Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Childrens' Hospital Planning Refusal [PR]

1246

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Pretending to know? I said that people who don't like it are generally anti-"high rise". I haven't seen one opinion on the building's design other than "monstrosity" and "huge" and "ugly" - so generally no opinion other than being against "big" buildings.

    No Sir, you said they are either "generally anti-"high rise" or they are against the site and criticise the building. So you classified anyone who disagrees with you as either hating tall buildings or hating the Mater site(is this tied into your earlier silly claims that everyone who disagrees with the Mater site is a suburbanite and hates Inner City Dublin?).

    You left no room for people who
    A)Dislike the design but have no problem with high rise and don't approve of the site.
    B)Dislike the design, have no problem with high rise and approve of the site.

    You claimed they don't exist.

    I happen to belong to A), I'm also a suburbanite who doesn't hate the inner city which again, according to you is seemingly impossible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    What is it you don't like about the design?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Tragedy wrote: »
    No Sir, you said they are either "generally anti-"high rise" or they are against the site and criticise the building. So you classified anyone who disagrees with you as either hating tall buildings or hating the Mater site(is this tied into your earlier silly claims that everyone who disagrees with the Mater site is a suburbanite and hates Inner City Dublin?).

    You left no room for people who
    A)Dislike the design but have no problem with high rise and don't approve of the site.
    B)Dislike the design, have no problem with high rise and approve of the site.

    You claimed they don't exist.

    I happen to belong to A), I'm also a suburbanite who doesn't hate the inner city which again, according to you is seemingly impossible.
    I didn't know that I was assigning categories. I have yet to see a person who has a good reason for disliking the building other than it being a "monstrosity" or dislikes the site for a good reason other than its location (in the city & "ruining the aesthetic of North Dublin").

    I don't think I ever said suburbanites "hate" the inner city either.

    Why be so hypersensitive about it? Can't you just come on here like a rational human being and say "I don't fit in that category... I don't like the design because ____ and the location because ____ and here's why ______ would be a better site"?
    Nope, instead you MUST get up to high do and act as if I'm assigning categories. Maybe deep breathing and some soothing rainforest music would help... :o:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    What is it you don't like about the design?
    Aesthetically, I just completely dislike it. From the Cruise Liner sitting on a rectangle, to the half arsed attempt at making the Cruise Liner look organic/streamlined, I just do find it to look like a melted plastic box sitting on a concrete plinth. I don't have an issue with it being high rise, but I would be curious to see the footprint of the 16story high section compared with the footprint of skyscrapers from the UK/USA.

    I can't comment on the design from a medical/operational perspective(can anyone, realistically?) but I do find the lack of a research centre and little provision for greenery/open spaces worrying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    16 story is not "high rise"

    There was quite a bit of "greenery/open spaces"

    262565_1.jpg?ts=1286898789WebChildrensHospitalTherapyGardenImage.jpg


    There was going to be a hospital school to facilitate undergraduate, postgraduate and continuing professional education facilities, a National Children's Research Centre and adjacent family housing provided by the Ronald McDonald House.


    The more I think about it, the more I am ashamed to be from Dublin.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I can't comment on the design from a medical/operational perspective(can anyone, realistically?) but I do find the lack of a research centre and little provision for greenery/open spaces worrying.

    Almost 450 beds in private single rooms with 13 new and child oriented operating theatres and onsite cardiac and neurosurgical critical care beds (62) with "soft-space" built into the site to allow for expansion post 2030 demand to over 500 beds.

    Hell of a lot better than the nothing we're going to have until 2020 at the absolute earliest now. :o


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    I was told in 2010 by the CMRF that the Children's Research Centre would be remaining in Crumlin as there wasn't space for it at the Mater site. A google shows little except an FAQ on the NCH site saying it would be included and a press release from Bill Tormey saying it wouldn't be.

    Can anyone provide something definitive either way?

    FS, I know about the specifications vis-a-vis beds, operating theatres, parking spaces etc. However I don't believe you, I or in all likelihood, anyone on boards is sufficiently knowledgeable to analyse them compared to a competing design - if you get my meaning.

    As for green spaces, I've seen the pictures too (:pac:) but I don't really think they're adequate, especially when one considers the recent headlines about winds+helicopter pad.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Tragedy wrote: »
    I was told in 2010 by the CMRF that the Children's Research Centre would be remaining in Crumlin as there wasn't space for it at the Mater site. A google shows little except an FAQ on the NCH site saying it would be included and a press release from Bill Tormey saying it wouldn't be.

