[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Bulldozer]

Some more points:

* There's no reason why you can't build down if height is a problem.
* Laboratories and areas where patients aren't kept don't have to be close to the ground - they could be located in a tower.
* There'd be a lot of space underground for parking, or a multi-storey car park could be built across the street.
* If the site isn't big enough you could also build on the other side of and over the top of Grote or Gouger streets like a couple of government buildings here in Brisbane have done.
* Provision could also be made for a subway station under Grote Street if in the future they decide to run the rail line up to a central station under Victoria Square.
* Think I've said it before, but the large numbers of people using the hospital would really kickstart development in that section of the city, which to me seems rather underdeveloped.

[bmw boy]

Im not necessarally in favour for a hospital at the Aus Post site... or against for that matter.

But, i thought the Advertiser made a big deal out of nothing and the render was ridiculous!

Firstly from what I understand, the arguement of not being enough space, is that on usuing the space of the building itself not the whole site? ( I know the render only used the area which the actual building is).

Going past tonight there is significant amount of room infront occupied by Freedom Furniture, HJ's, Shell, Tan Ezy, Golf Shop, plus a Fabric shop if Im not mistaken (plus a few more). Then as has been mentioned could possiby incorperate blocks in the surrounding area.

Current Public Transport acess is abit of an issue with this site tho.

[Ho Really]

...Current Public Transport acess is abit of an issue with this site tho.

That's only a temporary thing. Something like a hospital could be the catalyst for improving public transport in that area, just like all the apartments in the west of the city should bring the tram extension down Morphett and Grote Streets. The two go together.

Cheers

[skyliner]

...Current Public Transport acess is abit of an issue with this site tho.

That's only a temporary thing. Something like a hospital could be the catalyst for improving public transport in that area, just like all the apartments in the west of the city should bring the tram extension down Morphett and Grote Streets. The two go together.

Cheers

True, the two do go together. This has been proven with the information made available on this site in earlier times - with particular reference to Portland in the USA and a current light rail and tram development magazine available in newsagents.Unfortunately the name escapes me at present, but it is the only one you can get. It has been stated by the current government as a factor in favour of the tramline extension as well.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE.

[Brando]

Adelaide's new "Marj" hospital to be a public/private partnership


THE city's new Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital will be built as a public/private partnership, the State Government confirmed today.

The $1.7 billion, 800-bed hospital will feature significant private sector involvement, Treasurer Kevin Foley announced.

"Across Australia a range of states are choosing the PPP procurement model to deliver a range of significant capital works projects," Mr Foley said.

"Independent consultants have been working since late August ... this work showed that a PPP model would achieve the best value for money. In addition it gives us the opportunity of using private sector expertise in delivering large-scale projects of this nature."

Expressions of interest for private corporations will open in November next year. Construction will begin in 2010 and the State Government says the hospital will be up and running in 2016.

Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the Government had "broken its biggest election pledge''.

He pointed to a promise made by Mr Rann during the 2002 election when he said: ``Privatisations in South Australia will end from day one of a Labor Government. Not one public hospital will be privatised or closed under Labor in the the country or city.''

Mr Hamilton-Smith said that by announcing a PPP funding model for the new hospital, under which the state will lease the hospital from 2016, Mr Rann had broken his pledge.

"This is a defining moment in South Australian politics and one that the people will not forget,'' he said.

He said Opposition calculations indicated repaying the cost of the new hospital "s likely to be more than three times greater than the $1.7 billion cost of the works''.

[Edgar]

what's PPP

[AtD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_private_partnership

[Will]

Due to the arrangement chosen by the government to build the hospital; the Marj will effectively be a private hospital. I am unsure as to what this means for the public. Will the public be charged to use the Marj?

[AG]

Due to the arrangement chosen by the government to build the hospital; the Marj will effectively be a private hospital. I am unsure as to what this means for the public. Will the public be charged to use the Marj?

I would think the hospital would still operate as a public hospital, but the building itself would be owned by the consortium formed to finance and construct the hospital.

[AtD]

The Modbury Hospital is a private hospital. It's kind of like bulk-bulk-bulk billing.

