[COM] Adelaide Convention Centre - Stage 3 | $350m

[Wayno]

After visiting the Royal Geographic Society of SA today, i was walking around the Mortlock wing of the State Library (which is IMHO the most beautiful room in SA) and came across this (the meeting room was empty at the time):

21062011371a.jpg (87.67 KiB) Viewed 2348 times

Afterwards, walking along Nth Terrace i spotted a local SA celebrity, presumably filming for a future Post Cards episode, outside the newly renovated Art Gallery:

21062011374a.jpg (81.7 KiB) Viewed 2348 times

Apologies for the poor quality pictures - i used my crappy nokia phone.

[stumpjumper]

There's nothing wrong with an Integrated Design Commission - as long as it isn't just a sop to public opinion while Rann SA Inc rumbles on ignoring advice from any quarter. After all, the government ignores the Park Lands Authority and the State Heritage Council (formerly the 'State Heritage Authority before it became clear that it has no authority at all). .

If these bodies, set up by the government, are to be more than feints to placate disgruntled sectors of the community, they should be given real authority and listened to, or disbanded and the money saved. Anything else is dishonest dealing by the government.

[Waewick]

agreed stumpjumper

we just seem to mcake councils and comittes to spend government funds and give everyone a feel good story.

[stumpjumper]

I think that keeping up the appearance of 'good government' is a strong motivator. Look at the Park Lands for example. On the face of it, the management of the PLs is perfection. A well-informed Park Lands Authority advises the responsible minister, together with input from ACC.

In practice, though, the Park Lands Authority is ignored. The 'responsible minister' is not the Minister fort the City of Adelaide, or even the Minister for Local Government. Not many people realise that the management of the PLs has been handed to ...Pat Conlon, the Minister for Transport. Energy and Infrastructure.

Work that out. Is it because the government sees the PLs as a vast, free development site? The Rann government has already reached the proud state of reducing by development more area of the PLs than all previous SA governments combined.

[mattblack]

I think that keeping up the appearance of 'good government' is a strong motivator. Look at the Park Lands for example. On the face of it, the management of the PLs is perfection. A well-informed Park Lands Authority advises the responsible minister, together with input from ACC.

In practice, though, the Park Lands Authority is ignored. The 'responsible minister' is not the Minister fort the City of Adelaide, or even the Minister for Local Government. Not many people realise that the management of the PLs has been handed to ...Pat Conlon, the Minister for Transport. Energy and Infrastructure.

Work that out. Is it because the government sees the PLs as a vast, free development site? The Rann government has already reached the proud state of reducing by development more area of the PLs than all previous SA governments combined.

The Minister for energy is Micheal O'Brien. What has the govt. built on the parklands? Dont say the hospital precinct because that was considered railyards and far from public open space. If you do want to argue that point then you might want to consider all development on the northern side of Nth Tce except for parliment and govt house. The AO maybe, but for the overall community benefit of taking 15 - 20m of parklands I think most people would consider this justified or are you particularly fond of the small area of parklands they are going to develop? The quote 'Is it because the government sees the PLs as a vast, free development site?' is wildly inacurate and basically

[[Shuz]]

Actually, if I may just rebuke your comments there; and highlight a few facts for you.

• The construction of the Bakewell Underpass enroached on Parklands.
  
  The widening of Port Road and North Terrace for the tramline extension enroached on Parklands.
  
  The National Wine Centre was built on Parklands.
  
  The Adelaide Oval Redevelopment will enroach on Parklands, and not just because the grandstands need to extend another few metres out, but the SMA intends to terrace and lay asphalt across swathes of the surrounding precinct.
  
  The New Royal Adelaide Hospital will be built on Parklands. (Yes, the railyards were there for sometime, but it was still, technically classified as Parklands)
  
  The now-cancelled (but could still possibly be revived) O-Bahn extension would have enroached on Parklands.
  
  The SAHMRI is being built on Parklands.
  
  The Victoria Park Grandstand (although now cancelled, and unlikely to be revived) would have been built on Parklands.

That's a mighty impressive list of projects and roadworks that have/will/could've alienated the Parklands in some way compared to just 10 years ago. SJ makes a very valid and strongly justfied argument of the State Government's thirst for development-at-all costs on whatever Parklands space is available.

Just for the record, I'm supportive of a large majority of these developments as they are necessary for the greater good of our society, but it still should provoke thought for concern about the aggressive, yet careful, nature of the State Government and its dictation, control and management of the Parklands. The general public still largely remains oblivious at the true extent of the invasion that has taken place and it clearly speaks volumes of their effective 'small-target' strategy in light of the conservative forces at bay.

[AtD]

^ On the other hand, the vast area of the SA water site on Port Road is being returned to parklands.

[Wayno]

This reasonably sized plot of land is reverting to park lands.

[edit - AtD, you beat me by about 2 seconds! lol]

[mattblack]

The vast majority of the current RAH will be returned as public open space, probably botanic gardens.

No govt will ever see the parklands as free to development at will. They are what makes Adealaide Adelaide. Taking 5m here or 10m there to develop infrastucture that is 1) badly needed and 2) for the greater good does not in my view constitute this raping and pillaging stance that some people have. If it was always seen as sacreligous we would not have a truely world class cultural boulevard between King William and Frome Rd.

Thank god that it seems that the conservative shackles might finally be loosing in this city and people that have views like those of the Parkland Preservation Society are in the minority.

All I can say is, Riverbank precinct, Develop At Will !!

[crawf]

The Parklands are both a blessing and a curse, the Britannica Roundabout comes to mind..

The Adelaide Oval Redevelopment will enroach on Parklands, and not just because the grandstands need to extend another few metres out, but the SMA intends to terrace and lay asphalt across swathes of the surrounding precinct.

Is this actually true?, I thought it was just some scare mongering rumor

[stumpjumper]

mattblack wrote:
The Minister for energy is Micheal O'Brien.

You're right, mattblack and I'm wrong. Michael O'Brien is Minister for Energy. However, Pat Conlon heads the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. Conlon is Minister for Transport and Minister for Infrastructure but is also the minister responsible for the Park Lands, notwithstanding that John Rau is Minister for Urban Development, Planning and the City of Adelaide, Paul Caica is Minister for Environment and Conservation and Tom Kenyon is Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing, all of which seem to be a better fit for Park Lands responsibility than Conlon.

If that's confusing, blame our government for having more ministries per member than any government in Australia, despite a smaller population and a smaller GDP, and more ministries full stop than any state including those states bigger than us. We win, with 55 ministries spread between 15 ministers.

[dsriggs]

FIX IT PAT

[SRW]

Taking 5m here or 10m there to develop infrastucture that is 1) badly needed and 2) for the greater good does not in my view constitute this raping and pillaging stance that some people have

Perhaps. But would you agree that effectively stripping a whole swathe of parks surrounding the Adelaide Oval of their Park Lands status and giving control of them to a private corporation is another matter entirely? One that ought concern us?

[mattblack]

Taking 5m here or 10m there to develop infrastucture that is 1) badly needed and 2) for the greater good does not in my view constitute this raping and pillaging stance that some people have

Perhaps. But would you agree that effectively stripping a whole swathe of parks surrounding the Adelaide Oval of their Park Lands status and giving control of them to a private corporation is another matter entirely? One that ought concern us?

Well I must say that it really doesnt concern me. Like I said before, no govt. will allow development at will and the people of Adelaide would also not let this happen. The parklands will always be a part of Adelaide that will cause robust discussion about development. I think that we need to look past doomsdayers and look at the parlands as a whole and what the best way of moving forward is. In some cases this may be some small scale development (AO, Wine centre, Perminant garandstand etc.) but for the other 95% this could mean a catylst for rejuvination with improved landscaping that will new give people a new appreciation of what we have and how we call all utilise them for our own benifit. The parklands really could be world class but lets face it, for the majority of us they do lack a certain magnetic appeal which make us want to go there and wanting to enjoy the surroundings, saying 'dont touch them' no matter what, in my view is a wasted opportunity that has gone on for too long.

[Wayno]

Taking 5m here or 10m there to develop infrastucture that is 1) badly needed and 2) for the greater good does not in my view constitute this raping and pillaging stance that some people have

Perhaps. But would you agree that effectively stripping a whole swathe of parks surrounding the Adelaide Oval of their Park Lands status and giving control of them to a private corporation is another matter entirely? One that ought concern us?

I believe the ACC is close to retaining control of the park lands. The fate of the oval legislation now lies with the Upper House / Legislative Council, and there's quite a lot of sympathy to the ACCs cause. We'll soon know!