[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Nort]

to jk1237

you are right about that its easy to get 300,000 people into the city but that is beacuse

1. half the city is blocked off
2. no one else is wants to go in the city on pagaent day as its a nightmare after

also, the whole idea of transport is not about if it can be done or not...its about creating a culture.

melbourne has a transport culture....trams, southern cross, flinders, we dont....it is imperative for a number of reasons why public transport to the city is world class....

If only there was some plan to upgrade all the train lines and rolling stock and connect the main Adelaide train station directly to Adelaide Oval.

Adelaides public transport isn't bad at all. Much of a public transport culture comes from it being easier to catch public transport than to drive. In our case the problem isn't that the public transport isn't up to snuff, rather that it is incredibly easy to drive everywhere due to a relatively small population meaning little congestion and a young city that has had many of its suburbs designed around the car.

[Omicron]

I'm sorry, but I'm still yet to be convinced that anyone other than muffins and Toilet Ducks have been involved with the entire Adelaide Oval saga. It's such a poorly-thought-out, ill-advised mish-mash that compromises on far, far too many aspects of best-practice stadium design and still hasn't been justified by raw data illustrating the financial advantages of the project (and I mean distinct from media/forum/public speculation presented as fact). I cannot believe half a billion dollars is to be so effortlessly whisked out of our pockets and blessed upon a development that any self-respecting organisation would be far too embarrassed to present to the public as their optimal solution.

Even worse than no development is a painfully cynical, watered-down one; where better takes a back seat to shiny and new.

/soapbox

Explain yourself man!

Oh, BLAST it all. I had a lovely post written with all sorts of big words but apparently took too long, so when I hit submit, it took away all the words and demanded I log in again.

I have to regain my thoughts.

[stumpjumper]

Bringing the RAH into this stadium development discussusion is a bit like clutching at straws

Although Rann's political investment in the hospital site is the reason that the government cannot accept a railyard location as an alternative location for a stadium, even if the railway site were twice as good and a stadium there were cheaper than the cost of retrofitting Adelaide Oval.

Unfortunately, logic went out the window a while ago on this project. .

[spiller]

Bringing the RAH into this stadium development discussusion is a bit like clutching at straws

Although Rann's political investment in the hospital site is the reason that the government cannot accept a railyard location as an alternative location for a stadium, even if the railway site were twice as good and a stadium there were cheaper than the cost of retrofitting Adelaide Oval.

Unfortunately, logic went out the window a while ago on this project. .

some point SJ, but arguably, the AO site is better than the railyard site (maybe not from a greeny NIMBY point of view) and the retrofit (whilst expensive) will still be less costly than a brand new stadium. I see where you are coming from with Rann and his illogical policies, you may be right, AO may have been a counter-attack against the libs proposal at election time, and i'm sure there are flaws, but somehow, Rann has just enough up his sleeve to pull off his argument against the libs proposal. Whether it's because he and foley really are the kings of spin or whether it was just a big heap of politcal luck that they have been able to run with this for so long, the G.P. will never know. We could end up with "The accidental Adelaide Oval". Maybe one day they'll make a "Rann" movie ala "Hawke"and all will be revealed

[contractor]

also for when i am in the RAH, the last thing that i would want is a train roaring through underneath me..let alone or the drunk idiots from the so called entertainment precint adjacent to the RAH

yeah, because resting patient's will be woken from vibrations of the trains beneath them...in a $1.7 billion building .

Also, I would have thought the current site for the RAH is pretty darn close to MORE entertainment hot spots than the site for the new development. FWIW i'm neither here nor there with the RAH development, AND i'm a swing voter. Bringing the RAH into this stadium development discussusion is a bit like clutching at straws

Engineers overcome these vibrations by incorporating acoutic bearings between the top of the columns and floor slab. This worked for the Adelaide Convention Centre

[flavze]

Their may be some negative aspects to commuting to AO over AAMI for some people and for some and i suspect the majority it will be easier and better. People may have to change and adapt to doing things differantly but that happens with many aspects of peoples lives over time.

Personally i think AO is the perfect location for a multi-use stadium, it's just about making it a quality stadium and getting value for money. For me it's not wether it's gonna cost $500 mill, $800 mill or a billion, if we are getting quality, well thought out value for money infrastructure thats going to benefit the public and not just pampering to small groups and being used for political "brownie points"

[spiller]

also for when i am in the RAH, the last thing that i would want is a train roaring through underneath me..let alone or the drunk idiots from the so called entertainment precint adjacent to the RAH

yeah, because resting patient's will be woken from vibrations of the trains beneath them...in a $1.7 billion building .

Also, I would have thought the current site for the RAH is pretty darn close to MORE entertainment hot spots than the site for the new development. FWIW i'm neither here nor there with the RAH development, AND i'm a swing voter. Bringing the RAH into this stadium development discussusion is a bit like clutching at straws

Engineers overcome these vibrations by incorporating acoutic bearings between the top of the columns and floor slab. This worked for the Adelaide Convention Centre

of course it did, and it has been done many times before. i was being sarcastic with my comments about the trains in response to whomever posted about not wanting to be in the RAH with noisy trains underneath.

[contractor]

Ah, missed the sarcasm. I would have understood had you said something like 'the river torrens will provide a fantastic outdoor space for people recovering from operations.'

My question is where is Kate Ellis? She IS the sports minister and lives in Adelaide. She if anyone should push for some type of resolution or at least enter the debate given Kevin Rudd's departure and associated gag on his party members.

Time to step up Kate Ellis.

[Will]

to jk1237

you are right about that its easy to get 300,000 people into the city but that is beacuse

1. half the city is blocked off
2. no one else is wants to go in the city on pagaent day as its a nightmare after

also, the whole idea of transport is not about if it can be done or not...its about creating a culture.

melbourne has a transport culture....trams, southern cross, flinders, we dont....it is imperative for a number of reasons why public transport to the city is world class....

also for when i am in the RAH, the last thing that i would want is a train roaring through underneath me..let alone or the drunk idiots from the so called entertainment precint adjacent to the RAH.

and also for people to say that there are so many not wanting progress in this city..is crap...i voted liberal...you cannot tell me that i didnt want progress...i voted for common sense

in 2022 we are all going to regret this

One of the central pillars in your arguement to oppose the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is that it has insufficient parking and will thus promote drink-driving. This, despite the fact that Adelaide Oval is less than 500m from the central train station and a tram station, not to mention the dozens of bus stops on KWS.

You lament the fact that Adelaide lacks the ''culture' to have widespread public transport compared to melbourne, and hence why a redeveloped Adelaide Oval would not work. Why do you think Melbourne has the public transport culture? It is not because the public transport there is 'world class'', but rather because when people in Melbourne think about going to a game of footy, they employ a çost-benefit analysis regarding whether to drive their car. In melbourne, the cost-benefit analysis ususally favours public transport, as parking is expensive there, there are few carparks, and driving to the game is difficult. In Adelaide, the difference is that the same cost-benefit analysis favours driving. Not because our public transport is bad, but because there is plentiful parking in the city, parking is cheap and traffic is light.

Therefore, I am confused as to how you can be opposed to the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval because of the issue of parking, and then lament the lack of a 'public transport culture' in Adelaide.

To create a public transport culture, you need to make driving more difficult and expensive. No matter the location, humans will prefer to drive. To reverse this mindset, you need to shift the cost-benefit analysis in favour of public transport.

Creating a copy and paste Docklands Stadium in Adelaide with a retractable roof isn't going to change the public transport culture in Adelaide.

[minale01]

But why not kill two birds with one stone....

im saying, make fewer carparks
make people take public transport...its good for the environment and its the most efficient way to people to move.
the very fact that adelaide cbd is very good to drive a car into is an actual weakness...it does not create a culture.....you have to make it enticing...i hate going to aami..standing up on a crowded bus for 40 mins to an hour...thats why this train station (like the g in melbourne and telstra dome) richmond station and southern cross are so good....it created a hub, a culture beacuse it drew people, there are shops, resteraunts, bars etc
ours is going to be hospital and a crappy casino.

i'm not talking about nowadays but what is going to happen in 2022 and beyond.....Adelaide will need a major infrastructure spend to cope with
1. population increase
2. adelaide cbd population increase
3. major events

im all for the adelaide oval redevelopment....but, i just think that your argument favours driving cars....the whole point about a culture is efficiency...melboyrne transport system is world class..thats why people use it....does melbourne have concrete high rise car parks...i think not

[crawf]

Um what about the countless number of restaurants, bars, cafes, shops etc right in the vicinity of the Adelaide train station?

Melbourne's public transport might be better than than Adelaide, but Melbourne's public transport is far from world class. Their train system is a joke and I'm sure you've heard about the wonderful Myki ticket system.

[stumpjumper]

A rational consideration of our options, even at this stage with the western side of AO nearing completion, is still possible. But if we can somehow remove politics, sports partisanry and other short term issues from the mix, there are still a few areas of wide general interest that need exploring, imho.

If the main reason that the full redevelopment of AO should go ahead is that the Trans Adelaide ('the railway') site is to be used for the new RAH, then consider these likely risks/results (whatever you like to call them):

- The likely effect of the hospital move on the East End of Adelaide. RAH is a huge employer, a source of thousands of the patrons who underpin the success of the East End's small business from early to late. Note that the average hospital employee has more cash to spend than the average University of Adelaide student. In addition to the pubs, cafes, restaurants and boutiques, the RAH supports a large short term accommodation industry (constructed but not operated with vast public subsidy - remember the State Bank property dissolution?).

- Without the RAH as an adjacent teaching hospital, and without a merging of Adelaide Uni and UNISA, the future of Adelaide Uni's medical school, its associated medical science operations and the various clinical outfits such as the IMVS, Hanson Centre for cancer research and others becomes somewhat problematic. With the RAH at the railway site, how long will it be before UNISA begins to offer medical science courses? The question is not so much of competition, but efficiency and resource allocation and duplication.

On the other hand, a stadium on the rail site will not only invigorate the West End as it caters for new 'sports' business - patrons, participants etc - without risking existing businesses and investment in the East End.

Imagine - (free your mind for a moment from the morass of football/cricket/state and federal politics across the river) - for a moment what could be built over the next few years. Imagine a new general sports stadium (with cricket still centred at our unique Adelaide Oval). Integral with Adelaide Stadium, even sharing some of its structure, facilities and systems such as heating, ventilation and air conditioning, is a brand new Olympic pool to replace the long in the tooth swimming centre in the parklands. Add to this combined facility a new home, including accommodation, for the Australian Institute of Sport, using UNISA's lecture theatres and as well as the stadium perhaps, the much cheaper to use and extensive sports grounds in the west parklands and around Adelaide High School.

Transport isn't an issue here, with rail, tram, bus, car and pedestrian access on the doorstep, with ample room for parking and very little new infrastructure required beyond a 'Stadium' rail station.

This proposal, or something like it, considers the project as part of the city's entire infrastructure and usage matrix. Too many developments in Adelaide are 'selfish' - they are so driven by a site and its developer that they ignore the overall fit to the city. As a result, if the fit is poor, which it often is in terms of access or effect on existing usages, there are expensive, retrofitted afterthoughts reqwuired. In Adelaide Oval's case: access, parking and transport.

Now look south (and up!). Amazing! The venerable Newmarket Hotel has been gutted, with its classical three storey stone exterior used as a plinth for a 20 storey hotel. Once you're used to that idea, which is supported by the current planning regime, imagine not just a hotel but a casino, with a grand foyer featuring the Newmarket Hotel's incredible three storey winding staircase. Adelaide Casino wants to move anyway, and half a dozen lower floors of the new hotel might suit it perfectly, perhaps with a top floor for the high roller rooms. Finding a use for the old casino shouldn't be a problem. Think of a Performing Arts University as an annexe to the Festival Theatre complex. Such a reuse of the old casino should be no risk to the existing adjacent businesses on North Terrace, and in any case the transport connections to the new Adelaide Stadium precinct are immaculate thanks to transport wunderkind Conlon's tram.

And looking up from the new stadium - the piece de resistance, a skybridge from the plinth promenade level of the Newmarket Hotel/casino to the stadium itself.

There's an honourable way out for everyone at Adelaide Oval. Just stop. Everyone has a good reason to, and a properly, responsibly master-planned alternative will provide better facilities and be more economical, wasting less existing investment. There would be less risk ton existing business, and the proposal would not waste the magnificent gateway site sloping from the university to the river on what is fundamentally a utility, and for all the good things about a hospital, not a place anyone really wants to visit.

