Railyards Site Redevelopment

[shiftaling]

I think returning the RAH site to parklands is a recalcitrant and backwater idea. It is an idea being proposed by the state government solely to appease the NIMBY electors in the seat of Adelaide, so as they continue backing J-Lo.

However, despite these motives the state government should wake up and see that the old RAH site is PRIME North Terrace frontage! This site should be reserved for a world class attraction for Adelaide such as a Guggenheim museum! We already have enough parklands. In fact even Col. Light’s original plans for Adelaide do not designate the RAH site as parklands but as ‘Hospital’. Thus even Col. Light did not intend for the RAH site to be parklands!

The Botanic Gardens is a bit different to most of the parklands, much better landscaping and more highly patronised. I think they should expand the Botanic Gardens if they can, it would make an improvement on the huge blocks of hospital wards that make the current view from there.
But I'm not a fanatic though - a museum is a great idea. Any public building would be a good fit, especially with landscaped gardens that flow into the gardens. Plus the existing heritage buildings would also be there anyway - there might be enough space to have an art gallery or other public use in those properties and massively extend the Botanic Gardens too.
They shouldn't be allowed to sell it or subdivide it though - it must be a public space IMO.

[Pat28]

Also, apparently, the current Railway Station site was intended for a Botanical Gardens anyway, bit it seems that both Labor and the Liberals want to develop the site, (Labor, Marj obviously, and the Liberal a new interstate rail terminal - see their 20 year plan from http://www.martin2010.com.au). So if the Colonel Light wanted a Hospital in the Rail Yards then there would have been one. Mind you at least half of Light's plan has been chucked out of the window.

[SRW]

They shouldn't be allowed to sell it or subdivide it though - it must be a public space IMO.

Completely agree. That's one of the reasons I hate ASER so much.

[Düsseldorfer]

I think returning the RAH site to parklands is a recalcitrant and backwater idea. It is an idea being proposed by the state government solely to appease the NIMBY electors in the seat of Adelaide, so as they continue backing J-Lo.

However, despite these motives the state government should wake up and see that the old RAH site is PRIME North Terrace frontage! This site should be reserved for a world class attraction for Adelaide such as a Guggenheim museum! We already have enough parklands. In fact even Col. Light’s original plans for Adelaide do not designate the RAH site as parklands but as ‘Hospital’. Thus even Col. Light did not intend for the RAH site to be parklands!

Something like a Guggenheim museum like the one in Bilbao or a even a Pompidou Centre would be sensational

[kernelpanic]

This site should be reserved for a world class attraction for Adelaide such as a Guggenheim museum! We already have enough parklands. In fact even Col. Light’s original plans for Adelaide do not designate the RAH site as parklands but as ‘Hospital’. Thus even Col. Light did not intend for the RAH site to be parklands!

That sounds almost TOO audacious, but wonderful! Imagine something like a Guggenheim on North Terrace opening onto the Botanic Gardens. Wow. I've always thought that we need a Design Museum (not just Adelaide, but Australia) and wouldn't this be a great opportunity.

Sorry for going off topic...

[urban]

I would love to see the heritage listed hospital buildings retained and converted for cultural or research related use. The remainder of the hospital buildings should be demolished to be replaced by an expanded botanic gardens.

The Railyards site would best suit an iconic cultural venue such as Guggenheim (Bilbao or New York). The architects could have much more artistic freedom on this site.

The library, museum and art gallery are all very confined with limited expansion opportunities. Serious consideration should be given to allowing one of these uses to expand into surrounding buildings and building new premises for the others.

[Shuz]

Why does any new museum have to be in a new building? What's wrong with utilising the heritage buildings at the RAH for this purpose? If anything it'll add character to the place's purpose.

[urban]

Museums and art galleries have very specific lighting, air-conditioning, fire and spatial requirements which are usually very compromised by adapting existing buildings designed for other uses. Building owners, users and the general public are much more accepting of unusual or iconic designs for buildings such as art galleries and museums than they are of office buildings. A new art gallery or museum would be our best chance of building an iconic uniquely south australian building.