    Can anyone provide something definitive either way?

    FS, I know about the specifications vis-a-vis beds, operating theatres, parking spaces etc. However I don't believe you, I or in all likelihood, anyone on boards is sufficiently knowledgeable to analyse them compared to a competing design - if you get my meaning.

    As for green spaces, I've seen the pictures too (:pac:) but I don't really think they're adequate, especially when one considers the recent headlines about winds+helicopter pad.
    It depends on what you mean; can all of these things be fit into a 4 floor sprawling greenfield site? Sure... but why?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Aesthetically, I just completely dislike it. From the Cruise Liner sitting on a rectangle, to the half arsed attempt at making the Cruise Liner look organic/streamlined, I just do find it to look like a melted plastic box sitting on a concrete plinth. I don't have an issue with it being high rise, but I would be curious to see the footprint of the 16story high section compared with the footprint of skyscrapers from the UK/USA.

    I can't comment on the design from a medical/operational perspective(can anyone, realistically?) but I do find the lack of a research centre and little provision for greenery/open spaces worrying.

    See, I'm the opposite to you.

    I love the boat-like shape to the building. I like how it rises above the rectangular shapes below, almost like a ship cresting a wave of "old" Dublin below.

    I would share your concerns on open spaces, but then taking your child to play in the 10th storey outdoor playground is pretty cool. I would like to see more ground level spaces though this is unlikely because of the site itself.

    What do you think of the Gherkin in London? :) I guess it's personal taste really.

    I should add however that I have no building or architectural training, or even close. I just like watching Grand Designs really.

    As for the operational or medical design, well tbh I haven't seen very much on this at all. I will take a look and see what I think.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    It depends on what you mean; can all of these things be fit into a 4 floor sprawling greenfield site? Sure... but why?

    Why must it be 4 floors? Crumlin was essentially a greenfield site when it was constructed and parts of that were 6 stories high.

    Again, I urge people to look at the design of the Central Manchester University Hospitals rather than falling back on stereotypes of "16 story cruise liner or a 4 floor sprawling monster" as being the only options available.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Tragedy wrote: »
    Why must it be 4 floors? Crumlin was essentially a greenfield site when it was constructed and parts of that were 6 stories high.

    Again, I urge people to look at the design of the Central Manchester University Hospitals rather than falling back on stereotypes of "16 story cruise liner or a 4 floor sprawling monster" as being the only options available.
    You know full well that if they put it on a greenfield it will be a maximum of 4 floors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    <snip>
    I actually quite like the Gherkin. Also share your sentiments on Grand Designs. Usually I hate most of the designs on it, but I enjoy that people are passionate enough to plan, design and build something they love.
    You know full well that if they put it on a greenfield it will be a maximum of 4 floors.
    Why? There are numerous factors when building a hospital as to what size, shape, layout and height it should be (for example Manchester Royal Infirmary had a design brief that included a maximum 7 minute travel time between each department for staff.).

    Why would I, or anyone else, know full well that the best design for a greenfield site would be 4 floors?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    You talking about this building Tragedy?

    BoulevardSept2010_10.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Talking about the whole complex (Adult, Maternity, Eye, Children's etc).

    This is another view of part of the children's hospital:
    2007%2007:28:41:916

    This is another view:
    MRI260308002.jpg?t=1206561417

    AFAIK other parts of the complex or more or less high rise depending on their operational requirements and design briefs.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I would call 6-7 floors low rise TBH. Pretty bland and unimaginative building. That's the usual shíte we build here though...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    I've asked some of this before, but;
    A. How do you operate a helicopter pad with the existing fleet at 70m above a capital city?
    B. How would these rooftop greenspaces be safe with active helicopter landings above them, particularly of the class required to operate this site?
    C. Why was this helipad put on the renders when it was not submitted in the plans?
    D. What is the point of a National hospital with no air ambulance access?

    262565_1.jpg?ts=1286898789


    To address the accusation above, I'm not anti-rise; I'm anti-high rise where the context and urban fabric does not support it. Docklands or Heuston are fine for high-rise in Dublin as respected by the DEGW study in 2000. For some reason DCC wanted to push for a definition of high-rise as 50m or more, when a 30-40m building in inner-city Dublin would be one of the highest around.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    I didn't claim it was high rise, I just showed it as an example of a hospital being built to a design brief and not to having only X floors.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    The highest parts on top of the oval are simply a green-roof, it's only the lower floor roofs that had park/green spaces. That's approximately the same hight as the current Mater and probably 8 floors below the helipad.

