[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Will]

Remember that for about $1.5 billion we could have had a renovated hospital and a brand spanking (open roofed) stadium next to mass transit and still had AO as is and still sold AAMI. The cost of the suite of new RAH and redeveloped AO plus ancillaries is likely to be many times $1.5 billion.

.

Right. So the Liberal's plan would not have had any cost blowouts or unexpected costs?

I'm sorry, but this is difficult to believe considering their track record with Hindmarsh Stadium and the National Wine Centre.

What makes you think the Liberal's plan would come under budget?

(p.s. I think this post proves you are a Liberal hack, considering that you would rather spend more money on a stadium rather than a hospital. Great priorities!)

[stumpjumper]

The Libs (and I'm neither a member nor a knee-jerk supporter) are easily capable of cost blowouts, but at least the suite of new stadium and renovated RAH would start from a lower base.

I'll see your Liberal Hindmarsh Stadium and Wine Centre (both disasters for the taxpayer), and raise you a Labor Scrimber plant (Bannon) and a Port Adelaide Flower Farm (Bannon), both duds too.

Check this out for government white elephants:

http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/imp/mob ... 05s06.html

It seems either we never learn, or 'hope springs eternal'.

[rhino]

Interesting to see that that website considers Melbourne's Federation Square a white elephant.

[Kasey771]

Interesting to see that that website considers Melbourne's Federation Square a white elephant.

And our Hindmarsh Stadium?? The reports information is very out of date. This stadium attracted over 200,000 fans last soccer season(2010/11). I fail to see how that could be considered a wasteful extravagance by anyone - in hindsight of course:). It is interesting that the report states that the initial tender was for a 22,000 seat stadium and it ended up being just a tick over 16,500. IIRC The new owners of Adelaide United are investigating the redevelopment of the Manton Street stand to include more corporate facilities(all the better to make money with) and an increase in overall capacity towards 20,000. I wonder if they are intending to ask for public money to be spent?

[Waewick]

pre-Adelaide United Hindmarsh stadium was a white elephant.

In terms of potential upgrades it is also limited due to it's location which was poorly thought out and executed (it is only there to appease a minoirty)

that being said - with the tram access and the propsed upgrades by the AU management I hope it becomes more user friendly hopefully it stays releveant for many years to come.

[stumpjumper]

Waewick's right - Hindmarsh Stadium was a white elephant in 2002 when that document was produced, but we've made the best of it since then. The same goes for Federation Square.

After all, the Adelaide Railway Station and the state rail system, both products of huge expenditure by imported American managers in the 1920's, were white elephants in their day. Building the railway station and paying for the fancy rolling stock nearly sent the state broke. Read about W A Webb, the American who fitted us out with the world's best rail network, at huge cost.

Anyone interested in Hindmarsh Stadium saga of ego and inept use of public money should read the final report of the Auditor General into the soccer stadium. There's a good chapter called 'What went wrong in a nutshell'.

http://www.audit.sa.gov.au/00-01/h3/part3.pdf

As an example of the clever dealings at AO, look at Victor Richardson Road just to the east of the oval. That land is a public road, not part of the Park Lands around it and therefore subject to the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&xhr=t&q ... 66cfee38b1

This legislation sets out the process for closing roads involving advertising, consultation, comment and lodging of draft plans with statutory bodies etc. Here's an example regarding objections:

13—Objection or application for easement
(1) Any person may object to a proposed road process.
(2) Any person affected by a proposed road closure may apply for an easement to be granted in the person's favour over land subject to the proposed road closure.
(3) An objection or application must be made by lodging a notice in the prescribed form at the office of the relevant authority within 28 days of the date of the public notice under section 10 and by lodging a copy of the notice, within the same period, at the Adelaide office of the Surveyor-General.

