[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[stumpjumper]

for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!

Not quite. SMA wants compensation of $1,000,000 pa for 20 years indexed for the loss of the ability to sell naming rights.

[Waewick]

for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!

Not quite. SMA wants compensation of $1,000,000 pa for 20 years indexed for the loss of the ability to sell naming rights.

I'm hoping that is just a tatical request because it appears to be an outlandish request when you've just been handed a stdium for nil.

[stumpjumper]

Well, you create a culture of entitlement...

Anyway, I actually had some satisfaction today. A gentleman from Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure (DTEI) advised this afternoon that despite what I'd been told by various other offices, the project is in safe hands and there can be no blowout of costs!

Here's the management structure:

The global project manager is DTEI.

The client is Stadium Management Authority (SMA), which will engage DTEI to deliver the project. SMA has an empty office and no physical existence because it is only a legal manifestation of the top end of SACA and SANFL boards.

On the boards' behalf, DTEI will appoint contractors to build the stadium. These contracts will be fixed price, so any blowouts will be paid by the contractor, a la Wembley. So no worries there....

[Will]

I am interested to know what cities and particualrly which stadiums were used as the case studies for the 'public dollars, private profits' report.

[flavze]

VFL fanatics Australia wide wanted this to go ahead. for the most part, the rest could not care.
.

not really, i haven't been to an AFL game for several years and i think 1 SANFL game in that time. Was even longer since i've been to a Cricket game at AO.
The last few times i have been to AO was for Rugby 7's and whenever Adelaide United plays there.

I reckon i will probably go to a few AFL games a season when it's played at AO though.

[stumpjumper]

Will:

Thanks Prince George 'The Pub' Sun Oct 05, 2008

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... f=4&t=2005

Note that the authors' selection all had problems. What we don't know is how many, if any, stadium projects didn't have problems.

* Cincinatti - football and baseball, built with little opposition. The total cost ballooned to almost double the original estimate.

* Cleveland - football, baseball, and basketball. Started with little opposition, but the construction itself was fraught with scandal and almost went bankrupt (the county bailed them out).

* Minneapolis - proposal to build new stadiums got shot down by popular vote.

* Hartford - attempt to lure the New England Patriots goes wrong, the entire downtown renewal goes off the rails.

* Phoenix - voters resoundingly reject new taxes, but the county finds a way to introduce one without a vote for a ballpark.

* Denver - new football and baseball stadiums, ostensibly a renewal program for the Lower Downtown area

* San Diego - new ballpark as part of a larger renewal program; a ballpark alone would require voter approval, the "renewal" did not.

* Pittsburgh - voters reject the initial tax proposal for the stadiums, but a month later the city have found a way that did not require a vote.

* Philadelphia - significant opposition to building new stadiums in the downtown area, they end up building new ones near where the old ones had been in; although their projects started at the same time as Pittsburgh, they finished 2-3 years later.

Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums, by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003. 230 pp. ISBN: 0813533422.

[ricecrackers]

On the boards' behalf, DTEI will appoint contractors to build the stadium. These contracts will be fixed price, so any blowouts will be paid by the contractor, a la Wembley. So no worries there....

awesome
another great day for the banks

[Will]

Will:

Thanks Prince George 'The Pub' Sun Oct 05, 2008

http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... f=4&t=2005

Note that the authors' selection all had problems. What we don't know is how many, if any, stadium projects didn't have problems.

* Cincinatti - football and baseball, built with little opposition. The total cost ballooned to almost double the original estimate.

* Cleveland - football, baseball, and basketball. Started with little opposition, but the construction itself was fraught with scandal and almost went bankrupt (the county bailed them out).

* Minneapolis - proposal to build new stadiums got shot down by popular vote.

* Hartford - attempt to lure the New England Patriots goes wrong, the entire downtown renewal goes off the rails.

* Phoenix - voters resoundingly reject new taxes, but the county finds a way to introduce one without a vote for a ballpark.

