[COM] Adelaide Oval Hotel

[bits]

It's not being built on Pennington terrace.
It's fronting king William and vehicle access will be from the EXISTING underground car park.

The hotel structure isn't going to infringe on the stupid grass outside. What's in the spot the hotel will be going on is freaking concrete.

I didn't mean to imply it is to be built on Pennington side. I meant if we need this hotel to be closer than previously built hotels you could knock over or convert old houses on Pennington. But that is not the proposal because that land is already in use. The hotel proposed is to make use of land that was reserved for special use. This hotel isn't special. This hotel wouldn't be a thing if the parklands wasn't reserved for 180 years to not be this hotel.

I have said before I see zero requirement for the parklands to be grass. Much of the parklands is not grass already but serves very good purposes. It just needs to be for the state to use for things better than more space for the city. The city is super low density, it is relatively cheap and easy to build new buildings still.

Adelaide Oval, RAH, University, Casino, Convention Centre, Zoo, Botanic Garden, Festival Theatre and another privately owned bog standard 4 star hotel. Something in this list does not belong.

[floplo]

Adelaide Oval, RAH, University, Casino, Convention Centre, Zoo, Botanic Garden, Festival Theatre and another privately owned bog standard 4 star hotel. Something in this list does not belong.

Casino, the only one where profits are purely for private purposes...

[rev]

It's not being built on Pennington terrace.
It's fronting king William and vehicle access will be from the EXISTING underground car park.

The hotel structure isn't going to infringe on the stupid grass outside. What's in the spot the hotel will be going on is freaking concrete.

I didn't mean to imply it is to be built on Pennington side. I meant if we need this hotel to be closer than previously built hotels you could knock over or convert old houses on Pennington. But that is not the proposal because that land is already in use. The hotel proposed is to make use of land that was reserved for special use. This hotel isn't special. This hotel wouldn't be a thing if the parklands wasn't reserved for 180 years to not be this hotel.

I have said before I see zero requirement for the parklands to be grass. Much of the parklands is not grass already but serves very good purposes. It just needs to be for the state to use for things better than more space for the city. The city is super low density, it is relatively cheap and easy to build new buildings still.

Adelaide Oval, RAH, University, Casino, Convention Centre, Zoo, Botanic Garden, Festival Theatre and another privately owned bog standard 4 star hotel. Something in this list does not belong.

You're right something in that list doesn't belong, and it's the nRAH.

[floplo]

Adelaide Oval, RAH, University, Casino, Convention Centre, Zoo, Botanic Garden, Festival Theatre and another privately owned bog standard 4 star hotel. Something in this list does not belong.

Casino, the only one where profits are purely for private purposes...

And I thought that the SkyCity Hotel will actually be at least 5 stars ???

[rev]

Adelaide Oval, RAH, University, Casino, Convention Centre, Zoo, Botanic Garden, Festival Theatre and another privately owned bog standard 4 star hotel. Something in this list does not belong.

Casino, the only one where profits are purely for private purposes...

And I thought that the SkyCity Hotel will actually be at least 5 stars ???

He's talking about the Adelaide Oval hotel I believe

[floplo]

Casino, the only one where profits are purely for private purposes...

And I thought that the SkyCity Hotel will actually be at least 5 stars ???

He's talking about the Adelaide Oval hotel I believe

I guess I forgot the /s tag...
But my main point is that the casino is actually building a fully privately owned hotel on pretty much parkland territory, yet, the whole brouhaha is about the non-profit one, that doesn't even have an additional footprint..

[SRJ]

How long before we have the true Adelaide tradition and the hotel guests have the cricket or football match closed down because it is too loud

[JAKJ]

While I won't reply individually to the people who have resorted to petty name calling, a number of members here can't seem to see the wood from the trees (pardon the pun) when talking about the parklands and their development.

