Dublin: New National Childrens Hospital - Start date end 2010

[thebig C]

Excellent post Dubshee (99)!!

I would love to discuss this topic more....perhaps we should create a separate thread?!

C

[JD47]

Originally Posted by thebig C

Excellent post Dubshee (99)!!

I would love to discuss this topic more....perhaps we should create a separate thread?!

C

Thats a great idea C. We should have a thread on what is happening to Dublin and how ABP and An Taisc are fucking(excuse my language) up this city.

[dubshee]

Originally Posted by thebig C

Excellent post Dubshee (99)!!

I would love to discuss this topic more....perhaps we should create a separate thread?!

C

Yes indeed thebig C - A good idea. Dublin´s shambles of a planning process most definitely deserves it´s own thread and there´s plenty to be discussed.

The Destruction of Dublin Mk II - The Sequel. How to ensure the continued destruction and carpet bombing of a city, through poor planning, corruption, hypocrisy and the ethos that, it´s better to build any old crap rather than a tall building.

So where shall we start eh?

[PeteC]

Originally Posted by thebig C

I have often asked myself the same question, am I just supporting various highrise proposals just for the sake of it?! To an extent, yes, I am. But, here is my reasoning;

Back in the early 1990s I would have been firmly in the anti-development camp. The only modern architecture was from the 1960s and 1970s and with a few exceptions was awful in terms of quality and effects on the City. Then with the advent of the Custom House area there was an appreciable improvment in quality and context. The development of the Docklands, I felt, presented a unique opportuinity. If you were interested in Dublin, it was no longer a choice of new vs old....we could have both. Much like La Defence in Paris and the EUR in Rome, the Docks provided a blank canvas to allow modern buildings which wouldn't have to be constrained by their historic neighbours. Moreover, the taller they soared the more they could soak up demand and thus ease the pressure to build in the historical areas of the City.

That is how it should have been, but no, An Taisce and a certain coterie of individuals had other ideas. They were not merely happy with objecting to Georgian and Victorian buildings being demolished, they didn't want and modern buildings to be visible from historic buildings. In objecting to Kevin Roches original Spencer Dock scheme certain groups wanted it refused on the basis that it "is so tall, when viewed from a distance people will think Spencer Dock is the centre of Dublin rather the O'Connell Street"!! In other words, they were no basing judgement on context or individual architectural quality but rather solely on height!

It has contined in this fashion ever since, with ABP actually aiding and and subscribing to this one particular viewpoint. The proof is in the fact that despite having one of the greatest building booms in European history only a handful of buildings over 10 floor were constructed. And, Liberty Hall far from being dwarfed, was only pushed into second place in 2010 and then by all of 3metres!!

Frequently, to arrive at such an outcome ABP have taken very arbitary approaches. For example, in numerous schemes, ABP ruled that 12/15/20 story elements must be omitted whilst in the very same scheme allowing hundreds of 4/5/6 story slab blocks to sail through planning. Likewise, they have often given buildings "crewcuts"....simply ruling that a 15 storey building proposal must be constructed minus the top 7 floors....with little regard that it was designed to be a 15 storey structure and culling floors would destroy its integrity. Architecture, design etc counted for nothing.....it was all about height!

Having seen this time and time again, buildings rejected solely on the basis of height, and, witnessing anybody who questioned this policy being arrogantly told that if ABP make a decision then THAT and that alone is proper planning. Seeing anybody who wanted the City to grow and develop being labled a Celtic Tiger wannabe property developer, and worst of all seeing anti-everythings like Richard Boyd Barrett building a career out of objecting to every development proposal....gradually I just began to support highrise on the basis that if some are built people will realise that they aren't the end of the world and who designed properly can actually be quite striking!

I agree with a lot of what you say. There are some areas, such as the Docklands and around Hueston Station, where highrise buildings should not just be allowed - they should be encouraged. Urban sprawl during the boom has been a huge problem for Dublin and will continue to cause problems for many years to come. Instead of having a thriving city centre with good transport links, we have a series of indistinguishable shopping centres and retail parks dotted along the M50.

