News & Discussion: Redevelopment of RAH Site

[stumpjumper]

On ABC radio this morning, Minister Hill stated that the so-called 'Festive Hub' which was proposed for the RAH site is no longer on the cards.

He said that instead of a 'Festive Hub', University of Adelaide will take some of the buildings, some will be demolished, some will be student accommodation and there would also be a boutique hotel.

'Unused' land will return to the Park Lands and the Botanic Garden.

Apparently that will take care of 100% of the site.

So what happened to the 'Festive Hub' at the RAH site?

I rang Hill's office this morning to ask how much money was invested in developing the Festive Hub project. Answer: 'Almost none, it was just a discussion with an architect, really.'

Read the press release and you'll see the Rann government's spin in action. A 'discussion with an architect' is elevated to an actual proposal for political purpses. When too many people object to the 'proposal', it reverts to being a mere 'discussion with an architect'.

[Shuz]

Well, at least they got it right this time; that is exactly what the site should be used for - the newer proposal. Victoria Square is the place for a Festive Hub.

[stumpjumper]

I agree with you, shuz, but I'm not happy with the decision-making.

On some basis - study, survey, needs analysis or just a guess - Minister Hill engaged Woodhead architects to produce a master plan for his 'vision' for a 'festive hub' at the site, with details to be presented to cabinet.

Now, perhaps because of a poor reception, the proposal was only ever a 'discussion with an architect' and the press release has been removed from the minister's website.

I'd like to know what is the basis for making these decisions? Was there any analysis of needs or any feasibility work done on the 'vision' to start with? When it was dropped like a hot spud, was it because of a few negative responses, or what?

It looks like a very inefficient and expensive way to run things.

[harryjotter]

Anyone ready to bet on the next Rann media release hinting that "because of the GFC" and the scarcity of loan funds the new hospital (and any festive hub) just might have to be put off for a while?

[AtD]

Read the press release and you'll see the Rann government's spin in action. A 'discussion with an architect' is elevated to an actual proposal for political purpses. When too many people object to the 'proposal', it reverts to being a mere 'discussion with an architect'.

What press release? The article posted here was a News Ltd beat up.

[stumpjumper]

AtD the press release has been removed from Minister Hill's website.

The Libs asked several questions about the proposal in parliament this morning and were rebuffed with bluster from the government.

The fact is that Hill's own legislation, the 2006 Park Lands Act, requires under Sec 23 the Minister to undertake a report on the fuuture of the land and give it to the Council. If this is not done, the Council must refer the matter to the ERD and t Parliament. This has not happened in the case of either the TA (railway) site or the present hospital site.

What has happened is that the government, and specifically Minister Hill, have place themselves above the law.

Further, a change of use for the land (rail to hospital, hospital to boutique hotel)is automatically Category 2 and requires public consultation.

Another point about Hill's grand plan (whatever plan it is) for the adaptive reuse of the RAH site is that the cost of adapting the existing RAH site must be added to the cost of the new hospital.

More and more, this is looking like an elaborate election time play, without it being of consequence that the new hospital is actually built.

If that is not the case, and the government is serious, then the procedure to date indicates that there is no further use for planning or planners in this state. We can just rely on the judgement of people like Minister Hill.