[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[stumpjumper]

Dirty pool?

If you enter this url...

http://www.saveadelaideoval.com

you go to Greg Howe's 'vote no' case site. But if you enter

http://www.saveadelaideoval.com.au

you go to SMA's 'vote yes' site:

http://www.adelaideovalredevelopment.com.au

Whatever you think of the proposal, this tactic is not, as John Harnden says 'an open, honest way to do business'. Put mildly, it's not cricket.

It makes you wonder what other dodgy little tricks have Harnden, John Bannon and the rest of the SMA pulled off.

[spiller]

and good on the SMA for making the most of the opportunity! its not fair than the uneducated naysayers have the potential to bring this whole project down. the people who will be voting no will be doing so either because they are selfishly thinking of themselves; don't care to look into the development and instead vote against it just to be NIMBYs; or simply aren't satified with one or a number of features of the development and are too f#@%ing dumb to realise that it's either AO or NOTHING for a long number of years.

Looking at the AO proposal, no it's not perfect, and surely a purpose built off-the-shelf item would be more superior. However, the off-the-shelf item will undoubtedly cost more, significantly more. And, I think many will agree that a sporting ground with history (and when I say history I don't mean bricks that we're laid about 80 years ago) when redeveloped for use in the modern era, has its merrits and a unique appeal of its own. Take the MCG vs docklands for example; i'm sure everyone agrees that docklands (or etihad) is a far more superior stadium to the MCG when you take into account the roof, sightlines, access etc etc. Aside from its sheer size, the MCG is by no means "world class" when considered amongst modern stadia such as the birdsnest, soccer city etc. BUT, there is really nothing else like the MCG. It's a unique ground and i'm sure 9/10 victorians prefer watching football at the MCG because of the atmosphere and general "feel"that you experience in the stands.

In essence, the people that whinge about relatively insignifcant details like there being gaps between the stands for example, really p***s me off, and it bother's me even more to think that people with this attidude may have the power to deprive adelaide of such a great opportunity to put itself out there.

[Matt]

I think the sooner that some of the 'no' brigade recognise that Adelaide Oval is actually a sporting arena, the better off we'll all be.

It's not some sort of museum that should be preserved for the ages, it's not a viewing platform for people to sit and admire fig trees, and it's not some sort of spiritual place of historical or heritage significance - beyond everything else, it's an OVAL surrounded by a few grandstands (the eldest of which is what, 20 years?) where people sit and watch sport.

Dramatically improved facilities for those who come to the oval to watch sport (ie, it's purpose) should take precedent over a few cashed up bellends who are offended that their view of the hills is going to be spoiled.

[Will]

From the Advertiser:

Editorial: Oval upgrade a vote for the city's future

From: The Advertiser April 02, 2011 12:00AM

IT seems somewhat curious that the fate of this city could be held in the hands of cricket club members.

This is not meant to disparage members of the South Australian Cricket Association.

However, this is the strange situation we find ourselves in with the development of Adelaide Oval.

The ballot of 20,000 SACA members, which will conclude on May 2, requires a 75 per cent majority of those who choose to vote to progress the $535 million upgrade.

This is required to enable AFL games to be played there.

There is no question that this development is the biggest decision in Adelaide's recent history.

In fact, it would be one of the most momentous in the city's long history.

The design and amenity of the Oval redevelopment are spectacular.

They build upon, as opposed to erode, the present high regard in which Adelaide Oval is held by cricket lovers across the world.
.
It's not the biggest or flashest ground in the world but it is one of the most attractive.

The new design retains the Oval's most stunning features - the view to the Cathedral over the scoreboard hill and the Moreton Bay figs.

Critically, it strengthens the Oval's credentials as a venue for international cricket while adding AFL games to ensure it hosts top-level sport throughout the year.

The momentum created by this renewed vigour also opens the prospect of attracting other major events to the Oval.

But it is the activity which will flow from this redevelopment which will regenerate the city.

This development is as much about growth of a modern capital city and employment as it is about sport.

Melbourne has often been upheld as the ultimate vision to which Adelaide should aspire.

But that would pale into insignificance when compared to the experience of walking through a lively, vibrant city, across the River Torrens and into a fabulous, first-class stadium.

However, there is an issue with the SACA vote. Trying to get 75 per cent of a voluntary vote in a referendum is all but impossible. History suggests as much.

It seems SACA members are aware of the importance of their vote to the future of their club.

They also need to be aware of its importance to the city and state.

This is not just about cricket. It is about the South Australian public and the future of their capital city.

The SACA members should cast their vote on that basis.

However, it is important to note that the upgrade plans dramatically improve the experience for spectators, including those who like to watch international cricket.

This first-class amenity requires taking some land from the Parklands in some parts and returning land to Parklands in others.

If recent history is any guide, the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval will be spectacular.

Who would have believed the new western grandstand would be so outstanding, while retaining the heritage arches and classic Adelaide view to the Cathedral End?

Keeping all this in mind, SACA members have a responsibility to vote according to the bigger picture and not slavishly succumb to narrow sectional interests.

This is an opportunity that will ensure the future of big-time sport in Adelaide, bring renewed life to the city and the promise of future major events.

A vote against this redevelopment is a vote to condemn the future of Adelaide.

Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell, 31 Waymouth St, Adelaide, SA 5000

[spiller]

^^^fantastic article. Should be tatooed onto the inside eyelids of every SACA member...

[iTouch]

I could translate that whole article in 2 sentences:
A vote for the Adelaide Oval redevelopment will be a vote for not only cricket, but for the future of Adelaide. It looks pretty.

[rev]

Even Alexander Downer has put aside politics and is supporting the redevelopment.
Too bad one constantly negative individual on this site can't put aside his Liberal party affiliations and support the redevelopment.

'Crippling conservatism' threatens Oval, says Alexander Downer

ALEXANDER Downer says Adelaide has no choice but to invite football back to Adelaide Oval and he fears for the future of a "nothing-new" town.

Mr Downer, a former foreign affairs minister and opposition leader, is the first Liberal in the state to take a stand backing the Oval's redevelopment.

He says if South Australian Cricket Association members don't support the plan, Adelaide will be condemned to a mediocrity worthy of Geelong and Newcastle.

In his column in The Advertiser today, Mr Downer urges members of the South Australian Cricket Association to use their votes to embrace the $535 million redevelopment in a May 2 ballot, which requires a 75 per cent majority.

"If SACA members vote down the Adelaide Oval redevelopment project it will consign our city to mediocrity and provincialism worthy of Geelong or Newcastle," Mr Downer said.

"It will be proof of the fear that many of us have that Adelaide simply can't move forward."

Mr Downer, a Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister for 11 years, said the politics of the stadium were settled at last year's election.

"At the last election the Liberals offered a brand-new facility while Labor promised to upgrade Adelaide Oval," Mr Downer says in his column. "Whatever your preference, the election's over. Labor won. So Adelaide Oval redevelopment it is."

Mr Downer says opponents of the project had proposed "pathetic arguments" which would leave SA with a 1930s oval and team which would finish last in the Sheffield Shield.

"It may sound melodramatic to some but I regard May 2 as one of the most important days in the history of modern Adelaide," Mr Downer says in his column.

"I mean it from the bottom of my heart. It is rigidly locked in the inertia of crippling conservatism. Nothing new should ever happen. Everything has to stay as it always was."

The redevelopment of a 50,000-seat Adelaide Oval would wipe out SACA's $85 million debt and is needed so AFL games can switch from the unpopular, remote and traffic snarled AAMI Stadium in 2014.

SACA has pledged to pump millions into the development of cricket to put funding for coaching, administration and clubs on an equal footing with larger states.

