[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

[COM]

#46 Post by crawf » Thu May 24, 2007 11:58 pm

Snorkie wrote:If i may, no one can think of a better site to put the RAH? Just off the top of my head, doesnt the Australia Post hq on west terrace take up almost an entire, if not an entire city block? That building makes me sick every time i drive past it (cause i work just down the road). Dont know what you guys think, but in my opinion have Aus post moved, and demolish that eyesore, and put the RAH there, which could then also involve a tram loop down west terrace and back up grote st. Probably unrealistic, but a much better idea in my opinion.
The Australia Post HQ site is to small, the current RAH is more than 3 times bigger than Aus Post on West Terrace.

Just take a look at the UBD City Map, and see how massive the Royal Adelaide is.

User avatar
bmw boy
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:45 am

[COM]

#47 Post by bmw boy » Fri May 25, 2007 12:10 am

hmm this rreally is abit ofa pickle

how bout the university oval grounds?

Snorkie
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 11:34 pm
Location: Adelaide!
Been thanked: 5 times

[COM]

#48 Post by Snorkie » Fri May 25, 2007 12:24 am

bmw boy wrote:the only thing is wih this ptopasal... both the RAH and the post office need to be in working order untill they move to thier new locations.... this can't happen if the RAH will take the place of the post office,...

the only way around it i think, would be to build the new post office somewhere first, then the new RAH could be built..... then the old RAH site could then be developed after the move was complete... seem's like it would take a while...

although doesn't the post office have to be in a central location also...so its not really solving the problem... just handballing it on...?
but i spose it wouldnt hurt it if it moved to bowden or sumthng.... but not sure...
Yeah your right. but there is nothing stopping them from building a new office block in town. If im not mistaken Aust Post Melbourne just signed a new lease for an office block in the city (SX2 if im not mistaken), so if they can do it why cant we? Even if a new RAH does get built i doubt anything will happen for a few years at least anyway.
crawf wrote: The Australia Post HQ site is to small, the current RAH is more than 3 times bigger than Aus Post on West Terrace.

Just take a look at the UBD City Map, and see how massive the Royal Adelaide is....
Yeah crawf, i think this would mean also acquiring some additional properties around it. Its all tin sheds down that way anyway. If they built the whole thing high rise im sure it would fit, its a pretty big sight... and to answer your next question, yes i know height limits are like 23m or something, but if it was viable im sure it could get done.

Ahh its never gonna happen anyway, just my mind wandering randomly, sorry guys. If goes ahead on the railway yards, I think if designed well, with plenty of apartment, and entertainment precincts, will be a very valuable addition to our city. My 2c.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

[COM]

#49 Post by crawf » Fri May 25, 2007 12:59 am

But isn't there a certain height hospitals cant pass?

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

[COM]

#50 Post by crawf » Fri May 25, 2007 1:20 am

QEH may be satellite to new RAH
JILL PENGELLEY, HEALTH REPORTER

May 25, 2007 02:15am
Article from: The Advertiser


PLANS to rebuild the Royal Adelaide Hospital are believed to include a merger with the Queen Elizabeth Hospital as a satellite facility.

University of Adelaide surgery professor Guy Maddern, who is based at the QEH, said the emergency department would be in the city but the QEH could offer clinics and surgery, including day surgery.

"I think what is being potentially mooted is the idea of merging the QEH and RAH into one institution," he said yesterday. "The more sophisticated emergency and intensive requirements of a hospital could be located at this new site.

"There's not much point having an emergency service that is quietly falling over."

Professor Maddern, who has proposed the name Queen Adelaide Hospital, said the merger would allow each hospital to build on its strengths and would avoid replicating expensive equipment and staff.

He said building the new hospital would take "in the order of six to eight years".

"We've been led to believe that the Budget will give the initial funds to start the planning process," he said.

"I think they're planning to start quite quickly.

"Most people recognise that things are going to have to change if we are going to have high-quality health care. It only makes sense if we bring the two hospitals together."

A senior health figure, who asked not to be named, said upgrading the existing RAH would cost close to $1 billion and would still be "sub-optimal".

This upgrade would be on top of more than $100 million spent in the past decade to overhaul intensive care, emergency and the burns unit.

RAH doctors spoken to by The Advertiser yesterday said a new hospital needed more parking, better access, more single rooms to isolate patients and control infection, more innovative surgical facilities and better computer systems.

Several doctors described the current site as "land-locked" and said the proposed location would allow room for further expansion.

Australian Nursing Federation state secretary Lee Thomas said nurses she had spoken to were supportive of the idea of a new hospital.

"The areas can be purpose-built for today's technology and the needs of the community but the really important thing from our members' perspective is to be included at all levels in the design," she said.

Industry leaders support the project
May 25, 2007 02:15am
Article from: The Advertiser

ADELAIDE'S property industry leaders, in the main, have thrown their support behind the $1.5 billion proposal.

Sources say improved capital value of the vacated North Tce site could be "hundreds of millions of dollars", or even as much as $1 billion.

Property Council executive director Nathan Paine said: "The key point about the old site is that is should be reclaimed for public use, whether it be parkland or a public facility. If the RAH is relocated, that site should, and would, have parkland protection."

