SA State Election 2022

[SRW]

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built.

This surprises me after the investment in Glenside. Do you have any reports to link?

As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

You can mention it as many times as you like but it doesn't make it true. Only your opinion. I cannot recall any promise of no net loss of parklands, and it's not clear how they could deliver on that promise without some creative counting.

I think they should revitalise Bonython Park, and turn it into an A-grade urban park. There was talk of this years ago with a previous Labor governments riverbank masterplan, highlighting Bonython Park as a potential "Bicentennial Park". Imagine bringing that right up, encouraging development up along Port Rd (particularly the Coke and West End sites), improving the connection to river across into Hindmarsh, and having some landmark expansions on the two corner sites at Port Rd/Adam St/Park Tce (particularly where the multi-storey carpark is).

I agree - Victoria Park has been the subject of the Council's 'Great Park' ambition, but Bonython Park in many ways has more to offer. It has the river, is better connected, and adjacent to prime residential opportunities. I agree with your suggestions, but would also like to see better use of the Gaol and barracks area. Much parkland is needlessly fenced off around the Gaol and many police functions can be relocated and buildings either removed or repurposed. I'd also love connectivity to the Weir with a pedestrian link under the railway. The Gaol and/or the dated restaurants next the Weir could even be used as Mona-eque art or event venues. As a tourism proposition, imagine a hop-on/hop-off Popeye tour taking in the Zoo, Oval/Festival Centre and Gallery @ Gaol/Weir. But even as a local, the easier it is to move between activity centres (city to riverbank to Bonython) the better.

[Nathan]

I think they should revitalise Bonython Park, and turn it into an A-grade urban park. There was talk of this years ago with a previous Labor governments riverbank masterplan, highlighting Bonython Park as a potential "Bicentennial Park". Imagine bringing that right up, encouraging development up along Port Rd (particularly the Coke and West End sites), improving the connection to river across into Hindmarsh, and having some landmark expansions on the two corner sites at Port Rd/Adam St/Park Tce (particularly where the multi-storey carpark is).

I agree - Victoria Park has been the subject of the Council's 'Great Park' ambition, but Bonython Park in many ways has more to offer. It has the river, is better connected, and adjacent to prime residential opportunities. I agree with your suggestions, but would also like to see better use of the Gaol and barracks area. Much parkland is needlessly fenced off around the Gaol and many police functions can be relocated and buildings either removed or repurposed. I'd also love connectivity to the Weir with a pedestrian link under the railway. The Gaol and/or the dated restaurants next the Weir could even be used as Mona-eque art or event venues. As a tourism proposition, imagine a hop-on/hop-off Popeye tour taking in the Zoo, Oval/Festival Centre and Gallery @ Gaol/Weir. But even as a local, the easier it is to move between activity centres (city to riverbank to Bonython) the better.

Agreed on all that. The gaol should be integrated much much better, and I'd even continue that pedestrian link from the weir along the rail line under Port Rd to connect to Gladys Elphick Park.

[rev]

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.

Plans and intentions are one thing, but which production companies were actually interested and signalled their intent?

[rubberman]

1. The parklands where the new arena was to be built on consists of a car park, dirt roads and boat sheds. It's an eyesore and the new arena would have resulted in a zero net loss of overall parklands as a number of boat sheds along the river would be returned to parklands. Win-win.

2. There would have been a number of access improvements to the site, including a tunnel to link the Convention Centre with the new arena.

3. That may be the case with major stadiums like Adelaide Oval, but it's not quite the case with indoor arenas. 15,000 is probably the sweet spot for an indoor arena in Adelaide. Most NBA arenas in the US are around the 15-20k mark, and arenas in Australia are between 13-18k.

Well, number 2 could just as easily be applied to open it up for...parklands!

There's zero justification for encroaching on parklands when the existing Entertainment Centre site is quite suitable. Yes, the area is presently an eyesore, but it could be opened up as parklands and the existing Entertainment Centre redeveloped as an entertainment centre.

Considering this is a discussion about the election, the fact that the Liberals couldn't grasp that redevelopment of the existing entertainment centre site was not only the most economic solution, but also one that would not lose votes demonstrates their proposal was a dog. They went out of their way to pursue a second class project with no clear benefit over a rebuild of the existing site.

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.

None of this makes the Liberal proposal more palatable. Movie production companies aren't restricted to that site. Tell patrons of the Gawler line about delays. Sometimes that's the price of progress. The distance from the CBD to the Entertainment Centre is negligible, and has good road and rail connection. As for Adelaide being the only city without a modern arena? The present Entertainment Centre is not old. Modernity isn't the issue at all. Bringing in irrelevant issues won't get votes.