Opposing this hotel and commercial development in general on the parklands does not make you a nimby, again, the parklands are Adelaide's greatest public asset. We don't have Sydney's Harbour, we don't have Perth's Swan river estuary, even The Brisbane river and the Yarra are impressive natural waterways compared to our Torrens lake. What we do have is the artificially created parklands around our CBD set aside as a public space in perpetuity.

Yes the nature of these parklands and how they are used will change and will continuously evolve to reflect changes in the population of Adelaide and its recreational preferences (originally much of the parklands was used for grazing animals) but they must be preserved for the public. It would be great if the Adelaide City Council could afford to water the entire parklands and maintain more manacured gardens (though I think and many would agree the some of the un-manicured sections with eucalyptus and gum trees have their own native charm) but they can't and the lack of contribution from Councils bordering the parklands given the huge benefit they provide to residents, property prices and ultimately rates needs to be rectified - either this or establishment of a parklands levy. If this occurs maybe we will be able to do more with the space at present.

The private development creep on the parklands on the other hand must be stopped. We all know that this hotel is not actually taking green space, but what it is doing is allowing private interests to commercialise what is currently a public space (Yes we can also put forward the Casino, intercontinental, Walker tower etc in this category however the southern edge of North Terrace has long been developed and has been lost as parklands for more than a century). If we allow this commercial precedent to be set, how long before we have other groups wanting to create commercial non-public developments at say the Aquatic Centre? Or the Crow's proposed training centre? When will it stop?

To summarise, appropriate development on the parklands for public benefit (e.g. public hospital, Adelaide Oval, Zoo, other sporting facilities etc.) are okay, development for private profit making businesses not okay. It's really not that hard.

[rogue]

JAKJ, I'm sure there are many that agree with your comments, however, I'm not one of them.

We all dont have to agree on these issues and robust debate should be encouraged. Its important that each side present sound, rational arguments to fully express why they feel a certain way without being pigeonholed from others into perceived groups like leftist, entitled, etc.

As mentioned in a previous reply to one of your posts, I believe that large sections of parkland are seriously underutilised and considered private investment to revitalise these sections should be an option. These investments could lead to sections of the parklands being better off overall in the longer term.

Whilst i think this development will have a positive impact, there will be others that wont. All i am saying is that we shouldn't scoff at parkland development proposals simply because of an idea from nearly 200 years ago. Times change and what was a good plan then, might be holding us back now.

[JAKJ]

JAKJ, I'm sure there are many that agree with your comments, however, I'm not one of them.

We all dont have to agree on these issues and robust debate should be encouraged. Its important that each side present sound, rational arguments to fully express why they feel a certain way without being pigeonholed from others into perceived groups like leftist, entitled, etc.

As mentioned in a previous reply to one of your posts, I believe that large sections of parkland are seriously underutilised and considered private investment to revitalise these sections should be an option. These investments could lead to sections of the parklands being better off overall in the longer term.

Whilst i think this development will have a positive impact, there will be others that wont. All i am saying is that we shouldn't scoff at parkland development proposals simply because of an idea from nearly 200 years ago. Times change and what was a good plan then, might be holding us back now.

The question that needs to be asked is why does every sqm of the parklands need to be developed and utilised right now? What is not having developed/ highly utilised parklands holding us back from exactly if the demand for this is not there? There is nothing wrong with large sections of the parklands (e.g. between North Adelaide and Medindie) being trees and paddocks with horses until the demand for greater public interaction exists. If you bring international visitors to Adelaide and they see that the response won't be "how backward is Adelaide to have paddocks with horses next to the CBD" it will be "how amazing to have so much green space in the urban centre that you can have paddocks and horses in the CBD" There are spots in the parklands where you can look around you and you would not even know you are in the centre of a city, that is simply phenomenal.

When the major cities of the world are trying to rectify one of the mistakes of rapid urbanisation by creating open spaces at great expense we are incredibly privileged that our founders had the foresight to have this open public space and it should be kept out of private hands. You are right, times have changed to make our public parklands even more valuable than they were in 1836. The more Adelaide grows the more valuable and unique this space becomes as a public good and the more important it is for us to preserve it from commercial interests. Again, public development of the parklands is fine if appropriate, private development, which invites the potential for public exclusion, not okay.

