[VIS] New Womens and Childrens Hospital

[cocoiadrop]

This new hospital will have a helipad...and this is the path planes take when landing on runway 23 at Adelaide Airport. Politicians occasionally talk about building a second airport, so this will add to the excuses to do it.

ypad-23.png

According to the ILS chart for rwy 23 aircraft should be around 1100ft-1200ft around that point. Considering the nRAH gets helis fine I'm not sure this will be an issue for the nWCH

[VinyTapestry849]

This new hospital will have a helipad...and this is the path planes take when landing on runway 23 at Adelaide Airport. Politicians occasionally talk about building a second airport, so this will add to the excuses to do it.

ypad-23.png

oh yeah, I remember posting that when I was going on about height limits I think. Ridiculous have far the planes are away from the CBD to justify them.

Not at all, there's tons of potential operations that don't fall under just naively drawing a line.

Doesn't mean they can't be changed if there are good enough reasons and justification to do all the work, but far from ridiculous.

Move the airport, I'm sick of this shit stunting this city's growth with height restrictions. Both figuratively and literally.

Anyway, back to the hospital

[gnrc_louis]

oh yeah, I remember posting that when I was going on about height limits I think. Ridiculous have far the planes are away from the CBD to justify them.

Not at all, there's tons of potential operations that don't fall under just naively drawing a line.

Doesn't mean they can't be changed if there are good enough reasons and justification to do all the work, but far from ridiculous.

Move the airport, I'm sick of this shit stunting this city's growth with height restrictions. Both figuratively and literally.

Anyway, back to the hospital

Yeah- let's spend billions on moving an airport which is super conveniently located and in turn arguably a great asset for Adelaide, so we can maybe get some taller buildings

[ml69]

If you look at Google/Apple Maps, there is land set aside for a second runway at Adelaide Airport, approx 1.2km north-west of the current main runway. The flight path for this would take it approx over the Entertainment Centre at Hindmarsh.
If there was ever a constraint on taller buildings in the CBD, could the main runway be rebuilt here? Would probably require a small reclaimed extension into the gulf. Then the existing terminal and facilities could still be used and we could also have taller buildings in the CBD, particularly east of King William St. Best of both worlds.

[timtam20292]

If you look at Google/Apple Maps, there is land set aside for a second runway at Adelaide Airport, approx 1.2km north-west of the current main runway. The flight path for this would take it approx over the Entertainment Centre at Hindmarsh.
If there was ever a constraint on taller buildings in the CBD, could the main runway be rebuilt here? Would probably require a small reclaimed extension into the gulf. Then the existing terminal and facilities could still be used and we could also have taller buildings in the CBD, particularly east of King William St. Best of both worlds.

That land is a significant site as it contains the only remaining swampland vegetation prior to European settlement. The site is managed by Adelaide Airport. I did loads of work there also many years ago with tree planting and weed management etc.

Here is some information if you’re interested. https://www.inaturalist.org/proje ... ation-zone

Sorry to go off topic but I felt this was an appropriate answer.

[Goodsy]

If you look at Google/Apple Maps, there is land set aside for a second runway at Adelaide Airport, approx 1.2km north-west of the current main runway. The flight path for this would take it approx over the Entertainment Centre at Hindmarsh.
If there was ever a constraint on taller buildings in the CBD, could the main runway be rebuilt here? Would probably require a small reclaimed extension into the gulf. Then the existing terminal and facilities could still be used and we could also have taller buildings in the CBD, particularly east of King William St. Best of both worlds.

Im in favour of rotating the whole runway a few degrees anti clockwise




The spot is fine, the fact that it's on heritage listed buildings is fine too. The Old Adelaide Gaol is historically significant, the barracks aren't

[VinyTapestry849]

Not at all, there's tons of potential operations that don't fall under just naively drawing a line.

Doesn't mean they can't be changed if there are good enough reasons and justification to do all the work, but far from ridiculous.

Move the airport, I'm sick of this shit stunting this city's growth with height restrictions. Both figuratively and literally.

Anyway, back to the hospital

Yeah- let's spend billions on moving an airport which is super conveniently located and in turn arguably a great asset for Adelaide, so we can maybe get some taller buildings

Exactly.

[1NEEDS2POST]

This new hospital will have a helipad...and this is the path planes take when landing on runway 23 at Adelaide Airport. Politicians occasionally talk about building a second airport, so this will add to the excuses to do it.

ypad-23.png

According to the ILS chart for rwy 23 aircraft should be around 1100ft-1200ft around that point. Considering the nRAH gets helis fine I'm not sure this will be an issue for the nWCH

Wake turbulence will still be a problem.

[Nort]

Move the airport, I'm sick of this shit stunting this city's growth with height restrictions. Both figuratively and literally.

Anyway, back to the hospital

Yeah- let's spend billions on moving an airport which is super conveniently located and in turn arguably a great asset for Adelaide, so we can maybe get some taller buildings

Exactly.

Who's paying for this?

[Aidan]

Im in favour of rotating the whole runway a few degrees anti clockwise

Billions in cost, negligible benefits, Glenelg residents livid! ‘Tis a non starter.
The only change to our airport runway configuration that will ever be needed is a short parallel runway on the northern side, and that won't be needed any time soon.

