Sensational-Adelaide.com

muzzamo wrote: - How exactly do you propose that you rebuild a hospital in place, for a similar cost?
- Have you even been to the RAH?
- Have you thought about the logistics of doing such a thing?

Quite simple... you start by demolishing one of the older underutilized buildings (e.g. the Carpark), make it tall as the northern wing, and move departments from the Northern Wing into the new building. Then demolish the Northern Wing, move departments from East Wing into it. Then demolish East Wing... move departments from Bice building into it. Then demolish Bice Building... and so on and so forth. It's easier to start a new building from scratch move into it, than what has been done previously with the last two RAH redevelopments which were happening inside the building with everyone still working around them. So essentially it's a staged approach.. it's nothing radical, it's been done time and time again. I still don't see how it'd be cheaper to build on the rail yards... in terms of remediation of land, and not taking into account the lost value from building on such a prime piece of realestate how does it work out cheaper?

Have I been to the RAH? Yes, everyday Monday to Friday for the past 6 years. I happen to have an office located here. But that isn't really the point here.

I could have told you a year ago, and I could tell you now, the hospital won't be built on the railyards. I have always been suspicious of contamination levels in the area, and even one of my geography class friends last year proved so that the levels of whatever acids and things were very high which I think would make it unviable for a medical establishment to be built. Construction of a sports/entertainment precinct would be much easier, as the land would obviously be filled in anyway to level it with North Terrace (thus reducing risk of contamination what-not) with decking used over the actual rail-lines in the way like done so at Federation Square.

Ho Really wrote:No one as yet has answered my question regarding how a multipurpose stadium is going to work for those sporting codes that use rectangular fields (such as soccer...). Will those supporters have to endure bad viewing angles? How would stands be moved and secured on grass fields etc., at short notice? I am looking at this from a FIFA standpoint and whether we'll ever get to stage a World Cup in Australia (particularly games in Adelaide).

Cheers

The MCG is a cricket/AFL oval and has been used for major football (soccer) matches, as has Telstra Dome. Perth's new ground will be also oval. You would think that all three stadiums would be used for any World Cup games held in Australia.

Whilst it might be ideal to have the old English-style rectangular football stadiums where the front rows are only a few metres from the playing field, it's not the modern way. It's also not the way in many of the older major football stadiums around the world that have doubled up as Olympic athletics stadiums e.g. Rome.

How could there be bad viewing "angles" in an oval stadium anyway? The only complaint you could have is being too far away from the pitch, but modern stadiums should be engineered/designed to rule that out.

As for FIFA's point of view, most major modern international football stadiums have a fair distance between the stands and the pitch regardless of the fact that the stands are designed around a rectangle. Assuming we'd build a 60-70,000 capacity stadium, there's no way the people in the upper rows would have a worse view than say those in the upper sections of the Nou Camp or probably even the New Wembley (I haven't been to the new Wembley though so can't be sure on that one).

On channel Ten news tonight, they reported that the SANFL have ruled out building a new stadium entirely and they will approach the State governemnt for $250 million in funding for a revamp of AAMI at some later stage.

Bad news?

If the state governemnt has ruled out any funding to a new stadium, why would it fund an AAMI revamp to a similar tune?

That $250 million was reported to also include a heavy rail extension to the stadium...

Heres a proposal. To reduce visual impact and maybe even cost? I think we should copy this German design. Built for the 1936 Olympic Games this stadium is partly built undeground, seats 70,000 people today. Iconic stadium.

BenJ wrote:If the state governemnt has ruled out any funding to a new stadium, why would it fund an AAMI revamp to a similar tune?

Because it would cost 1/4 as much, be far less risky, not waste an existing stadium which would be valued in the hundreds of millions, not sacrifice a plan to build an iconic hospital, and would include a new rail link to a major shopping centre and suburb.

It would also have guaranteed support in the form of two tennants (AFL clubs). All of this for 1/4 the cost

JamesXander wrote:Heres a proposal. To reduce visual impact and maybe even cost? I think we should copy this German design. Built for the 1936 Olympic Games this stadium is partly built undeground, seats 70,000 people today. Iconic stadium.

I'm a fan of Munich's Olympiastadion, myself:



That that was designed in the late '60s and completed in 1972 is a revelation - it looks modern even today.

Well it looks like the SANFL and the Government have done some sort of backroom deal to
upgrade AAMI Stadium as they have both now stated that building a Inner-City Stadium is
out of the question.

Well i hope that when Australia eventually wins the bid for the world cup that FIFA gives
a big thumbs down to AAMI Stadium and thus allows no matches to be played in SA...
We will become the laughing stock of not only Australia but the whole world with such
a pig headed and stubborn State Government and an arrogant and selfish SANFL...

The State Government is such a bunch of tight asses that they would spend money
on AAMI but not build a rail link to provide adequate transport to the venue nor do
they want to spend money on an inner city stadium that would be more convenient
and thus better attended they just want to spend the least they can to get the frustrated
sporting public monkey off their back... so they can spend more money on HEALTH,
EDUCATION and LAW AND ORDER...

I recently read an article from a few of our local government primary schools and
they are screaming for more funding, funding is so poor any money received does
not cover basic maintenance let alone funding for computers etc... is all the money
spent on EDUCATION going into funding PRIVATE schools and in enticing FOREIGN
STUDENTS to SA??? it certainly isnt going into public primary schools.... Maybe its
lost in the HEALTH, EDUCATION and LAW AND ORDER Black Hole...

Im not angry with the government for spending money on these important areas
its just that when you look at the state of these and the priority they have been
given its amazing to see them all in an appalling state that they are in...

Wouldn't it be sad if all the big events went to Perth and not to Adelaide.

We'll probably look back at this decision in 10-15 years and think what another wasted opportunity.

Pants - The MCG may have been used in the past but we weren't hosting the world cup. We might be able to get away with it, I was just reading on South Africa 2010, and seems at least one of their stadiums is oval "ish" shaped, but will have temporary seating installed. Don't know were the temp seats will go, but from the looks of the photos of the existing stadium, people will be a LOT closer to the action then they were at the MCG or would be at AAMI.

Anyway its a bit pointless arguing back and forth what is appropriate or not, when FIFA hasn't even looked at the stadiums, nor a bid put together. Who knows maybe the feds will fund a new stadium?


Ozisnowman - Do you have evidence that suggests a back room deal has been done, or is it a theory? Not accusing you of lying, but if your going to lead people in a direction, give them something to follow.

ozisnowman wrote: so they can spend more money on HEALTH,
EDUCATION and LAW AND ORDER...

You mean essential things that our society is built on, as opposed to spending a billion dollars on a stadium that will be used once a week? Its suprising how some people cant see the big picture.This isn't a game of sim city we are talking about here.

Although I do agree with you that a rail link to aami is needed. Who knows, maybe west lakes may turn out to be our first electrified line ?

Omicron wrote: I'm a fan of Munich's Olympiastadion, myself:

That that was designed in the late '60s and completed in 1972 is a revelation - it looks modern even today.

this is a beautiful stadium. love the waterfront area too. The adelaide railyards could be made to look like that...

The railyards are a bad spot for a stadium. A stadium is too large in comparison to the adjacent buildings. Is there any evidence that a stadium in/near the CBD would increase the number of people in the city. If you look at the footy fixture there is not a great deal of games held in SA on a friday or saturday night (as opposed to the MCG or TD). Saturday and Sunday afternoons people have better things to do then 'go to the city for whatever'.

Im not saying a hospital is the best solution either, as visitors are still in the middle of nowhere, they arent exactly going to want to rush to Hindly street.

by muzzamo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:08 pm

BenJ wrote:
If the state governemnt has ruled out any funding to a new stadium, why would it fund an AAMI revamp to a similar tune?

Because it would cost 1/4 as much, be far less risky, not waste an existing stadium which would be valued in the hundreds of millions, not sacrifice a plan to build an iconic hospital, and would include a new rail link to a major shopping centre and suburb.

It would also have guaranteed support in the form of two tennants (AFL clubs). All of this for 1/4 the cost

But if the state govt has ruled out funding a stadium at all, due to more pressing economic demands, then they shouldn't fund anything and stick to their guns, spending the money on other infrastructure, health, education etc. Why turn around and decide to spend $250 million on a horrible and outdated stadium when that could have gone towards a truly iconic development?

As for cost, the state government probably wouldn't need to spend any more than $250 million for either project if the SANFL etc got on board for a city based stadium. As stated previously in the Advertiser and on this thread, if AAMI was sold off and redeveloped into a residential area, that could raise close to the vicinity of $550 million. All it would need is another $200 million investment on top of the State govt's $250 million by other private enterprise / federal government / FFA or AUFC and we'd be there.

not sacrifice a plan to build an iconic hospital

You don't need to sacrifice that at all and due to contamination at the railyard site, this may need to be moved anyway. I will accept that a light rail development t Port Adelaide would be great.

this is a beautiful stadium. love the waterfront area too. The adelaide railyards could be made to look like that...

I couldn't agree more.