The board direction is 2 pages long. http://www.pleanala.ie/news/PA0024/SPA0024.pdfGrahamH wrote:Frank, you are justifying bad planning with bad planning. Also, to couch this decision as an 'aesthetic' argument is simplistic and ill-informed. Read the 130-page plus report before drawing conclusions.
it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its height, scale, form and mass, located on this elevated site, would result in a dominant, visually incongruous structure and would have a profound negative impact on the appearance and visual amenity of the city 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.
Furthermore, the development as proposed, notwithstanding the quality of the design, would be inconsistent with and adversely affect the existing scale and character of the historic city and the established character of the local area and would seriously detract from the setting and character of protected structures, streetscapes and areas of conservation value, and in particular, the vistas of O’Connell Street and North Great George’s Street.
Having regard to the site masterplan for the Mater Campus submitted with this application, it is also considered that the proposed development as configured, would constitute overdevelopment of the site.
ABP weighed up this project and, without offering an alternative, they cancelled it as if they were cancelling a supermarket or a housing development.
gunter wrote: ....... none of this would apply to a speculative office block of the same scale in the same location. It is the particular combination of a unique, one-off, public child-care function with the design response to both that and the considerable design challenge presented by the confined urban context that I believe deserves much more credit than it has been getting from people who should know better.
corkblow-in wrote:Leaving aside the architectural critique, the basic argument that is being presented by many is that the building should have been granted permission and all the relevant plans ignored because it is 'worthy'.
corkblow-in wrote:As for being worthy - what if it was a cancer hospital rather than a childrens one? How about a private hospital? A public body proposing the building for their occupation? A private company creating thousands of jobs in the north inner city? Where would we draw the line once we've stepped over it?
gunter wrote:The basic argument is not that the building should be somehow excused from complying with ordinary development standards because its function is deemed ‘worthy’, the basic argument is that, as a public building of ambitious architectural intention, it should absolutely not be constrained by standards that are set to control ordinary development.
StephenC wrote:Its important to remember that while the Board at present comprises 4 officers including a very experienced planner, the vast majority of staff in ABP, ie the inspectors are all qualified and very experienced planners. Thats the whole point of the organisation, that you have a cohort of planners separate from local authorities (ie local agendas) and central government (ie national agendas) who can give an unbiased and objective view of development within the confines of the law - that is Irish planning and development law and European law. I know that the law is a very subjective concept in this tinpot democracy of ours...very important until it needs to be ignored or dismissed.
As a planner BigC I find your tone to be quite offensive. This proposal has been considered under all its various aspects by different groups; planning and environmental concerns are just one element, albeit a very important element and I would warrant that proper planning was not taken seriously until the decision of the Board came out. I certainly know from pre-planning discussions I had with the architects that the "think about the children" defence was considered enough to justify whatever needed to be built here.
I would argue that the ABP process has been one of the more transparent aspects of this whole process. The views of everyone were aired at a public oral hearing. The submissions of everyone in relation to the project are available to view from the planning file. The decision is transparent and certainly free of Bertie Ahern's grubby hands, unlike the original decision to locate here by all accounts.
teak wrote:I'm talking about that firm of architects who knowingly tried to stonewall the planning guidelines and pushed this wildly unacceptable design throughout the past few years.
. . . small architect offices up and down the country . . . . have to live with the public's image of architects based on carry-on like O'Connell Mahon's.
GrahamH wrote: – anything but ordinary development standards were applied to the planning of this project in order to accommodate it. The Local Area Plan made express provision for a large national paediatric hospital at this location of a scale far in excess of what would normally be permitted for commercial and indeed civic building at this location. In addition, it set out clear parameters on height, massing, layout and integration with the surrounding area, as all proper planning facilitates.
StephenC wrote:Its important to remember that while the Board at present comprises 4 officers including a very experienced planner, the vast majority of staff in ABP, ie the inspectors are all qualified and very experienced planners. Thats the whole point of the organisation, that you have a cohort of planners separate from local authorities (ie local agendas) and central government (ie national agendas) who can give an unbiased and objective view of development within the confines of the law.
missarchi wrote:Dont they own to the centre of the earth might be a way to half of it underground...
BTH wrote:I've read the so called "stout defense" (more likeself aggrandizing publicity blurb) of the scheme in Architecture Ireland. It only proves to me that the designers are clearly very good at creating organizational diagrams and densely stacking layer upon layer of functions into a constricted site. There are some good ideas, particularly the green roof "Therapy Park" between the treatment zone and the wards or "sleepover zone" as it is called.
BTH wrote:However by no means does this [very good organizational diagrams and some good ideas] make for good architecture or urbanism or make any positive contribution to the cityscape.
BTH wrote:They have the nerve to claim that it would "become a positive public landmark building for the city" . . . smacks of utter delusion.
BTH wrote:The proposal, thankfully scuppered by ABP, was ugly in the extreme, the equivalent of almost FIVE Belfast city hospitals lined up in a row (with even tacky yellow highlights in a clear "homage" to that early 1980s architectural delight).
BTH wrote:How anyone can justify or support the construction of such a monstrosity is beyond me.
gunter wrote:Quite a lot of 'good ideas' in it I think and some really clear internal planning, which is very refreshing. For an architect’s account - in this particular publication – I found the article remarkably free from both jargon and self-aggrandizement and they get points for not using the word ‘iconic’, but I guess if you see nothing good in this proposal, a statement explaining its design rational is not going to move you.
gunter wrote:They are proud of the design and they express the hope that it may become a positive public landmark building for the city, that is true. I don’t know for sure if they’re right, but to me, the scheme displays a level of skill and architectural judgement that exceeds the level prevailing in ABP at the moment, so I’d give them the benefit of the doubt.
gunter wrote:I’m a bit surprised there hasn’t been more positive comment from the architectural community [if there is such a thing] and the usually reliable ‘Urbanism’ advocates have either stayed out of it completely, or gone over to the other side.
gunter wrote:Unlike the proposed Children’s Hospital, the City Hospital in Belfast makes absolutely no pretence at elegance, but it is a distinctive landmark on the Belfast skyline which is not, in my opinion, inappropriate, given its function and, notwithstanding BTH's scathing assessment, I suspect it's a building that may be well on its way to becoming a List II protected structure in the not too distant future.