Would you welcome the arrival of the National Childrens Hospital to Dublin 15?

one foot in the grave

BostonB wrote: »

Temple street is like the old lady living a shoe.

Its like putting on jeans 5 sizes to small and hoping you'll grow into them.

Looking ahead, this site could be knocked down and redeveloped to expand services/facilities for the NCH.

BostonB

one foot in the grave wrote: »

Looking ahead, this site could be knocked down and redeveloped to expand services/facilities for the NCH.

Its still too small. You trying to fit a gallon into a pint pot. Then wondering why people are looking at you funny.

BostonB

one foot in the grave wrote: »

I didn't find them flawed. There are challenges highlighted in them alright. I have no problem looking anyone in the face if I believe that the location of this hospital should be based on best practice.

No your picking one part of "best practise" and ignoring the rest of "best practise" for no logical reason.

As did the original plan, which is they had to come up with this crazy thing.

http://archiseek.com/wp-content/gallery/news-2010/dublin-childrenshospital.jpg

When you build the garden on the top of your building 16-storeys up for a insane amount of money, when your broke and you've free land only a few miles away. There something really flawed with that.

BostonB

We've no money. Lets build a garden and a carpark in the sky! Those two things are not unrelated.

Turbulent Bill

one foot in the grave wrote: »

What lack of transparency? I have found all the reports online over the years. In the public domain.

Maybe "transparency" was the wrong word. What I was getting at was the "independent" reports were actually dependent on quite restrictive terms of reference from interested parties, hence blindly quoting the conclusions as fully independent isn't valid. This applies both to your and the general media commentary on these reports.

Thanks for the links by the way.

chucknorris

Larbre34

I'm still a bit scooby dubious about this being perceived as a done deal, what with Minister Reilly's Department not being the most reliable as a source of fact.

I understand the Mater, Connolly and Belcamp sites are still in the mix and I'd say the lobbying from the parish pumpers as we speak is probably deafening

Connolly makes the most sense to me though, proximate motorways, rail, green space, amenities and accommodation options for patient's relatives, I hope sense prevails, for once.

chucknorris

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm still a bit scooby dubious about this being perceived as a done deal, what with Minister Reilly's Department not being the most reliable as a source of fact.

I understand the Mater, Connolly and Belcamp sites are still in the mix and I'd say the lobbying from the parish pumpers as we speak is probably deafening

Connolly makes the most sense to me though, proximate motorways, rail, green space, amenities and accommodation options for patient's relatives, I hope sense prevails, for once.

The talk about Connolly not having the expertise etc is well and good, but with the national children's hospital being completed around 2016, I'm sure a reorganisation to get that expertise in place is not rocket science.

BostonB

The Criteria of how its being picked and weighted isn't in the public domain again. I guess we can expect it to be presented as a Fait de compli again. Would you against it being put in Belcamp though, given all thats happened recently?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ministers-favoured-hospital-site-moved-into-constituency-3165843.html

Of course this could be the usual spin by the indo.

chucknorris

BostonB wrote: »

The Criteria of how its being picked and weighted isn't in the public domain again. I guess we can expect it to be presented as a Fait de compli again. Would you against it being put in Belcamp though, given all thats happened recently?

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ministers-favoured-hospital-site-moved-into-constituency-3165843.html

Of course this could be the usual spin by the indo.

That's why the Dolphin report need's to be released too. It will cut the nose off of the decent that is already starting in the media.

"Cllr David McGuinness has called Minister James Reilly to “immediately publish the Dolphin Report on the potential locations for the new National Children’s Hospitals to ensure full transparency. This will ensure that the right decision is made and not one which may be influenced by the ongoing controversy relating to the Minister siting of Primary Care Centres in his own constituency.”

“The arguments made by a number of senior medical personnel over recent days in relation to the suitability of sites and the potential political favouritism will be put to bed if the Dolphin Report is published.

Since the refusal of planning for the Mater site, I have been a strong advocate of the merits of Connolly as a potential site. With space and planning limitations being a problem for the inner-city sites, the Connolly site combines fulfilling the criteria set out by the McKinsey Report and the benefits of a greenfield site. No other proposed site can match those advantages in terms of the selection criteria.

The accusation in the media both yesterday and today that selection of the Connolly site more ‘stoke politics’ by this Government is an insult to all of us who have been working hard behind the scenes to highlight the very real merits of the Dublin 15 site; not on the basis of a political carve-up around the Cabinet table as has been inferred. "

BostonB

The Connolly push in the media might be a smoke screen to pick another perhaps less publicly acceptable (since recent news) location like Belcamp .

chucknorris

BostonB wrote: »

The Connolly push in the media might be a smoke screen to pick another perhaps less publicly acceptable (since recent news) location like Belcamp .

Indeed, however with 10 days to go before presentation to the Cabinet, I reckon it is Connolly. The Dolphin report if published will see off allot of the knockers quickly.

Godge

chucknorris wrote: »

Indeed, however with 10 days to go before presentation to the Cabinet, I reckon it is Connolly. The Dolphin report if published will see off allot of the knockers quickly.

James St is making a late push. It is on the LUAS from the Red Cow Park & Ride, ten minutes walk from Heuston, claims to have the space, it definitely has some of the medical specialities, the N4 access road to the City Centre is a lot better than going down the N1, N2 or N3 to the Mater.

I had forgotten about its claims.

BostonB

Thats the same N4 thats always tailed back at peak around Heuston? and up the quays? Down to islandbridge, the canal, etc. TBH for me thats as bad as the Mater for peak time traffic. Handier for the Luas/Train no argument. Is it handier for the 60% not from Dublin. Not so sure.

Godge

BostonB wrote: »

Thats the same N4 thats always tailed back at peak around Heuston? and up the quays? Down to islandbridge, the canal, etc. TBH for me thats as bad as the Mater for peak time traffic. Handier for the Luas/Train no argument. Is it handier for the 60% not from Dublin. Not so sure.

It has a bus lane all the way in for emergency services, not something the Mater has.

BostonB

Yes but the transport infrastructure has to cater for everyone else, outpatients, consultants, day clinics, visitors, staff, labs, and most of that is regular work hours. Theres also all the supplies and deliveries to a hospital. The vast majority of that traffic is not to emergency and does not use bus lanes.

Of course a traffic study should look at all that, and be weighted accordingly. But they haven't done a valid one AFAIK (open to correction) Which is pretty staggering considering the size of the project and the money involved. The reason not to do it properly for the Mater is obvious, it would have scored badly.