[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

[stelaras]

A stadium on the old RAH site once the new RAH is built would not be practical. especially if it is to be a 100,000 ppl stadium.

A stadium that size will require transport exchanges (bus/tram) as well as multiple entrances for car parking. You couldn't do it in that location. I would go for an extension and beautification of the botanic gardens, into something more spectacular, than what we have.

If the state is to embark on creating an inner city stadium it would be best that it is built in a location where we could create a sports precint, similar to what Melbourne has. It is one of the main reasons why melbourne attracts all these sporting events, world class stadiums in the heart of the city.

There would be more than enough room to build a sports precinct ( multi function inner city stadium, tennis centre and basketball/netball stadium) in the vicintiy bordering sir edwin smith drive-frome road-and war memorial drive.

[SRW]

The last thing this city needs is more parklands; don't we have enough already? Why not build something that will give tourists and locals something to do?

That's the thing though, it's not just parklands -- it's the Botanic Garden, and it can only be a good thing to expand what is one of Adelaide's top three visitor attractions.

[Omicron]

The last thing this city needs is more parklands; don't we have enough already? Why not build something that will give tourists and locals something to do?

That's the thing though, it's not just parklands -- it's the Botanic Garden, and it can only be a good thing to expand what is one of Adelaide's top three visitor attractions.

I think that a Botanic Gardens extension interspersed with fine former RAH heritage buildings would be a marvellous addition to the city.

[fishinajar]

It would also be good if they did something special with the existing RAH land, even making it a part of the Botanical gardens (after the demolition of those ugly buildings, of course).

It was announced some time ago that the most of the current RAH land will be turned over the the Botanic Garden, while the heritage buildings will be retained for alternative use, likely as additional facilities for the university or as cultural institutes.

Where is this info from SRW? It's a good point- I'm sure that in the near future if the hospital were to be redeveloped, that both the hospital and uni would become space starved.

Tying the open space in with the bot gdns and zoo would have limited success (due to interspersed buildings) and is probably not required due to the adjacent Plane Tree Drv and other open (parkland) spaces. The picnic party goers may not agree with me on this point.

[omada]

The hospital is going to be built, I can't really see the need for further debate.

[Will]

The last thing this city needs is more parklands; don't we have enough already? Why not build something that will give tourists and locals something to do?

That's the thing though, it's not just parklands -- it's the Botanic Garden, and it can only be a good thing to expand what is one of Adelaide's top three visitor attractions.

Yes it is one of the top 3 'visitor' attractions in Adelaide. The other 2 being the Central Market and the State Library. The problem with official visitor numbers is that they do not differentiate between tourists and locals. For example I presume there are many people who work in the vicinity who would eat their lunch every day in the botanic gardens. Likewise I visit the Central Market to buy some cheese and vegetables every Saturday; does that make me a visitor?

This is one of the problems with this city. We find it so hard to think outside the box. Surely a prime North Terrace site could be better used. No other city in Australia would waste such space on more lawns for people to eat their lunch.

[Ben]

The last thing this city needs is more parklands; don't we have enough already? Why not build something that will give tourists and locals something to do?

That's the thing though, it's not just parklands -- it's the Botanic Garden, and it can only be a good thing to expand what is one of Adelaide's top three visitor attractions.

Yes it is one of the top 3 'visitor' attractions in Adelaide. The other 2 being the Central Market and the State Library. The problem with official visitor numbers is that they do not differentiate between tourists and locals. For example I presume there are many people who work in the vicinity who would eat their lunch every day in the botanic gardens. Likewise I visit the Central Market to buy some cheese and vegetables every Saturday; does that make me a visitor?

This is one of the problems with this city. We find it so hard to think outside the box. Surely a prime North Terrace site could be better used. No other city in Australia would waste such space on more lawns for people to eat their lunch.

I think an extension of the Botanic Grdens as planned is the best option for THIS SITE. As it is one of Adelaide's major attractions and we can build upon this and perhaps have conference facilties and the like and maybe a hotel as part of the development. It doesn't have to be "lawn". As the state continues to dry out I think a well maintained green garden such as the botancial gardens will continue to grow in popularity, as people no longer have their own green oasis to potter around and relax in.

[DM8]

The hospital is going to be built...

Maybe - I'm not convinced we'll ever see it. Even if it goes ahead, it's not due to be completed for another 7 years, which works out to another 2 election terms worth of Rann & Co. If they were serious about building it, we'd have already seen the start of construction. They haven't moved the railyards yet!

[Wayno]

The hospital is going to be built...

I'm also not convinced it will happen - it's only 12months to the next election, with hard-core political advertising (and poll-watching) starting much sooner. It could get derailed quite easily - after all Rann's priority is re-election, not building a hospital.

[Norman]

The railyards are being moved as we speak. This should be done by 2010 or 2011.

[skyliner]

Go back to a map of the rail layout of Adelaide Stn and yards and see how much will be left. The oldest I have is 1903 (V similar in the 1950's) - includes the current area of removal, loco yards,4 track loco running shed, coal stage, and TT on the nth. side as well as a 6 track passenger coach shed nth. of the stn., 10 incoming lines to the stn, which then had 13 tracks (1950's) instead of 8 now. It sure has shrunken almost to oblivion. To give an idea - Narrandera (NSW) had yards about half Adelaide's size - 500 men to operate it till the diesel days - now 20. (According to the stationmaster). Will be interesting to see Dry Ck. area.
Xaragmata might know something about all this as well.

A lot of parkland opened up one might say. If the hopital goes ahead it will be interesting to see how much is left.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

[Cam]

As much as I am opposed to the new site I tried to think of some positives.

