[COM] Victoria Square Upgrade - $24m

[Patrick_27]

Martin Haese was only elected because he had the business dollars to plaster the city with placards, that's all it takes to get elected in this state.

[monotonehell]

Remember that council elections, unlike state/federal elections, are open to votes from residents, property owners as well as body corporates. This means that a lot of the votes may have come from mobilised old school property owners.

[zippySA]

A lot of this commentary should be moved to the Beer Garden I think. Part of why I enjoy dropping in to S-A is the actual debate and commentary on proposals and projects that is often informative. I reckon the tone and content of posts more recently (across many topics) has been moving more to a Facebook style whinge and rant level.
What is the ACC meant to do when a project is launched without funding? Why would an elected body (democracy at work people - don't shoot the elected, I'd focus on the electorate and perhaps you should consider an electoral reform page here to discuss what proposals should be considered for future LGA and State elections to address any perceived bias in results - just think Palmer United Party - who the hell voted for them and what were they thinking??). That could get traction and change in future.

Be good to see this post get back to constructive input - I manage a business - and when you consider the future budgets, you need priorities and have a limited resource (budget) base so you cannot achieve everything you would like to achieve in one hit. So what should they do - I don't have the answers there but I can tell you, throwing another $70M currently (which we all know will end up being $100M+ once contamination, replacing pavers, erecting lights etc occurs) at the Square would mean cancelling or delaying other works or borrowing the full amount, which means increased repayments and delaying or deleting other projects to cover the costs.

Anyone know what could be deleted from ACC budget (assuming all the grumpy commentators have read the document and based their arguments on fact) to raise significant funds to proceed with Stage 2? Perhaps this forum could identify savings or deferred projects that the electorate would be happy to see sacrificed to proceed with the (geographic) centre of Adelaide Stage 2 (ie not the true "centre" of activity in my view)

[Vee]

Remember that council elections, unlike state/federal elections, are open to votes from residents, property owners as well as body corporates. This means that a lot of the votes may have come from mobilised old school property owners.

Yes, hard to miss Haese's (They're everywhere!) placards/posters in the city, on poles, in cafes and businesses, during the election campaign - quite overwhelming in fact.

Yarwood preferred using his high profile, vision, experience and record as incumbent, door knocking, grassroots support and social media.

Yarwood won the first preferences poll, relatively easily, but got done over by the distribution of preferences. Sad!
Haese's platform agenda was dull and mundane and we can see what's happening. Enough said.

City Mag:
http://citymag.com.au/commerce/martin-h ... oral-race/

[Nathan]

A lot of this commentary should be moved to the Beer Garden I think. Part of why I enjoy dropping in to S-A is the actual debate and commentary on proposals and projects that is often informative. I reckon the tone and content of posts more recently (across many topics) has been moving more to a Facebook style whinge and rant level.
What is the ACC meant to do when a project is launched without funding? Why would an elected body (democracy at work people - don't shoot the elected, I'd focus on the electorate and perhaps you should consider an electoral reform page here to discuss what proposals should be considered for future LGA and State elections to address any perceived bias in results - just think Palmer United Party - who the hell voted for them and what were they thinking??). That could get traction and change in future.

Be good to see this post get back to constructive input - I manage a business - and when you consider the future budgets, you need priorities and have a limited resource (budget) base so you cannot achieve everything you would like to achieve in one hit. So what should they do - I don't have the answers there but I can tell you, throwing another $70M currently (which we all know will end up being $100M+ once contamination, replacing pavers, erecting lights etc occurs) at the Square would mean cancelling or delaying other works or borrowing the full amount, which means increased repayments and delaying or deleting other projects to cover the costs.

Anyone know what could be deleted from ACC budget (assuming all the grumpy commentators have read the document and based their arguments on fact) to raise significant funds to proceed with Stage 2? Perhaps this forum could identify savings or deferred projects that the electorate would be happy to see sacrificed to proceed with the (geographic) centre of Adelaide Stage 2 (ie not the true "centre" of activity in my view)

The plan was always to try and get contribution towards the $100m amount from state and federal governments. There were some attempts at funding from a federal grant program in the early stages which they didn't get. It was thought that it would be best to then do stage one to demonstrate that the council were serious about the project (unlike the many many previous proposals for the square) and to build up momentum, and then try again to get additional funding. However now that we're at that point, instead of trying for that funding again, they're throwing their hands up in the air and giving up.

From memory the most significant costs are the road realignments (which would be stage 3), followed by the arbours (which were in stage 2).

[Honey of a City]

To zippySA. You've made some good observations about the frustration and disappointment of people on this site who love this city and want to see it develop to its potential. But the Vic Square fiasco is symptomatic of the dynamics which have kept Adelaide in the doldrums for so many years, with a few bright spots along the way. I totally disagree that any visionary project has to be paid for by reducing other projects/services. That's one-dimensional strategic planning and bound to fail. A budget is a means, not an end. It's a tool to get things happening, and is multi-dimensional. Where there's no vision, a budget will always used as an excuse for inaction. The key is to articulate the vision, take people along with you, and create the resources to carry it through. Sadly there's no evidence of that formula with Vic Square.

[Wayno]

The key is to articulate the vision, take people along with you, and create the resources to carry it through.

Wise words.

Managers manage down to a budget.

Leaders find a way to break through.

[zippySA]

Agree - wise words and cannot fault that regarding leadership v management. Guess I just hold the view that this issue isn't the current priority for our leaders to progress.

I couldn't find the thread just now - but a while back someone was asking for people's top priorities to kick start the State again and I don't recall anyone nominating Vic Square as a priority for economic / social focus. If I had control of the reins - I know that wouldn't be my major focus either in short / medium term (as no doubt readers can guess from my prior post). For my money, you could achieve a hell of a lot more for less on Vic Square than the masterplan version - but until the city population grows enormously, we have a lot of other areas that require focus.

[ml69]

Agree - wise words and cannot fault that regarding leadership v management. Guess I just hold the view that this issue isn't the current priority for our leaders to progress.

I couldn't find the thread just now - but a while back someone was asking for people's top priorities to kick start the State again and I don't recall anyone nominating Vic Square as a priority for economic / social focus. If I had control of the reins - I know that wouldn't be my major focus either in short / medium term (as no doubt readers can guess from my prior post). For my money, you could achieve a hell of a lot more for less on Vic Square than the masterplan version - but until the city population grows enormously, we have a lot of other areas that require focus.

Zippy

What things do you think could be done and what things left out of Vic Square to achieve "more for less"? Interested to know your thoughts ...

[Patrick_27]

A lot of this commentary should be moved to the Beer Garden I think. Part of why I enjoy dropping in to S-A is the actual debate and commentary on proposals and projects that is often informative. I reckon the tone and content of posts more recently (across many topics) has been moving more to a Facebook style whinge and rant level.
What is the ACC meant to do when a project is launched without funding? Why would an elected body (democracy at work people - don't shoot the elected, I'd focus on the electorate and perhaps you should consider an electoral reform page here to discuss what proposals should be considered for future LGA and State elections to address any perceived bias in results - just think Palmer United Party - who the hell voted for them and what were they thinking??). That could get traction and change in future.

Be good to see this post get back to constructive input - I manage a business - and when you consider the future budgets, you need priorities and have a limited resource (budget) base so you cannot achieve everything you would like to achieve in one hit. So what should they do - I don't have the answers there but I can tell you, throwing another $70M currently (which we all know will end up being $100M+ once contamination, replacing pavers, erecting lights etc occurs) at the Square would mean cancelling or delaying other works or borrowing the full amount, which means increased repayments and delaying or deleting other projects to cover the costs.

Anyone know what could be deleted from ACC budget (assuming all the grumpy commentators have read the document and based their arguments on fact) to raise significant funds to proceed with Stage 2? Perhaps this forum could identify savings or deferred projects that the electorate would be happy to see sacrificed to proceed with the (geographic) centre of Adelaide Stage 2 (ie not the true "centre" of activity in my view)

The plan was always to try and get contribution towards the $100m amount from state and federal governments. There were some attempts at funding from a federal grant program in the early stages which they didn't get. It was thought that it would be best to then do stage one to demonstrate that the council were serious about the project (unlike the many many previous proposals for the square) and to build up momentum, and then try again to get additional funding. However now that we're at that point, instead of trying for that funding again, they're throwing their hands up in the air and giving up.

From memory the most significant costs are the road realignments (which would be stage 3), followed by the arbours (which were in stage 2).

