[COM] Adelaide Oval Hotel

[Bob]

Where's your proof Perth is no.3 in front of Adelaide?
Codswallop
When Perth establishes a long history over many years of large consistent attendances, universal accolades for being a beautiful ground with a large social and event status and lauded by cricketers and commentators all over the world come back to us.
Until then you can't provide any assessable criteria.

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Let me keep this simple – we are talking about looking through the windscreen not out the rear view mirror, Sydney & Melbourne will always be first regardless of what stadiums they have when it comes to attracting major events that leaves Adelaide, Brisbane & Perth competing the next tier of getting the remainder.

In the cricket world Adelaide Oval was the next preferred venue (#3) for many years and has a lot of history - I think we all agree on that, but now Perth is competing and in some areas passing AO. I provided the NZ Test Match tour schedule next summer as one example previously, the next wakeup call will be when there is a cricket summer where only four tests will be played, then one of the three tier two cities will miss out. I would be confident Perth would now get a slot leaving Adelaide and Brisbane competing for the final slot, Adelaide may miss the cut. Then people in SA will be spitting dummies everywhere, how can they do that? Everyone says AO is the best cricket ground in the world, why have we missed out?

My simple point is AO redevelopment was the best thing that happened in Adelaide for a long time, the novelty factor was great for the first few years, however plans will need to be made to ensure it stays relevant in the long term. That must include significant repeat business of annual international events and not only gets bums on seats but get those bums visiting from OS in decent numbers and on a regular basis. Looking for continual improvement is the only way to remain relevant in very competitive environment, best not to dig heads in emotional sand and let the world go past.

In simple attendance record terms, Perth Stadium has already passed AO on a like for like basis across most like for like events in its short history already. Perth is the #3 stadium in Australia for seated capacity. It also has rave reviews – AO didn’t have exclusivity on rave reviews from ex-cricketers or journalists you know.

Maybe actually read and absorb my posts instead of just looking at them. Trying to be helpful here to make sure AO moves forwards, sometimes that will require constructive criticism.

This is not evidence
It is anecdotal and subjective

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Donald Trump Twitter like responses can you make you look like someone who can’t deliver what it says on the package, it’s all fur coat and no knickers.

Anyhow as SRW wants to bring this topic back to the Adelaide Oval Hotel I will park my further detailed thoughts on this broader topic until a future, more appropriate time, and not hijack this thread any further.

[claybro]

And ironically, just on the hotel, the only mention on Perth media relating to Adelaide Oval recently (aside from the obvious AFL) was an update of the pending construction of the AO hotel. No mention in this clip about destruction of the magnificent architecture... just what a unique and popular addition it will prove to be.

[AndyWelsh]

I was doing some research on the old Maughan Church and came across this 2015 article from Paul Finch, the editorial director of the Architects' Journal. He was discussing Adelaide and asking why do cities try to be more like somewhere else? He said:

“One recent unmissable symbol of the city’s ambitions is the magnificent Adelaide Oval cricket and Australian rules football ground, by Cox Architecture. Open on one side to a hill covered in fig trees, this is certainly the most impressive ground I have ever seen. Any temptation to enclose the ground was firmly resisted, leaving in place a truly distinctive landmark.”

I’m not sure what he’d now have to say about this new and fairly distinctive idea of a stadium hotel, but he describes perfectly what’s at stake. They need to get this new hotel right as the Oval is quite rightly loved as it is now.

https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/opi ... 44.article


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

Let me keep this simple – we are talking about looking through the windscreen not out the rear view mirror, Sydney & Melbourne will always be first regardless of what stadiums they have when it comes to attracting major events that leaves Adelaide, Brisbane & Perth competing the next tier of getting the remainder.

In the cricket world Adelaide Oval was the next preferred venue (#3) for many years and has a lot of history - I think we all agree on that, but now Perth is competing and in some areas passing AO. I provided the NZ Test Match tour schedule next summer as one example previously, the next wakeup call will be when there is a cricket summer where only four tests will be played, then one of the three tier two cities will miss out. I would be confident Perth would now get a slot leaving Adelaide and Brisbane competing for the final slot, Adelaide may miss the cut. Then people in SA will be spitting dummies everywhere, how can they do that? Everyone says AO is the best cricket ground in the world, why have we missed out?

My simple point is AO redevelopment was the best thing that happened in Adelaide for a long time, the novelty factor was great for the first few years, however plans will need to be made to ensure it stays relevant in the long term. That must include significant repeat business of annual international events and not only gets bums on seats but get those bums visiting from OS in decent numbers and on a regular basis. Looking for continual improvement is the only way to remain relevant in very competitive environment, best not to dig heads in emotional sand and let the world go past.

In simple attendance record terms, Perth Stadium has already passed AO on a like for like basis across most like for like events in its short history already. Perth is the #3 stadium in Australia for seated capacity. It also has rave reviews – AO didn’t have exclusivity on rave reviews from ex-cricketers or journalists you know.

Maybe actually read and absorb my posts instead of just looking at them. Trying to be helpful here to make sure AO moves forwards, sometimes that will require constructive criticism.

This is not evidence
It is anecdotal and subjective

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Donald Trump Twitter like responses can you make you look like someone who can’t deliver what it says on the package, it’s all fur coat and no knickers.

Anyhow as SRW wants to bring this topic back to the Adelaide Oval Hotel I will park my further detailed thoughts on this broader topic until a future, more appropriate time, and not hijack this thread any further.

He said with a Donald trump like Twitter response

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[Ben]

Site works are about to start in the next few weeks.

[Hybrid]

Site works are about to start in the next few weeks.

Great stuff, thanks Ben

[Ho Really]

Eleventh-hour bid to force consultation on Oval Hotel
Thursday, September 05, 2019
Stephanie Richards

Deputy Lord Mayor Houssam Abiad says he is willing to make a last-ditch attempt to force Adelaide Oval management to publicly consult on its $42 million Oval Hotel before construction starts.

The Adelaide City Council’s administration is set to wave through an application lodged on Friday to start work on stage one of the $42 million Adelaide Oval Hotel development.

According to the application, the total works would cost $700,000 and involve “selected demolition of façade and architectural elements associated with the Eastern Grandstand” as well as construction on the five-storey building.

Both the SMA and council administration said the approval is a standard procedure following on from the granting of “planning consent” by the State Government’s Planning Assessment Commission in December.

“These stage 1 early works essentially get automatic approval as long as the building documents are consistent with the documents that were granted planning consent,” the council’s associate director of planning, design and development Shanti Ditter said.

“Our staff have completed an initial consistency check and there are no issues to not allow the granting of Stage 1 Development Approval.”

Ditter told InDaily the council’s administration did not have the ability to reject final approval, despite elected members unanimously voting in December to oppose the Oval Hotel construction.

Councillors at the time argued the 128-room, five-storey hotel would impinge on the park lands and would have an unfair advantage over other hotels in the CBD.

Under legislation brought in by the former State Government, any development undertaken within the Adelaide Oval “core area” is automatically given Category 1 development status.

That status means developers are not obliged to provide public notice or formal public consultation about their plans before approval is granted.

“The developmental approval relates to the building rules consent for the Stage 1 early works package, which is a standard procedure in line with design progression and finalisation,” a spokesperson for the SMA said.

“There will be additional consent packages submitted in the coming weeks for the remaining portions of work.”

Abiad described the development approval process for the Adelaide Oval Hotel as “unfair” and “very illogical”.

He told InDaily this morning he would seek to move a motion calling on the council to reaffirm its opposition to the hotel and to lobby Planning Minister Stephan Knoll to change the project’s development status.

“I’ve always said all along that this needs to be pushed to be a category 3 development and it must – it should – go out to a wider public consultation process where the community is being heard before a development takes place,” he said.

“I think it’s very unfair and I also think it’s very illogical given the amount of community angst that this has created.

“It has a significant impact on all ratepayers in the precinct, especially ratepayers that are going through investment – development of hotels, etcetera.

“All we can do now is to affirm our position and ask the Minister again to change the category and to at a minimum get it out to public consultation.”

The idea has support from area councillor Arman Abrahimzadeh, who said that while the “horse had bolted” on the Oval Hotel development, a motion could “hopefully bring to the Government’s attention that public consultation is a good idea”.

“Hopefully that would set a precedent for any other project that SCAP (the State Commission Assessment Panel) approves,” he said.

“Regardless of the size of a project, there should be some form of public consultation.”

But area councillor Anne Moran and north ward councillor Phil Martin both opposed the idea, saying the council had no power to stop the Oval Hotel development from going ahead.

“While I laud Houssam’s last-minute attempt, the development has been approved and it can’t be unapproved,” Moran said.

“Though on the surface it looks a bit hypocritical, we aren’t being asked to give approval, just waving it through.”

Martin said the council should instead consider lobbying for a change of development status for the proposed multi-million-dollar Adelaide Football Club headquarters at the side of the ageing Aquatic Centre at Park 2.

InDaily contacted Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor for comment.

In a statement to InDaily, a State Government spokesperson said category 1 status was granted to the Adelaide Oval Hotel in accordance with legislation.

“The Adelaide Oval Hotel is underway and will be a great project that supports hundreds of jobs and ensures the Adelaide Oval continues to be a world-class stadium,” the spokesperson said.

The SMA announced in June that local construction company Built Environs had won the tender to build the Oval Hotel.

The hotel is expected to be completed and ready to accommodate paying guests by September next year – in time for the T20 World Cup.

InDaily

Cheers

[SRW]

That report tried to make a mountain out of something that wasn't even a molehill -- namely that Abiad was making some heroic 'last ditch effort' that the article then expressly points out is not even administratively possible. So, what is actually doing? Moving a motion in council session to pester Stephen Knoll some more... I'm not an advocate for this project by any means, but it is a fait accompli -- the real fight now would be to change regulation so that it can't happen so messily again.

[citywatcher]

That report tried to make a mountain out of something that wasn't even a molehill -- namely that Abiad was making some heroic 'last ditch effort' that the article then expressly points out is not even administratively possible. So, what is actually doing? Moving a motion in council session to pester Stephen Knoll some more... I'm not an advocate for this project by any means, but it is a fait accompli -- the real fight now would be to change regulation so that it can't happen so messily again.

Don't forget ......." legislation! "

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[Patrick_27]

Whether or not one agrees with this development (in my case, I don't agree with it), there is something very concerning about the severe lack of public consultation over these such developments that are built on publicly owned land. The same goes for the Festival Plaza, O-RAH site and so forth... Especially when such developments don't actually benefit the wider public, how many people from Adelaide or SA will actually frequent this hotel? THAT is the chief problem with this development, aside from it's massacring of the eastern stand facade.

[claybro]

Whether or not one agrees with this development (in my case, I don't agree with it), there is something very concerning about the severe lack of public consultation over these such developments that are built on publicly owned land. The same goes for the Festival Plaza, O-RAH site and so forth... Especially when such developments don't actually benefit the wider public, how many people from Adelaide or SA will actually frequent this hotel? THAT is the chief problem with this development, aside from it's massacring of the eastern stand facade.

Public consultation would never have allowed such developments as the ASER project and even the new medical precinct would have been mired in public flagellation for years. Remember, public consultation led to us spending months constructing and then dismantling a temporary stand every year, instead of a permanent structure. Be careful what you wish for.

[gnrc_louis]

Whether or not one agrees with this development (in my case, I don't agree with it), there is something very concerning about the severe lack of public consultation over these such developments that are built on publicly owned land. The same goes for the Festival Plaza, O-RAH site and so forth... Especially when such developments don't actually benefit the wider public, how many people from Adelaide or SA will actually frequent this hotel? THAT is the chief problem with this development, aside from it's massacring of the eastern stand facade.

Public consultation would never have allowed such developments as the ASER project and even the new medical precinct would have been mired in public flagellation for years. Remember, public consultation led to us spending months constructing and then dismantling a temporary stand every year, instead of a permanent structure. Be careful what you wish for.

Also meant we missed out on a nuclear waste dump which would’ve potentially earned the state a billion + annually.

[rev]

Whether or not one agrees with this development (in my case, I don't agree with it), there is something very concerning about the severe lack of public consultation over these such developments that are built on publicly owned land. The same goes for the Festival Plaza, O-RAH site and so forth... Especially when such developments don't actually benefit the wider public, how many people from Adelaide or SA will actually frequent this hotel? THAT is the chief problem with this development, aside from it's massacring of the eastern stand facade.

In the case of the RAH, there was no need to consult with the public (WTF does johny public know about running a hospital and requirements..jack shit that's what), but they should have definitely consulted and included input from the people that work in that building, the nurses and doctors. It makes no difference to a patient if the door on his room has a wood grain finish or a two pack finish.

The SMA building a hotel on the side of Adelaide Oval, the final product of which will barely impact the concrete walkway around the oval, has no need to be put to public consultation. We get it, there's a section of the community who dislike the idea and are clinging to every argument possible to try and stop it, even going as far as taking on board the arguments of the parklands nut jobs who think concrete and reo constitute parklands.

You see how many people will or will not use this hotel as a measure of how it benefits the SA public?
I see it as a means for the SMA to increase it's revenue sources & become more financially stable.

Why hasn't anyone complained about the addition of the Roof Climb business to Adelaide Oval? They had to make changes to the roof's of the stands for it you know.

For Adelaide Oval/SMA to be viable in the long term financially, they need to diversify. The restaurant, Roof Climb & this hotel are diversification of their revenue sources.
It's a business. I'd much rather the AOSMA continues to diversify its revenue sources, then the potential of South Australian's having to pay to bail them out in the future.
It also means that if they have more revenue coming in from other sources, that they can reduce costs passed on to our sporting clubs. That means that our sporting clubs have more money to invest in their own development and in grass roots sports. That also means that some of that burden on the state government can be reduced.

[SRW]

I have to say I'm really not moved by these arguments that SMA are crying poor. They have a monopoly on AFL and major events in this state, so if they can't make that work, something's wrong (ever wonder how much John Olsen and board are paid?).

[bits]

Why hasn't anyone complained about the addition of the Roof Climb business to Adelaide Oval? They had to make changes to the roof's of the stands for it you know.

The roof climb is a unique attraction. It is worthy of putting on adverts for the state.

The restaurant is a unique offer, worthy of postcard pictures.

A standard hotel is not a unique attraction. There is countless of them in Adelaide already. Postcards will not be of this hotel or of the views from the hotel, they will be of Adelaide Oval it is in the way of.
It is definitely not a unique offer, it is a standard business opportunity that is taken up by many private companies already.

Non invested people will not be promoting the hotel as anything noteworthy.


SMA may as well build a shop front down there and open an accounting firm selling $50 tax returns, or a jewelry shop where you can buy charms for your bracelet, maybe sell some life insurance.