Your views: on heritage versus hospital
Today, readers comment on debate over a new Women’s and Children’s Hospital located on a state heritage precinct.
Commenting on Your views: on a new hospital, heritage and radio ratings
So now Warren Jones thinks it is all right to destroy a cluster of heritage buildings to make way for a new hospital.
His expressed reasons are a mixture of restating the obvious, and delivering unmerited insults.
Nobody doubts that we need more and better hospital facilities for women and children. But simply repeating that fact does nothing to address Keith Conlon’s point that the chosen solution gravely prejudices our heritage protection system.
Having sidestepped that logical problem, Dr Jones then dishes up an insult to Mr Conlon, asserting that the latter was insufficiently active about shed 26 at Port Adelaide.
You might like
Well, Mr Conlon chaired the Heritage Council which wanted to protect shed 26. The then Minister, as the law allowed, overruled the council. What more should Mr Conlon have done?
To top it off Dr Jones repeats the assertion that, in 2021, there was a proposal to turn Ayers House over to being administrative offices. Ayers House was already heritage-listed. It remains so. There has never been a proposal for it that did not include extensive public access to, and use of, that grand building.
I see that Dr Jones styles himself convenor Protect our Heritage Alliance. I make no comment. – Michael Jacobs
I am so disappointed in the position take by Warren Jones. He was my hero – but no more.
Stay informed, daily
However, I hope that the National Trust will take a strong stand on this. There are other solutions. – Garth Owen
Commenting on the story: ‘Embarrassing’: Labor’s video pledge not to raze state heritage buildings
I’m so angry about this announcement. So disappointed in this government.
Capturing a significant site’s history through “Photos, data, objects and stories” does not “honour” commitments made going into this election.
To have the Police Barracks denigrated as not as significant as Bonython Hall beggars belief. They can’t be compared. The decision has been made by this government without consultation, so to say that they will “ask the Heritage Council to undertake a report on the heritage value of the barracks” but not to preserve the site is political clap-trap.
I will stand with Keith Conlon in front of the bulldozers. – Carmela Luscri
Commenting on the opinion piece: Heritage protection now meaningless if historic site is demolished
To be heritage listed, the building itself should have some very significant features and value to the state.
Recent articles have only shown a picture of the two storey, terraced type building at the front. It has a two storey box in front of it, windows at each level, that is basically an eyesore. Without this box, yes maybe it is worth heritage listing – but not with it.
The rest of the site? There are tin sheds and I do not understand how there are seven other buildings that are heritage listed. For mine, it is a great site for a W&CH. – Peter Mitchell
