Sensational-Adelaide.com

When did you get yours? Still waiting for mine.

Can you be a bit clearer about the parking resolution between stakeholders Mattblack? Wasn't aware there was anything other than a listing of areas of the Parklands that can be used , and the desire for somebody to build a 400 car space underground park. This is the sort of rubbery planning that I want to see sorted before getting excited.

Omicron wrote:Is the Adelaide Oval redevelopment the best option, or is it the best option that we have been presented? I'm a non-SACA member, and I'm not fully convinced. Yes, it's very nice indeed, but there are too many questions in my mind to be entirely sure. Is $535m enough to do it properly? Is it appropriate for the eastern stand to be larger than the western stand (with higher-paying members)? What would $535m achieve if directed towards a new stadium? Why is it that fewer people are to be accommodated in a redeveloped stadium that is intended to attract higher crowds than the existing stadium with greater capacity? What are the views of Crows, Port and AAMI Stadium members, as distinct from the views of the SANFL? Is there research that supports larger crowds at AO with a $535m investment over AAMI with a lesser (or no) investment? How much of AAMI and its surrounds does the SANFL own, and how much could it reasonably expect to gain from the re-zoning of land that it owns? Is there research that indicates more people are willing to take public transport in line with the need for more people to do so? And so on.

I do not accept at all that rejecting this redevelopment in its current form is in some way non-progressive, or anti-development, or backwards, or any other nonsense claim. When public funds are to be used, it is entirely appropriate to ensure that they will be spent in such a way that a measurable gain is to be made. If there isn't any data to suggest more people will go, or that more money will be made, or that money spent on existing or new stadia wouldn't be better spent; even if the Adelaide Oval redevelopment would make everyone a billion dollars more in ten years, how in god's name can anyone rationally approve of it until basic questions are answered? I'd love to say yes if I knew it was going to be measurably better, but my God, with the amount of batshit nonsense about image and prestige and fancy and new and catalyst for further development and whatnot, I do not know for the life of me how to support a development that no-one seems to want to defend on measurable, rational grounds.

spiller wrote:Omicron, unfortunately for some (not me personally as I think its a great development), there is no choice of what the best option for footy in the city is. It's either Adelaide Oval, or its NOTHING. i.e. x amount of years stuck out in that ugly,. stale concrete bowl that is AAMI stadium. I think this is what people need to understand, and for some unknown reason they can't.

I liked the state editors piece in the tiser yesterday too, a bit synical of his own people, but at least he didnt beat around the bush.

I got my membhers info pack in the mail yesterday and had a read of it last night. You can tell its aimed at the moron's who are so quick to knock this development down just for the sake of whinging about something before actually looking into the finer details of the proposal.

Waewick wrote:your right stumpjumer

the problem we have is that we either back in the current project team or we don't, because the Hospital is going in the middle of what should be parklands and the only option we have now is the AO redevelopment

I actually hope that the RAH site gets returned to parklands as well, in the format of an entrance to the botanic gardens and torrens river area which is underrated and under utilised, it would also provide a great path to the zoo from the CBD.

rev wrote: And why do I stay here? Because I'm born and bred here, and rather then cut and run like so many other South Aussies, I aint a panzy ass candy girl, I'd rather stay here and see the place improve and move forward. And maybe one day if I can, contribute in some way other then knocking down the whiners. I'm sure we all want whats best for Adelaide and our state, and would contribute as much as we could if we got the chance. And we do contribute however insignificant it may be, by sticking it out, making a life for our selves, starting our own businesses, whatever. Every little bit helps.
Hell, it should be our mission as South Australians to pop out an extra baby for each cry baby whiner that leaves the state, and raise that child to not be a quitter or a whiner. Seriously, they should start a Sam Kekovitch style eat more lamb campaign.

spiller wrote:Honestly, I think this would help. If people realised how stupid all this whinging makes us look compared to the rest of the country, they may actually start to take offence and change their attitude.

If people realised how stupid all this whinging makes us look compared to the rest of the country, they may actually start to take offence and change their attitude.

stumpjumper wrote:Not everyone who will or would vote no is a dinosaur. I suggest that many are as passionate about AO, sport in general and the future of Adelaide as any yes voter.

No-voters could be motivated by a number of things. For example, some want to suck it and see to assess how well the sharing arrangements work. Some are concerned that with its absolute funding cap, SACA will have to bear any cost blow-out (that point, like many others, is not clear). Some SACA members are worried about the entitlements of membership, some are concerned about the pitches, and so on.