The government has a great opportunity now to halt the decades of urban neglect in favour of urban development. Most people will agree that our planning laws need to be reviewed - during the Celtic Tiger vast housing estates were allowed to be built with inadequate basic services for the people who live in these houses - the government should use this as an excuse to redress the balance. As well as the public desire to reform planning laws, the new property tax to be introduced next year (what we had this year was an indiscriminate, arbitrary charge) presents another opportunity. A Land Value Tax should be introduced as it encourages efficient use of land and development high value land, while punishing landowners who let their sites fall into dereliction. This would increase densities in our cities and towns, while reducing urban sprawl, increasing sustainability and reducing the cost to the state of providing services.

Having said all that, I still think the original plans for the National Childrens Hospital are inappropriate for that location and ABPs decision to reject it is totally correct. The proposal also flies in the face of the Local Area Plan and would have precedent implications going forward. TBH I still see an element of "if An Taisce say its bad, then it must be good" in all of this.

Originally Posted by thebig C

As I stated above, using the existing magnificent Mater building just so a lower building can be accomodated highlights all thats wrong with the usual anti-development lobby. They constantly use historic buildings as an excuse as to why highrise can't be built....but are quite happy to have historic buildings gutted if it means no highrise construction.

The Mater building is a beautiful building externally, but internally not so much. Historic buildings should not be abandoned because it is a historic building and therefore has no modern use. Redeveloping the building internally would allow it to remain alive and with a purpose. The building would be better served by doing this instead of leaving it an empty relic and being dwarfed and overshadowed by the proposed hospital.

Originally Posted by thebig C

Hey PeteC....just thinking about it afterwards...my post above was intended as a general point ........didn't mean to have a dig at you

I didnt take it as a dig. You were just making your point, which you did more rationally and comprehensively than many internet posters.

[PeteC]

Originally Posted by JD47

Nice point C. I totally agree with you on that. They dont want highrise and want to keep Dublin historical but yet they would allow a hidtoric building be turned into a hospital. It does'nt make sense

It is not turning it into a hospital, it served as a hospital for more than 150 years, thats a pretty strong precedent!

[Catmalojin]

Originally Posted by PeteC

A Land Value Tax should be introduced as it encourages efficient use of land and development high value land, while punishing landowners who let their sites fall into dereliction. This would increase densities in our cities and towns, while reducing urban sprawl, increasing sustainability and reducing the cost to the state of providing services.

Off topic, but I agree with this 100%. I don't think a property tax based on the value of the property is wise, as it discourages people improving their homes and also can encourage building booms in inappropriate areas (for instance, councils giving planning permission for houses to built on it so they can increase their own revenue).

Not only does a Land Value Tax encourage the owner to use the land appropriately, I would imagine it would cause the government (local and national) to provide good services in areas to increase their own tax revenue. For instance, land near good public transport links (e.g. the Luas), schools and hospitals is valued higher simply because it is near such services. Should the government invest wisely in things like public transport, the value of the land itself will go up thus increasing their income. It's a win-win for both sides - the owner benefits from improved public services, and the government gets more revenue.

So definitely a Land Value Tax is the way to go, as it encourages appropriate use of land by the owner and planning of public services by the government.

[Catmalojin]

Another proposal...

Phoenix Park site proposed for National Children's Hospital
Updated: 17:16, Monday, 14 May 2012

An eight-acre site at the Phoenix Park Racecourse in Dublin has been put forward as a potential location for a new National Children's Hospital.

Dublin-based firm Flynn & O'Flaherty says the hospital could be built for €440m, more than €200m less than the proposed development at the Mater Hospital site.

The site has been offered free of charge by Flynn & O'Flaherty, which says its site has planning permission for up to nine storeys and the project could be completed by 2016.

The racecourse site is off the N3 and is 1km from the M50 interchange at Castleknock.

It also has a Quality Bus Corridor and train station beside it linking it to Connolly station and the Luas line.

However it would not be bi-located with an adult teaching hospital.

