New Plans for Childrens Hospital on Coombe site

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

In this case, it means they're trying to talk down a very important reason that goes against their aims.

Co-location is too important to NOT be in the terms of reference for any review.

If co-location is as important as you say (and I have no reason to doubt your word) that will shine through any review and therefore does NOT need to be in the terms of reference. There has been too much nods and winks in this society is a true and open review beyond us.

If it is a true and open review then there is nothing to fear if this is the best option, why the hostility to it I really do not understand.

FreudianSlippers

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Here are some maps showing the locations south of Heuston.

I would disagree that the difference in access is marginal. From Sligo, Galway, Cork, Wexford, or the western suburbs, the access is considerably easier. Access is also easier from the south of Dublin.

And there is plenty of space for parking.

Both of those sites involve a significant amount of demolition and even if you factor that in as possible, reduce the sites that are protected and/or will not be allowed to be built on you have a significantly reduced space. Granted, the first option of those two is significantly better than the second and I would prefer to see the hospital there than a greenfield site.

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Well, you would have to do it sensitively to make the best of the site, but it's not a park. It's part of a medical complex and that land was always intended as a medical complex.

It has Z9 zoning -- "To perserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space & green networks"

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

There is a lot more population approaching from the south than from the North. For the N1 and N2, the Mater has the advantage, but from the N3 and all other roads south of it, Heuston seems more accessible. The train links also give some advantage.

The Mater would have the advantage for the N3, just marginally (a few mins). Just as the Heuston site is marginally better from the N4 (a few mins, even if more than the last few).

antoinolachtnai

monument wrote: »

It has Z9 zoning -- "To perserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space & green networks"

That area has been a medical complex for a lot longer than there have been development plans and zoning maps.

The site is very big. On Steeven's Lane/St John's Road West, the only protected structure is Dr Steeven's Hospital itself as far as I know. Anything else can be knocked.

L1011

grumpymunster wrote: »

If co-location is as important as you say (and I have no reason to doubt your word) that will shine through any review and therefore does NOT need to be in the terms of reference. There has been too much nods and winks in this society is a true and open review beyond us.

If it is a true and open review then there is nothing to fear if this is the best option, why the hostility to it I really do not understand.

Why piss money down the drain? We already know co-location is needed, we don't need to be told it again.

monument

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

monument wrote: »

It has Z9 zoning -- "To perserve, provide and improve recreational amenity and open space & green networks"

That area has been a medical complex for a lot longer than there have been development plans and zoning maps.

The (former) Royal Hospital site? That's where I was talking about re zoning. And I'm I not correct in thinking that it has not been a medical complex for some time now? And there was never much medical about it other than the main building?

I don't think there's much chance of that site being developed (and I would favor it over an M50 location).

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The site is very big. On Steeven's Lane/St John's Road West, the only protected structure is Dr Steeven's Hospital itself as far as I know. Anything else can be knocked.

Agreed, it seems like the most viable decent site away from the Mater.

But I don't think you'll save or gain much from it over the Mater. Maybe you'll gain public opinion for slightly better car access from some areas, and maybe that's worth going back to the drawing board for?

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

Why piss money down the drain? We already know co-location is needed, we don't need to be told it again.

So you would prefer we piss €340M down the drain, its no wonder with logic like that the country is in the state it is in.

I would prefer to see an unbiased panel professional say that co-location is needed, if that is the case then that fine it is what is needed. I dont base my opinion on what minister Harney said.

L1011

grumpymunster wrote: »

So you would prefer we piss €340M down the drain, its no wonder with logic like that the country is in the state it is in.

I would prefer to see an unbiased panel professional say that co-location is needed, if that is the case then that fine it is what is needed. I dont base my opinion on what minister Harney said.

An unbiased professional panel has *ALREADY* said its needed. You appear to be trusted an extremely biased grouping in claiming its not over that; and are willing to waste the states money to say exactly the same thing.

