#VIS: Inner-City Stadium/Riverbank Precinct

[monotonehell]

...if the aim to to get as many people into town afterwards as possible.

D is a possibility, although the last place I'd want to dump thousands of people after a sporting match is the south-western corner of the CBD. On second thoughts, though, Hindley St. isn't all that much better....

Now that you mention it...

*snob*

I'm not convinced that the CBD is the best place to dump patrons of sport or the clipsal anyway
Have you ever been in the Rundle Street area after Clipsal? It's horrible, there' bogans everywhere breaking things, vomiting and wondering why high end bars don't sell VB.

Now back to my early 2000s plan to move the Clipsal to Elizabeth...



*/snob*

[No Clever Alias]

The rail yards site (A) is just too small so forget that...

I simply don't agree that the rail yards site is too small. In fact, I believe from my investigations that it is about right with only some minor realignment of Port Road and potentially with the rail lines going underneath the stadium (which I'm not even sure is necessary).

Forget any proposals for south or eastern parklands... simply not feasible and wouldn't solve the existing problems of access and linkages to the city.

[Omicron]

...if the aim to to get as many people into town afterwards as possible.

D is a possibility, although the last place I'd want to dump thousands of people after a sporting match is the south-western corner of the CBD. On second thoughts, though, Hindley St. isn't all that much better....

Now that you mention it...

*snob*

I'm not convinced that the CBD is the best place to dump patrons of sport or the clipsal anyway
Have you ever been in the Rundle Street area after Clipsal? It's horrible, there' bogans everywhere breaking things, vomiting and wondering why high end bars don't sell VB.

Now back to my early 2000s plan to move the Clipsal to Elizabeth...



*/snob*

I was on Rundle just last Saturday night, in fact!

I'll be damned if I can remember what it was like, of course. Litres of double blacks and gin will do that to you.

[monotonehell]

...if the aim to to get as many people into town afterwards as possible.

D is a possibility, although the last place I'd want to dump thousands of people after a sporting match is the south-western corner of the CBD. On second thoughts, though, Hindley St. isn't all that much better....

Now that you mention it...

*snob*

I'm not convinced that the CBD is the best place to dump patrons of sport or the clipsal anyway
Have you ever been in the Rundle Street area after Clipsal? It's horrible, there' bogans everywhere breaking things, vomiting and wondering why high end bars don't sell VB.

Now back to my early 2000s plan to move the Clipsal to Elizabeth...



*/snob*

I was on Rundle just last Saturday night, in fact!

I'll be damned if I can remember what it was like, of course. Litres of double blacks and gin will do that to you.

I know a few of the managers of the "upper priced" pubs around Rundle Street and Hutt Street and they all hate the Clipsal, for them any profit made in the small increase in patronage is offset by the vandalism and increased cost of security needed to refuse to serve drunk patrons (as is required under the act).

I've outed myself as a total snob now haven't I?

[Omicron]

Now that you mention it...

*snob*

I'm not convinced that the CBD is the best place to dump patrons of sport or the clipsal anyway
Have you ever been in the Rundle Street area after Clipsal? It's horrible, there' bogans everywhere breaking things, vomiting and wondering why high end bars don't sell VB.

Now back to my early 2000s plan to move the Clipsal to Elizabeth...



*/snob*

I was on Rundle just last Saturday night, in fact!

I'll be damned if I can remember what it was like, of course. Litres of double blacks and gin will do that to you.

I know a few of the managers of the "upper priced" pubs around Rundle Street and Hutt Street and they all hate the Clipsal, for them any profit made in the small increase in patronage is offset by the vandalism and increased cost of security needed to refuse to serve drunk patrons (as is required under the act).

I've outed myself as a total snob now haven't I?

May I also be a snob? I should like that.

[Tyler_Durden]

The SACA and Adelaide United would just love the idea of the SANFL owning their multi-purpose stadium outright.

While the SACA have total control over their own venue in the best possible location in all of Adelaide I don't see why they should be given any involvement in a new stadium at all. Unless, of course, they are prepared to relinquish their own hold on Adelaide Oval and allow that site to be the home of any new modern stadium they really should be excluded from this entire discussion.

As for Adelaide United, any multi-purpose stadium of the size required to by the SANFL/AFL would be too big for them so they probably wouldn't even use it regularly anyway and they'd stay where they are, playing the occassional blockbuster there. And frankly, for the occasions that Adelaide United/the Socceroos would use such a venue then I'm sure they'd be content to simply pay for its use, like they do now, and like they would if the ground were owned by any other orgnaisation. Adelaide United don't own Hindfmarsh so this is not much different.

