News & Discussion: Squares and Parklands

[JAKJ]

"We won't be bullied" on Aquatic Centre revamp: Hyde

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2020/ ... vamp-hyde/

The Crows project absolutely should not occur, and if the State Government and neighboring councils don't want to fund the aquatic centre, shut it down and demolish it. Given it's isolated location the centre brings minimal if any economic benefits to North Adelaide.

The crows are a private members based organisation, not a public organisation. Gifting them effectively $40m of land to build a private club facility - run privately and that provides public access only via a cost to be determined by said private organisation is just madness. I would question the $15m the crows (again a private members organisation) have been given by the Federal government to build a landmark facility in a seat that could be in play in future federal elections is certainly given the current unfolding political scandal.

This is not North Terrace, or Adelaide oval where the development of parklands has a long historic precedence. What is to stop after this precedent being set some developer in the guise of another sports club or members organisation saying "me too" and demanding that they are allowed to build their own privately owned and operated facility within the parklands - that the public can access... for a fee?

This is not about being anti development, this is about recognising the importance of preserving Adelaide's greatest natural asset - its parklands from development so when Adelaide is a city of 2m, 3m etc. our decendents can thanks us for giving them such an incredible public green-space. Adelaide does not have a harbour or river of note, we have our parklands - let's not piss them away to every developer that comes knocking.

The northern parklands, which are next to unused and spend half of the yellow and dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As Adelaide grows they will be used - think long-term. Many significant trees in that area as well as community ovals etc. used by schools. Not every piece of parklands has to be the riverbank. The emptiness and quietness of significant green spaces in and around the city are awesome in themselves, also seeing how they change with the different seasons as well. It's interesting that many locals don't appreciate it, but visitors especially from larger cities are amazed that we can have something like the parklands right in the city.

We are much better off focusing activity/ community infrastructure in specific areas of the park lands like east terrace, the river bank, Adelaide oval precinct etc. than spreading a bunch of half-arsed developments everywhere and compromising the open green spaces.

[JAKJ]

I understand/accept your points JAKJ. I am not aligned either to or against the AFC proposal. I am neutral. However what I am thinking about is how to get a new Aquatic centre built for the benefit of all the public without the burden being on the ACC and it’s ratepayers.

So what if the operation of any new proposed Aquatic/ Sports centre is put to open tender by the ACC (so before it is built). So whoever is successful in the tender agrees to fund and maintain it. So the AFC can compete and submit their proposal against the open market, would this then be more acceptable?
Or
If the AFC (or anyone else) agree to fund and also maintain any new development (as you suggest the Govt and/or other councils do) but with the building and it’s operation gifted to the ACC, would this then be acceptable? So the ACC are in exactly the same position (actually far better) as now.
However in lieu of the AFC (or anyone else) doing this it is able to lease a portion of the building/oval that they require say for a peppercorn rent for 99 years.
Thoughts?

It needs to be run by a government organisation, or an NFP organisation specifically backed and accountable to government - whether that is a conglomerate of councils plus state government or something else, I'm not sure. I too would like there to be such an aquatic centre facility in the park lands however not to be run by a private members organisation who are quite nakedly a commercial business with a sporting club front. Also I don't think that the current location is the best one either - perhaps in the old women's and children's hospital precinct (once that is moved) as it would link with other sporting infrastructure on memorial drive as well as proximity to the university and university ovals.

[Nort]

As Adelaide grows they will be used - think long-term. Many significant trees in that area as well as community ovals etc. used by schools. Not every piece of parklands has to be the riverbank. The emptiness and quietness of significant green spaces in and around the city are awesome in themselves, also seeing how they change with the different seasons as well. It's interesting that many locals don't appreciate it, but visitors especially from larger cities are amazed that we can have something like the parklands right in the city.

We are much better off focusing activity/ community infrastructure in specific areas of the park lands like east terrace, the river bank, Adelaide oval precinct etc. than spreading a bunch of half-arsed developments everywhere and compromising the open green spaces.