Last February, An Bord Pleanála rejected planning permission for the design for the new National Children's Hospital at the Mater Hospital.

In March, a review group was set up to advise the Government on its options.

Since then, some 15 locations in the Dublin area have been put forward as potential sites for the hospital.

The review group is due to report its findings at the end of this month.

The findings will then be brought before Cabinet.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0514/new...-hospital.html

[thebig C]

That site isn't much bigger then the current site at the Mater....without all the co-located facilities!

[Catmalojin]

And another one...

DIT site 'close to ideal' for hospital

FRANK McDONALD, Environment Editor

Tue, May 15, 2012

A PROPOSAL to locate the national children’s hospital on the extensive Grangegorman site in Dublin 7 is being backed by the city council’s former chief planning officer, Pat McDonnell.

Yesterday An Bord Pleanála approved a planning scheme for the 73-acre site under which most of it would be developed as a new campus for Dublin Institute of Technology to replace its existing colleges in the inner city.

Mr McDonnell, who served as chief planning officer for the city until he took early retirement in 2004, said it was “not too late to halt the current proposals to create yet another extensive leafy suburban academic campus” on the Grangegorman lands.

Instead, “a high-density urban design approach would allow for all future room for expansion of the national children’s hospital as well as a co-located maternity hospital and many other uses to regenerate this part of the city in a most useful and exciting way”.

Mr McDonnell said the Grangegorman site is “minutes from the Mater hospital, Rotunda Hospital, Luas, Heuston Station, St James’s Hospital, St Patrick’s Hospital and the Navan Road/N3/M3, [which] leads directly on to the M50”.

He said the distance across the UCD campus at Belfield “is equivalent to the enclosing distance of St James’s Hospital and Grangegorman”, while the Mater is much closer, fulfilling the “co-location” criterion in a campus arrangement.

Valerin O’Shea, who represented local residents objecting to the original plan to locate the children’s hospital on the Mater site, said Grangegorman, which is in public ownership through the Health Service Executive, “ticks all the boxes” in terms of location.

Ms O’Shea has submitted the latest alternative option for the €600 million children’s hospital project to the ministerial review group, warning any move by DIT to vacate its existing colleges would cause “significant dereliction” in the inner city.

“Residents of the Grangegorman area who raised serious objections to the Grangegorman Planning Scheme for the relocation of DIT have indicated to me that they would very much prefer a hospital use on the site,” she told The Irish Times.

In her submission to the review group, chaired by Dr Frank Dolphin, Ms O’Shea says Grangegorman “would easily accommodate” a paediatric hospital as well as a maternity hospital, associated research facilities and room for any expansion required in future.

Existing buildings on the site could also be used for other medical-related activity – daycare centres for occupational therapy, rehabilitation and physiotherapy, as well as centres for the Cystic Fibrosis Association, Alzheimer’s support groups and others.

By contrast, she says, the space identified on the Mater site for the children’s hospital and the maternity hospital intended to replace the Rotunda is about 2.04 hectares (less than five acres), which meant there would be “no possibility of expansion”.

“It is blatantly obvious that the Mater is not a fit site for the development of the national paediatric hospital,” Ms O’Shea says. “We have seen enough costly planning fiascos in this city – apart from the myriad empty office and apartment blocks of recent years.”

She says the children’s hospital in Melbourne is 1km away from the adult hospital and was stated by the 2006 McKinsey report to be “co-located” in a campus model. The Mater and Rotunda hospitals are “very much closer” to Grangegorman.

“It has been stated repeatedly that there is no ideal site for the children’s hospital, and while the Grangegorman site may not be absolutely perfect, I fully concur with the former Dublin city planning officer that it is as close to ideal as we could hope to find.

“Of equal planning merit is the argument that DIT, rather than moving to Grangegorman, should remain at their existing sites throughout the city,” Ms O’Shea says, adding that relocating them to a single site “would create significant dereliction” in the inner city.

© 2012 The Irish Times

[thebig C]

The politicians always get blamed for parish pump politics......but it seems the medical profession aren't averse to it either.......

