Your views: on a hospital over heritage
Today, readers continue the debate over a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital on a state heritage site.
Render of the proposed new Women's and Children's Hospital, on the site of the current Thebarton Police Barracks adjacent to Bonython Park. Image supplied by State Govt.
Commenting on the opinion piece: Heritage protection now meaningless if historic site is demolished
I am all for protecting the heritage and character of our city, however when it comes down to a choice between the health and wellbeing of women and children in this state versus a cluster of heritage listed buildings, I am all for the new hospital.
This is not the destruction of character homes and canopy perpetuated day in and day out across Adelaide by property developers to line their pockets. This is not something that affects the amenity and enjoyment of our homes and streetscape on a daily basis. This is a one off that will benefit the entire state into the future.
Save the hysteria for the Planning and Design Code because that is what is destroying the fabric of our beautiful residential character and that’s where it actually affects our daily lives. – Alicia Siegel
Interesting how governments cherry pick their reasoning.
The old RAH site could not be returned to green space as there were valuable heritage buildings on it. Now heritage buildings are not so important that they can’t be knocked over for a hospital.
From this I deduce that the government does hold much value for the green space of the park lands. – Peter Annear
Commenting on the story: SA Police get $2m to plan Thebarton barracks exit
The Premier’s view about this proposal is bizarre. He says: “Do you choose political expediency? Or do you choose the long-term interests of the health system, particularly women and children.”
Labor’s tacticians have obviously advised the Premier to set up a dodgy binary narrative, and already people are falling for it.
‘Political expediency’ would be to grab a big, free chunk of the park lands for a huge development that simply does not need to be in the park lands. I would hope that LegCo legislators don’t fall for this ruse.
Secondly, the potential loss of heritage-listed buildings has rapidly become the media focus, to the exclusion of this looming loss of park lands. A reckless proposal recommending loss of heritage and loss of park lands says everything about state Labor today. Only six months from the March election win and it is calling on a fight that does not have to be fought.
Leave the park lands alone. Don’t legislate to trash the Heritage Act 1993 at the SAPOL site. And look elsewhere for the land. – John Bridgland
