasp. They have not justified the negative impact comment. Can you quote the relevant paragraph of the Inspectors report you are referring to please. The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence. ABP is very qualified in planning, spatial planning, engineering. Until the end of last year there were two architects on the board. The Board consists of The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011 provide for the appointment of nine other members of the Board. Eight of the members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from among persons selected from four groups of organisations prescribed by regulations and representative of : Professions or occupations that relate to physical planning, engineering and architecture. Organisations concerned with economic development, the promotion and carrying out of development, the provision of infrastructure or the development of land or otherwise connected with the construction industry. Organisations representative of local government, farming and trade unions. Organisations representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and of amenities/voluntary bodies and bodies having charitable objects /rural and local community development, the promotion of the Irish language or the promotion of heritage, the arts and culture/bodies representative of people with disabilities / bodies representive of young people. The current board is light pending new appointments http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members.htm Here is the regular makeup of the board up to the end of 2011http://www.pleanala.ie/about/members2.htm Heavy with planners as it should be. An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one Of course, I felt the Clarence to be a bad one. You have the option of a Judicial Review of the process if you have the appetite. thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity. On the contrary, mediocrity does get objected, like recent cr@p in Smithfield. monolithic boring architecture. However, 51 storeys of mediocrity gets especially objected. Funny how overscaled high-rise coincides with the end of property booms worldwide. So we get endless soulless ghost estates Which developers wanted to build and local authorities granted permission for, nothing to do with ABP. and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old. Example of 'sparkles' please. It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything. Funny that. How did that happen?? Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design, Because we have buildings with flair in Docklands and Heuston where they had a free hand to do what they wanted. Apparently they wanted shoeboxes and money. We got shoeboxes anyway. I guess even architects with flair have to listen to their clients budgets and profit objectives. I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries. Really, didn't think a small town in Wales was so cutting edge. You and ABP will choose mediocrity. I don't get to choose anything, only to make the same submissions you do. ABP get to say yay or nay depending on what is put before them, they don't design anything. In fact many appeals to ABP were made to avoid mediocrity. Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch. You are accusing who of what? I'm confused again. Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable. Dereliction clearance philosphy hmm, a good few developers seemed keen on that landbank and let buildings rot technique to try and get some apartments in. So if an area has been run down we should bulldoze and level it? Fan of 60s Brutalism perhaps? Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid. Hmm...so you are obliquely calling me stupid. We can argue over aesthetics but insults are a bit strong no? So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President! Now you are just restating the point of view in caricature. Not the most effective debating technique. The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments. Oh please :rolleyes:, I have lived in 'modern urban environments' all my life, in 4 different countries, but the pathetic excuse for 'landmark' buildings presented during the boom barely qualified. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is a landmark building, the Mater design looked like a badly parked boat. Regardless of the other politics of the location you are surely not claiming it as world-class design. ROFL if so. Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle. And once again resorting to insult, well done. You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile. or even analogy :rolleyes: It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me. Grand, if it gets build within the next ten years I'll send you $50 for a pint. If it doesn't...care to take the bet? They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin. Yeah, because the live-the-dream, highest-rise, build as much as you can on credit worked out so great for everyone! The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care Oh, I'm sorry. i thought you wanted the best? How much was MN going to cost again?
Yes. Bold. Ambitious. Iconic. Aimed to be in top ten of world hotels. You'd fault them for aiming too high I suppose, spoiling the cherished and ancient Temple Bar skyline.
You talk about numerous ridiculous projects but neither you nor ABO have demonstrated that the NCH Mater project is ridiculous, you've just said it is and expect us to agree.
You can't have it both ways, the developer greed-driven bull**** happened because the loudmouths objected to innovative modern architecture and allowed the mediocre mundane bull**** pass by. All that **** happened with the ABP in existence
You're full of rhetoric and little more. What was slash and burn about this project? I prefer to care about children's medical care over concerns of a spoiled view.
Well they didn't care about the design of the hospital, they just wanted it elsewhere. The usual self-interests of NIMBYS, and many of the loudmouths were people with interests in other possible sites.
I was referring to ABP re the veto. And they are ridiculously conservative presiding over the droll development of a Dublin populated by samey monotonous unassuming mediocre developments.
Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like?
They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big!
They have not justified the negative impact comment.
The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence.
The Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2011 provide for the appointment of nine other members of the Board. Eight of the members are appointed by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government from among persons selected from four groups of organisations prescribed by regulations and representative of : Professions or occupations that relate to physical planning, engineering and architecture. Organisations concerned with economic development, the promotion and carrying out of development, the provision of infrastructure or the development of land or otherwise connected with the construction industry. Organisations representative of local government, farming and trade unions. Organisations representative of persons concerned with the protection and preservation of the environment and of amenities/voluntary bodies and bodies having charitable objects /rural and local community development, the promotion of the Irish language or the promotion of heritage, the arts and culture/bodies representative of people with disabilities / bodies representive of young people.
An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one
thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity.
So we get endless soulless ghost estates
and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old.
It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything.
Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design,
I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries.
You and ABP will choose mediocrity.
Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch.
Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable.
Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid.
So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President!
The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments.
Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle.
You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile.
It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me.
They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin.
The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care
Laminations wrote: » 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.
MadsL wrote: » Any judgements you disagree with make ABP incompetent? Interesting line of logic?
Did you support the U2 proposal for the Clarence Hotel by any chance?
The concept of anti-progress is rather dated Celtic Tiger speak for "we can't get what we want". Numerous ridiculous proposals that would now be in NAMA were objected to by the likes of these "uninformed loudmouths" and referred to ABP; they could actually see through the developer bullsh1t. If you want to see what 'developer bullsh1t' looks like then go to Sandyford or Belmayne or any of the other greed-driven crap around the country. These 'loudmouths' actually saved the country millions if not billions.
Regarding the northside, perhaps you would be suprised to see how many of these 'objectors' live on the Northside; they actually give a damn about it the city, unlike many of the slash and burn 'progressives'.
What 'vested interests' do you think these so-called 'loudmouths' have?
The 'loudmouths' have exactly the same right of input into the planning process as you do. There is no veto.
Do you hate Dublin in some way because it isn't New York?/QUOTE] Eh, nope. Embracing modern inspiring design isn't a 'New York' thing. We are discussing the skyline here. What about the uniform low rise featureless skyline do you like? Impact is one factor, so is scale, mass and context. They (ABP) said that big buildings aren't inherently bad, they can have a positive impact but this building is bad, according to they, because it is big! They have not justified the negative impact comment. So you don't think that there should be any right of appeal in the planning process? Interesting. Will you be disbanding the Supreme Court next? Regarding authority, of course they have authority - you may wish to read the various planning acts. The Supreme court is filled with qualified judges - see my point on incompetence. An ABP decision can be a bad decision, or an unjustified one - like this one Most ghost estates were not appealed to ABP (perhaps with the exception of developer appeals over levy costs or details) and regarding monotone development - ABP don't design buildings, they can only approve or reject applications thats because the loudmouths dont object to mediocrity. So we get endless soulless ghost estates and and sparkle of creativity is shouted down by people afraid of Dublin being anything but Georgian and old. . There doesn't exactly seem to be massive demand to buy in the Elysian in Cork, nor Hueston South Quarter in Dublin, despite all the hand wringing about not being allowed to build high-rise. It's the economy, stupid. There is little demand for anything. Given a choice between a building with flare and a shoebox production line bog standard paint by numbers design, I'll always choose the one rhayader pushes the boundaries. You and ABP will choose mediocrity. As to urban sprawl, zonings are the key there, as local authorities say the opportunity for development contributions from housing projects, they rezoned. Many of the objectors you are demonising warned of the consequences of this, but were damned as "anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths". Many local authorities, Meath for example, rezoned 61 times the amount needed for housing purposes. Yet any attempt to warn on the consequences was met with the same 'anti-progress' mantra. A Meath councillor famously called An Taisce "economic terrorists". Yes, anti-high rise and anti-sprawl. They were a compromising bunch. Because change for the sake of change is good, right? Conserving a skyline with no aesthetics in an area viewed as run down is good, right? Change is inevitable. They are used by the developer. And, do you really think that using technology to visualise an architectural drawing in context with the existing built environment is 'stupid'. To paraphrase Joe Pesci: Stupid, how? Stupid because like megalome showed the current skyline is ugly and where you are overwhelmed by