CB Richard Ellis managing director Philip Rundle said there was no doubt the relocation project would be the biggest single city development in Adelaide's history.

Developer Stephen Holmes said: "There is a great opportunity provided by the railway yards to intensify and develop the River Torrens frontage but, if it were up to me, I would be putting a football field and a large scale apartment development on that site," he said.
Last edited by crawf on Fri May 25, 2007 1:57 am, edited 2 times in total.

crawf
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 5417
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:49 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 181 times
Been thanked: 320 times

[COM]

#51 Post by crawf » Fri May 25, 2007 1:28 am

Brilliant editorial in todays tiser
City needs world-class hospital
May 25, 2007 02:15am
Article from: The Advertiser

A NEW $1.5 billion Royal Adelaide Hospital to be built in the northwest corner of Adelaide makes good sense.

The State Government will neither confirm nor deny its plan as reported in The Advertiser yesterday.

But there seems little doubt the plan is going ahead.

Such a development would give South Australia a state-of-the-art teaching hospital to equal any in the world without creating unnecessary disruption to patient care at the existing RAH.

This is in no way intended as a criticism of the magnificent facilities and services available at the 700-bed RAH.

But the RAH was founded in 1840. While it has been extensively upgraded and rebuilt, some buildings and facilities are outdated and space for expansion is at a premium.

Before giving the green light to a new hospital it is important to examine the details of what has, apparently, already been put before state Cabinet by the Health Minister, John Hill.

For example, should the hospital be built further west on the old Clipsal site on Port Road and amalgamate services being provided by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital at Woodville and even the Women's and Children's Hospital?

In the end, it is clear that within a decade SA will need a new world-class hospital - whatever the cost.

There is every indication, with sensible financial management, that SA will continue to bring down surplus Budgets for the next half decade and beyond.

The new hospital costs could be spread over perhaps five or six years and be built in stages under a joint government-private sector partnership arrangement.

The new hospital must be close to the heart of the city and near both the Adelaide University and University of SA.

One possible site, west of the Morphett St Bridge between the old Adelaide Jail and the Convention Centre, may be part of the Adelaide parklands network but this should not be an impediment to the development of a world-class medical facility.

People prepared to reject the idea because it is on unused parklands - or who say it it is being planned as a monument to the Premier, Mike Rann - typify the narrow thinking which still exists among a small minority of South Australians.

Parts of the current RAH site could be returned to parklands, possibly as elements of an expanded and upgraded Botanic Gardens.

A new hospital could incorporate teaching and research resources which would attract the most qualified medical practitioners from the Asian region and beyond.

It would put SA in the forefront of the medical world and enhance the state's reputation as a precinct of high education and medical technology.

Ultimately, it would provide South Australians with a centre of unparalleled medical services excellence.

From what little is known so far, the proposed new hospital is an exciting and visionary concept which must be given serious consideration.

* Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell, 31 Waymouth St, Adelaide, SA 5000
Where is this old Clipsal site?, is it on the corner of Adam St and Port Road?

User avatar
jimmy_2486
Legendary Member!
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Glenelg-Marion Area

[COM]

#52 Post by jimmy_2486 » Fri May 25, 2007 1:31 am

Sounds quite interesting actually.

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 26 times

[COM]

#53 Post by Pants » Fri May 25, 2007 9:25 am

If you really think about it, the best development for that site would be a stadium/events complex to bring people into the city and have them head back towards the CBD after an event to use the restaurants/shops etc there.

But, in reality, that’s not going to happen for as long as our two AFL teams are committed to AAMI.

The Torrens is a lake. We need to accept that. It’s not the Yarra, it’s not the Brisbane River and it’s about as far removed from Sydney Harbour as you can get, so Adelaide will never be built around it. That would see an entertainment/commercial/tourism precinct, designed to keep people in that spot just draw people further away from the city centre and still give the impression that the city’s dead. As it stands, you can see just how poorly the proposed riverbank idea has been received. It’s just too far from the rest of the action.

A hospital there, with room for a few unrelated office towers and a square where workers and visitors etc can hang out wouldn’t be too bad a second choice there. It would allow the construction of world-class facilities without disruption to existing hospital services and would keep the area sufficiently busy. Hospitals and medical schools seem to provide for innovative architecture, so the building could be a landmark.

My first thoughts were that it would be under-development of the site, but after thinking that the best possible use for the site would be a draw card that would later move people back towards the city centre, it doesn’t seem that bad an idea.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 15 times

[COM]

#54 Post by urban » Fri May 25, 2007 9:33 am

The old Clipsal site is actually the current Clipsal site on Park Tce facing the parklands.

Clipsal have announced that they are planning to relocate to allow for much greater manufacturing efficiency. I understand they are looking to house everything in the 1 building instead of the 40 something buildings they currently have.

This should all happen in the next 18 months.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2927
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 113 times

[COM]

#55 Post by rhino » Fri May 25, 2007 10:21 am

I think the railyards site is a good choice for the new hospital, which I think Adelaide, and the good doctors, nurses and other staff of the RAH desperately needs. As stated earlier in this thread, the number of people involved with the hospital will create a need for other services in the immediate locality, such as eateries, shops, maybe a cinema - basically the area has the potential to become another tourist precinct as well as giving us a world class hospital and university training centre.

