[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Will]

My feeling is that the 'yes' vote will secure 60-70% of the vote. Although this is a majority, it is obviously not the 75%.

Nevertheless, before people hang themselves, shoot themselves, jump into the lion enclosure at the zoo....we should wait to see whether SACA or the state governemnt ram this through regardless.

This project is too important to SA for it to be decided by just 10 000 or so people, and therefore I hope the aprties responsible act accordingly.

[Prince George]

Well, this is interesting, the 'Tiser seem to be massaging their editorial position and taking a more measured view. There are still plenty of celebrity-and/or-sports-administrator-says-vote-yes articles, but there are now also ones that are reporting on the facts of what's actually on the table (ie - what does $535 million actually buy?) or asking independents, people with no gain to be made either way, on their advice:

Words of warning as US looks at saga
Cricket Writer Richard Earle |From:The Advertiser |May 02, 20112:06AM

STADIUM experts are at odds with cricket boss Ian McLachlan over the merit of state-funded sports venues.

South Australian Cricket Association president McLachlan asserts the "world" is watching progress in Adelaide's tumultuous stadium debate - set for Special General Meeting resolution tonight at Wayville. He's right.

American Neil deMause, author of Field of Schemes, which examines the "swindle that turns public money into private profit" is among aficionados and academics watching the outcome of Adelaide's stadium vote.

DeMause highlighted various studies including US economist Robert Baade's examination of 48 cities over a 30-year time span that had found "no rationale" for publicly acquiring a sports team or arena.

"Numerous studies have shown no measurable impact on economic activity from building new stadiums," said deMause.

"As for spectator numbers, the best estimate is that the honeymoon effect lasts between two and eight years. Then attendance slumps back. Again, a lot of money to spend on a temporary bump in fan interest."

McLachlan labelled the Oval upgrade proposal "one of the most exciting things to happen" in his lifetime while former federal counterpart Alexander Downer says the city will be diminished if SACA members reject turning Adelaide Oval into a 50,000-seat stadium with football.

DeMause has recorded similar arguments from stadium proponents over the past decade who claim that a city's reputation and self-esteem will be defined by a stadium.

"Portland, Oregon rejected building a dome to lure an NFL team in the early 1970s and it is today considered one of the US's most liveable cities,"said Brooklyn-based writer deMause.

Still, McLachlan believes the $535 million taxpayer-backed Oval development can prosper despite the failure of state-funded stadiums in America.

"Why should a government fund a stadium. Either a covered stadium at the railway site that the Liberals put up or this one?" McLachlan told The Advertiser.

"You ask why and the reason is sport is gigantic business in the world today and it you want it in your state you have to provide the facilities."

DeMause urged SACA members to scrutinise evidence of a stadium-driven economic boost.

"Most sports spending is simply redirected from somewhere else," said deMause.

"With economic activity you just draw a circle around a stadium and add up all the spending and call it an addition to the local economy. If people are spending more on footy and cricket and less on going to the movies, that's not a net gain."

DeMause warned against stripping back the fabric of Adelaide Oval if the "Yes" vote is successful.

"One of my contributors David Dyte, originally from Melbourne, told me how Adelaide Oval is much-loved, and to expand it would be at the risk of wrecking the place," said deMause, who runs a stadium watchdog website, fieldofschemes.com.

"Many of the stadiums that draw consistently well in the US - Wrigley Field in Chicago and Fenway Park in Boston - are historic."

[ricecrackers]

^ good article

a similar thing is happening in the US with publicly funded high speed rail..but thats another topic

back to AO, if the state government must spend near $600 million of taxpayers money on a stadium, i'd rather it be done right. not on the compromised monstrosity that is the worst of bogan design that is the planned for AO.
i just cannot grow to like it, it really would be an eyesore.

[Will]

A common theme in the 'NO' camp is a belief that we should oppose the Adelaide Oval redevelopment because 'we should do it right'.

Such people are under the impression that a no vote is a vote for a fully enclosed replica of the Docklands Stadium.

This reminds me a lot of the republic referendum back in 1999, whereby many republicans voted no, because the republican model presented was "not the one I like". Such people thought, that a no vote would mean that they would get a directly elected US style president. This was not the case. 12 years later and we are still a British colony, and there is no foreseeable change to this status quo.

This is similar to the debate surrounding Adelaide Oval. A no vote, is not going to result in a fully-enclosed replica of Docklands. A no vote menas no AFL in the CBD for another generation. It means we keep the already outdated AAMI stadium for another generation and it means no vibrant riverbank precinct.

Even if you don't like aspects of the redevelopment, please understand that in life, one cannot please everyone, and that this project is the ONLY vehicle available to us to bring back AFL to the CBD and to help create a vibrant riverbank precinct.

There is no other alternative.

[silverscreen]

And a common theme in the Yes camp, Will is that they can stereotype and label the No voters. Well I'm afraid you're wrong. I dont think I fit into any of your little compartments and I know that many people are opposed to this devt for vastly different reasons. The stand out may be the lack of a transparent, honest process but the mix of doubts is huge. You might find it personally reassuring to plonk us all in the same bigoted box but if you lift that lid you might find it empty. Lets rejoice in our free, open and pluralistic society and realise we are all different and hold different, but equally valid views that are often hard to quantify. Viva la difference!

[flavze]

back to AO, if the state government must spend near $600 million of taxpayers money on a stadium, i'd rather it be done right. not on the compromised monstrosity that is the worst of bogan design that is the planned for AO.
i just cannot grow to like it, it really would be an eyesore.

i don't get this? How is it the "worst of bogan design"?
Looking at the renders it looks great and meets the needs of all the sporting codes that will use it.

What else do ya want?

[Pants]

Lets rejoice in our free, open and pluralistic society and realise we are all different and hold different, but equally valid views that are often hard to quantify. Viva la difference!

And express it seems.

if the state government must spend near $600 million of taxpayers money on a stadium, i'd rather it be done right. not on the compromised monstrosity that is the worst of bogan design that is the planned for AO.

How much do you think "doing it right" will cost champ and where do you propose they do it?

[rev]

A common theme in the 'NO' camp is a belief that we should oppose the Adelaide Oval redevelopment because 'we should do it right'.

Such people are under the impression that a no vote is a vote for a fully enclosed replica of the Docklands Stadium.

This reminds me a lot of the republic referendum back in 1999, whereby many republicans voted no, because the republican model presented was "not the one I like". Such people thought, that a no vote would mean that they would get a directly elected US style president. This was not the case. 12 years later and we are still a British colony, and there is no foreseeable change to this status quo.

This is similar to the debate surrounding Adelaide Oval. A no vote, is not going to result in a fully-enclosed replica of Docklands. A no vote menas no AFL in the CBD for another generation. It means we keep the already outdated AAMI stadium for another generation and it means no vibrant riverbank precinct.

Even if you don't like aspects of the redevelopment, please understand that in life, one cannot please everyone, and that this project is the ONLY vehicle available to us to bring back AFL to the CBD and to help create a vibrant riverbank precinct.

There is no other alternative.

It really does make you wonder what sort of garbage propaganda the Liberal party is feeding these people.

[Waewick]

And a common theme in the Yes camp, Will is that they can stereotype and label the No voters. Well I'm afraid you're wrong. I dont think I fit into any of your little compartments and I know that many people are opposed to this devt for vastly different reasons. The stand out may be the lack of a transparent, honest process but the mix of doubts is huge. You might find it personally reassuring to plonk us all in the same bigoted box but if you lift that lid you might find it empty. Lets rejoice in our free, open and pluralistic society and realise we are all different and hold different, but equally valid views that are often hard to quantify. Viva la difference!

the problem is your attitude is exactly why nothing will ever get done in Adelaide

you can never ever define every little part of a development, you can never ever be 100% sure of every process especially about a development this size.

hell I just completed a house renovation, as what the SACA has done I nailed everything I could to the floor but there was vast amount that was "hope" i.e hope that the costs didn't esalate too much, hope that my finished house matched the market place when completed, hope that the trades completed it properly, hope that the council approved it (well that was a little less hope I knew they would) hoped that the value on completion would = costs price + construction or better.

you can't nail everything down with these developments a big % is going to be taking a risk - which is what South Australians are entretched to avoid at all costs.

[spiller]

I wonder if all of the property developers out there who are rolling in money today because they had the balls to take a risk yesterday are of the belief that this shouldnt go ahead because it "might" not pay off. Adelaide needs to grow some balls and take a risk for once. I've really had enough of this saga, if it doesnt go ahead i'm going to have no choice but to resign myself to the attitude that I will have to travel to other cities in Australia and around the world for the rest of my life in order to experience "first class" city life.

[silverscreen]

Waewick - thanks for the info about your house - glad you made it. You're certainly not alone in this sort of risk-taking - most of us have been there - bitten our nails and lost sleep. I assume you went into it fairly well-informed and with your eyes open. However, can't see how it equates with the Oval devt at all. Sorry.

[Waewick]

what exactly isn't that same about the AO ?

the only difference I see is that we have a high proportion of people who would rather no nothing than risk something.

[silverscreen]

Whatever!!!!!

[Waewick]

don't get me wrong silverscreen - i'm not having a go at you specifically.

I'm just really tired of living in a state that is just going knowhere.

moving really isn't an option so I have to make do

[ricecrackers]

back to AO, if the state government must spend near $600 million of taxpayers money on a stadium, i'd rather it be done right. not on the compromised monstrosity that is the worst of bogan design that is the planned for AO.
i just cannot grow to like it, it really would be an eyesore.

i don't get this? How is it the "worst of bogan design"?
Looking at the renders it looks great and meets the needs of all the sporting codes that will use it.

What else do ya want?

it looks like crap. one of the ugliest stadium designs i've ever seen
completely compromised, stands not the same height, ugly roofs, incomplete bowl. i've conversed with many interstate and many agree. it would be more embarrassing to the state if this was built than not.
i'd put it in the west parklands somewhere, either where the netball stadium is or the running track.

i'm not in the 'camp' of supporting a retractable roof either, so those in this thread can forget that line of thinking. i'm no fan of the docklands stadium and there is no need for that sort of thing here.