[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[spiller]

If people realised how stupid all this whinging makes us look compared to the rest of the country, they may actually start to take offence and change their attitude.

Just an observation: It's typical of smaller towns (like us) to imagine that the residents of larger towns (like Melbourne) are gleefully watching us discuss development alternatives rather than 'just building it'. In fact, in my experience people in Melbourne give about as much thought to what we are doing in Adelaide as we do to what people are doing in Port Lincoln. In other words, they don't give a r*ts a*se about it, so we should stop stressing and just try to do what's best for us.

Prostitute to naked client: 'Ha ha! Who do you think you're going to satisfy with that!?

Client: 'Me.'

probably right, but indirectly our lack of decision making leaves us in a position for melbournians to designate US "no hope" CITY. You're right, a lot of them couldn't care less about whats happening in Adelaide but many will also label Adelaide as a "nothing going on" town with little idea of what actually happens over here (as many of these people have never even visited Adelaide). They must draw their conclusions from somewhere.

[Prince George]

probably right, but indirectly our lack of decision making leaves us in a position for melbournians to designate US "no hope" CITY. You're right, a lot of them couldn't care less about whats happening in Adelaide but many will also label Adelaide as a "nothing going on" town with little idea of what actually happens over here (as many of these people have never even visited Adelaide). They must draw their conclusions from somewhere.

Sadly narratives take on a life and reality of their own. In our case, Adelaide seems to take the role that philosophy calls the Other, an external group that you use to define yourself by contrasting yourself against them, giving them the negative qualities you don't want in yourself. When they say "nothing goes on in Adelaide", they are hanging that role on us and reassuring themselves that things are going on in <wherever they are>. When they say "Adelaide is full of serial killers", they are suppressing their own memories of brutal, horrific crimes. When they say "Adelaide is a drain on the economy and we ought to cut them loose", they are reassuring themselves that they are productive and useful.

Changing those attitudes may be impossibly hard, because it's not just a matter of facts - this forms part of their own identity, changing what they think of Adelaide would make their own self-image unstable. The real tragedy is that we start to believe it ourselves, that's the burden of being in an environment where we hear that over and over again. The question then is, what would it take for Adelaideans to shake off that negative self-talk?

[Kasey771]

I'm a SACA member and I intend to vote yes unless a great big glaring hole in the proposal is brought to my attention in the meeting on May2nd. Needing 75% and with ADL's natural "keep ADL in the 50s" mentality, I just can't see this getting up:( It would then take a very brave State Govt to compulsorily ram it through...can't see that happening either:( Bugger, this looks like a great proposal for not just the Oval but the riverfront...

[King]

Non-SACA member voting no, on the basis that I am not happy with the design proposal. It's a terrible deisgn, has no redeeming architectural features and insufficient capacity.

Would vote yes if an alternative design were put forth; echoing the Liberal's sentiments of a fully enclosed indoor city stadium of at least 60,000 capacity on the AO grounds. I've gotten over the question of location; as AO is probably, realistically a better site than the railyards.

[Waewick]

in regards to the Adelaide Attitude I actually don't think people are anti-development at all - this is purely from discussions I have had with a number of people

it appears, that mand South Australians are happy "as is" unless any proposed developments - in their view are the best possible outcome.

So in relation to AO - the dispute doesn't appear to be with the redevelopment of AO it is the perceived ideal that there is a better option and we should sit on our hands until that option can be done.

If you go through posts on this forum in general it is fairly similar on that front with all development with people rubbishing developments because "it could be better"

In reality everything "could be better" and you can always wait "to get the cutting edge" stuff.

but in reality at any given time people can do 1 development, if that development is greater than what is the current situation it should be seen as a good thing (this isn't an open slather kind of thing, i'm not suggesting that at all.)

but no glass boxes

[Will]

Non-SACA member voting no, on the basis that I am not happy with the design proposal. It's a terrible deisgn, has no redeeming architectural features and insufficient capacity.

Would vote yes if an alternative design were put forth; echoing the Liberal's sentiments of a fully enclosed indoor city stadium of at least 60,000 capacity on the AO grounds. I've gotten over the question of location; as AO is probably, realistically a better site than the railyards.

Why can't people understand that the choice is Adelaide Oval or nothing?

There is no plan B. A 'no' vote will not mean that somehow magically a railyards clone of Docklands will pop up. It will mean that we will be stuck with AAMI for another generation. It will mean that we will miss out on AFL in the city for another generation, it will mean missing out on $111 million in economic activity in the city, it will mean no $250 million casino redevelopment.....

People need to move on from the last election.


Turning the tables, let's say the Liberals had won in 2010. Even though I personally prefer a new hospital, I cannot see myself voting no against a redeveloped RAH, if the choice was redeveloping the RAH or doing nothing. I wouldn't vote no due to some delusional belief that a future Labor government may revive an election pledge from 2010. Political aprties move on. Who is to say that the Liberals will still be advocating for a clone of Docklands at the 2014 election?

