Sensational-Adelaide.com

I was being sarcastic about developing the Northern mound but it would create as much conflict...mainly due to the near hysteria on here regarding the architectural marvel that apparently is the Adelaide Oval Eastern stand elevation. It may surprise some to know that this hotel development has actually been mentioned in Perth media, (and probably elsewhere nationally) in a positive light. It is actually seen as a point of difference, and a continuing improvement to existing facilities, being one of a kind in Australia.

Well considering its going to be built, whats the chances of a roof top garden and pool facing the stadium being an addition to the hotel? See pics below, ha!


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... t=c&ictx=1

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... mrc&uact=8

how good is he wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:16 pm

Well considering its going to be built, whats the chances of a roof top garden and pool facing the stadium being an addition to the hotel? See pics below, ha!


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... t=c&ictx=1

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... mrc&uact=8

No chance. Because the hotel will be on the exterior of the stadium, and they wont compromise the roof design/uniformity of the stadiums stands.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:56 pm

how good is he wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:16 pm

Well considering its going to be built, whats the chances of a roof top garden and pool facing the stadium being an addition to the hotel? See pics below, ha!


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... t=c&ictx=1

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... mrc&uact=8

No chance. Because the hotel will be on the exterior of the stadium, and they wont compromise the roof design/uniformity of the stadiums stands.

What uniformity of the stadium stands?

claybro wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:27 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:56 pm

No chance. Because the hotel will be on the exterior of the stadium, and they wont compromise the roof design/uniformity of the stadiums stands.

What uniformity of the stadium stands?

That uniformity. I should have worded that better, but what I was getting at was the roof of each stand. They're not going to compromise that to put a roof top pool, imo.

I'll say it straight out, the designs are junk.

I'm confident this is aimed as an elaborate PR ploy for SA - it's geared at visiting teams. Imagine Virat Kohli posting about it on social media - suddenly, Adelaide Oval can be seen by over a billion people. This is the only merit the project has.

Well, I'm going against the general consensus here, i like it. I think the proposal compliments the existing infrastructure and is a unique addition.

As for the whole "you cant build on the parklands" thing, large swathes of parkland are barren, useless dustpans. I think we should activate sections of parkland by allowing considered private development.

I'd be behind this if this government was willing to spend the money of getting a tram down through O'Connell St.
As it stands, this strip is dying. The state government choose to invest is this pie in the sky proposal but not actually areas of the city itself.

Bring on the next state election.

noted wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:45 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:17 pm

Do people really think the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval finished with eastern and southern stands being rebuilt?

No, absolutely not. Eventually I'd love to see them get rid of the hill, put the scoreboard in a museum and finish the job off properly by closing in the stadium from all sides.

For what reason? The Oval is big enough currently for most of its uses and the northern hill adds a point of difference that makes AO unique.

Nort wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 10, 2019 9:44 am

noted wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:45 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:17 pm

Do people really think the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval finished with eastern and southern stands being rebuilt?

No, absolutely not. Eventually I'd love to see them get rid of the hill, put the scoreboard in a museum and finish the job off properly by closing in the stadium from all sides.

For what reason? The Oval is big enough currently for most of its uses and the northern hill adds a point of difference that makes AO unique.

Plus there's a great atmosphere on the hill. Not everyone wants to be seated when watching the footy.

rogue wrote: As for the whole "you cant build on the parklands" thing, large swathes of parkland are barren, useless dustpans. I think we should activate sections of parkland by allowing considered private development.

Do you mean north of North Adelaide, eg the horse paddocks? I believe these horse paddocks should be removed as they serve very little purpose. Now let's convince the residents nearby that it is a waste of space.

I do not know of any development that has requested to use the horse paddocks to build a hotel. Show the proposal for any barren dustpan that people are against.

The parklands that circle Adelaide CBD are almost entirely maintained and actively used.

bits wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:05 pm

The parklands that circle Adelaide CBD are almost entirely maintained and actively used.

Not anywhere near as much as they could be/should be.

I used to work on Greenhill Road - in two different locations at two different ends. The southern parklands along this stretch are almost entirely devoid of activity at any time during the day. A few areas are activated briefly by sports on the weekends, but outside of this they are also empty. The most action they ever get is when the Show is on and they get used as a car park. That's a tragic under-utilisation of a 4km stretch of inner city land which only a minuscule percentage of even the CBD residential and commercial population can ever be bothered to visit.

Sensible activation would bring far more people to the parklands but anytime there's so much as a sniff of a kiosk, toilets or even a grounds maintenance shed then the APPA and other self-interest groups go nuts.

Certain areas, whilst formerly parklands, are in reality not parklands any more. That includes the RAH, Botanic High etc land and the Oval/Festival Centre precincts. They should primarily be for public/civic use (which they largely are) but labelling them as 'parklands' because they once were just gives weight to the argument that they should contain nothing but trees, grass and scrub.

I'm not really a big fan of this hotel because of its design and its potential impact on the Oval but I don't have any qualms about it being built where it is from a 'parklands' perspective.

If people want parklands then we have plenty of them and we literally don't know/can't agree what the hell to do with them.

South parklands has Veale Garden, Himeji Garden, Marshmallow Playground, Clover playground, water retention areas, historic reservior, bmx tracks, tree climbing adventure park, function room, cafe, soccer fields, hockey fields, netball courts, tennis courts, cricket ovals, football ovals, dog training.
Does it need more things?

bits wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:16 pm

South parklands has Veale Garden, Himeji Garden, Marshmallow Playground, Clover playground, water retention areas, historic reservior, bmx tracks, tree climbing adventure park, function room, cafe, soccer fields, hockey fields, netball courts, tennis courts, cricket ovals, football ovals, dog training.
Does it need more things?

You forgot murders, assaults, homeless people in their tent cities some drunk/drugged, drunk/drugged Aboriginals, other deviants, poor lighting on paths. Such an inviting and user friendly space.

bits wrote: ↑

Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:16 pm

South parklands has Veale Garden, Himeji Garden, Marshmallow Playground, Clover playground, water retention areas, historic reservior, bmx tracks, tree climbing adventure park, function room, cafe, soccer fields, hockey fields, netball courts, tennis courts, cricket ovals, football ovals, dog training.
Does it need more things?

The problem is that there are interesting bits of the south parklands, but they're largely disconnected from each other — separated by umpteen empty sporting fields or unkept dust lands. There needs to be some denser hubs of activity.

For instance, the upgraded Marshmallow Park is great. It has the creek next to it, with a nature play area, and the dog park. But there's not quite enough activity to justify having say a kiosk there (only enough for a Mr Whippy to come by for 30mins a day). Now imagine that instead of being a couple of soccer fields and a major road away, that the BMX park and Treeclimb were all in the same vicinity, and then throw in some proper landscaping (over an area bigger than a suburban backyard). It'd be a proper urban park with a wealth of activity, and enough people to justify facilities like a proper kiosk and larger pavilions for shade.

We should designate 6–8 locations around the parklands which should be the focus of intense activity, the kind befitting an urban park. That way all city and inner suburb residents have close access to a high amenity park. Use the parklands trail to link them all around (the trail could do with being wider, landscaped alongside, and in an ideal future, grade separated from the roads cutting through the parklands), and have the sporting fields and more "natural landscaping" fill some of the spaces in-between.