And it describes the lengthy process by which roads may be altered:

16—Criteria in relation to road process orders
In determining whether to make a road process order and what order should be made, the relevant authority must have regard to—
(a) any objections made by any person pursuant to this Act; and
(b) the plans, principles, regulations and other matters to which regard must be had by assessment authorities for determining applications for development authorisation under the Development Act 1993 in relation to developments in the area to which the proposed road process order relates; and
(c) whether the land subject to the road process is reasonably required as a road for public use in view of present and likely future needs in the area; and
(d) alternative uses of the land subject to the road process that would benefit the public or a section of the public; and
(e) any other matter that the authority considers relevant.

But SMA is given a short cut through all that. The AO Bill as mentioned is very clever.

Here's how the SMA will deal with closing Victor Richardson Road:

11—Victor Richardson Road
On the commencement of this section—
(a) Victor Richardson Road, North Adelaide, is closed; and
(b) the land comprised in the road will become part of the Adelaide Park Lands
10 and the care, control and management of the land vests in the Council but
subject to any right, lease or licence under this Act.

How quick is that? As soon as the Bill is passed, several things happen in the same instant, like the Big Bang:

First, the road is closed, just by passage of the Bill. Then in the same moment, it becomes Park Lands, and therefore subject to the AO Act which instantly makes it not Park Lands but part of Ovalia, the SMA's principality on the Torrens.

Rather than just criticise the proposal - which is easy - I suggest another way forward. The actual Oval redevelopment (within the existing oval footprint 'Core Area' identified in the Bill, goes ahead, but the conversion of the 'Licence Area' (the surrounding Park Lands from Montefiore Hill to the Torrens), is not included. Parking would be allowed on the grass but if the area suffered too much then ACC would open its thousands of car parks in the CBD with the oval being serviced by a shuttle bus.

This avoids any possibility of the Park Lands from the river to Montefiore Hill being terraced and asphalted for carparking.

[skyliner]

Waewick's right - Hindmarsh Stadium was a white elephant in 2002 when that document was produced, but we've made the best of it since then. The same goes for Federation Square.

After all, the Adelaide Railway Station and the state rail system, both products of huge expenditure by imported American managers in the 1920's, were white elephants in their day. Building the railway station and paying for the fancy rolling stock nearly sent the state broke. Read about W A Webb, the American who fitted us out with the world's best rail network, at huge cost.

Anyone interested in Hindmarsh Stadium saga of ego and inept use of public money should read the final report of the Auditor General into the soccer stadium. There's a good chapter called 'What went wrong in a nutshell'.

http://www.audit.sa.gov.au/00-01/h3/part3.pdf

As an example of the clever dealings at AO, look at Victor Richardson Road just to the east of the oval. That land is a public road, not part of the Park Lands around it and therefore subject to the Roads (Opening and Closing) Act 1991.

http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&xhr=t&q ... 66cfee38b1

This legislation sets out the process for closing roads involving advertising, consultation, comment and lodging of draft plans with statutory bodies etc. Here's an example regarding objections:

13—Objection or application for easement
(1) Any person may object to a proposed road process.
(2) Any person affected by a proposed road closure may apply for an easement to be granted in the person's favour over land subject to the proposed road closure.
(3) An objection or application must be made by lodging a notice in the prescribed form at the office of the relevant authority within 28 days of the date of the public notice under section 10 and by lodging a copy of the notice, within the same period, at the Adelaide office of the Surveyor-General.

And it describes the lengthy process by which roads may be altered:

16—Criteria in relation to road process orders
In determining whether to make a road process order and what order should be made, the relevant authority must have regard to—
(a) any objections made by any person pursuant to this Act; and
(b) the plans, principles, regulations and other matters to which regard must be had by assessment authorities for determining applications for development authorisation under the Development Act 1993 in relation to developments in the area to which the proposed road process order relates; and
(c) whether the land subject to the road process is reasonably required as a road for public use in view of present and likely future needs in the area; and
(d) alternative uses of the land subject to the road process that would benefit the public or a section of the public; and
(e) any other matter that the authority considers relevant.

