[COM] New Royal Adelaide Hospital | $2.1b

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Post Reply
Message
Author
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]

#61 Post by rhino » Fri May 25, 2007 1:59 pm

Made by damming the Torrens River. Canberra is on a man'made lake (much bigger than Torrens lake, I know).

Apart from the fact that the land along the Torrens is zoned as parkland, why should it make any difference to a precinct along a waterfront? If it was zoned commercial, why couldn't it look like Southbank (Melbourne) or Benelong Point (Sydney)? I don't think the fact that it's a lake and not a river has anything to do with it.

Anyway - apparently a hospital might be built there - oh yeah, that's what this is about :)
cheers,
Rhino

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

#62 Post by Pants » Fri May 25, 2007 2:04 pm

Pants wrote: 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.
And my point on the whole river/lake thing is that it's small - too small to be the focus of the city.

The difference between Southbank in Melbourne and Eagle Street Pier and Southbank in Brisbane is that there's something to look at on the otherside of the river - views that draw a crowd.

If we had a Northbank looking over the river back towards the city - building on the parklands in front of Memorial Drive - that'd be a different story, as there would be action on both sides. But that will never happen. The Red Ochre is an example of this. You can see the water with the CBD as a backdrop and it's amazing

As beautiful an area as it is, there wouldn't be much to look out to if you were eating at Riverbank at night. It'd be nice enough just to look at whatever water there is, but again, not enough to make it a worthwhile focal point of the city. I imagine that this is part of the reason no-one seems to want to take up the opportunities on offer to open up restaurants down there.
Last edited by Pants on Fri May 25, 2007 3:13 pm, edited 4 times in total.

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

[COM]

#63 Post by stelaras » Fri May 25, 2007 2:13 pm

The river Torrens was never a river...but a series of deep ponds in the early days of colonisation.

During development, logging and road building it was stripped of its natural vegetation and "converted" into a river of sorts that sometimes was dry as a bone and other times running like a true river.

in the mid 1800's it was dammed about the same location to where the present weir is....The first dam washed away during a freak storms and in the late 1880's the present weir was built..

Since then the "river Torrens" has been termed Lake Torrens. There is an interesting article that can be read by following this link:

http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/manning/pn/t/torrens.htm

Anyway, this isn't a thread about the torrens..so back to the point the RAH development..

Even though i was negative in my first post, i can see merrits to this especially if the QEH is merged into it....It would be a beacon to get people to the area and surely some entertainment, shopping and eateries along the lake front wouldn't hurt things all up!

Although, a concern of mine would be what happens to the parts of the RAH that deal with Psych patients and Prisoners... Having done my basic training at the RAH, im well aware of escapee prisoners and psych patients roaming the RAH grounds!


I would love to see the old RAH site converted to a Fed Square type arrangement though....it would make for a great walk from the botanic gardens, under frome road and through to the "waterfront" precint all the way to the new RAH!...just not sure how many people it would attract.

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]

#64 Post by Howie » Fri May 25, 2007 2:32 pm

stelaras wrote: can you be more specific??
I'll try, but this is only second hand information at this point. Some of the departments have been screaming for more space - and recently there was speculation about a possible move - now apparently the government has been in talks with the department and told them pretty much to pack their bags as they're about to get all their prayers answered.

edit : okay the above is confirmed now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 933088.htm
The departments they're talking about is just the Med School, but it envisaged that any move would include other uni departments such as Public Health and General Practice (well portions of anyway). That's probably a good one-or-two hundred staff alone (not including students).

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

[COM]

#65 Post by stelaras » Fri May 25, 2007 3:11 pm

Howie wrote:

edit : okay the above is confirmed now.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 933088.htm
The departments they're talking about is just the Med School
Thanks Howie:

I taught at the Med School a few years ago and had 5th year rotations at the Dept of Orthopaedics and Trauma at the RAH. The RAH is the primary teaching campus for the school of medicine at the university of Adelaide, with sattelite teaching facilites at the QEH and Modbury

The RAH is jam packed not just with students, registrars and fellows it is the premier hospital for trauma, ER, Burns and cardio-thorasics. It has been running at just below 100% of capacity for some time now (at least ever since i can remember from between 1997-2003) Factor in the IMVS which is the premier blood/toxicology and food toxin testing arena as well as the Hanson Centre for Cancer Research means that it is bursting at the seams...