This discussion is about the election, and nothing that's been said convinced voters is my point. No matter how compelling you think the arguments are for the construction of a stadium in the parklands (and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion), the electorate thinks a stadium in the Parklands stinks. Try it again, and the Liberals will lose that seat again...or never regain it. From a political point of view, the Liberals have to decide whether they ever want to win the seat of Adelaide...or spend $600m losing it.

It's a simple proposition: either persist with the stadium and give up hope of winning the seat of Adelaide, or kill it off permanently and have a chance...with $600m left to do something that might actually win votes.

[rubberman]

Another aspect of the politics was that at the last election, the Liberals promised a tram loop and North Adelaide extension. Promise ignored.

Now, I suspect that wasn't really in the minds of voters when they cast their votes. In fact, I'm sure of it.

However, what was in their minds was how badly the Liberal brand is tarnished at the moment. I wonder if the Liberals had actually built at least some of the promised work that they could have showcased this as "keeping a promise" to differentiate themselves from the Federal Government that can't even keep its promises to build rorted car parks. Plus, of course, if the ribbon was cut on the city loop just before the Fringe, there's a lot of a buzz associated with that.

(Noting that while the fine print on the original Liberal tram plan probably gave them an escape clause that would work in a court of law, that's of zero help in a voting booth with voters who aren't interested in fine print BS.)

[A-Town]

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built.

This surprises me after the investment in Glenside. Do you have any reports to link?

As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

You can mention it as many times as you like but it doesn't make it true. Only your opinion. I cannot recall any promise of no net loss of parklands, and it's not clear how they could deliver on that promise without some creative counting.

Netlfix were one of the production companies interested in the Entertainment Centre site - https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... aec3c80217

There would have been no net loss of parklands because several boat sheds along the river - including those on the eastern side of the Morphett St bridge in front of the Convention Centre - would have been demolished. This would have also improved public access and amenities.

[A-Town]

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.

Plans and intentions are one thing, but which production companies were actually interested and signalled their intent?

Netflix was one of a number of companies interested. I don't have full access to the article right now, but here's the link https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... aec3c80217

[A-Town]

Well, number 2 could just as easily be applied to open it up for...parklands!

There's zero justification for encroaching on parklands when the existing Entertainment Centre site is quite suitable. Yes, the area is presently an eyesore, but it could be opened up as parklands and the existing Entertainment Centre redeveloped as an entertainment centre.

Considering this is a discussion about the election, the fact that the Liberals couldn't grasp that redevelopment of the existing entertainment centre site was not only the most economic solution, but also one that would not lose votes demonstrates their proposal was a dog. They went out of their way to pursue a second class project with no clear benefit over a rebuild of the existing site.

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.

None of this makes the Liberal proposal more palatable. Movie production companies aren't restricted to that site. Tell patrons of the Gawler line about delays. Sometimes that's the price of progress. The distance from the CBD to the Entertainment Centre is negligible, and has good road and rail connection. As for Adelaide being the only city without a modern arena? The present Entertainment Centre is not old. Modernity isn't the issue at all. Bringing in irrelevant issues won't get votes.

This discussion is about the election, and nothing that's been said convinced voters is my point. No matter how compelling you think the arguments are for the construction of a stadium in the parklands (and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion), the electorate thinks a stadium in the Parklands stinks. Try it again, and the Liberals will lose that seat again...or never regain it. From a political point of view, the Liberals have to decide whether they ever want to win the seat of Adelaide...or spend $600m losing it.

It's a simple proposition: either persist with the stadium and give up hope of winning the seat of Adelaide, or kill it off permanently and have a chance...with $600m left to do something that might actually win votes.

The existing entertainment centre is over 30 years old now. It is not a modern arena and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Check out the new Perth Arena if you want to see what modernity looks like and what could have been achieved in Adelaide if we had a vision and weren't terrified of progress.

Like it or loathe it, but a replacement will be required in the next decade otherwise the cost of maintaining the ageing structure will just continue to rise. A classic example of rebuilding old structures is the pending demolition of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG (now the Shane Warne Stand) which will cost over $1b. It will barely increase capacity, but will vastly improve the experience for spectators and will likely integrate the Richmond Station into the design. That stand is roughly the same age as the Entertainment Centre here.

[rubberman]

There were plans for movie production companies to move into part of the existing Entertainment Centre once the new arena was built. Besides, completely demolishing and rebuilding the entertainment centre at its current site would mean we have at least two years of concerts and shows relocated to even worse venues or cancelled altogether.

Yes the existing site's location isn't terrible, but the modern template for new stadiums and arenas in Australia is for them to be build in or as close to the city centre as possible, especially in cities like Adelaide where public transport in areas away from the CBD and suburban connectors is poor. That's why the CBD site was selected. As mentioned before, it's currently barren wasteland and the new arena wouldn't have resulted in any net loss of parklands.

