[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Xaragmata]

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets shelved.

I wouldn't be surprised either. The 3D model on display in Pirie Street shows only one platform between the Up Noarlunga & Down O/Harbor lines, while 4 islands would be needed to serve all lines without complex switching.

[SRW]

The way this project has been discussed, I suspect it was leaked to the media before it was ready, and the government launched the whole project too early to save face. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets shelved.

I'm not so sure. Rann might be able to cop the embarrassment of, say, pulling an about-face on school funding, but this project is of a far greater magnitude. Just look at how unwilling they were to compromise on even the name of the project!

The second term of this government has been very disappointing thus far.

[urban]

Has anything been done in terms of desgin yet? Or is that still all up in the air?

Thanks

I understand that Grieve Gillett are the architects for the project and they are currently developing plans. I am not 100% sure on this though.

[muzzamo]

I wouldn't be surprised if it gets shelved.

I wouldn't be surprised either. The 3D model on display in Pirie Street shows only one platform between the Up Noarlunga & Down O/Harbor lines, while 4 islands would be needed to serve all lines without complex switching.

Because its so important for the architect to get the tracklayout right when he is trying the demonstrate the shape and appearance of the planned hospital

I'm sure all that would get sorted out in the more detailed planning stages

[Ho Really]

CONSIDER THE ACCESS

Architect Keith Neighbour caused controversy in 1956 when he slammed the RAH as an eyesore, a health danger and a conglomeration of outmoded buildings in which doctors and nurses work under appalling conditions.
By Josephine Stott
September 13, 2007

That was the scenario when Neighbour returned to Adelaide after a two-years’ US and UK study and working tour of hospital architecture.

“We are on the edge of a precipice. Our doctors and nurses at the RAH are working under terrible conditions,” Neighbour told the Adelaide Truth, on January 28, 1956, “Something must be done before it is too late. In the event of a major catastrophe, the position could be desperate. The facilities here are the worst of any civilised city in the world.”

Since then only piecemeal updating has been carried out at the RAH; however, the furore that Neighbour sparked resulted in the plan for the Flinders Medical Centre and he was secured as the architect.

The Rann government says it is committed to a new hospital by 2016, named Marjorie Jackson-Nelson (MJN), which will cost $1.7 billion and will be built on disused railyards off North Terrace in the CBD.

Now aged 88 and still working as a consultant, Neighbour says he always exhorted that the hospital should be built on a site outside of the CBD so as to make it convenient to all.

“I think it should be out of the CBD. I think its site should be determined by very careful traffic studies and accessibility to the public from all the suburbs and easily by public transport and easily arriving by car. There should be an absolute extensive master plan done of a greenfields site.”

Neighbour believes it is a mistake to assume that people use public transport to get to hospital.

“It must have good access for road traffic because however much you may wish to say people make use of public transport and they don’t need car access to a hospital, that’s not the way life really is.

Everybody wants to travel by car and in an emergency if they have to go to the hospital or they want to visit people. They want to go by car. And that should be one of the major ways in choosing a site. So that it does give easy access to the hospital.

You don’t get congestion of traffic even at peak periods and so on. So it’s a major issue. And I don’t think that was thought through in deciding to put it on the railway line. I can’t believe that they really considered these issues. Because access off North Terrace is not exactly easy,” he says.

“It needs a lot of thought. It’s not a matter of just finding where there’s a bit of land and saying well we’ll plonk the thing there. You have to look at accessibility. In terms of key highways and roads and access for ambulances, (and) connectivity to other facilities that are needed for general hospitals.”

At the time that Neighbour rattled the cage of the 1956 Thomas Playford Liberal government he was armed with the knowledge he had gained in his overseas working tour and lamented the fact that hospitals were being built on the basis of plans which were sadly outmoded.

Since then he has seen other architects take on hospital architecture as a preferred medium and bring modern thinking and technology to hospital design and he’s hopeful that it won’t be another 50 years before Adelaide gets a new hospital.

Adelaide Review

In several previous posts I mentioned access was going to be an issue with this project, now a well qualified architect makes it a point. Has he got it right?

Cheers

[AtD]

If this guy is boasting that Flinders Medical Centre is easy to access, he needs his head checked.

[Ho Really]

If this guy is boasting that Flinders Medical Centre is easy to access, he needs his head checked.

Maybe in the old days it was easier...less traffic. Maybe the government of the day gave him no option. Anyone know why FMC was built there?

Cheers

[rhino]

Any site in the suburbs is not going to have "easy access for everybody", especially on a greenfields site, as they are not central at all. It would mean having our major hospital located where one section of the community is severely disadvantaged by distance. If we were to have two new hospitals, this might be a good option, but of course that's not really a feasible option.

