#VISION Liberal's railyard plan: new stadium & entertainment

[Hooligan]

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that the day after this vision is released, the SANFL and SACA come closer to sigining an agreement? LOL

What have they done?

[Prince George]

"For too long Adelaide has been considered a backwater" drones the monotone voice, chanting that same trite line that's been heard I-don't-know-how-often before. But what they show us is a backwater plan. Stadiums, conference facilities, casinos, hotels, it's like a grab-bag of the ideas that desparate towns cling to.

A backwater plan? How odd. Similar developments elsewhere have been enormously successfull.

...

"Visions are so dispensable". Well yes. Yes they are. I had one once. It was of an Adelaide with self confidence and optimism and a perfect blend of charm with just a little glitz thrown in, but I dispensed of it.

No project starts without a vision. I trust you have the same sentiment regarding the hospital "vision".

Obviously I was too abstruse, but I was trying to avoid saying what has already been said before. So, at the risk of repeating myself, I will make myself clear.

Thriving, successful cities are bustling because of the successes of the various economies within it. Retail economies, manufacturing economies, tech economies, creative economies, cultural economies, financial economies, knowledge economies, these are the elements of the cities that we want to emulate. When they are healthy, they create wealth and attract people; wealth and people help attract amenities, which can drive further activity in those economies, and virtuous cycles can result.

The backwaters are places that have failed to understand this, they confuse cause with effect. They build the trappings of the successful city, rather than those economies that caused them. They see Google in the Valley, Microsoft & Boeing in Seattle, Motorola in Chicago, Ford in Detroit and ask "How could I get them to come here?"; what they should rather ask is "How could I get something like that to happen here?" Healthy economies create opportunities like that, the backwater throws money at trying to attract them.

One example that particularly comes to mind for me is Santa Fe, New Mexico. To judge solely by geography, it's the kind of place that can easily be a backwater. It's comparatively isolated (6 hours drive to Denver), it's a small city (total metro area pop. less than 200,000) with a big brother (Albuquerque pop. ~800,000) an hour's drive away, it has little if any natural resources around it. But the city made a very good choice years ago, they made use of what they did have: a deep local history and fledgling arts community. By nurturing each, they drew further creative people to the city. And now, little Santa Fe has the third largest market for art in the country, bigger than LA, Dallas, or Boston -- only NYC and San Fran are larger -- and they are listed by UNESCO as one of 20 "creative cities", along with more famous cities like Edinborough, Seville and ... Melbourne.

So when I see any of these so-called visions, rife with window dressings, all it says to me is "We have no idea what to really do, and we're hoping you're too dazzled to notice". The timing in the election cycle was entirely cynical; likewise with Labour putting their hospital plans at the start of the cycle, knowing it was unpopular and so wanting to have it fait accompli by now.

The vision that I'm looking for is how the city functions, how it adapts and grows. Stadiums, casinos, conference centres, they all come a distant second. There is a great deal more to Melbourne's successes than building the MCG, we would be well advised to pay attention to that.

[Pistol]

Well said your highness.

[monotonehell]

Well said your highness.

Absolutely.

Such a concise wording of what I've been saying on here for years wins quote of the moment in my signature (sorry Omi you've been ousted).

[Omicron]

Well said your highness.

Absolutely.

Such a concise wording of what I've been saying on here for years wins quote of the moment in my signature (sorry Omi you've been ousted).

[JamesXander]

I too thought that was well put.

However, I do not see what is wrong with the plan. It is bringing together elements of our city which should be in a central location.


If anyone has the time, or is knowledgeable on the subject, could they explain how Melbourne turned their luck around. I've heard about some of Kennets exploits. But what really changed their city, and thereby their state?

[adam73837]

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that the day after this vision is released, the SANFL and SACA come closer to sigining an agreement? LOL

What have they done?

A day or two after the plan was released, it said in the 'tiser that they were a step closer to signing an agreement.

[AtD]

Thank you Prince George, you've given me the motivation to say why I don't like the proposal. My biggest concern is a planned entertainment prescient placed in a vast corner of the parkland will turn out to be sterile and boring. It might just be me but I'm of the opinion that a more planned an area is, the more boring it appears, especially when the buildings themselves are planned by the same people as the streets.

You cannot plan a vibrant city. A vibrant city evolves on its own. The less planning the better.

All of Australia's most popular destinations are streets, where there is a mixture of smaller developments and smaller companies all built, opened and operated independently of each other. There is a rich mixture. Even in Adelaide this is true.

Can anyone think of a successful entertainment district that was planned all in one go? The only ones I can think of:
- Crown Melbourne has basically everything this plan suggests in a tiny fraction of the land. It's density allows it to have bustling and busy areas, and even then the southern side is totally void of human activity.
- Homebush is more like the showgrounds than an entertainment precinct. It was built in and around the existing suburbs and showgrounds and does feel rather sterile.

