#VIS: Inner-City Stadium/Riverbank Precinct

[Shuz]

No offense to monotonehell, but I think he has a flawed argument when it comes to saying the stadium would be too big for the rail yards site (based purely on the notion that the ground has to be orientated on a N/S axis for sunshine reasons) but I'm pretty sure that the MCG is actually built E/W and I don't see anyone complaining about sunshine issues there. So if it can fit, it can fit!

The stadium has to go on the rail yards because, its size is good for its location. The proposed hospital's size is basically a waste of space, and as far as I'm concerned their size is adjustable for relevant locations, hence why I favor a compromise that the hospital be relocated and built on the former SA Water site, which is just meters from its proposed location anyway, minus the very irrelevant fact that it would have to accommodate an extra 2 or 3 floors to make up for lost space it needs to accommodate into an area the size of its nature. This I see as a positive as it encourages 'higher density' developments into the inner city, which is exactly what the Goverment should be promoting, than this needless urban sprawl which ruins cities as seen in several cases worldwide.

[shiftaling]

I favor a compromise that the hospital be relocated and built on the former SA Water site, which is just meters from its proposed location anyway

No, sorry, that site's actually within the Parklands. They should just get rid of the SA Water buildings and turn it into a park like Bonython Park. No new developments should be put on that site at all, and the SA water building should never have been built there anyway.

[AtD]

shiftaling: I'd respect the urge for more parklands if they weren't mostly being used for car parks or horse paddocks.

[muzzamo]

No, sorry, that site's actually within the Parklands.

No, sorry, people like you are the loudmouth minority that are actually holding this state back.

[Mants]

No, sorry, that site's actually within the Parklands.

the Adelaide CBD is within the parklands. what's your point?

[shiftaling]

The parklands is what makes this city, I don't think you'll find that a minority view. I'm allowed hold my own opinion and shouldn't be labelled a loudmouth for expressing it. Rude!

[Norman]

The parklands is what makes this city, I don't think you'll find that a minority view. I'm allowed hold my own opinion and shouldn't be labelled a loudmouth for expressing it. Rude!

It's good to preserve the parklands, but I think some can be spared when it is a development that will significantly enhance the city.

Besides, it's not parklands really anyway down that end. We can make something like a stadium asthetically beautiful and connect with the parklands. Then we can also upgrade the rest of the parklandswith wetlands, bridges and water-efficient plants.

[Wayno]

The parklands is what makes this city, I don't think you'll find that a minority view. I'm allowed hold my own opinion and shouldn't be labelled a loudmouth for expressing it. Rude!

i think we should give shiftaling a go. He's a newby to this site (at least from the perspective of writing posts).

Hey shiftaling, tell us more about yourself please...What are your opinions on development in the square mile? Should buildings be permitted to be taller? what about the parklands - what is your vision? Lastly, i'd love to read your thoughts on SA's population - should we be targeting 2+ million people. please share...

[shiftaling]

Alright, here goes. I agree with building much taller buildings in the CBD, as long as the street level interaction is there. For example, UniSA City West campus is only five or so stories tall, but it gives nothing to the street except blank walls.

I think the parklands should be landscaped into actual parks and shouldn't be built on.

If there is enough water to support 2 mill then bring it on. If not, then no way. It's a matter of scientifically establishing what the maximum sustainable population is first, not pulling numbers from the air. And I'm not in fact a scientist. But if we can support that population I'm all for it.

I suppose the main thing I want to say is that it's unfair to make assumptions about people or their opinion (eg. "loudmouth," "minority"). I'm in favour of urban development that contributes to people's lives in a positive way, captures their imagination and provides spaces and backdrops for new experiences. I'm against development that throws blank walls in their faces, alienates them and destroys the good things in their environment that deserve preservation (such as Light's vision for a city within a ring of parklands).

I don't want to join this forum to have arguments with people, I just like reading about the interesting new developments in the city and on public transport, and looking at the construction shots and illustrations of proposals.

[JamesXander]

Well heres my 2c. You want the Parklands converted to urban parks. But in reality only a select few will be able to use those parks at all. And indeed if you are saying your not entirely up for population growth if we can't sustain (which people have been saying about earth for years) then it means the City itself will not be growing much either.


You must realise that South Australia is doomed if we don't grow our population.


The Parks are so underused its not funny, public buildings are fine on parkland. But it has to be that, a public building, something the public will use. A stadium is jsut that.

[shiftaling]

But if we can't sustain it then surely we are doomed if we do[-i] grow beyond that level. All I mean is that it has to be scientifically determined. Technological advances may well mean that SA can grow to a population well above 2 million, I don't know. But it has to be sustainable. That's not minority fringe thinking, it's just the way we live now.

[AG]

Trying to find a maximum figure on how many people a city can support sustainably by the use of water is not really a good way of determining a supportable population. For a start the rate of water usage per capita is highly variable and there are other developed nations that use water many times more efficiently than Australia does (much of it ends up being used for irrigation). When it comes to dealing with resources such as water, the key is to use what we have more efficiently moreso than less of it. They sound similar but they mean slightly different things.

The parklands currently are a real waste of space. Some of them are well used during the year like Rymill Park but those on the southern and western sides don't get the treatment they deserve at all, the only purposes I've seen them used for other than a bit of sport is car parking during the RAS, and the western side was used once-off for one of Cirque Du Soleil's shows before it moved to Bonythan Park. I'd love to see someone come up with a clever use or way to revitalise them for greater public use and properly link the surrounding areas with the CBD.

[Bulldozer]

You have to wonder where did this $1 billion figure come from? Is it because Docklands cost $400-500 million (despite what Wikipedia says) and they're factoring in inflation over the decade since doubling the cost?

Why does the government assume they'd be the ones paying for it? I was stoked to read the article about the SANFL saying they'd consider selling up Footy Park. $350 million for that and the $150-200 million they're looking to spend on it and there's $500-550 million right there! I'm sure the AFL would kick in a bit as well. If we cloned the Docklands design we could reduce the cost by doing away with the multi-level underground carpark (there's loads of parking available all around the area) but maybe the SANFL would want to have that for extra revenue. The state government and federal government would also no doubt chip in a bit as well. So let's presume from the AFL and governments we get another $150 million and now we have $650-700 million. If you can't build a 60,000 seat stadium for that then I'm sure you could borrow the shortfall and pay it back relatively quickly. Give the SANFL a 99-year lease on the site and let them own and operate the structure.

I think a lot of people in Adelaide have given up on attending matches at Footy Park because it's such a hassle to get there. We (my family) used to go watch Crows games in the early 90's but gave up because coming from down south it was over an hour to drive there and then you'd have to park far away from the oval (Findon High?) and then walk to Footy Park. More often than not, it would be freezing cold and you'd have to get to the entrance an hour or two before the actual game. Then there was the walk back to the car and dealing with all the traffic. Going to see a game would consume an entire day, mostly in transport. Perhaps another factor in declining attendances is that with the advent of cheap air travel, more people have gone interstate and experienced other modern stadiums and Footy Park just doesn't cut it for them anymore.

Now on the other hand one can drive into the city or catch a train from Noarlunga and it takes less than an hour to get there. So much more convenient and you'd see trains absolutely packed with people going to see the game. I don't doubt that would happen one bit, because you just have to look at how many people use trains to get to and from events like Schutzenfest, Skyshow and the Royal Show.

[muzzamo]

Everyone here seems to be forgetting something.

A hopsital is going to be built in the railyards, its been budgetted for and is progressing. That is not going to change.

[Wayno]

<snip>
I think a lot of people in Adelaide have given up on attending matches at Footy Park because it's such a hassle to get there. We (my family) used to go watch Crows games in the early 90's but gave up because coming from down south it was over an hour to drive there and then you'd have to park far away from the oval (Findon High?) and then walk to Footy Park. More often than not, it would be freezing cold and you'd have to get to the entrance an hour or two before the actual game. Then there was the walk back to the car and dealing with all the traffic. Going to see a game would consume an entire day, mostly in transport. Perhaps another factor in declining attendances is that with the advent of cheap air travel, more people have gone interstate and experienced other modern stadiums and Footy Park just doesn't cut it for them anymore.

Now on the other hand one can drive into the city or catch a train from Noarlunga and it takes less than an hour to get there. So much more convenient and you'd see trains absolutely packed with people going to see the game. I don't doubt that would happen one bit, because you just have to look at how many people use trains to get to and from events like Schutzenfest, Skyshow and the Royal Show.

Agee 100%, we gave up our Crows family membership as we were rarely going to games anymore - too much time consumed in travel rather than enjoying the game and revelling in the sense of community (which is THE point).

The drive home was always so stressful - the same people who sat nearby you at the game, and with whom you made so many jokes, are no longer your allies. Being locked in a car turns people into "traffic adversaries" vying for the quickest path home - truly bizarre. I'd much rather see the community spirit flow into the city and/or continue on a homebound train trip.

IMHO, the need for an inner city stadium is central to the "How to attract more people to SA" discussion.