[VIS] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 1717
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 157 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#61 Post by claybro » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm

zippySA wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:04 am
I am a little bemused on how quickly the debate focusses on the single statement "direct connection to RAH" as though this is the single driver for the whole project. WCH has been operating stand-alone for it's entire existence - and as stated in the paper, currently emergency cases are transferred to FMC - probably a 30min ambulance ride away. To justify spending potentially $2B plus on new hospital, surely there needs to be an entire range of benefits and drivers for the move. I would like to see Governments start leading debates and providing actual tangible information. Surely being located within 200m of the RAH is an improvement - and shouldn't debates then focus more on the assessment of need for a "direct connection" to RAH - I'd be interested to know how often an unplanned emergency requires transfer from WCH to RAH / FMC and understand then what a link would be ($10 - $25M I'm guessing) versus (say) traffic light sequencing that enables an emergency case to be transferred by a dedicated vehicle from WCH to RAH - could even be faster than wheeling a bed across an air-bridge and then down corridors to emergency / theatre as no doubt the bridge will come in at wrong end of RAH?
We must aim for highest levels of care - but we can't simply pay for everything - how far would $10-$25M go towards additional services across metro Adelaide - quite a lot no doubt.
To be clear, the direct connection was only part of my objection with the selected option. I just don't understand the thinking of monopolising a whole corner of the CBD with a hospital, when this area could be renewed as accommodation, and housing, including retaining existing heritage aspects like the row cottages, serving the accommodation needs of both the university and RAH visitors/employees, when there is a large, unutilised area adjacent to and over the train tracks on 2 sides of the hospital. The previous mention of vibration issues near the train tracks is a non issue with current building technologies. I think it is a bit unimaginative as an option.

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3424
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 251 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#62 Post by rev » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:40 pm

claybro wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
zippySA wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:04 am
I am a little bemused on how quickly the debate focusses on the single statement "direct connection to RAH" as though this is the single driver for the whole project. WCH has been operating stand-alone for it's entire existence - and as stated in the paper, currently emergency cases are transferred to FMC - probably a 30min ambulance ride away. To justify spending potentially $2B plus on new hospital, surely there needs to be an entire range of benefits and drivers for the move. I would like to see Governments start leading debates and providing actual tangible information. Surely being located within 200m of the RAH is an improvement - and shouldn't debates then focus more on the assessment of need for a "direct connection" to RAH - I'd be interested to know how often an unplanned emergency requires transfer from WCH to RAH / FMC and understand then what a link would be ($10 - $25M I'm guessing) versus (say) traffic light sequencing that enables an emergency case to be transferred by a dedicated vehicle from WCH to RAH - could even be faster than wheeling a bed across an air-bridge and then down corridors to emergency / theatre as no doubt the bridge will come in at wrong end of RAH?
We must aim for highest levels of care - but we can't simply pay for everything - how far would $10-$25M go towards additional services across metro Adelaide - quite a lot no doubt.
To be clear, the direct connection was only part of my objection with the selected option. I just don't understand the thinking of monopolising a whole corner of the CBD with a hospital, when this area could be renewed as accommodation, and housing, including retaining existing heritage aspects like the row cottages, serving the accommodation needs of both the university and RAH visitors/employees, when there is a large, unutilised area adjacent to and over the train tracks on 2 sides of the hospital. The previous mention of vibration issues near the train tracks is a non issue with current building technologies. I think it is a bit unimaginative as an option.
To be fair though, any residential developments will be stunted to a degree because of the flight path. So, imo any residential developments would turn out to be pretty poor and under whelming. Imagine driving into the City down Port Road over the bridge and you're faced with a couple buildings with balconies with peoples laundry hanging out to dry. It's already the case with quite a few resi towers in the city, and it's not really the best "entry" to a city/cbd..

User avatar
Llessur2002
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1287
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 4:59 pm
Location: West Croydon
Has thanked: 359 times
Been thanked: 558 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#63 Post by Llessur2002 » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:27 pm

I can see positives and negatives to building on this site. It will provide much greater flexibility in terms of WCH design and layout, whilst retaining space for the RAH to expand in future. It will almost immediately activate that whole block, a process that might well take another 10-20 years if only the proposed corner residential development goes ahead.

Plus, we seem to have a fairly good track record of building decent public buildings in the health precinct - the SAHMRI building is great, the new RAH isn't exactly an eyesore and SAHMRI 2 promises to be a looker too. Hopefully a new WCH will follow in the same vain. A residential tower is more of an unknown quantity - it could be great, or it could end up as a tacky blue-glassed gateway into the city as mentioned above.

The heritage aspects are an interesting point - I have no doubt that the facade of the Newmarket would be retained, if not the whole building. Kintore Terrace on Hindley Street is also subtly impressive and fairly unique for the city. I hope they would retain that as well but I have my doubts as it is only local heritage listed. The row cottages on Gray Street are nice but there are many more examples in the south-east of the city.

I presume this is a very early stage for a development on this site - unless the appropriate studies were undertaken under Labor I doubt the Government will have had enough time to remotely investigate this as a possibility. It could be nothing more than a brain fart destined to go nowhere.

User avatar
rev
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3424
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 251 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#64 Post by rev » Fri Aug 17, 2018 6:09 pm

If that is the chosen site, hopefully they go all the way between Liverpool, North/West tce intersection, and up to Hindley. That's four blocks.
They will hopefully incorporate lots of open spaces/gardens, a lot more or better designed then the RAH's open spaces within the walls. Its a kids hospital, if we are going to spend another fortune on a hospital it should be made as applicable and relevant to kids as possible. If anything ever deserved gold plating, it's a children's hospital.

ml69
Legendary Member!
Posts: 731
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 11:16 pm
Location: Adelaide SA
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 54 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#65 Post by ml69 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 am

dbl96 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:11 pm
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:34 pm
Goodsy wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:53 pm
maybe a few councils and the state government could get together and fund a runway rebuild at a slightly different angle
My understanding is that the area to the south-east of the existing runway is set aside for an additional runway if required in future.
No, the provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway and terminals. The reservation is clearly visible from satellite images, running from behind the existing long-term carpark, through land currently occupied by Harbourtown and the golf club.
Are you sure about this dbl96?

It may have been the original intention to build the second runway where your red line is, but now they've built Harbourtown smack bang in the path of the runway.
That would be a pretty dumb thing to do if you had plans for a second runway there.

User avatar
Algernon
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Moravia
Has thanked: 251 times
Been thanked: 135 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#66 Post by Algernon » Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:57 am

Adelaide airport masterplan

https://www.adelaideairport.com.au/corp ... ster-plan/

I think the plan is to expand the existing second runway to allow code C aircraft. Planes with wingspans below 36m. i.e. 737-700 or Airbus A320.

Nort
Legendary Member!
Posts: 845
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:08 pm
Has thanked: 116 times
Been thanked: 87 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#67 Post by Nort » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:42 am

ml69 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 am
dbl96 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:11 pm
Llessur2002 wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:34 pm


My understanding is that the area to the south-east of the existing runway is set aside for an additional runway if required in future.
No, the provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway and terminals. The reservation is clearly visible from satellite images, running from behind the existing long-term carpark, through land currently occupied by Harbourtown and the golf club.
Are you sure about this dbl96?

It may have been the original intention to build the second runway where your red line is, but now they've built Harbourtown smack bang in the path of the runway.
That would be a pretty dumb thing to do if you had plans for a second runway there.
They aren't short or even medium term plans, they're "if in 30-50 years we need another runway we have this land available" plans. Adelaide Airport still owns the land Harbourtown is on and would have no problem moving the tenants along.

dbl96
Gold-Member ;)
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 4:31 pm
Been thanked: 11 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#68 Post by dbl96 » Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:30 pm

Nort wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:42 am
ml69 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 am
dbl96 wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:11 pm


No, the provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway and terminals. The reservation is clearly visible from satellite images, running from behind the existing long-term carpark, through land currently occupied by Harbourtown and the golf club.
Are you sure about this dbl96?

It may have been the original intention to build the second runway where your red line is, but now they've built Harbourtown smack bang in the path of the runway.
That would be a pretty dumb thing to do if you had plans for a second runway there.
They aren't short or even medium term plans, they're "if in 30-50 years we need another runway we have this land available" plans. Adelaide Airport still owns the land Harbourtown is on and would have no problem moving the tenants along.
You are right. There is no current plan to build a parallel runway.

I simply pointed out this alignment because there was a suggestion that there was a provision for the second runway to the south of the existing runway. This is not the case.

The provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway. That is where it will be built if there is ever the need. Harbourtown doesn't own the land on which it sits, so moving it would not be difficult if their was sufficient air traffic demand to justify a parallel runway. There is no space for a parallel runway south of the existing runway.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2062
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head
Has thanked: 293 times
Been thanked: 48 times

[VIS] Re: New Womens and Childrens Hospital

#69 Post by Ho Really » Sat Aug 18, 2018 10:55 pm

dbl96 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:30 pm
Nort wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:42 am
ml69 wrote:
Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:40 am

Are you sure about this dbl96?

It may have been the original intention to build the second runway where your red line is, but now they've built Harbourtown smack bang in the path of the runway.
That would be a pretty dumb thing to do if you had plans for a second runway there.
They aren't short or even medium term plans, they're "if in 30-50 years we need another runway we have this land available" plans. Adelaide Airport still owns the land Harbourtown is on and would have no problem moving the tenants along.
You are right. There is no current plan to build a parallel runway.

I simply pointed out this alignment because there was a suggestion that there was a provision for the second runway to the south of the existing runway. This is not the case.

The provision for the parallel runway is to the north of the existing runway. That is where it will be built if there is ever the need. Harbourtown doesn't own the land on which it sits, so moving it would not be difficult if their was sufficient air traffic demand to justify a parallel runway. There is no space for a parallel runway south of the existing runway.
Take a look at my fictional Adelaide Airport with a second runway at Adelaide Airport visions.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CDJ, Google Adsense [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 11 guests