It is warranted that a new RAH be built!

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5534
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide
Has thanked: 666 times
Been thanked: 152 times

[COM]

#66 Post by Will » Fri May 25, 2007 3:20 pm

crawf wrote: the RAH would have to be Australia's worst major hospital, its a asbestos ridden depressing hole and there really is no other large good location for the RAH.

?
That is a big statement Crawf. I would hope that it is based on fact rather than your 'expert' opinion. :roll:

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

[COM]

#67 Post by stelaras » Fri May 25, 2007 3:27 pm

I dont think he means it in terms of quality of care.....I think he is saying the buildings themselves are pretty decrepid....

And yes he is correct certain buildings do have asbestos within them...similar to the QEH

User avatar
Bulldozer
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 451
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:00 am
Location: Brisbane (nee Adelaide)

[COM]

#68 Post by Bulldozer » Fri May 25, 2007 5:04 pm

Please everyone, stop saying that "world-class" buzz-word bullshit!

Anyway, someone mentioned nutters in the RAH - Glenside is a rather large chunk of land that is close to the city. That could be a possibility.

I still think that compulsory acquisition of a city block rather than shifting it to another part of the parklands is the way to go. Adelaide needs to get more activity happening all throughout the square mile - it shouldn't just be concentrated to North Tce and a few streets south of it. Victoria Square is the heart of the city yet feels so sterile and dead, but not as much as the southern side does! It would really stimulate development around the area of the city that is is built.

Ideally I'd build an integrated central bus and rail station underneath Victoria Sq and use trams radiating out from each side of the square to take people to where they're going, which would let us properly clean up the railyards and enable any development that does occur there to be more flexible/cheaper since you wouldn't have to build over the top of anything. But that's starting to get off topic and I still think securing the water and electricity supply is without a doubt the most pressing issue facing the city and state.

User avatar
shuza
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:13 pm

[COM]

#69 Post by shuza » Fri May 25, 2007 5:33 pm

I'd rather the idea of compulsorarily acquiring a city block, preferably in the south end of the city adjacent to one of the squares.

User avatar
AtD
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Been thanked: 1 time

[COM]

#70 Post by AtD » Fri May 25, 2007 11:54 pm

Some of you seem to exist in a alternate reality where money is no object and cost/benefit is irrelevant.

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]

#71 Post by Howie » Sat May 26, 2007 1:23 am


Talks on hospital
MICHAEL OWEN POLITICAL REPORTER

May 26, 2007 12:00am
Article from: The Advertiser


Send this article: Print Email

SENSITIVE talks are continuing between the State Government and stakeholders in the Royal Adelaide Hospital complex as Treasurer Kevin Foley yesterday maintained his silence on a proposal for a massive relocation project.

A day after health professionals backed a Government plan to relocate the RAH complex and build a new world-class medical facility, University of Adelaide academics confirmed talks were ongoing on logistics of any such move.

The $1.5 billion relocation plan is expected to include the Institute of Medical and Veterinary Science and Adelaide University Medical School. An IMVS spokesman declined comment.

Key University of Adelaide staff, including School of Medicine executive dean Professor Justin Beilby, also declined to comment yesterday, saying it was not the right time.

Other stakeholders said they were willing to discuss more details if and when an announcement was made by the Government.

It is understood the reluctance to comment publicly is because the project is so "important" medical and research bodies do not want to be shut out of plans.

As revealed by The Advertiser on Thursday, a proposal to build a new hospital complex west of the Morphett St Bridge, between the Old Adelaide Gaol and the Convention Centre, is being considered by the Government.

