Sensational-Adelaide.com

There was a comments in the Advertiser that the Libs have fast tracked this through the DAC with no discussion, consultation etc but were then reminded this was the process Labour had put in place from their term in Govt.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:12 am

Goes to show how fucked the DAC are, this proposal needs further consultation considering it's being built on public land...

Spot on.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:12 am

Goes to show how fucked the DAC are, this proposal needs further consultation considering it's being built on public land...

Who needs to be consulted, you?

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 23, 2018 8:05 pm

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:12 am

Goes to show how fucked the DAC are, this proposal needs further consultation considering it's being built on public land...

Who needs to be consulted, you?

As a matter of fact, yes. And you, and everyone else on and outside of this forum. Considering the level fo consultation that was undertaken before the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval with SACA member (being one of them myself), it's ridiculous that this proposal that goes completely against the design merits of the redevelopment and quite frankly has some serious issues that have not been addressed (security being one, the hotel's actual viability and the potential that it sitting dormant) can simply jump through hoops with such ease and not be properly scrutinised. And worse yet, as I've already mentioned, it's on public land.

But yes, go forth in being a condescending arse-hole, Rev.

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, it was a direct to the point question.

On what grounds are you or I qualified to provide serious feedback on this or any proposal?

How do you know the stadium wasn’t designed with the possibility of adding on to it as is the case with this development? The firm COX is responsible for both the redevelopment and this hotel.

How do you know security hasn’t been addressed? Are you a security risk management expert? Are you assuming they haven’t taken the issue of security into account? Why would they publicly discuss security measures that are non-visible in the public domain in this current climate and day and age?
I assume that you, and others who keep raising this, are aware that the hotel won’t have direct access into/out of the stadium it self?

This isn’t going to be a hotel aimed at the average punter or random members of the public. It’s fairly obvious that this is intended for corporate clients who use the stadium’s function and conference facilities.

Being a SACA member gives you rights to say yes or no to developments? Interesting.

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:38 am

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, it was a direct to the point question.

On what grounds are you or I qualified to provide serious feedback on this or any proposal?

How do you know the stadium wasn’t designed with the possibility of adding on to it as is the case with this development? The firm COX is responsible for both the redevelopment and this hotel.

How do you know security hasn’t been addressed? Are you a security risk management expert? Are you assuming they haven’t taken the issue of security into account? Why would they publicly discuss security measures that are non-visible in the public domain in this current climate and day and age?
I assume that you, and others who keep raising this, are aware that the hotel won’t have direct access into/out of the stadium it self?

This isn’t going to be a hotel aimed at the average punter or random members of the public. It’s fairly obvious that this is intended for corporate clients who use the stadium’s function and conference facilities.

Being a SACA member gives you rights to say yes or no to developments? Interesting.

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:39 am

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:38 am

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, it was a direct to the point question.

On what grounds are you or I qualified to provide serious feedback on this or any proposal?

How do you know the stadium wasn’t designed with the possibility of adding on to it as is the case with this development? The firm COX is responsible for both the redevelopment and this hotel.

How do you know security hasn’t been addressed? Are you a security risk management expert? Are you assuming they haven’t taken the issue of security into account? Why would they publicly discuss security measures that are non-visible in the public domain in this current climate and day and age?
I assume that you, and others who keep raising this, are aware that the hotel won’t have direct access into/out of the stadium it self?

This isn’t going to be a hotel aimed at the average punter or random members of the public. It’s fairly obvious that this is intended for corporate clients who use the stadium’s function and conference facilities.

Being a SACA member gives you rights to say yes or no to developments? Interesting.

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

rev wrote:

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:39 am

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:38 am

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, it was a direct to the point question.

On what grounds are you or I qualified to provide serious feedback on this or any proposal?

How do you know the stadium wasn’t designed with the possibility of adding on to it as is the case with this development? The firm COX is responsible for both the redevelopment and this hotel.

How do you know security hasn’t been addressed? Are you a security risk management expert? Are you assuming they haven’t taken the issue of security into account? Why would they publicly discuss security measures that are non-visible in the public domain in this current climate and day and age?
I assume that you, and others who keep raising this, are aware that the hotel won’t have direct access into/out of the stadium it self?

This isn’t going to be a hotel aimed at the average punter or random members of the public. It’s fairly obvious that this is intended for corporate clients who use the stadium’s function and conference facilities.

Being a SACA member gives you rights to say yes or no to developments? Interesting.

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

Ultimately yes
They would be answerable to me as a shareholder


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:36 am

rev wrote:

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:39 am

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

Ultimately yes
They would be answerable to me as a shareholder


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

No, they would not consult you before lending money for a development.

rev wrote:

citywatcher wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:36 am

rev wrote: So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

Ultimately yes
They would be answerable to me as a shareholder


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

No, they would not consult you before lending money for a development.

They would be at the AGM

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I'm curious about this development on a number of levels.

1) claim to have no impact on the park lands, well the area directly in front will be perceived as part of the hotel, just like many homes on the foreshores or around west lakes.

2) I am not for this development, if it can't stand commercially on its own it should not even be given the time of day

3) will it have an unfair commercial advantage over the hotels in North Adelaide/City ie will it pay council rates at the same rate as all the others will it have the same costs as the others or will it be protected in some way.

4) service vehicles, staff, clients, you name all will want access to the place, I am guessing that will be via King William Road and the underground carpark. What impact will that have on the amenities and pedestrian traffic on the footpath and general area.

5) I am not against development but I am against this. I'm not keen on moving this sort of commercial adventure into the park lands. Yet I have no issue with the "Jungle Jim/obstacle course" they have built in the south park lands.

6) it has all gone through with a large amount of undue haste and little detail.

my thoughts.

cheers

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:30 am

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:39 am

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:38 am

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, it was a direct to the point question.

On what grounds are you or I qualified to provide serious feedback on this or any proposal?

How do you know the stadium wasn’t designed with the possibility of adding on to it as is the case with this development? The firm COX is responsible for both the redevelopment and this hotel.

How do you know security hasn’t been addressed? Are you a security risk management expert? Are you assuming they haven’t taken the issue of security into account? Why would they publicly discuss security measures that are non-visible in the public domain in this current climate and day and age?
I assume that you, and others who keep raising this, are aware that the hotel won’t have direct access into/out of the stadium it self?

This isn’t going to be a hotel aimed at the average punter or random members of the public. It’s fairly obvious that this is intended for corporate clients who use the stadium’s function and conference facilities.

Being a SACA member gives you rights to say yes or no to developments? Interesting.

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

The Government is not a bank. That’s the point. The last time a SA Government played at being a banker it sent the state broke. The Government is supposedly a democratic institution working for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Honey of a City wrote:

rev wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:30 am

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:39 am

Sorry but this "average punter and random member of the public", who's stumping up the money for the "corporate clients" and is required to bare the risk without warning or consultation, is not impressed. If the design was ground-breaking, or if there was some other return to us punters, fair enough, but neither the design nor the business case were shared with us, and the process was shoddy in its slickness. And it still looks like a very ordinary block of flats hanging off a grandstand.

So if you were a shareholder in a bank, do you expect the bank is going to share such details with you before lending money for new homes and other developments?

The Government is not a bank. That’s the point. The last time a SA Government played at being a banker it sent the state broke. The Government is supposedly a democratic institution working for the benefit of the taxpayer.

Firstly I'm not keen on this development.

But what you've said you against the actions of the State Government for 20 years.

Its not a Bank, but the SA government has always been a backer of various projects.

I would like to know if the SMA approached a Bank to fund this, however do we even know if they have tje ability to borrow money from a Bank.

Depending on the constitution of the SMA, it may not be able to.

Waewick wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 25, 2018 10:18 pm

I would like to know if the SMA approached a Bank to fund this, however do we even know if they have tje ability to borrow money from a Bank.

Depending on the constitution of the SMA, it may not be able to.

Wasn't Marshall quoted somewhere as saying that the reason for the government financing is that the SMA can't get private money as they can't put the hotel building up as collateral?

Yes Marshall explained the SMA couldn’t get a loan/ mortgage from any bank as it didn’t own the land on which the hotel was to be built (it’s on Crown land like AO is). The banks won’t/can’t lend if they can’t get any security/ property to lend against.