This. We should definitely be continually looking at how the Adelaide Park Lands can live up to their full potential, however there seems to be a mindset that any part of the land which doesn't have something built on it for a specific purpose is being wasted. That's entirely not the case.

[how good is he]

While I understand your philosophy JAKJ I compare it to say the National Wine Centre. If something is a big money-pit and not commercially viable how could/why should the ACC or other forms of Govt continue to support/fund it? I believe even a new centre would collapse financially without private support/ownership & use. So that’s the trade off to get a brand new facility for the public vs possibly having it demolished and having none at all.

[SBD]

As Adelaide grows they will be used - think long-term. Many significant trees in that area as well as community ovals etc. used by schools. Not every piece of parklands has to be the riverbank. The emptiness and quietness of significant green spaces in and around the city are awesome in themselves, also seeing how they change with the different seasons as well. It's interesting that many locals don't appreciate it, but visitors especially from larger cities are amazed that we can have something like the parklands right in the city.

We are much better off focusing activity/ community infrastructure in specific areas of the park lands like east terrace, the river bank, Adelaide oval precinct etc. than spreading a bunch of half-arsed developments everywhere and compromising the open green spaces.

This. We should definitely be continually looking at how the Adelaide Park Lands can live up to their full potential, however there seems to be a mindset that any part of the land which doesn't have something built on it for a specific purpose is being wasted. That's entirely not the case.

Are there still horse paddocks in the north parklands? I assume that they used to be for city people to have somewhere close-by to store their horses, but I have no idea where they would have ridden them, as I don't recall ever seeing horses ridden in North Adelaide.

[Nathan]

Good that there's a kids water play area included, but what's shown in the first area is considerably smaller than the existing leisure pool. If you go on any hot day or during the school holidays, the current leisure pool can get absolutely packed. A small area to splash around isn't going to cut it, and it looks to be about the size of the current toddler splash pool over near the spas.

Kids’ pool, Olympic-sized pool part of Crows’ parklands complex plans
https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenge ... 92360839c0



An Olympic-size pool and a children’s water play area feature in the Adelaide Crows latest plan to transform the Adelaide Aquatic Centre site into its new headquarters.

The Crows have released new images of its $65 million plan to demolish the North Adelaide swimming centre and build a new public pool and training and administration complex.

The plan includes an eight-lane, 50m pool, a children’s pool and splash area and unfenced ovals, where the Crows would train.



Adelaide Football Club chief executive Andrew Fagan told The Advertiser he believed the complex lived up to community expectations and had “enormous public benefit”.

“Our expectation is that the centre will deliver all the services that are there previously, including recreational swimming, hydrotherapy, learn to swim and water play,” Mr Fagan said.

“When we look at the services that are being provided within the Aquatic Centre, we see significant opportunities to partner and enhance them – that could be a learn to swim or gymnasium.”

The Crows’ plan for the site has divided the community, with some groups opposed to the club moving from West Lakes to North Adelaide.



Some groups, including the Adelaide City Council’s peak parklands advisory board, have been unsure about whether a commercial body should operate in the parklands.

However, a report showed the council has spent $18 million on the ageing centre over the past 10 years and $21 million would need to be invested into the site to bring it up to scratch.

But that would have done little to improve services or reduce its burden on ratepayers.

Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor welcomed a children’s area within the proposed development.

“Swim schools are such an important part of what we do (at the Aquatic Centre),” Ms Verschoor said.



Formal plans for the site would be released after Adelaide City Council finishes its community consultation about what the public would like in an aquatic centre.

“It is at that point, when we receive that feedback, we are able to complete further design work,” Mr Fagan said.

The Crows released first images of the plan in December last year in front of a packed crowd.

[Nathan]

For reference, this is the size of the current leisure pool. Any replacement needs to be at least that big, just to cope with existing usage.

