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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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....???
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.
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: » 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
rodento wrote: » I can just imagine it, you have a very sick baby in the car, you have to park the car somewhere on the M50, try and catch a bus and hope the child doesn't die in the process. If you ever had a sick baby you would understand what an absolute nightmare this would be
Pete_Cavan wrote: » rodento wrote: » I can just imagine it, you have a very sick baby in the car, you have to park the car somewhere on the M50, try and catch a bus and hope the child doesn't die in the process. If you ever had a sick baby you would understand what an absolute nightmare this would be If you ever had a sick baby you would not drive him/her to Dublin without knowing whether they needed to go there, you would go to the nearest A&E for immediate treatment and have medical professionals determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital. The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals. The arguments about driving sick children from north west Donegal to the hospital on match days in Croke Park are irrelevant. The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking. Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital. Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50. A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.
Laminations wrote: » @madsL You are obviously not reading my posts. The point on architects and planning experts refers to two different professions, neither of which is on ABP. it is a former member who is criticising the make up of the board and lack of expertise - I've quoted from them, read back, carefully.
The fact that they allowed the Clarence, a project i agree with shows that my virw of ABP arent the result of disagreement. They took the unique element out of the Dublin North Quarter redesign. I'd accept protecting the Moore St buildings but a south facing sloped roof park would be 'unique'. You would see it as ridiculous folly.
It's not rhetoric to say think of the children. It's recognising priorities. Children vs. Skyline - children come first.
ABP said the site was inappropriate because of the buildings size - I've quote the piece from the report and linked the report. Please give a justification as to why? Please point out what about the skyline in that area is worth conserving
There are many nice buildings in the docklands but restrictions on height made the whole place uniform.
I think it was the Mayor Street development that was objected to by a neughbouring developer and upheld by ABP.
they demanded height reductions and the maintenance of the campshire wall.
We couldve seen more diverse buildings but people have a tendency to object to hi-rise and so it is avoided to ensure projects aren't stalled. Funnily these same people object to urban sprawl so I'm not sure where they expect buildings to go? Welcome to Dublins newest quarter - mole town!
Unless you can give a more than subjective aesthetic reason for NCH to go at Mater than you and the ABP have unjustified stances. It has been repeatedly shown as the best site medically. I'm sure you respect John Crowns opinion in that regard.
"The ideal location would be located on green space, provide for unfettered access, accommodate research and educational activity, provide sufficient space to ensure the aggregation of all patient-care services meeting current and future requirements, and be tri-located with an adult tertiary care and a maternity facility,"
Pete_Cavan wrote: » or if they need to be transferred to the National Childrens Hospital. The NCH is not somewhere for every sick or injured child in the country to be brought immediately. It is to house specialist treatments which would be too expensive to provide in more than one location, and benefit from specialist treatments offered in nearby adult hospitals. The arguments about driving sick children from north west Donegal to the hospital on match days in Croke Park are irrelevant. The majority of the children in the hospital will be staying there for a prolonged period of time so providing rooms for families to stay is more important than on street parking. Having shops/restaurants/hotels/amenities etc. within walking distance for the family to use is also very important as this would mean the family is not confined to the hospital. Also, the parents of children are not the only people who have to get to the hospital, the staff have to get there too. Sticking it on the side of the M50 will mean several hundred extra car parking spaces will need to be provided and will further clog up the M50. A site on the M50 is totally unsuitable because it would be surrounded by vast car parks, would be inaccessable to anyone without a car and would mean and you would need a car if you wanted to leave the site, even just for some food or a coffee.
Solair wrote: » Thornton Hall is the other example of money being burnt, plans being screwed up and the end result being no service is provided. Millions spent, site purchased and the whole thing collapsed leaving us with the same over-crowded, dangerous, insecure Victorian prisons in Dublin that we were trying to replace!
rodento wrote: » Going to repeat myself here, the plan are to close the three other childerns hospitals in Dublin. That means three childerns A&E's close to make way for one. Already we have lost A&E services in a lot of other adult hospitals, so your choice of where to take sick children is limited if you live in Dublin. The remaining A&E services hospitals don't really cater for young childern, they just are not suitable. I also don't understand how our current ambulance services will cope with calls from the greater Dublin area to transfer or pick up sick childern and bring them to one central location. We just don't have the ambulance service to do it with out effecting the over all call out rates for others.
NakedNNettles wrote: » 35 million I heard on the radio today is what they have spent so far. What the hell did they spend it all on?
Pete_Cavan wrote: » You do not have "of where to take sick children", you take them to the nearest A&E first. There, the doctors will determine if they can be treated there or if they need to be transferred, and if they do need to be transferred it may not be to the National Childrens Hospital. The NCH is not a one-stop-shop for treating every ill or injured child in the country, it is for treating children with serious long term illnesses and ensure all the expertise required is on one site. All those who oppose the Mater site do so based on the argument "What if I have to bring my child there, we live four hours away?" If you have to bring your child there, there will be a long diagnostic period to determine what is wrong with the child and where best to treat them. If you need to go to the NCH there will usually be weeks of tests and consultations, followed by a planning period to get a bed available for them before they are admitted. The vast majority of sick children will still be treated in their local general hospital or go elsewhere for specialist injuries (Beaumont for head injuries, St James for burns, etc.), only those with serious illnesses will go to the NCH. People are already planning on rushing their children to the NCH next time they have a runny nose or cut their knee, probably the same people who currently clog up A&E when they should be going to their GP.
MadsL wrote: » Hmmm...ball dropped methinks.
rodento wrote: » Pete just to remind youTHREE childerns A&E units will close in dublin to make way for the mater childerns hospital Loughlinstown hospital has had its A&E unit downgraded Vincints has a A&E but its overwhelmedCrumlan saved my babies life, she would have died if she had to travel further So I ask you are the other hospitals going to be given extra funds to cater for a increase in demand from seriously sick childern