    As for the rest of the questions, I don't really know off the top of my head. I'd have to look into it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    My wife now works in Healthcare here in the US...
    The medical company she works for just this year built this hospital (on a greenfield) but there is a interesting tour here on the psychological effects of hospital building design.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    MadsL wrote: »
    I've asked some of this before, but;
    A. How do you operate a helicopter pad with the existing fleet at 70m above a capital city?
    B. How would these rooftop greenspaces be safe with active helicopter landings above them, particularly of the class required to operate this site?
    C. Why was this helipad put on the renders when it was not submitted in the plans?
    D. What is the point of a National hospital with no air ambulance access?
    .

    You can add why is day care situated in a different hospital, but I don't expect any answers here :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Just in case anyone is interested I'm currently reading this

    http://www.newchildrenshospitalplanningapplication.ie/documents/2ArchitecturalDesignStatementFINAL.pdf

    Which is the Architectural Design Statement that went in as part of the application. Interesting stuff, and it does touch on some of the things that you have brought up Tragedy, in relation to patient/staff/equipment flow and rationales for certain things being in certain places.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    rodento wrote: »
    You can add why is day care situated in a different hospital, but I don't expect any answers here :rolleyes:

    Is day care situated somewhere else?

    I've gotten this from their site, is it wrong?
    The key elements of the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland on Eccles Street are:

    445 beds (392 in-patient beds and 53 day care beds) to meet projected demand up to 2030;
    All in-patient rooms will be single rooms with an en-suite, with a specific facility for overnight in-room accommodation for parents
    Includes 62 critical care beds divided into intensive care and high dependency beds


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Just in case anyone is interested I'm currently reading this

    http://www.newchildrenshospitalplanningapplication.ie/documents/2ArchitecturalDesignStatementFINAL.pdf

    Which is the Architectural Design Statement that went in as part of the application. Interesting stuff, and it does touch on some of the things that you have brought up Tragedy, in relation to patient/staff/equipment flow and rationales for certain things being in certain places.


    Thank you for the link...first skim a couple of things stand out.

    1. Absolutely no reference to Air Ambulance access.
    2. Biomass Heating was ruled out because of 'delivery' concerns and 'spatial considerations around fuel storage'.
    3. Doesn't seem to be a whole lot on Design for infection control (am i missing another design statement somewhere?) sum total seems to be sensor taps...compare this with the intelligent design of the six surgery suites and supply room, and the individual infant/mother rooms at Rust Medical as posted above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    rodento wrote: »
    You can add why is day care situated in a different hospital, but I don't expect any answers here :rolleyes:

    Is day care situated somewhere else?

    I've gotten this from their site, is it wrong?
    The key elements of the new Children’s Hospital of Ireland on Eccles Street are:

    445 beds (392 in-patient beds and 53 day care beds) to meet projected demand up to 2030;
    All in-patient rooms will be single rooms with an en-suite, with a specific facility for overnight in-room accommodation for parents
    Includes 62 critical care beds divided into intensive care and high dependency beds
    But this was going to be a full children's hospital.
    Guess you look at this

    www.newchildrenshospital.ie/

    The Children's Hospital of Ireland will also include an ambulatory and urgent care centre at Tallaght which will provide out-patient, day-care and emergency care services primarily for families in the south-side of the city.

    If it's ment to be a one stop shop, why have parts of it else where, as day care is a very important aspect of a children's hospital


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    No matter where the hospital is located, they will need urgent care centres in massively populous suburbs like Tallaght.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    No matter where the hospital is located, they will need urgent care centres in massively populous suburbs like Tallaght.

    They have helicopter access at Tallaght too..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    MadsL wrote: »
    They have helicopter access at Tallaght too..
    AFAIK there was no helicopter access at the new children's site because they were putting it on the Mater site or else it's already on the new extension.

    I can't find the document now, but I remember that the helipad was not feasible on the 16th floor, but it was planned on the 9th floor of the Mater adult's hospital.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 120 ✭✭max 73


    How did a very important building such as this get refused yet liberty hall has been granted permission to demolish existing structure & go to 22 stories???

    I suspect that the new building will bland & devoid of real architecture (am open to correction)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    rodento wrote: »
    Guess you look at this

    www.newchildrenshospital.ie/

    The Children's Hospital of Ireland will also include an ambulatory and urgent care centre at Tallaght which will provide out-patient, day-care and emergency care services primarily for families in the south-side of the city.

    If it's ment to be a one stop shop, why have parts of it else where, as day care is a very important aspect of a children's hospital

    There is going to be two Day Care facilities as such. As I quoted above, there will be Day Care in the new hospital, and then outreach services in Tallaght.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    MadsL wrote: »
    Thank you for the link...first skim a couple of things stand out.

    1. Absolutely no reference to Air Ambulance access.
    2. Biomass Heating was ruled out because of 'delivery' concerns and 'spatial considerations around fuel storage'.
    3. Doesn't seem to be a whole lot on Design for infection control (am i missing another design statement somewhere?) sum total seems to be sensor taps...compare this with the intelligent design of the six surgery suites and supply room, and the individual infant/mother rooms at Rust Medical as posted above.

    I also didn't see anything about helo access either, might have missed it. It is pretty important though.

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

    Agree on Infection Control design in that plan. There might be another document, but I can say that I know someone who is heavily involved in this and in the creation of shared services so it is being looked at. In a lot of detail, in conjunction with the new Mater buildings.

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


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

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


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



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

    Could be just a personal thing on the stores thing. Just looked like a bit of a nightmare. My experience on different theatres tells me that trying to find a specific ortho screw in among all the urology hear would be a pain in the ass.

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    Could be just a personal thing on the stores thing. Just looked like a bit of a nightmare. My experience on different theatres tells me that trying to find a specific ortho screw in among all the urology hear would be a pain in the ass. .


    My take on the video was that they have a stores team (and I assume the computerized barcoding to flash up inventory and shelf location) who are airlocked out of the OR so the Surgical team dont have to go rooting around in the urology gear (pun intended :D)

    Biomass is just a nice to have really..no biggie.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    Sadly I think a stores/inventory team like that will be a bridge too far. Sure what would we use student nurses and doctors for if we had that? :)

    Seriously though, that sort of system would be good alright, in all but an emergency situation.

    There does appear to be quite a bit of thought going into minimising patient and visitor flow through clinical areas. I particularly like how the wards have the 8 room pods. Great idea from an infection control POV. I'd say your might agree when I say that an awful amount of the bugs in a hospital are carried in and/or spread by visitors.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,056 ✭✭✭Tragedy


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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭citycentre


    I really liked it. People who complain about how it looks are generally anti-"high rise" and wouldn't like anything they built. Either that or they are just against the site and criticise the building. It's a very modern and pretty building that will never be built in Ireland because there is some weird attachment to ugly buildings (see: the current extension being built onto the Mater)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


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

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

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


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

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

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

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

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

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭citycentre


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

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

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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭citycentre


    And moreso from someone who is supposed to be anti highrise, rather than this:

    scaled.jpg

    I would greatly prefer this:

    MATER.jpg

    Its still too bulky and could do with a bit more shaping but its basically the ward block split into three and stacked to make the building 32 storeys instead of creating a giant wall. Im not saying that this is what should go on the site (as clearly any building double the height of the current tallest building in the state would be asking for controversy), just that its an alternative approach that might have had a better chance of being in some way elegant, visually appealing and a truly impressive landmark than what was proposed.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    citycentre wrote: »
    You have the cheek to accuse me of contradicting myself? PMSL. Where do I mention height? Its the PROPORTION thats important! Try actually reading and absorbing before making knee jerk reactions!
    You're right. A high rise building that was wider than it was tall would look ridiculous. However, this is not high rise, it is at best medium rise. There are plenty of buildings around the world that are 16 floors that are wider than they are tall...


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    citycentre wrote: »
    And moreso from someone who is supposed to be anti highrise, rather than this:

    scaled.jpg

    I would greatly prefer this:

    MATER.jpg

    Its still too bulky and could do with a bit more shaping but its basically the ward block split into three and stacked to make the building 32 storeys instead of creating a giant wall. Im not saying that this is what should go on the site (as clearly any building double the height of the current tallest building in the state would be asking for controversy), just that its an alternative approach that might have had a better chance of being in some way elegant, visually appealing and a truly impressive landmark than what was proposed.
    I don't disagree. It's just ridiculous to call this building high rise. It's a low-rise building masquerading as a skyscraper. Build it up, you'll get people scrambling back to this design in no time.