All of these proposals smack of "please please Minister, put the hospital in my backyard...."..............as long as it low-rise, naturellement!!

[Catmalojin]

Meeting to take place over location of the new National Children's Hospital
Updated: 09:51, Monday, 8 October 2012

A meeting is expected to take place this week between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the Health Minister to consider options for the location for the new National Children's Hospital.

Health Minister Dr James Reilly will present an analysis of the issue and the main options.

If agreement is reached, a memo will be prepared for Cabinet and for a Government decision on the location.

It is understood that around four hospital locations are being considered.

The Mater Hospital, St James's Hospital, James Connolly Hospital and a site in north east Dublin called Belcamp.

The Dolphin Review group received 41 site submissions and presented its report on the options to the Minister on 8 June.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1008/new...-hospital.html

...

[Dvblvnia]

God, this saga-like development of the National Children's Hospital is deeply disheartening. The thread's title says the start date is "end 2010". Would that we and the nation's future were so lucky. It's end 2012 now and we still don't even have a site, never mind a plan with permission and funding ready to go. It's likely that this agreement will lead to another site besides the Mater being recommended which will mean we go back to square one in terms of progress of this project. Architects, surveyors, planners etc. will have to be employed, taking several years to bring about a new children's hospital which will take several years more being built. Also, considering James Reilly's reputation for picking locations for medical sites I wouldn't be surprised if Belcamp, which happens to be in the Minister's constituency, somehow becomes the recommended site.

[JD47]

The saga goes on.

[Catmalojin]

Colleges back site at Connolly for hospital

PAUL CULLEN, Health Correspondent

Sat, Oct 20, 2012

THE HEADS of Dublin City University, NUI Maynooth and the Royal College of Surgeons have formally given their support to Connolly hospital in Blanchardstown as the site of a new national children’s hospital.

With a Government decision on the project imminent, the three third-level colleges say that only the Connolly site offers a unique opportunity to develop a world-class medical innovation and research hub in Dublin.

Minister for Health James Reilly said a fortnight ago that he would be bringing proposals for the development of the new hospital to the Taoiseach and Tánaiste within 10 days. However, senior Government sources said last night that no such meeting had yet been scheduled and it now appeared unlikely that the issue would come before the Cabinet for decision next Tuesday.

With the choice of location expected to be made from a shortlist including Connolly, the Mater and St James’s Hospital, last-minute lobbying of the Government by the various interests is continuing.

In their statement DCU, NUI Maynooth and the RCSI said the Connolly site was adjacent to the M50 and N7 and had excellent road, rail and airport links.

They said with 350 acres available for development there was ample scope for future expansion and for the development of a major medical research and technology hub.

“This type of development will be supported by the existing co-location of IT and pharma companies in the area, such as Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Wyeth and Bristol Meyers Squibb,” said Prof Cathal Kelly, chief executive of RCSI, Prof Philip Nolan, president of NUI Maynooth, and Prof Brian McCraith, president of DCU.

This week a former medical director of Great Ormond Street children’s hospital in London warned the Government against siting the national children’s hospital in a greenfield location.

Prof Ian Hann said the proposed new hospital would not be able to deliver the best outcomes for children at a greenfield site or any location without the necessary range of back-up facilities.

The letter from Prof Hann was also signed by Barnardos chief executive Fergus Finlay, former Trinity College provost Tom Mitchell, former chancellor of the University of Limerick Miriam Hederman O’Brien and Children in Hospital Ireland chief executive Mary O’Connor.

The authors said they were not attached to any health provider but were informed about the issues.

Only the Mater hospital and St James’s Hospital bids would fulfil the conditions in the letter.

© 2012 The Irish Times

...

[Catmalojin]

Decision on site of children's hospital due in two weeks

MARIE O'HALLORAN

Wed, Oct 24, 2012


The Mater hospital: one of the main bidders for the children's hospital along with St James's and Connolly hospitals

A FINAL decision on the location of the new national children’s hospital will be taken within two weeks, Taoiseach Enda Kenny has told the Dáil.

