[SWP] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[ml69]

A sensible choice, this was my preferred option.

Allows for future NRAH expansion, and no impact on the parklands.

Also paves the way for urban rejuvenation of the western end of Hindley St and surrounding streets. Benefits all round.

[Alyx]

I am disgusted that demoliton of The Newmarket is being considered, let alone supported. It is an historic landmark, and by far one of Adelaide's most attractive and well-preserved buildings.

Find a different site.

[Patrick_27]

I am disgusted that demoliton of The Newmarket is being considered, let alone supported. It is an historic landmark, and by far one of Adelaide's most attractive and well-preserved buildings.

Find a different site.

Read the article, it specifically says the building would be incorporated into any hospital design...

[crawf]

I am disgusted that demoliton of The Newmarket is being considered, let alone supported. It is an historic landmark, and by far one of Adelaide's most attractive and well-preserved buildings.

Find a different site.

The Newmarket Hotel could be incorporated with the new WCH, or even excluded completely. It's quite a large block especially if you include McDonalds and the adjoining transport company on Hindley Street. The airbridge could have access to the tram stop below.

That area is currently an eyesore, so I think it's the perfect location for a new WCH.

[Waewick]

Price tag will be a huge issue though.

If the two universities merge, could there be scope to use surplus land on the Unisa site?

[how good is he]

Yes makes sense and retaining the heritage Newmarket with modern glass building/s behind will work. Just curious if it includes the amalgamation of the McDonalds site. From the initial renders it doesn’t. If it did the payout would be big as this is one of (if not their best) performing site in SA.

[Pikey]

Yes makes sense and retaining the heritage Newmarket with modern glass building/s behind will work. Just curious if it includes the amalgamation of the McDonalds site. From the initial renders it doesn’t. If it did the payout would be big as this is one of (if not their best) performing site in SA.

To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the new hospital contains a McDonalds (as odd as this sounds.) Many children's hospitals interstate have one on the grounds, and allowing this as part of the design may make the compulsory acquisition/negotiation easier.

[Nathan]

Does that McDonalds still get a large late night crowd now that HQ has moved and Hindley St West is progressively cleaned up? Would be an interesting mix of clientele if it was incorporated into the hospital

[rhino]

Ali Clarke interviewed Rob Lucas this morning on ABC Radio, and he intimated that this is far from set in stone (or concrete).

[Eurostar]

Yes makes sense and retaining the heritage Newmarket with modern glass building/s behind will work. Just curious if it includes the amalgamation of the McDonalds site. From the initial renders it doesn’t. If it did the payout would be big as this is one of (if not their best) performing site in SA.

When I was studying at TAFE I preferred going to the West Terrace McDonalds over the Hindley Street McDonalds as it was cleaner and has better dining area.

[claybro]

A sensible choice, this was my preferred option.

Allows for future NRAH expansion, and no impact on the parklands.

Also paves the way for urban rejuvenation of the western end of Hindley St and surrounding streets. Benefits all round.

As far as a new WCH is concerned, I thought the idea was for it to have DIRECT connectivity to the RAH. That being the case, this site is possibly the worst of all the options. As far as urban rejuvenation of the West end of Hindley Street, that is/will happen anyway, and probably more so without that entire corner being monopolised by a new hospital, given the already enormous footprint of the site already just across the road. The hospital will reduce the options for housing/short term accommodation in that precinct due to access requirements for deliveries, emergency vehicles, on site parking for doctors etc. let alone the building itself.

[Goodsy]

A sensible choice, this was my preferred option.

Allows for future NRAH expansion, and no impact on the parklands.

Also paves the way for urban rejuvenation of the western end of Hindley St and surrounding streets. Benefits all round.

As far as a new WCH is concerned, I thought the idea was for it to have DIRECT connectivity to the RAH. That being the case, this site is possibly the worst of all the options. As far as urban rejuvenation of the West end of Hindley Street, that is/will happen anyway, and probably more so without that entire corner being monopolised by a new hospital, given the already enormous footprint of the site already just across the road. The hospital will reduce the options for housing/short term accommodation in that precinct due to access requirements for deliveries, emergency vehicles, on site parking for doctors etc. let alone the building itself.

maybe they'll put in an under or over pass

[zippySA]

I am a little bemused on how quickly the debate focusses on the single statement "direct connection to RAH" as though this is the single driver for the whole project. WCH has been operating stand-alone for it's entire existence - and as stated in the paper, currently emergency cases are transferred to FMC - probably a 30min ambulance ride away. To justify spending potentially $2B plus on new hospital, surely there needs to be an entire range of benefits and drivers for the move. I would like to see Governments start leading debates and providing actual tangible information. Surely being located within 200m of the RAH is an improvement - and shouldn't debates then focus more on the assessment of need for a "direct connection" to RAH - I'd be interested to know how often an unplanned emergency requires transfer from WCH to RAH / FMC and understand then what a link would be ($10 - $25M I'm guessing) versus (say) traffic light sequencing that enables an emergency case to be transferred by a dedicated vehicle from WCH to RAH - could even be faster than wheeling a bed across an air-bridge and then down corridors to emergency / theatre as no doubt the bridge will come in at wrong end of RAH?
We must aim for highest levels of care - but we can't simply pay for everything - how far would $10-$25M go towards additional services across metro Adelaide - quite a lot no doubt.

[rev]

I am a little bemused on how quickly the debate focusses on the single statement "direct connection to RAH" as though this is the single driver for the whole project. WCH has been operating stand-alone for it's entire existence - and as stated in the paper, currently emergency cases are transferred to FMC - probably a 30min ambulance ride away. To justify spending potentially $2B plus on new hospital, surely there needs to be an entire range of benefits and drivers for the move. I would like to see Governments start leading debates and providing actual tangible information. Surely being located within 200m of the RAH is an improvement - and shouldn't debates then focus more on the assessment of need for a "direct connection" to RAH - I'd be interested to know how often an unplanned emergency requires transfer from WCH to RAH / FMC and understand then what a link would be ($10 - $25M I'm guessing) versus (say) traffic light sequencing that enables an emergency case to be transferred by a dedicated vehicle from WCH to RAH - could even be faster than wheeling a bed across an air-bridge and then down corridors to emergency / theatre as no doubt the bridge will come in at wrong end of RAH?
We must aim for highest levels of care - but we can't simply pay for everything - how far would $10-$25M go towards additional services across metro Adelaide - quite a lot no doubt.

The operating theaters are on the Port Road/North Terrace side of the building. Literally above the emergency department, so is the ICU.
The bridge coming in across North Terrace would therefore be coming probably to the same level as the operating theaters, from memory is level 4.

[dbl96]

maybe a few councils and the state government could get together and fund a runway rebuild at a slightly different angle

My understanding is that the area to the south-east of the existing runway is set aside for an additional runway if required in future.

No, the provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway and terminals. The reservation is clearly visible from satellite images, running from behind the existing long-term carpark, through land currently occupied by Harbourtown and the golf club.