If the purpose of having a CBD stadium is to inject sports crowds into Hindley St, etc, then I don't understand the need for all the other towers and paraphernalia. Shouldn't they be inside the city grid adding to the density and thus street activity? It looks like they're isolated by the tyranny of distance and surrounded by empty parks so the area will feel empty. Is this a park or an entertainment precinct?

I also don't like it because it's adding to supply when low demand is our problem. It's addressing the wrong end of the problem, as Prince George suggested.

My suggestions are:
- Keep everything as close to North Tce as possible so it will contribute to activity and demand in the city grid. Complement the city, don't compete with it.
- Bring the stadium closer to the train station, for the same reason.
- Get rid of those towers. If they can actually be supported economically, let the private sector do it in the CBD so it may contribute to the density.
- Maybe even subdivide the area into smaller blocks and let the private sector have its way with it.

[Aidan]

Thriving, successful cities are bustling because of the successes of the various economies within it. Retail economies, manufacturing economies, tech economies, creative economies, cultural economies, financial economies, knowledge economies, these are the elements of the cities that we want to emulate. When they are healthy, they create wealth and attract people; wealth and people help attract amenities, which can drive further activity in those economies, and virtuous cycles can result. The backwaters are places that have failed to understand this, they confuse cause with effect. They build the trappings of the successful city, rather than those economies that caused them. They see Google in the Valley, Microsoft & Boeing in Seattle, Motorola in Chicago, Ford in Detroit and ask "How could I get them to come here?"; what they should rather ask is "How could I get something like that to happen here?" Healthy economies create opportunities like that, the backwater throws money at trying to attract them.

Agreed, but I don't think that's of much relevance here. The corporate welfare strategy of the Brown government has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the public, and everyone sees the importance of making SA a good place to do business.

But it's not enough to just wait for wealth and people to attract amenities - sometimes we have to take the lead. The Adelaide Convention Centre is a good example - it was truly innovative and made Adelaide one of the best cities for conferences, which brought enormous benefits to the state economy. Of course being the best it was inevitable that others copied us, and indeed overtook us, hence the need for the extension which brought our facilities back to the top standard - albeit at the expense of rail users who have to put up with inadequate ventilation (as I was overseas at the time I know neither why the ventilation was separate from the main contract, who got the ventilation design contract, nor why such a grossly inadequate design was chosen).

Anyway, my point is there are situations where building something is better than waiting for someone else to build it. And I don't think a further extension of the convention centre should be classified as a backwater plan. It is an attempt to build on our strengths. This time I think it's a misguided attempt, but it is at least an honest attempt.

The vision that I'm looking for is how the city functions, how it adapts and grows. Stadiums, casinos, conference centres, they all come a distant second. There is a great deal more to Melbourne's successes than building the MCG, we would be well advised to pay attention to that.

I think we all have paid attention to that. But the lack of a good soccer stadium shows to the world that we're not a success and I think that's something that should be addressed.

But a new casino is a bad idea. It's just an attempt to copy Melbourne, but Adelaide will never be one of the great casino cities. The railway station building is big enough - if casino management decide to waste the space by filling it with one arm bandits, that's their problem!

[monotonehell]

As I've said previously, over the years we've been discussing this parcel of land, we need to start with the economic activities that will support the area and then design the structures that will house those activities. The Liberal's vision is good in a SimCity way, but unless they have the businesses willing to occupy and operate successfully in those buildings this is all just a vision.

Of course this is just the first step in getting the ideas out there. As far as S-A are concerned we've completed this step months ago with our vision document. The next step would be to present the public with not only the developers who are on board (as developers love to build stuff, but don't much care once they've received their pay cheque what happens next) but those investors who have good, solid business plans and are willing to put their money on the line. It's very easy for a group of business people to jump on board when there's tax payers' money to be had. And then jump ship when it all falls apart because of an unsustainable business model (National Wine Centre I'm looking at you).

Some parts of the vision are good, but there's way too many holes that need to be covered before this vision can graduate to anything resembling a plan.

Libs, you're supposed to represent the big end of town. I'm waiting for the next announcement of how you're going to justify all these pretty buildings' existence.

[crawf]

I guess the libs aren't affraid of height, at least thats something


Geez some of the members on here could do much a better job than the libs, I still support the idea of redeveloping the RAH on-site and keeping railway yards for a entertainment/leisure precinct though for heaven sakes come up with a decent plan not something done up on Sim City.

The plan for West Lakes, Hindmarsh, Gepps Cross & Keswick are way over the top.

[waz94]

I guess the libs aren't affraid of height, at least thats something


Geez some of the members on here could do much a better job than the libs, I still support the idea of redeveloping the RAH on-site and keeping railway yards for a entertainment/leisure precinct though for heaven sakes come up with a decent plan not something done up on Sim City.

The plan for West Lakes, Hindmarsh, Gepps Cross & Keswick are way over the top.

DID ANYONE ACTUALLY READ OR LISTEN TO THE LIBS WHEN THEY PROPOSED THIS RE-DEVELOPMENT. THEY MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES (AS WELL AS BEING REPORTED IN PAPER) THAT THE RENDERS BEING SHOWN ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE AND NOT WHAT IT WILL EXACTLY LOOK LIKE. PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SHAPE AND COLOURS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE EMBARRASSING THEMSELVES.

[Prince George]

DID ANYONE ACTUALLY READ OR LISTEN TO THE LIBS WHEN THEY PROPOSED THIS RE-DEVELOPMENT. THEY MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES (AS WELL AS BEING REPORTED IN PAPER) THAT THE RENDERS BEING SHOWN ARE AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE AND NOT WHAT IT WILL EXACTLY LOOK LIKE. PEOPLE ON THIS FORUM COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SHAPE AND COLOURS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE EMBARRASSING THEMSELVES.

Yes, many of us did note all those things and for some of us that is exactly what we don't like - a game of "smoke and mirrors". Developers, councils, governments have a habit of throwing out visions or concepts or what-have-you just prior to some event (an election, planning approval) and then backing away from it afterwards. Who remembers the bunkum that was thrown around about "non-core promises" back in '96 and many times since?

[JamesXander]

I guess the thing to come out of this is

1. The Casino wants to move, and they want a new CBD premises. This opens up a massive opportunity for Adelaide to have a major redevelopement somewhere
2. The stadium, we now have three major stadiums in AAMI, AO & Hindmarsh. With potentially the World Cup coming here. Funding for all stadiums is unviable
3. The redevelopement of the Torrens is inevitable, it is the most unutilised place in Adelaide


What frustrates me the most, is that the hospital is really going to affect all of the above from potentially happening. Why why why are they building it on that plot of land. Why?!

[paul]

Obviously I was too abstruse, but I was trying to avoid saying what has already been said before. So, at the risk of repeating myself, I will make myself clear.

Thriving, successful cities are bustling because of the successes of the various economies within it. Retail economies, manufacturing economies, tech economies, creative economies, cultural economies, financial economies, knowledge economies, these are the elements of the cities that we want to emulate. When they are healthy, they create wealth and attract people; wealth and people help attract amenities, which can drive further activity in those economies, and virtuous cycles can result.

Quite true – content and vibrant communities are dependent on the success of many smaller ‘parts’. One can define these parts in many ways (some more abstract than others). However, I think it widely agreed that cultural identity is a key measure in valuing the contentment of a community.

Elected Governments effect all aspects of our lives through policy, legislation etc etc... Of course, building a vibrant culture is somewhat more complicated. Cause and effect isn’t as easy to determine, but an understanding of the community’s wants and needs will mitigate this. In Adelaide’s case, an acknowledgement that cultural identity for most is defined more broadly than poetry recitals would be a good starting point.

Clearly the Libs are suggesting that our cultural appeal is limited as the city is lacking in a central, large scale entertainment, recreation and tourist precinct and have taken the position that the fulfilment of this desire can be encouraged by government intervention (mainly through zoning and tax payer investment in a stadium and infrastructure). A development of this scale could ever occur without a defined plan primarily because of the amount of land involved and its riverfront location.

But can you plan a vibrant cultural precinct? Reference has already been made to the Crown precinct in Melbourne but you could also throw in Darling Harbour in Sydney and Southbank in Brisbane as other examples of successful entertainment precincts. All of which, as I understand, were highly planned. Federation Square another example. What about the Adelaide Festival Theatre and its surrounds in 60s and 70s?

So I find it difficult to accept that the concept of a planned entertainment precinct, well proven in other cities, somehow represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of successful communities.
Of course, a plan is one thing – will it be successful? Do people want it? I believe they do. Will someone build it? This is the key – will developers come on board? I suspect the relocation of the casino will be a major, if not the major determining factor as to whether the entertainment precinct will succeed.

So yes, the Libs will need to demonstrate that the private sector is willing to invest (it certainly seems the demand is there) but I fail to see why they should be criticised for offering a genuine vision that may transform a city that is desperate to begin to define itself.

We could of course maintain the status quo whereby any proposal for Adelaide is viewed in the context of a Dunstan era vision of Adelaide that seems to prevail through successive city councils and certainly under the current minister for the city of Adelaide. It’s a vision of Adelaide that offers a narrowly defined definition of cultural identity and rejects commercialism as distasteful, while favouring small over big. It’s hardly been a success.