[metro]

very true Will, wasnt it the Liberals in opposition who were proposing the Tram be extended in the early 90s? and look at how they opposed it when Labor started it in 2006

[silverscreen]

Still voting No.
This bleating that this is the only chance we'll ever to bring footy to the City plays right into the hands of the AFL who are still not prepared to commit any money to this proposal. This sort of attitude removes any bargaining chips we might have had. Mr Demtriou doesn't need to give anything as long as this weak govt is happy to be led by the nose and spend money we may not have. Doesn't anybody see a problem with the good old SA taxpayer coughing up all this money for a footy ground while the AFL keeps all its assets, with the potential to make a huge profit? While footy in the City would be nice, where is the solid evidence of the huge promises of the economic gains it would bring, and do people really believe we're losing people from this state simply because there's no city stadium? I dont think Melburnians and Sydney siders think we're anti-development. If they spend any time at all thinking about us ( and they really don't) its probably to think we're suckers and imho they're spot-on.
And dont get me started again on car-parking. The current plan opens the door to trashing the parklands. There are no agreements, and the the underground car-park is still a dream.
Still voting NO.

[AtD]

I agree Will. If this falls over, it’s going to be a political stink bomb, a pox on both sides of politics. I think both parties will take the ‘do nothing’ approach for many years. The ALP are likely to lose the election and I wouldn’t think the Liberals would be keen to pick up on “Ranns legacy” and continue the project.

[Pants]

Still voting NO.

Did you screw up your face, clench your fists and stamp your feet when you typed that? Because in my head you did.

[silverscreen]

Course not Pants. I was having fun. Got to protect my karma.

[rhino]

Christopher Pyne comes on board - good news after Mitch Williams' little rant yesterday.

Members will pay if Oval plan fails
State Editor Greg Kelton From: The Advertiser April 07, 2011 12:00AM

FEES for SACA members will stay at $300 until after the 2012-13 season if the Adelaide Oval upgrade goes ahead.

In the following two financial years, 2013-14 and 2014-2015, the fee will be $300 plus CPI, but if the redevelopment does not proceed they will rise to $380.

The figures are in the information pack sent to about 20,000 SACA members this week, ahead of a vote on May 2 on whether or not they should support the proposed $535 million oval upgrade.

Its release came on the same day prominent federal Liberal frontbencher Christopher Pyne said he supported the redevelopment and, as a SACA member, would be voting for the proposal.

"As a fifth-generation South Australian, we cannot sit in Adelaide and say, why are our children leaving, why are our young people going interstate for jobs, why aren't there more young people in the city, and then every time there is a new development in the city find a reason to vote against it. You can't have it both ways," he told the National Press Club.

Mr Pyne's comments were similar to those of another prominent Liberal, former foreign affairs minister Alexander Downer, who wrote in The Advertiser on Monday that the redevelopment should proceed or Adelaide would be consigned to mediocrity and provincialism.

The brochure states that the current $60 building levy will no longer be charged and the levy paid in 2009-10 or 2010-11 will be credited towards the 2012-13 membership fee at either $60 or $120, depending on whether the member has paid one or both years' levy.

If the redevelopment does not proceed, the building levy will continue to be charged until 2013-14.

A new kind of membership will be offered, to be known as AO Ultimate.

"It is intended that AO Ultimate memberships will be slightly cheaper than SACA and SANFL memberships purchased separately," the brochure says.

"It is intended to sell a minimum of 10,000 AO Ultimate memberships with 5000 initially allocated to each of SACA and SANFL.

"Any not taken up by one organisation can be offered by the other to its members."

Football will have the use of the Oval from March 15 to October 7 each year, with SACA taking over for the remaining five months and one week.

[King]

Who is to say that the Liberals will still be advocating for a clone of Docklands at the 2014 election?

If this falls through; you can absolutely bet that the Liberals will capitalise on the oppurtunity come the 2014 election and put up a new proposal elsewhere in the Parklands. No doubt about it.

[spiller]

Who is to say that the Liberals will still be advocating for a clone of Docklands at the 2014 election?

If this falls through; you can absolutely bet that the Liberals will capitalise on the oppurtunity come the 2014 election and put up a new proposal elsewhere in the Parklands. No doubt about it.

are you delirious? you actually believe this is the case? No way in hell that will happen. I voted for labour in the 2010 election purely because I believed we had more chance of getting AO redeveloped than that pipe dream railyards proposal from the liberals. And I still stand by my swing voting decision. Also, how is plonking a "60K seat enclosed stadium on the AO grounds" a better design than what is currently proposed? that would completely wreck the area all together.

[Will]

Who is to say that the Liberals will still be advocating for a clone of Docklands at the 2014 election?

If this falls through; you can absolutely bet that the Liberals will capitalise on the oppurtunity come the 2014 election and put up a new proposal elsewhere in the Parklands. No doubt about it.

Adam is spot on. If this fails, it wont be coming back. Just like how 'medicare gold' is not making any comebacks soon.