News & Discussion: Squares and Parklands

[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

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.

Again, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about park development, like permanent paths, lightings, sporting facilities etc. For example, the new wetlands they did on the east parklands. I'm not talking about buildings etc.

[likeperu]

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.

Yeh I completely agree.

[Nort]

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.

I absolutely agree, and wish we were aiming for that. However I'd much rather an area is used as horse paddocks in the meantime until that can happen than people saying "oh it's just horse paddocks right now, any development on it is an improvement".

[Nort]

Truly taking advantage of the parklands would give so many tourism and lifestyle benefits for the population of Adelaide.

Commercial uses aren't terrible either so long as they are based around using the parklands as something unique rather than just cheap/unused land. The tree climb setup on Greenhill Road is a great model.

Expanding Botanic Gardens, a native wildlife park, a boutique vineyard, open air swimming pool. There's a whole list of things that could make money and also improve the parklands.

The gardens by the bay in Singapore should be the type of thing we are aiming toward.

[Nathan]

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.

100% this. Development isn't necessarily bad. The question should just be "does this support the use of the parklands?". Facilities that allow people to participate in sport, or go to an event, have an outdoor lunch, or just walk around a pleasant environment shouldn't be seen in the same light as a hotel, or a hospital.

[Benm16]

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.

100% this. Development isn't necessarily bad. The question should just be "does this support the use of the parklands?". Facilities that allow people to participate in sport, or go to an event, have an outdoor lunch, or just walk around a pleasant environment shouldn't be seen in the same light as a hotel, or a hospital.

Completely agree. There should be development of the parklands but in positives ways. Ways to promote healthier lifestyles i.e encourage people to exercise; and encourage people to use the parklands, i.e to attract people to actually visit them. I think an outdoor pool like the one in Burnside would be a fantastic addition to the parklands. I always thought it would be great if we had a similar pavilion set up to the M Pavillion in Melbourne in our parklands. Like an ADL Pavilion that would be designed by a different local architecture firm each year or so and could be used as an outdoor performance space or something similar. I also thought they should remove the rundle street road that goes through the parklands and turn this area into a park boulevard similar to Las Ramblas with bike paths, foot paths, seating, auditorium spaces and a flat surfaced area where events like Illuminate could set up their larger displays.

[Nathan]

I also thought they should remove the rundle street road that goes through the parklands and turn this area into a park boulevard similar to Las Ramblas with bike paths, foot paths, seating, auditorium spaces and a flat surfaced area where events like Illuminate could set up their larger displays.

We were going to have Rundle Rd closed as part of the O-Bahn tunnel project, until the APPA had to complain about having a replacement road running to Grenfell St instead (alongside the tunnel entrance) — labelling it ludicrously a "highway".

I love the M Pavilion project (even if it's a bit "inspired" by the Serpentine), but probably best not to copy it directly. But absolutely there should be some more architecturally designed pavilions dotted around the parklands, particularly ones that can be adapted for use by events (imagine if events like the Garden or Gluttony didn't have to set up every venue). Even something like a set of nicely designed toilet blocks would be a positive.

[Patrick_27]

The parks in Melbourne mentioned don’t even have great pathways, as such… Most of bitumen. But they are immaculate in terms of how the plant life is chosen and manicured. They also have smaller, more subtle toilet blocks, better placed throughout (I.e. near roadways and such). The larger bricks and mortar toilet blocks need to go.

I agree with meaningful developments on the parklands for PUBLIC use. I believe the minute we started building more than government buildings along the northern edge of north terrace, we lost that impressively tight containment of the ‘CBD’ belt.

[rev]

There should be a parklands authority, that manages and is responsible for the parkland From Black Hill along the Torrens down to the Henley South, and the city and North Adelaide parklands in between, including Bonython Park.

Take it completely way from the various incompetent councils.
Have one authority/body over the whole lot, so there's a coherent approach to it all.

At Athelston, there's around 120 houses in what should be park of the Torrens river parkland.
At Campbelltown, a similar story at Lochiel Park with a newish development.

Should be pushing development back from the river front along it's entire length, not encroaching it more and more.
A green belt from hills to coast should be created with a parklands authority.

[urban]

Excellent suggestion Rev.

[SBD]

There should be a parklands authority, that manages and is responsible for the parkland From Black Hill along the Torrens down to the Henley South, and the city and North Adelaide parklands in between, including Bonython Park.

Take it completely way from the various incompetent councils.
Have one authority/body over the whole lot, so there's a coherent approach to it all.

At Athelston, there's around 120 houses in what should be park of the Torrens river parkland.
At Campbelltown, a similar story at Lochiel Park with a newish development.

Should be pushing development back from the river front along it's entire length, not encroaching it more and more.
A green belt from hills to coast should be created with a parklands authority.

If you are going for a state or multi-LGA "parklands authority", it could do more tan just the Torrens linear park and city parklands. There are quite a few other rivers from the hills to the coast that could do with a degree of coordination of public land along the banks -

• Part of the Gawler River has a mostly-undeveloped reserve
• Part of Smith Creek has a linear park and paths along it, of varying quality and it's all in Playford
• Adams Creek including Fremont Park in Elizabeth, eventually goes through the RAAF Base but picks up again with the Burton Wetlands I think.
• Little Para River
• Dry Creek (all the way from the back of Golden Grove to the mangroves)
• (Torrens already mentioned)
• Brown Hill Creek
• Sturt River (drain!)
• Field River
• Onkaparinga River

[rhino]

I believe the Field River is included in Glenthorne National Park, and the Onkaparinga River flows through Onkaparinga National Park and Recreation Park, both managed by NPWSA.

[SBD]

I believe the Field River is included in Glenthorne National Park, and the Onkaparinga River flows through Onkaparinga National Park and Recreation Park, both managed by NPWSA.

So we already have NPWSA - do we need a second parks authority for another kind of park, or should we expand its remit (and funding) to manage all "signficant" parkland in the state with a broad definition of parkland (if there isn't already a suitable legal definition).

We don't want the new authority to take on every suburban park the size of two houseblocks with swing, so there would need to be some definition of what it should take on, and possibly a bump of initial funding to bring everywhere else up to the standards of the current "good ones".

[urban]

NPWSA are typically good at managing conservation and flora and fauna management. A Parklands Authority managing the ACC parklands and linear park requires a different kind of thinking with a greater focus on improving access to and amenity of these spaces. You wouldn't want an organisation like NPWSA managing the Riverbank Precinct.

[Nort]

I know it would be expensive so would have to be part of some strategic long term strategic vision, but I wonder what the cost (both initial and ongoing) would be of establishing a second Botanic Garden in the parklands.

The Australian Native Botanical Gardens. Partially with Adelaide region plants, and then with other Australian natives throughout. A well manicured and pleasant to use park space like the existing Botanic Gardens, but entirely focused on Australian plants and wildlife.