Sensational-Adelaide.com

[Shuz] wrote:Well, I'm sorry you prefer sticking your head in the sand

No mate, just commenting on your clinical black & white approach to discussions. Nothing more.

Kasey771 wrote:I would pay good money to be a fly on the wall in Anne Moran's office on the day somebody puts forward a serious proposal for your silly idea. Her head might just explode;)

I am a bit curious to know why you think that a covered stand over one entire end of a stadium is a silly idea? Bear in mind, this is a stadium. Not a park, or garden, it's a place where people go to watch football (and sometimes cricket). Most footy fans really wont give a flying .. about the fig trees, they will be watching the game. They will however be upset, in July if they are forced to stand on cold muddy grass, in the wind with not overhead cover. As for Anne Moran.? Who cares.

claybro wrote: Hmm, aside from the gushing masses who think this development is somehow paying due diligence to the history of the oval,.. amongst the general football going population out there, is a nagging feeling that the Northern end will somehow detract from atmosphere, and make the stadium feel incomplete. But most were happy with this compromise just to get AFL into the CBD. Leaving the figs and the scoreboard was a giant compromise to the old Adelaide establishment, many of whom are SACCA members, and had the developers not had to contend with this, a much more uniform and functional stadium with more shelter would have resulted.

my feeling is the complete opposite. The fact that it isn't a boring, uniform cauldron is going to make it have one of the best atmospheres of any stadium in the world. Im so glad we have gone this style and not that awful, boring Gabba look. Even the MCG has lost atmosphere due to the uniformness of it nowadays.

And we have been standing on the damp grass hill in winter for footy games for over 100 years and people love it

The people standing on the hill getting damp aren't going to be the ones that care about getting damp. They'll all be in the stands. If the cricket is anything to go by, the hill will attract it's own special breed of supporters who will revel in it.

This discussion is revealing the worst aspects of the South Australian character. Our underlying inferiority complex and pathological doubt.

We feel that if we try and do something different, others will criticise and laugh at us.

Who cares if Adelaide Oval doesn't look like any other stadium?

People remember the interesting and unique, not the ubiquitous and grey.

Will wrote:This discussion is revealing the worst aspects of the South Australian character. Our underlying inferiority complex and pathological doubt.

We feel that if we try and do something different, others will criticise and laugh at us.

Who cares if Adelaide Oval doesn't look like any other stadium?

People remember the interesting and unique, not the ubiquitous and grey.

+1

Will wrote:This discussion is revealing the worst aspects of the South Australian character. Our underlying inferiority complex and pathological doubt.

We feel that if we try and do something different, others will criticise and laugh at us.

Who cares if Adelaide Oval doesn't look like any other stadium?

People remember the interesting and unique, not the ubiquitous and grey.

What a complete load of rot. People go to the football to watch football, and revel in the atmosphere and these days most spectators demand to do it in comfort and do not expect to be standing on a shady damp mound for their pricy entrance fee. Had the designers of this stadium not had to accommodate the conservative naysayers of Adelaide establishment, we would not have an open ended stadium. It is nothing to do with the worst aspects of Adelaide character that many are disappointed with this outcome, or that we are embarrassed at possible interstate jibes, or the fact it will look like we have run out of money and couldn't finish the job. It is the fact that for several hundred million dollars, function and profitability of the stadium should come first...not fig trees. Had the northern mound been a stand, it would have allowed for a more uniform stadium of matching stands to suit the already built western stand, and for more all important corporate facilities at the Northern end. I am not here to run down this development, because it is a great result for a compromise and has allowed AFL in the city again. The issue is, it should not have been a compromised development in the first place.

claybro wrote:

Will wrote:This discussion is revealing the worst aspects of the South Australian character. Our underlying inferiority complex and pathological doubt.

We feel that if we try and do something different, others will criticise and laugh at us.

Who cares if Adelaide Oval doesn't look like any other stadium?

People remember the interesting and unique, not the ubiquitous and grey.

What a complete load of rot. People go to the football to watch football, and revel in the atmosphere and these days most spectators demand to do it in comfort and do not expect to be standing on a shady damp mound for their pricy entrance fee. Had the designers of this stadium not had to accommodate the conservative naysayers of Adelaide establishment, we would not have an open ended stadium. It is nothing to do with the worst aspects of Adelaide character that many are disappointed with this outcome, or that we are embarrassed at possible interstate jibes, or the fact it will look like we have run out of money and couldn't finish the job. It is the fact that for several hundred million dollars, function and profitability of the stadium should come first...not fig trees. Had the northern mound been a stand, it would have allowed for a more uniform stadium of matching stands to suit the already built western stand, and for more all important corporate facilities at the Northern end. I am not here to run down this development, because it is a great result for a compromise and has allowed AFL in the city again. The issue is, it should not have been a compromised development in the first place.

Hear, hear.

The people standing on the shady, damp mound will be doing so because they want to, not because they have to.

I think it's great that Adelaide has a stadium that can hold 50000 plus and still have a area that you can stand on the grass and watch the game. Those who have always loved standing on the hill during the cricket will be glad of the outcome.
People from around the world will admire the unique stadium Adelaide has.

claybro wrote:What a complete load of rot. People go to the football to watch football, and revel in the atmosphere and these days most spectators demand to do it in comfort and do not expect to be standing on a shady damp mound for their pricy entrance fee. Had the designers of this stadium not had to accommodate the conservative naysayers of Adelaide establishment, we would not have an open ended stadium.

Opinion presented as fact.

claybro wrote:It is the fact that for several hundred million dollars, function and profitability of the stadium should come first...not fig trees.

More of the same.

claybro wrote: I am not here to run down this development, because it is a great result for a compromise and has allowed AFL in the city again. The issue is, it should not have been a compromised development in the first place.

Agree with the bold wording, but not beyond.

The only thing this discussion proves is some folk talk and behave in a black/white manner while the world does not work like that. Disparate opinion is obviously widespread and that's why we have a stadium solution that, in my opinion, is well designed to suit most people most of the time. For me it's perfect.

If everyone here can honestly believe that the Adelaide oval was deliberately designed without a Northern stand as a point of difference from other stadiums, and to allow an ambience not available elsewhere, rather than to appease the SACCA and the North Adelaide society, then I and most others in my circle must be very out of touch with sentiment on this development. Most people I discuss this with see this as a compromise and are muted in their disappointment if only to be positive about a return of football to the location rather than being overly impressed with the stadium itself.

A 53,000 capacity Adelaide oval is plenty enough ! With a southern stand like the others the stands it would rarely if ever reach full capacity. Also us Adelaidians in my opinion have to accept our city in its infrastructure(unfortunately) , developments and lifestyle is unique to that of other Australians cities. This is mostly a good thing and we should embrace it. Not all i agree with ie - Ann Moran and her policies and or enormous amounts of multi story car parks in the CDB, etc, but this Adelaide oval redevelopment couldn't represent Adelaide and its people in a better manner. It is a new world class stadium with a unique all be it funky design yet it has managed to keep some tradition and the grass roots of what made it such a well liked oval. The "mound" new decking old score board and views of the cathedral/figs will only add to the atmosphere, keep in touch with its heritage and not overshadow the new epic stadium!

northern stand ****

of course people are going to see it as a comprise, apart from the fact that we are in Adelaide and nothing is ever good enough, it is a compromise, weather we like it or not AO has over 100 years of history and it will always be tough to do anything, but compromises happen everywhere in the world (ex Dubai)

I now rest my hopes on the Crows becoming wealthy enough to build their own, rather than just provide the cash flow to build one, so we can have 2 stadiums in the city!