[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[crawf]

According to Ten News there is a strong chance of both the SANFL and SACA coming to an agreement within the deadline.

[Hooligan]

3 weeks until deadline today. It's kind of like waiting for christmas

[Prince George]

Well, colour me wrong Adelaide Oval carpark negotiations delayed

THE Stadium Management Authority won't negotiate the contentious issue of car parking for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment until after the Adelaide City Council elections in November, SANFL boss Leigh Whicker has said.

Mr Whicker met the Council behind closed doors this evening, where he moved to assure it the SMA was taking the parking concerns very seriously.

Although it's not clear from this what the discussions were about - the "concerns" will certainly include the question of what the parking structure would actually be and their location in the parklands.

[Pants]

Numbers add up for AFL at Adelaide Oval
Michelangelo Rucci From: The Advertiser August 10, 2010 11:12pm 16 comments


HERE are the numbers that have sealed the deal to return elite football back to Adelaide Oval in 2014:

$8.1 MILLION uplift in revenue.

$6.2 MILLION return after $1.9m is allocated for the upkeep of AAMI Stadium as a back-up AFL and SANFL venue.

70 PER CENT INCREASE in Port Adelaide season-ticket sales (from 13,600 to 23,000).

27 PER CENT INCREASE in Power crowds (from average of 24,300 to 31,000).

12 PER CENT INCREASE in Adelaide season-ticket sales (24,700 to 27,600).

8 PER CENT INCREASE in Crows crowds (39,000 to 42,000).

These financials - delivered by the SANFL to its AFL clubs and key stakeholders in a six-hour workshop at AAMI Stadium yesterday - prove football cannot pass up its part in the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.

The numbers, in contrast to the upbeat figures delivered by AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou last week, are based on the SANFL's extensive market research. They are also the so-called "lean" or conservative projections.

"All involved have embraced what they have seen today with a great deal of enthusiasm," said SANFL chief executive Leigh Whicker yesterday.

"We have made significant ground today - and the SANFL clubs now have great confidence to move forward (on the Adelaide Oval project).

"Both the Adelaide and Port Adelaide football clubs are way behind in stadium yield compared to other AFL clubs. With new memberships, new facilities and new corporate options in the city, the gross uplift is around $8 million.

"And that takes into account the loss of naming rights at AAMI Stadium ($1 m a year).

"Our two AFL clubs are very buoyed by the numbers they have seen today. And the SANFL clubs see their future underpinned by the asset we have at AAMI Stadium.

"We would be better off moving to Adelaide Oval."

Here are the outstanding issues that will linger beyond the SANFL reaching an in-principle agreement with the SA Cricket Association at the end of the month, the deadline set by the State Government which has committed $535 m to the new 50,00-seat Oval:

A LEGAL partnership - dubbed "the promoters' agreement" - setting the terms of the SANFL-SACA joint venture at Adelaide Oval.

A CARPARK centre, with 1200 spots, on the western side of Adelaide Oval. This $45 m project could still become a joint venture with the city council or a private investor.

CONTROL of the parklands in the Adelaide Oval precinct with the Stadium Management Authority wanting statutory administration of the area transferred from the Adelaide City Council to the State Government.

"Adelaide Oval is cited on parklands - and we respect that," said Whicker.

FEDERAL Government funding, with Whicker vowing to hit Canberra after the August 21 election.

"That is an option," said Whicker. "It is well known the Federal Government wants a FIFA-complaint venue in Adelaide. We are delivering on two key components with a laser-flat surface costing $6 million and FIFA-complaint lights."

Not negotiable with the SANFL are:

DROP-IN pitches at Adelaide Oval.

"That is resolved with cricket, way back - there will be lift-in, lift-out pitches," said Whicker.

NO funding by the SANFL of potential cost blow-outs.

"We are very clear on two issues," said Whicker. "The State Government will not put in more money - and categorically the SANFL will not contribute one cent to this project.

