Sensational-Adelaide.com

peas_and_corn wrote:It's OK, we'll just call it a 'park and ride' facility.

That idea is also mentioned in the DPA. You can try that, but some people see through it like Dr Jennifer Bonham of the Geographical & Environmental Studies Office at the University of Adelaide who happens to be a resident of Rose Terrace.

This thread is about a partial rezoning for various commercial and residential uses of the Adelaide Showgrounds, rather than the Showgrounds Upgrade thread already existing.

http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/index.cfm ... 0F2030D46A

The rezoning is proceeding through the planning system. A ministerial DPA proposes extinguishing the present Show Grounds Zone and substituting new zoning to allow:

- commercial activities such as consulting rooms, offices, tourist accommodation, a child care centre and a gymnasium against the western side of Goodwood Road
- mix use development of up to seven storeys above natural ground level against the southern side of Rose Terrace
- mix use development of up to five storeys above natural ground level against the northern side of Leader Street.

When the government says:

The majority of the Showground and associated land is held by the Royal Agricultural and Horticultural Society of South Australia Incorporated (the RAHS). As part of its business operations, the RAHS recently prepared a master plan outlining its intentions for future development of this strategic site. This provides insight into options regarding how the Showground and associated land could be put to higher and better use and formed a starting point for the now released proposal.

it should say that while the showgrounds are 'held' by the RAHS, the Showgrounds are government land leased by RAHS with the exception of the Showgrounds Oval and the RAHS office which are on land belonging to the RAHS.

The question is, given the present government's propensity for selling any land it can find to sell, will the perimeter of the Showgrounds be sold, or are there bigger plans? I know at least one government planner who thinks that the Showgrounds could have been relocated to Cheltenham Racecourse.

A 600sqm building allotment at the redeveloped Showgrounds would be very valuable. My back of the envelope calculation indicates about 200 x 300sqm - 500sqm allotments at what - $400,000 to $600,000 per allotment? That's potentially $100,000,000, plus whatever the land under the 5 and 7 storey towers is worth.

A significant piece of inner-city land with strong public transport access that's currently used as open-air car parking all year, including during the Show. It looks to me like a highly suitable site for sustainable, transit-oriented, high density development. Great news.

Trust you to make it sound like a conspiracy.

the outside perimeter of the showgrounds is just awful, its vile and some industrial sites look better. Its so dated. The new pavilion on Goodwood Road makes an improvement but overall, the huge site is such a waste of space for 320 days of the year

No conspiracy, AtD. I'm an advocate for highest and best use of land, other than the relatively small amount of land for which the present use is permanently settled for whatever reason. That position means that private land owners should have as far as possible the opportunity to develop their land to the those highest and best uses.

The position of the government as a landowner is slightly different. The government holds land 'in trust' for the public, but should also have the flexibility to develop land to the highest and best use. However, that right of the government does not mean that a particular government should treat land either as a solution to short term cash requirements or as a resource for pork-barrelling to promote its electoral hopes. That's easier to say than to enforce, but when a minister goes against the advice of expert planners in its own planning department in disposal or development of its own land, or in approval of controversial developments proposed by donors to the government, there is a good chance that the development process has become politicised. When development is politicised, the chances that the highest and best uses will not be achieved are maximised.

In the case of the Showgrounds, as I said there is no conspiracy. I'm a bit surprised that the future of this major government land asset was not considered in the Unley development plan. Council development plan DPAs cross some desks at Planning SA, but any oversight is not really the government's fault.

There are long periods when much of the Showgrounds site is unused or underused, together with the parking, access and traffic problems of the site indicates less than highest and best use, which means that the future of the site should be kept flexible. However, the heavy investment in new buildings on the site probably indicates that no complete redevelopment of the site (and relocation of the Showgrounds) is on the cards.

Instead, it looks as though the proposed rezoning will affect the perimeters of the site, to a depth of say 50 metres. Mixed uses including housing is proposed for the northern and southern edges of the site with commercial to the eastern frontage to Goodwood Road.

How this would work with the Showgrounds in operation is an interesting question. Would medium rise housing work so close to the Showgrounds? Perhaps the proximity to the CBD, and the relatively brief duration of the Show would outweigh any objections.

Declaring any development there a 'TOD' is not sufficient to cover poor planning. TODs, which are hardly new, by the way, despite the SA Labor government's promotion of them, are about transport nodes and efficiency.

So what is the best way to approach the future of the Showgrounds?

