Adelaide's Premier Development and Construction Site
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/
https://mail.sensational-adelaide.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3335
Not quite. SMA wants compensation of $1,000,000 pa for 20 years indexed for the loss of the ability to sell naming rights.for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!
I'm hoping that is just a tatical request because it appears to be an outlandish request when you've just been handed a stdium for nil.stumpjumper wrote:Not quite. SMA wants compensation of $1,000,000 pa for 20 years indexed for the loss of the ability to sell naming rights.for $535m...the State governmnet has won the naming rights for the oval for 20 years!
not really, i haven't been to an AFL game for several years and i think 1 SANFL game in that time. Was even longer since i've been to a Cricket game at AO.ricecrackers wrote:VFL fanatics Australia wide wanted this to go ahead. for the most part, the rest could not care.
.
awesomestumpjumper wrote: On the boards' behalf, DTEI will appoint contractors to build the stadium. These contracts will be fixed price, so any blowouts will be paid by the contractor, a la Wembley. So no worries there....
Thanks for the response SJ.stumpjumper wrote:Will:
Thanks Prince George 'The Pub' Sun Oct 05, 2008
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... f=4&t=2005
Note that the authors' selection all had problems. What we don't know is how many, if any, stadium projects didn't have problems.
* Cincinatti - football and baseball, built with little opposition. The total cost ballooned to almost double the original estimate.
* Cleveland - football, baseball, and basketball. Started with little opposition, but the construction itself was fraught with scandal and almost went bankrupt (the county bailed them out).
* Minneapolis - proposal to build new stadiums got shot down by popular vote.
* Hartford - attempt to lure the New England Patriots goes wrong, the entire downtown renewal goes off the rails.
* Phoenix - voters resoundingly reject new taxes, but the county finds a way to introduce one without a vote for a ballpark.
* Denver - new football and baseball stadiums, ostensibly a renewal program for the Lower Downtown area
* San Diego - new ballpark as part of a larger renewal program; a ballpark alone would require voter approval, the "renewal" did not.
* Pittsburgh - voters reject the initial tax proposal for the stadiums, but a month later the city have found a way that did not require a vote.
* Philadelphia - significant opposition to building new stadiums in the downtown area, they end up building new ones near where the old ones had been in; although their projects started at the same time as Pittsburgh, they finished 2-3 years later.
Public Dollars, Private Stadiums: The Battle Over Building Sports Stadiums, by Kevin J. Delaney and Rick Eckstein. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003. 230 pp. ISBN: 0813533422.
ricecrackers wrote:awesomestumpjumper wrote: On the boards' behalf, DTEI will appoint contractors to build the stadium. These contracts will be fixed price, so any blowouts will be paid by the contractor, a la Wembley. So no worries there....
another great day for the banks
Actually, that's not true. About half of the sample that they used were downtown or within spitting distance of downtown. American and Australian cities differ quite widely in terms of how much "urban decay" there is in the older inner-city areas: many American cities (most of the old ones) had substantial industrial areas right outside the city core which has since emptied out, leaving a supply of well located cheap land. Also, the big question in many of their case studies was that the funding for the stadiums required new taxes and to do that many cities have to get voter approval - *except* when the money is being used for things like urban renewal projects, hence they recast the stadium as part of a downtown rebirth to avoid having to go to voters (that was certainly the case in the San Diego example and iirc the Hartford one too).Will wrote:The reason I ask is because although some legitimate points can be deduced from that study, for most part those examples cannot be applied to the Adelaide Oval situation, as in those cities, old stadiums in the suburbs were replaced with new stadiums in the suburbs. In essence, you were not fixing the underlying problem, just applying a bit of makeup.
The Adelaide Oval project is different as we are tackling the major underlying problem, which is the suburban location of AAMI stadium. Therefore, the economic benefits will be greater with our redevelopment as human nature the way it is in the 21st century, people will be more willing to spend more money at a game at Adelaide Oval compared to AAMI.
Adelaide Oval: City traders brace for boost in business
Business5 May 11 @ 06:00am by Alice Higgins
HAPPY days: Evan Katsaros of the Worldsend Hotel Andrew Wallace of the Adelaide West End Association and Campus Color owner John Kelly.
Traders are rejoicing in the news that Adelaide oval will be transformed into one of the country’s premier sporting hubs, expected to pumphundreds of million into the CBD economy each year.
They say the $535 million redevelopment, which will seat 50,000 spectators, will entice a million more visitors to the city each year, giving traders a much-needed boost and revitalise the CBD.
The redevelopment was given the green light after 80 per cent of SACA members voted in favour of the proposal at this week’s ballot.
Rundle Mall Management Authority Chairman Theo Maras said the upgrade would “change the landscape” of the city.
“If planned and dealt with in a way that will benefit the economy of the city, this could mean hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy of the city annually,” Mr Maras said.
“It’s not about just coming in and parking your car, it’s about coming in and parking your car and eating and drinking before hand, eating and drinking afterwards, shopping, going to the museum and art gallery.
“I think this, together with a riverbank development, will be where it’s all at.”
Rundle Mall general manager Martin Haese said the redevelopment, which will bring AFL games to the city, would inject millions of dollars into the shopping strip each year.
“This is one of the biggest changes in the CBD for some time,” Mr Haese said. “Anything which turns the attraction back onto the centre of the city is good for a Rundle Mall trader.”
Adelaide West End Association president Andrew Wallace said it created the opportunity to attract new shoppers to the precinct.
“There’s the potential to bring families back to this part of the city and activate the west end more fully into the week instead of just two nights a week,” Mr Wallace said.
Late Night Traders spokesman Tony Tropeano said the revamp signalled the start of the city’s revitalisation.
“Any development for the city is a plus,” Mr Tropeano said.
“It’s fantastic to have great plans but everything else must go along with it - there needs to be facilities and services to cater for those people one they’re there.”
Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said an upgraded Adelaide Oval would create more than 400 full time jobs and pump $111 million into the economy each year.
“It will refresh the whole riverbank precinct and bring significant benefits to the city of Adelaide and the whole of SA,” Mr Vaughan said.
Lord Mayor Stephen Yarwood said the redevelopment would bring an extra one million visitors to Adelaide each year.
“It’s a game-changer for the city,” Mr Yarwood said. “I’m really pleased the community has sent such a powerful message of their desire for change.”
Mr Yarwood said the council had started negotiations with the State Government to discuss “governance and operations arrangements” and a report would be presented to the council as soon as possible.
“We don’t have a detailed final proposal, it was a matter of waiting until this hurdle (SACA vote) had been jumped ... ,” he said.
Not from the point of view of a lot of Port supporters. A lot of Port's fans are older people who will go to AAMI but might not attend city matches.The Adelaide Oval project is different as we are tackling the major underlying problem, which is the suburban location of AAMI stadium
How long ago are you talking about here, SJ? Because for as long as I can remember, if there was one club that had members everywhere, it was Port - I would say Port's fan base was the least localised of any of the SANFL clubs. You would find Port fans living right in the heartland of any other SANFL club you cared to mention.stumpjumper wrote: part is also due to Port's former great strength - it's regional identity, something like Geelong's, no longer being such an advantage. In fact, the rot set in years ago as the number of brawny guys working on the local wharves or in factories declined. There is for a number of reasons a weakening of players' local ties across the AFL. In Port's strongest days in the SANFL most of the team were 'Port lads'. Port's later successes, as with other teams, have increasingly been built on cashflow rather than the loyalty of local lads.
This seems to go against what the Club itself thinks. Numbers are dropping off at AAMI, and the club thinks they will do better at AO. Do you have any actual information to back up this statement, or does your use of the words "might not" hint that you really have no idea, and are just throwing red herrings?stumpjumper wrote:A lot of Port's fans are older people who will go to AAMI but might not attend city matches.
+2bm7500 wrote:+1Pikey wrote:Got it in one Adam.
SJ, it's done now, give your conspiracy theories a rest ok? First the hospital, now this. Yes, I too am a Liberal voter, and would have loved a new stand alone stadium, and a redeveloped RAH, but the Libs lost. This is what we've got, and I like it, so do the SACA members, and do the wide majority of the SA public. Surely you have to agree that the ramifications of this development on the rest of Adelaide are massive, with a re-generation that none of us would have experienced before about to occur.
It's here, it's done, it's happening, move on.