He dismissed claims by Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin there had been a breakdown in trust between the coalition partners in the ongoing controversy about the site of the hospital.

Mr Martin’s allegation followed a report in the Irish Independent yesterday that Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore had bypassed Minister for Health James Reilly to investigate for himself the best site for the new hospital.

Mr Gilmore’s advisers met competing bidders to discuss the best location for the hospital.

Mr Martin said Mr Gilmore “is doing his own independent research into the preferred location” for the new hospital. He said the Tánaiste and his advisors were doing their own report and appeared to indicate they did not trust the Minister to make the right decision.

The Taoiseach insisted, however, he did not deal in “anonymous reports” and said the Government was considering one report only in deciding the location of the new hospital.

The Minister for Health commissioned an expert group to investigate and analyse all competing bids. The Dolphin group report made a recommendation for its preferred hospital in the document Dr Reilly received during the summer.

Mr Kenny said the decision on the hospital would be made in the next two to three weeks but later confirmed it would be announced within the next two weeks.

He insisted among heated exchanges that outside advice would not be considered. The Minister for Health would brief both the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste on the Dolphin report and its recommendations on the preferred site, which would then be brought to Cabinet for a decision.

Questioned later outside the House about bypassing the Minister, Mr Gilmore insisted there was no breakdown in trust between himself and Dr Reilly. He said there was nothing out of the ordinary in him making sure he was fully informed and briefed about the issue, for which the main bidders are St James’s, Connolly and the Mater hospitals.

In the Dáil, Mr Martin claimed the Tánaiste’s actions in “pursuing this independent track” further isolated Dr Reilly and undermined his role and position.

Mr Kenny said the Dolphin report was commissioned by the Minister and he “has been considering it for some time. Inevitably questions arise from elements of that.” But Mr Martin said it was not good enough for the Taoiseach to talk about “anonymous sources” because it was “clear as blue water where it is coming from. It came from the Labour Party.” The Fianna Fáil leader said it was an open secret the Minister had approached Beaumont Hospital to make a submission on the Belcamp site while other Ministers had openly promoted Blanchardstown.

He wanted the Taoiseach to ensure that party political considerations would not dictate the outcome.

Mr Kenny said the Government would make the best attempt it could at doing the right thing “in respect of the children of the country”.

He recalled “all of the politics that surrounded a predecessor of mine when he said ‘Oh and by the way you will have the children’s hospital here as well’. There was far too much politics involved in all of this.”

Mr Martin replied that there was no evidence to sustain that.

The Taoiseach said many questions had been asked about individual issues and “that is the process. It is a Government decision, a Government process. The Minister will bring his recommendations and Government will make its decision.”

Later outside the House the Tánaiste insisted there was no question of a lack of trust and the issue was about “making sure that we make the best decision in the interests of the public”.

© 2012 The Irish Times

Clarity sought on Children's Hospital plans
Updated: 08:12, Wednesday, 24 October 2012

The Government has sought further clarity on the planning implications for the proposed National Children's Hospital site.

Yesterday, Labour denied that an intervention from Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore had caused a further delay in the process.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny told the Dáil that a decision on the hospital was expected within a fortnight.

Former Dublin City Manager John Fitzgerald has denied that he is either carrying out a review of the hospital or has been asked to carry out a review of the hospital.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1024/nat...-hospital.html

...

[thebig C]

Christ, whilst I feel some of the criticism of Reilly is grossly unfair and pure media sensationalism I do feel that the delay in making a decision on the new site for the Childrens hospital is worthy of intense criticism.

I accept he was thrown a curve ball by ABP and that aside from Architecture nuts like ourselves everybody was going to pin the blame on Reilly, regardless of the shameful role of ABP. However, there has been by any definition an inordinate delay. The simplest course of action would have been to pass a Strategic Infrastructure Bill to bypass ABP. I genuinely shudder to think that we will now have to recommission the architects to do a complete redesign, because ABPs jihadist stance will ensure that nothing over 8 stories is proposed. Furthermore that new design, will have to jump through all the usual hoops that is planning in Ireland.....we could be talking at least an additional year!