"Any gaps is a matter the Stadium Management Authority will have to work through, perhaps with private investors in commercial ventures such as the carpark. But we will not compromise football in this project."

[mattblack]

Not sure about other grounds but AO has always been accessible. Security might become an issue but there is probably some clause that requires the groung to be open to the public (at least the seating area anyway) because it is in the parklands and there is also a bowling club within the grounds. Doesnt seem to be an issue though. I used to work at Upton Park (West Ham United) in London and you needed security cards if you wanted to get beyond reception.

[Xaragmata]

There is a sign at the southern entrance asking visitors to report to Reception, who are very friendly and will point out the narrow path that leads into
the oval - only request was that I don't go onto the oval grass, which I wouldn't do anyway. Bradman collection is near Reception and worth a look, and
guided tours are available daily - I want to do the afternoon tour when they start again in October.

[Waewick]

i'm fairly confident that the reason they have to let people on is because its still technically parklands but has been provided to the SACA to play cricket on.

similar to Unley Oval.

[stumpjumper]

I'm just going off the top of my head here, but isn't the ACC's influence on this development limited to the issue of using the surrounding parklands for parking?

Agreed, Pants, ACC is also interested in the alleged encroachment of the construction into Creswell Gardens. ACC is also the landlord (they are the 'managers' of the Park Lands under the Park Lands Act) and they also administer planning and building code approvals. As a result, ACC councillors are sensitive to voters. Technically, ACC also has to approve 'commercial use' of the Park Lands, although there are now plenty of precedents for that.

A carpark will cost about $25K per park for an above ground carpark and a lot more per park for an underground one.

Apart from the all the secrecy and game playing there are other unsatisfactory aspects of this project. Despite spending around a billion, we won't have any more actual sports seats than we had to begin with. Plus there's the matter of who pays for any square metres of Park Lands the project will use. The answer is 'no-one pays', despite the millions which will result from that use.

HERE are the numbers that have sealed the deal to return elite football back to Adelaide Oval in 2014:

$8.1 MILLION uplift in revenue.

$6.2 MILLION return after $1.9m is allocated for the upkeep of AAMI Stadium as a back-up AFL and SANFL venue.

70 PER CENT INCREASE in Port Adelaide season-ticket sales (from 13,600 to 23,000).

27 PER CENT INCREASE in Power crowds (from average of 24,300 to 31,000).

12 PER CENT INCREASE in Adelaide season-ticket sales (24,700 to 27,600).

8 PER CENT INCREASE in Crows crowds (39,000 to 42,000).

Figures like these are often provided by promoters of the project to support their own case, and are notoriously unreliable. I'd like to know if anyone is prepared to put their name to these figures. Why, for example, will footy at AO attract more Power supporters than at AAMI? Remember that the National Wine Centre was supposed to attract 3,000 visitors per week. The estimate was out by a factor of ten and the government gave the $100-million-plus building to Adelaide Uni.

[stumpjumper]

You have to shake your head...

The Government Steering Committee and the Stadium Management Authority, which are key elements of the project, will be replaced by a new structure being drawn up by Infrastructure Minister Patrick Conlon.

Mr Conlon said the overwhelming mood between parties was one of optimism and he was buoyant about how the project was going.

So if the horse is a dud, hire a new jockey, regardless of cost. This project is a poor solution to the problem of providing Adelaide with up to date sporting facility. So far it's been a textbook case of how to waste money. There has been no proper analysis at any stage of SA's sporting needs with regard to stadiums and no analysis of what our options might be to achieve them. All we get is post-justification from those involved. IMHO, we should have a moratorium on this dysfunctionally and amateurly managed 'eastern development' and have a serious look at our needs and options before it's too late. Remember that once we've spent almost a billion, we will have almost the same number of seats and venues as we do now. What a waste of an opportunity.

