Sensational-Adelaide.com

The render I was talking about

and the title should be changed to $1.7bn

It was said on the news tonight that the state will be borrowing to pay for this. Costello might not like that.

The fly-throughs on the TV news tonight looked farily good. A lot of glass with this one. It is a massive development and yes that is a new railway station to serve the hospital too. Although I don't know how many trains would service it.

The movement of the rail service yards and the cleaning up of the contaminated soil will be largely responsible for this development's huge time line. By the time it is actually built the design will probabaly have changed a fair bit.

I think this is actually a sensible move, by 2040 demand on hospitals will be huge as they showed on the news tonight, especially here with an ageing population. For once we are planning ahead!

Where is this money coming from?




Drug Deals?
I blame all new affluence on drug dealing. today tonight made me think that way lol.

AtD wrote:Which brings the obvious question: Where will they move the TA Yards?

The Rail Yards or the Adelaide Maintenance Centre as it officially called could be moved to the old Steamranger Depot site at Dry Creek or the other place that is being looked at is the Islington Workshops on that vacant just before Mt. Islington.

The flyovers are on the Adelaidenow website.

Fair comment Rhino about the alienation from Park Lands of the site for at least the last 150 years. However, someone has to say the words Park Lands in the same sentence as 'new hospital'. It's a legitimate consideration, economically and socially. After all, you wouldn't build the new hospital next to the Torrens at Elder Park, say (would you??), and there must be a point at which development in the 'Adelaide's unique ring of Park Lands' a meaningless concept.

As to Cheltenham, Will, I think the Actil site (east of the Cheltenham racecourse and presently either under option to or owned by Stockland) would be a good one. I'm not sure that access to a major hospital would not be better (ie quicker) on an aterial road such as Torrens Road than it is on North Terrace. Most of the day, the traffic densities in the CBD are higher than at, say, Cheltenham, Glenside, Keswick, Brompton etc. It would be interesting to see some modelling comparing times from random points in the metropolitan area to various possible sites. Perhaps there is no essential link between 'CBD' and 'hospital'.

No doubt all this has been considered. I just hope that the price of the TA land (ie free) didn't outweigh the other factors.

A few other points:

- Has anybody noticed that in the artist's impression in today's Advertiser there is a train station at the hospital, but no sign of a tram terminus? Surely a good opportunity to spruik Conlon's project.

- Given that the site is technically Park Lands, and given that the project has been approved by Rann's Cabinet, how did Dr Lomax-Smith, Member for and Minister for Adelaide, vote? Was she consistent in the opposition to development in the Park Lands she voiced over the Victoria Park building, and if so, has she been given leave to oppose Cabinet? Is this development 'specifically outside her responsibilities as Member for Adelaide' as with the Vic Park building?

- What of the all powerful Park Lands Authority? Was it consulted over this development, or is the Park Lands Authority really the emasculated waste of time it appears to be?'

Stumpjumper, i don't get what your problem is!

You say technically the railyards are Parklands and they may have been at one point in time, Fact is we are now in 2007, not 1907. Most major cities in the world would have bulit on this land many years ago. Have a look at the compared renders of what is there now and what it will look like when the RAH is built on the site and honestly tell me what you think looks better.
If your arguement is more political based, then i will not debate you on such issues as i have no interest. I, like you i'm sure, only wants what is better for this state and this development will be a major improvement of the existing RAH and what is currently on the Railyard site now.
There is already talk of the existing RAH site when bulldozed being returned to parklands. I'm not a greenie nor a parkland advocate, but if one had to be returned to Parklands, i sure know which site i would prefer to be green again if i was!

Which site would you prefer to be returned to Parklands?

stumpjumper wrote:The 'TransAdelaide' site was Park Lands in Light's original design. He didn't know anything about railways and envisaged the land below the scarp at the western end of North Terrace forming part of the encircling ring of parkland which differentiates Adelaide from all other cities.

stumpjumper wrote:Fair comment Rhino about the alienation from Park Lands of the site for at least the last 150 years. However, someone has to say the words Park Lands in the same sentence as 'new hospital'. It's a legitimate consideration, economically and socially. After all, you wouldn't build the new hospital next to the Torrens at Elder Park, say (would you??), and there must be a point at which development in the 'Adelaide's unique ring of Park Lands' a meaningless concept.

As to Cheltenham, Will, I think the Actil site (east of the Cheltenham racecourse and presently either under option to or owned by Stockland) would be a good one. I'm not sure that access to a major hospital would not be better (ie quicker) on an aterial road such as Torrens Road than it is on North Terrace. Most of the day, the traffic densities in the CBD are higher than at, say, Cheltenham, Glenside, Keswick, Brompton etc. It would be interesting to see some modelling comparing times from random points in the metropolitan area to various possible sites. Perhaps there is no essential link between 'CBD' and 'hospital'.

No doubt all this has been considered. I just hope that the price of the TA land (ie free) didn't outweigh the other factors.

As far as I'm concerned, the proposed area for "The Marj" has never been parklands. I have never seen it like that and I have never seen historical pictures of it. As for comparing the rail yards to Elder park, please try to be realistic. The rail yards are a baren wasteland and anything is better than what is currently there.

Light's idea of surrounding the central business district with parklands was great and i'm all for keeping with the general idea, but should one man's vision from the 19th century hamper growth for the 21st century?

Light's idea of surrounding the city with fields was purely a military decision, it meats any invading force would be required to cross an open field to reach the city. They were never intended by Light to be parklands. More an accident then design.

AtD wrote:Light's idea of surrounding the city with fields was purely a military decision, it meats any invading force would be required to cross an open field to reach the city. The Parklands were never intended by Light to be parklands.

Sorry mate but I don't belive that for a second from all of the research and readings I have done. Unless you can come up with a source for your information?

Stumpjumper, you lost me when you compared the railyards with Elder Park and engaged in your usual political conspiracy theory, red tape championing nonsense.

This land is grossly underutilised in its present form, and would be equally underutilised if returned to the parklands it may or may not have been more than 150 years ago.

The question for a progressive city in 2007, is whether 'The Marj' is an underdevelopment of the site.

I'm all for protecting the existing parklands - there's plenty of underdeveloped land available in the city to meet the city's commercial and residential demands for some time to come, however, romanticising over a mostly barron, but otherwise industrial-like piece of prime river(or lake)front land smacks of a fear of progress that you generally don't display.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the current RAH site should be returned to parklands. The botanic gardens, elder park etc are right nearby. How much barely used picnic space do we need in the CBD? How about a scaled down (obviously) Federation Square type development that is bold and interesting enough to attract people and actually get used?

Pants, I'm sorry I lost you so early in my remarks! The point I was trying to make, probably clumsily, was that given the release of the TA site by TransAdelaide, then a decision has to be made as to what the status or value of the land now is. That is, does it have high economic, social or whatever value or potential, or is it a low value site without many redeeming features or potential. Elder Park for example is probably the most visited area of the whole of Adelaide's Park Lands. As such, it would be madness to build a utility building like a hospital there.

So in assessing the suitability of the site, whoever has done that job must ahve asked questions like the following.

What values does the TA site offer in general?

Positive values: good riverfront location, close to CBD, well connected to transport. Negative: probable soil contamination, fill etc requiring expensive remediation/stabilisation if the site is to be built on. Relative values as Park Lands: probably neutral - developing the site would not break the continuity of the city-circling parklands. (It's the primarily the continuity of the Park Lands which give them the unique character which I contend we could exploit by World Heritage listing, but that's another argument.)

What values does the site offer compared to others as a site for a major hospital? Well, you'd have to look at access and such issues. I'm not sure the CBD location increases accessibility relative to a location on an inner city aterial road, but then I'm not an expert on the requirements of hospitals.

So while I'm an obvious advocate for the Park Lands, as much for their unrealised potential as a tourist draw as for their history or their pleasant greenness etc, I'm not against this hospital.

I am however, a bit grumpy about the way the project has been developed to, it seems, its final stage without much transparency. I'm not a conspiracy theorist to expect a bit of transparency for my taxpayer's dollar. Some people wouldn't care about that. I do. And just for the hell of it I'd like to know about J Lo's consistency in Cabinet in this matter and also if the mighty Park Lands Authority was even consulted about this.

As for the old site, I'd rip out the infill buildings (ie most of the buildings) and return the complex to something like its original open quadrangle design. Then I'd look for some tertiary educational use. Maybe expansion of Uni of Adelaide or Uni of SA, or Carnegie Mellon or whatever. I don't think it's a good idea to establish permanent residential use on the site (see Wedge, Thin End Of, etc)

stumpjumper wrote: Negative: probable soil contamination, fill etc requiring expensive remediation/stabilisation if the site is to be built on.

I believe the idea of having 3 floors underground is so that the contaminated soil can be removed, and clean fill and stabilisation of it will not be required.

Good point Monsieur Rhinoceros. Going undergound will also preserve the boulevard character of that bit of North Terrace, stopping it from becoming a canyon.