L1011

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The site is very big. On Steeven's Lane/St John's Road West, the only protected structure is Dr Steeven's Hospital itself as far as I know. Anything else can be knocked.

The buildings on there contain the EHSS IT services. Not particularly easy to move.

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

An unbiased professional panel has *ALREADY* said its needed. You appear to be trusted an extremely biased grouping in claiming its not over that; and are willing to waste the states money to say exactly the same thing.

To be fair MYOB there appears to be sufficient evidence that there was shall we say interference with certain regulations with the last few governments. So would I trust them on something of this size and nature, quite simply no I would not so I personally do not believe what has been put before us so far.
You may say that a review was undertaken by this government last year, ans indeed it was. But the terms of reference were a joke really.

I fully agree with you re pissing money down the drain but I have a horrible feeling that over €30M already has been. Given that planning permission has been refused without changes we are at an impass anyway.

L1011

Anyone who's gone public crying of "interference" has a massive, massive bias of their own they're trying to hide; and which they'll do anything to favour.

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

Anyone who's gone public crying of "interference" has a massive, massive bias of their own they're trying to hide; and which they'll do anything to favour.

So are you really saying anyone who has called this process into question are only doing it for their own ends and for no other reason? Yet you are happy to let a decision made during the reign of a government who have been shown to be corrupt by an independent body go unchallanged.

This is taking it to new heights, puts me in mind of the life of Brian.

Brian; I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, f*ck off!
I]silence[/I
Arthur: How shall we f*ck off, O Lord?

L1011

grumpymunster wrote: »

So are you really saying anyone who has called this process into question are only doing it for their own ends and for no other reason? Yet you are happy to let a decision made during the reign of a government who have been shown to be corrupt by an independent body go unchallanged.

A decision which was backed up by actual independent review groups vs. a complaint about the decision made by vested interests

I know which one makes more sense to support.

FreudianSlippers

It is particularly telling that the people crying interference regarding the mater site are fundamentally against recognising or acknowledging that the greenfield site is as much, if not more, bogged down in political bullshít and property developers trying to get their millions back

grumpymunster

MYOB wrote: »

A decision which was backed up by actual independent review groups vs. a complaint about the decision made by vested interests

I know which one makes more sense to support.

Well we will have to agree to differ I guess. For me anything touched by the hand of FF is tainted, if FF told me today is a Friday I would check my phone to be honest.

As for devlopers trying to get their millions back if property purchased at current market rates just how exactly - it may have escaped your attention but it is very much a buyers market at the moment.

And if more than one site is recommended then have you ever heard of the term purchasing power. Any buyer worth his salt would drive the price down. In the real world of private industry that is how it works, you should try it, it really works.

monument

grumpymunster wrote: »

Well we will have to agree to differ I guess. For me anything touched by the hand of FF is tainted, if FF told me today is a Friday I would check my phone to be honest.

At this stage FF have had their hands on about everything in the country, you're being very selective.

grumpymunster wrote: »

Any buyer worth his salt would drive the price down.

Have you looked at how the government is dealing with property developers, Nama, bond repayments etc?

Telchak

The developer that owns the Phoenix Park Racecourse lands has offered 8 acres, free of charge.

Article in the Irish times

Another interesting site. It's between the Mater and Connolly, close to the M50, on a train line and a really well served QBC.

L1011

Telchak wrote: »

The developer that owns the Phoenix Park Racecourse lands has offered 8 acres, free of charge.

Article in the Irish times

Another interesting site. It's between the Mater and Connolly, close to the M50, on a train line and a really well served QBC.

Being between two acute hospitals and not anywhere near a maternity isn't the same as bi- or tri-location.

Telchak

MYOB wrote: »

Being between two acute hospitals and not anywhere near a maternity isn't the same as bi- or tri-location.

Indeed, but surely a much better option than Newland's.

Wild Bill

Telchak wrote: »

Indeed, but surely a much better option than Newland's.

I'd go for Newlands - but either Newlands or this site is better than the Mater by light years :cool: