[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[Shuz]

Oh shutup please. Its a name, and like anything else, it'll probably end up being called something else than its 'official' name. I still call AAMI Stadium, Footy Park.

Like get over it. Seriously.

[Wayno]

i noticed today the front page poll is coming along nicely:

• * 62 / 37.8% - Build elsewhere as Railyards is valuable civic land
  * 59 / 36.0% - Rebuild on the RAH site
  * 38 / 23.2% - Build on the Railyards
  * 05 / 3.0% - No need to build at all, current facilities are ok

Nearly 1 in 4 people voted to build on the railyards.

[Ben]

Apparently at Mike Rann's last few press conferences he has reffered to this hospital as "the central hospital".... No more Marj?

[joy]

This is definitely a waste of such a unique site in Adelaide.
One only has to look at Melbourne or Brisbane to see what can be achieved on a city river.
I hope this Government will find another more catalytic use for this parkland site than an hospital.

[Wayno]

This is definitely a waste of such a unique site in Adelaide.
One only has to look at Melbourne or Brisbane to see what can be achieved on a city river.
I hope this Government will find another more catalytic use for this parkland site than an hospital.

amen! (non-denominational)

[Wayno]

Minutes from APLA meeting

http://www.adelaidecitycouncil.com/scri ... ::pc=PC_25

MINUTES OF THE ADELAIDE PARK LANDS AUTHORITY.
(Special Board meeting held on Thursday 1 May 2008 in the Colonel Light Room, Town Hall, Adelaide, at 5.52pm.)

Membership: The Lord Mayor; and 4 other members appointed by the Council; and 5 members appointed by the Minister.

Present:
* Presiding Member - The Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR,
* Deputy Presiding Member - Ministerial appointment required,
* Board Members - Councillor Ralph CLARKE,
* Councillor Michael HENNINGSEN,
* Councillor David PLUMRIDGE,
* Councillor Anne MORAN,
* Ms Michelle GRADY, and
* Mr Ian GILFILLAN.

Apology:
* Board Member Mr Frank BLEVINS, and
* Board Member Dr Jane JAMES.

REPORT FOR DECISION
1. ITEM 1 - MARJORIE JACKSON NELSON HOSPITAL PRECINCT MASTER
PLAN [APLA] (2007/02434)

Much discussion ensued.

During discussion the following issues were raised:-
• Wetlands;
• Parking;
• Gateway to Bonython Park & Adelaide Gaol;
• Connection between the hospital and the Torrens;
• Clarifying what portion of the existing RAH site would be returned to ParkLands;
• How the decontamination of the site will be dealt with;
• Displacement of activities related both to the current RAH site and the usages associated with railway activity; and
• Public transport access.

It was then Moved by Mr GILFILLAN, Seconded by Councillor CLARKE - That the Adelaide Park Lands Authority:-
(1) Advises the State Government that the Marjorie Jackson Nelson Hospital Precinct Master Plan is inconsistent with part of the Park Lands Management Strategy and the Community Land Management Plan for Park 27 (Tulya Wodli) in that it does not return the whole of the rail yards to Park Lands and is also inconsistent with the Adelaide (City) Development Plan in that the proposed use of the site as a hospital would not comply with the current zoning.
(2) Asks Council to consider the views of the Authority in any submission that Council may make to the State Government in relation to the Marjorie Jackson Nelson Hospital Master Plan.
Carried.

Discussion ensued.

The Board meeting closed at 6.38 pm.

I edited the minutes to improve readability for S-A members. no content was changed.

[Omicron]

Advises the State Government that the Marjorie Jackson Nelson Hospital Precinct Master Plan is inconsistent with part of the Park Lands Management Strategy and the Community Land Management Plan for Park 27 (Tulya Wodli) in that it does not return the whole of the rail yards to Park Lands

Oh, Sweet Merciful Lord Jesus Christ.

I am intrigued as to how Mr. Clarke would have us simply turn the railyards into parklands. Is he advocating the ACC spend millions of its ratepayers' money on the clean-up bill, removal of all lines, and diversion of all suburban rail to the Keswick station, to be replaced by areas of lawn and trees? Or is he advocating some kind of Federation Square-esque cover over the entire site, except with trees, bushes and open areas rather than buildings? The State Government would just love to hear about a multi-million dollar construction project with no financial return whatsoever at a time when they are earmarking cuts to the State Budget.

Surely he wouldn't just be making idle claims about restoring the area to parklands without considering what would need to happen as a result?

Sigh.

[adam73837]

Seeing as how we've revealed our existence to the ACC, perhaps we should get a representative or two to attend the Council Meeting/s on behalf of Sensational Adelaide.

[urban]

Wayno that was not a meeting between the ACC and APPA.

It was a meeting of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority (APLA). The APLA is the board set-up jointly by the State Govt and ACC to advise on development within the parklands.

The APPA (Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association) is merely a community group.

[Wayno]

Wayno that was not a meeting between the ACC and APPA.

It was a meeting of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority (APLA). The APLA is the board set-up jointly by the State Govt and ACC to advise on development within the parklands.

The APPA (Adelaide Parklands Preservation Association) is merely a community group.

got it - thanks for correcting me. i have edited the original post above.

[ozisnowman]

The parkland preservation organisation needs to get off the sleeping tablets
and wake up to the 21st century. If they think the whole rail yards should be
returned to the Park Lands then what next they will want all roads leading
into the city returned to parklands. The Government would be either forced
to build tunnels for all road and rail or maybe they could put up a big fence
around the city with the sign, closed for business... that way the NIMBY
parklands group could live in isolation and plant veggies in the park and
recycle their water etc.

[Professor]

The new hospital will be built on the railyards

The government has staked its reputation on delivering these new health facilities

The opposition is in disarray when it comes to infrastructure planning

Ian Gilfillan and his wretched preservation society are no longer relevant to this debate.

The decision on location has already been made and therefore good luck to all those who oppose it. Frankly I think it's a great idea and location, as well as convenient for most patients and visitors. The existing hospital is depressing, both inside and out. Pity about the silly name but who really cares?

Let's move on.

[Brando]

The new hospital will be built on the railyards

The government has staked its reputation on delivering these new health facilities

The opposition is in disarray when it comes to infrastructure planning

Ian Gilfillan and his wretched preservation society are no longer relevant to this debate.

The decision on location has already been made and therefore good luck to all those who oppose it. Frankly I think it's a great idea and location, as well as convenient for most patients and visitors. The existing hospital is depressing, both inside and out. Pity about the silly name but who really cares?

Let's move on.

Why should we roll over and let it be, whilst all parkland groups can continuously make enough noise and dictate the future well being of this state. If the 'Marj' gets built on this site it will be a huge loss of exciting and statement making, prime real estate for the city.
When will the people of this city realise that Adelaide needs to cater for the younger generations?????

This city needs vibrance and the impression that we are finally of age. Regardless if it turns out to be stadium or entertainment precinct, we cannot afford to waste this opportunity to create our own identity on the river front. A hospital does not fit the picture here...

Bottom line, build the Marj and cater for the long effects of an ageing population or build for the future and avoid the perils that will become of this state.

[Norman]

i noticed today the front page poll is coming along nicely:

• * 62 / 37.8% - Build elsewhere as Railyards is valuable civic land
  * 59 / 36.0% - Rebuild on the RAH site
  * 38 / 23.2% - Build on the Railyards
  * 05 / 3.0% - No need to build at all, current facilities are ok

Nearly 1 in 4 people voted to build on the railyards.

More like this now:

Build on the Railyards
101 33.1%

Build elsewhere as Railyards is valuable civic land
98 32.1%

Rebuild on the RAH site
89 29.2%

No need to build at all, current facilities are ok
17 5.6%

[Shuz]

Wow, it really shows that the opinion (of what is a reasonable sample of the population) is tied between three preferentials. Obviously this indicates that as a result of any one of those decisions being made, there will be more losers than winners as a result.