    It's an anti high rise culture here. If you take that as a personal insult, that's up to you. I'm not saying it specifically to anyone nor have I - what I'm saying is (and what I've always said on this thread) is that GENERALLY the only real complaint is that of a vague anti-height issue. Your complaint may well be different, but it's unique as far as this thread and the general consensus has been.


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭citycentre


    I don't disagree. It's just ridiculous to call this building high rise. It's a low-rise building masquerading as a skyscraper. Build it up, you'll get people scrambling back to this design in no time.

    It's an anti high rise culture here. If you take that as a personal insult, that's up to you. I'm not saying it specifically to anyone nor have I - what I'm saying is (and what I've always said on this thread) is that GENERALLY the only real complaint is that of a vague anti-height issue. Your complaint may well be different, but it's unique as far as this thread and the general consensus has been.

    But what you don't seem to be getting is that its also about context. It IS high rise in the context of Dublin - Even at just the 16 storeys it would be the tallest building in Dublin by some distance, also sitting on one of the most elevated sites in the city. If its going to be so huge and so visible then it should at least be a thing of beauty in itself surely. Unfortunately you did attack me specifically, claiming that I am anti high rise and that I was somehow contradicting myself - seemingly without even reading my post! Hence the "cheek" comment - it was a bit cheeky in fairness! ;)

    I don't want to fall out with anyone over this, I just want to give a strong critique of what was proposed and some reasoning as to why I disliked it so much. There are so many other debates to be had about the location etc. but I feel that ABP deserve to be praised in this instance rather than complained about for preventing a poorly considered and, in my opinion, very badly proportioned building from going ahead unchallenged.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


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


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

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

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

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


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

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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


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

    You have advised supporters of high rise to make more noise at various meetings and consultations. Just out of interest, do appeals boards take into consideration the views of people who aren't against a proposal? For instance would my support cancel out your concerns? The impression I've always gotten was that public consultation was always an avenue for people to say no or suggest amendments rather than a forum to voice support.

    Just on another posters objection to the 'proportionality' of the proposal. Many buildings are wider than they are taller, and many are tall structures in and of themselves - stadia for example. In this very area, Croke Park rises above all else, is wider than it is taller but doesn't 'destroy the skyline'.

    Destroying the skyline really needs to have some objective measure because complaints that say this plan would ruin the vistas from many locations in the city don't stack up for me when I look at pictures like this

    Hospital6.jpg

    I really can't see how a building extending across maybe 5 degrees of visual angle can destroy the skyline. Although granted in that picture it is hard to see anything, I mean with the sun being blocked out and the street being in complete darkness....oh no that's not the case.

    People (and I'm saying people, not specifically people here) see big and new as bad. But imposing structures can become features of the skyline. This was evident when the Quinn building went up in Blanchardstown - local residents went mad. But I was at a photo expo years later in the Dublin CoCo offices in Blanchardstown on the theme of what Blanchardstown meant to the residents and guess what - the Quinn building featured extensively. It went from an eyesore to an integral part of the identity of the area. It isn't as conspicuous now with other developments around the centre there. Some buildings we can all agree are ugly - Hawkins House pops to mind, but seeing as this is like Marmite, I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics.And I'm not getting back into the aesthetics issues because pages ago I made it clear I disagree with MadsL et al.


    So on the other points:
    The day care facilities in Tallaght are a doubling up rather than an off-site 'extra'
    The green spaces are not on ground level but there are 7500sq ms across roof gardens.
    The helipad is possibly sited on the Adult hospital - unless that is not the case, that addresses that.
    The biomass issue was no biggie as you said yourself.

    Any other issues outstanding?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    You have advised supporters of high rise to make more noise at various meetings and consultations.

    That is everyone's right to do so, I would add duty but lets not go there.
    Just out of interest, do appeals boards take into consideration the views of people who aren't against a proposal? For instance would my support cancel out your concerns?

    3rd parties can make an observations, the board may or may not consider then. This is a planning decision based on objective criteria as spelled out in the Development Plan and Regional Spatial Planning guidelines
    The impression I've always gotten was that public consultation was always an avenue for people to say no or suggest amendments rather than a forum to voice support.

    Not the way DCC run it, they like to take a professional facilitator and craft 'approval' for the line they are taking. I actually takes a lot of work to have open discussions.
    Just on another posters objection to the 'proportionality' of the proposal. Many buildings are wider than they are taller, and many are tall structures in and of themselves - stadia for example. In this very area, Croke Park rises above all else, is wider than it is taller but doesn't 'destroy the skyline'.

