[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[stelaras]

SO, we are getting a six storey brand spanking new hospital over the railyards!

From the article it appears that 3 storeys will be underground and 3 storeys above ground! not very Hi-rise....but i guess a new hospital is a new hospital and god only knows that the RAH is in dire need of refurbishment!


The only question remains, what will happen to the old RAH once they all move into the new one??

[UrbanSG]

Hopefully these renders work. Still room for development near the Railway Station too which is good. Sourced from AdelaideNow website.

[AtD]

Which brings the obvious question: Where will they move the TA Yards?

[Ben]

Aren't they currently unused?

[UrbanSG]

No, they are currently used. You can see they are in one of the pics. I often catch the train and can assure you they are used. Maybe they will be moved ou to Dry Creek? There is a lot of parkland reclamation going on too with this project near the River Torrens which is good. That area is terrible at the moment.

[Pistol]

That looks like it is a possible train station under the pedestrian bridge.

[rhino]

That looks like it is a possible train station under the pedestrian bridge.

That would make sense.

[Will]

Agreed. I like the idea of a new hospital, but the railway yards site (assuming it takes up a significant proportion of the land) is just a waste.

And if it's low-rise then it's going to be a hell of a waste of space.

Although as a skyscraper nerd I would like to see a high-rise hospital, the fact of the matter is that modern hospitals are mainly low and mid rise for the simple fact that in an emergency evacuating patients from upper floors would be very difficult and may place patients at risk. This is why the new QEH is all low-rise.

Judging from the images provided, i think that there is still a lot of space to build a stadium. Because I don't know about anyone else, but I would prefer any stadium to be next to the skate park, and not close to Port Road.

[stumpjumper]

The need for a new hospital doesn't seem to be in doubt.

The site is a different matter.

How much longer will governments regard the green belt around the city as a store of free land for them to build on?

The 'TransAdelaide' site was Park Lands in Light's original design. He didn't know anything about railways and envisaged the land below the scarp at the western end of North Terrace forming part of the encircling ring of parkland which differentiates Adelaide from all other cities.

The government sees free land, and the development industry will go along with anything the government says in order to get its hands on the building contracts or even better the juicy PPP's (Public Private Partnerships) which may eventuate. And of course the whole thing will be declared a Major Project and given an unimpeachable name in the Adelaide style, as if the name alone could deflect criticism - let's see - the Roma Mitchell Hospital? Nope, already too many Roma Mitchell things around. Florey Hospital? Nup - not topical enough and could be confused with another eminent Australian, a Mr Foley, which wouldn't be fair on Rann. Marjorie Jackson-Nelson? A mouthful, and as an athlete and leukaemia activist, has she really done enough? Hang on - 'The Marjorie Jackson Rann Hospital' Hmm. Subtle, even. Maybe the hundred or so drones, sorry, communications specialists, monitoring the media in Rann's Media Unit could toss that one around, polish it a bit. But I digress.

Who is left to stand up for the proposition that the Park Lands, provided they survive, are by their very existence a valuable economic and social asset? Comparable examples around the world suggest that simply listing the Park Lands as World Heritage, for example, could bring thousands of well-heeled cultural tourists in a steady stream to Adelaide from now to eterntiy. What is the economic value of that compared to saving a few million by stealing land from the public?

The social benefits of the Park Lands are probably taken for granted by most of us. Imagine Adelaide suddenly without our unique Park Lands. Imagine driving through suburb after suburb, until the buildings gradually get bigger and we realise we are in the CBD. Adelaide would become like a sort of Brisbane, but with a trickle in the middle instead of a river. Why would anyone want to live here in preference to anywhere else?

on the other hand, think of Melbourne. Lots of big big buildings in the CBD, with suburbs packed up tightly agasint them, bar a few spots where there is a small park or a bit of the Yarra. Now carve a big swathe around Melbourne's CBD and fill it with grass and trees. What a difference, what an advantage, what a public asset.

So build the hospital, jsut don't build it on the Park Lands.

Didn't Minister Hill say, when he was Minister for Environment and Conservation, that under this government, Adelaide's unique Park Lands were better protected than they had ever been?

Not many people know, but Minister Hill's (now minister Gago's) Department of Environment and Heritage (note the difference in emphasis between the minister's title and that of the department) has had a request under the relevant Act for humble Stat Heritage listing of the Adleaide Park Lands. It was lodged in 1986. And guess what - the Department has not been able to consider it yet. Short staffed, I'm afraid, no time yet to fully analyse...

What a joke.

Why not build the new hospital at Cheltenham. on the old Actil site? Close to the QEH and no more helicopters zooming up the Torrens Valley into the CBD. Or the Clipsal site, perhaps available cheaply now that Gerard hates the Libs and is matey with Rann and his gang?

But back to the TA site - what a location for pubolic recreation! Imagine the park sloping from the UNISA to the Torrens. Why fill the area with a hospital, of all things?

So many choices - why does the public always end up with the short straw?

[rhino]

The 'TransAdelaide' site was Park Lands in Light's original design. He didn't know anything about railways and envisaged the land below the scarp at the western end of North Terrace forming part of the encircling ring of parkland which differentiates Adelaide from all other cities.

Wasn't there an abbatoir and meat market there in the 1800s? I seem to recall reading somewhere that that is how the Newmarket Hotel got it's name, and the Newmarket Hotel is where the uniquly South Australian name "butcher" for a small glass of beer originated, the glass being small enough to hold and not fall through the grease-and-fat-covered fingers of the butchers from said abbatoir and meat market at the end of the workday. After that, the railways came along and the location became a railyard. Now it's going to be a hospital, but some people are still going to moan about the parklands that have not been there for the last 150 years.

[rhino]

By the way, I am all for saving the parklands, I just don't see that the railyards are part of them. They never were in my lifetime, or my parents' lifetime, or their parents' lifetime. Parklands at this site are not part of Adelaide's heritage.

[duke]

Seriously how can anyone call the rail yards or the RAH grounds parkland's. Its a joke.
And as for the rest of our parkland's they are also a joke. How many people to you see in them. They are usually empty apart from special events in some areas. I think the whole parkland area should be cut in half. Then they could focus on making the parkland's that we have better. Most of what we have is just dead and daggy looking anyway. They could water it all more but thats not very good for water restrictions.
Our major hospital should be in the CBD. It just makes sense. The RAH site should be redeveloped into something useful. Not 'returned' to parkland's. We have done without grass on the RAH site for isn't it like 100 years? Im sure we can continue to do without grass there.

I really don't understand what people are trying to save..

[Will]

Why not build the new hospital at Cheltenham. on the old Actil site? Close to the QEH and no more helicopters zooming up the Torrens Valley into the CBD. Or the Clipsal site, perhaps available cheaply now that Gerard hates the Libs and is matey with Rann and his gang?

But back to the TA site - what a location for pubolic recreation! Imagine the park sloping from the UNISA to the Torrens. Why fill the area with a hospital, of all things?

So many choices - why does the public always end up with the short straw?

I have a feeling that if the government had decided to build the new hospital at Cheltenham you would be complaining about the loss of green space for the people of the Western suburbs.

The RAH has to be in the city! Many of the people that use the hospital rely on public transport, thus forcing them to take up to 3 buses to reach the Western suburbs would be very unfair to them.

[Pants]

Good guess on the name though...

[Cruise]

Which brings the obvious question: Where will they move the TA Yards?

That might be revealed in the about the rumoured large upgrade of of the rail network