The prime site, it is understood, remains the Adelaide railyards area but other options, including the Clipsal site at Bowden, have been considered.

Key Government figures, from Health Minister John Hill to City of Adelaide Minister Jane Lomax-Smith, refused to be interviewed.

They referred inquiries to Mr Foley. Mr Foley was not taking calls from The Advertiser, leaving his media adviser Slyvia Rapo to issue a statement via email that "the Treasurer has provided his comments on this story and has nothing further to add".

Mr Foley and Premier Mike Rann on Thursday refused to confirm or deny the proposal was being considered, saying South Australians would have to "wait and see" on Budget Day, June 7.

Opposition health spokeswoman Vickie Chapman yesterday said up to $102 million had been spent on upgrades at the RAH. She urged the Government to provide details on any relocation plans.

It has been suggested by senior health sources the relocation project could take up to eight years to complete and include a merger with Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

An AdelaideNow online poll last night had received almost 950 votes, with 68 per cent in favour of the RAH complex relocation proposal.

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]

#72 Post by crawf » Sat May 26, 2007 5:45 pm

Will wrote:That is a big statement Crawf. I would hope that it is based on fact rather than your 'expert' opinion.
:roll:
stelaras wrote:I dont think he means it in terms of quality of care.....I think he is saying the buildings themselves are pretty decrepid....

And yes he is correct certain buildings do have asbestos within them...similar to the QEH
Yes mainly the buildings. I can't imagine a Australian hospital worse than the RAH

User avatar
Tyler_Durden
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 6:11 pm

[COM]

#73 Post by Tyler_Durden » Mon May 28, 2007 3:40 pm

UrbanSG wrote:We have an outdated, poor quality, cramped hospital and all people can think about is putting an entertainment precinct on the proposed site instead. Sort of shows what people's priorities are :roll:
Settle. No one has said a new facility shouldn't be built. But just because something is related to health doesn't mean it should necessarily be built on the most valuable piece of real estate in the city. I mean, could you imagine Sydney building a dental clinic where the Opera House is? Of course not. Extreme example, I know. I'm sure you get the picture, though.

And it's ludicrous to think that location on North Terrace is the only possible location. It is parkland. Adelaide is surrounded by parkland. 90% of it vacant. It could go anywhere. Perhaps anywhere along the length of West Terrace. It would even be cheaper, I'd imagine. Building over train tracks is surely far more expensive than building on dirt. Far more expensive.

There are many issues to consider. Transport is probably the main one, but with the cost saved by building on vacant land rather than train tracks I'm sure some of that money could go to fix transport to it.

User avatar
Cruise
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Bay 115, Football Park

[COM] Re: Footy Speak

#74 Post by Cruise » Mon May 28, 2007 5:46 pm

Pants wrote:
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.
I dont your quite right there,
You might be confued with FIFA that requires all stadiums to be completely seated and a minimum capacity of 40,000 people

The irony of this argument is that football park was built as a big f*** you aimed at the SACA. Due to them not wanting football played there or they started charging the SANFL exorborant rents. it was one reason or the other.

UrbanSG
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 1848
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 8:55 am
Been thanked: 7 times

[COM]

#75 Post by UrbanSG » Mon May 28, 2007 9:17 pm

Tyler Durden, 'settle'? You think what I wrote there was bad? I keep my mouth shut on a fair few threads in here. If only I said what I really thought about some of the complete crap that gets written on here, geeze!

A dental clinic where the Sydney Opera House is, hahaha. Yes, you are right that is a very 'extreme' example. Bares no match to this situation, so why say it? We are talking about a poorly used space in Adelaide that is ugly as hell at present and a stadium is highly unlikely anytime soon. Have you taken a walk down there recently? I have and it is not good. Therefore a hospital could be a good use for such an underutilised space.

There is no way in hell a hospital would be built on 'traditional parkland' area either eg near West Terrace. There would be a massive outcry. They are proposing this on a spot over the railway yards because most people don't see that as a 'tradtional parkland' area.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Algernon, Google [Bot] and 17 guests