I know it was a long time ago but the land for Adelaide Oval was given or sold to the SACA. I see no reason why the same can't be done with some West Parkland being given to the SANFL giving them full, or near full, control over it. It's what cricket have with Adelaide Oval, afterall. Something of this magnitude is never going to be built by a government alone. So private ownership is essential somewhere along the line. Why can't that private owner be the SANFL? Of course, the Government will have to assist, which they do anyway with AAMI and most other stadiums around the country, privately owned or not.

The SANFL/AFL is the key. No other sports have the finances or the regular attendances to do it. They must be tempted by the Government/ACC to be the major or even sole player in such a venture. And if that incentive is to give them full control, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned.

[Hippodamus]

Ideally, I would have liked to see Adelaide Oval renovated to accommodate large crowds and be a venue for more games apart from only cricket. those pompous bastards that go on about the lights and protecting the ovals heritage need to lighten up a bit. what about MCG in melb. they could have done the same with their stadium. instead, they have embraced their history but moved forward and built an amazing facility that gets most people in awe..

the railway yards i used to believe was the perfect location for a new stadium, and still do to some extent (much to my dismay about this space being wasted on a massive hospital facility which in my opinion could have been placed somewhere else). but the reality is, a stadium in this loction will surely become underutilised, despite is fantastic location. and if it doesn't, well Hindmarsh (which already is a white elephant) and AAMI stadiums would suffer and become empty. is this what we want.

is building a new stadium solving any problems or appeasing concerns over growing numbers of spectators for sports... not likely peoples.

i personally think that the Marj should be going to the site of the Entertainment Centre, and on the rail yards a new entertainment complex to be constructed.

[monotonehell]

The SACA and Adelaide United would just love the idea of the SANFL owning their multi-purpose stadium outright.

While the SACA have total control over their own venue in the best possible location in all of Adelaide I don't see why they should be given any involvement in a new stadium at all. Unless, of course, they are prepared to relinquish their own hold on Adelaide Oval and allow that site to be the home of any new modern stadium they really should be excluded from this entire discussion.

As for Adelaide United, any multi-purpose stadium of the size required to by the SANFL/AFL would be too big for them so they probably wouldn't even use it regularly anyway and they'd stay where they are, playing the occassional blockbuster there. And frankly, for the occasions that Adelaide United/the Socceroos would use such a venue then I'm sure they'd be content to simply pay for its use, like they do now, and like they would if the ground were owned by any other orgnaisation. Adelaide United don't own Hindfmarsh so this is not much different.

I know it was a long time ago but the land for Adelaide Oval was given or sold to the SACA. I see no reason why the same can't be done with some West Parkland being given to the SANFL giving them full, or near full, control over it. It's what cricket have with Adelaide Oval, afterall. Something of this magnitude is never going to be built by a government alone. So private ownership is essential somewhere along the line. Why can't that private owner be the SANFL? Of course, the Government will have to assist, which they do anyway with AAMI and most other stadiums around the country, privately owned or not.

The SANFL/AFL is the key. No other sports have the finances or the regular attendances to do it. They must be tempted by the Government/ACC to be the major or even sole player in such a venture. And if that incentive is to give them full control, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned.

So what you're saying is that it's completely pointless to build this new stadium because there's simply not enough reason to do so? We already have several single use world class stadiums around Adelaide, is there any good reason to ostensibly move Footy Park to Adelaide?

[frank1]

The SACA and Adelaide United would just love the idea of the SANFL owning their multi-purpose stadium outright.

While the SACA have total control over their own venue in the best possible location in all of Adelaide I don't see why they should be given any involvement in a new stadium at all. Unless, of course, they are prepared to relinquish their own hold on Adelaide Oval and allow that site to be the home of any new modern stadium they really should be excluded from this entire discussion.

As for Adelaide United, any multi-purpose stadium of the size required to by the SANFL/AFL would be too big for them so they probably wouldn't even use it regularly anyway and they'd stay where they are, playing the occassional blockbuster there. And frankly, for the occasions that Adelaide United/the Socceroos would use such a venue then I'm sure they'd be content to simply pay for its use, like they do now, and like they would if the ground were owned by any other orgnaisation. Adelaide United don't own Hindfmarsh so this is not much different.

