...which is all I was ever going to do! Silly that the security wouldn't let a kid (and his dad) a few minutes viewing something my tax dollars helped build. Spooky that I was being watched. Actually I got the distinct feeling that eyes were on me, so didn't stay very long. So you must have been the guy on the minitruck preparing the sight cloth, or the guy on the lawn mower. Surely you weren't the security dude?!rev wrote:I'll let you in on a little secret. You were being watched. Lucky for you you had a child running around care free and you stayed on the hill.fifty wrote:Was back in adelaide over xmas So thought I would take my boy down to have a look like so many others have here. Security greeted me at the northern gates and told me in no uncertain terms I was not welcome which I found surprising given the reports here of people walking straight in to the hill. Admittedly this was 9am on nye before the t20 that night but I hadn't come this far too miss out so walked around the perimeter a bit and came across an unlocked trade entrance that opened to some stairs that took us straight up to the decking and on to the hill. Stoked. Spent 15 min relaxing as the boy ran up and down the hill while I marvelled at the sight.
The view from the hill is seriously impressive. Looks like a cauldron with the wall of seats in the southern stand in front of you. Can't wait.
[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Neither, I don't work at Adelaide Oval in any capacity.
But I know why you were turned away at the gate. The answer is in your original post. If things were like they used to be, you probably would have been allowed in. However things have become pretty "ugly"..I know of in-house staff who have quite already from Adelaide Oval/SMA because they are "complete assholes to work for".
But it's good they didn't over react and come kick you both out.
If you looked around the hill area, you would have noticed all the cameras. I've heard there's a few hundred cameras around the stadium now.
But I know why you were turned away at the gate. The answer is in your original post. If things were like they used to be, you probably would have been allowed in. However things have become pretty "ugly"..I know of in-house staff who have quite already from Adelaide Oval/SMA because they are "complete assholes to work for".
But it's good they didn't over react and come kick you both out.
If you looked around the hill area, you would have noticed all the cameras. I've heard there's a few hundred cameras around the stadium now.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Here he is, caught red-handed by father whilst in the midst of his evil deeds that security guard could not thwart at the said impressive stadium....
-
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:33 pm
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
that grass!!fifty wrote:Here he is, caught red-handed by father whilst in the midst of his evil deeds that security guard could not thwart at the said impressive stadium....
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Just a heads up, if you're intending on sitting in the Riverbank stand, and it's a sunny day, still wear a hat/sunscreen.
I've been three times now sitting in the "shade" the whole time and got burned on each occasion. I wonder if it's something to to with the membranes that have been used for the roof not completely filtering out all of the UV radiation. I've spoken to several other people who also got sunburned sitting in the Riverbank stand.
Switching between the Riverbank and the Western stands saw a huge temperature drop too, with the solid roof of the Western stand making a huge difference.
This isn't a whinge at all, more so sharing some info
I've been three times now sitting in the "shade" the whole time and got burned on each occasion. I wonder if it's something to to with the membranes that have been used for the roof not completely filtering out all of the UV radiation. I've spoken to several other people who also got sunburned sitting in the Riverbank stand.
Switching between the Riverbank and the Western stands saw a huge temperature drop too, with the solid roof of the Western stand making a huge difference.
This isn't a whinge at all, more so sharing some info
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Do you know why they didn't put the same solid material on the Riverbank stand that they used on the Western stand?
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Not sure, may have been a cost measure, maybe an engineering request due to the overhanging roof section being larger than the western, but that argument is mute when the eastern & western roof spans are almost identical.rev wrote:Do you know why they didn't put the same solid material on the Riverbank stand that they used on the Western stand?
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
That's odd, I sat in the middle of the Riverbank Stand and I wasn't burnt.Pikey wrote:Just a heads up, if you're intending on sitting in the Riverbank stand, and it's a sunny day, still wear a hat/sunscreen.
I've been three times now sitting in the "shade" the whole time and got burned on each occasion. I wonder if it's something to to with the membranes that have been used for the roof not completely filtering out all of the UV radiation. I've spoken to several other people who also got sunburned sitting in the Riverbank stand.
