Discussion: Development of Adelaide Railyards

Message

#61 Post by **Pikey** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:23 pm

As it currently stands, AAMI stadium is worth more to the SANFL in land value than as a stadium. Convincing the SANFL to move it's entire operations to a new stadium can be done, particularly since the ground would hold a "consistent" amount of other functions, and these can be used by the SANFL as supplementary income.

crawf · #62 Post by **crawf** » Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:26 pm

Those pictures are very misleading first of the

- Torrens isnt that wide or that beautiful colour
- The land isnt all that flat
- Pretty sure the Railway Yards arnt that big

and thats a pretty shit location for a casino, if this ever got of the ground. It would probley be a white elephant and a waste of money.

JAKJ · #63 Post by **JAKJ** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:00 am

Will wrote: 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.

The fact is that the casino has done a disgraceful job of utilising the station's potential and has developed it in the most hodge podge piece of shit way possible.. the railway station would work much better as some form of shopping/restaurant/night life building, with boutique accomodation perhaps, but skycity is just disgusting,

bdm · #64 Post by **bdm** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:19 am

JAKJ wrote:
Will wrote: 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.
The fact is that the casino has done a disgraceful job of utilising the station's potential and has developed it in the most hodge podge piece of shit way possible.. the railway station would work much better as some form of shopping/restaurant/night life building, with boutique accomodation perhaps, but skycity is just disgusting,

Agreed. I hate the station as a casino. It should be a train station (interstate and metro), not a bloody casino... it's potential lies elsewhere.

stelaras · #65 Post by **stelaras** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:15 am

AGREED

Even though skycity will look to spend 70m or so renovating, by the time this got off the ground and built it would need another revamp! something this scale will take 10-15 years to redevelop properly and would have to occur in stages.... still very plausible to do, it just needs the balls and some money

Maximus_Marc · #66 Post by **Maximus_Marc** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:23 am

I'm sure most of you will agree with me but the council wouldn't, I say screw those parklands. Its only a small chunk out of a massive chunk and plus we've got them all around the CDB and I'm sure clearing some trees for some concreate will save us some water

. I think they have to do something to that area because if you have ever been down there its scary because weirdos hang around that area of the parklands and this is a good excuse to clear them out.

crawf · #67 Post by **crawf** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:28 pm

stelaras wrote:AGREED

Even though skycity will look to spend 70m or so renovating, by the time this got off the ground and built it would need another revamp! something this scale will take 10-15 years to redevelop properly and would have to occur in stages.... still very plausible to do, it just needs the balls and some money

I doubt Skycity will move 400m up the road, when theve just built a underground 450 carpark space.

People forget the Casino idea, its not going to happen for a long time.

#68 Post by **Ben** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:25 pm

crawf wrote:
stelaras wrote:AGREED

Even though skycity will look to spend 70m or so renovating, by the time this got off the ground and built it would need another revamp! something this scale will take 10-15 years to redevelop properly and would have to occur in stages.... still very plausible to do, it just needs the balls and some money
I doubt Skycity will move 400m up the road, when theve just built a underground 450 carpark space.

People forget the Casino idea, its not going to happen for a long time.

Crawf I think thats only proposed.

rhino · #69 Post by **rhino** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:42 am

Maximus_Marc wrote:I'm sure most of you will agree with me but the council wouldn't, I say screw those parklands. Its only a small chunk out of a massive chunk and plus we've got them all around the CDB and I'm sure clearing some trees for some concreate will save us some water . I think they have to do something to that area because if you have ever been down there its scary because weirdos hang around that area of the parklands and this is a good excuse to clear them out.

So many holes in this argument Mark. Once the first bit of parklands is surrendered for development, the precedent will have been set and you can kiss the rest of them goodbye too. Don't forget they are one of the things that sets Adelaide apart from other cities of the world.
Clearing some trees for some concrete will cost us a lot more water than keeping the trees. People use a lot more water than plants. You put those two apartment towers on that land and the people living in them, showering, doing their laundry, flushing their toilets, are going to use a huge amount of water.
Wierdos hanging around is a different problem and the solution is not to bulldoze the area and put something else there. If they're really unsavoury wierdos, they'll just move somewhere else. You won't be fixing the problem, just moving it to somebody else's patch.

stelaras · #70 Post by **stelaras** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:04 am

crawf,

i think your right something like this wont happen for a very long time....I think its needed though!

BDM even if the carpark is not proposed but approved it wouldnt matter anyway..car parking is a premium these days in a city...It wont go to waste it will get used and it will be profitable...

As for the parklands..Rhino your correct, if we start to eat into them precident would have been set, which means eventually our parklands would be eroded away... The water usage would be use compared to present usage if the area were to be developed.. However, the solution can be as simple as replacing any green avenues that have been removed for a development by recreating gardens and landscapes in general use areas, or by simple densely planting the surrounding parklands with more trees....

There is always a solution to a problem if people are prepared to think a little outside the box!

Dubai hardly has any water and yet they have managed to "greenify" (i know thats not a word!) a desert environment! Similarly, Libya under a fascist dictator col Gadafi built the appropriate infrustructure to "greenify" the Libyan cities

JAKJ · #71 Post by **JAKJ** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:28 am

I thought that the proposal was to build over the railyards... how exactly does this represent parklands? And the idea of "building in the parklands" Precedent is rubbish as well. The parklands have been eaten into many times - but in appropriate ways. This proposal doesn't involve the removal of actual useful or significant parklands, its being built on top of railways ffs!

It reminds me of the fuss some people are kicking up over the improvements to the Victoria Park Racecourse as infringing on the "sacred parklands" What a load of crock... these buildings are necessary for public events (motor races) which give so much to the city and its people. There is a track there anyway, the idea that stands/pits etc can't be built next to it is just plain stupid.

Wakefield and Colonel Light were very progressive people, and I can tell you that both of them would probable be disgusted with the conservative attitude of most Adelaidians.

rhino · #72 Post by **rhino** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 11:33 am

It comes down to what the land is zoned as, that the rail yards are on. If they're zoned as parkland, with the Railways given the rights to some of them (which I suspect is the case, but I could be wrong), then if the railways go from the area, it is supposed to revert to parkland. If the railways remain, that does not give a developer carte blanche to put something over the railyards. If the land is not designated parkland, then the situation is different.

JAKJ · #73 Post by **JAKJ** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 1:53 pm

rhino wrote:It comes down to what the land is zoned as, that the rail yards are on. If they're zoned as parkland, with the Railways given the rights to some of them (which I suspect is the case, but I could be wrong), then if the railways go from the area, it is supposed to revert to parkland. If the railways remain, that does not give a developer carte blanche to put something over the railyards. If the land is not designated parkland, then the situation is different.

Well then its a simple matter to redesignate it isn't it? Its been a good 130+ years since anything green grew in that area... It is not like they are goingto rip up the rail tracks either.. i believe they plan to build over them a la hyatt, convention centre etc.. Each case for development in the "parklands" should be taken on its own meritt, and in this example a development over the railways would markedly improve the area. It is not as if they are rplanning to build a casino/hotel in the middle of a park.... It seems that too many people in Adelaide are blinded by a their stubburn singlemindedness. If people did not bend the rules we wouldn't have:

Adelaide University, the State library, the art gallery, the museum, The hyatt, the convention centre bulidings, the railway station and a central railway network, the festival centre, the city circuit and hence 10 years of formula 1 and the current v8 supercar series, memorial drive tennis, Adelaide oval, Royal Adelaide Hosptial, bicentenial conservetry, wine centre, bus/tram depot house, Adelaide Zoo, Aquatic Centre, jollys boathouse and the red ochre restaurant

... All built on what was designated as parklands... This building will set no precedent.

tidus0 · #74 Post by **tidus0** » Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:16 pm

If the government really wants to save water and the parklands all they will have to do is plant plants that don't need all that water and still look good that would be ok

And if we get rid of every patch of trees there will be a higher amount of carbon dioxide around making it hard for us to breathe the point of trees are for our well being.

Ho Really · #75 Post by **Ho Really** » Sat Dec 09, 2006 12:01 pm

tidus0 wrote:If the government really wants to save water and the parklands all they will have to do is plant plants that don't need all that water and still look good that would be ok

You mean Australian native trees and shrubs.

Cheers

Discussion: Development of Adelaide Railyards

Who is online