I know it was a long time ago but the land for Adelaide Oval was given or sold to the SACA. I see no reason why the same can't be done with some West Parkland being given to the SANFL giving them full, or near full, control over it. It's what cricket have with Adelaide Oval, afterall. Something of this magnitude is never going to be built by a government alone. So private ownership is essential somewhere along the line. Why can't that private owner be the SANFL? Of course, the Government will have to assist, which they do anyway with AAMI and most other stadiums around the country, privately owned or not.

The SANFL/AFL is the key. No other sports have the finances or the regular attendances to do it. They must be tempted by the Government/ACC to be the major or even sole player in such a venture. And if that incentive is to give them full control, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned.

So what you're saying is that it's completely pointless to build this new stadium because there's simply not enough reason to do so? We already have several single use world class stadiums around Adelaide, is there any good reason to ostensibly move Footy Park to Adelaide?

Adelaide oval yes, but i wouldn't call AAMi stadium world class as it is quite dated.

[monotonehell]

Adelaide oval yes, but i wouldn't call AAMi stadium world class as it is quite dated.

Hehe fair call. How about after the planned upgrades? I thought Mil$80 would buy some class of the World variety?

[Tyler_Durden]

So what you're saying is that it's completely pointless to build this new stadium because there's simply not enough reason to do so? We already have several single use world class stadiums around Adelaide, is there any good reason to ostensibly move Footy Park to Adelaide?

I'm not saying it's completely pointless. It's not essential to build something new, which is why it won't happen. But I do think there are benefits to having our major football stadium in the city. Benefits that range from transport to ceating a more vibrant city centre. The city of Adelaide needs it more than the individual sporting organisations do. So, in summary, I don't think such a stadium is essenial but I do think it's desirable.

[monotonehell]

So what you're saying is that it's completely pointless to build this new stadium because there's simply not enough reason to do so? We already have several single use world class stadiums around Adelaide, is there any good reason to ostensibly move Footy Park to Adelaide?

I'm not saying it's completely pointless. It's not essential to build something new, which is why it won't happen. But I do think there are benefits to having our major football stadium in the city. Benefits that range from transport to ceating a more vibrant city centre. The city of Adelaide needs it more than the individual sporting organisations do. So, in summary, I don't think such a stadium is essenial but I do think it's desirable.

Aye it would be good to have a World Class stadium within a stone's throw of the CBD to attract events. But I can't see anyone offering a solid financial basis to support its existence. The only code that's mildly interested is Soccer, they already have Hindmarsh and don't have the fanbase to justify a new stadium.

Now back to my plan to build a Disneyland resort in Monarto...

[Tyler_Durden]

Adelaide oval yes, but i wouldn't call AAMi stadium world class as it is quite dated.

Adelaide Oval is the most dated of the lot. For example some people have to sit on grass. I know that's how they want it to be it but the AFL and FIFA among others refuse to play at venues that aren't 100% seated. That's just one example. It has many other faults ranging from poor player change room facilities, poor media facilities, poor sight lines from the existing stands. I could go on and on with its faults. It is not considered world class in any category apart from playing surface perhaps.

AAMI Stadium, I think, is by far the closest we've got to a world class stadium.

[monotonehell]

...AAMI Stadium, I think, is by far the closest we've got to a world class stadium.

*nods* if not by crowd capacity alone.

What does world class mean?
For the audience
* Capacity of 60-80k
* Comfortable seating with good views for all
* Facilities for catering to such crowds
* Suitable accessible public transport, and car parking

For the players
* A ground that can accommodate any major sport, concert or other event
* Changing rooms and other such facilities

For the media
* Camera nests / press observation points
* Media room / OB technical support facilities

What else?

[frank1]

Adelaide oval yes, but i wouldn't call AAMi stadium world class as it is quite dated.

Adelaide Oval is the most dated of the lot. For example some people have to sit on grass. I know that's how they want it to be it but the AFL and FIFA among others refuse to play at venues that aren't 100% seated. That's just one example. It has many other faults ranging from poor player change room facilities, poor media facilities, poor sight lines from the existing stands. I could go on and on with its faults. It is not considered world class in any category apart from playing surface perhaps.

AAMI Stadium, I think, is by far the closest we've got to a world class stadium.

If Adelaide oval is so bad ,why is that it's rated one of the world's nicest cricket grounds?\

What's your plans for a Disneyland at monarto ......sounds interesting