My humble suggestion is to consider the site together with several other factors which should inform any DPA for the site. The factors are: The proximity of the land to the CBD; the adjacent metropolitan railway line; and the proposed transfer of the army's Keswick barracks to the state government.

If we have these factors in mind, we can start talking about TODs. Think of better physical connections between the Showgrounds and Keswick sites, and a metropolitan rail station south of the present Keswick bridge, servicing both sites. Think of better public transport between Wayville and the CBD, perhaps even an extension of the North Tce tram. Consider, ugly as it may be, a major park and ride facility - which means a multi-level carpark to reduce the number of cars in the CBD, collecting commuters from Goodwood Road and Anzac Highway.

Because of the likely evolution of the sites, planning should look 20 or 30 years ahead, so that we do not cut off our options. That was my concern - to literally 'tinker with the edges' of the Showground site, especially if it results in splintering those edges into multiple private ownerships, without developing a comprehensive plan for the two sites, is likely to be counter productive in the long term.

Below is the land involved in the Showgrounds PDA.

The whole showgrounds + kewsick barracks area would make a pretty nice TOD/fairgrounds one day, already it's got the advantage of being very close to the city and right next to 3 rail lines and the glenelg tram line

Precisely. There is enough land to incorporate best sustainable practice, perhaps perimeter garaging and internal pedestrian residential precincts, stormwater retention, solar access and power and so on.

In general, both sites look inwards - both are more or less secure, 'private' areas. They present visually and physically to the public realm mainly fences or the blank sides of buildings. Opening up these edges would do great things for the sites.

To suggest that the combined sites could be well-used 'one day' underlines the need for comprehensive planning at an early stage.

According to wikipedia, the oval used to be used as a harness racing track until the 1970s. Maybe they could reintroduce harness racing back to the showgrounds?, the Atrium could be used as a market (non fruit & veg) on weekends?

stumpjumper wrote: The question is, given the present government's propensity for selling any land it can find to sell, will the perimeter of the Showgrounds be sold, or are there bigger plans? I know at least one government planner who thinks that the Showgrounds could have been relocated to Cheltenham Racecourse.

Why would they relocate the showgrounds to Cheltenham, when they have spent tens of millions on doing up the grounds, great location, excellent facilities and not to mention Wayville has loads of history

Another thought - if multi-storey apartments along Greenhill Road are wanted, perhaps surplus land at the Showgrounds could be used to relocate businesses displaced by more-profitable rezoning of Greenhill Road land to mid/high density residential.

Why would they relocate the showgrounds to Cheltenham, when they have spent tens of millions on doing up the grounds, great location, excellent facilities and not to mention Wayville has loads of history

I didn't say I agreed with moving to Cheltenham - that land ids sold anyway. I mentioned it only to indicate that there were other ideas around.

'...loads of history' - are you about to join the heritage lobby, crawf?

Omicron - it would have to be a carrot and stick thing - or carrot at least. You'd have to create a business park at the showgrounds site and rezone Greenhill Rd for high rise (residential only).

The issue then becomes - apart from the parklands view to the north, what would be gained over simply rezoning the showgrounds for high rise housing and save the trouble of demolishing and rebuilding business premises?

From ABC Online:

Rezoning the Adelaide Showgrounds will allow their transformation into a modern exhibition and entertainment precinct, says the South Australian Government.

It will allow the Royal Agricultural and Horticultural Society to develop the 26-hectare site at Wayville.

There are plans for new sports facilities, entertainment venues, tourist accommodation, offices and a childcare centre.

SA Planning Minister Paul Holloway says the rezoning has been approved to help meet the changing needs of the 21st century.

"It's important that the ... Horticultural Society have the economic capacity to stage the best show in the country and of course to do that they need to get the value out of the showgrounds and the show itself is of course one of the real icons of South Australian life," he said.

Show chief executive John Rothwell says year-round commercial activity at Wayville can boost the society's revenue and see the profits reinvested.

"The southern and western side has a lot of pavilions which were built for one purpose only, being the show, and it's about making sure we can actually evolve that over time so they're being used throughout the year," he said.

"On Rose Terrace, the rezoning allows up to seven storeys in development and what that provides then is, if for example we had some commercial office development along there, it means that you can build multi-storey car parking adjacent.

"The other thing is a development like that provides a revenue stream for the long term."

I did read in the Advertiser that one of the first proposals was to remove some of the animal pavilions and build an indoor sports centre in their place. Hopefully a degree of character will be retained - it would be a shame if the location no longer added any sort of unique element to the Show.

"It's important that the ... Horticultural Society have the economic capacity

It's fairly clear that the proposal is intended to allow the SAHS to raise funds to develop - what, the edges of the site, rezoned for mixed use, medium rise, etc? What would the SAHS get out of that, since the SAHS is only a lease holder? They might get something for giving up possession, but it wouldn't be much.

In fact, SAHS would lose something in short supply - parking. Not just for show visitors, but for horse flats and the semi-trailers and trailer living accommodation of the travelling amusement guys and stall holders. I'm not trying to whip up a conspiracy theory here, just 'following the money', an interesting exercise in finding out whether the public is a winner or loser in this. Good planning needn't always advantage the public, but at the very least it should not disadvantage it.

So if the Showgrounds were developed (ie the edges sold and built on as the DPA provides), how is the public affected?

Is the statement that the SAHS will be able to better develop the Showground, and the Show experience, a fair prediction? A better show experience will mean higher ticket income - more people attending or higher ticket prices. SAHS' other source of income is rents. With less room for the floats, trailers, will SAHS maintain the rent it charges to stall holders and amusement operators?

A useful question to ask about any development, or business venture for that matter, is: 'If it's such a good idea,why hasn't someone done it already?'

How essential to the Show is onsite parking for participants, and what is the cost of replicating it?

I'd like to hear SAHS' point of view on that question. That would give us, the public, a better odea of who is driving this - is it Treasury trawling government land assets for saleable slivers, or is it a developer/s with a grand scheme in mind? (Unlikely, given the spread and scope of uses at the site.)

My two bob's worth is to look at the adjacent opportunities and assets (Keswick Barracks, rail line, potential entry from Greenhill Rd along rail easement) and set up a steering committee of owners, council, experts etc to oversee the progress of any development.

Perhaps one item which could interest a single developer or consortium might be a strip of parking/commercial/residential along the Showground's northern (Rose Tce) edge. Parking below, then commercial, then residential, looking out over the two level Greenhill Rd offices and across the Park Lands. That might work.

Whatever happens, the attractiveness and financial viability of the Show must be preserved. This is not a matter of heritage or sentimentality, but practicality.

Despite the parking and traffic problems of the site during Show time, the Show is brief, and the costs and problems of relocating the Show are enormous.

So we should proceed carefully.

stumpjumper wrote:A useful question to ask about any development, or business venture for that matter, is: 'If it's such a good idea,why hasn't someone done it already?'

What a defeatist sentiment. Have a little vision, would you? An old economics joke:
Two economists are walking down the street when they come upon a $100 note lying on the ground. As one reaches down to pick it up, the other says "Don’t bother. If it were a real $100 note, someone would have picked it up already."

Parking for horse floats and such doesn't have to be on site. It's be a very poor use of land to leave an area empty for 51 weeks of year for that specific reason only.

What a defeatist sentiment. Have a little vision, would you? An old economics joke:
Two economists are walking down the street when they come upon a $100 note lying on the ground. As one reaches down to pick it up, the other says "Don’t bother. If it were a real $100 note, someone would have picked it up already."

Land development is a bit different than picking up scattered cash, AtD. My question is still useful in deciding a use for land.

Apparently there is a designed proposal for a 7 level carpark on Rose Tce. It's remarkable that the DPA has only just been put up and already there is a fully fledged development available.

A potential issue here is 'who is driving this?' Many people here may disagree, but I don't think the development industry should be the only deciders of the future form of our cities. The developer's concerns are not broadly based enough - they usually start and stop at profit.

I'm all for good development - in this case if it can be achieved without a negative effect on the Show, which is a valued community activity.

I went to the showgrounds today and discovered that 'overflow parking' is available for stall holders and ride operators behind the West Tce cemetery, $135 to ACC for the 9 days. Any further overflow goes to West Beach. Several ride operators I spoke to said that proximity of parking was very important to them, and that if on-site parking were unavailable for the Adelaide Show, it would make Adelaide a less attractive venue for them.

Any development of the government-owned land at the Showgrounds should be subject to scrutiny to ensure that the Show itself doesn't suffer and that all parties are dealt with fairly. A large carpark sounds reasonable - park and ride during the year (if there are good public transport connections) and use by visitors at Show time. But it looks as though the Show needs to retain some open space for exhibitors and operators.

Does anyone know who the developer of the proposed carpark is?















,;