But SMA is given a short cut through all that. The AO Bill as mentioned is very clever.

Here's how the SMA will deal with closing Victor Richardson Road:

11—Victor Richardson Road
On the commencement of this section—
(a) Victor Richardson Road, North Adelaide, is closed; and
(b) the land comprised in the road will become part of the Adelaide Park Lands
10 and the care, control and management of the land vests in the Council but
subject to any right, lease or licence under this Act.

How quick is that? As soon as the Bill is passed, several things happen in the same instant, like the Big Bang:

First, the road is closed, just by passage of the Bill. Then in the same moment, it becomes Park Lands, and therefore subject to the AO Act which instantly makes it not Park Lands but part of Ovalia, the SMA's principality on the Torrens.

Rather than just criticise the proposal - which is easy - I suggest another way forward. The actual Oval redevelopment (within the existing oval footprint 'Core Area' identified in the Bill, goes ahead, but the conversion of the 'Licence Area' (the surrounding Park Lands from Montefiore Hill to the Torrens), is not included. Parking would be allowed on the grass but if the area suffered too much then ACC would open its thousands of car parks in the CBD with the oval being serviced by a shuttle bus.

This avoids any possibility of the Park Lands from the river to Montefiore Hill being terraced and asphalted for carparking.

In answer to the bold - have you ever checked out our rail system before WEBB. It needed big loco power - very outdated. underpowered and worn out. It would have needed replacing anyway. WEBB, being a USA engineer, brought US practice to and English system Re the station - before it was an old and outdated bldg parallel to Nth Tce. Of note - he only brought in 30 new engines, not a great mass. They reduced double heading abd related coal/labour expenses. And yes, it did nearly bankrupt the state. WEBB was many years ahead here at that time.

Sorry for deviqation from the topic at hand.

SA - STATE ON THE MOVE

[stumpjumper]

skyliner - they were lovely engines and they just sprinted up the Adelaide Hills; the Pullman coaches were absolutely superb and beat anything the other states had and the new station was a marvel with its barrel vault and Deco/Classical styling. Setting all that up within a few years was a seriously cool stunt. As you say, it put SA's rail network years ahead, but thanks to the Depression, it became a slight embarrassment.

Webb and his engineers weren't alone, they brought with them their canny whizz-kid of an accountant, who made mince-meat of the state's management of (and probably knowledge of) what the hell was going on with S.A.R.'s budget. Finding out wasn't easy - Webb's red-hot Texan boy wonder made sure that the funding arrangements, loans etc of S.A.R. were particularly complex and almost opaque to anyone, well, anyone except himself really. He and W A Webb had a perfectly good handle on things.

I should know - the creative and highly effective accountant was my grandfather. He's been dead for many years and no-one cares now and there's no-one to sack or sue anyway, so I'm happy to say that I have documents written by my dear ol' grandpappy that would make anyone's hair curl. I can't say I'm proud of what he did, but I'm impressed at how well he did it.

[silverscreen]

Does anyone have a direct line to the SMA to find out if there's any truth to this? As I've said before I dont oppose footy in the City, but I'm against the way its being done, and surely this isn't the way to sort out the parking? I guess this is why some of us wanted answers to the parking question before the SACA vote. There's also a cri de coeur from Andrew Demetriou today saying how hard the Oval negotiations have been for him - well I've found them hard too, but at least he's getting paid.

Adelaide Parklands parking fight


26 May 11 @ 01:42pm by Alice Higgins

Montefiore Hill might be terraced and vast expanses of parklands dug up to accommodate the thousands of cars expected to park at the redeveloped Adelaide Oval.

Cr Anne Moran has told the City Messenger the Stadium Management Authority (SMA) was considering terracing or grading the grassy slope below Light’s Vision.

She said carving into the hill was among the options being explored by the SMA, including excavating clay soil and laying sand or plastic before relaying grass over the top.

The SMA plans to spend $10 million of its State Government funds on landscaping the parklands to allow water to drain during winter.

It has proposed more than 1600 car parks for the parklands, including 1250 at the northern park and 400 at Pinky Flat, to accommodate AFL spectators from 2014.

Cr Moran, who met with SMA chief executive Leigh Whicker after this month’s crucial SACA vote, said she would “never endorse” the plans.

“The $10 million will be solely spent on making sure that every square inch of the parklands can be parked on,” Cr Moran said.

“Even if they put it all back and it looks exactly the same, it means they’re going to be parking on the parklands for a very long time.”

The City Messenger last week reported City councillors would “aggressively seek” to block the biggest attempt by the State Government to strip Town Hall of its control of the parklands surrounding Adelaide Oval.

Cr Michael Henningsen said he was “deeply worried” about the SMA’s plans.

“We have been careful and sustainable custodians of that beautiful part of the parklands for over 150 years and the same standards will not be applied,” Cr Henningsen said.

Adelaide Park Lands Preservation Association president Kelly Henderson said excavation works would damage surrounding trees.

“No matter how they greenwash what they’re doing, it’s still a car park construction,” Ms Henderson said.

An SMA spokeswoman said the $10 million would be spent on landscaping around Adelaide Oval including drainage, irrigation, tree planting, new lights and paving roads and paths.

“The SMA will be in a position to release further detail when these plans have been finalised,” the spokeswoman said.

[Kasey771]

Okay, call me crazy, but what exactly is wrong with digging a damned big hole and building a stonking great underground car park? As long as they landscape the surface to look like it does now, only visitors during the 18 months it took to build would notice anything out of the ordinary...I'm still disappointed that everyone continues to remain attached to the "I must drive to/from the Oval" paradigm. Isn't the new electrified rail network and a hopefully beautiful pedestrian bridge linking the Train station to the Oval a big enough hint that the majority of spectators are expected to use PT?

[silverscreen]

Well Kasey its actually the SMA and football wanting the car parks and so far noone is offering to build the underground car park. ( which incidentally theres no objection to ) so any queries about why PT isnt being encouraged needs to go to them. As per my initial comment.

[Waewick]

Okay, call me crazy, but what exactly is wrong with digging a damned big hole and building a stonking great underground car park? As long as they landscape the surface to look like it does now, only visitors during the 18 months it took to build would notice anything out of the ordinary...I'm still disappointed that everyone continues to remain attached to the "I must drive to/from the Oval" paradigm. Isn't the new electrified rail network and a hopefully beautiful pedestrian bridge linking the Train station to the Oval a big enough hint that the majority of spectators are expected to use PT?

we all hope for increase in PT use

but we also know that it won't happen.

[crawf]

City of Tea Tree Gully has suggested building a large multi-level carpark at TTP, so that people could drive to TTP and then catch a bus to Adelaide Oval via the O'Bahn. Great idea!

I guess by the time the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is complete, the electrification and major upgrade of the train network will be complete so will make it far more attractive to the general public in the near future.

[stumpjumper]

Inquiries to SMA are directed to Phil Martin, Managing Director of public relations firm Michells Warren or his senior consultant Kirsty McFarlane. They will tell you very little. Much of the information is 'commercial-in-confidence'. Remember that ultimately you are dealing with sports administrators used to a culture of secrecy about almost everything. They should remember that obsessive secrecy has a downside - in the absence of information, rumours grow.

Here's a typical example of the unnecessary secrecy pervading this publicly funded project. This is from the minutes of the Adelaide Park Lands Authority from 12th May this year, at which time the Park Lands Authority was as clueless as anyone else about the details of the project (APLA for all the fine words that established it is still well out of the loop - its advice is not needed and it has been shown up for the sham that it is.) ACC CEO Peter Smith spoke to APLA members on 12th May this year:

"To advise that Council resolved that the negotiations be held in confidence and that negotiations were currently being undertaken which he was not in a position to brief the Board with at this stage prior to the Council."

