[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Message
Author
claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2461 Post by claybro » Sat Dec 29, 2012 12:31 am

These trees along with many white cedar trees in Adelaide suffered greatly during the drought and are not in good health. White Cedars have a limited lifespan in our climate, and would have had to be removed/replaced with or without the carpark. Nothing like a storm in a teacup when it comes to the parklands though. Lets hope they don't replace them with an avenue of dead native grass though as is the current trend.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3090
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2462 Post by rhino » Thu Jan 03, 2013 9:13 am

The White Cedar is apparently a native of the Kimberley. It has been classed as a weed in Perth, but I don't think that applies in Adelaide. The seeds are eaten and distributed by birds, but we don't see white cedars growing in national parks etc to the same extent that we see olives, which are spread the same way and which are considered a weed here.
cheers,
Rhino

degruch
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:25 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2463 Post by degruch » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:01 pm

Wow, the DAC circumvent the rules and laugh in the face of public opinion to do a dawn raid on a bunch of protected trees to satisfy the SACA, I was so surprised I nearly blinked.

User avatar
Matt
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: London

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2464 Post by Matt » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:05 pm

Yawn... next....

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2465 Post by claybro » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:15 pm

Quick...while they're foaming about the trees lets whack up that permanent stand in Victoria Park..... Oh thats right, they're busy with puting up the temporary stand again.

degruch
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:25 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2466 Post by degruch » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:28 pm

It's all about the trees, of course...oh, and rampant bending of the rules by the DAC to stuff up our city, again! Rail freight through suburbs, concrete blah on Twin Street, parks on industrial slag heaps for St Claire, I'm loving it, can't wait to see what's next. Of course, the more commando activity the State government carries out, the more the public sees they are being ignored and the facade of public consultation and 'independent' ruling bodies begins to fall. I get the impression the state government can smell defeat in 2014, hence the ramping up of blatant nasty activity around the city.

mattblack
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:20 am

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2467 Post by mattblack » Fri Jan 04, 2013 6:45 pm

degruch wrote:It's all about the trees, of course...oh, and rampant bending of the rules by the DAC to stuff up our city, again! Rail freight through suburbs, concrete blah on Twin Street, parks on industrial slag heaps for St Claire, I'm loving it, can't wait to see what's next. Of course, the more commando activity the State government carries out, the more the public sees they are being ignored and the facade of public consultation and 'independent' ruling bodies begins to fall. I get the impression the state government can smell defeat in 2014, hence the ramping up of blatant nasty activity around the city.
If you really care so much why didnt you chain yourself to one of these half dead trees. By the way DAC is independent of the government. You might want to check the basis of your attacks before you get up on your soap box.

degruch
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 1:25 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2468 Post by degruch » Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:15 pm

mattblack wrote:If you really care so much why didnt you chain yourself to one of these half dead trees. By the way DAC is independent of the government. You might want to check the basis of your attacks before you get up on your soap box.
Maybe Pat Conlon should have, they're going to die so soon they'd have probably collapsed before the dawn raid and he'd be safe as a 27 story apartment complex on top of Parliament House! :lol: Maybe he was worried about that once in a hundred year flood occurring overnight...scoff, chortle. Anyway, who needed to chain themselves to anything, the avenue was protected, wasn't it?

DAC...independent? Scoff, chortle.

Maybe, but here's the setting:

Having lost their battle with the ACC to have the avenue removed, the State government and SACA appealed to the DAC and, presto, overnight, fixed! Does that look independent to you? It doesn't to a lot of people, especially with the knowledge only a few DAC members even bothered to attend the appeal hearing.

To be honest, although it's only a few old trees, it's a PR disaster for the government and a real eye opener for the public. Telling everyone the trees were dead, or dying, or in a flood zone is only making the educated public laugh louder.

User avatar
Vee
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1105
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 8:26 pm
Location: Eastern Suburbs

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2469 Post by Vee » Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:47 pm

Trees have a finite life. Councils and institutions etc need to manage declining trees, plan their replacements etc.

White Cedar trees may look attractive in their prime but there are reports of people developing allergies in proximity to these trees. They are no longer a favoured tree in the Burnside Council area (like Queensland Box and Desert Ash) and are not used in replanting schemes.

