Discussion: Development of Adelaide Railyards

Message

#46 Post by **AtD** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:35 am

Pistol78 wrote:22 Storeys? I can't see that happening. What is the height limit on what is technically parklands?

Zero. I think the ACC's development policy for buildings on parklands is basically "no."

#47 Post by **Ben** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:39 am

Never seen the torrens look that wide before....or blue haha if only!

littledyl16 · #48 Post by **littledyl16** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:12 pm

Maximus_Marc wrote:wow that render is fucken awesome, looks so good and the building aren't ugly, there bright and uplifting to look at. I want this to happen so bad.

yeah i know, i love it, it would really brighten up the torrens and the design is AWESOME!!!!

Pistol · #49 Post by **Pistol** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:19 pm

Don't know if the design is that good... Look like typical Gold Coast Blocks IMO.

#50 Post by **Will** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:32 pm

This will never happen because as the article mentions, "Maybe Adelaide doesn't want that. Maybe Adelaide wants only to stay very small and just plod along".

#51 Post by **Pikey** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:49 pm

You do know that that render is over 5 years old. That was a entry to a university design competition. The taller tower is 155m.

You've all been had.

Captain Howdy · #52 Post by **Captain Howdy** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 2:21 pm

Dammit! I was getting excited for a minute! Ohhh why oh why the height limits? why must Adelaide "plod along"?

#53 Post by **Ben** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:11 pm

Maybe because this developement is technically in parklands and no developement is allowed in parklands they would have seen no point in enforcing a height limit...therefore maybe there is no height limit as such on this land....?

crawf · #54 Post by **crawf** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:21 pm

The design is nice, but it would look completely stupid.

Ive changed my stance on the AAMI Stadium upgrade, I think the State Government and SANFL should scrap its current plans and put the money towards a Multi-purpose Stadium on top of the West End railway yards.

The reason why ive changed my mind is that the Ashes Series has bought life into the city and if a AFL or A-league match was on every weekend, the city would be pumping and wouldnt feel like a ghost town. If only we had the money and no anti-progess people

Though the State Government could sell of AAMI Stadium and Hindmarsh Stadium for residential or commerical development. Also the Federal Government, SANFL or the Public Sector could chip in aswell.

But then again a West End Stadium could cause disruption for the UniSA West End Campus and nearby residents.

stelaras · #55 Post by **stelaras** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:36 pm

Crawf,

thats what ive been saying all along.....cities do very well when their stadia are concentrated in walking distance to the CBD...

Whilst this development that was mentioned in the Advertiser might be a school comp or some person with some vision or whatever, i think it highlights what is neeed to happen at that location. Furthermore, it would emphasise the positive economic benefit to Adelaide city and greater Adelaide..

Every event that is held in and around Adelaide CBD (clipsal 500, Tour down under, national horse trails, womadelaide etc etc) brings lots of dollars to the city and importantly lots of people

As for Uni SA....There arent any lectures held on saturdays or sundays and definitely no lectures after 7pm...So a football match in a purpose built arena wont impact at all...The only problem i see is car Parking and car access into and out of the car parks

Residents in and around the MCG locality love it during game time....

This development for me is a goer....one could incorporate design elements from the story in the Advertiser with a new arena as well as relocating the casino and creating an entertainment precinct within that area (it doesnt have to be 22 storeys high)...its a big enough area.

bdm · #56 Post by **bdm** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm

They should:

*construct an underground metro... that leaves only five tracks heading through the area (two [one each way] for Noarlunga-Port Adelaide line, two for Gawler-Belair line, one for interstate passenger line)

*get the Casino out of the railway station

*rebuild a new Casino in a complex near that unused part of the Torrens near the railway yards... two towers, etc

*underground the railway lines and plop a stadium on top of them

*move the railway yards somewhere else and plop some nice parklands/gardens in there to compliment whatever development occurs

Pistol · #57 Post by **Pistol** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:21 pm

Move the casino... Who is going to pay for a new building and move when SkyCity already has everything where it is! All this is great in theory but from what everyone has suggested I think that South Australia better be sitting on a HUGE deposit of oil to pay for it!

#58 Post by **Will** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:29 pm

Pistol78 wrote:Move the casino... Who is going to pay for a new building and move when SkyCity already has everything where it is! All this is great in theory but from what everyone has suggested I think that South Australia better be sitting on a HUGE deposit of oil to pay for it!

I don't see the point of moving the casino. Our casino has a very 'Monte Carlo' feel to it, which sets it apart from other casinos in Australia. Furthermore we have to accept that the railways will never return to their former glory days of the 1910s and the 1920's. Large portions of the Railway Station building would lie vacant if it became a railway building again.

crawf · #59 Post by **crawf** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:38 pm

Im going to have to agree with you on this one.

I just reacon it would be a waste of money to go and build a casino 400m up the road, especially that Skycity is about to spend $70m on more renovations.

Done · #60 Post by **Done** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:49 pm

It's not going to happen but here is the originals:

Discussion: Development of Adelaide Railyards

Who is online