C

[Dvblvnia]

Originally Posted by thebig C

Christ, whilst I feel some of the criticism of Reilly is grossly unfair and pure media sensationalism I do feel that the delay in making a decision on the new site for the Childrens hospital is worthy of intense criticism.

I accept he was thrown a curve ball by ABP and that aside from Architecture nuts like ourselves everybody was going to pin the blame on Reilly, regardless of the shameful role of ABP. However, there has been by any definition an inordinate delay. The simplest course of action would have been to pass a Strategic Infrastructure Bill to bypass ABP. I genuinely shudder to think that we will now have to recommission the architects to do a complete redesign, because ABPs jihadist stance will ensure that nothing over 8 stories is proposed. Furthermore that new design, will have to jump through all the usual hoops that is planning in Ireland.....we could be talking at least an additional year!

C

Exactly, and I really do wonder about the validity of ABP's decision, especially when it was largely on aesthetic and urban integrity grounds. They didn't reject it because it was a badly-planned hospital or the wrong place for a new hospital, they rejected it because it would loom a little too large over the GPO for their liking. That's not a good enough reason to hold up the building of a children's hospital. It also highlights the ludicrousness of Irish planning - if ABP could have such issues about the project, why were they not raised earlier and integrated into the planning of the NCH proposal for the Mater? For a country which is renowned for the gift of the gab we seem to have a great trouble communicating over important matters like this. If I was overseeing this project I would have had the architects, department, HSE, healthcare professionals, parents and children groups, planners, transport engineers and local residential groups all appointed to a steering group which would all thrash out their differences and get everything important resolved so that once the proposal for an NCH was made, it was the right one which would sail through the niceties of planning and be built without fuss.

[thebig C]

Originally Posted by Dvblvnia

Exactly, and I really do wonder about the validity of ABP's decision, especially when it was largely on aesthetic and urban integrity grounds. They didn't reject it because it was a badly-planned hospital or the wrong place for a new hospital, they rejected it because it would loom a little too large over the GPO for their liking. That's not a good enough reason to hold up the building of a children's hospital. It also highlights the ludicrousness of Irish planning - if ABP could have such issues about the project, why were they not raised earlier and integrated into the planning of the NCH proposal for the Mater? For a country which is renowned for the gift of the gab we seem to have a great trouble communicating over important matters like this. If I was overseeing this project I would have had the architects, department, HSE, healthcare professionals, parents and children groups, planners, transport engineers and local residential groups all appointed to a steering group which would all thrash out their differences and get everything important resolved so that once the proposal for an NCH was made, it was the right one which would sail through the niceties of planning and be built without fuss.

Dvblvnia, as I stated before, ABP refuseed this because they knew they had a Carte Blanche. Due to the toxic and vitriolic nature of discourse surrounding anything to do with the Health Service they could safely assume that it would turn political and everybody except them would be tared in the blame game. In fact apart from one or two commentators, the only source of criticism directed at ABP was architecture "nerds" like ourselves.

In contrast, An Taisce were almost orgasmic in their reaction. That in itself led me to believe that this was a dogmatic decision taken deliberately as a warning to anybody who would dare to propose highrise.

C

[JD47]

What can be done about APB though? I hope they get destroyed. I would go into Dublin just to get rid of them.

I would love to be the planner for this city. Any major project that wants to be built, would go through me first and I would be fair and look at all possibilities and listen to all sides of the argument. This is getting out of hand. This is a much needed hospital and it was said no to because of height. What a joke. I would build it even if it was the ugliest building in the world because it is needed and that's the real problem here. Its NEEDED to help SICK children and if I say so myself, the design wasn't bad in my opinion. I liked it. Sorry for the rant fella's.

[thebig C]

Many of us feel the same JD. I love historic Dublin and actively hope that parts of it that were demolished are faithfully reconstructed. However, ABP and An Taisces war against anything that is daring is truely shocking. I am convinced that if they were around in the 1780s/1790s neither the Custom House or the Four Courts would have been built!