[Ho Really]

Museums and art galleries have very specific lighting, air-conditioning, fire and spatial requirements which are usually very compromised by adapting existing buildings designed for other uses. Building owners, users and the general public are much more accepting of unusual or iconic designs for buildings such as art galleries and museums than they are of office buildings. A new art gallery or museum would be our best chance of building an iconic uniquely south australian building.

Well said urban, we need iconic buildings of great architectural significance. The railyards are a perfect place for them. The room is there anywhere between the Morphett Street Bridge and the sheds further west. Regardless of whether the Marj is built to the west or not, the government should be looking at developing this area into something special. I would like to see the Convention Centre extended to the Morphett Street Bridge with a spectacular facade and plaza. On the other side a bus interchange (which is an old idea of mine) or better still an iconic building such as a gallery as suggested, again with a spectacular facade and plaza to complement the Convention Centre (extension). Further along there could still be room for a bus interchange (with access to North Terrace and Morphett Street just south of the Torrens) and then the Marj if built (or a rectangular soccer stadium which would fit nicely).

One idea, could also be to have the tram line at West Campus (or just further up the rise) turn north into the bus interchange and then turn west down onto the rail lines on the Torrens side of the interchange (in a stretched S fashion). This will also allow a tram line onto Memorial Drive (from Morphett Street Bridge north) to the Tennis Centre and Adelaide Oval and anywhere north or to the Women's and Children's Hospital and Melbourne Street. Another tram line could loop back onto Morphett Street Bridge and go south to either Franklin, Grote or Gouger Streets to the Glenelg line. Thoughts?

Cheers

[Pat28]

Just throwing it out there: What if they just cleaned up the rail yards returned them back parkland(?) and redevelop glenside (without selling off the land to the shopping centre next door) and plonk the new RAH there, then move the mental heath services to Hampstead after its redevelopment. This way the new RAH is closeish to the city and a "little" easier to get too, plus the hospital would be surrounded by parkland.

[Ho Really]

Just throwing it out there: What if they just cleaned up the rail yards returned them back parkland(?) and redevelop glenside (without selling off the land to the shopping centre next door) and plonk the new RAH there, then move the mental heath services to Hampstead after its redevelopment. This way the new RAH is closeish to the city and a "little" easier to get too, plus the hospital would be surrounded by parkland.

Nice idea, but there's no tram going there and the government has earmarked some of the buildings for the movie business.

Cheers

[Pat28]

Just throwing it out there: What if they just cleaned up the rail yards returned them back parkland(?) and redevelop glenside (without selling off the land to the shopping centre next door) and plonk the new RAH there, then move the mental heath services to Hampstead after its redevelopment. This way the new RAH is closeish to the city and a "little" easier to get too, plus the hospital would be surrounded by parkland.

Nice idea, but there's no tram going there and the government has earmarked some of the buildings for the movie business.

Cheers

Damn, i forgot that minor detail - no tram, but the idea has a thing called logic, which seems to be missing in this state.

[Jim]

Best of both worlds,

Why does the Marj have to be a loss of civic space? Surely we could have both on the same site. When you walk along South Bank in Melbourne you really don’t have any idea what is going on above the mix of restaurants, there is actually a mix of office and hotels. It seems to me that a hospital is just the sort of 24hour a day activity that would compliment any development and it’s probably the only 24hr activity in the city any way. So why not Cover the rail track along the rivers edge with a world class plaza, and build the Marj on top of a couple of levels of retail and convention rooms.
Surly we can have both.

[Wayno]

many months ago, an S-A member (can't remember who) posted a pikkie of a lovely curvy roofed stadium (from somewhere in germany i think) that had seating around 2/3rds of the ground, with the remainder being north facing open space. It was probably in one of the many "how best to use the railyards" or "hospital vs stadium" forums.

I'd love to get a copy of the image. hope someone can help...

[Shuz]

I did this one...


And I did this one as well... (probably more of a reality now that the Liberals are in power in WA and they want to redevelop not rebuild, so we can steal their stadium!)


Not sure if either are what youre speaking of?