Talk:Rosemount Hospital

Current usage

@Kerry Raymond: I don't think the edit regarding the current status of the hospital was accurate. I was about to post a comment here because I was confused about the sources a few days ago, but concluded that the article was correct and didn't post it.

The hospital was added to the Heritage Register in 1999, and the site inspection clearly notes that the building was in use at that time by the organisations that the article said it was. This would obviously make it hard for the site to be abandoned and derelict in 1999, unless the listing was seriously outdated at the time of its approval, or the original author seriously inept.

I was leaning towards either of those two conclusions until I checked the Royal Brisbane Hospital website and noted that the services the article stated were still listed as being offered at Rosemount in 2014.

I think the Karuna website is misleading - I think they meant their current building was abandoned in 1994, which is consistent with the description (that mentions several abandoned buildings on the site in 1999) even if I'm not sure which one they're referring to.

I am very open to other ideas but I think the Heritage Register was correct on this one? The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that we cannot be certain when anything in the heritage register entry was actually written. It may take some time for proposed heritage place to be listed so its citation may be older than the date of listing. On the other hand, there are definitely some entries which have been updated since listing (perhaps because because of some request to carry out modifications etc). But you are right that there were probably multiple buildings involved. Karuna appeared to have some kind of short-term lease prior to their restoration and the longer-term lease. Currently Karuna's address is Building No 1, suggesting there are other buildings, so it's possible they were leasing different buildings at different times. I think I need to go out and take a look. Kerry (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've kicked the tyres. There are a lot more buildings on that site that I realised from the heritage register entry. I think we need to distinguish carefully between Rosemount (the original house), Rosemount (the subset of buildings covered by the heritage listing) and Rosemount (the site as a whole); I think the confusion derives from getting them all confused. None of the buildings on the site appear to be offering any kind of 24/7 hospital services (the whole place was deserted on Sunday afternoon). The large brick 1980s hospital building appears to be a day treatment facility with geriatic assessment, etc (so probably the services you saw on the hospital's website are run from that building) - I am not convinced this building is part of the heritage listing but it is part of the "Rosemount Complex". The actual Rosemount house is indeed occupied by Karuna and looks like someone (presumably Karuna) has restored it; they do not appear to provide patient care at that site but administration, counselling, meditation sessions, etc. As for the other 20-odd buildings on the site, some seem to be used for various "ancillary services" but others appear not to be in use. To be honest, a lot of the buildings look like they were thrown up quickly to meet an urgent need and are probably completely useless to a modern patient care. I imagine the hospital would love to knock most of them down and build modern buildings suitable for modern health care. Anyhow, I think what the QHR entry said and what the Karuna webpage said is probably both true, it just depends which building they are talking about at the time. I'll update the article as best I can accordingly. Kerry (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Kerry, you are utterly fabulous. The listing does refer to and describe the 1980s building (which I think is still very relevant to the history/usage of the site even if it isn't important in itself), as well as nearly twenty other buildings, so I'm not sure there is a distinction between the buildings covered by the listing and the site itself. Curiously, it doesn't contain the normal caveats about buildings on the site which are not protected, and one would assume at least the 1980s building isn't. I think better differentiating the house from the broader site makes sense though, since it's an easy point of confusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Focus of the article - building or hospital?

I feel as though this article has lost its focus on the actual hospital, and has become too concerned with the physical heritage building. While the building is definitely worthy of attention in its own right, I feel as though the focus of this article, as implied by its name, should be on the functioning hospital/health service that lies within the building. An article focused on the building should be titled "Rosemount Hospital building" instead etc, as to avoid any confusion. Tim (Talk) 09:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)