[Cruise]

Due to the arrangement chosen by the government to build the hospital; the Marj will effectively be a private hospital. I am unsure as to what this means for the public. Will the public be charged to use the Marj?

I see it in the same as renting a house, the landlord (the private consortium) owns the hospital and the state government "rents" it from them to use as a public hospital. Please correct me if I'm wrong

[rhino]

If I understood correctly what I heard yesterday, Cruise is basically right. The advantage to the Government is that they can set standards that have to be achieved and maintained, without having to do that maintenance themselves. The private owners will no doubt pass the cost on to the Govt, but a rental agreement would be set in place. The private company may also be able to complete maintenance for less cost than the Govt, due to a simpler tendering process.

[AG]

Marj deal to save $170m
MICHAEL OWEN POLITICAL REPORTER
December 18, 2007 01:15am
THE new $1.7 billion Marjorie Jackson-Nelson Hospital would be built using a public-private partnership to save taxpayers at least $170 million.

Delivering the 800-bed hospital in partnership with the private sector has always been Mr Foley's preferred option.

Mr Foley and Health Minister John Hill yesterday announced a consortium of companies will build and operate the hospital, which will be staffed and administered by public sector workers.

Expressions of interest will open next November, with construction to begin in 2010.

The hospital will be complete in 2016, Mr Foley said, when the Government expected to sign a 30-year lease with the private operator. The Government remains responsible for remediation of the 11ha site - the railyards west of the Morphett St Bridge. A total of $213 million was allocated in this year's Budget over the next four years for site preparation.

"We envisage that this process - as against building it ourselves - will save the taxpayer at least $170 million over the life of the project," Mr Foley said.

As one of the "greenest major developments in the nation", Mr Foley said the new hospital was expected to deliver operational savings of between $50 and $100 million a year. It is the latest in many State Government projects to be built using the PPP model.

Private enterprise is already in line to bid for more than $730 million in Government infrastructure projects in South Australia, including prisons and schools.

The Government has been investigating building a desalination plant for Adelaide using a PPP, but Mr Foley yesterday said a decision had not yet been made on that project. Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the Government had "broken its biggest election pledge".

He pointed to a promise made by Premier Mike Rann during the 2002 election campaign, when he said "not one public hospital will be privatised" under his government. "This is a defining moment in South Australian politics and one that the people will not forget," he said.

[rhino]

Martin's a wanker and should learn to read. The hospital will be staffed and administered by public sector workers. In effect the Govt is leasing a purpose-built building and running a hospital in it. They do this all over the city .

[stelaras]

Basically summed up my thoughts already... you'd need to get a massive tower to accommodate even half the floorspace of the current RAH. I'd doubt 40 storeys would be even enough.

They would never build a 40 storey hospital, it is not practical or efficient, in the case of an internal emergency (fire/bomb threat etc) they could not empty the buioding fast enough. Efficient patient handling and "quick" response time (i.e. being able to get to and move patients within 4 minutes) can not occur on any building greater than 15 storeys...

At the current RAH site, you've got a series of 10-15 level towers, underground levels, 6 level carparking, a med school, a dentistry, various research groups and the imvs, the cafe, the list just keeps going on and on. Very naive to think that'd you'd be able to plonk the rah on a site with a plot of about 25% of the current.

As far as iam aware from my sources in and around the IMVS, HCCR, Med & Dentistry is that these buildings/departments are not being considered for the move into the new build.
The IMVS, HCCR will not be drastically affected by the new RAH, the research facilities are independent of the hospital. The IMVS does do some cost recovery in the form of bloodwork for the hospital, but this really is only one small section of the IMVS which, could easily be moved to the new hospital.

The Med school is not relaint on being next to the hospital. When graduates are doing their rotations they are not required to be in the med school buildings, conversely, when they are being taught (lectures/tutes) they are not required to be on the hospital site.

The only problem i see is the school of dentistry, they actually see patients and prisoners so logistically it would be hard for patients and correctional service staff to negotiate the two locations..

The 10-15 storey towers you are reffering to are the old "nurses quaters" these buildings are now used to house international registrars, students and international research students (doing masters/PhD or sabbaticals) With the amount of low cost student accomodation that is popping up within the city surrounding our university campuses relocating them there wont be a problem.