Sensational-Adelaide.com

Professor wrote:Ummmm

I just did this one so that I reached 50 posts.

Happy 50 posts SA-day! I baked you a cake but I ate it...

Isn't A belongs to Parklands? Which is why everyone is avoiding the possibilities to even construct anything in the area.

Now Parklands also wants to claim the rail-site but the problem is, the rail site has long taken over the parkland to make way for the lines, so whatever you build or construct above it is less likely to interfere with any parklands in the city where NIMBYS are so overly protecting.

There are not many sites in the city for grand-scale developments (such as a stadium) without touching the parklands, and the rail site, apparently, happens to be one.

How would you be a 100% sure it will not fit by just cutting and paste from google maps?

remember the railyards used to be a butcher, so it hasnt been parklands for a very long time

Professor wrote:It's not going to happen so why talk about it?

It won't happen in the near future but one day, eventually, it may. And the first step to anything like this happening is talk. A lot of talk. I shared that view a couple of years ago but since then there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of this. From newspaper columnists to sporting leaders and now even to the opposition leader. And not just menitoning it once in passing, it is being raised on a regular basis at the moment. To me, that offers some hope. I'm reaslistic enough not to expect any decisions within 10 years but who knows if this could happen one day. I don't think it's an impossibility, especially if it continues to be spoken about as much as it has been.

Edgar wrote:How would you be a 100% sure it will not fit by just cutting and paste from google maps?

How can you be sure it will?

To answer either question we need to measure.

I took the size of an average oval and stands and placed that over the size of the area available to the same scale, rotated the oval so that it's pointing the right direction according to Adelaide's latitude (for sunlight) and compared the relative areas. Bearing in mind that this is only the oval and the immediate stands around it, we still need to factor in the service apron, however a service apron can adapt to the shape of the area available somewhat, so I didn't include that in the illustration. You need to imagine the apron area that would accommodate crowds queuing to enter, and crowds exiting via vomitoriums on mass at the end of an event, service roads and room for emergency evacuation and any other facilities that need to be directly adjacent to the grounds.

Measurements indicate that the rail yards site would not accommodate a stadium at all without building it up over the rail lines, might accommodate a modest stadium if it was built up over the rail lines, but would require other facilities to be built across Port Road (like a carpark and pedestrian bridge), might accommodate a stadium if the Torrens lake was filled/moved aside - The latter proposals would add a substantial cost to the development, which is prohibitive - and would never accommodate a FIFA compatible stadium.

Tyler_Durden wrote:...and now even to the opposition leader...

LOL actually I used to be more supportive of a inner CBD stadium until MHS put it in his vision. (jokes )

I'd like to see a stadium built near the CBD, but not a white elephant with no purpose and huge costs where those costs can be avoided.

Like I said above, we've all stated (as has the general public) that we think this is a good idea. Now we need to work out if it is a good idea.

monotonehell wrote:Look at the picture. How can that fit? Remember, it needs to be orientated Solar North-South because that's the average direction that the Sun takes. Also there needs to be at least another 10% of space around a ground for normal ingress/egress / vomitorium / approach road / helipad reasons as well as room for emergency evacuation areas.

It's impossible to fit all that without going over the rail tracks.

What's wrong with going over the tracks? Sydney is building skyscrapers on theirs.

Wow, talk about a bunch of bloody whingers. Foley was right for once.

AtD wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Look at the picture. How can that fit? Remember, it needs to be orientated Solar North-South because that's the average direction that the Sun takes. Also there needs to be at least another 10% of space around a ground for normal ingress/egress / vomitorium / approach road / helipad reasons as well as room for emergency evacuation areas.

It's impossible to fit all that without going over the rail tracks.

What's wrong with going over the tracks? Sydney is building skyscrapers on theirs.

Could you please go back and read the entire post that you quoted that part from? I've repeated all these points several times now.

monotonehell wrote:ANYTHING is possible given a shitload of money. Trying to cram a World Class stadium onto this site is ludicrous if you know anything about the requirements of stadium design. Actually doing it would require bags of money to redirect the train lines (there's two don't forget), raise the structure above the trainlines, rebuild the land, shift the Lake... it's all about cost.