[Patrick_27]

I'm of the opinion that if the ACC can somehow squeeze $20-30m out of their budget to contribute to the overall proposal, they could achieve an outcome that services the communities desires plus allow the Crows to do what they want to do. That extra contribution could allow for an extra pool for the water sports that are put on at the centre plus a children's area double to what is proposed as well as spas, saunas and steam rooms. I think the answer to it making a loss is to up the price of memberships and entry if and when complete. The current centre can't charge much more for entry considering how poor the facilities are but a new centre could.

[how good is he]

I agree Nathan & Patrick. The biggest problem I think is the AFC has taken the position (possibly they are forced to) to keep the footprint/size of the new building the same as the existing building. I assume to show there is no net difference or loss of any parklands and to appease the Parklands authority etc and negate more argument.
However if there is going now to be the AFC admin/offices and a host of new amenities, I mean realistically the footprint of the new building needs to be bigger esp. so we don’t end up with inferior pools and aquatic facilities which are too small to even cope with the demand (which will likely explode with a new centre). Realistically if they want to keep the same building footprint and still adequately cater for the public they may need to build up a few storeys (and down a few storeys for car parking).

[bits]

I think the council didn't want to set minimum build requirements leading to AFC building to exactly meet the minimum. I bet they hoped AFC would overcommit and build something bigger so as to try and win community support.

Instead AFC drew plans with close to nothing for the community and is hoping they will just get given free land for no particular reason other than they are the Crows.

There is so little on offer here surely it is already certain in its current form it will not go ahead.

[how good is he]

The thing is it’s still a money pit for the ACC & ratepayers. I have said it before, if the AFC proposal doesn’t go ahead, what is the ACCs (long term) plan for the Aquatic centre? If they haven’t got one they should start formulating one ASAP. This is as relevant as the AFC proposal so then everybody can make an informed decision of the AFC proposal vs the ACCs alternative outcome.

[Bob]

Another parklands battle could be brewing in the background.

The North Adelaide Golf Course/Club expenses are exceeding its revenue by approx. M$1 annually – the deficit being picked up ACC ratepayers in the same manner as the Aquatic Centre yearly deficit.

There was supposed to be a Masterplan that was due last year for the Golf Course and the parklands it impacts, but for some unknown reason it has not been released to the public, not sure what’s going on there.

The South Course is high standard, the North Course is substandard, the Par 3 is fine. Maybe there is a hidden agenda regarding the South Course SE corner being allocated to a sports arena? If that’s the case, some of the North Course will need to be seconded to expand the South Course in compensation, then what will be left of the North Course maybe returned to parklands?


The ACC needs to come clean on what’s going on, if anything. And the SA Govt also needs to get their sports stadium plan clear so affected parties know where they stand if ground needs to be given up, Tennis & Golf are both up in the air here at the moment in the Memorial Drive vicinity.

[claybro]

I was not aware there are 3! golf courses in this location. No wonder why the setup is hemorriging money. If private members are a consideration, then they should not have a monopoly of a part of the parklands. If they are part of the reason why we need seperate courses here. cut them adrift and make the club pay its own way. -it will either fold, or pay for its own upkeep. If this is not the issue, amalgamate it all into 1 decent public course, with a dedicated driving range and public clubhouse/bars/cafe/ function facilities, and it will soon pay its own way. It could be modelled on the Town of Cambridge facility here in the western suburbs of Perth.

[TorrensSA]

There's 3 courses the N / S courses are vast, taking up most of the Western North Adelaide Parklands, you can see on Google Maps satellite the vast difference between the quality of the N and S courses, the N course is very dry. The Par 3 course is wedged in between the river / train line and War Memorial Drive. https://northadelaidegolf.com.au/assets ... ut_4_1.pdf

[Nathan]

My understanding of the master plan was that they were going to drop 9 holes from the north course, and reconfigure to 3 x 9 holes which could be matched up in different ways (with the Par 3 untouched).