[COM] Adelaide Oval Redevelopment

[Waewick]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

[[Shuz]]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

Er, are you blind!? how the f--- is MCG or Gabba a toilet bowl design? They're completely enclosed, unlike Adelaide Oval which has a gaping hole at the norhern end. It's essentially the arse-end of the stadium. Pun intended.

[Nathan]

There's plenty of things with that kind of general shape, not just toilet bowls

I propose we call it a lucky horseshoe design.

[Waewick]

well for starters the AO design will provide more cover for patrons that anywhere else (as a %)

secondly - yes I was been a bit facetious, but the MCG looks like a toilet bowl (i.e round i've never ever seen a toliet bowl with the back or front missing)
with its lid down (which again i've never seen with the front missing)

[Will]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

Er, are you blind!? how the f--- is MCG or Gabba a toilet bowl design? They're completely enclosed, unlike Adelaide Oval which has a gaping hole at the norhern end. It's essentially the arse-end of the stadium. Pun intended.

[flavze]

it looks like crap. one of the ugliest stadium designs i've ever seen
completely compromised, stands not the same height, ugly roofs, incomplete bowl. i've conversed with many interstate and many agree. it would be more embarrassing to the state if this was built than not.
i'd put it in the west parklands somewhere, either where the netball stadium is or the running track.

i'm not in the 'camp' of supporting a retractable roof either, so those in this thread can forget that line of thinking. i'm no fan of the docklands stadium and there is no need for that sort of thing here.

Isn't AO supposed to be one of the most beautiful grounds around yet it has numerous stands of differant hights and styles? A chunk of the Eastern stand that seems to be permanantly there is made from scaffolding.

Who cares if it's an incomplete bowl, it's filled by historic symbols (the score board and fig trees). It's there for a purpose, same as the stadium being built in Salvador for the 2014 WC has an open end to keep the view that lies to the south of that stadium.

I much prefer the idea of the current AO redevlopment than building some generic acme bowl stadium similar to the MCG or numerous football stadiums around the world, and it's capacity is easily enough.

IMO it's one of the better looking stadium designs from around the world in recent times and meets the needs of all involved.
Is it perfect..NO
Is their a realistic option..NO.
Will any sport in SA be worse off...NO
Will many be better off...YES.

Thats my opinion anyway.

[Prince George]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

I also don't mind the design, I think the open "horse-shoe" suits the oval and does preserve something of the aspect to the ground that makes it recognisable and different among sporting grounds. As I've said before, I couldn't call myself a football or cricket supporter, I rarely go to a match, although I have been in the new stand (to see Adelaide United) and enjoyed it a great deal. What I can't get past is that it's a $530m gift to these sport clubs out of the public purse. The size of that number confuses me when I consider the stand that was completed in the last year.

Consider that project: a 14,000 seat stand built over the site of the oldest stands at the ground, including one dating back to the 1880s, the design that they produced also managed to incorporate some of the aspects of those old stands. In all, I thought that it was a great result. Final cost, something around $120m. Move forward to this plan, it's (roughly) two more copies of the western stand, and the price is more than four times as great. Where did that jump in cost come from, why is there such a massive difference between the two?

[Waewick]

a lot of it will come from general price rises - bastard steel!

of the total amount $85 goes to the SACA - some is going to the footbridge

the rest goes to rebuilding every stand bar the Western (outside the upgrades) plus all the ammenties going with it (indoor centre, pitch infrastructure etc)

it isn't going to be all on stands (unfortunately)

[ricecrackers]

it looks like crap. one of the ugliest stadium designs i've ever seen
completely compromised, stands not the same height, ugly roofs, incomplete bowl. i've conversed with many interstate and many agree. it would be more embarrassing to the state if this was built than not.
i'd put it in the west parklands somewhere, either where the netball stadium is or the running track.

i'm not in the 'camp' of supporting a retractable roof either, so those in this thread can forget that line of thinking. i'm no fan of the docklands stadium and there is no need for that sort of thing here.

Isn't AO supposed to be one of the most beautiful grounds around yet it has numerous stands of differant hights and styles? A chunk of the Eastern stand that seems to be permanantly there is made from scaffolding.

Who cares if it's an incomplete bowl, it's filled by historic symbols (the score board and fig trees). It's there for a purpose, same as the stadium being built in Salvador for the 2014 WC has an open end to keep the view that lies to the south of that stadium.

I much prefer the idea of the current AO redevlopment than building some generic acme bowl stadium similar to the MCG or numerous football stadiums around the world, and it's capacity is easily enough.

IMO it's one of the better looking stadium designs from around the world in recent times and meets the needs of all involved.
Is it perfect..NO
Is their a realistic option..NO.
Will any sport in SA be worse off...NO
Will many be better off...YES.

Thats my opinion anyway.

the MCG is an ugly stadium too. it looked better before the comm games redevelopment but now it looks completely ugly.
Gabba is also ugly. Australians dont do stadiums well.

the only stadium that looked like a nice design was what was proposed in Perth, but now that seems to be vaporware.

[stumpjumper]

Good question, Prince George. If the 'Yes' case were a prospectus designed to attract investors, it's missing a few things, like:

- total cost (unavailable)
- who pays overruns (undecided)
- does SMA report to investors (no, SMA apparently reports to SACA and SANFL)
- are SMA's meetings, minutes etc open (no)
- is the business plan which claims benefits of $111 million per year plus jobs available for reading (no)
- did the cost of the western grandstand blow out (yes, considerably)
- have any of the proponents of the yes case invested $1 of their own money and will they lose any money if the project blows out (no, and no).

That should be enough to put the wind up any investor before any consideration of the merits of the design.

I would dearly love some clients like the yes case proponents. They aren't interested in budget or risk, they are 100% funded by an indulgent rich uncle, and will sign anything.

[ricecrackers]

And a common theme in the Yes camp, Will is that they can stereotype and label the No voters. Well I'm afraid you're wrong. I dont think I fit into any of your little compartments and I know that many people are opposed to this devt for vastly different reasons. The stand out may be the lack of a transparent, honest process but the mix of doubts is huge. You might find it personally reassuring to plonk us all in the same bigoted box but if you lift that lid you might find it empty. Lets rejoice in our free, open and pluralistic society and realise we are all different and hold different, but equally valid views that are often hard to quantify. Viva la difference!

the problem is your attitude is exactly why nothing will ever get done in Adelaide

you can never ever define every little part of a development, you can never ever be 100% sure of every process especially about a development this size.

hell I just completed a house renovation, as what the SACA has done I nailed everything I could to the floor but there was vast amount that was "hope" i.e hope that the costs didn't esalate too much, hope that my finished house matched the market place when completed, hope that the trades completed it properly, hope that the council approved it (well that was a little less hope I knew they would) hoped that the value on completion would = costs price + construction or better.

you can't nail everything down with these developments a big % is going to be taking a risk - which is what South Australians are entretched to avoid at all costs.

rubbish. its also rubbish that nothing gets done in Adelaide. plenty gets done here. i'm tired of hearing this false argument.

this game to associate those who oppose this development with those who are adverse to risk is stupid.
this proposal is simply bad design. very bad design. from a practical point of view it also fails and finally from a financial perspective this is something we do not need at this time.

if the VFL really need it, let them fund it. they have plenty of money. the SACA on the other hand are in debt via their own poor management and are now begging to be bailed out. not my problem.

[ricecrackers]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

name calling does not strengthen your argument

[stumpjumper]

Assessable risk is ok - unknown risk is not.

It's AFL not VFL, ricecrackers. Freudian slip there.

[Waewick]

SJ

you can't be serious with your questions?

firstly - it isn't aimed at investors - it was an information leafleft for members...

secondly how do you expect a project awaiting approval to have final costs? So how do you expect them to know any overruns?

the rest of your questions are the same - yep sure we want the information eventually but your arguements have just helped the NIMBY's put a no arguement up and to be frank most of them wouldn't know what to do with the information you are asking anyway.

CLASSIC ADELAIDE MENTALITY

SJ - refer below - not actually aimed at you - simply me being pissed off with the world!

[Waewick]

just because people agree with you, that doesn't make it right.

I don't understand the design hate, I don't understand how AO's toilet seat design i any different to the MCG Toilet bowl design or that of the Gabba.

It amuses me also that people harp on about AO being unique yet rubbish a concept that will keep it that way.

All I here is NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY cut it any way you want - this board as well as SA is full of them.

name calling does not strengthen your argument

nI'm not trying to strengthen my argument - there is no arguement - that requires a logical approach to the issue.

This vote will be lost on the basis of emotion - hence the name calling


btw - please don't take anything I am saying personally - I don't mean that at all, I'm purely venting my spleen. If any thing offends anyone i'm happy to apologise and delete the offending posts I enjoy reading the forum too much to put people off side over a oval development