Railyards... what do you want done to them?

[cleverick]

Having just watched the YouTube on forum ettiquette, I am loathe to use this example but in the cause of irony, will anyway.
Hitler worked hard to eradicate the Jews. Should we support him?
You will note I'm not knocking every proposal, just the ones I don't like. I have started a couple of threads of my own (which are my personal hobbies, I looked to see if anyone else had started a thread, alas, no.) and I have shown my full in-principle and specific support for reviving Adelaide's lane ways, for example. I really like the idea of a surprise around every corner, of themed laneways dotting the city. If I am voted in, I plan to make as many of those ideas as possible come true.
And I concede that to argue the Railyards are parkland is a little difficult, but they must have been at one stage, and they are north of North Tce, which if you look at all the old maps, is denoted, "Park Land". So the only use other than their current one must be: parkland. If you expect rail to increase, don't change. If you expect cars to fill our roads, then return them to parklands.

On no account should you build a different new building there, be it RAH II or AAMI rebadged.

[Howie]

So let me get this straight.. you want the government to spend $250m cleaning the rail yard land, then another $250m to relocate the service yards, so we can return that piece of land back to Parklands? That's the worse idea i've heard to date. Way to go with the 'creating something unique for adelaide'.. sure that'll get you elected to council.

[wilkiebarkid]

And I concede that to argue the Railyards are parkland is a little difficult, but they must have been at one stage, and they are north of North Tce, which if you look at all the old maps, is denoted, "Park Land". So the only use other than their current one must be: parkland. If you expect rail to increase, don't change. If you expect cars to fill our roads, then return them to parklands.

On no account should you build a different new building there, be it RAH II or AAMI rebadged.

I think you'll find that most proponents of a stadium cum entertainment precinct have indicated that it would be built above the railyards as has already been done east of Morphett Street.

I don't think the railyards will be going anywhere soon, either way.

[Norman]

Well, the railyards are going either way, TA is already relocating its depots to the suburbs.

But from what I've read, Cleverick wants all entertainment out of the city into Glenelg. Why?

And why do we need Paramatta-style "sub-cities" when our own CBD still has SO MUCH room left to build? Maybe when we have high-rises all over the CBD, then, yes, we can create office towers in Noarlunga and whatnot, but for now, lets focus on getting a decent population first. Sydney has 4m+ people, and only 1 major sub-city. We have 1.1m and you want 4 sub-cities? I don't think so.

[wilkiebarkid]

Well, the railyards are going either way, TA is already relocating its depots to the suburbs.

Tracks will still be required for the northern and western lines close to the river and the others heading south, closer to North Terrace, and service tracks that may be required, so there isn't much scope for a return to parkland on any great scale.

[cleverick]

Norman,
I wonder that you call the casino "all entertainment". We still have pubs, cafes, cinemas, theatres, concert halls, bars, shops, libraries, outdoor areas and anything else a city of our size demands- I just think the Casino would be better placed in Glenelg.
And despite obvious problems with where to put it and how to go about it, I think that remains a valid point.

Fair point about the amount of space in Adelaide. But I largely see growth at the expense of suburbs, rather than instead of or as well. I don't think we have the water to support a much larger population, and I'm all for a European-style landscape where there are numerous sub-cities with their own industry and commerce, but which also feed into a local big smoke, in our case, Adelaide.
As well as the named sub cities, you would get the village of Unley, or Kent Town, or Alberton. These would be almost entirely residential with a small shopping street with perhaps a bank branch, news agency, pub and grocery store.

I know it's a pipe dream, but I will tend to support policies which seem to be headed this way.
But we're getting off topic.

So TA is already moving its railyards to the suburbs... interesting. Nonetheless, returning the land to parklands can by the only development I support.

[rhino]

Rick, before the railyards were there, there was an abbatoir and meat market - the Newmarket Hotel was named for it. It was also supposedly where the name "butcher" was coined for the small South Australian beer glass - the butchers would come across from the abbatoir at the end of the day, their hands covered in fat and grease, and they found the smaller glasses easier to hold (no doubt they would drink more of them too!).

Colonel Light's vision of a city ringed with "pure" parklands has never become a reality. In the early and mid 1800s they were used for all sorts of purposes. A fenced Victoria Square was used to graze cattle and sheep, no doubt other parts of the parklands were too. There were, and still are, a high school, a cemetery, private rowing and sporting clubrooms, an army barracks, a tram barn, a bus depot, various utilities depots, a zoo, restaurants, a major hospital, a theatre and playhouse, a wine centre, not to mention all the other cultural buildings along North Terrace - should we get rid of them too?

I agree the parklands should be retained, but sensibly. Part of the project of building the new hospital is to revert the old hospital grounds back to parkland - no net loss of parkland.

[cleverick]

Because it wasn't perfectly carried out is no reason to give up now! We should actively work towards reclaiming as much of the parklands as possible. (And here I mean that area outside of the Terraces but inside the ring route.)
So you've done a bar course with Frank O'Reiley too, then? I like that story about the butchers. However, in the early days, when the parklands were used for clay mining and all sorts of things, a notice was sent out by the governor giving them 2 months to get off. So occasionally things do happen. I'm not advocating that now, but I reiterate: we must try to keep the parklands we have.
I'm about to start a thread on the highschool, funny you should mention it.

[Shuz]

Cleverick,

With the parklands situation, I'm fairly sure that more parklands will be returned if the RAH is built at the railyards site and the existing RAH demolished for the Botanic Gardens expansion. The Marj masterplan includes reverting the railyards between the hospital site and the skate park into parklands also.

This speaks for itself, so I would wisely suggest that if you can't get what you want, at least compromise on it, and in this case we get a new hospital with new facilities and more parklands for the people to enjoy.

I'm adamantly sure that if Light were alive today, he'd want to see his parklands serve a purpose. That I agree with you on. While its fair to say that he did live in the 1800's in a very different era of technology and lifestyle, the city's function were carried out nonetheless as Rhino pointed out. It is only fair to again service the city's function in the 21st century by using our technologies to support that, in such case, the construction of an inner-city stadium for people to utilise. I'll be cheeky and actually say that even the grassed surface of a stadium is also parklands too!

[Wayno]

I consider all land immediately adjacent to North Terrace spanning from East to West Terrace to be prime for development. Nay, must be developed without question!

Ridiculous to even consider converting the railyards to trees & grass

[Omicron]

I'll say this in Mr. Cleverick's favour - just because the railyards area in its entirety has never been parklands doesn't mean that the argument to make it so is a fallacy; that is, 'It can't/shouldn't be returned to parklands because it has never been so!' isn't entirely correct.

Now, Mr. Norman informs us that the railyards are on their way out into the suburbs - this I assume to mean the several lines, sidings and sheds that form the southern half of the site, as opposed to the more regularly-traversed lines along the north and centre of the site (closer to the Torrens) that fan out towards the suburbs? As Mr. Kid points out, I wonder just how much actual space would be freed up as purely open area, if the intent was to leave behind just the necessary suburban lines and restore the rest as parklands?

With that in mind, Melbourne's Birrarung Marr park was created due to a re-organisation and reclamation of land previously used for railyards, and Federation Square constructed over the top of the remaining suburban rail-lines (well, from what I understand, at least. Do correct me if I'm wrong ). I don't advocate a Federation Square-esque development alone in this location because it's just too far out from the CBD core to support itself (and undoubtedly more expensive in this day and age than the $500 million or so allocated for FedSq/Birrarung Marr), but undoubtedly the potential exists for a clever and people-oriented residential, commercial and recreational development.

All that said, though, I think the new hospital is well and truly signed, sealed and delivered.

[Wayno]

<snip>
All that said, though, I think the new hospital is well and truly signed, sealed and delivered.

i'm sure there will be at least 1-2 High Court cases about the new hospital, if the Vic Park saga is used as a guide...

[Omicron]

<snip>
All that said, though, I think the new hospital is well and truly signed, sealed and delivered.

i'm sure there will be at least 1-2 High Court cases about the new hospital, if the Vic Park saga is used as a guide...

What brand of Editing Scissors did you use?

[Wayno]

<snip>
All that said, though, I think the new hospital is well and truly signed, sealed and delivered.

i'm sure there will be at least 1-2 High Court cases about the new hospital, if the Vic Park saga is used as a guide...

What brand of Editing Scissors did you use?

the blunt type.

[AtD]

Adelaide has too much parklands! Have you ever actually been to any of them other than the east and Torrens? A vast amount are wastelands, dead in the summer, full of hobos in the winter. Why would we want more when we don't use the ones we already have? All they serve to do is separate the city from the suburbs and kill pedestrian traffic between them.

In fact... copy/past every other post in the Vic Park thread.