After Brisbane's arena is built in time for the Olympics, Adelaide will be the only mainland capital city in the country without a modern arena.

None of this makes the Liberal proposal more palatable. Movie production companies aren't restricted to that site. Tell patrons of the Gawler line about delays. Sometimes that's the price of progress. The distance from the CBD to the Entertainment Centre is negligible, and has good road and rail connection. As for Adelaide being the only city without a modern arena? The present Entertainment Centre is not old. Modernity isn't the issue at all. Bringing in irrelevant issues won't get votes.

This discussion is about the election, and nothing that's been said convinced voters is my point. No matter how compelling you think the arguments are for the construction of a stadium in the parklands (and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion), the electorate thinks a stadium in the Parklands stinks. Try it again, and the Liberals will lose that seat again...or never regain it. From a political point of view, the Liberals have to decide whether they ever want to win the seat of Adelaide...or spend $600m losing it.

It's a simple proposition: either persist with the stadium and give up hope of winning the seat of Adelaide, or kill it off permanently and have a chance...with $600m left to do something that might actually win votes.

The existing entertainment centre is over 30 years old now. It is not a modern arena and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Check out the new Perth Arena if you want to see what modernity looks like and what could have been achieved in Adelaide if we had a vision and weren't terrified of progress.

Like it or loathe it, but a replacement will be required in the next decade otherwise the cost of maintaining the ageing structure will just continue to rise. A classic example of rebuilding old structures is the pending demolition of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG (now the Shane Warne Stand) which will cost over $1b. It will barely increase capacity, but will vastly improve the experience for spectators and will likely integrate the Richmond Station into the design. That stand is roughly the same age as the Entertainment Centre here.

If we have to build a new Entertainment Centre every thirty years, it's probably cheaper for people to fly to Melbourne and Sydney...unless taxpayers are to subsidise it. Plus, of course, that's still no reason to put it in the Parklands. That argument applies wherever it's built. Rebuild on the existing site...every thirty years, or on the Parklands. But, by all means, if the Liberals want to convert Adelaide to a permanent safe Labor seat, I can't stop them. There's simply zero reason for putting the Entertainment Centre in the Adelaide Parklands.

[A-Town]

None of this makes the Liberal proposal more palatable. Movie production companies aren't restricted to that site. Tell patrons of the Gawler line about delays. Sometimes that's the price of progress. The distance from the CBD to the Entertainment Centre is negligible, and has good road and rail connection. As for Adelaide being the only city without a modern arena? The present Entertainment Centre is not old. Modernity isn't the issue at all. Bringing in irrelevant issues won't get votes.

This discussion is about the election, and nothing that's been said convinced voters is my point. No matter how compelling you think the arguments are for the construction of a stadium in the parklands (and you are absolutely entitled to that opinion), the electorate thinks a stadium in the Parklands stinks. Try it again, and the Liberals will lose that seat again...or never regain it. From a political point of view, the Liberals have to decide whether they ever want to win the seat of Adelaide...or spend $600m losing it.

It's a simple proposition: either persist with the stadium and give up hope of winning the seat of Adelaide, or kill it off permanently and have a chance...with $600m left to do something that might actually win votes.

The existing entertainment centre is over 30 years old now. It is not a modern arena and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Check out the new Perth Arena if you want to see what modernity looks like and what could have been achieved in Adelaide if we had a vision and weren't terrified of progress.

Like it or loathe it, but a replacement will be required in the next decade otherwise the cost of maintaining the ageing structure will just continue to rise. A classic example of rebuilding old structures is the pending demolition of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG (now the Shane Warne Stand) which will cost over $1b. It will barely increase capacity, but will vastly improve the experience for spectators and will likely integrate the Richmond Station into the design. That stand is roughly the same age as the Entertainment Centre here.

If we have to build a new Entertainment Centre every thirty years, it's probably cheaper for people to fly to Melbourne and Sydney...unless taxpayers are to subsidise it. Plus, of course, that's still no reason to put it in the Parklands. That argument applies wherever it's built. Rebuild on the existing site...every thirty years, or on the Parklands. But, by all means, if the Liberals want to convert Adelaide to a permanent safe Labor seat, I can't stop them. There's simply zero reason for putting the Entertainment Centre in the Adelaide Parklands.

It would make for an interesting case study. What's better for the parklands and the Adelaide CBD; the existing dirt roads, car parks and boat sheds, or a new arena that would revitalise the area and bring in more tourists to the parklands and the CBD?

[Nathan]

It would make for an interesting case study. What's better for the parklands and the Adelaide CBD; the existing dirt roads, car parks and boat sheds, or a new arena that would revitalise the area and bring in more tourists to the parklands and the CBD?