The spot is fine, the fact that it's on heritage listed buildings is fine too. The Old Adelaide Gaol is historically significant, the barracks aren't

Isn't their historical significance the reason for their heritage listing? If not, what do you think is?

[Aidan]

I've sent them the following email:

Having read your site review report,a few issues stand out:

• Conspicuously absent was any mention of option zero (keeping the WCH in its current location). Did you neglect to consider it?

• Option 1 scored poorly because of lack of opportunities to extend the RAH. But was the possibility of an underground extension (beneath the parklands) considered?

• Why would option 3b block off Hindley Street rather than extend above it?

• Was the option of a tunnel instead of a footbridge considered for option 3?

• Why is option 3's location on major roads considered a disadvantage rather than an advantage?

• How much of option 3's low clinical score was due to architectural decisions rather than factors intrinsic to the site?

• Why wasn't a hybrid option with part of the hospital south of North Terrace considered?

I'll let you know when I get a reply.

[1NEEDS2POST]

Kate Cocks Park and the park between Gaol Road and the railway are owned by SAPOL. So even though it's not "park lands", most of the land this new hospital will be built on is currently parks. One of the oversights in reporting on this is that these parks are not considered "park lands". Most people wouldn't be aware that the new hospital will reduce the area of parks.

[rev]

Kate Cocks Park and the park between Gaol Road and the railway are owned by SAPOL. So even though it's not "park lands", most of the land this new hospital will be built on is currently parks. One of the oversights in reporting on this is that these parks are not considered "park lands". Most people wouldn't be aware that the new hospital will reduce the area of parks.

Are people able to go and use the parks owned by SAPOL? The answer is no. There are signs posted that tell you to stay out. It's used by the police horses.

Yes, most of that if not all of that park will be lost to the hospital.
But the renders also show an open park & playground next to the hospital.
So a better measure would be will we gain or lose useable park. We will gain. This is similar to the obahn tunnel in that respect. Hopefully the government doesn't cave in to the noisy minority again.

[Llessur2002]

But the renders also show an open park & playground next to the hospital.

Do they? Not sure if I'm missing something but I can't see a new playground - unless that's what is on the triangle between the two hospitals where the WCH was originally proposed. Even so, considering that site is specifically earmarked for future expansion of the RAH I don't think it can really be considered a long-term gain of parklands.

Whilst I agree that this has largely been inaccessible land for many decades and isn't really parklands 'proper', as a regular user of Bonython Park and its playground I, like one or two others above, regard this as one of the best utlised, maintained and purposed area of true parklands and have concerns about what impact this very large development will have on it. Given the fact that the hospital is set back from Port Road, the busiest section of Bonython Park will now be bordered by a multi-storey wall. Kate Cocks Park, whilst not open to the public, adds a point of interest to the area and the kids absolutely love it. The Road Safety Centre is a fantastic asset and I also question its long-term viability and upkeep given that the administrative buildings will be removed.

That said, as a parent of two premature babies I acknowledge the huge importance of the WCH and the need to ensure it operates at maximum clinical efficiency into the future. If this truly is the best location for such a facility (and that's a fairly big if, given the West End and Coca Cola sites don't seem to have been considered) then I can begrudgingly accept the resulting impact to what is currently a lovely area of parklands and just hope that enough steps will be taken to offset the loss of amenity.

[Nathan]

But the renders also show an open park & playground next to the hospital.

Do they? Not sure if I'm missing something but I can't see a new playground - unless that's what is on the triangle between the two hospitals where the WCH was originally proposed. Even so, considering that site is specifically earmarked for future expansion of the RAH I don't think it can really be considered a long-term gain of parklands.

Whilst I agree that this has largely been inaccessible land for many decades and isn't really parklands 'proper', as a regular user of Bonython Park and its playground I, like one or two others above, regard this as one of the best utlised, maintained and purposed area of true parklands and have concerns about what impact this very large development will have on it. Given the fact that the hospital is set back from Port Road, the busiest section of Bonython Park will now be bordered by a multi-storey wall. Kate Cocks Park, whilst not open to the public, adds a point of interest to the area and the kids absolutely love it The Road Safety Centre is a fantastic asset and I also question its long-term viability and upkeep given that the administrative buildings will be removed.

That said, as a parent of two premature babies I acknowledge the huge importance of the WCH and the need to ensure it operates at maximum clinical efficiency into the future. If this truly is the best location for such a facility (and that's a fairly big if, given the West End and Coca Cola sites don't seem to have been considered) then I can begrudgingly accept the resulting impact to what is currently a lovely area of parklands and just hope that enough steps will be taken to offset the loss of amenity.

Yes, I think if this location does go ahead — I think it would be an ideal time to draft a proper masterplan for Bonython Park for the future. An immediate need would be to re-orientate access to the Gaol to come from the park (rather than Gaol Rd), which may then necessitate moving the council's work yard. But rather than treat these things as piece meal changes (as they so often are), along with the councils plan to change the old netball courts currently used as "tram parking" to the new beach volleyball area, there should be a vision of how Bonython Park should develop in the future.

I know plans were floated as part of the "Riverbank Masterplan" from the Weatherill Government era (with an idea of it being a "bicentennial park"), but that plan seems to have been shredded, then burned, and the remains then stuck in a rocket and sent to the moon.