[VIS] Royal Adelaide Hospital Rebuild

[Briggzy_03]

How are they going to evacuate a 12 level and 15 level building full of sick people during an emergency?

I'm all for a rebuild but I hope and assume they have factored this into their planning?

yes, exactly. It makes a good headline, but in the real world, modern hospitals are low-rise because of such possibilities.

people in hopsital are in beds.

Are they?

Surely a number of cities over the 1 million+ population have vertical hospitals?

Why not just have patients with mobility issues on lower floors, and have research or similar areas on the higher floors.

Exactly, the article even mentions that part of the buildings will be used for commercial and laboratory use.

I consider myself a swing voter, so something like this, if done correctly and promising nearly $1 billion in savings, would definitely earn my vote if promised? Though I'd be eager to know things such as the differences in bed numbers and laboratory facilities between a rebuilt RAH or new RAH.

I'm waiting for someone to say the S word now.

With the $1 billion saved we could build a stadium? YAYAYAYAYAYAYAY.

[Omicron]

There are plenty of 'vertical' hospitals to be found - look at Northwestern Memorial in Chicago and the Texas Medical Center as excellent examples.

[Ho Really]

Good to see the Libs have decided on a proposal. Whether it's the right one out of the three, we'll see. At least now the voters have clear options. I'm interested to know why they are not keeping the Eastern Wing. I know this building is ugly, but it's built like a brick shithouse! (No pun intended) It's got huge reinforced columns, meaning it's anti-seismic. I was there in May this year for a week as a patient and besides the showers that looked old (but still relatively clean and functional) I didn't see any issues. Why can't they keep it and refurbish the interior at a later stage? Won't this help for bed numbers and keep the new towers lower in height?

Cheers

[Will]

There are plenty of 'vertical' hospitals to be found - look at Northwestern Memorial in Chicago and the Texas Medical Center as excellent examples.

Of course there are if you search for them, however the vast majority of modern hospitals are low-rise in nature.

I don't understand this obsession with making the Botanic Garden bigger. If this idea was abandoned surely there would be more land to build a less high hospital. As a skyscraper nerd, I love the idea of new 12 and 15 level buildings, however as someone who is in a hospital most days of the week, I have seen how time consuming it is to move 1 patient from a ward on the 5th level of the FMC to radiography a few floors down. I can't imagine how difficult it would be to evacuate 12 and 15 levels worth of patients. And I am just going with what the Liberals have said. They have said that the 12 level building will be purely patient accomodation, so thus the assumptions that some of you have made regarding that "they could house offices and labs in the upper levels" of that building are purely speculative opinions.

[Waewick]

Regarding why they are removing the Eastern Wing, I think the Eastern Wing is the oldest of the wings?

I know of patients who flatly refuse to go into the wing for all sorts of reasons usually hygiene (nothing nurse related, apparently there are a few bugs flying around). I have also heard that it has to do with the plumbing, apparently the hospital was build with piping in the walls (someone may be able to correct me hear) which are difficult to fix and impossible to fix.

[Howie]

High res image.

[Omicron]

There are plenty of 'vertical' hospitals to be found - look at Northwestern Memorial in Chicago and the Texas Medical Center as excellent examples.

Of course there are if you search for them, however the vast majority of modern hospitals are low-rise in nature.

True, but the majority of hospitals are also awarded great swathes of land on which they are free to spread out as much as they like. Hospitals in high-density urban areas have no choice but to go up, and I'd think it highly unlikely for such buildings to have gone ahead in so many instances if it was felt that patient safety was genuinely compromised. Obviously, an evacuation plan needs to be very comprehensive when dealing with 15 storeys of immobile patients, but I'd be very, very surprised if there wasn't a specific emergency/evacuation plan mandated by hospital accreditation standards.

I don't understand this obsession with making the Botanic Garden bigger.

It's a lovely, green space that is constantly tended to by gardeners and respected by the public, unlike......almost every other part of the parklands. As environmentally-sound as it is to promote wetlands, native plants and limited water usage, people still love irrigated, rolling lawns, well-kept flowerbeds and water features - and you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples with the quality of the Botanic Gardens in the entire metropolitan area.

And with that in mind, it's smart politics to introduce the notion of increasing the size of the Gardens.

[Wayno]

High res image.

Hi matey, what's the latest feelings/thoughts within the RAH staff about rebuild vs relocate? Are there concerns about the Libs plan of taller buildings? I seem to remember some time back there being a 'rah rebuild lobby' group consisting of RAH doctors/staff/etc. Are they still waving their placards?

What do we want?
A rebuild!
Where do we want it?
Here!

[rhino]

That image looks like a mish-mash of bits and pieces that don't really compliment each other, to me. Which is also how the current hospital looks, and, from what I understand, operates.

[Howie]

Video is up.

High res image.

Hi matey, what's the latest feelings/thoughts within the RAH staff about rebuild vs relocate? Are there concerns about the Libs plan of taller buildings? I seem to remember some time back there being a 'rah rebuild lobby' group consisting of RAH doctors/staff/etc. Are they still waving their placards?

What do we want?
A rebuild!
Where do we want it?
Here!

Ah yes, you're referring to the "Save the RAH" group. They're pretty happy with this latest proposal .. as you can see on their website http://saverah.com.au/. Edit: actually i'll just put their response in the next post.

[Howie]

Btw, here's what "Save The RAH " group had to say...


http://saverah.com.au/

[rhino]

So, the $700million does not include the final building, which may or may not be built, on Frome Road, at additional cost.

Give me a new cutting edge hospital on the old railyards, please.

[Wayno]

There seems to be many more benefits than issues with rebuilding. My complements to the 'Save The RAH' group for explaining their stance in such an intuitive manner. No such detailed explanation/communication from Labor on their railyards proposal - just bloody minded politics without expert & public consultation. The sort of hidden-agenda stuff that stumpjumper regularly rants on about.

Sure, a rebuild may take longer and may not save $1b (perhaps only 1/2 that amount fter including the Frome Rd building). But that's still a heck of a lot of money...

I'm a swing voter on this topic. Labor could swing me back if they 'please explain' without focusing merely on rubbishing the Libs proposal. If all they do is rubbish then i'll just swing further away...

[Professor]

A "greenfield development for a new hospital is much better construction and health management option. The new $300m medical research centre will start construction next year in the city west regardless.

I do not believe that any such re-development at the RAH could match the quality and flexibility of a state of the art new hospital. And if the vacated RAH land goes back to public use and adds value to the east end of town, so much the better.

Only in Adelaide could an election be fought over the 6-700m difference between the proposed replacement site for a new hospital. There are so many bigger issues that should be debated re the future of SA, rather than take to the trenches over a few hundrd metres difference in locating a sorely needed new medical facility.

[Wayno]

A "greenfield development for a new hospital is much better construction and health management option. The new $300m medical research centre will start construction next year in the city west regardless.

I do not believe that any such re-development at the RAH could match the quality and flexibility of a state of the art new hospital. And if the vacated RAH land goes back to public use and adds value to the east end of town, so much the better.

Only in Adelaide could an election be fought over the 6-700m difference between the proposed replacement site for a new hospital. There are so many bigger issues that should be debated re the future of SA, rather than take to the trenches over a few hundrd metres difference in locating a sorely needed new medical facility.

Not only a few hundred million bucks, but also the grossly under-discussed "loss of proximity" concerns.