With regard to the old RAH site, I personally would be happy to see the bulk of it torn down, it's an eyesore. The old buildings along North Tce look pretty cool and it would be good for them to be used in such a way that the public can have access to them. I would like to see the Botanical Gardens extended into the area, and whatever else goes in there being simpathetic to the botanical gardens. A really decent outdoor amphetheatre / concert venue would be good.
cheers,
Rhino

User avatar
Howie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4792
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:55 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 72 times
Been thanked: 41 times

[COM]

#56 Post by Howie » Fri May 25, 2007 11:33 am

From what i've heard today... looks like this is a done deal.

User avatar
stelaras
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: melbourne (born and raised in adelaide)

[COM]

#57 Post by stelaras » Fri May 25, 2007 12:24 pm

Howie wrote:From what i've heard today... looks like this is a done deal.
can you be more specific??



maybe they want to turn the old RAH site into a Fed Square type of thing, some new museums restaurants, screens, gardens...how cool would that be....right in the heart of the city! if that were to happen it would be a good center point that would feed into the rundle street/mall precincts

User avatar
Pants
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1253
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Back Home
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 26 times

[COM] Re: Footy Speak

#58 Post by Pants » Fri May 25, 2007 12:35 pm

champsman wrote:
Why would you want to do that when we have a beautiful stadium already in the city going to waste on cricket that nobody really cares about? As far as I'm concerned Adelaide Oval would be a perfect ground to host Power AFL matches after its redevelopment. The SANFL needs to get over itself and think about the good of SA Football rather than how much money it can't make if the Power leaves AAMI. I'm sure SACA would be better landlords.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the AFL require their grounds to be all-seaters? I may be wrong and can't think off the top of my head whether Carrara and Yorke Park are all seaters, but if I'm not wrong (actually, as I type I'm leaning more towards me being wrong...), there's no way that the hill on Adelaide Oval should or would make way for seats so that AFL can be played there.

Either way, it would be best for the city if both teams played in the city. 20-30,000 Port fans every fortnight for 6 months won't make that much difference, but together with 40-50,000 fans every other week at a new stadium, which could also hold international soccer matches and have an off-shoot entertainment centre for non-stadium concerts, basketball etc, it would.

AAMI and its surrounds could be sold off to developers (and be made into housing as it always should have been) and this, coupled with the extra patronage and therefore additional income it'd get from a central stadium, the SANFL would realise it's outlay in no time.
champsman wrote: No, its not. Its a river. Given, its no Yarra, but its still a river.
Effectively, it's as good as a lake. Technically, it might fit the criteria to be called a river, but my point is that it's not anything that Adelaide should or will be built around. That's not to say it shouldn't be the focus of a cafe/retail precinct, but if it ever takes off, the present Riverbank walk and a bit more as demand arises would be enough.

The Torrens can never be the focus of the city in the same way that the Yarra is in Melbourne or the Brisbane River is in Brisbane, as there's not much more they can build on its banks, can't build on practically all of the northern side or on Elder Park and as you head west of Morphett Street, where there actually is land, you get further and further away from the rest of the city and further towards the Airport's fly zone.

champsman wrote: Agreed, but I think its actually a great first choice.
The idea is to bring locals and tourists into the city, make them want to spend and then allocate that money to important things such as building hospitals. The city would benefit more, financially, from a stadium/entertainment precinct, and that money can be moved elsewhere, but if that's not going to happen, a hospital and some other commercial and civic development is not a bad alternative.

User avatar
bmw boy
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:45 am

[COM] Re: Footy Speak

#59 Post by bmw boy » Fri May 25, 2007 1:20 pm

Pants wrote:
champsman wrote:
Why would you want to do that when we have a beautiful stadium already in the city going to waste on cricket that nobody really cares about? As far as I'm concerned Adelaide Oval would be a perfect ground to host Power AFL matches after its redevelopment. The SANFL needs to get over itself and think about the good of SA Football rather than how much money it can't make if the Power leaves AAMI. I'm sure SACA would be better landlords.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the AFL require their grounds to be all-seaters? I may be wrong and can't think off the top of my head whether Carrara and Yorke Park are all seaters, but if I'm not wrong (actually, as I type I'm leaning more towards me being wrong...), there's no way that the hill on Adelaide Oval should or would make way for seats so that AFL can be played there.

.

Well the SACA wants AFL to be played at Adelaide oval and they won't be sacrificng the grass for it...

so i think
-either it is currently allowed or
- it is a point they wish to argue for it be allowed if the AFL / AFC / PAFC were serious about playing games at Adelaide oval.

urban
Legendary Member!
Posts: 575
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am
Location: City of Unley
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 15 times

[COM]

#60 Post by urban » Fri May 25, 2007 1:23 pm

It's official title is Torrens Lake

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: gingernuts, gnrc_louis, Google [Bot], Ser Noit of Loit and 10 guests