[VIS] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[claybro]

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.

[rev]

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..

[Llessur2002]

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.

[rev]

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]

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.

[Algernon]

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]

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]

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.

[Ho Really]

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

[Nathan]

New Women’s and Children’s Hospital to be built next to RAH, linked with air bridge
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 76605deef9

The new Women’s and Children’s Hospital will be built at the western end of the biomedical precinct, complete with an air bridge for direct access to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The taskforce that examined the merits of multiple sites has recommended the land directly adjacent to the RAH as the preferred location.

Advice from Adelaide Airport has confirmed to the taskforce that the planned height of the building is in line with flight path guidelines, making the site a viable option.

The Advertiser understands the new advice means the hospital may end up being taller than previously expected — up to 11 storeys, with a further four underground.

Bed numbers will be finalised at the taskforce’s final meeting later this month, prior to presenting its final report to the State Government.



Official cost estimates are expected to be completed early next year. In July, The Advertiser revealed the cost had been put at $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion, based on documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws about the original estimate for the RAH, which blew out to $2.4 billion.

Other sites considered included the Newmarket Hotel.

Other options were a site by the Thebarton Police Barracks and one on the parklands between the train line and River Torrens.

Rebuilding on the current North Adelaide site was opposed by medical groups, which urged that it be co-located with the RAH so new mothers needing intensive care could be near their newborns.

The current WCH does not have an adult intensive care unit. It also does not have a helipad, which means critically ill children have to be first flown to the RAH then transferred by ambulance.



Chief executive of the Women’s and Children’s Health Network, Lindsey Gough, said the chosen site met all the criteria to ensure the needs of SA families were met for years to come.

“The site is an ideal position, co-locating the new WCH alongside the Royal Adelaide Hospital and within the world-class Adelaide BioMed City,” Ms Gough said.

“The new WCH taskforce has spent the past eight months extensively consulting with clinicians, consumers and key stakeholders to put forward the best possible option for this new hospital … but this is just the first step.

“The next two weeks are crucial as we finalise the report to achieve our goal of presenting it to government by the end of the year.”

The taskforce worked with consultants Carramar to establish the size of the new hospital, and is confident it can be accommodated on the site.

Taskforce chair Jim Birch, a former WCH chief executive, said the final meeting would be held later this month to put the finishing touches on the report, including bed numbers, while a cost estimate was expected to be completed early in the first half of 2019.

“I am looking forward to presenting our report to government and, if approved, working towards a more comprehensive plan by the end of next year,” Mr Birch said.

Health Minister Stephen Wade welcomed the taskforce’s recommendation.

“The Marshall Liberal Government is committed to delivering a world class hospital for women and children that South Australians can be proud of,” he said.

“Labor planned to leave the children’s hospital stranded in North Adelaide. Establishing the WCH taskforce, made up of clinicians and their health professional and industrial organisations, was one of the first things the Marshall Liberal Government did after the election.

“Engaging health professionals is crucial to avoid a repeat of the poor planning processes that led to the budget blowout, the design and planning flaws and the ongoing operational challenges with the new RAH.”

Premier Steven Marshall committed to building a new WCH by 2024 as an election pledge.

“South Australia is the only mainland capital which doesn’t have a co-located women’s and children’s hospital with a major teaching hospital,” he said before the election.

Hospital’s five-year hunt for new home

■ October 2013
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill announces a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital costing in excess of $600 million will be built at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital site and open in 2023.

■ June 2017
The Labor Government announces it will spend $528 million on a new Adelaide Women’s Hospital, connected to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It says it will also spend $64.4 million to upgrade the existing Women’s and Children’s Hospital while it develops plans for a separate Children’s Hospital.

■ April 2018
New Liberal Premier Steven Marshall announces the establishment of a 15-person taskforce to examine options for the WCH to move near to the site of the new RAH and be completed by 2024.

■ July 2018
A confidential SA Health analysis reveals the new Women’s and Children’s Hospital adjacent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital will cost $1.8 billion, making it one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in state history.

■July 2018
Leaked SA Health plans reveal the parklands are being considered as the site for a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital to avoid huge costs associated with building it next to the Royal Adelaide.

The documents also show sites including the Thebarton police barracks and horse stables, the heritage-listed Newmarket Hotel at the North Tce/West Tce corner, and the parklands between the train line and the River Torrens are being considered as well.

[Patrick_27]

New Women’s and Children’s Hospital to be built next to RAH, linked with air bridge
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 76605deef9

The new Women’s and Children’s Hospital will be built at the western end of the biomedical precinct, complete with an air bridge for direct access to the Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The taskforce that examined the merits of multiple sites has recommended the land directly adjacent to the RAH as the preferred location.

Advice from Adelaide Airport has confirmed to the taskforce that the planned height of the building is in line with flight path guidelines, making the site a viable option.

The Advertiser understands the new advice means the hospital may end up being taller than previously expected — up to 11 storeys, with a further four underground.

Bed numbers will be finalised at the taskforce’s final meeting later this month, prior to presenting its final report to the State Government.



Official cost estimates are expected to be completed early next year. In July, The Advertiser revealed the cost had been put at $1.7 billion to $1.8 billion, based on documents obtained under Freedom of Information laws about the original estimate for the RAH, which blew out to $2.4 billion.

Other sites considered included the Newmarket Hotel.

Other options were a site by the Thebarton Police Barracks and one on the parklands between the train line and River Torrens.

Rebuilding on the current North Adelaide site was opposed by medical groups, which urged that it be co-located with the RAH so new mothers needing intensive care could be near their newborns.

The current WCH does not have an adult intensive care unit. It also does not have a helipad, which means critically ill children have to be first flown to the RAH then transferred by ambulance.



Chief executive of the Women’s and Children’s Health Network, Lindsey Gough, said the chosen site met all the criteria to ensure the needs of SA families were met for years to come.

“The site is an ideal position, co-locating the new WCH alongside the Royal Adelaide Hospital and within the world-class Adelaide BioMed City,” Ms Gough said.

“The new WCH taskforce has spent the past eight months extensively consulting with clinicians, consumers and key stakeholders to put forward the best possible option for this new hospital … but this is just the first step.

“The next two weeks are crucial as we finalise the report to achieve our goal of presenting it to government by the end of the year.”

The taskforce worked with consultants Carramar to establish the size of the new hospital, and is confident it can be accommodated on the site.

Taskforce chair Jim Birch, a former WCH chief executive, said the final meeting would be held later this month to put the finishing touches on the report, including bed numbers, while a cost estimate was expected to be completed early in the first half of 2019.

“I am looking forward to presenting our report to government and, if approved, working towards a more comprehensive plan by the end of next year,” Mr Birch said.

Health Minister Stephen Wade welcomed the taskforce’s recommendation.

“The Marshall Liberal Government is committed to delivering a world class hospital for women and children that South Australians can be proud of,” he said.

“Labor planned to leave the children’s hospital stranded in North Adelaide. Establishing the WCH taskforce, made up of clinicians and their health professional and industrial organisations, was one of the first things the Marshall Liberal Government did after the election.

“Engaging health professionals is crucial to avoid a repeat of the poor planning processes that led to the budget blowout, the design and planning flaws and the ongoing operational challenges with the new RAH.”

Premier Steven Marshall committed to building a new WCH by 2024 as an election pledge.

“South Australia is the only mainland capital which doesn’t have a co-located women’s and children’s hospital with a major teaching hospital,” he said before the election.

Hospital’s five-year hunt for new home

■ October 2013
Labor Premier Jay Weatherill announces a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital costing in excess of $600 million will be built at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital site and open in 2023.

■ June 2017
The Labor Government announces it will spend $528 million on a new Adelaide Women’s Hospital, connected to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. It says it will also spend $64.4 million to upgrade the existing Women’s and Children’s Hospital while it develops plans for a separate Children’s Hospital.

■ April 2018
New Liberal Premier Steven Marshall announces the establishment of a 15-person taskforce to examine options for the WCH to move near to the site of the new RAH and be completed by 2024.

■ July 2018
A confidential SA Health analysis reveals the new Women’s and Children’s Hospital adjacent to the Royal Adelaide Hospital will cost $1.8 billion, making it one of the most expensive infrastructure projects in state history.

■July 2018
Leaked SA Health plans reveal the parklands are being considered as the site for a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital to avoid huge costs associated with building it next to the Royal Adelaide.

The documents also show sites including the Thebarton police barracks and horse stables, the heritage-listed Newmarket Hotel at the North Tce/West Tce corner, and the parklands between the train line and the River Torrens are being considered as well.

I hope that design is merely a mock up because it looks awful...

[rev]

The overall design or shape isn’t that bad but the cladding/exterior and colour is mehh

They should try and keep some sort of uniformity with the rah.

[ozisnowman]

Back to the drawing board that exterior is hideous for a building that is supposed to last several decades. Location and general shape of building ok but windows (lack of and shite positioning) and cladding NO NO NO who is the architect. Is it same mob that gave us that concrete commie block student tower.

[SRW]

Given there isn’t yet an idea of total beds or cost, we can safely assume this is just a mock up. We’re a while away from a final design.

I was kind of rooting for the Newmarket location so that the activity this will bring is closer to the West End.

[crawf]

It's only just a concept.

The first concept for the NRAH looked totally different and basic compared to the finished building. Same goes with the SAHMRI.