#VISION Liberal's railyard plan: new stadium & entertainment

[Aidan]

OK...

First, selling off of the Gepps land for high density apartments- who would want to live there??? It's near... well, nothing. However that said, I wondered why anyone would want to live in the old ETSA building.

High density housing can work in and around the City, and in existing suburban activity centres. But Gepps Cross is not a good place for it at all - it's neither very close to the City nor within walking distance of anything much.

Also, if it's worth going with high density housing, it's probably worth going high rise. Medium rise has all the disadvantages of high rise housing, but without the spectacular views from the higher levels that people are likely to pay a lot for.

Can someone explain what those orange things are supposed to be?

Hotels.

I'm guessing the grey building to the right is an expanded convention centre.

Yes. It's as if they want the Adelaide convention centre to be the only place in Adelaide to hold a convention - they're just too conventional.

The eating areas feel a little isolated to me. It's kinda near the stadium, but is there a quick way to walk to and from there from North Terrace?

I expect they'd count on the hotels as a source of customers - but yes, it does seem silly putting another artificial lake there instead of encouraging pedestrian movement.

[AtD]

Adelaide is already in danger of having an oversupply of Hotels. That's why the Hindmarsh Square triangle thing wasn't built and the CML and Westpac refits are on hold.

[Vee]

Using the railyards site for a hospital is not the right answer.

This is the critical point!
This superb location deserves a grand plan.

[mooshie]

so who is going to walk out to the far north west of the city to go to this 'riverside precinct' when there are no games on?

this is a joke, and a pure vote grabbing exercise. I am not swayed either way at the moment by the proposals that have been put forward

[Howie]

Sydney has always been blessed as the harbour city. Gold coast has always been home to the high rise. Melbourne are still reaping rewards from Southbank more than a decade after it's construction. Adelaide has really has been asleep at the wheel.

And, if either parties don't come up with something soon, it looks like cities like Perth will have the jump on us soon aswell.

Perth Waterfront


Then how will we continue to retain our brightest when they undoubtly will gravitate to the bright lights of our neighbouring capitals. Even if this takes ten years to happen, and we've all forgot about the GFC, this needs to happen.. and what better way to show we're more than just a mining driven state.

so who is going to walk out to the far north west of the city to go to this 'riverside precinct' when there are no games on?

Why would you need to walk? You just hop off the a tram or train and you're in the thick of things.

[Vee]

Adelaide really has been asleep at the wheel.

And, if either parties don't come up with something soon, it looks like cities like Perth will have the jump on us soon as well.

Then how will we continue to retain our brightest ....
this needs to happen.. and what better way to show we're more than just a mining driven state.

Well said, Howie.
Time to shake off the 'backwater tag' favoured by certain media and an un-named politician from across the border.

Adelaide needs to be a more vibrant city, attractive to residents and visitors and with more diverse employment opportunities.
SA Great(er), Adelaide proud.

[paul]

"For too long Adelaide has been considered a backwater" drones the monotone voice, chanting that same trite line that's been heard I-don't-know-how-often before. But what they show us is a backwater plan. Stadiums, conference facilities, casinos, hotels, it's like a grab-bag of the ideas that desparate towns cling to.

A backwater plan? How odd. Similar developments elsewhere have been enormously successfull.

Visions are so dispensable. Spend a weekend playing around with Google SketchUp, draw up a few shapes and *bingo* vision. What of any of these visions could you count on actually happening? Obviously nothing has actually gone beyond the random drawing stage and the voice-over in the video (which was only marginally more animated sounding than my doormat) is rife with coulds and shoulds. These are like serving suggestions on the cereal box; Kellogs don't promise strawberries in the Cornflakes, neither are we promised anything in these vision statements (beyond perhaps the stadium). Is there any point criticising any of it's contents, when none of it is likely to be real?

"Visions are so dispensable". Well yes. Yes they are. I had one once. It was of an Adelaide with self confidence and optimism and a perfect blend of charm with just a little glitz thrown in, but I dispensed of it.

No project starts without a vision. I trust you have the same sentiment regarding the hospital "vision".

[paul]

Clearly there are many posters who dislike this proposal because of the political party involved and have made this quite clear either overtly or by finding excuses to denigrate it (putting aside genuine criticism). I don't believe this is in the spirit of sensational-adelaide (atleast in this particular forum) and it's incredibly irritating for those who want to engage in a genuine discussion and debate re this proposal.

I would have thought the 2010 state election thread is a far more appropriate forum for political debate and expressing ones admiration and devotion to Mike Rann.

[Mpol]

That waterfront for Perth is no longer going ahead. The Liberals got in and have said it won't go ahead... this is right yeah?

Either way I believe a waterfront of SOME sort will be put inplace. It is sad that one was dismissed. Would have put Perth on the MAP!

[monotonehell]

That waterfront for Perth is no longer going ahead. The Liberals got in and have said it won't go ahead... this is right yeah?

Either way I believe a waterfront of SOME sort will be put inplace. It is sad that one was dismissed. Would have put Perth on the MAP!

Depends how you read their media statement:
http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pa ... mId=131627&

John Day
Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts
Thu 02 April, 2009
Progress with Perth Waterfront project
Portfolio: Planning

The Perth Waterfront Taskforce reconvened this week to embark on a new direction for the redevelopment of the city’s foreshore.

Planning Minister John Day said the Perth Waterfront project provided a tremendous opportunity for Perth to become a city that is internationally recognised.

“Together with the Northbridge Link, this project is a key part of this State Government’s vision to enhance Perth’s cultural and landscape qualities to enrich experiences in the city for workers, residents and visitors,” Mr Day said.
A master plan for the Perth Waterfront project would be developed by the taskforce through a two-stage approach: Review and examine the objectives of the project; and prepare an updated concept plan and business case for the project.
The Minister had asked the taskforce, being chaired by Stuart Hicks, to present its review to him by mid-September.
Mr Day said he expected the concept plan and business case, as well as associated studies, to be delivered within 12 months.
“Contrary to some reports, the Liberal-National Government is committed to this project but it was clear that the plan presented by the former government had shortcomings,” he said. “The tall towers close to the river were inappropriate for our city. They would have required taxpayer-funded subsidies. The simplistic approach that ‘bigger is better’ would not have resulted in the best outcome for Perth.
“We need to integrate the waterfront amenity with recreational, entertainment, tourism, commercial and residential activities - and not be obsessed with high towers right on the river.”

The Minister said aspects of a waterfront redevelopment could include:
· a significant public building at the end of William Street to add to Perth’s historic, cultural and artistic attributes.
· better separation of vehicles and pedestrians.
· greater recreational use of the Swan River to restore the city’s connectivity with the river.
· better designed and integrated high-rise development, but closer to the city centre and the Perth Convention Exhibition Centre.

“In essence, we’re looking for a redevelopment that is exciting and builds on the beautiful city we already have,” he said.
Mr Day said that while there had been a change in economic circumstances which impacted on the development timeframes, staging of development could allow some earlier opportunities to start aspects of the project.

Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi said it was heartening that the State Government understood the need to move forward with planning for this very important city precinct renewal project.
“The waterfront project is much needed and highly desired so I am encouraged by this Government’s decision to progress with the project. I look forward to working with the taskforce,” Ms Scaffidi said.

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) would contribute funding to the planning process by the taskforce.

[Mpol]

Oh thanks for that mate. Sounds promising... Was just over at the Skyscrapper forums and apparently some big news on the project will drop this December. They think the new plan will contain a lot of what the original had, just minus the 'provocative' nature of some of the buildings... PLEASE, it was those awesome buildings that made that proposal what it was.

[Howie]

That waterfront for Perth is no longer going ahead. The Liberals got in and have said it won't go ahead... this is right yeah?

Either way I believe a waterfront of SOME sort will be put inplace. It is sad that one was dismissed. Would have put Perth on the MAP!

Perth Waterfront is still definately going ahead, even though there is strong opposition from their parklands group and those who want Perth to remain as it is. What form or shape the new proposal for Perth waterfront takes who knows, but the vision is still by and large there.

By the way, FuturePerth (their equivalent of Sensational-Adelaide) has had a very active role in promoting the benefits of a waterfront precinct. Hopefully we can get them to make a comment here soon.

[Aidan]

Adelaide is already in danger of having an oversupply of Hotels. That's why the Hindmarsh Square triangle thing wasn't built and the CML and Westpac refits are on hold.

Maybe in the short term, but in the long term the demand is likely to be much higher. Still, one problem with this plan is the skewing of the hotel supply to the top end of the market. You could say it's only natural (as it's potentially far more profitable) but that's not necessarily where the demand will be.

Regarding what I said earlier about the expansion of the Convention Centre not being an efficient way of expanding our convention capability, I think a better solution would be to use the Showgrounds more, and I've started a thread in the Visions & Suggestions section to discuss what could be done.

[waz94]

Clearly there are many posters who dislike this proposal because of the political party involved and have made this quite clear either overtly or by finding excuses to denigrate it (putting aside genuine criticism). I don't believe this is in the spirit of sensational-adelaide (atleast in this particular forum) and it's incredibly irritating for those who want to engage in a genuine discussion and debate re this proposal.

I would have thought the 2010 state election thread is a far more appropriate forum for political debate and expressing ones admiration and devotion to Mike Rann.

Well said Paul. Totally agree. Before posting, please put aside any bias towards any political party and make judgement on whether or not you think that this development is in SA's interest. Dont look for the smallest flaws to try and justify your argument cause it stands out like the proverbial.

[adam73837]

Clearly there are many posters who dislike this proposal because of the political party involved and have made this quite clear either overtly or by finding excuses to denigrate it (putting aside genuine criticism). I don't believe this is in the spirit of sensational-adelaide (atleast in this particular forum) and it's incredibly irritating for those who want to engage in a genuine discussion and debate re this proposal.

I would have thought the 2010 state election thread is a far more appropriate forum for political debate and expressing ones admiration and devotion to Mike Rann.

Hear, hear.


Some of the posters here are going to think that my support for this vision comes from my disliking of Rann; but let me assure you that has nothing to do with it. The fact that we have finally seen an exciting vision is fantastic, however I do agree with Aidan that a rectangular stadium would be better suited here, rather than another Oval stadium.

BTW, does anyone else find it amusing that the day after this vision is released, the SANFL and SACA come closer to sigining an agreement?