[Nort]

JAKJ, I'm sure there are many that agree with your comments, however, I'm not one of them.

We all dont have to agree on these issues and robust debate should be encouraged. Its important that each side present sound, rational arguments to fully express why they feel a certain way without being pigeonholed from others into perceived groups like leftist, entitled, etc.

As mentioned in a previous reply to one of your posts, I believe that large sections of parkland are seriously underutilised and considered private investment to revitalise these sections should be an option. These investments could lead to sections of the parklands being better off overall in the longer term.

Whilst i think this development will have a positive impact, there will be others that wont. All i am saying is that we shouldn't scoff at parkland development proposals simply because of an idea from nearly 200 years ago. Times change and what was a good plan then, might be holding us back now.

Holding us back from what?

When replying please remember that if the parkland have no value then hotels and the like would be better off in the CBD.

[rogue]

Mods - this is becoming a little off topic and more about parklands overall, if wish to move to the pub, happy to continue conversation over there.

[JAKJ]

Mods - this is becoming a little off topic and more about parklands overall, if wish to move to the pub, happy to continue conversation over there.

I don't see how it's off topic when the context of where this project is being proposed and what it represents is at the very heart of the issue.

[floplo]

The private development creep on the parklands on the other hand must be stopped. We all know that this hotel is not actually taking green space, but what it is doing is allowing private interests to commercialise what is currently a public space (Yes we can also put forward the Casino, intercontinental, Walker tower etc in this category however the southern edge of North Terrace has long been developed and has been lost as parklands for more than a century). If we allow this commercial precedent to be set, how long before we have other groups wanting to create commercial non-public developments at say the Aquatic Centre? Or the Crow's proposed training centre? When will it stop?

To summarise, appropriate development on the parklands for public benefit (e.g. public hospital, Adelaide Oval, Zoo, other sporting facilities etc.) are okay, development for private profit making businesses not okay. It's really not that hard.

The problem is that there is enough precendent that the parklands are used for private profit making business (from the Casino, to the Hill of Grace restaurant to the Kiosks in Rymill Park and sport facilities, to the tree top walk, Lot14 spaces for startups, etc. And most, if not all of these have a larger footprint), yet the proposed Oval hotel is actually organized (and maybe even operated) by a non-profit organization with a public purpose. Also, aren't hotels under some form of public accommodation laws (not sure how the legal situation is in Australia), so they would be even more accessible than many of the sporting facilities in the parklands. In a public vs private debate, the proposed hotel is actually more on the public side than other things already happening in the parklands.

Oppose it on aesthetic and similar grounds all you want, but the public vs private one just seems very inconsistent (and to be honest, for the council I would even call it either petty or hypocritical)

[rev]

I think some of you have confused what is actual park land and what has already been developed. With this and festival plaza.

It's clear from the info released so far that the hotel it self will be built on the existing "urban" footprint of Adelaide Oval.

You say that the parklands are Adelaides best asset...well what better way to advertise them and increase their profile?
Perhaps we need to stop looking at the parklands as some sacred ground and start looking at ways in which they can be better utilized and really turned into an asset.
A hospital? Really, thats what's a good use for them? Not that the hospital was built on parkland..unless you think a contaminated rail depot counts as parkland.

Me thinks some of you just don't want to see a hotel at AO, so are grasping to the parklands argument. Which is fine, but the parklands argument doesn't make sense.

Our parklands have been compared to central park by locals..well look at all that exists within central park, the hotels around it, and then look at the crap our parklands are.
So which is it, like central park, or we can't have any development in our parklands?


You say private for profit shouldn't be allowed in the parklands, well do you think the kiosk in rymill park should be removed or stay? How about the one in bonython park?

How many privately run festivals have you attended In the parklands? They're all private for profit.