* Denver - new football and baseball stadiums, ostensibly a renewal program for the Lower Downtown area

* San Diego - new ballpark as part of a larger renewal program; a ballpark alone would require voter approval, the "renewal" did not.

* Pittsburgh - voters reject the initial tax proposal for the stadiums, but a month later the city have found a way that did not require a vote.

* Philadelphia - significant opposition to building new stadiums in the downtown area, they end up building new ones near where the old ones had been in; although their projects started at the same time as Pittsburgh, they finished 2-3 years later.

Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums, by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003. 230 pp. ISBN: 0813533422.

Thanks for the response SJ.

The reason I ask is because although some legitimate points can be deduced from that study, for most part those examples cannot be applied to the Adelaide Oval situation, as in those cities, old stadiums in the suburbs were replaced with new stadiums in the suburbs. In essence, you were not fixing the underlying problem, just applying a bit of makeup.

The Adelaide Oval project is different as we are tackling the major underlying problem, which is the suburban location of AAMI stadium. Therefore, the economic benefits will be greater with our redevelopment as human nature the way it is in the 21st century, people will be more willing to spend more money at a game at Adelaide Oval compared to AAMI.

Just from personal experience, the 2 games I have attended at AAMI, we drove there, and when the game finished we walked to the car and drove back home, picking up KFC on the way. Whereas when I have attended the cricket at Adelaide Oval, I have gone into town afterwards for dinner and drinks. I don't think I'm the only one, who behaves this way.

[Waewick]

On the boards' behalf, DTEI will appoint contractors to build the stadium. These contracts will be fixed price, so any blowouts will be paid by the contractor, a la Wembley. So no worries there....

awesome
another great day for the banks

how is it a great day for the Banks?

[Prince George]

The reason I ask is because although some legitimate points can be deduced from that study, for most part those examples cannot be applied to the Adelaide Oval situation, as in those cities, old stadiums in the suburbs were replaced with new stadiums in the suburbs. In essence, you were not fixing the underlying problem, just applying a bit of makeup.

The Adelaide Oval project is different as we are tackling the major underlying problem, which is the suburban location of AAMI stadium. Therefore, the economic benefits will be greater with our redevelopment as human nature the way it is in the 21st century, people will be more willing to spend more money at a game at Adelaide Oval compared to AAMI.

Actually, that's not true. About half of the sample that they used were downtown or within spitting distance of downtown. American and Australian cities differ quite widely in terms of how much "urban decay" there is in the older inner-city areas: many American cities (most of the old ones) had substantial industrial areas right outside the city core which has since emptied out, leaving a supply of well located cheap land. Also, the big question in many of their case studies was that the funding for the stadiums required new taxes and to do that many cities have to get voter approval - *except* when the money is being used for things like urban renewal projects, hence they recast the stadium as part of a downtown rebirth to avoid having to go to voters (that was certainly the case in the San Diego example and iirc the Hartford one too).

I'm no expert, but I believe that since Baltimore built Camden Yards (which, btw, looks like a brilliant stadium) in 1992, urban stadiums have been quite common in the USA -- especially in baseball, which is more of a tradition oriented sport and whose fans really respond to the "modern retro" vibe. So there's plenty of data points for researchers to use and the verdict still is that they don't "pay for themselves". But that's not to say that all stadiums are equal, some certainly do better than others and, yes, urban ones generally provide more benefits than suburban ones, as long as they've been designed with those outcomes in mind.

Dr Robert Baade seems to be the leading expert in this area, he's the one that everyone else quotes. Sadly most of his articles don't seem to be available online, but the one that is is pertinent to this discussion: A tale of two stadiums "Comparing the Economic Impact of Chicago’s Wrigley Field and US Cellular Field". Wrigley Field is almost a century old and is even more urban than Adelaide Oval, the paper shows that it is contributing far more back to the city than the (very very suburban) U.S. Cellular Field. (*)

So, the point of all this isn't to say that you get nothing back, just that you don't get back all the money that you put in. The way to figure out how much to spend is to think of it as a gift: assume that you're not going to get this money back again, how much are you willing to spend? And then manage the project so that it's a gift to the city, and not just a gift to the team owners.

(*) I mean urban/suburban in their design rather than location - if anything, Wrigley Field is further from the city centre than US Cellular, which would be roughly where Hindmarsh Stadium is. Don't forget, though, this is Chicago - the whole city's much more urbanised than Adelaide

[spiller]

That's an interesting read PG, I gather you arent arguing for, nor against the AO development in posting the link to that article but its more a point of interest? I have been to US Cellular Field, I have not been to Wrigley Field but have been to Wrigleyville/Lincoln Park (the area in which it is located) - I will "fingers crossed" get to check out a cubs game there when i'm in Chicago in 5 weeks time. Anyhow, Adelaide oval (at least in its current state) has much more in common with Wrigley Field than it does with US Cellular, mainly due to its proximity to a "vibrant" area (US Cellular isnt exactly far from downtown Chicago, but the Southside is a very very VERY dodgy area with nothing going on). What I am trying to say, is that I believe location is more important to economic activity than what is on offer inside the walls of the stadium. AO is sort of half way between Wrigley and USCF - its a newer stadium in the urban location. Going back to the "substituion of spendings" argument; I think in it's redeveloped state, AO will generate more "spillage" into the surrounding areas post match and thus more spending in those areas (because the ground wil be used more often) but obviously this wont all be net. People are going to cut back in other areas to a certain extent, but it's pretty bloody hard to measure this. Not everyone eats food at AAMI for example. I personally dont (because its posion), and bring my own snacks instead, but I can bet that I would head to the city for a meal/drinks after/before a game at AO a number of times throughout the year. So in that case, its not all net (as I'm subsituting "some" of my spendings at a supermarket on food snacks for footy for a meal in the city after footy) but it's hardly just a substituion of spendings. I'm no economist, not by a long shot, but I think this whole "true" economic activity business is a VERY complex topic and somewhat immeasurable (or very hard to measure at least).

are you confused, because I am

[Will]

From the City Messenger:

Adelaide Oval: City traders brace for boost in business

Business5 May 11 @ 06:00am by Alice Higgins



HAPPY days: Evan Katsaros of the Worldsend Hotel Andrew Wallace of the Adelaide West End Association and Campus Color owner John Kelly.


Traders are rejoicing in the news that Adelaide oval will be transformed into one of the country’s premier sporting hubs, expected to pumphundreds of million into the CBD economy each year.

They say the $535 million redevelopment, which will seat 50,000 spectators, will entice a million more visitors to the city each year, giving traders a much-needed boost and revitalise the CBD.

The redevelopment was given the green light after 80 per cent of SACA members voted in favour of the proposal at this week’s ballot.

Rundle Mall Management Authority Chairman Theo Maras said the upgrade would “change the landscape” of the city.

“If planned and dealt with in a way that will benefit the economy of the city, this could mean hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy of the city annually,” Mr Maras said.

“It’s not about just coming in and parking your car, it’s about coming in and parking your car and eating and drinking before hand, eating and drinking afterwards, shopping, going to the museum and art gallery.

“I think this, together with a riverbank development, will be where it’s all at.”

Rundle Mall general manager Martin Haese said the redevelopment, which will bring AFL games to the city, would inject millions of dollars into the shopping strip each year.

“This is one of the biggest changes in the CBD for some time,” Mr Haese said. “Anything which turns the attraction back onto the centre of the city is good for a Rundle Mall trader.”

Adelaide West End Association president Andrew Wallace said it created the opportunity to attract new shoppers to the precinct.

“There’s the potential to bring families back to this part of the city and activate the west end more fully into the week instead of just two nights a week,” Mr Wallace said.

