It's temporary signage as a sponsor of the series. Wonder if West End has any say in the amount of VB (or Coopers) served at the venue?metro wrote:Why on earth do they have Victoria Shitter on the heritage scoreboard?
[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment
-
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:10 pm
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Making good progress!
"SA GOING ALL THE WAY".
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
When it's finished this ground's going to be awesome!
"SA GOING ALL THE WAY".
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
They were even working during the game!
"SA GOING ALL THE WAY".
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
no photos of the streaker?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Old trees to be cut for Adelaide Oval car park
THE ADELAIDE Oval redevelopment has claimed an avenue of historic century-old white cedar trees to make way for car parks.
The state's most powerful planning body has upheld a State Government push to axe the 105-year-old trees lining a pedestrian avenue north of the oval.
The Government asked the City Council for permission to fell the trees and rip up the bitumen path linking Pennington Tce with the oval. When the council refused, the Government appealed to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) which ruled in its favour.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6543786786
THE ADELAIDE Oval redevelopment has claimed an avenue of historic century-old white cedar trees to make way for car parks.
The state's most powerful planning body has upheld a State Government push to axe the 105-year-old trees lining a pedestrian avenue north of the oval.
The Government asked the City Council for permission to fell the trees and rip up the bitumen path linking Pennington Tce with the oval. When the council refused, the Government appealed to the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) which ruled in its favour.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 6543786786
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
cant they incorporate the trees into the car park?
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
you'd think soStefan wrote:cant they incorporate the trees into the car park?
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Look how closely spaced the trees are and how low the branches are. I'm sure if there was a viable way they could have been incorporated, the designers would have done so given the sensitivity of even chopping down one tree in the parklands.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Fuck the carpark...let people use public transport!
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Adelaide city council is a joke.
Seriously why did they refuse to remove the trees ?
Seriously why did they refuse to remove the trees ?
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Umm. Anyone notice those trees have no leaves on them in the middle of summer? Looks like the photo was taken recently given the piles of dirt
- monotonehell
- VIP Member
- Posts: 5466
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
- Location: Adelaide, East End.
- Contact:
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Normally I'd be all "build the carpark around the trees." As I know these trees, I have parked cars around them many a time when I used to work at the Oval during my university days.
BUT
Are these the same "white cedar" that have been decalred a noxious weed in Australia? Hard to tell as several trees go by that name.
BUT
Are these the same "white cedar" that have been decalred a noxious weed in Australia? Hard to tell as several trees go by that name.
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Mpol02 and 2 guests