News & Discussion: Squares and Parklands

[Nathan]

The stink has been kicked up about the proposed location of the new Aquatic Centre:

https://citymag.indaily.com.au/happenin ... -location/

Hopefully we do see the proposed site reconsidered to a location that is a bit better.

I too want a better site, but the arguments being put forward are nothing to do with better locating it for public transport access or the economic benefit of O'Connell St, it's just "don't want it across the road from my house". The complaints about parking and traffic should be completely moot, because it'll be using the exact same car park as the current centre.

[rev]

The stink has been kicked up about the proposed location of the new Aquatic Centre:

https://citymag.indaily.com.au/happenin ... -location/

Hopefully we do see the proposed site reconsidered to a location that is a bit better.

I'd be curious to know what impact on residents basic rights she's referring to here.

“It’s about the process of how we invite [the] community to decision-making and the impact decisions have on people’s basic rights as residents,” she said.

Surely she doesn't think it's a basic right that because you bought a house, or rent a house/room opposite a park, that you have the right to that park...?
How is that a basic right?
It's a benefit, a luxury. It is not your right.
They may have an expectation, but their expectation isn't written in stone.

Let's be honest, it's the residents in the suburb of Fitzroy with a median price range of $2.2 million.
Privileged & entitled.

I count 21 swimming pools across the road there.
Not everyone is wealthy enough to have a swimming pool in their backyard. Other people prefer to go to an aquatic centre. But these elitist pricks think it should be done somewhere else away from them.

Anyway, why cant they just knock down the current centre and rebuild on top?

[Nathan]

It's not those on Fitzroy Tce, it people on Barton Tce.

Knocking down the existing centre and rebuilding on top would mean no aquatic centre at all for years.

[rev]

It's not those on Fitzroy Tce, it people on Barton Tce.

Knocking down the existing centre and rebuilding on top would mean no aquatic centre at all for years.

Same thing, another suburb of elitists.

Knocking it down would indeed mean no centre for a couple of years, but that's a small price to pay if we want a modern facility.
Im not one to protest tge loss of a tree, but in this case the existing centre already equates to a loss of parklands when it got built, may as well remain within that footprint more or less.

[Llessur2002]

Knocking it down would indeed mean no centre for a couple of years, but that's a small price to pay if we want a modern facility.
Im not one to protest tge loss of a tree, but in this case the existing centre already equates to a loss of parklands when it got built, may as well remain within that footprint more or less.

One knock on effect would be the disruption of kids' swimming lessons for the duration of construction - the centre is very busy on weekends for this purpose. There aren't that many alternative pools of a suitable size and shallow depth around, and I suspect any other lessons would quickly be booked out. It's not inconceivable that this could lead to an accident that didn't need to happen if the new centre was constructed in a different location.

[ChillyPhilly]

Knocking it down would indeed mean no centre for a couple of years, but that's a small price to pay if we want a modern facility.
Im not one to protest tge loss of a tree, but in this case the existing centre already equates to a loss of parklands when it got built, may as well remain within that footprint more or less.

One knock on effect would be the disruption of kids' swimming lessons for the duration of construction - the centre is very busy on weekends for this purpose. There aren't that many alternative pools of a suitable size and shallow depth around, and I suspect any other lessons would quickly be booked out. It's not inconceivable that this could lead to an accident that didn't need to happen if the new centre was constructed in a different location.

This is it. Its central location sees many people from all over Adelaide visit and send their kids to swimming classes, even young kids during the week. While other pools offer similar sessions, they are either more expensive or not as accessible.

[likeperu]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

[Nort]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

That's just one of the many different voices quoted in that article, which overall seems really well balanced.

[likeperu]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

That's just one of the many different voices quoted in that article, which overall seems really well balanced.

Yeh you right, but it’s crazy how someone says that about parklands around the CBD. It is what it is though, I’ll respect their opinion.

[SRW]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

What do you find objectionable about this statement? That park land should remain park land is pretty straight forward and laudable. Her later comment about permanent paths less so...

[rev]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

What do you find objectionable about this statement? That park land should remain park land is pretty straight forward and laudable. Her later comment about permanent paths less so...

It would depend what is meant by development.
I assume it would mean buildings and such, but most of the parklands could do with a serious upgrade and then regular maintenance and upkeep.
If they really want to make the parklands an iconic thing, and not just some parochial shit that some South Australians jump up and down about.
Proper pathways throughout the parklands, not some shit bitumen and dirt tracks.
Proper grass areas, not the uneven shit we have today where you risk snapping an ankle.
Proper vegetation, trees, that are maintained along with the grassed areas.
And seriously improved lighting throughout.
Shit I'd go as far as a man made waterway around the parklands and chuck a couple gondolas in there. At least the popeye's would have more of a run then too.

[Ben]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

Not sure why you’re shaking your head? Parklands are for parks not free land for developments. We have an under developed cbd that needs development. Once a park is built on it’s not ever coming back.

[Llessur2002]

The trouble is that the APPA and the like see everything as development - paths, lighting, changing rooms, kiosks, grounds maintenance sheds etc (i.e. the very things that give people a reason to visit the parklands). Even drainage infrastructure and railway lines which have existed for 150 years are vocally and repeatedly opposed. I personally feel that the parklands should be able to encompass all manner of recreational activities and the infrastructure that supports them. Sports surfaces, changing rooms, spaces for performances, swimming pools, climbing facilities, boat sheds etc etc. If a storm water drain needs to be routed through the parklands then, providing it has minimal surface-level impact, that's fine too.

There's also a continual argument about land which hasn't really been true parklands since pretty much the beginning of settlement- the former rail yards for example. If that contaminated wedge of land is the best location for a vital piece of public infrastructure such as a hospital then I'm pretty much OK with that. People haven't been able to take a stroll there for over a hundred years.

As for the remaining 'true' parklands - yes, let's conserve the small segment that is apparently an original part of the Adelaide Plains, but for the rest of it let's come up with a cohesive vision as to how to attract people into the parklands who aren't just the very small group of dog owners who happen to live directly opposite it. I agree with much of what Rev has proposed in this regard.

[[Shuz]]

Horse paddocks and huge swathes of barren patches of grass are not parklands.

Look at our Melbourne counterparts; Albert Park, Carlton Gardens, Fitzroy Gardens, The Botanic, Fawkner Park, Flagstaff Gardens. Now those are parklands. Well maintained, manicured, well lit pathways, sporting facilities, cycle paths. They are immensely well visited and used by the people. This is the standard we should be aspiring to.

[likeperu]

cant make this shit up smh

“We should be doing everything to prevent the continual development of the park lands.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... -parklands

What do you find objectionable about this statement? That park land should remain park land is pretty straight forward and laudable. Her later comment about permanent paths less so...

I probably should have been more specific. I mean exactly about the comments about permanent paths. I think its great what they did with the new permanent paths with lights on the east parklands.