Late Night Traders spokesman Tony Tropeano said the revamp signalled the start of the city’s revitalisation.

“Any development for the city is a plus,” Mr Tropeano said.

“It’s fantastic to have great plans but everything else must go along with it - there needs to be facilities and services to cater for those people one they’re there.”

Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said an upgraded Adelaide Oval would create more than 400 full time jobs and pump $111 million into the economy each year.

“It will refresh the whole riverbank precinct and bring significant benefits to the city of Adelaide and the whole of SA,” Mr Vaughan said.

Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said the redevelopment would bring an extra one million visitors to Adelaide each year.

“It’s a game-changer for the city,” Mr Yarwood said. “I’m really pleased the community has sent such a powerful message of their desire for change.”

Mr Yarwood said the council had started negotiations with the State Government to discuss “governance and operations arrangements” and a report would be presented to the council as soon as possible.

“We don’t have a detailed final proposal, it was a matter of waiting until this hurdle (SACA vote) had been jumped ... ,” he said.

[stumpjumper]

You're no orphan there, spiller.

Comparison with US stadiums is useful but potentially misleading, imho, because of the different economics involved. I have an idea that cities in the US can raise taxes for special purposes, and the private backing of the teams which are identified with cities has no parallel here. Here, the 'private owner' would have to be the AFL which deals out licences. I'm not an accountant, but it's not quite the same.

The Adelaide Oval project is different as we are tackling the major underlying problem, which is the suburban location of AAMI stadium

Not from the point of view of a lot of Port supporters. A lot of Port's fans are older people who will go to AAMI but might not attend city matches.

The same thing affects the team(s). It's no secret that both Port teams are struggling. Part of that is due simply to poor performance from a weak list, sure, but part is also due to Port's former great strength - it's regional identity, something like Geelong's, no longer being such an advantage. In fact, the rot set in years ago as the number of brawny guys working on the local wharves or in factories declined. There is for a number of reasons a weakening of players' local ties across the AFL. In Port's strongest days in the SANFL most of the team were 'Port lads'. Port's later successes, as with other teams, have increasingly been built on cashflow rather than the loyalty of local lads.

This is digressing a bit, but there's another dichotomy the AFL is struggling with - TV rights and gate takings. 'Demetriou's dream' involves the maximum number of punters sitting at home watching pay TV but the clubs and Demetriou too, presumably want to maximise the gate at the grounds. How do you do both? Would you put a lot of AFL money into a physical ground?

[rhino]

part is also due to Port's former great strength - it's regional identity, something like Geelong's, no longer being such an advantage. In fact, the rot set in years ago as the number of brawny guys working on the local wharves or in factories declined. There is for a number of reasons a weakening of players' local ties across the AFL. In Port's strongest days in the SANFL most of the team were 'Port lads'. Port's later successes, as with other teams, have increasingly been built on cashflow rather than the loyalty of local lads.

How long ago are you talking about here, SJ? Because for as long as I can remember, if there was one club that had members everywhere, it was Port - I would say Port's fan base was the least localised of any of the SANFL clubs. You would find Port fans living right in the heartland of any other SANFL club you cared to mention.

A lot of Port's fans are older people who will go to AAMI but might not attend city matches.

This seems to go against what the Club itself thinks. Numbers are dropping off at AAMI, and the club thinks they will do better at AO. Do you have any actual information to back up this statement, or does your use of the words "might not" hint that you really have no idea, and are just throwing red herrings?

[skyliner]

Got it in one Adam.

SJ, it's done now, give your conspiracy theories a rest ok? First the hospital, now this. Yes, I too am a Liberal voter, and would have loved a new stand alone stadium, and a redeveloped RAH, but the Libs lost. This is what we've got, and I like it, so do the SACA members, and do the wide majority of the SA public. Surely you have to agree that the ramifications of this development on the rest of Adelaide are massive, with a re-generation that none of us would have experienced before about to occur.

It's here, it's done, it's happening, move on.

+1

+2

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE