News & Discussion: Squares and Parklands

[Eurostar]

I'd like to see a new ring route, new road between Phillips Street and War Memorial Drive and extend Ward Street to the new road. Widen the War Memorial Drive between King William Road and Hackney Road.

[Nort]

I'd like to see a new ring route, new road between Phillips Street and War Memorial Drive and extend Ward Street to the new road. Widen the War Memorial Drive between King William Road and Hackney Road.

What purpose does that serve? If it's cross city traffic then we absolutely don't want to be sending it right through in that way. If it's improve accessibility into the city then it's likely that any benefits will only be short time as more traffic uses that route and it becomes slower than it is currently.

[rhino]

I'd like to see a new ring route, new road between Phillips Street and War Memorial Drive and extend Ward Street to the new road. Widen the War Memorial Drive between King William Road and Hackney Road.

What purpose does that serve? If it's cross city traffic then we absolutely don't want to be sending it right through in that way. If it's improve accessibility into the city then it's likely that any benefits will only be short time as more traffic uses that route and it becomes slower than it is currently.

Actually I can see advantages to this, (but not as a ring route) as access to North Adelaide from the western suburbs is not particularly good with the current road network necessitating a rather circuitous route. It needn't be a huge road, just one lane each way, the same as War Memorial Drive or Melbourne Street, and the maneuvering required to reach Melbourne Street will stop it from becoming a through route. The Torrens is narrow there and a bridge would not be too expensive, but bridging the rail lines might be a bigger issue.

[bits]

All the places you've named have been built on haven't they

I at no point have suggested the parklands should be natural fields.
They should be public space that offer South Australians things that the typically market driven private businesses could not offer. It is not just roads for normal business, we already have those roads.

I am no purest and fully believe each idea needs to be considered on its own merits.

I see no massive benefit from The Crows being at the Aquatic Centre site. It will do near zero to benefit local business as there is nothing local to it. I am very confident the council can afford to build 2 basic pools as shown and make enough money from them. That is a massive downscale of the facility that is there now.
There is just no reason at all to accept what is on offer. There is no win for the community and in return you give a corporate free land and free right to income generated from a required public service.
Why do families need to line The Crows bank account for their kids to learn to swim?

[citywatcher]

All the places you've named have been built on haven't they

I at no point have suggested the parklands should be natural fields.
They should be public space that offer South Australians things that the typically market driven private businesses could not offer. It is not just roads for normal business, we already have those roads.

I am no purest and fully believe each idea needs to be considered on its own merits.

I see no massive benefit from The Crows being at the Aquatic Centre site. It will do near zero to benefit local business as there is nothing local to it. I am very confident the council can afford to build 2 basic pools as shown and make enough money from them. That is a massive downscale of the facility that is there now.
There is just no reason at all to accept what is on offer. There is no win for the community and in return you give a corporate free land and free right to income generated from a required public service.
Why do families need to line The Crows bank account for their kids to learn to swim?

Misinformation from Start to finish
You have no idea what you are talking about
Suffice to say the council retains ownership of the land
The Crows would lease it from the council
The new facility would have a lesser footprint than the current building
No. The council is not interested whatsoever in having anything to do with maintaining the current site or building a new one
The public will have full access to the new facility as it does with the current one
Technically speaking the NRAH Festival Theatre Exhibition Centres Adelaide Oval Memorial Drive Casino Bio-medical Centres etc etc etc etc are corporate entities built on parklands
You're post is reactionary misinformed drivel at it's best

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[bits]

It is difficult to read your post due to lack of punctuation and incoherent ramblings but I think I get the gist.

ACC maintain the current site currently.
I don't recall ever seeing ACC suggest they have no interest in a public pool.
If they had no interest in a public pool they would have closed the one they already have.

Stadiums and theatres to stage events for the public, a hospital to perform medical precedures for the public, a casino to offer entertainment for the public and a football clubs private administration where their public performance is already staged elsewhere on parklands.
Yea they are all the same.

There will be a pool regardless of The Crows plan.
If people in Adelaide, Charles Sturt, Prospect and Walkerville accept that they need to drive to Salisbury for basic services such as a public pool, so be it. That is those rate payers choice to vote for that.
There is no dependance on The Crows to build this so do not use that as some argument for why this should happen.
There is no money problem for building and maintaining a public pool. All good councils have them.

[Bob]

The ACC need to once and for all just declare the current site will be demolished and a new ‘suburban pool’ in the same format as Payneham, Norwood or Burnside as examples, be built in its place to serve ACC ratepayers. The ACC is not there to fund ratepayers from other councils because their own councils do not have their own swim centre.

If the AFC proposal (once the final detail has been prepared), is better than the above option, the ACC should take it.

If the AFC option doesn't get up, and any new facility requiring a config above or beyond the ‘suburban pool’ requirement, due to demands from non-ACC ratepayers or the SA Govt, then the ACC should state that can only be built if those vocal parties agree to a joint finance agreement, capital outlay and ongoing expense.

The current facility cannot continue as is on the ACC books, that has been made clear financially.

The current facility is not SA Swim HQ, it is the ACC swim centre.

[how good is he]

Does anyone know how the SA Aquatic centre [at Marion] operates financially and how it is going? That cost approx $100m to build some 9 years ago and may be a good indicator if its self-sufficient/sustainable for the ACC [or anyone else ie AFC or even the Govt] to build/run something similar of this scale here. I expect the the Govt is liable/footing the bills for any losses/shortfall every year, but does anyone have an idea how much that may be?

[ml69]

If Campbelltown City Council can build and run their own indoor swimming centre (ARC), Adelaide City Council can too.

[how good is he]

Yes the ACC do now and could continue but I think the problem is how much it continues to cost them and how much more money will they loose. Also to compare, ARC is more a sports centre with a 25m lap and splash pool & cost of $24m. The new St Clair at Woodville, a recreation centre with no pools cost $21m and the whole precinct $24m and is operated by the YMCA. Does anyone know, as well as the SA aquatic centre, the cost [losses] to the Govt or respective Councils to operate each?

[bits]

Elizabeth and Marion are indoors also.
It is laughable to suggest Adelaide, Prospect, Walkerville and Charles Sturt can not afford a joint facility.

What I see is Adelaide getting annoyed it is propping up freeloading neighbouring councils.
And then The Crows decided they wanted super cheap premium inner city land which they could get by simply renting out their basic pools when not in use by them.
It is win win win for Crows.

ACC and neighbouring councils will have no problem offering a smaller pool centre in a smaller facility with less access and less services.
Eg what The Crows are offering.

So why would you bother going with The Crows offer when it offers no benefit to the community?
The only reason to entertain the idea to begin with was to see if The Crows were to offer something more than the community would pay for. Their plan doesn't offer more so it is not a good plan.

[how good is he]

Before the AFC came along did the ACC [or any other of the councils you mention] show any appetite to build a new centre or a willingness to continue to loose money at the existing one, ad infinitum? Its all well and good to say the ACC [and/or the other councils] could/should do so and they can afford it etc etc .... but will they? And if they don't, then what?

[citywatcher]

It is difficult to read your post due to lack of punctuation and incoherent ramblings but I think I get the gist.

ACC maintain the current site currently.
I don't recall ever seeing ACC suggest they have no interest in a public pool.
If they had no interest in a public pool they would have closed the one they already have.

Stadiums and theatres to stage events for the public, a hospital to perform medical precedures for the public, a casino to offer entertainment for the public and a football clubs private administration where their public performance is already staged elsewhere on parklands.
Yea they are all the same.

There will be a pool regardless of The Crows plan.
If people in Adelaide, Charles Sturt, Prospect and Walkerville accept that they need to drive to Salisbury for basic services such as a public pool, so be it. That is those rate payers choice to vote for that.
There is no dependance on The Crows to build this so do not use that as some argument for why this should happen.
There is no money problem for building and maintaining a public pool. All good councils have them.

No. You didn't get the gist at all.
You said the land would be handed to the Crows and AFL then you say yes the ACC will retain control
Make up your mind
Many councillors are on record as saying the council can't foot the future Bill
You are the one rambling
You have a position of being against this proposal for political bias which puts you in a position of being unable to justify it with facts
Basically there are none


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[citywatcher]

Elizabeth and Marion are indoors also.
It is laughable to suggest Adelaide, Prospect, Walkerville and Charles Sturt can not afford a joint facility.

What I see is Adelaide getting annoyed it is propping up freeloading neighbouring councils.
And then The Crows decided they wanted super cheap premium inner city land which they could get by simply renting out their basic pools when not in use by them.
It is win win win for Crows.

ACC and neighbouring councils will have no problem offering a smaller pool centre in a smaller facility with less access and less services.
Eg what The Crows are offering.

So why would you bother going with The Crows offer when it offers no benefit to the community?
The only reason to entertain the idea to begin with was to see if The Crows were to offer something more than the community would pay for. Their plan doesn't offer more so it is not a good plan.

You don't even know what the plan is
If you did you would see how superior it is to what is there now
You just give generalised, unresearched cliches to try and back up your viewpoint
I suppose the council is tired of propping up Rundle Mall and Vic Sq etc for all the bludgers from the suburbs
It's the CBD for a city of over a million people
If they can't run it get out and let the state govt run it

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

[Zills]

All the places you've named have been built on haven't they

I at no point have suggested the parklands should be natural fields.
They should be public space that offer South Australians things that the typically market driven private businesses could not offer. It is not just roads for normal business, we already have those roads.

I am no purest and fully believe each idea needs to be considered on its own merits.

I see no massive benefit from The Crows being at the Aquatic Centre site. It will do near zero to benefit local business as there is nothing local to it. I am very confident the council can afford to build 2 basic pools as shown and make enough money from them. That is a massive downscale of the facility that is there now.
There is just no reason at all to accept what is on offer. There is no win for the community and in return you give a corporate free land and free right to income generated from a required public service.
Why do families need to line The Crows bank account for their kids to learn to swim?

Misinformation from Start to finish
You have no idea what you are talking about
Suffice to say the council retains ownership of the land
The Crows would lease it from the council
The new facility would have a lesser footprint than the current building
No. The council is not interested whatsoever in having anything to do with maintaining the current site or building a new one
The public will have full access to the new facility as it does with the current one
Technically speaking the NRAH Festival Theatre Exhibition Centres Adelaide Oval Memorial Drive Casino Bio-medical Centres etc etc etc etc are corporate entities built on parklands
You're post is reactionary misinformed drivel at it's best

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Spot on citywatcher, there's nothing wrong with the crows plan. Bring it on!