    I'd agree with them on proportionality, I aslo note that 75% of archiseek readers also approved of the refusal, Stadiums we could devote a whole thread to.
    Destroying the skyline really needs to have some objective measure
    It does, read the development plan.

    http://www.dublincity.ie/Planning/DublinCityDevelopmentPlan/pages/citydevelopmentplan.aspx
    because complaints that say this plan would ruin the vistas from many locations in the city don't stack up for me when I look at pictures like this

    Sorry you feel that way, ABP disagree.

    Hospital6.jpg
    I really can't see how a building extending across maybe 5 degrees of visual angle can destroy the skyline.

    Like this, proximity tends to multiply the effect. Renders also tend to make a building 'prettier'.

    Hospital7.jpg
    Although granted in that picture it is hard to see anything, I mean with the sun being blocked out and the street being in complete darkness....oh no that's not the case.

    Are you trying to support your case by being ridiculous?
    People (and I'm saying people, not specifically people here) see big and new as bad.
    And others see old and heritage as old-fashioned.
    But imposing structures can become features of the skyline.
    This is imposing in the same way Stalin was 'authoritive'
    This was evident when the Quinn building went up in Blanchardstown - local residents went mad.

    11 metres shorter than what is proposed here, and a tiny fraction of the width.

    But I was at a photo expo years later in the Dublin CoCo offices in Blanchardstown on the theme of what Blanchardstown meant to the residents and guess what - the Quinn building featured extensively. It went from an eyesore to an integral part of the identity of the area. It isn't as conspicuous now with other developments around the centre there.
    That doesn't make it good building, architecturally it is crap. Just because there isn't much else worthy of note in blanchardstown doesn't make it the Chrysler building ffs.
    Some buildings we can all agree are ugly - Hawkins House pops to mind, but seeing as this is like Marmite, I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics.

    So I can come build a 150m 60s concrete brutalist block at the end of your street because "I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics." What nonsense.
    And I'm not getting back into the aesthetics issues because pages ago I made it clear I disagree with MadsL et al.
    See above/
    So on the other points:
    The day care facilities in Tallaght are a doubling up rather than an off-site 'extra'
    The green spaces are not on ground level but there are 7500sq ms across roof gardens.
    The helipad is possibly sited on the Adult hospital - unless that is not the case, that addresses that.
    The biomass issue was no biggie as you said yourself.

    Any other issues outstanding?


    The helicopter issue has not been resolved, I'm yet to see anything on that, why put a helipad so prominently on the published renders, very misleading.
    The roof gardens will 100% end up closed as H&S and insurance concerns, they never work.
    Traffic management and staff parking issues raised by ABP have not been addressed.

    Why are you so adamant about this site??


  • Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭citycentre


    Just on another posters objection to the 'proportionality' of the proposal. Many buildings are wider than they are taller, and many are tall structures in and of themselves - stadia for example. In this very area, Croke Park rises above all else, is wider than it is taller but doesn't 'destroy the skyline'.

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

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    MadsL wrote: »
    That is everyone's right to do so, I would add duty but lets not go there.
    3rd parties can make an observations, the board may or may not consider then. This is a planning decision based on objective criteria as spelled out in the Development Plan and Regional Spatial Planning guidelines
    Not the way DCC run it, they like to take a professional facilitator and craft 'approval' for the line they are taking. I actually takes a lot of work to have open discussions.

    I doubt my objections to your objections would be noted. You certainly aren't noting them here.
    I'd agree with them on proportionality, I aslo note that 75% of archiseek readers also approved of the refusal, Stadiums we could devote a whole thread to.

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

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

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

    So I can come build a 150m 60s concrete brutalist block at the end of your street because "I don't think it can be rejected based on aesthetics." What nonsense.

    Well YOU can't no. And maybe we'd all be in agreement about the ugliness of such a structure? Also it would depend on the purpose of such a building.
    The helicopter issue has not been resolved, I'm yet to see anything on that, why put a helipad so prominently on the published renders, very misleading.

    So you have been misled. Another poster has since said it is to be located on the roof of the Adult hospital.
    The roof gardens will 100% end up closed as H&S and insurance concerns, they never work.

    Never work? Proof? Because to disprove you I just need to find one example of a roof garden.....and they pretty much exist on top of every apartment complex built during the 'boom'.... so unless I missed a spate of roof garden closures?
    Traffic management and staff parking issues raised by ABP have not been addressed.

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

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

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


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement