[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[rev]

I still can't get my head around what some people find so historically important about a patch of grass referred to as "the hill".

Btw, I believe the capacity of 50,000 that the redevelopment will give, includes the grandstands only, and the seating that will be placed at the bottom of the hill near the field.

Anyway, if I was a member, I'd consider voting no too.
Not for the same reasons some of you will be voting no, but because the development doesn't go far enough.
The hill should have a great big stand dumped on top of it, and those trees behind it should be turned into firewood.

[Waewick]

I guess you have to look at it from a something now and hopefully something again in the future.

[Will]

For those of you going to vote no, I hope you have considered the ramnifications of your no vote. So much publicity has gone into this project that a no vote will trash the reputation of this city, and cement our stereotype as a backwards, glorified country town where nothing ever changes. Furthermore, voting against this project will not mean that a clone of the Docklands stadium will appear at the railyards. A no vote will mean that we will be stuck with AAMI for another generation.

If you love this city, you should vote yes.

[Waewick]

don't get me wrong, I agree with you

but i will think you'll find the members who are going to vote will do so just to piss people like you off.

it is now not about the development it is about personal ego and the ability to control something so large, lets face it for most members, this is the most powerful they will ever be in their life (i'm a member mind you)

[King]

I think the majority of the 'no' vote is actually a vote of no-confidence of the actual design/proposal itself, and not of the redevelopment. If there was a better design/proposal of the redevelopment, something that was actually architecturally stunning (or the very least, roofed) then, you'd see those 'no' votes into 'yes' votes en masse.

[Hooligan]

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

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

Yay

[Pants]

If you love this city, you should vote yes.

Hyperbole aside, I am likely to vote yes on account of what we'd miss out on with a no vote rather than what we'd lose with one.

This is an excellent, once in a generation opportunity to bring football and cricket back together in the CBD and kick off an associated regeneration/redevelopment of the riverside precinct with buildings/facilities of a kind that Adelaide hasn't seen before and I think that's too big to pass up.

There needs to be some give and take in everything, so if we get all of that and get to keep the hill and scoreboard, even at the expense of the feel of a pavilion type oval in the CBD, then I'm happy enough.

Anyone who votes no just because they can is an idiot, but I agree, there'll be plenty who do.

Also, anyone who votes no because they think they'll get something better in the near future is kidding themselves. If this doesn't happen, nothing will for decades. Cricket will not leave Adelaide Oval and AFL won't get its own $1b stadium in the CBD (and I mean own even if it shares it with the odd soccer or rugby game or concert). The stadium was a political issue at the last election. We got a concrete proposal out of that and should use that to our advantage because the next election is years away and some other issue will come up.

[Waewick]

I think the majority of the 'no' vote is actually a vote of no-confidence of the actual design/proposal itself, and not of the redevelopment. If there was a better design/proposal of the redevelopment, something that was actually architecturally stunning (or the very least, roofed) then, you'd see those 'no' votes into 'yes' votes en masse.

well if that is the case then we are basically doomed, because no matter the design someone will always complain about it and there is no way we are getting a roofed stadium

[believesinadsy]

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).

I do retract my post, it reflects my immaturity. I feel however that for the youth of this city we are looking for more entertainment within the city. There is no logic for not voting for this redevelopment.

Chris

[rev]

I think the majority of the 'no' vote is actually a vote of no-confidence of the actual design/proposal itself, and not of the redevelopment. If there was a better design/proposal of the redevelopment, something that was actually architecturally stunning (or the very least, roofed) then, you'd see those 'no' votes into 'yes' votes en masse.

If it was to have a roof, the cost would exceed 1 billion, and then we would see these same people complaining about the cost.

For those of you going to vote no, I hope you have considered the ramnifications of your no vote. So much publicity has gone into this project that a no vote will trash the reputation of this city, and cement our stereotype as a backwards, glorified country town where nothing ever changes. Furthermore, voting against this project will not mean that a clone of the Docklands stadium will appear at the railyards. A no vote will mean that we will be stuck with AAMI for another generation.

If you love this city, you should vote yes.

I think you'll find, ironically, that a large number of those who are against the redevelopment, are also the ones who complain about what Victorians think of us.
Yet given the chance to improve our city, and change the image of this city, they don't want to hear about it. Boggles the mind.

I really cant believe that a bunch of people who pay a few hundred bucks for a reserved seat, are going to be allowed to decide the future of this important redevelopment for Adelaide.
At most it should have been a vote by the boards of both organizations.

[Nort]

I still can't get my head around what some people find so historically important about a patch of grass referred to as "the hill".

Btw, I believe the capacity of 50,000 that the redevelopment will give, includes the grandstands only, and the seating that will be placed at the bottom of the hill near the field.

Anyway, if I was a member, I'd consider voting no too.
Not for the same reasons some of you will be voting no, but because the development doesn't go far enough.
The hill should have a great big stand dumped on top of it, and those trees behind it should be turned into firewood.

I'm guessing you have never spent a good day on the hill during the cricket, completely different atmosphere to the stands.

[Pants]

I really cant believe that a bunch of people who pay a few hundred bucks for a reserved seat, are going to be allowed to decide the future of this important redevelopment for Adelaide.
At most it should have been a vote by the boards of both organizations.

Short answer - the realignment of control over Adelaide Oval will require amendments to SACA's constitution and the constitution states that no amendments can be made except by special resolution (75%) of members.

[Vee]

For those of you going to vote no, I hope you have considered the ramnifications of your no vote. So much publicity has gone into this project that a no vote will trash the reputation of this city, and cement our stereotype as a backwards, glorified country town where nothing ever changes. Furthermore, voting against this project will not mean that a clone of the Docklands stadium will appear at the railyards. A no vote will mean that we will be stuck with AAMI for another generation.

If you love this city, you should vote yes.

I agree with Will on this. This is a very important vote as a 'No' vote will have a serious impact on the state psyche, especially with our younger folk. It will contribute to a 'nothing ever happens' mentality and poor image inside and beyond the state. Instead of increasing state pride, it will fuel negativity.

As already mentioned here, I can't see how a small group of current members, who don't own the Oval or its surrounds, can make a decision that will have such an important influence on a major development and the future of Adelaide.

I still feel peeved that the permanent structure at Victoria Park was killed off by a vocal minority and look at the result.

[Pants]

Short answer - the realignment of control over Adelaide Oval will require amendments to SACA's constitution and the constitution states that no amendments can be made except by special resolution (75%) of members.

[stumpjumper]

How exactly would a stadium be a boon to UniSA?

A lot of stadiums around the world are closely connected to universities. Sure, in the US uni sport is far more highly developed, but a stadium would promote sports courses as well as in the case of UniSA and would provide some more weekday parking near the uni. But I take the general point that it's a relatively minor issue.

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?

Fair enough.

Furthermore, a frequent theme in your posts is criticism of the amount of money being spent by the state government on Adelaide Oval.

My concern's not so much about the amount to be spent (subject to realistic spending priorities) but the manner of funding and the ownership. $800 mill on a publicly owned stadium open to all sports who want to book it is one thing, giving a stadium to two private sports bodies is another. That's a concern, and so is doing it without making public a business plan. I';d like to know the effect on ticket prices and what the overheads are likely to be

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?

That's another argument, but not a very strong one. Renovating the RAH was an option a lot of RAH users didn't have a problem with.

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.

The facilities and accommodation at AO as it was were really only suitable for cricket. It was hardly a stadium - more like a large suburban oval. AAMI has always had good and bad points, but it is the only decent large public venue in the entire west of the city, and would probably be viable now and into the future as a large venue even with a city stadium. You'd have to see some analysis to know for sure.

maintenance costs only need to be spent on 1 stadium, instead of 3 as you propose.

That's true, but maintenance costs are a bearable expense if the income is there on the other side. I assume that the overheads for SACA's western grandstand are less than the old structure. Whether we could maintain AAMI more or less as is, AO with only the western grandstand replaced and run a new full-on stadium depends on the income. Who knows?

My suggestion at this stage would be to stop where we are for say 18 months so that we can 'test drive' the cricket/football sharing arrangement at AO, look at the traffic impacts and other issues, see how the public likes it, then once we know how it all works, proceed with one of four options: (1) the AO eastern redevelopment plus the carpark etc; (2) improve AAMI; (3) plan for a new separate stadium; (4) do nothing.

There are so many areas of doubt that a moratorium of a year or so could save us a lot of money and effort in the long run, while the focus remains on providing ourselves with the best possible facilities. I don't think 'do nothing' is a good option, btw.