[VIS] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[Nort]

Call for ‘immediate’ investigation into proposed Parklands carpark

City of Adelaide elected members were this week recommended to write to the State’s Planning Minister to urge for “additional investigations” to be undertaken “immediately” for the proposed new Women’s and Children’s Hospital multi-storey carpark slated for the Parklands.

https://citymag.indaily.com.au/commerce ... s-carpark/

I'm sure a new carpark will irreparably damage the parkland-like qualities of the wild grass, gravel and discarded junk on the small wedge of land between the rail corridor and the already-developed land that the Gaol and Barracks reside on.

I think the carpark needs to happen if a new W&CH is going to be built at this site, but your argument there actually makes a case against it. Seems like you're pointing out that development of the parklands ends up with parts of it being left ruined.

[Spotto]

I'm sure a new carpark will irreparably damage the parkland-like qualities of the wild grass, gravel and discarded junk on the small wedge of land between the rail corridor and the already-developed land that the Gaol and Barracks reside on.

I think the carpark needs to happen if a new W&CH is going to be built at this site, but your argument there actually makes a case against it. Seems like you're pointing out that development of the parklands ends up with parts of it being left ruined.

Apologies for any confusion, I was speaking sarcastically.

If the hospital and carpark was proposed to be put on Bonython Park or any part of the Parklands proper, for example, the case against it in favour of preserving the parklands is fully justified. But this small piece of land is wedged between existing developments on all sides and is essentially abandoned scrubland, I can’t imagine a carpark is going to many any more of an impact on the overall character of the parklands than leaving it in its current state would.

It might be zoned as part of the parklands, but is it really part of the parklands?

[ChillyPhilly]

The carpark is starting to attract criticism and controversy.

Really, it should be placed underground.

[[Shuz]]

It's a fucking olive garden in an barely used section of parklands that noone can see or even had heard of until this project came along. Who cares, just get it done and over with. If anything I'm more annoyed about the WCH being built on the new section of parklands which is actually a nice garden for the patients to walk around in, but apparently nobody is up in arms about that.

[Nort]

The carpark is starting to attract criticism and controversy.

Really, it should be placed underground.

Underground where?

I'm inclined to agree with arguments that development on the parklands is a slippery slope that should have to meet a very high bar of benefit (and ideally include some other areas being returned to parklands in exchange), but this seems like one of the cases where it isn't going to take away anything currently used by anyone, or anything that could foreseeably be useful park in the medium future. Saw a Facebook post by one of the parklands protection groups yesterday that used this image:

When that area they have the before photograph of isn't actually where it's planned to be built:

[Algernon]

If you choose a particular land use next to key transportinfrastructure, then spend your time arguing about where the great big fuck off car park will be built..... then you're building the wrong thing in the wrong fuckin place.

[rev]

Plant some trees somewhere else nearby and get the fuck over it.

[bits]

Public Hospital beats low use parkland.

The focus should be what becomes of the old Women's and Children's Hospital site.

[how good is he]

Maybe they could re-plant the olive grove on the roof top or around the new W&C or even move it to the new Urrbrae Gatehouse location. Then they could heritage list it and release a limited edition extra olive oil from it every year to pay for it..

[Algernon]

Public Hospital beats low use parkland.

The focus should be what becomes of the old Women's and Children's Hospital site.

Maybe they can level the site and make it a temporary car park while they discuss proposals for the site

[SRW]

This is precisely the example of slippery slope development in the parklands that concerns so many people. This new WCH has been so poorly planned that not only is taking over recently landscaped gardens it now also needs extra land for a fucking carpark. It's just another indication that it's being built in the wrong place. It's easy enough to say the land is useless, but we need to stop treating parkland as free land. Not to mention the visual impact to the historic Gaol and the impacts to future connectivity.

[ChillyPhilly]

This is precisely the example of slippery slope development in the parklands that concerns so many people. This new WCH has been so poorly planned that not only is taking over recently landscaped gardens it now also needs extra land for a fucking carpark. It's just another indication that it's being built in the wrong place. It's easy enough to say the land is useless, but we need to stop treating parkland as free land. Not to mention the visual impact to the historic Gaol and the impacts to future connectivity.

Perfectly put.

[rev]

It is the perfect location based on circumstance. For the very reasons talked about, ie proximity to the RAH, and in years to come the private biomed precinct thats been earmarked for the former Coke site.
And it was hinted at being the site for a nWCH years ago.

We need to stop treating some shitty run down land as the holy land.

If a development is going to be beneficial to the wider community it should go ahead.

Half of that space is used as car parking already. The area closer to Port Road is used(or was) by SAPOL's mounted division..ie the horses. Hardly a loss of parklands. It's like ridiculously arguing that festival plaza, a concrete and reo shit hole that it was, was parkland, or the same argument about the nRAH site formerly rail yards and heavily contaminated being parklands.

I bet most if not all of the parklands militants who make a fuss, have ever bothered to get off their asses and plant trees in areas affected by bushfire. Such is their real concern for the environment.

[Patrick_27]

I'm not in favour of the carpark but for different reasons, I think it shows lazy planning if they have to expand further onto public land to cater for this rather than consolidate and use every square inch possible on the existing site of the N-W&CH site. Furthermore, I'm more concerned about the site lines of the old Adelaide Gaol; it's already buried back from Port Road, building this carpark will only burry it further back out of the public eye. I think a solution to this whole issue is the triangular parcel of land that rests between the metro train lines and the single track used by freight trains. You could very easily build this carpark there for around the same $$ and you wouldn't be offending anyone (neither those anti-development and those pro-development).

[Algernon]

This is precisely the example of slippery slope development in the parklands that concerns so many people. This new WCH has been so poorly planned that not only is taking over recently landscaped gardens it now also needs extra land for a fucking carpark. It's just another indication that it's being built in the wrong place. It's easy enough to say the land is useless, but we need to stop treating parkland as free land. Not to mention the visual impact to the historic Gaol and the impacts to future connectivity.

Part of the poor planning is down to the new RAH filling up so much space in the first place. If the SA government had planned cohabitation with the WCH from the start, they wouldn't have been so quick to fill up the space for the RAH so inefficiently. But it's the SA government which couldn't masterplan a backyard.