Now - dream on - a new national/metropolitan rail station at the old Adelaide Gaol. Next to it, a bus station at the Police Barracks which the police are keen to leave, with the Franklin Street site easily redeveloped...

But the present focus is our sports facilities. But while the rest can wait, anything we do should be part of an effective master plan, not just the vision of one stakeholder, conditioned (because it's South Australia) by local politics.

[Pants]

Leaving aside the pure fantasy, you're really not getting too far with the argument about the waste associated with demolition of the Bradman and Chappell stands. In what universe is a say $580-650million stadium more economical than a likely $1billion plus stadium?

[stumpjumper]

Leaving aside the pure fantasy, you're really not getting too far with the argument about the waste associated with demolition of the Bradman and Chappell stands. In what universe is a say $580-650million stadium more economical than a likely $1billion plus stadium?

I agree that the waste of the embodied capital and energy inputs in the Bradman and Chappell stands are a relatively minor objection to the AOSMA proposal, although the objection is still valid. Apart from the fantasy, as you say, of casino towers and skywalks, my argument is really about considering the whole cost of a proposal. Triple bottom line accounting, if you like. The full deal of the RAH/AOSMA scenario involves a lot of expenditure additional to the core projects of the hospital and the oval redevelopment.

There are the access/parking/transport problems I mentioned: AOSMA seems to expect most of this work needed for the oval plan to work to be provided 'by others'.

Then there is the question of 'collateral damage' - the knock-on effects of the finished development on other businesses: the commercial health of the East End and the effect on the universities.

Look what used to happen in small shopping strips when the post office or the supermarket relocated - the centre of gravity moved and it sometimes took years of expensive adjustment by other businesses before things began to run smoothly again.

So as to cost, I wouldn't mind betting that the costs attributable to a finished AOSMA project are well in excess of '$580-650 million' - probably more than the cost of a new stadium. Add to this the income lost by not being able to sell AAMI, and Adelaide Oval becomes a very expensive proposition, which would not work as well as a new stadium even closer to the city, with a pool combined etc etc.

Two more points:

First, you might say that any loss in the East End will be balanced by gains in the West End from the new hospital - true, but leaving the RAH in situ not only saves the East End the losses, but the West End is strill advantaged by the proximity of the new stadium.

Second, I'm no rabid greenie, but I have yet to see much in the way of sustainable practice in the AOSMA proposal. OK, it's early days, but where in the grand plan is the rainwater harvesting etc? Such things may be at a higher level of detail, but the word sustainable is conspicuously absent from Ian McLachlan's rhetoric about his baby.

Thanks for reading my slab of text anyway Pants. I'm glad someone did!

Back to dreaming - it's AFL Grand Final night 2015... with the right to a home grand final after consecutive GF wins, Port Power are taking on the Adelaide Cows in Adelaide's new stadium on North Terrace. After watching, as guests of Power president Choco in a VIP box, the Power's resounding win over the Cows, my elegant partner and I stroll across the skybridge to the casino. After breaking the bank there, we are on the promenade atop the Newmarket pub, from where we can just make out the residential towers of the redeveloped AAMI site.

'Let's go to Rio,' purrs my beautiful partner.

I call the sleek black chopper on the helipad many storeys above...

Now that's what I call development!

[rev]

melbourne has a transport culture....trams, southern cross, flinders, we dont....it is imperative for a number of reasons why public transport to the city is world class....

People need to stop throwing around terms like world class so easily.
I blame this syndrome on the Advertiser.
We don't need things to be up to "world class" we need things to be right for Adelaide.

also for when i am in the RAH, the last thing that i would want is a train roaring through underneath me..let alone or the drunk idiots from the so called entertainment precint adjacent to the RAH.

The current RAH site is next to the East End precinct, Rundle Street has numerous pubs and a couple clubs and plenty of drunks. There is also a pub right across the road from the RAH, and PJ Obriens etc right around the side to that. It's never been an issue, so why would be an issue on the other end of North Terrace?

and also for people to say that there are so many not wanting progress in this city..is crap...i voted liberal...you cannot tell me that i didnt want progress...i voted for common sense
in 2022 we are all going to regret this

It's a valid argument because it's true actually. There are plenty of people who hold some pretty dated and defeatist attitudes when it comes to Adelaide and South Australia.