Switching between the Riverbank and the Western stands saw a huge temperature drop too, with the solid roof of the Western stand making a huge difference.
This isn't a whinge at all, more so sharing some info
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
I've got burned in the Western stand numerous times, without ever hitting real sunlight.Pikey wrote:Just a heads up, if you're intending on sitting in the Riverbank stand, and it's a sunny day, still wear a hat/sunscreen.
I've been three times now sitting in the "shade" the whole time and got burned on each occasion. I wonder if it's something to to with the membranes that have been used for the roof not completely filtering out all of the UV radiation. I've spoken to several other people who also got sunburned sitting in the Riverbank stand.
Switching between the Riverbank and the Western stands saw a huge temperature drop too, with the solid roof of the Western stand making a huge difference.
This isn't a whinge at all, more so sharing some info
Got something to do with UV reflecting in off stuff.
And even in summer you'll get a bit in a northern-facing stand.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
Latest ortho-photography of the Adelaide Oval acquired on the 9th January 2014 as part of the full Adelaide metro aerial photographs coverage 2014.
Link to a higher resolution photographs:
http://aerometrex.com.au/images/news/ad ... _eagle.jpg
Link to a higher resolution photographs:
http://aerometrex.com.au/images/news/ad ... _eagle.jpg
www.aero3Dpro.com.au
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
From the aerial photography, it appears that the footprint of the Eastern Stand is marginally smaller than that of the Western Stand, even though it holds a larger capacity. I was of the impression that it was just as big, if not, bigger than the Western Stand.
Nevertheless, as great as it is in person / at street level,, it does look like a toilet seat from above. :/ The architects really didn't think that one through?
Nevertheless, as great as it is in person / at street level,, it does look like a toilet seat from above. :/ The architects really didn't think that one through?
Any views and opinions expressed are of my own, and do not reflect the views or opinions of any organisation of which I have an affiliation with.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
The Eastern stand holds 19000 people compared to the western stand 14000, it is actually bigger but does look smaller from the aerial shot. It is also a lot higher too. The top row from Western Stand is about 10-15 rows lower and the Eastern stand has two levels of corporate boxes/area's (stadium club & boxes above)
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
I'm sure they probably thought that for 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time the stadium was not going to be viewed from above, and to appease 1 guy called Shuz who seems to have some sort of fasination with toilet seats, to redesign the stands into a shape that will be signed off by Shuz when he's flying over it or looking on nearmap/google the extra money wasn't worth it. Funny about that.[Shuz] wrote:Nevertheless, as great as it is in person / at street level,, it does look like a toilet seat from above. :/ The architects really didn't think that one through?
- slenderman
- High Rise Poster!
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 8:44 am
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
I don't really see the toilet seat comparison - that blue thingy on the Commonwealth Law Courts building looks more like a toilet to me than this. Toilet seats generally (not always but mostly) go the whole way around. Maybe if there was a northern stand with similar proportions to the eastern and western stands, but there isn't. Anyway, the oval will serve its purpose and more once it's complete, and that's the main thing, more important than what it looks like from above, where people generally are not. Dare I say it's still more aesthetically pleasing than a lot of the mediocre stuff that goes up in our city anyway?
Anyway, apologies for the tirade, I realise that I have quite hypocritically made a big deal of a quite minor nitpick. But it's how I feel.
Anyway, apologies for the tirade, I realise that I have quite hypocritically made a big deal of a quite minor nitpick. But it's how I feel.
[COM] Re: U/C: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment | 53,500 | $545m
mattblack wrote:I'm sure they probably thought that for 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time the stadium was not going to be viewed from above, and to appease 1 guy called Shuz who seems to have some sort of fasination with toilet seats, to redesign the stands into a shape that will be signed off by Shuz when he's flying over it or looking on nearmap/google the extra money wasn't worth it. Funny about that.[Shuz] wrote:Nevertheless, as great as it is in person / at street level,, it does look like a toilet seat from above. :/ The architects really didn't think that one through?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests