[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[waz94]

$751M.......................

This is getting so ridiculously embarrassing for this state that its starting to get laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Listening to the radio a couple of weeks back and Foley pretty much ridiculed the presenter for suggesting that the cost could reach $700M. Foley stated that there was no truth in the rumors that the figure could "blow out" to this amount and that it was all scaremongering. He obviously had a memory lapse again, which is becoming increasingly worrying.

Whilst I am all for getting away from AAMI stadium and into the CBD, I fear we are going to end up with a patched up stadium holding only 45,000 that will already be outdated by the time construction has been completed.

I must be naive because i still hold hope that RANN will put the whole thing on hold and at least look into the feasibility and costings of a brand new purpose built CBD stadium. After all when they were elected he stated that they would get back in touch with the SA public and reconnect with us all, to try and repair the arrogant and stubborn brand that Labor are peddling at the moment. Who cares if the Libs proposed it first, it may even win back some of us old Labor supporters from the past.

Do the best for SA cause at the moment i see the worlds most expensive white elephant being built (and an elephant you cant even ride).

[dave321]

Hi All,

I noticed not only on this forum but on others everyone seems to be getting wrapped up in the "cost blowout", as long as the State Gov stand strong on the $535M contribution and "thats it" surely like us all the SMA are just trying to haggle and gett a few extras "thrown in" at the end of the day the deal has been spelt out and the SMA could quote a final cost of $1B, but they would have to find the difference.

Notice the everyy second day report in The Advertiser has now dragged the Fottbridge into the equation, hasnt this been "tossed" around as a completely separate project for the last couple of years. - With regard to parking looks like a really good space next to the Morphett Street Bridge over the railyards to build a multistorey carpark if necessary - even walking distance to the oval and could be used for the expanded Convention Centre - I reckon we could even extend a tram service down King William Street??

SA Problem focused not Solution focused sometimes

[crawf]

I wonder if this project would have received so much negative crap from the media if the Libs were proposing to redevelop Adelaide Oval?

The Advertiser =

That article = x2

[monotonehell]

hardly surprising, considering that area is the only part of the parklands that is green all year round we hardly need it being destroyed by cars parking on it every week.

but they have been parking their cars on the parklands just north of the oval (up to Montifieori Hill), and on Pinky Flat for years and years. Every cricket game, and every SANFL game sees cars parked on those parklands. Have they not known this? Larger crowds also sees the Torrens Parade ground traditionally open for a carpark.

Also, cars park on Ovals 1 and 2 around AAMI Stadium each week. In fact most of the car parking around Football Park is on grass and the lawn seems to cope.

However if they want to drive then a minimum of $20-25 per car should be applied to the new Adelaide Oval

I worked for UPark back in the mid naughties. We did the management of the parking for all the parklands' sites including Pinky Flat, Church end, Triangle and the Hill, which are all the sections surrounding the Oval. Even with the light use seen during the year (the only constant use was the Redbacks matches, plus the larger events) the grass suffered terribly. At the behest of the Parklands Rangers we had to rotate the use of the sections, the Triangle most often as being the closest it saw the most use.

Their point is. with more regular use with the AFL the grass would be destroyed. This would be true, both in winter and summer. Cars do a lot more damage to grass than people give credit. Just look at the mud mire mess that the southern parklands become during the Royal Show (that was the worst outdoor venue to work due to the mud).

I'm with Clr. Plumridge on this point, improve PT and park people off site as much as possible. Although I have reservations regarding how this could be done to get people from CBD carparks to venues. Loads and loads of buses? Yikes.

[Waewick]

your joking right?

The Advertiser like the majority of papers in Australia is Labor leaning (I think the Australian and the Fin Review are the only one who lean toward the Libs)

perhaps it has got so much negative publicity because there are so many negatives about the project? Don't get me wrong i'm in the "get it down camp" but surely you can't just sweep all the problems under the "anti labor newspaper" carpet?

[ricecrackers]

your joking right?

The Advertiser like the majority of papers in Australia is Labor leaning (I think the Australian and the Fin Review are the only one who lean toward the Libs)

perhaps it has got so much negative publicity because there are so many negatives about the project? Don't get me wrong i'm in the "get it down camp" but surely you can't just sweep all the problems under the "anti labor newspaper" carpet?

are you serious?

[monotonehell]

your joking right?

The Advertiser like the majority of papers in Australia is Labor leaning (I think the Australian and the Fin Review are the only one who lean toward the Libs)

perhaps it has got so much negative publicity because there are so many negatives about the project? Don't get me wrong i'm in the "get it down camp" but surely you can't just sweep all the problems under the "anti labor newspaper" carpet?

are you serious?

LOL perhaps it's a case that the Advertiser is just negative all the time so people see it leaning away from whatever side of the political spectra they adhere to. I thought the Advertiser was very anti-Rann until he was re-elected. Unless they were just being lazy journos and ran with whatever the Libs pumped out each week?

Anyway that's a topic for the Pub.

[Pants]

SJ, if you're wondering why your last post disappeared, pick up a legal text book next time you're in a library, look up 'defamation' and keep what it says in mind every time you post.

I'd normally take this offline to PMs, but I want everyone else to keep it nice in this thread too.

Adelaide Now's hysteria inducing, sensationalist headlines seem to be doing their job.

[Waewick]

your joking right?

The Advertiser like the majority of papers in Australia is Labor leaning (I think the Australian and the Fin Review are the only one who lean toward the Libs)

perhaps it has got so much negative publicity because there are so many negatives about the project? Don't get me wrong i'm in the "get it down camp" but surely you can't just sweep all the problems under the "anti labor newspaper" carpet?

are you serious?

LOL perhaps it's a case that the Advertiser is just negative all the time so people see it leaning away from whatever side of the political spectra they adhere to. I thought the Advertiser was very anti-Rann until he was re-elected. Unless they were just being lazy journos and ran with whatever the Libs pumped out each week?

Anyway that's a topic for the Pub.

agreed, I think the Advertiser just thinks it can influence they way the state is run since there is no competition and some people still consider it a serious newspaper rather than a gossip column

[Waewick]

who is thise George Inglis clown from the property council?

has anyone read the article on the advertiser? seriously people like him make the state look silly. If I wanted to throw my money into something no one can expalin the details to i'll just play the pokies.

If I want to develop a world class stadium i'll want a bit more details thanks. Claiming people are anti-development simply because they want information on what we are spending tax payers money one reeks of immaturity.

Hopefully George Inglis can see the light and move somewhere else because we don't need his type bringing the state down with hysterics. I doubt the AO proposal would get done anywhere in the world based on the little information provided.

[crawf]

He is a idiot for even looking at the AdelaideNow comments section

All he is doing is giving more negative material the Advertiser can masturbate over. Fantastic

[crawf]

Check out the poll

Do you agree with George Inglis. Adelaide is a:
Backwater
Pissant town
Heaps good


FFS!!!!!!

[SRW]

your joking right?

The Advertiser like the majority of papers in Australia is Labor leaning (I think the Australian and the Fin Review are the only one who lean toward the Libs)

perhaps it has got so much negative publicity because there are so many negatives about the project? Don't get me wrong i'm in the "get it down camp" but surely you can't just sweep all the problems under the "anti labor newspaper" carpet?

I don't know who you think's joking, but I can't help but wonder if you are. The majority of papers in this country being Murdoch Press -- as in Rupert Murdoch, who runs Fox News -- you must be. Of course, you're right that there are negatives enough to this project, but I couldn't let your suggestion slide. Though I think it is worth remembering that NewsCorp is more interested in selling papers then anything else, so when the initial good news factor of a project dissipates, what to do but beat it up?

[iTouch]

GUYS LOOK AT WHAT'S BECOMING OF US OVER A SILLY OVAL DEVELOPMENT THAT LACKS ANY HEIGHT!!!
It's tearing us apart... and meanwhile the Advertiser is loving it!! We need to unite and stand tall against NIMBY's and ignorance!! We need to FIGHT BACK

[ghs]

700 million is what is would cost if there were some extra features added.

535 million is still the amount allocated for the project without the extras.

If you add extra features to any project the cost is going to increase. This
is just the media making something out of nothing.