[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[crawf]

How would a stadium be a boon for a university?

Even if the SACA members do decide to vote down the proposal. I hope the State Government still go ahead, considering it would be such an national embarrassment to have funding and agreement from all parties, only to have the project axed due to a few individuals wanting this city to remain as a stagnant big country town.

And now with the Adelaide Casino planning a major expansion, this is another major reason why this Adelaide Oval project needs to happen.

Please Adelaide, let's make this happen!

[Waewick]

you've already pointed out that it isn't Adelaide that has the choice.

I'd say if they want this vote to suceed then they should stop the tele marketing phone calls that members are getting and just hurry up and organise the f'ing vote

the longer it is delayed the less likely it is that a yes vote will occur.

[Will]

new stadium, right in the city, more sensible than the multi billion dollar Liberal wankfest

It's water under the bridge now, but isn't your complaint above the whole point, metro? We've made something straightforward into something very messy.

We could have had a brand new roofed or unroofed stadium on the railyards site to any number of world-class, off the shelf designs, renovated the RAH and still had Adelaide Oval and AAMI - but politics intervened (Labor and Liberal) and now we have an expensive, compromised 'stadium' which is hostage to the SACA membership and is literally surrounded by unresolved issues.

Siting the stadium next to UniSA would have been a boon to the university and given the west end of the city a huge boost.

Instead, we've made things as difficult and as expensive as possible for ourselves.

Anyway, that's all past history.

Now that we're down this ill-begotten track, I just hope it all works and that admission won't be $50 per head (on top of the taxes we're pouring into the thing).

Wow, you really are clutching at straws aren't you?

How exactly would a stadium be a boon to UniSA? Are you suggesting that people after watching a game of footy are going to say to themselves "gee I better go and do some reading in the library"

Even if somehow you can come up with an explanation for your comment, isn't Adelaide Oval roughly the same distance from the UniSA City West campus as a railyards stadium, but furthermore, Adelaide Oval is closer to the UniSA City East campus as well as Adelaide University?

Furthermore, a frequent theme in your posts is criticism of the amount of money being spent by the state government on Adelaide Oval. Yet, you have no qualms about the state spending $1 billion on a railyards stadium? Furthermore your comment about renovating the RAH, makes me wonder where your priorities are. So you are uncomfortable with the 'compromised' Adelaide Oval plan, yet would be comfortable with the Liberals 'compromised' RAH renovation?

On another point, why does Adelaide need 3 stadiums which do exactly the same thing? Consider Brisbane, a city almost double our population. It does perfectly fine just with the GABBA, or Melbourne, despite having 9 teams in the AFL does perfectly fine with 2 stadiums? The cricket and AFL seasons do not overlap, so it makes sense to share a stadium. Furthermore, you frequently complain about the quantity of money being spent at Adelaide Oval, yet have you considered how much it would cost to maintain 3 stadiums? Developing Adelaide Oval makes sense as in the long-term, maintenance costs only need to be spent on 1 stadium, instead of 3 as you propose.

[Waewick]

the liberals upgrade of the RAH wasn't comprimised and had just as much support as the rebuild one.....

just say'n

[AtD]

This would have been an interesting and relevant conversation in 2007.

I think it's time for the thread's theme song.

[rev]

Wow, you really are clutching at straws aren't you?

How exactly would a stadium be a boon to UniSA? Are you suggesting that people after watching a game of footy are going to say to themselves "gee I better go and do some reading in the library"

Even if somehow you can come up with an explanation for your comment, isn't Adelaide Oval roughly the same distance from the UniSA City West campus as a railyards stadium, but furthermore, Adelaide Oval is closer to the UniSA City East campus as well as Adelaide University?

Furthermore, a frequent theme in your posts is criticism of the amount of money being spent by the state government on Adelaide Oval. Yet, you have no qualms about the state spending $1 billion on a railyards stadium? Furthermore your comment about renovating the RAH, makes me wonder where your priorities are. So you are uncomfortable with the 'compromised' Adelaide Oval plan, yet would be comfortable with the Liberals 'compromised' RAH renovation?

On another point, why does Adelaide need 3 stadiums which do exactly the same thing? Consider Brisbane, a city almost double our population. It does perfectly fine just with the GABBA, or Melbourne, despite having 9 teams in the AFL does perfectly fine with 2 stadiums? The cricket and AFL seasons do not overlap, so it makes sense to share a stadium. Furthermore, you frequently complain about the quantity of money being spent at Adelaide Oval, yet have you considered how much it would cost to maintain 3 stadiums? Developing Adelaide Oval makes sense as in the long-term, maintenance costs only need to be spent on 1 stadium, instead of 3 as you propose.

Don't worry, I'm sure he has seen some "costings" or something to back up his argument that the AO upgrade is a waste of money and the Liberal..oops I mean his ideas are a better option. Of course he would be unable to share with us the source of such information(but is conveniently able to tell the whole world about it online).

[Waewick]

This would have been an interesting and relevant conversation in 2007.

I think it's time for the thread's theme song.

true

for me I am supporting the redevelopment because I know that in Adelaide we will get nothing if this doesn't get through and that is a prospect that I am not happy to sit with despite the issues etc

the vote is going to be interesting..when the actual date finally gets announced.

[spiller]

interesting to read that projected finish date is mid-way through 2014, and that AFL matched would be shared between AO and AAMI during the latter half of that season. By now, as an individual, if you aren't backing this proposal, you are either plain ignorant, or your political *ahem* opinions are clouding your better judgement. I fear that a lot of significant Adelaidians (in this case SACA members) are the former. I will vote yes, without a doubt. Regardless of the outcome of the may election, I dont think the SMA or State Gov will allow this to slip through their fingers. There is simply too much money already involved to allow 26% of what will be less than 20,000 votes of individuals with no real rights other than a seat facing away from the sun to dictate whether this goes ahead or not. Loopholes will be found if and when the time comes. Though, let's hope that they wont need to be and this get's a yes vote, so that the stigma already associated with this project in the media can finally be put to rest. That way South Australians can embrace the precinct and start to get excited about it! We already have enough maligned developments in this state, we dont need Adelaide Oval to join that list.

[silverscreen]

Well being as we're all being so forthcoming about our positions, gotta say I'll be voting "No" - as is my right, and for a billion or so reasons. Just quietly, I think the Noes might have it.

[believesinadsy]

above person...please reconsider

[silverscreen]

Y'know I was really hoping to contribute something without getting an insult. Surprisingly enough I'm not a boring person, don't fit into any particular "box", but I value my right to vote and to have an opinion while also respecting others' views. Deal with it believesinadsy - we're not all the same and its the different posts and ideas that make these forums worth reading. (See, I resisted saying anything rude).

[mgb]

Y'know I was really hoping to contribute something without getting an insult. Surprisingly enough I'm not a boring person, don't fit into any particular "box", but I value my right to vote and to have an opinion while also respecting others' views. Deal with it believesinadsy - we're not all the same and its the different posts and ideas that make these forums worth reading. (See, I resisted saying anything rude).

Like anyone who has the right to vote you have the ability to vote as you wish and it's a pity that often either side fall into making it personal when they don't get their own way.

I would be interested in knowing why you feel you will be voting no? Putting aside all the political stuff which is been and gone. The liberal's didn't win and their concept of putting it over the rail yards is not going to happen. The reality is either the Oval goes ahead as planned or nothing happens. If Labor lose the next election then maybe other designs might be back on the table, but then again usually there is a newly discovered black hole that stops that sort of thing happening so it could be another 10 years.

I don't get a vote even though I am an ACC rate payer.. Not that I am too worried about that. The design looks okay, certainly nice and flashy. I am concerned though about the bulk of the structure but then again I am not a big fan of the current oval either with the horrid lights.

In the end though I see this as a good option (not the best, but good). Heck it's not like we are building stonehenge... I am sure the thing will be rebuilt in 30 years time.


mgb

[Pants]

Well being as we're all being so forthcoming about our positions, gotta say I'll be voting "No" - as is my right, and for a billion or so reasons. Just quietly, I think the Noes might have it.

What are your top few reasons out of interest?

I'll likely vote yes, but I'm not 100% sure.

I think this is the most socially and economically viable option of all the various stadium plans that have been tossed about, but I haven't yet come to terms with the fact that it'll mean bastardising what is probably my favourite place in the world.

If the hill and scoreboard weren't staying it'd be a definite no, but at this stage the progress supporting side of me is winning out over the side that would love to see the city and hills views from within the ground retained.

I'm interested in seeing the latest proposed renders though as it seems that the southern stand roof and eastern stand facade have been cheapened with some sort of pods sticking out of the eastern stand - and this city has more than its fill of those.

[rogue]

Well being as we're all being so forthcoming about our positions, gotta say I'll be voting "No" - as is my right, and for a billion or so reasons. Just quietly, I think the Noes might have it.

I too will be voting 'No'.

The main reason is that I think no one has put a value on what we will be losing.

Also, I can't see 10k - 15k people during a sell out game standing on the northern mound watching the footy during winter. Given that this problem will eventually be recognised, I fear that "The Hill" will disappear. When that happens, we will left with just another concrete couldron.

[crawf]

What are we going to lose?. An old small 1990s grandstand and a bunch of circus tents...

The 'hill' has nowhere near the capacity of 10-15,000 spectators.