So much for the powerful APLA. The Adelaide Park Lands remain, at the government's will, a regulation-free store of no-cost land for development. No wonder that despite 26 applications in the last 30 years to heritage list the Park Lands, the government has never 'had the resources' to process a single application. The Park Lands remain unlisted despite regular tut-tutting from the State Heritage Council, another impotent body set up by the government to create the impression of responsible management.

I spoke to some friends in the landscape architecture area, and found there are several firms around town putting together schemes for SMA. Information was hard to come by there too, but reading between the lines - and it's only my opinion - a) each firm is on a paid consultancy rather than pitching unpaid (why not, there's endless cash) and b) terracing of Montefiore Hill below Montefiore Hill Rd and Pennington Tce is almost certainly part of it.

Even for non-Park Lands fanatics, this is serious stuff. If something like that goes ahead it will be against substantial opposition, although the passage of the Adelaide Oval Bill in its present form will make terracing and multi-storey carparks of any design quite legal. The land will not be Park Lands, it won't be zoned and its development will be entirely at SMA's discretion subject only to a general ministerial overview. Passage of the Bill into law will also allow any method in relation to procuring the project - paid, limited or closed tendering, cost plus construction (likely in view of Ian MacLachlan of SACA's claim that the cost won't be known until the work is finished. Cost plus contracts look attractive to some clients, but they heavily favour the contractor who has no incentive to look for value in subcontractors or suppliers.

Some people who voted yes out of concern for the future of SA cricket under SACA's existing debt must be wondering what sort of a beast they've created. I still can't understand why a cash-strapped government insisted on paying out SACA's debt despite MacLachlan's claims that the club was 'comfortable' with the debt. Given that the further redevelopment is fully funded, why not carry the debt forward if the club is comfortable with it? After all, they can't get into more debt. Paying off the debt indicates that the government was well in favour of the project but it certainly won't shift blame away from the government if the whole thing gets out of control.

I want cricket, footy and all sports in SA to be the best they can, but I'm quite worried, on initial indications, that this project will hinder rather than help the case of major sport in SA, in the shorter term at least and perhaps for longer if the redevelopment proves uneconomic with all the effects of that.

With the government guaranteeing SMA - ie guaranteeing its debts - the stage is set for some free-wheelin' spending. The terms of the Bill and some behaviour to date suggest that there's little in law or in the management structure, in my opinion, that protects the interests of the source of funds - the public - in the (I suggest likely) event that there are big troubles ahead.

Area where terraced carparks may be built:

http://360.io/gLwJbC

[skyliner]

skyliner - they were lovely engines and they just sprinted up the Adelaide Hills; the Pullman coaches were absolutely superb and beat anything the other states had and the new station was a marvel with its barrel vault and Deco/Classical styling. Setting all that up within a few years was a seriously cool stunt. As you say, it put SA's rail network years ahead, but thanks to the Depression, it became a slight embarrassment.

Webb and his engineers weren't alone, they brought with them their canny whizz-kid of an accountant, who made mince-meat of the state's management of (and probably knowledge of) what the hell was going on with S.A.R.'s budget. Finding out wasn't easy - Webb's red-hot Texan boy wonder made sure that the funding arrangements, loans etc of S.A.R. were particularly complex and almost opaque to anyone, well, anyone except himself really. He and W A Webb had a perfectly good handle on things.

I should know - the creative and highly effective accountant was my grandfather. He's been dead for many years and no-one cares now and there's no-one to sack or sue anyway, so I'm happy to say that I have documents written by my dear ol' grandpappy that would make anyone's hair curl. I can't say I'm proud of what he did, but I'm impressed at how well he did it.

Stumpy - I wrote a book on this webb era and the changeover from the period before. Will have to get in contact somehow.

And on the oval re development - can I just say the sooner they get on with it now the better. WE need a quality stadium/oval that can take over 50000 AND near the CBD.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY ASKYLINE