It also has promoted the improved facilities for members in the redevelopment as a motive for a yes vote.

Mr Downer argues a "no" vote to the stadium could mean football fans were left with AAMI Stadium and an outdated cricket stadium. "Our two premier sporting venues will be the worst of their kind of any capital city in Australia. They will be a symbol of what Adelaide has become; a museum," he says.

A yes vote, he says, will lead to redevelopment of the city's riverfront precinct. "This is a project which transcends politics. It is a project which lays down a challenge to South Australians. Do we want to move forward or do we want to fester in the inertia of petty disputes," Mr Downer says.

Supporters of the redevelopment have stepped up their campaign as a core of conservative opponents within SACA ranks threatens to derail the vote. Peter McVann, head of one of the state's largest commercial property firms, Knight Frank, has also said defeat of the Adelaide Oval plan would be an embarrassment for South Australia.

Mr McVann said Adelaide was trapped in its "no-can-do" attitude and was falling behind Darwin, where he was in the winning consortium to build the $1.1 billion Waterfront development. "Imagine if the MCC (Melbourne Cricket Club) members said no to the Olympic Games in 1956?" he said.

"It's now the best stadium in Australia yet here we go into a vote and it's in the hands of the members. It would be great for the CBD, great for South Australia, it's all there. It's not rocket science. It would be an embarrassment if it was voted down."

Mr McVann said as with Darwin's Waterfront deal, the Oval development was a sign of success, with government and private interests combining to make a mark on the city for the betterment of the state.

He said Adelaide yet was to look for opportunities in a project rather than limitations.

"It's like when we built a tunnel to Mt Barker. People said `No, no, no, don't do it' but couldn't say why," he said.

"It produced a drive 30 minutes to the CBD and now the Adelaide Hills are blossoming. At the end of the day, people ask if they are better off. Did that tunnel create opportunities? Of course it did."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/crip ... 6032985810

[russo92]

farout theres a story on the oval every day now. Getting a bit ridiculous

[mattblack]

farout theres a story on the oval every day now. Getting a bit ridiculous

I want to hear from Stumpjumper

I have faith (maybe unfounded) that SACA members will vote for this, I certainly will. 3 years ago maybe not when the demographics of membership was about 80% over 60 years old. These days since the influx of new members its more like 80% under 60. The majority of people in this city want to see Adelaide move forward and not be held back by arguments like "The new eastern stand will block the view of members to the hills".

[Waewick]

it may be over the top but it appears that it is needed to sway some of the more errr conservative in this state

that being said, I would suggest the biggest threat isn't anti-development people, it is the morons in this state who are going to vote no on the assumption that the money can be and will better spent elsewhere - like in Hospitals etc etc. Yes it would be great to have the money go to Hospitals but it won't.

[Nathan]

it may be over the top but it appears that it is needed to sway some of the more errr conservative in this state

that being said, I would suggest the biggest threat isn't anti-development people, it is the morons in this state who are going to vote no on the assumption that the money can be and will better spent elsewhere - like in Hospitals etc etc. Yes it would be great to have the money go to Hospitals but it won't.

Agreed. This should be a vote about whether SACA approves the redevelopment or not, and nothing else. Hospitals, roads, electricity, whatever are irrelevant — that's what the state election was for.

[Prince George]

Frankly, I don't care one way or the other on developing the oval per se. I'm not in the target market for football or cricket; that said, I did take the family to see Adelaide United at the oval back in January, we sat in the new stand and had a good time (didn't hurt that it was a good game, of course, that probably makes more difference than the venue did).

What I do object to is the process and tactics that are being used to promote spending $530 million of public money on what are essentially private concerns. The obscurity and secrecy of the discussions, all the "commercial, in confidence" information that the public aren't being given access to, serves only to make people suspicious. I do find it both galling and amusing to watch the proponents change their direction from supposed economics to morale and city image - a direction laid out in the book Public dollars, private stadiums. From the book's blurb:

This book provides an eye-opening account of recent battles over publicly financed stadiums in some of Americas largest cities. The authors interviews with key decision makers present a behind-the-scenes look at how and why powerful individuals and organizations foist these sports palaces on increasingly unreceptive communities.

In the face of studies demonstrating that new sports facilities dont live up to their promise of big money, proponents are using a new tactic to win public subsidies - touting intangible "social" rewards, such as prestige and community cohesion. The authors find these to be empty promises as well, demonstrating that new stadiums may exacerbate, rather than erase, many social problems.

(My emphasis) Another point they note is the inequal access to the media between the pro- and anti- campaigns; witness the almost daily articles about the oval, when was the last that was critical? The recent tactics with URL squatting is an especially distasteful twist in this story - I can well imagine that if the shoe was on the other foot, the SMA may have sought an injunction to have the URL redirection removed.

In my opinion, this ludicrous "debate" makes us look far stupider than either building the new oval or leaving it as is ever would.

[Waewick]

PG

don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you and I'm probably one of those people that would rather see the public money put to public use in a better format.

but that isn't the question being asked here and the generaly public voted in a government who commited to this project.

[stumpjumper]

OK, here's my position, which is not as conservative as you might think nor do I care what the Liberals' policy is on this.

If it were up to me, for about the same price as the present hospital/oval deal, I would have renovated the RAH and built a new multi-sport stadium on the railyard site, keeping AO for cricket and having West Lakes as a second AFL oval and major venue for the western suburbs. SACA would be left with its new western grandstand and its $85 million debt, which Ian McLachlan says SACA can handle 'very comfortably'.

That seems a cheaper alternative with fewer problems and we end up with more facilities. In planning terms a public stadium is a better use of a major gateway site like the railyards than a utility like a hospital, and the site already has excellent transport connections.

The above could still be done, but only if the Rann government fell tomorrow, which is highly unlikely.

So, realistically, the project will go ahead, I suspect even if the SACA members vote it down.

In that case, all I would ask for is a period of trying out the sharing arrangement without starting on the eastern redevelopment. 38,000 seats should be enough except for the GF. Monitoring a full year of fixtures at AO would show up not only management problems, but give an idea of how the cricket and football membership rights would work together as well as what parking and transport infrastructure would be needed.

Whatever happens, I do have an objection unrelated to the design or location of any building work. That objection relates to both the funding and the 'procurement model' if you like. If I were paying for the project, or if my future depended on its success, I'd use a careful approach such as I've described. However, no-one involved in the project has even a dollar in it, and no futures seem to depend on it.

The project is 100% publicly funded, yet the public has no say. The amateur project managers, SMA, are beneficiaries (SACA and SANFL) of the project. SMA is not responsible to its funders, or to the funders' representatives (the government). SMA has chewed through $10 million in short order, but keeps private books and won't say where it was spent.

The government is in a position where failure to proceed will look like political failure, so it will keep applying taxpayers' money to the project, and everyone knows it. If the $535 cap is blown, which it is likely to be, other ways of applying taxpayers' funds to the project will be found.

So there it is. I want a stadium like everyone else, but I think the intrusion of politics has meant that the best, cheapest option with the fewest problems has been put aside in favour of an expensive, complex and problematic solution.

Further, I think that the management model for this project is seriously flawed.

[mattblack]

In my opinion, this ludicrous "debate" makes us look far stupider than either building the new oval or leaving it as is ever would.

I think that most people are not interested in the debate, they just have a simplistic opinion. Cost to much - dont build it or Build the bloodly thing adelaide needs it. Of course it is not that simple but most people are detatched and just see an end outcome. For the first time ever I see wisdom in Alexander Downers words. In 5-10 years time are most really going to remember the squabbling, transparency of desicion making or $ that are spent? We will sit there thinking what an awsome stadium we now have or I wish we built that friggin stadium.