[mattblack]

Good GOD !! Its like reading Adelaide Now. I accidently opened this thinking that is was the construction thread, how stupid of me. Enjoy groundhog day on this thread guys, Ill be on the construction thread where this are happy and sunny and the new stand is looking BLOODY AWSOME.

[metro]

yep i always open it thinking it's the construction thread. Could we rename this thread to 'stumphumper's adelaide oval whinge thread'?

[cruel_world00]

To be fair, stumpjumper's comments, albeit skewed towards negativity, are there for the sole purpose of wanting what's best for Adelaide.

[stumpjumper]

Sorry to disappoint, gentlemen.

Just for the record, I'm far from being anti-development or against the provision of better sports facilities for Adelaide. I just cannot see the logic or value in modifying Adelaide Oval, and further I think the way the AO project is being handled is incompetent.

I'm in favour of the following construction (or any rational alternative with regard to design or site):

- A new, purpose-built 50,000-80,0000 seat stadium, covered or not, adjacent North Tce on the 'railyards' site
- Next to it, a 50m public swimming pool, replacing the Aquatic Centre in North Adelaide
- A multi-level carpark nearby
- AIS headquarters

and perhaps while we're at it, a redevelopment of the Newmarket Hotel into a casino including a hotel tower to support both the casino and the stadium complex.

The above, or something like it, would provide us with additional sports seating capacity, abutting the entertainment precinct of the CBD using existing transport infrastructure. IThere would be symbiosis with local businesses and the proximity of the new facilities would encourage UniSA to develop its sports science courses. What's more, it's likely that the carpark would be privately funded.

Now, if the scheme above were proposed, and anyone argued that instead we should retrofit Adelaide Oval with all its difficulties, and without adding any sports seating capacity for Adelaide, most posters here would laugh.

Sadly, politics has intervened - a complex story which has resulted in the full public funding of an irrational but politically expedient Frankenstein of a project with no net gain of seats which will stuff for years the chances of Adelaide getting a 'world class' stadium.

[metro]

sounds like a good plan, but it's all a fantasy with the new RAH being built there. i think the rebuild of AO is sufficient for our needs, it will bring AFL games back to the CBD and hopefully breathe some life into an under-used part of the riverbank and festival centre. there will still be space near the new hospital for a casino and entertainment precinct fronting the riverbank or on the Newmarket Hotel site, so it's not really a complete loss.

and for better sporting facilities like the 80,000 seat stadium you are describing, we probably wont need anything like that until Adelaide has over 2mil ppl, and if we need new city stadiums etc...there is plenty of space over at Keswick/Mile end which could become a nice TOD close to the city, probably not likely to happen this half of the century tho..

[stumpjumper]

sounds like a good plan, but it's all a fantasy with the new RAH being built there.

That's what I mean - our dysfunctional brand of politics has intervened. If either Liberals or Labor had the ability to agree on something instead of having to 'differentiate' their 'brands' on every issue including a revamped hospital, and if Rann and co didn't have to mark their time in power by a massive public project at a city gateway, then long-suffering punters of SA might be spared the waste and inefficiency of projects where decisions are made according to politics instead of in response to the site or client needs or economics.

Without politics intervening, specifically the 2010 state election, no-one in their right mind would prefer to make over the Adelaide Oval in preference to building a new stadium on the railyard site. Nor would anyone want to build a utility structure like a hospital on a superb, gateway Park Lands site like the former TransAdelaide railyard site.

The two decisions defy logic, let alone basic planning considerations. They both involve unnecessary expense for no advantage, and do not consider the effects on nearby businesses and properties. In the case of the AO redevelopment, even the prospective tenants have to be dragged kicking and screaming to participate, with guarantees that the move will not cost them one cent, ever, and that the move will substantially increase their incomes for ever. And they still haven't agreed!

The only loser is the SA public, who not only pay for the development and underwrite the income guarantees, but lose out by getting poor value for money compared with alternatives!