News & Discussion: Adelaide City Council

[rev]

All these concept plans look great, though where's the plan on the street that sorely needs it the most... Grenfell/Currie Street.

I don't understand why both levels of government continue to neglect such an important street like Grenfell/Currie and leave it in a derelict state. Over the last decade it has seen developments like the Sofitel, Ibis, Rundle Place and earmarked for more significant builds in the coming years. Yet there has still been zero improvement and is now a mismash of cracked pavers, bitumen footpath, decaying shopfronts, extremely poor lighting, poor tree coverage with a four lane highway straight through the middle. Hardly a street to feel any sense of city pride, if anything it's embarrassment.

Focus first on Grenfell/Currie Street, then the other main streets.

It shouldn't also just be the city council picking up the tab, the state government should 100% allocate funds and even towards improving the entire CBD core as a whole. They are attracting all these major events to Adelaide (which is great), though spend the money beautifying the city to make tourists and investors want to come back here.

If I was tourist visiting Adelaide and staying at the Sofitel. I'd be appalled at the neglected state of Currie Street.

Like Morphett Street between the square and Franklin Street which is undergoing an "upgrade".
They've redone the footpaths, bitumen again. The parking bays look incredibly small.
Months of work, and that's the outcome.

I get they can't go and do every footpath at once, but if they start with small sections, do them up appropriately as well as parking spots, bike lanes, and road surfaces, in time the streetscape across the city will be improved.
Then again maybe they shouldn't bother, since they can't even maintain a bitumen footpath after they've relaid it.

[[Shuz]]

O Connell Street needs to go back to the drawing board. There is no way a single track will be acceptable.

[Vasco]

O Connell Street needs to go back to the drawing board. There is no way a single track will be acceptable.

Exactly, 1 way expressway much.

Seriously!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rev]

Interesting, Melbourne style parking in the middle..

[Nort]

Interesting though, that allowance is for a single track, with dual side boarding, and a ground level power system to avoid overhead wires and poles.

I can see a single track being fine if the line terminates at Barton Tce, but surely it would be a problem if ever extended to Prospect...

A single track could be fine depending on the service frequency. Trams could alternate travelling through that section.

Not ideal for sure, but if they're trying to make the street more of a comfortable destination, better than losing footpath space or free coverage.

[Norman]

Outstanding, but these renders are missing light rail lines!

The O'Connell St plan mentions that the median design has an allowance for future tram line.

https://aws-ap-southeast2-coa-dmzfilese ... Link_5.pdf


More detailed plans for each of the others:
Hindley St
Melbourne St
Hutt St

I think the Hutt Street plan was revised in this version:
https://aws-ap-southeast2-coa-dmzfilese ... Link_4.pdf

[Nathan]

Outstanding, but these renders are missing light rail lines!

The O'Connell St plan mentions that the median design has an allowance for future tram line.

https://aws-ap-southeast2-coa-dmzfilese ... Link_5.pdf


More detailed plans for each of the others:
Hindley St
Melbourne St
Hutt St

I think the Hutt Street plan was revised in this version:
https://aws-ap-southeast2-coa-dmzfilese ... Link_4.pdf

Weird, both are labelled April 2023.

Looks like the significant difference is the left lane changing from an off-peak parking lane / peak-traffic, to permanent parking.

[rev]

This council has rejected a 1m high fence around a soccer pitch at Ellis Park, even though the Adelaide Parklands Authority gave it the thumbs up. It wouldn't have prevented public access & use.

Barely a 500m walk away Karen Ryan Oval has a 1 meter fence around it, and a larger section of parkland.

Councils excuse this time, they don't want more built form in the parklands. Of course we know that's bullshit when the council builds club rooms and toilets when it suits them.

How dumb is this council, honestly with decisions like this the state government really should be considering whether we need an Adelaide City Council in its current form if at all.

[dsriggs]

Seriously, there's half a dozen clubs & organistaions in the parklands who have fenced-off facilities already. This one is clearly out of the way of the vast majority of users, and they still vote it down.

[Nort]

I'm all in favour of the state government taking over for decisions in the parklands, if the state government will also be responsible for funding the parklands as they need/deserve.

[Ben]

I'm all in favour of the state government taking over for decisions in the parklands, if the state government will also be responsible for funding the parklands as they need/deserve.

Because they have made so many good decisions about parklands use recently - Botanic High new building, New Woman's and Children's Hospital, New larger Aquatic Centre, Second festival Centre tower. I think that would be a disaster.

[ChillyPhilly]

I'm all in favour of the state government taking over for decisions in the parklands, if the state government will also be responsible for funding the parklands as they need/deserve.

Because they have made so many good decisions about parklands use recently - Botanic High new building, New Woman's and Children's Hospital, New larger Aquatic Centre, Second festival Centre tower. I think that would be a disaster.

This.

I think a body independent from elected officials, and working within some key guidelines, would be the way to go.

[Listy]

There are dozens of permanent and temporarily fenced (or otherwise exclusionary) parks, clubs, ovals and playgrounds all over the parklands. Karen Rolton oval is the clearest example because it is literally just a couple of hundred metres away from Ellis Park, but the Adelaide Uni oval has had a fence around it for 30 years or more as well. There's nothing wrong with various sports and clubs etc having some sort of exclusive access to parts of the parklands, and there's also nothing wrong with fencing off parts of the parklands for those activities - its reasonable and necessary in most cases, but for the council to argue that some sort of precedent will be set by allowing the Adelaide Comets to have a fenced football pitch is shameless hypocrisy.
The only real difference between the other fenced off areas and this proposal is the type of sport, and hence the type of *people* that would be granted the use of a small part of the parklands. The mindset and message being sent by ACC is clear here - If it's tennis, golf, rowing, croquet or cricket, its all OK, here have some parkland for your playing fields and clubhouses - you're the right kind of people from the right part of Adelaide. But if you want to play a sport that enjoys a lot of broader support out in the suburbs? Nope, sorry. You can grudgingly be allowed to play in the parklands, but to establish a more permanent home? Something akin to the facilities *that already exist* and are enjoyed by all the other sports & implies you actually might belong? Never.

[Algernon]

There are dozens of permanent and temporarily fenced (or otherwise exclusionary) parks, clubs, ovals and playgrounds all over the parklands. Karen Rolton oval is the clearest example because it is literally just a couple of hundred metres away from Ellis Park, but the Adelaide Uni oval has had a fence around it for 30 years or more as well. There's nothing wrong with various sports and clubs etc having some sort of exclusive access to parts of the parklands, and there's also nothing wrong with fencing off parts of the parklands for those activities - its reasonable and necessary in most cases, but for the council to argue that some sort of precedent will be set by allowing the Adelaide Comets to have a fenced football pitch is shameless hypocrisy.
The only real difference between the other fenced off areas and this proposal is the type of sport, and hence the type of *people* that would be granted the use of a small part of the parklands. The mindset and message being sent by ACC is clear here - If it's tennis, golf, rowing, croquet or cricket, its all OK, here have some parkland for your playing fields and clubhouses - you're the right kind of people from the right part of Adelaide. But if you want to play a sport that enjoys a lot of broader support out in the suburbs? Nope, sorry. You can grudgingly be allowed to play in the parklands, but to establish a more permanent home? Something akin to the facilities *that already exist* and are enjoyed by all the other sports & implies you actually might belong? Never.

Bingo

[Listy]

Common sense has prevailed and the Comets have their fence & pitch upgrades approved after the matter was brought back to council last night:
https://www.indaily.com.au/news/2024/02 ... ch-upgrade