I hear you Waewick, but isnt this apprehensive attitude to "jumping in the deep end" so to speak on the more ballsy developments in fact "anti-development" in a way of its own? If one cannot understand that certain developments need a specific number of things to go the right way at the right time (e.g. funding, approval) and may only be possible once in a generation, then surely that lack of understanding is somewhat anti-development, in the sense that people are stupidly unrealistic, holding out for the perfect situation that almost never eventuates.Waewick wrote: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.
[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread
With Federal Liberals like Pyne and Downer saying the project is a good idea is just making the state liberals look even more incompetent and stupid especially ones like Mr 'super-safe member of Mackillop' Mitch Williams
[COM] Re: The Definitive Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Poll
I'd be more than happy to take that bet.King wrote: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.Will wrote:King wrote:Who is to say that the Liberals will still be advocating for a clone of Docklands at the 2014 election?
The rail yards was the perfect site to propose a new stadium on as whilst technically park lands, it wasn't being used as such and by and large wasn't considered as park lands. That site is now out of the question.
With the type of emotive hysteria that even the thought of building on the park lands creates in this city, do you think the Libs are going to go into an eminently winnable election proposing to build a big f*ck off stadium, with associated car parking and training facilities on them? Not a chance.
Besides, in the last election, the hospital and stadium went hand in hand. The libs were saying that they'd build a stadium with the money they'd save by redeveloping the current RAH. With all this panic over $535m, there's no way they'll propose a $1b stadium without a cheaper hospital as an off-set.
It's the current AO proposal or nothing for a very long time. People need to understand that and I'm surprised the SMA/SACA etc haven't made more of an issue out of it.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment - General Discussion Thread
your probably right, but on the surface I'm not sure people actually believe they are anti-development we just need to talk them aroundspiller wrote:I hear you Waewick, but isnt this apprehensive attitude to "jumping in the deep end" so to speak on the more ballsy developments in fact "anti-development" in a way of its own? If one cannot understand that certain developments need a specific number of things to go the right way at the right time (e.g. funding, approval) and may only be possible once in a generation, then surely that lack of understanding is somewhat anti-development, in the sense that people are stupidly unrealistic, holding out for the perfect situation that almost never eventuates.Waewick wrote: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.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
Another day, another article. Some good lines in this one. I especially like the one about lobotomising ourselves with a soldering iron!
Oval will be best thing for our state
Russell Emmerson From: The Advertiser April 08, 2011 12:00AM
WE will be known as a state that takes aim but never fires if the Adelaide Oval plan fails, a top businessman says.
Adelaide Crows chairman, Economic Development Board member and St George Bank chief executive Rob Chapman said the project could be "the biggest and best thing" to happen to the state.
"We're considered on the eastern seaboard as a state that doesn't make decisions, that takes time to get things done," he told a Property Council lunch in Adelaide yesterday.
"We get ready, we aim, we aim, we aim again - and we don't fire. We've got to fire.
"We tend to get lost. We tend to argue."
Mr Chapman, in his capacity as Crows chairman, has previously been cautious about supporting the project, saying any move must be in the interests of members and consider the Crows' $20 million facilities investment at West Lakes.
He said the club had done a "magnificent job" on resolving most of the issues and there remained only "housekeeping" with the SANFL to bed down the matter.
The Adelaide Oval redevelopment would give the state a destination - something it now lacked, he said.
"I think the whole Riverfront precinct that has been planned is singularly the biggest and best thing that can happen to Adelaide at this point in time - $1.2 billion worth of development and it is overdue," he said. "We don't have a destination. In Melbourne we do, we go to Southbank. Queensland has its own equivalent, Sydney has Darling Harbour. Adelaide doesn't.
"We've got to turn that into a retail shopping precinct, the place where you can go and stay, have a meal, go to the football, the cricket, and enjoy it and spend some money in the city.
"We may have to change some shopping laws, but we need to do something to tell the rest of the world we're open for business."
Property Council state director Nathan Paine said support from senior Liberals Alexander Downer and Christopher Pyne showed there was an understanding of the significance of the project.
"From a psychological perspective, I believe if we cannot get this project off the ground, if we fall back on our old ways, we will effectively be lobotomising ourselves with a soldering iron," he said.
"It might sound harsh but the howls of laughter that will emanate from around the country will be audible from here on North Tce, as will the sighs of disappointment from the hundreds of thousands of South Australians who wanted a victory of vibrancy over decrepit conservatism."
Oval will be best thing for our state
Russell Emmerson From: The Advertiser April 08, 2011 12:00AM
WE will be known as a state that takes aim but never fires if the Adelaide Oval plan fails, a top businessman says.
Adelaide Crows chairman, Economic Development Board member and St George Bank chief executive Rob Chapman said the project could be "the biggest and best thing" to happen to the state.
"We're considered on the eastern seaboard as a state that doesn't make decisions, that takes time to get things done," he told a Property Council lunch in Adelaide yesterday.
"We get ready, we aim, we aim, we aim again - and we don't fire. We've got to fire.
"We tend to get lost. We tend to argue."
Mr Chapman, in his capacity as Crows chairman, has previously been cautious about supporting the project, saying any move must be in the interests of members and consider the Crows' $20 million facilities investment at West Lakes.
He said the club had done a "magnificent job" on resolving most of the issues and there remained only "housekeeping" with the SANFL to bed down the matter.
The Adelaide Oval redevelopment would give the state a destination - something it now lacked, he said.
"I think the whole Riverfront precinct that has been planned is singularly the biggest and best thing that can happen to Adelaide at this point in time - $1.2 billion worth of development and it is overdue," he said. "We don't have a destination. In Melbourne we do, we go to Southbank. Queensland has its own equivalent, Sydney has Darling Harbour. Adelaide doesn't.
"We've got to turn that into a retail shopping precinct, the place where you can go and stay, have a meal, go to the football, the cricket, and enjoy it and spend some money in the city.
"We may have to change some shopping laws, but we need to do something to tell the rest of the world we're open for business."
Property Council state director Nathan Paine said support from senior Liberals Alexander Downer and Christopher Pyne showed there was an understanding of the significance of the project.
"From a psychological perspective, I believe if we cannot get this project off the ground, if we fall back on our old ways, we will effectively be lobotomising ourselves with a soldering iron," he said.
"It might sound harsh but the howls of laughter that will emanate from around the country will be audible from here on North Tce, as will the sighs of disappointment from the hundreds of thousands of South Australians who wanted a victory of vibrancy over decrepit conservatism."
cheers,
Rhino
Rhino
-
- Gold-Member ;)
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:19 pm
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
Interesting comments on Chapman's spiel on the Adelaide Now web-site. Some pro but a lot anti.
My pick: Comments, 73, 39, 40 and 27.
Saves me writing out my thoughts.
Cheers
My pick: Comments, 73, 39, 40 and 27.
Saves me writing out my thoughts.
Cheers
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
The govt. doesn't give away money for nothing. $100m + per year is the estimated worth of the increased activity in the city. Even if that is reduced to take away what is not being spent at West Lakes, sooner than later, it will more than pay for itself.
Even leaving aside the dollar figures, the flow-on effect to the mood in and perception of the city of the subsequent riverbank development when combined with a new AO will almost be immeasurable.
More money in the city and in turn the govt's coffers will then mean more money in the suburbs and the country.
Everyone wins here.
And for those people still asking for a roof, f*cking hell, last time I checked, footy was an outdoor sport. If you want a roof over your head when you're watching it, stay at home. If Docklands didn't have a roof this would be a non-issue. How many existing or proposed English Premier League stadiums have a roof? I can't think of any European soccer stadiums for that matter and it's about a billion times colder over there in their football seasons than it is here.
It's a ridiculous argument and for people to still be holding it up as a reason to vote down this proposal, especially at the same time as complaining about the cost of the AO redevelopment, is just stupid and typical of this city where everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Even leaving aside the dollar figures, the flow-on effect to the mood in and perception of the city of the subsequent riverbank development when combined with a new AO will almost be immeasurable.
More money in the city and in turn the govt's coffers will then mean more money in the suburbs and the country.
Everyone wins here.
And for those people still asking for a roof, f*cking hell, last time I checked, footy was an outdoor sport. If you want a roof over your head when you're watching it, stay at home. If Docklands didn't have a roof this would be a non-issue. How many existing or proposed English Premier League stadiums have a roof? I can't think of any European soccer stadiums for that matter and it's about a billion times colder over there in their football seasons than it is here.
It's a ridiculous argument and for people to still be holding it up as a reason to vote down this proposal, especially at the same time as complaining about the cost of the AO redevelopment, is just stupid and typical of this city where everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it.
-
- Gold-Member ;)
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:19 pm
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
"everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it." ....
So that'd be the AFL Pants? I think I'll be paying my share.
So that'd be the AFL Pants? I think I'll be paying my share.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
yes the roof arguement is getting tired
I have had this exact converation with about 10 people to date
"so you voting yes for the AO redevelopment"
"Nope"
"Why note"
"i think we can do better"
"what better than a world class stadium"
"it it isn't world class - it doesn't even have a roof"
"how many stadiums have a roof"
"Docklands"
"So 1? "
"well there are heaps around the world"
"name 1"
that isn't the point, we deserve world class stadiums and world class stadiums have a roof"
"so all the ones in the recent Olympics and World Cup soccer aren't world class"
" I don't care if we are going to do it we should do it properly and it should have a roof"
" but over 90% of the crowd are going to be undercover"
"I just think the money would be better spent on hospitals and roads"
the same conversation is had in regards to drop in pitches, the quality of the finsish ahd the U shape of the stadium
all three things not "world class"
I have had this exact converation with about 10 people to date
"so you voting yes for the AO redevelopment"
"Nope"
"Why note"
"i think we can do better"
"what better than a world class stadium"
"it it isn't world class - it doesn't even have a roof"
"how many stadiums have a roof"
"Docklands"
"So 1? "
"well there are heaps around the world"
"name 1"
that isn't the point, we deserve world class stadiums and world class stadiums have a roof"
"so all the ones in the recent Olympics and World Cup soccer aren't world class"
" I don't care if we are going to do it we should do it properly and it should have a roof"
" but over 90% of the crowd are going to be undercover"
"I just think the money would be better spent on hospitals and roads"
the same conversation is had in regards to drop in pitches, the quality of the finsish ahd the U shape of the stadium
all three things not "world class"
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
i think we are bound for mediocrity... I don't think that saca will get 75% of the votes
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
Even if the AFL doesn't chip in 1c, why does it matter if the govt. will make its money back and then some in the near to mid future?silverscreen wrote:"everyone seemingly wants everything handed to them on a plate and to be as pampered and comfortable as humanly possible, but doesn't want to pay for it." ....
So that'd be the AFL Pants? I think I'll be paying my share.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
Mind-numbing isn't it?Waewick wrote:yes the roof arguement is getting tired
I have had this exact converation with about 10 people to date
"so you voting yes for the AO redevelopment"
"Nope"
"Why note"
"i think we can do better"
"what better than a world class stadium"
"it it isn't world class - it doesn't even have a roof"
"how many stadiums have a roof"
"Docklands"
"So 1? "
"well there are heaps around the world"
"name 1"
that isn't the point, we deserve world class stadiums and world class stadiums have a roof"
"so all the ones in the recent Olympics and World Cup soccer aren't world class"
" I don't care if we are going to do it we should do it properly and it should have a roof"
" but over 90% of the crowd are going to be undercover"
"I just think the money would be better spent on hospitals and roads"
the same conversation is had in regards to drop in pitches, the quality of the finsish ahd the U shape of the stadium
all three things not "world class"
In a nutshell, this vote is going to fail because people are stupid.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
the worst part is, you have to pander to the prospective no votes so they don't get stubborn and vote no for the hell of it.
argh!
If this fails I want to start a new political party
the anti-MOW party.
argh!
If this fails I want to start a new political party
the anti-MOW party.
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
Ill be right there with you Waewick. I'm not sure there is any other way to educate these people...
-
- Gold-Member ;)
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:19 pm
[COM] Re: Adelaide Oval Redevelopment Thread - Now Includes Poll!
What about an SAW party? Huge membership potential there
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 4 guests