[VIS] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[[Shuz]]

I for one am glad they are reconsidering the site.

The RAH is going to need an expansion at some point and it would be best in terms of future planning if that triangular piece of land currently reserved for the nWCH should instead be reserved for the RAH.

The Australia Post site is a prime candidate for the nWCH in terms of land size. The downside is that there isn't much in the way of public transport accessibility currently but this could easily be resolved by building a western city loop tram via Gouger and West Terraces, which would in addition service the Adelaide High School, nWCH and main Gouger Street dining precinct. The tramline could also hopefully be a catalyst for development for that massive site at 171-203 Gouger Street.

[Capbld]

Wonder if the additional capacity Labor promised for the nWCH during the election had any impact on feasibility of the site the previous government had been working to. May never know…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes absolutely it has had an impact, I am surprised this isn't being spoken about more - they promised an extra 50 beds in the election, which they have committed $100m to, but as the land is so tightly held, the only way to add those in is to go up, which to my understanding is impossible due to the "flight path"

If the libs stayed in, and the original plan was followed, Lend Lease would have been onsite before the end of this year, however, due to Labors election promise (with little foresight and just to entice voters as the health system was the major talking point of the previous election) they have two options available,

1. Break their election promise, don't add additional beds, keep the nWCH in the same location and start construction before end of the financial year
2. Keep their promise, move the location of the hospital costing the tax payer tens of millions of dollars in wasted design fees and tens of millions more completely redesigning and delay the start of the build by an additional 1.5-2 years (and blame all the delays and costs on the previous Lib government and ignoring the fact that they have bottled, in true labor fashion, a project that could well and truly be underway before the end of the year)

[gnrc_louis]

Wonder if the additional capacity Labor promised for the nWCH during the election had any impact on feasibility of the site the previous government had been working to. May never know…


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes absolutely it has had an impact, I am surprised this isn't being spoken about more - they promised an extra 50 beds in the election, which they have committed $100m to, but as the land is so tightly held, the only way to add those in is to go up, which to my understanding is impossible due to the "flight path"

If the libs stayed in, and the original plan was followed, Lend Lease would have been onsite before the end of this year, however, due to Labors election promise (with little foresight and just to entice voters as the health system was the major talking point of the previous election) they have two options available,

1. Break their election promise, don't add additional beds, keep the nWCH in the same location and start construction before end of the financial year
2. Keep their promise, move the location of the hospital costing the tax payer tens of millions of dollars in wasted design fees and tens of millions more completely redesigning and delay the start of the build by an additional 1.5-2 years (and blame all the delays and costs on the previous Lib government and ignoring the fact that they have bottled, in true labor fashion, a project that could well and truly be underway before the end of the year)

If the eventual outcome is a hospital fit for purpose for considerably longer who cares about a 1-2 year delay. Also, they haven’t “bottled” anything - voters voted for a change of government, a change of government often means a change of plans. That’s how democracy works, there’s countless examples of similar instances of this happening from both sides. The shift from a modern art gallery to an aboriginal cultural centre is a good example after the 2018 election.

[dbl96]

Why don't they just build it taller?

I don't think the flight path should be an obstacle - a 107 metre tall building has been approved just over the road on the corner of West Terrace and North Terrace. A couple of extra levels on the existing RAH and new Women's and Children to add the extra beds shouldn't be a problem.

It was obvious from the start that the RAH was going to be too small - it only had a handful more beds than the old RAH. But the population was and is growing and aging, so obviously a hospital with more beds was required.

As it is, both the existing RAH and the planned Women's and Children's are squat little buildings. They could easily accommodate extra levels.

[Prodical]

I understand that the government is looking to move the Children's Hospital location from being next to the RAH and to the existing police site (road safety and police museum) on Port Road, the other side of the rail lines. They would relocate the police museum etc.

[Prodical]

I understand that the government is looking to move the Children's Hospital location from being next to the RAH to the existing police site (road safety and police museum) on Port Road, the other side of the rail lines. They would relocate the police museum etc.

[Norman]

I understand that the government is looking to move the Children's Hospital location from being next to the RAH to the existing police site (road safety and police museum) on Port Road, the other side of the rail lines. They would relocate the police museum etc.

I'm not sure how that's possible, there's about 8 different state heritage items on that site.

[Llessur2002]

Is there an option to expand the footprint over the railway line onto the area earmarked for the carpark? The car parking could still occupy the lower couple of levels but the building could cross the railway line for the upper floors.

[rev]

There's plenty of room for the RAH to expand towards the river over the train lines. You can fit another RAH there.

And wasn't part of the reason for putting the nWCH next to the RAH so that they could be linked directly with a 'sky bridge' between both buildings? Something to do with being able to use the facilities of the RAH if needed?

I think they could fit an extra 100 beds on the current site, if they pushed further back towards the river next to the old gaol.

[ChillyPhilly]

Whatever happens, I hope they ditch that extra carpark building planned for west of the rail line.

[ndru_01]

I understand that the government is looking to move the Children's Hospital location from being next to the RAH to the existing police site (road safety and police museum) on Port Road, the other side of the rail lines. They would relocate the police museum etc.

I'm not sure how that's possible, there's about 8 different state heritage items on that site.

And the barracks would need to be relocated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Prodical]

I would much prefer that the Children's stayed on the proposed site next to the RAH, and go higher if necessary. Or better still the NW corner of the CBD.

The possible move to the Thebarton police land was from a member of the planning group working with the builder, hospital and government. That's all I know, but wish they would get on with it, as well as South Road.

[Nathan]

Not sure how well the other side of the train line would go down. There’s at least an argument that the old rail yards is acceptable for development, but the barracks are surely into “parklands proper” territory.

[A-Town]

The existing site that was earmarked by the Libs is fine. Just build it there and add the extra level(s) required to fit in the additional beds. Ridiculous that this height would even go close to impeding the outdated flight path limits.

[Llessur2002]

I'm also confused how we can have a 100m+ tower approved for the Newmarket site which would have required a change to flight paths and yet apparently any more levels on the stumpy public hospital directly opposite it is impossible.

If they need more space in the hospital then they can surely just add a level or two? Clinically this is the best site for a new WCH over and above other adjacent sites which are further away from the RAH.