[tstaylor]

In several previous posts I mentioned access was going to be an issue with this project, now a well qualified architect makes it a point. Has he got it right?

Cheers

Keith Neighbour may be a qualified Architect, but that does not mean that he is not a conservative.
Its people like that who are stopping Adelaide from moving from the 19th Century into the 21st Century

[urban]

It's not so much that he's a conservative but the fact that he trained and practiced at a time when it was considered good practice to separate out the functions of a city and transport planning was dominated by cars. It was during the 40's to 70's that suburbanism with it's shopping malls and greenfields sites ruled town planning. It was during this period that Adelaide became a sprawling, decentralised, uneconomic city. Plans for splitting off Adelaide's activities to Monarto, Elizabeth, Salisbury and Nourlunga were developed. In general the design and planning industry has learnt from the damage done by these greenfields policies and the urban design and economic advantages of interconnection have been recognised. Cities such as Brasilia are no longer held up as the ideal, London, Paris and New York are back as the role models. Unfortunately there are still those championing the 60's ideals such as Keith Neighbour, Housing Industry Association and John Howard.

With the current and proposed hospital locations there are 30,000 people who can visit a sick relative during their lunch break, while those spending a long time at the hospital with critically ill relatives are able to go to nearby restaurants (to avoid hospital food) or shops. This gives a much needed change of scenery during what can be a very difficult time. The nursing staff at RAH currently find the long term patients and visitors are greatly revived by walks through the Botanic Gardens. If the hospital is at a greenfields site the patients are isolated when they most need to be connected.

As for the transport issue all roads lead to our city centre so where else are you going to get a site which is better connected?

[Will]

It's not so much that he's a conservative but the fact that he trained and practiced at a time when it was considered good practice to separate out the functions of a city and transport planning was dominated by cars. It was during the 40's to 70's that suburbanism with it's shopping malls and greenfields sites ruled town planning. It was during this period that Adelaide became a sprawling, decentralised, uneconomic city. Plans for splitting off Adelaide's activities to Monarto, Elizabeth, Salisbury and Nourlunga were developed. In general the design and planning industry has learnt from the damage done by these greenfields policies and the urban design and economic advantages of interconnection have been recognised. Cities such as Brasilia are no longer held up as the ideal, London, Paris and New York are back as the role models. Unfortunately there are still those championing the 60's ideals such as Keith Neighbour, Housing Industry Association and John Howard.

With the current and proposed hospital locations there are 30,000 people who can visit a sick relative during their lunch break, while those spending a long time at the hospital with critically ill relatives are able to go to nearby restaurants (to avoid hospital food) or shops. This gives a much needed change of scenery during what can be a very difficult time. The nursing staff at RAH currently find the long term patients and visitors are greatly revived by walks through the Botanic Gardens. If the hospital is at a greenfields site the patients are isolated when they most need to be connected.

As for the transport issue all roads lead to our city centre so where else are you going to get a site which is better connected?

Very well said.

[Dave_The_Planner]

Totally agree. Personally, I'd still prefer the Adelaide station be re-modelled to accommodate interstate trains and the new hospital be built at Keswick. Either way, we've got to embrace a far more centralised view of public infrastructure projects.

[ozisnowman]

Hahhh if the current patients and visitors enjoy a walk in the botanic gardens
maybe they will enjoy the views of Adelaide's delapidated train tracks,
the old Adelaide Goal and the stinky brown Torrens.

Great location Rann .....

[Shuz]

I've a solution that'll fairly compromise both the need for a new hospital and a sports stadium.
The new RAH should go due west of the railyards, occupying the land bordering East Tce, Deviation Rd and Port Rd. This land is slightly larger than the current site, its close proximity to the Mile End railway station (which could be moved just due north of its current location) and has accessibility for emergency vehicles on all 3 sides.

The railyards site is used for the stadium and expanded convention/entertainment centre, and the old RAH used for expansion of Botanic Gardens. I'm sure the Goverment would consider this option just as feasible, if not more than its current proposal.

[Düsseldorfer]

Personally, I'd still prefer the Adelaide station be re-modelled to accommodate interstate trains and the new hospital be built at Keswick. Either way, we've got to embrace a far more centralised view of public infrastructure projects.

While the hospital is of more need than the rail yards, i believe that the hospital should not take over our main rail access to the city. Where the rail yards are should become our new central railway station capable of having thru traffic for suburban trains as well as a terminus for the interstate trains (i'm starting to hate adelaide's underground terminus). The current terminus in my book doesn't qualify as a capital city (of 1.2 million people, thats huge btw) railway station, it should just be a through passage for suburban trains that are running in a possible 'future' underground line.

The Hospital can be built anywhere; eg. old clipsal site, Keswick, anywhere around the city or suburbs where there's a free space.