You forget that the last council funded almost $60m in works on both Rundle Mall and Victoria Square whilst also working on laneway projects and improving footpaths among many other things. As far as I know, in undertaking these projects the council didn't put themselves into any debt. So, what I'd like to know is if the council aren't spending money on further stages for Victoria Square, and the Rundle Mall upgrade for the most part is complete, AND the central markets redevelopment won't happen for at-least another two years; where the hell is the council's budget being allocated to? They have said they're going to contribute to the reopening of the Regent Arcade cinemas (which I think is a bit rich considering St. Peter's College owns the building and Theo Maras will run the cinemas when complete) but what the are they spending such money on otherwise? All that appears to be happening, is the council are contributing to private ventures where they will turn no profit themselves and simply put money in the pockets of already wealthy business owners.

[Patrick_27]

Agree - wise words and cannot fault that regarding leadership v management. Guess I just hold the view that this issue isn't the current priority for our leaders to progress.

I couldn't find the thread just now - but a while back someone was asking for people's top priorities to kick start the State again and I don't recall anyone nominating Vic Square as a priority for economic / social focus. If I had control of the reins - I know that wouldn't be my major focus either in short / medium term (as no doubt readers can guess from my prior post). For my money, you could achieve a hell of a lot more for less on Vic Square than the masterplan version - but until the city population grows enormously, we have a lot of other areas that require focus.

Zippy

What things do you think could be done and what things left out of Vic Square to achieve "more for less"? Interested to know your thoughts ...

Whether people like it or not, the road realignment needs to happen. Sure, the diamond shape works well enough for traffic and doesn't necessarily look that bad. But it makes what could be a large public space in the centre of the city, much smaller and leaves small pockets on unless land on each corner of the block. By realigning the road, you're bringing those pockets into the square, which in the scheme of things may not look like much, but you'd be surprised how much extra space it would bring.

[Nathan]

The plan was always to try and get contribution towards the $100m amount from state and federal governments. There were some attempts at funding from a federal grant program in the early stages which they didn't get. It was thought that it would be best to then do stage one to demonstrate that the council were serious about the project (unlike the many many previous proposals for the square) and to build up momentum, and then try again to get additional funding. However now that we're at that point, instead of trying for that funding again, they're throwing their hands up in the air and giving up.

From memory the most significant costs are the road realignments (which would be stage 3), followed by the arbours (which were in stage 2).

You forget that the last council funded almost $60m in works on both Rundle Mall and Victoria Square whilst also working on laneway projects and improving footpaths among many other things. As far as I know, in undertaking these projects the council didn't put themselves into any debt. So, what I'd like to know is if the council aren't spending money on further stages for Victoria Square, and the Rundle Mall upgrade for the most part is complete, AND the central markets redevelopment won't happen for at-least another two years; where the hell is the council's budget being allocated to? They have said they're going to contribute to the reopening of the Regent Arcade cinemas (which I think is a bit rich considering St. Peter's College owns the building and Theo Maras will run the cinemas when complete) but what the are they spending such money on otherwise? All that appears to be happening, is the council are contributing to private ventures where they will turn no profit themselves and simply put money in the pockets of already wealthy business owners.

The council did go into / increase their debt for the projects (although it was a manageable amount). However, political commentary these days boils down to all debt = bad, so much of the current council was elected on the promise of reduced spending.

Is the contribution to the cinemas a stand alone funding, or is it part of the kitty made available across Rundle Mall for small restoration & activation projects (like what was provided to Adelaide Arcade to refurbish the space and balcony where Two Bit Villains has move into)?

[Waewick]

All I want them to do is remove the trees and replace them with new ones, as a bare minimum.

[Patrick_27]

I don't necessarily like the guy, but John Rau seems to talk a lot of sense and in doing so gets shit done.

He's announced (as the new City of Adelaide Minister) that he'd like to oversee the completion of the Victoria Square upgrade, in particular realigning the roads around the square as was outlined in master plan. He's also mentioned his desire to upgrade Grenfell Street, the western end of North Terrace (around the new RAH and convention centre upgrades) and fix the North-South bike corridor. He seemingly took a stab at the council for their lack of financial commitment over the Ri erside precinct.

More to be read here... http://indaily.com.au/news/local/2016/0 ... ia-square/

[Waewick]

I completely agree with him on Vic Square and the bike corridor.

now cough up the cash and lets get it done.