a modern building peaking into the sky others see those montages as nice. Stupid because showing a picture which you then subjectively interpret as a monstrosity and then trying to use that subjective judgement as an argument is well.... stupid. Hmmm. Characterless. See what you mean. So the view of flags might be slightly obscured from one angle? What a disaster, quick someone call the President! Because I often get lost on the Northside, pesky no landmark land. The skyline needs, what was that Tiger-speak favourite? Ah yes, "punctuating". The fact that you see landmark buildings purely as navigational aides shows how disconnected you are from modern urban environments. Punctuated may have been a fad word but I prefer that approach than monotonous block of **** development. Seeing as you disagree with punctuation don't reply to me using it, and I'll be sure to avoid your indeterminable waffle. Frank McDonald in M50 two lane shocker? Really, wasn't aware of that...must ring the papers. You need to pay more attention to who I refer to and the use of simile. Hello. Newsflash. Metro North...Cancelled. (On hold if you believe the spin, which I don't because MN makes NO economic sense) It isn't cancelled. You not seeing economic value in it doesn't make that true, again go get qualified, do up a detailed report and get back to me. Sorry, who is 'they' again? They ate people against this project and others because they seem to audacious for them and don't fit their twee dream of Dublin. Because planning and building a purpose-designed hospital with transport links from the ground up on a 'brownfield' (I believe is the term) site next to the M50 is madness, because....??? The co-location is the most important aspect. You still haven't grasped that. The Mater plan is half a billion with numerous future public transport links. The M50 plan is 2 billion with no amenities, no public transport plans and no centrality to other specialised care
Impact is one factor, so is scale, mass and context.
So you don't think that there should be any right of appeal in the planning process? Interesting. Will you be disbanding the Supreme Court next? Regarding authority, of course they have authority - you may wish to read the various planning acts.
Most ghost estates were not appealed to ABP (perhaps with the exception of developer appeals over levy costs or details) and regarding monotone development - ABP don't design buildings, they can only approve or reject applications
. There doesn't exactly seem to be massive demand to buy in the Elysian in Cork, nor Hueston South Quarter in Dublin, despite all the hand wringing about not being allowed to build high-rise.
As to urban sprawl, zonings are the key there, as local authorities say the opportunity for development contributions from housing projects, they rezoned. Many of the objectors you are demonising warned of the consequences of this, but were damned as "anti-progress, vested interest, uninformed loud mouths". Many local authorities, Meath for example, rezoned 61 times the amount needed for housing purposes. Yet any attempt to warn on the consequences was met with the same 'anti-progress' mantra. A Meath councillor famously called An Taisce "economic terrorists".
Because change for the sake of change is good, right?
They are used by the developer. And, do you really think that using technology to visualise an architectural drawing in context with the existing built environment is 'stupid'. To paraphrase Joe Pesci: Stupid, how?
Hmmm. Characterless. See what you mean.
Because I often get lost on the Northside, pesky no landmark land. The skyline needs, what was that Tiger-speak favourite? Ah yes, "punctuating".
Frank McDonald in M50 two lane shocker? Really, wasn't aware of that...must ring the papers.
Hello. Newsflash. Metro North...Cancelled. (On hold if you believe the spin, which I don't because MN makes NO economic sense)
Sorry, who is 'they' again?
Because planning and building a purpose-designed hospital with transport links from the ground up on a 'brownfield' (I believe is the term) site next to the M50 is madness, because....???
whatstherush wrote: » Funny MadsL how you laud ABP's decision here yet you support protests against a company currently complying to ABP's decision in the north west of Mayo.
marknjb wrote: » i was unfortunete enough to have to drive my unconcious 4 year old to hospital with blood coming out his ears after a fall got him to hospital very quick and got him sedated to take pressure of his brain he came out of it okay in beaumont met another child who had suffered head injuries from a fall ambulance broke down bringing him to hospital he ended up brain damaged i will never forget his poor parents as we left the hospital with our lad and they there holding their lads hand the mother started to cry so in my humble opinion acess makes a big difference
WhatNowForUs? wrote: » 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.
Laminations wrote: » 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?
Laminations wrote: » Just to correct a statement I made above re civil servants -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. Same source as above. I now really question their authority on judgements for city skylines
Lamintations wrote: 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.
Lamintations wrote: 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.
marknjb wrote: » wouldnt like to have to take a seriously sick child into the mater the day of a big match in croke park
jmayo wrote: » 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.
pauld123 wrote: » 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.
pauld123 wrote: » 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?
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.
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.
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.
MadsL wrote: » A few renders for the forgetful...
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
The 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.
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.
20Cent wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
