Discussion: Development of Adelaide Railyards

[rogue]

From today's 'Tiser

Planners back rail yard proposal

RHIANNON HOYLE, REAL ESTATE EDITOR

November 27, 2006 10:30pm

SOUTH Australian planners have backed a property industry leader's call for a redevelopment of Adelaide's railyards, labelling the area "dead space".

Planning Institute of Australia SA president Kirsty Kelly said Knight Frank SA managing director Don Crouch's project, as reported in yesterday's Advertiser, above the existing rail lines and involving entertainment and residential components could work to revitalise the whole western precinct of the city.
"We have this great asset in the Torrens, but it's not well utilised," she said.

"This area (the railyards) is obviously used for public transport at the moment, but it's dead space in terms of anything else."

Real Estate Institute of SA president Mark Sanderson agreed.

"It's definitely an area that needs rejuvenation," he said.

[madexml]

i think it would make sense to do this.

by the way i'm new and i don't quite know what these scraper dollars mean?

[rhino]

Paul Starrick of The Advertiser said:
"No other capital city in Australia has such a large area of land so close to the city that has not been developed," he said. "Property in Adelaide's CBD is confined and land values are spiralling. Surely the time has come to take a fresh look at the area and how it can be redeveloped for the benefit of the city and its visitors." Mr Crouch said city river frontage was a prime development spot in almost every other Australian city.
He pointed to Melbourne's Southbank development - a mix of offices, restaurants, shops and housing - as an example of what might happen at the railyards.



What a load of bollocks. The Melbourne railyards sit right between the city and the Yarra. Southbank is on the opposite side of the river.

Now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Constitutionally, is this sort of development allowed in this area, or is the area designated "railyards or parkland"? If it is parkland, then it should not be encroached upon, as this would be a precedent that would have the potential to wipe out all our parklands, because of their prime residential value close to the city.

[AtD]

Now I'm going to play Devil's Advocate.

Constitutionally, is this sort of development allowed in this area, or is the area designated "railyards or parkland"? If it is parkland, then it should not be encroached upon, as this would be a precedent that would have the potential to wipe out all our parklands, because of their prime residential value close to the city.

Is it really that important we keep the fields of weeds and dirt that surround the rail yards?

The parklands are the biggest pieces of underutilised space in Adelaide, some are quite literally horse paddocks.

[rhino]

The parklands are the biggest pieces of underutilised space in Adelaide, some are quite literally horse paddocks.

Point taken, but better they be utilised as parks and community areas than as residential areas. As I stated earlier, once the first bit of parkland has been sold off for Hi-Rise, the precedent will have been set and Adelaide's unique parklands will have had a death sentence passed on them.

Some will doubtless argue that there is not enough water available to maintain the parklands. I say residential properties will use more water. Why not allow some of the "horse paddocks" to revert to bush/scrub with some trails through it, maybe a wetlands here and there?

[rhino]

With regard to AAMI Stadium being out of date - it's only 30 years old, if that! Sure PT is an issue, but that does not mean scrap the stadium and build a new one - just improve the PT to the stadium. And Adelaide Oval - I would hate to see that go, which, if this new stadium is built and used for cricket, Adelaide Oval would definately go - there wouldn't be enough income to keep it viable.

Sorry guys, but I don't think Adelaide can sustain a new stadium like the one proposed. The existing sport venues would suffer terribly, and places like AAMI Stadium, Hindmarsh Stadium, The Pines, (and Adelaide Oval)still have many years' life left in them.

[nimeton]

Point taken, but better they be utilised as parks and community areas than as residential areas. As I stated earlier, once the first bit of parkland has been sold off for Hi-Rise, the precedent will have been set and Adelaide's unique parklands will have had a death sentence passed on them.

That is exactly the kind of scare tactic I can see ACC using to object to any development. Stadium or otherwise...

The rail yards is not valuable open space... Its currently not a community area and not open to the public regardless of what it is actually zoned... It was lost as "parklands" for as long as there has been rail lines there. They may as well open it up to something... that adds slightly more value to the area.

As for the rest of the actual parklands... I'm all for keeping them as parklands or more to the point community space free from development. The "precedent" for development has all ready been set with the developments along north tce. Due to this, I think people all ready appreciate the value of the actual remaining parkland we have left and would fight any proposed development that may come along. I highly doubt the council or the government or anyone would even consider approving a development proposed along say, for example, the south tce parklands.

[crawf]

Regardless of what happens, i can see the railway yards being development in the not to distance future

The Adelaide Convention Centre is considering at expanding the complex west.

[Pressman]

So let me get this right ......

We get massive public uproar with the very thought of building some permanent structures at Victoria Park for the Clipsal event.
{No No nooooo it's Parklands ..... We can't build in the parklands!!!!}

Yet suddenly building residential dog boxes along the shores of the Torrens Lake is an excellent idea?

Other cities, both in Australia and around the world would kill for the amount of green belt that we have here in Adelaide, and now some want it for Hi-Rise!!!!

[nimeton]

So let me get this right ......
Other cities, both in Australia and around the world would kill for the amount of green belt that we have here in Adelaide, and now some want it for Hi-Rise!!!!

That's the point it is NOT green. It's a brown, ugly, closed off, RAIL YARD.

[Pants]

^ What he said.

No-one's suggesting that we build on Elder Park, but these are baron, underdeveloped railyards in about the best spot in the city.

Smart development here of the kind that would bring tens of thousands more people into the city during sporting events could provide a huge boost to our ailing CBD.

Other than work, there's hardly any reason to come to the city these days. Suburban shopping centres have been developed to a point where people can get everything they want in terms of shopping and entertainment without having to travel too far.

This wasn't the case 10-15 years ago.

Other than for special events, the buzz has completely gone from the city centre. Having AFL games on North Tce every week during the footy season and concerts etc over summer would bring alot of life back.

One thing I'd be careful of with any proposal is not to include too much retail or restaurants etc. People need to be directed back towards the Riverbank, Rundle Mall and Rundle, Hindley and Gouger Streets etc.

A stadium would definately be viable for the same purpose footy park is today and wouldn't need to be used for cricket or soccer (other than large international games). Therefore Adelaide Oval and Hindmarsh Stadium's future shouldn't be in doubt.

As for AAMI being only 30 years old, the longer we wait for a development like this, the more it will cost. There's nothing wrong with being pro-active even if there isn't an absolute need.

It can't be considered a waste of money. The SANFL would no doubt have a stake in any new stadium. That coupled with the fact that if they pull down AAMI and sell off the land of the stadium, oval no 2 and the car parking areas, they'll make an absolute fortune. That would be some very sought after land down there and is better used for residential purposes to go some way towards slowing down the sprawl.

If the new stadium is a joint venture between the government, a cashed up SANFL after selling off AAMI and private backers, funding shouldn't be a problem. Investors shouldn't be too hard to find if we're still a one major stadium town.

[stelaras]

or perhaps.....

Give AAMI stadium to Port Power as their home ground...Give the Adelaide crows the New one in the city..

Have the finals hosted at the new one in the city for both AFL and SANFL.

Port Power would never fill AAMI stadium just like the Dockers dont fill the Subiaco.

Adelaide could probably fill a 60,000 capacity oval.

Adelaide oval would be the home of cricket in Adelaide much like the WACA is in Perth or the SCG in sydney and GABBA in Brisbane..

Hindmarsh stadium would still be the No.1 soccer venue (unless of course we host World cup or Asian or confederation cup in which case you could use either AAMI or New one....

I see it as a completely viable situation where everyone makes money...It just takes guts to make a decision that would change Adelaide for the better..A development like that will benefit all south australians and put us on the map

The caveat to that is that PT has to be upgraded to AAMI and the New oval over/on the railyard site is linked up by walkways to the CBD (similar to the way the Dome and the MCG are done here in Melbourne..

Southbank here in Melbourne and Southgate further down in the docklands is a huge success...Southbank links via pathways to the Crown complex, which is actually quite a nice walk, with great city views as it is over the other side of the river...The rail network and river intersect the 2, but MCC have been quite smart at erecting nice feature walls to block the ugliness out.. (They have a walk highlighting the contribution of migrants to melbourne development on a country to country basis)

The final move would be to build a new casino (especially if Packer group plan to take over skycity) in the railyards complex and move skycity out of the glorious building they are preently in....return that building to a museum of some type (perhaps a transport museum) or migration museum...or something

just food for thought from someone that loves his birth state and sticks it up to any victorian or other that bags it!

[Pikey]

^^^ Your knowledge of all things AFL is incredible...

[crawf]

Forget the casino idea, Skycity is about to spend around $70m on more renovations.

Plus Adelaide already has a Migration Museum and National Railway Museum.

Oh btw the $45m Adelaide Oval Redevelopment will start in march 2008 - looking forward to that

[stelaras]

fully aware that we have both a migration museum and national railway museum.....the point of it was that the space above the railway station can be used for a more meaningful purpose, it doesnt have to be a museum. It can be anything that would add to the culture/history that is adelaide..

As for the development itself, if it is to happen it will happen over the next 10-20 years, no infrustructure and no money to completely re-develop that area in 3-5 years.

Comparing to the southbank development in melbounre, that has taken 12-15 years to get to the stage it is...By that stage ide say that skycity will be in need of redevelopment again..

Not that im an advocate of casinos's and gambling but about 60% of state government funding comes from the gambling industry in some way..whether it be horses, casino's, pokies or X-lotto...So it would be better for the casino to be moved to a building of its own....Funny thing is, if the casino was to become something major in Adelaide (ie crown like, or skycity in Auckland) it would probably boost tourism...For some reason people that visit other places always check out casino's!