#VIS: Riverside (Entertainment Precinct)

[crawf]

The Advertiser is the most bias piece of rubbish in this state.

[rhino]

The Advertiser's role is to provide unbiased information to the South Australian public

While Foley was frothing at the mouth in parliament over the Advertiser, there was a ring of truth in what he said. If the government goes $50million over budget on a major infrastructure project, the Advertiser screams "Huge cost blowout!". But the Libs can put forward an unfunded plan to spend over $1billion and the Advertiser waxes lyrical about what a great plan it is. You really can't say that's unbiased.

[Howie]

I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Rann, Foley, and Conlon were saying it was only the Advertiser who want a stadium. They're sitting on plans for a Riverside style precinct going way back before the whole Marj-RAH business. Ever since there has been calls to redevelop the train yards there has been calls for a stadium AND a cafe/entertainment precinct.

Did anyone catch what Conlon was saying about Monorails on ABC (I think)? Saying "Riverside would never work because it doesn't have an monorail.. and we all know how much i love monorails".

On another note, I have an architect telling me that by building Riverside they could inject billions of dollars of investment into the CBD/Metro area and create thousands of jobs WHILE putting money in the bank during construction.

[rhino]

we SHOULDNT waste this space and build a hospital. ..... we need something that will attract people to this location and RANN's hospital will do the complete opposite.

I fail to see how a hospital will not bring people into an area. All major hospitals seem to have people coming and going almost around the clock, and that includes staff, and students as well as patients and visitors. These people alone (well, not the patients..) create a need for other services - cafes, coffee shops, etc. Consider that these many visitors to the major hospitals are visiting every day of the week. There may not be the 40 to 50 thousand who will turn up for a football match once a week, but there is a constant stream of people 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.

So, 40 to 50 thousand people one day a week (many of whom will drive there and drive straight home afterwards - families with kids are not going to go clubbing after the game) and a dead space for the next 6 days, or 2000 or so people every day of the week.

[rhino]

I've just read an article in today's Adelaide Now which you may find interesting. Here's a snippet:

The Advertiser understands Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Demetriou ultimately want the SANFL and SACA in face-to-face meetings to resolve Adelaide's long-running stadium debate. The potential consequences of the session are:

AFL games at Adelaide Oval after capacity at the city ground is increased to 35,000 and facilities improved by the $90 million redevelopment due for completion by the end of 2010.

PORT ADELAIDE, which is losing money playing at the 51,515-seat AAMI Stadium while averaging crowds of 30,000, moving home games to Adelaide Oval.

A JOINT bid by the SANFL and SACA in seeking Federal Government money to redevelop both AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval.

AN end to the Opposition's plans for a new city sports stadium on Adelaide's western edge with neither cricket nor football endorsing the project.

[waz94]

I fail to see how a hospital will not bring people into an area. All major hospitals seem to have people coming and going almost around the clock, and that includes staff, and students as well as patients and visitors. These people alone (well, not the patients..) create a need for other services - cafes, coffee shops, etc. Consider that these many visitors to the major hospitals are visiting every day of the week. There may not be the 40 to 50 thousand who will turn up for a football match once a week, but there is a constant stream of people 18 hours a day, 7 days a week.
So, 40 to 50 thousand people one day a week (many of whom will drive there and drive straight home afterwards - families with kids are not going to go clubbing after the game) and a dead space for the next 6 days, or 2000 or so people every day of the week.

FIRSTLY: A hospital is not a major tourism draw card. I have no intention of flying to Sydney to visit the Prince Alfred Hospital, nor would anyone else (i dont even know what state it is in). The only people visiting the Marj will be people with a specific agenda to visit admitted patients. I agree a hospital will attract people 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, but the majority of them wont be the type of people that will make the location lively and a place to visit.

SECONDLY: A lot of people think that this debate is purely Hospital V Stadium. Have a look at MHS's proposal and you will see that it also contains an Entertainment Centre, "federation square" type area, restaurants, cafes, science/techology centre and interactive wetlands walking routes along the Torrens. Not to mention what other businesses will be attracted along North Tce. Its not just a Stadium!!!! and in fact i couldnt even be bothered if a stadium was built there but just NOT a hospital please. Build an amusement park, i couldnt care but what ever they build make it attractive to South Aussies and visitors alike.

[rhino]

A lot of people think that this debate is purely Hospital V Stadium. Have a look at MHS's proposal and you will see that it also contains an Entertainment Centre, "federation square" type area, restaurants, cafes, science/techology centre and interactive wetlands walking routes along the Torrens. Not to mention what other businesses will be attracted along North Tce. Its not just a Stadium!!!! and in fact i couldnt even be bothered if a stadium was built there but just NOT a hospital please. Build an amusement park, i couldnt care but what ever they build make it attractive to South Aussies and visitors alike.

Okay, but why not build this "Federation Square type area" around the Festival Theatre / Elder Park / Convention Centre precinct, where some of the infrastructure is already there and it's already a gathering place for the masses (e.g. carols by candlelight and the other activities that already focus on Elder Park) Or why not make part of the ex-RAH site into a cultural square? It's much closer to the other cultural drawcards along North Tce, as well as being much closer to Rundle Street and Rundle Mall, and the areas used for the Fringe, the Clipsal race, etc. Why build it on the proposed hospital site when there are so many better arguments for other sites? Just because Melbourne built Federation Square over their railyards?

[Howie]

Okay, but why not build this "Federation Square type area" around the Festival Theatre / Elder Park / Convention Centre precinct,

For starters, the area behind Festival Theatre is heritage listed. And the CC took all the available space that was left.

Unless you mean demolishing the theatre/cc, there really is no other space left on the Torrens.

[rhino]

So, we have to have this at the northwestern corner of the city, because the river is nearby, and Melbourne has developed a big square over the railyards near the river, even though in Adelaide the north eastern corner is where everything happens. And we have to develop Victoria Square into the city's major meeting place too, even though it's nowhere near the northwestern corner and, once again, the northeastern corner of the city is where everything happens. Makes no sense to me.

[Howie]

You're talking like it's another suburb away.... it's a few hundred metres from City West campus and the current Convention Centre. People walk that distance down Rundle Mall every day. We've all got legs, and can use them.

[UrbanSG]

I tend to agree with rhino here.

I would much rather see existing areas/facilities upgraded and enhanced closer to the true core of the CBD. The area around the Festival Theatre, the Adelaide Oval are much better options and would be far cheaper. Maybe relocate the Casino inbetween the hospital and the Convention Centre instead and link this over Morphett Street and to the banks of the Torrens.

Even though we are only talking a few 100 metres you would be surprised how people won't bother walking that extra distance just to a Federation Square type area surrounded by a Stadium and what else? It won't work imo. Federation Square works because it is right at the centre of Melbourne's entertainment and cultural heart. It is a perfect position.

What is being proposed here is almost like Melbourne's Docklands which are struggling to create a true urban feel and level of activity depsite all the apartment towers. Maybe one day it will really come alive when completed.

The problem with the vision of a western railyards development is there is virtually nothing in the nearby area that will make people say yeah I want to go there eg decent cafes, stores etc. It would take decades for the surrounding area to develop properly. Unlike our true precincts like Rundle Mall, Gouger Street and Hutt Street. Sorry Hindley Street just doesn't cut it and never will, constantly trying to fix it will never work.

The proposed hospital will actually force people to travel to this area and keep it more alive far more than a Stadium would once a week.

[rhino]

.... it's a few hundred metres from City West campus and the current Convention Centre.

Who goes to the Convention Centre? I went there once for a look, and once for a convention. If international people are coming to Adelaide for a convention, in the evening they are not going to go to an open air plaza to pass the time unless it's a balmy summer evening.
As for City West campus, I didn't know they were crying out for a place to go. Light square is right in front of them. Hey, If the School of Medicine was moved to City West Campus, it would be just a short stroll to the new RAH. It's not the same Uni though, is it?

[adam73837]

I've just read an article in today's Adelaide Now which you may find interesting. Here's a snippet:

The Advertiser understands Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Demetriou ultimately want the SANFL and SACA in face-to-face meetings to resolve Adelaide's long-running stadium debate. The potential consequences of the session are:

AFL games at Adelaide Oval after capacity at the city ground is increased to 35,000 and facilities improved by the $90 million redevelopment due for completion by the end of 2010.

PORT ADELAIDE, which is losing money playing at the 51,515-seat AAMI Stadium while averaging crowds of 30,000, moving home games to Adelaide Oval.

A JOINT bid by the SANFL and SACA in seeking Federal Government money to redevelop both AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval.

AN end to the Opposition's plans for a new city sports stadium on Adelaide's western edge with neither cricket nor football endorsing the project.

Thanks for posting it rhino, I didn't want to have to copy it from the newspaper like I did with the Foley article which I couldn't find on Adelaide Now.
Yes, I agree that it was quite interesting and that article had its ups and downs. It ups were that there may be AFL matches played in the city (finally ), but its BIG DOWN was the fact that the AFL think that they can come in and stop the progression of a vision being backed by many South Australians. It was alright for Etihad Stadium to be built for them wasn't it? Non one came in and told them to stay put at Waverley Park, which shared that same 70s status as Subiaco and AAMI, the last 2 remaining 3 stooges. Honestly Demetriou, let Adelaide speak for itself, we don't need the likes of you coming, trying to bag a vision for this city.

[paul]

Can't help but wonder how different the comments in this forum might be if Rann was to propose the exact same development....

Arguably the most exciting urban renewal project ever proposed for the CBD (of which the stadium is just one long term proposal) and most of the comments are particularly negative. Unbelievable.

[Cruise]

I've just read an article in today's Adelaide Now which you may find interesting. Here's a snippet:

The Advertiser understands Mr Fitzpatrick and Mr Demetriou ultimately want the SANFL and SACA in face-to-face meetings to resolve Adelaide's long-running stadium debate. The potential consequences of the session are:

AFL games at Adelaide Oval after capacity at the city ground is increased to 35,000 and facilities improved by the $90 million redevelopment due for completion by the end of 2010.

PORT ADELAIDE, which is losing money playing at the 51,515-seat AAMI Stadium while averaging crowds of 30,000, moving home games to Adelaide Oval.

A JOINT bid by the SANFL and SACA in seeking Federal Government money to redevelop both AAMI Stadium and Adelaide Oval.

AN end to the Opposition's plans for a new city sports stadium on Adelaide's western edge with neither cricket nor football endorsing the project.

Thanks for posting it rhino, I didn't want to have to copy it from the newspaper like I did with the Foley article which I couldn't find on Adelaide Now.
Yes, I agree that it was quite interesting and that article had its ups and downs. It ups were that there may be AFL matches played in the city (finally ), but its BIG DOWN was the fact that the AFL think that they can come in and stop the progression of a vision being backed by many South Australians. It was alright for Etihad Stadium to be built for them wasn't it? Non one came in and told them to stay put at Waverley Park, which shared that same 70s status as Subiaco and AAMI, the last 2 remaining 3 stooges. Honestly Demetriou, let Adelaide speak for itself, we don't need the likes of you coming, trying to bag a vision for this city.

Waverley park was approx 26kms from the Melbourne CBD. That is a similiar distance as Elizabeth Oval is from the Adelaide CBD, Footy Park is far closer to the city.

And the problem with Subiaco Oval is not it's location, it's the 43,000 seating capacity!
Look it up Adam, it's pissing distance from the CBD!