Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Pants wrote:
Fair enough. Adelaide Oval's never going to be even half a bowl though and there aren't any other realistic options to deliver a stadium of this magnitude at this stage.
Are you happy with the 77% cover stat posted above? I'm no architect or engineer, but my guess is that you couldn't do too much better than that without a domed roof because of sight lines etc
i wonder if that 77% includes the areas between the "pillows" that doesn't seem to actually have a cover but is just framework?
but no, i'm not happy with it. really the only seats that shouldn't have cover is those around the Northern end of the ground.
I like the way the eastern and northern stand roofs match, but when it gets down to it it's a sports stadium not and art piece. It's No.1 purpose is to provide an arena for fans to enjoy watching sports.
the most important things for a stadium to provide the fans a quality experiance is a good quality playing surface, an apropriate capacity and comfortable experiance, all other aspects of the stadium design come after those imo.
To me the roof has been designed for summer shade, not winter cover. Will be great for cricket, the rugby 7's tournament and and AFL games when it's fine. But i just don't see the point of spending that much money and doing a half arsed job.
Will wrote:I am sick of this penis envy debate regarding a roof. Just because Melbourne has a roofed stadium does not mean we need to have one. Indeed, people will respect us more if we forge our own path instead of trying to be a clone of Melbourne. Realistically, how many games are affected by rain in Adelaide? I suspect far less than Melbounre. Indeed, for all those advocating a roof have you ever thought that the reason why there is a roofed stadium in Melbourne is because the weather over there is always winterry?
We do not need a roofed stadium. We do not need a stadium for every sport. The future is in mixed-use venues.
Is this a serious post or a wind-up?
I couldn't give two shits what Melbourne has, in fact i think Etihad is a crap stadium and would hate it if we built a copy of it here in Adelaide.
Why don't ya ask Port Adelaide fans how many games get affected by rain, it seemed like every second game last season for them it was wet.
It's 2010, ticket prices for games are near enough to $30, for that i expect a decent level of comfort and protection from the weather. It's not bloody penis envy for wanting a roof it's common bloody sense, if ya gonna do something it might as well be built properly or it won't make a differance to the crowds in bad weather.
You poor delicate petal. Should the new stadium also have reclining leather seats, a machine which makes warm cocoa for you and a private ensuite?
Pants wrote:
Fair enough. Adelaide Oval's never going to be even half a bowl though and there aren't any other realistic options to deliver a stadium of this magnitude at this stage.
Are you happy with the 77% cover stat posted above? I'm no architect or engineer, but my guess is that you couldn't do too much better than that without a domed roof because of sight lines etc
i wonder if that 77% includes the areas between the "pillows" that doesn't seem to actually have a cover but is just framework?
but no, i'm not happy with it. really the only seats that shouldn't have cover is those around the Northern end of the ground.
I like the way the eastern and northern stand roofs match, but when it gets down to it it's a sports stadium not and art piece. It's No.1 purpose is to provide an arena for fans to enjoy watching sports.
the most important things for a stadium to provide the fans a quality experiance is a good quality playing surface, an apropriate capacity and comfortable experiance, all other aspects of the stadium design come after those imo.
To me the roof has been designed for summer shade, not winter cover. Will be great for cricket, the rugby 7's tournament and and AFL games when it's fine. But i just don't see the point of spending that much money and doing a half arsed job.
I'd hazard a guess that there's some form of clear cover over the breaks between the 'pillows'. I'd find it hard to see how they could claim to have 77% cover when there are open gaps in the roof. The HD flyover seems to show some sort of cover, but it's hard to tell.
I really can't under stand the public's fundamental complaints. Other than people wanting a roof over the whole thing (which is unnecessary/unfeasible) or a stadium with 360 degree stands (which is never going to happen at AO and actually sets it apart from most high end stadiums around the world and adds to its considerable charm, even in its proposed redeveloped state) I can't see the problem. They're clearly not doing a half arsed job. Not for $535m. Having a look at the fly through it doesn't look like much expense has been spared. The glass exterior so you can look out over the city or the parklands is amazing and I'm sure they'll have all the bars/restaurants etc people will need.
My only real issue is capacity. They can't increase their footprint on the parklands much more so they're hamstrung in that respect, but it is a bit of an issue that we're spending all this money on a stadium that has less capacity than AAMI. Still, there's seemingly no more room at AO and no alternatives to bring football and cricket together and therefore spend this much money on a stadium other than AO, so what do you do?
I'd much rather have 50,000 in the CBD than 52,000 at West Lakes and even if 70,000 or so were possible at AO, even the biggest optimist wouldn't say with any certainty that it'd be filled more than once or twice a year (if that) over the next 20-30 years based on crowd figures for the Crows and Port since their inception and they way they're trending and even taking into account the ideal of bigger crowds in the city.
Pants wrote:Just had a look at the hard copy Advertiser... no red brick as I suggested before.
That's unfortunate. It actually kind of makes me angry. Red brick and the Hill are what makes Adelaide Oval, well, Adelaide Oval. I've got nothing against building new stands, but surely there ought to be some attempt at harmonising the new with the old.
Yeah it would have been a nice touch, but there are some red panels to give that slight nod to the past and they work really well with the glass. I think if this thing got built, the complaints would soon make way for a realisation that we've been able to get AFL and cricket together, in the CBD, all at one of the most famous grounds in the world, which has a tremendous backstory and has been made more relevant in the process.
I'm not one for overstatements, but I really think the mix of old and new, whilst pushing the friendship in terms of destroying AO's charm, will give us one of the best, most unique stadiums in the world. Where else are you going to find modern glass backed stands that look out over parklands, a river and a CBD, mixed with tree lined grassed areas for those who (crowd numbers permitting) want to have a lay down or a freaking picnic, with a 100-odd year old heritage scoreboard as a backdrop that sits next to a giant digital screen?
how_good_is_he wrote:Not having the footbridge undercover is a big mistake - most games played in winter + no umbrellas allowed into ground = your going to get very wet.
Wow.
Should we build underground tunnels through the whole city too in case you have to walk through it to get to the undercover footbridge?
I like it and I to wish people would get over this it needs roof...... this could end up being a very good thing for the CBD and Adelaide in general...... I am sick of the talk just build the thing so we can say bye bye to AAMI.
I do agree with a prevous post that I think eventually the hill will go for a stand the same as the city end giving it more capacity when we need it as stats tell us we do not need more than 50K at this oint in time so why pay for seats that just wont get use.
The one thing everyone forgets is if the Libs got in the same questions would be getting asked of thier stadium with car parking bt most importantly would theCrows and Power be better off at the Libs stadium than AAMI.
Izzy's excuses of not backing this project IMO are starting to get thin and she hasn't thought them out that well as on 5AA she said most people would have to parking in the city and walk 1/2 km to AO well to me that would be similar to their stadium plan is it not?
Just for the record I am a swing voter and voted for Izzy as liked their plans but Labor are in and AO is on the table and I quiet like it therefore support it plus I am over AAMI it is past it used by.
Pants wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that there's some form of clear cover over the breaks between the 'pillows'. I'd find it hard to see how they could claim to have 77% cover when there are open gaps in the roof. The HD flyover seems to show some sort of cover, but it's hard to tell.
I really can't under stand the public's fundamental complaints. Other than people wanting a roof over the whole thing (which is unnecessary/unfeasible) or a stadium with 360 degree stands (which is never going to happen at AO and actually sets it apart from most high end stadiums around the world and adds to its considerable charm, even in its proposed redeveloped state) I can't see the problem. They're clearly not doing a half arsed job. Not for $535m. Having a look at the fly through it doesn't look like much expense has been spared. The glass exterior so you can look out over the city or the parklands is amazing and I'm sure they'll have all the bars/restaurants etc people will need.
My only real issue is capacity. They can't increase their footprint on the parklands much more so they're hamstrung in that respect, but it is a bit of an issue that we're spending all this money on a stadium that has less capacity than AAMI. Still, there's seemingly no more room at AO and no alternatives to bring football and cricket together and therefore spend this much money on a stadium other than AO, so what do you do?
I'd much rather have 50,000 in the CBD than 52,000 at West Lakes and even if 70,000 or so were possible at AO, even the biggest optimist wouldn't say with any certainty that it'd be filled more than once or twice a year (if that) over the next 20-30 years based on crowd figures for the Crows and Port since their inception and they way they're trending and even taking into account the ideal of bigger crowds in the city.
my half-arsed comment was directed at the roof alone. Pretty much everything else about it i love, i think it is a great individual desined stadium that will be awesome with the open Northern end and will have great character. Imo it will be an iconic stadium rather than a generic bowl design that is being pumped out all over the world.
I may be whinging about the roof design but i still want it built, i just think it could be better.
If it turns out that their is a cover over the gaps between the pillows than my complaints are pretty much non-existant.
Has there been any more on the pitch size? Awhile back one of the people involved mentioned something about it being of a similar size to the SCG after redevelopment. This will change one of AO's long standing trademarks of having very long but narrow field and possibly make it FIFA compliant if the seating rake is steep enough to meet the FIFA viewing guidelines without the need for movable seating.
how_good_is_he wrote:I never thought common sense would be an optional extra ....
Common sense tells me that people are going to get wet walking to the undercover footbridge, be fine for, what 100m(?) walking across it and resume getting wet again when they step off onto the concourse, walk to the gate and wait to get through. You're not proposing they cover the whole freaking site... are you?
New design seems far better from an aesthetic viewpoint - the old one seems a 'bit tack on' due to incongruity - but this is only through observation of the fly through. VERY interesting when linked up to the riverbank development - I wonder if that is to draw people to spend time there as well via the bridge and VV. BIG spend up coming - over $1bn all up - you'd sure want something to happen. I won't know the place - all I know is the the old setup and won't see this development for some time now. Reminds me of...dare I say it.....Brisbane!. Big changes of a similar nature took place there from 1988 and kept going and going.
I agree the bridge should have cover to cater for all types who would attend sports matches there, numbers, crowds, delays in crossing.
how_good_is_he wrote:I never thought common sense would be an optional extra ....
Common sense tells me that people are going to get wet walking to the undercover footbridge, be fine for, what 100m(?) walking across it and resume getting wet again when they step off onto the concourse, walk to the gate and wait to get through. You're not proposing they cover the whole freaking site... are you?
Maybe people should just buy umbrellas. It'd save a heap of money.
Don't burn the Adelaide Parkland (preservation society)
iTouch(myself) wrote:
Maybe people should just buy umbrellas. It'd save a heap of money.
+1
And spend it on funding / maintaining good design elements in the plan rather than scrapping / scrimping on something that can never be replaced or upgraded in the future.
how bout we build a bubble over the entire Adelaide metro area, we can pump O2 into it and turn on the taps to make it rain when we feel like it. That way we wont have to worry about puuting a roof on Adelaide Oval, or over the footbridge. People will never get wet at inconvinient times! We can call it Truman Show MkII