1. Once or during development it should spur the ACC development of the Torrens area behind it.
2. Thinking about City Peak Hour Traffic the Ambulances can make use of the 'no car zones' on the Tram Tracks .
3. Flinders is ideally near the Junction of the Southern Expressway so in turn the RAH be near a future northerly Expressway .

[adam73837]

MOST AdelaideNow readers back Mike Rann's move to drop the name Marjorie Jackson-Nelson for our new hospital, but they've roasted him over the politics of the backflip.

In the poll at the right of this page, over 50 per cent of more than 5000 readers have voted in favour of the Royal Adelaide Hospital as the best name and "a good move."

About a fifth thought the government should ask voters to decide the name and about a tenth thought the name change was an embarrassment for Labor.

But many of the hundreds of comments pouring in over the name change have criticised the Premier for involving the venerated former governor's name in the controversial project in the first place and and accused him of pulling a political stunt. Read them at the end of this story and ad your own thoughts.

Vote in poll, lower right, to get latest results.

Premier Mike Rann yesterday bowed to former governor Marjorie Jackson-Nelson's request to drop her name from the planned $1.7 billion hospital.

Blaming "vitriolic" public attacks for Mrs Jackson-Nelson's decision to stem "controversy continuing" for more than a year about the project, Mr Rann yesterday said the hospital would retain the Royal Adelaide Hospital name.

Mr Rann announced what the Opposition is describing as a "backflip" in a ministerial statement to Parliament – a move which prompted one Liberal MP to label Mr Rann "gutless".

Treasurer Kevin Foley yelled across the chamber: "Only you could be proud of this."

Mr Rann said Mrs Jackson-Nelson had visited him on Friday last week about the hospital, which will be built above railyards in the city's West End.

Mr Rann said she had asked that the project proceed without the dedication in her name to avoid, "in her words, controversy continuing about a project that can only benefit SA".

"I think that is incredibly sad," he said.

Mr Rann said he had tried to talk Mrs Jackson-Nelson out of her decision, which comes after a year of negative reaction to what is the centrepiece of the Rann Government's health agenda.

The Government has come under increasing pressure over the new hospital, especially from medical groups opposing the move to replace the RAH.

Mr Rann told Parliament, amid angry shouts, that the Opposition's attacks on the hospital being named after Mrs Jackson-Nelson had been shameful.

"No one could have anticipated the vitriol of members of the Liberal Party towards this great Australian," he said. "But some of the attacks have been deeply personal, aimed at Marjorie and her contribution, rather than simply at our choice of her name for the new hospital."

In June 2007, when the name of the new hospital was announced, Mrs Jackson-Nelson said she was "taken aback" and "a bit overwhelmed".

She had hoped the people of SA would "feel all right with it".

"It's a great honour," Mrs Jackson-Nelson told The Advertiser at the time.

Mr Rann said there had been "personal as well as poisonous" attacks on the former governor over her name being attached to the hospital.

He said it was "shameful as well as shallow".

Mr Rann said he was sure most South Australians would share his disappointment that the comments of a small but vocal minority had contributed to stopping this dedication to "a woman who has given so much to our community over the course of her life".

"Work is already under way on the new site and construction of the new hospital will start next year," he said. "The new hospital – with the same name – will open in seven years' time."

There also has been opposition to the name from nurses and former health executives who have said while they supported the new hospital they believed it should retain the RAH name.

The Australian Nursing Federation last week passed a motion supporting the hospital but calling for a name change.

A former hospital chief executive, Chris Overland, also said while there was a need for a new hospital, the Royal Adelaide "brand" should be retained.

Opposition health spokeswoman Vickie Chapman said she welcomed the decision to have the RAH name live on. However, it was "utterly despicable" that the Government had exploited Mrs Jackson-Nelson's name in its campaign for a new hospital.

Ms Chapman thanked everyone who had worked hard and spoken out loudly to keep the name of the RAH and said "we will work even harder to keep the hospital".

She said the Government needed to apologise for dragging the former governor into an issue that clearly had been demonstrated as objectionable to the public of South Australia.

To be honest, I find it appaling that Rann is criticising the Public and Opposition and stating that they made "deeply personal attacks on Mrs Jackson-Nelson". While everyone was throwing criticism at the fact that hospital was to be named after her, no one went public with personal insults against the woman herself. Obviously Rann's ego has been bruised and he's finding ways to shift this controversy from himself to the Opposition (who are fulfilling their job of being the opposition by whingeing ), the general public and to a very slight extent the ex-Governor herself. At least she knew what the public wanted. Media Mike Rann on the other hand, is so focused on his hobby-horse (indented to be an ironic reference to the AAMI Stadium thread on S-A) that he isn't listening to the general public (that last statement wasn't a reference to the thread). The fact that he said this decision was the work of minorites is very amusing indeed, particularly due to the fact that it is quite the opposite. Oh well, I guess the fact that he's shifting blame is to be expected, because after all, THIS IS POLITICS!!!!!

King_Leonidas.jpg (7.35 KiB) Viewed 4075 times

With $1billion+ of the allocated funds that they have for the City-West Hospital (which is sucking in funds like a whirlpool), can they possibly upgrade the RAH in a similar way to what PhilM suggested or maybe even upgrade what it currently is, then pump the rest of the allocated funds into the other Metro Hospitals?

One of the specialists at the RAH made an interesting point; he said something about having the RAH only being used as an emergency hospital and then the rest of the private and public suburban hospitals can share the remaining load of what the RAH currently carries. <open for comments>

[adam73837]

Meh

[JamesXander]

Holy hell...you support Tollways!


Driving a car is bloody expensive as it is. No way in hel am I EVER going to pay to drive on a tax funded road. We dont need that shit in SA.