[COM] Torrens Footbridge | $40m

[Pants]

Yes Anne, the govt. will go to the trouble of picking the bridge proposal that had the least visual impact on its surroundings and then paint it red, blue, yellow, black, white and teal.

Whatever gets your name or face in the media...

[rev]

Is the council paying for the bridge?
The council will waste years mismanaging it like they do everything else.
Imagine when the time comes to upgrade it, we will have another Victoria Square farce on our hands.

[Wayno]

Can anyone think of reasons why the State Govt would want to manage the bridge?

Moran's reasoning to the side, i think the ACC should manage, and be provided with cash to help. Otherwise it's ~$20k per year the ACC can't spend elsewhere around the CBD. Off topic i know, but i think the same should apply to the park lands in general - SA Govt should fund various developments to invigorate (without being BIG & contentious like the Clipsal grandstand) and trickle feed cash to the ACC each year for upkeep.

[AtD]

^^ I disagree, the parklands should be controlled by the state and not the ACC. The half a dozen or so councils which border the ACC have a vested interest in well maintained parklands so they should wear the cost too, but the structure of our local government system prevents this. As a next best solution, it should be the state's responsibility.

The residents of Thebarton and St. Peters benifit from having access to the parklands through better lifestyle and higher property values. But they do not need to pay for their upkeep - that burden is on ACC rate payers. Thus the parklands will always be less developed than they deserve given the population they serve - look at the distant corners of horse paddock and car park.

[Nathan]

I don't have a problem with the ACC managing them, but I do agree that both the bordering councils and the state should contribute towards them - since they're used by both people in the those councils, and the people of Adelaide in general.

[Waewick]

personally I think the "Adelaide City Council" should encompass the whole inner city

[rev]

Can anyone think of reasons why the State Govt would want to manage the bridge?

I'm not sure if the government should manage it, but personally I think it should be viewed as part of the overall Adelaide Oval redevelopment, and therefore the Stadium Management Authority should be responsible for it's upkeep/maintenance. There's no other reason why the bridge is being built, other then the to serve Adelaide Oval during matches and other events, so I think the SMA being responsible for it makes more sense then either the state government or city council.

[Wayno]

I'm not sure if the government should manage it, but personally I think it should be viewed as part of the overall Adelaide Oval redevelopment, and therefore the Stadium Management Authority should be responsible for it's upkeep/maintenance. There's no other reason why the bridge is being built, other then the to serve Adelaide Oval during matches and other events, so I think the SMA being responsible for it makes more sense then either the state government or city council.

yep, i'll buy that approach - either the ACC or SMA makes sense.

and i'm feeling the urge to delete posts again...

[crawf]

Cr Anne Moran said if the State Government or Stadium Management Authority controlled the bridge she feared it would become too sport-orientated.

"It will be painted Crows colours on one side and Port on the other," she said.

"Us keeping it doesn't give us total control but it gives us some control."

This has got to be the most bizarre and ridiculous thing I have ever heard come from her month. Seriously?!?!

^^ I disagree, the parklands should be controlled by the state and not the ACC. The half a dozen or so councils which border the ACC have a vested interest in well maintained parklands so they should wear the cost too, but the structure of our local government system prevents this. As a next best solution, it should be the state's responsibility.

The residents of Thebarton and St. Peters benifit from having access to the parklands through better lifestyle and higher property values. But they do not need to pay for their upkeep - that burden is on ACC rate payers. Thus the parklands will always be less developed than they deserve given the population they serve - look at the distant
corners of horse paddock and car park.

+1

It's going to get more interesting within the next few years as residents start to move into Bowden Village.

[Wayno]

deleted more posts - apologies to those caught in the cross-fire...

[Nathan]

It's going to get more interesting within the next few years as residents start to move into Bowden Village.

Indeed - as the proximity to the parklands is one of the developments major selling points with the pedestrian bridge over Park Tce.

[Goya's Line]

The residents of Thebarton and St. Peters benifit from having access to the parklands through better lifestyle and higher property values. But they do not need to pay for their upkeep - that burden is on ACC rate payers. Thus the parklands will always be less developed than they deserve given the population they serve - look at the distant corners of horse paddock and car park.

Agree to some extent but West Torrens Thebarton wouldn't accept paying the same amount for maintenance as Norwood Payneham St. Peters - can't really compare a cemetery, sports fields and police barracks with botanic gardens, Adelaide Bowling Club and Rymill Park (though remediation near Ice Arena is a start). If APPA cared about the western quarter they'd oppose each burial at West Terrace Cemetery as 'development'.

[Matt]

If APPA cared about the western quarter they'd oppose each burial at West Terrace Cemetery as 'development'.

Brilliant.

[skyliner]

If APPA cared about the western quarter they'd oppose each burial at West Terrace Cemetery as 'development'.

Brilliant.

Give it time guys - there ARE people around that will see it that way - I'm not agreeing with this idea however.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CBD SKYLINE

[Goya's Line]

To be honest I don't agree with the Wakefield expansion and think regenerated plots should adhere to (modest) uniform headstones. I still see a lot of potential for the west-side... is there a West Terrace thread?