The Burnside Council Tree Management Strategy ...
http://www.burnside.sa.gov.au/files/da9 ... rategy.pdf
... has this on Pg 43
"In the case of Melia azedarach (White Cedar), Council has chosen to discontinue its use due to inherent risks associated with the berry that the tree produces."

Many trees in this avenue of trees near the Adelaide Oval appear to fit the declining category.
Is there a garden plan, associated with the redevelopment, showing replacement trees and garden design?

claybro
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2429
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:16 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2470 Post by claybro » Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:07 pm

degruch wrote:It's all about the trees, of course...oh, and rampant bending of the rules by the DAC to stuff up our city, again! Rail freight through suburbs, concrete blah on Twin Street, parks on industrial slag heaps for St Claire, I'm loving it, can't wait to see what's next. Of course, the more commando activity the State government carries out, the more the public sees they are being ignored and the facade of public consultation and 'independent' ruling bodies begins to fall. I get the impression the state government can smell defeat in 2014, hence the ramping up of blatant nasty activity around the city.
Public being ignored??? Dont mistake the loud few that spew all over the Advertiser letters as being the general public. The fact is the vast majority of public just want the damn thing built and are happy at the lightning speed it is happening. Finally something that is not endlessly held up by agonising over a small section of parkland. Ditto St Claire. 99.9% of Charles Sturt residents would never have set foot in St Claire park, nor care it is being moved a few hundred metres to make better use of the under used train station and run down Woodville Road.

Shahkar
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 2:22 am
Location: Adelaide CBD

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2471 Post by Shahkar » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:47 am

claybro wrote:Public being ignored??? Dont mistake the loud few that spew all over the Advertiser letters as being the general public. The fact is the vast majority of public just want the damn thing built and are happy at the lightning speed it is happening. Finally something that is not endlessly held up by agonising over a small section of parkland. Ditto St Claire. 99.9% of Charles Sturt residents would never have set foot in St Claire park, nor care it is being moved a few hundred metres to make better use of the under used train station and run down Woodville Road.
+1

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6382
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2472 Post by rev » Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:21 pm

Can we just IGNORE the obvious trolls from the various self interest head up their ass groups, like the guy a few posts above making a huge fuss about some dead trees?
I mean seriously, we are going to engage in an argument with this obvious troll about dying trees that were removed? Come onnnn!!

These idiotic groups rely on the fact that most people these days will NOT do their own research to inform them selves of the facts, and therefore try and take advantage of peoples passive attitudes on matters that don't directly affect them by making a whole lot of noise to get attention and hope that those people hear the misleading information they are spreading.

Remember, IGNORE.
The sooner we ignore these idiots, the sooner they piss off.

User avatar
Kasey771
Legendary Member!
Posts: 603
Joined: Sun Feb 21, 2010 8:56 am

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2473 Post by Kasey771 » Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:42 pm

DaShyFreak wrote:
claybro wrote:Public being ignored??? Dont mistake the loud few that spew all over the Advertiser letters as being the general public. The fact is the vast majority of public just want the damn thing built and are happy at the lightning speed it is happening. Finally something that is not endlessly held up by agonising over a small section of parkland. Ditto St Claire. 99.9% of Charles Sturt residents would never have set foot in St Claire park, nor care it is being moved a few hundred metres to make better use of the under used train station and run down Woodville Road.
+1
+2:)
Big infrastructure investments are usually under-valued and & over-criticized while in the planning stage. It's much easier to envision the here and now costs and inconveniences, and far more difficult to imagine fully the eventual benefits.

User avatar
Matt
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: London

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2474 Post by Matt » Mon Jan 07, 2013 8:08 pm

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1357551513.253994.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1357551513.253994.jpg (40.5 KiB) Viewed 3113 times
Wandered into invitingly open gates at Adelaide Oval today... will post a couple of proper pics later. Looking good.

User avatar
Matt
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1125
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: London

[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m

#2475 Post by Matt » Tue Jan 08, 2013 12:18 pm

A couple of happy snaps from the Intercontinental.
Attachments
IMG_1775.JPG
IMG_1775.JPG (246.41 KiB) Viewed 2978 times
IMG_1774.JPG
IMG_1774.JPG (265.52 KiB) Viewed 2978 times
IMG_1769.JPG
IMG_1769.JPG (366.27 KiB) Viewed 2978 times

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Cryptic, gnrc_louis, Semrush [Bot] and 6 guests