Cost? I thought we were being pie in the sky.

AtD wrote:Cost? I thought we were being pie in the sky.

Mmmmm pie...

Professor wrote:It's not going to happen so why talk about it? Adelaide oval is getting an upgrade and so is football park, both funded partially by the Govt. They will not look to support another competitor venue and where is the demand? And it will take more parklands so a vocal but powerful minority will fight it.

Anyway, Rann will be in power for another term after this one and he will not support or build it.

QED

Actually I believe the reason why Rann will not commit to anything now, is because the whole idea of Australia bidding or even getting the World Cup, is still to even be realised.
We haven't even come up with a bid yet, no meetings have taken place. Nobody knows what is needed, how big, facilities, cost, by when, etc. There's no actual plan in place yet for an Australian bid.
Given if a bid does come all these things will be worked out, I'm sure Rann will put some spin on it as to why he is now supporting a new stadium be built. He isn't about to start throwing hundreds of millions around for a stadium for an event which we as yet may not even end up putting a serious bid if at all in, let alone win the right to host the World Cup.

There is plenty of time for a stadium for the World Cup to be built. We don't need to rush off and have one under construction this year or even in the next three. As long as we have a plan, proposals for stadiums that have financial backing and support that actually will be built if our bid is successful, that's all that counts. 2018 is over ten years away, we have a better chance at 2022, 14 years from now. Lets not rush it and botch it.

monotonehell wrote:

AtD wrote:

monotonehell wrote:Look at the picture. How can that fit? Remember, it needs to be orientated Solar North-South because that's the average direction that the Sun takes. Also there needs to be at least another 10% of space around a ground for normal ingress/egress / vomitorium / approach road / helipad reasons as well as room for emergency evacuation areas.

It's impossible to fit all that without going over the rail tracks.

What's wrong with going over the tracks? Sydney is building skyscrapers on theirs.

Could you please go back and read the entire post that you quoted that part from? I've repeated all these points several times now.

monotonehell wrote:ANYTHING is possible given a shitload of money. Trying to cram a World Class stadium onto this site is ludicrous if you know anything about the requirements of stadium design. Actually doing it would require bags of money to redirect the train lines (there's two don't forget), raise the structure above the trainlines, rebuild the land, shift the Lake... it's all about cost.

I thought we are speaking of vision here?

Relatively, handling with cost is much easier than any of your proposal, building on one of the parklands, which is much harder to handle the parklands preservation group don't you think so?

Surely silencing them temporarily isnt that hard? Anyways, I believe the Parklands Preservation... blah blahs only care about what goes on in the East parklands not the west, otherwise they wouldnt be allowing those tent cities in the west to be set up would they?

Edgar wrote:I thought we are speaking of vision here?

Dreaming up an idea is one thing, but if that is as far as you want to take a project why are you arguing any further? What's wrong with examining a vision to see if it can be done, how it can be done, other possibilities, and should it be done at all?

It's like the 5 year old girl who wants a pony for her birthday, but lives with her unemployed father, mother and three siblings in a 3 bedroom high rise flat. She can dream all she wants but the pony isn't going to fit in the bathroom, would need a stable and care, and her parents couldn't afford it anyway.

Edgar wrote:Relatively, handling with cost is much easier than any of your proposal, building on one of the parklands, which is much harder to handle the parklands preservation group don't you think so?

From what I've heard the PPG are looking at reclaiming the railyards anyway. So they would be a constant factor no matter the chosen site.

monotonehell wrote:
I know a few of the managers of the "upper priced" pubs around Rundle Street and Hutt Street and they all hate the Clipsal, for them any profit made in the small increase in patronage is offset by the vandalism and increased cost of security needed to refuse to serve drunk patrons (as is required under the act).

I've outed myself as a total snob now haven't I?

LOL!!!! and all you people think having a football stadium in the city will attract a "higher class" of pub patron, than those that attend the Clipsal 500?