It's not a binary choice, it doesn't have to be (and shouldn't be) either.

[SRW]

There would have been no net loss of parklands because several boat sheds along the river - including those on the eastern side of the Morphett St bridge in front of the Convention Centre - would have been demolished. This would have also improved public access and amenities.

This only results in no net loss if you don't consider the area the arena was to occupy as parklands, which is... incorrect. In any event, the proposal removed the boat sheds because the space was required for... the arena. Not parkland.

The existing entertainment centre is over 30 years old now. It is not a modern arena and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Check out the new Perth Arena if you want to see what modernity looks like and what could have been achieved in Adelaide if we had a vision and weren't terrified of progress.

It's a bit cheap to characterise opposition to building on parklands as lacking vision when that could just as easily be applied to your point of view.

It would make for an interesting case study. What's better for the parklands and the Adelaide CBD; the existing dirt roads, car parks and boat sheds, or a new arena that would revitalise the area and bring in more tourists to the parklands and the CBD?

Most people lament how underdeveloped and degraded our CBD has been and is becoming. Imagine how much better an area such as Currie Street or the West End would be if projects like the Innovation Centre were built there instead of land that was otherwised promised to (and naturally suits) the Botanic Garden. Hell, the old Greater Union site on Hindley St is for sale, and you could just about aquire everything else (except the Rosey) to the west, including a open air car lot, and fit an arena. Sure, land aquisition costs, but parkland also isn't free, and renewing a blighted area and delivering activity to the heart of the city is a multiplying investment.

[rubberman]

The existing entertainment centre is over 30 years old now. It is not a modern arena and anyone who thinks it is is kidding themselves. Check out the new Perth Arena if you want to see what modernity looks like and what could have been achieved in Adelaide if we had a vision and weren't terrified of progress.

Like it or loathe it, but a replacement will be required in the next decade otherwise the cost of maintaining the ageing structure will just continue to rise. A classic example of rebuilding old structures is the pending demolition of the Great Southern Stand at the MCG (now the Shane Warne Stand) which will cost over $1b. It will barely increase capacity, but will vastly improve the experience for spectators and will likely integrate the Richmond Station into the design. That stand is roughly the same age as the Entertainment Centre here.

If we have to build a new Entertainment Centre every thirty years, it's probably cheaper for people to fly to Melbourne and Sydney...unless taxpayers are to subsidise it. Plus, of course, that's still no reason to put it in the Parklands. That argument applies wherever it's built. Rebuild on the existing site...every thirty years, or on the Parklands. But, by all means, if the Liberals want to convert Adelaide to a permanent safe Labor seat, I can't stop them. There's simply zero reason for putting the Entertainment Centre in the Adelaide Parklands.

It would make for an interesting case study. What's better for the parklands and the Adelaide CBD; the existing dirt roads, car parks and boat sheds, or a new arena that would revitalise the area and bring in more tourists to the parklands and the CBD?

It would make an even better case study to compare building a stadium on the existing site, and with the money saved, revitalise that piece of the Parklands including opening it up via a connection to the Convention Centre. River frontage is a golden opportunity that's forever wasted if a stadium is built there. In fact, heck, why not even do a master plan for that whole parkland precinct...which at its end could link to a whole complex of buildings incorporating the Entertainment Centre. Oh...not to mention the land near the (ex) brewery. What an amazing world class area that could be.

[rev]

Netflix was one of a number of companies interested. I don't have full access to the article right now, but here's the link https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... aec3c80217

Can honestly say missed that one, had no idea. That would have been one impressive addition given Netflix is making more and more of it's own content these days.

But with regards to the arena, we should be keeping that land over the rail lines up to the river 'free', for any future RAH expansions, and of course nWCH expansion.
It may not be needed for 30 or 40 years, but I think it would be a mistake to have built a stadium there.

This is part of the reason why I rant about there not being any overall plan for Adelaide.
Something that transcends party politics and the election cycle.

[A-Town]

Netflix was one of a number of companies interested. I don't have full access to the article right now, but here's the link https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... aec3c80217

Can honestly say missed that one, had no idea. That would have been one impressive addition given Netflix is making more and more of it's own content these days.

But with regards to the arena, we should be keeping that land over the rail lines up to the river 'free', for any future RAH expansions, and of course nWCH expansion.
It may not be needed for 30 or 40 years, but I think it would be a mistake to have built a stadium there.

This is part of the reason why I rant about there not being any overall plan for Adelaide.
Something that transcends party politics and the election cycle.

Most people missed it, you're not alone. It would have been a massive coup for the city if we had Netflix setting up shop in the old entertainment centre while we enjoyed a world class arena on the banks of the river.