Sensational-Adelaide.com

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri May 31, 2019 5:34 pm

Short article about the potential machinations of the Crows takeover of the aquatic centre: https://www.adelaidereview.com.au/featu ... Newsletter

Tbh, if it's fait accompli that the Crows will get their hands on some parklands, I'd rather the aquatic centre be returned to public space and the Crows given lease over an area that's more conveniently/centrally located so that it can better benefit the surrounding area/businesses. I mentioned 88 O'Connell already, but alternatively the space next Morphett Street bridge/railyards could suffice -- especially if a FINA-compliant aquatic centre was part of the proposal (unlikely, but they are getting $15 million federal money plus free land, so it's a fair demand). As a runner up, the corner of O'Connel & Barton Tce to contribute to North Adelaide's Main Street and interconnect with the potential ProspectLINK.

ChillyPhilly wrote:The Crows can and should stay at West Lakes.

I am not willing to see my tax money prop up a new headquarters for a franchise that makes close to $50 million a year in turnover.

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri May 31, 2019 5:34 pm

Short article about the potential machinations of the Crows takeover of the aquatic centre: https://www.adelaidereview.com.au/featu ... Newsletter

Tbh, if it's fait accompli that the Crows will get their hands on some parklands, I'd rather the aquatic centre be returned to public space and the Crows given lease over an area that's more conveniently/centrally located so that it can better benefit the surrounding area/businesses. I mentioned 88 O'Connell already, but alternatively the space next Morphett Street bridge/railyards could suffice -- especially if a FINA-compliant aquatic centre was part of the proposal (unlikely, but they are getting $15 million federal money plus free land, so it's a fair demand). As a runner up, the corner of O'Connel & Barton Tce to contribute to North Adelaide's Main Street and interconnect with the potential ProspectLINK.

Nathan wrote:So a private professional sports team that makes multi-million dollar profits, is given parklands, more money, and a community facility. Fuck this shit.

SRW wrote: ↑

Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:54 am

A net gain to open space (as in, parklands restoration) as well as full community access would make this tolerable. You'd presume it wouldn't need to be anywhere near as large without the full competitive swimming set up. Car parking can go underground or not at all -- public transport options (including potential ProspectLINK) make it wholly unnecessary.

OlympusAnt wrote:Its just Rads, people don't like "progress"

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:47 pm

OlympusAnt wrote:Its just Rads, people don't like "progress"

I think a lot of people would rather see nothing, than someone else getting a benefit.

This could be a win for all parties, but most on here seem to be not keen on AFC benefiting from the $60m they ate going to being to the table. Government grant or not.

There will be benefit to community and to the ACC i am 100% certain.


But still, if the plans don't show that, then we are entitled (well ACC ratepayers) to complain.

SRW wrote:

Waewick wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 09, 2019 12:47 pm

OlympusAnt wrote:Its just Rads, people don't like "progress"

I think a lot of people would rather see nothing, than someone else getting a benefit.

This could be a win for all parties, but most on here seem to be not keen on AFC benefiting from the $60m they ate going to being to the table. Government grant or not.

There will be benefit to community and to the ACC i am 100% certain.


But still, if the plans don't show that, then we are entitled (well ACC ratepayers) to complain.

Well, as a city resident, that's my threshold. I'm open to it supposing a net benefit to parklands and community. But I think where people get put off is the increasing treatment (especially over the last 10 years or so, but broadly since ASER of the 80s) of the parklands as 'free land' -- or at least the view that granting leasehold over public land to private corporations endorses such a principle. The parklands haven't survived mostly unviolated by development for 183 years by people leaving that unchallenged (that's right, there were preservationists even back in the 19th century). So I think it's a fair and natural part of our democracy that the community negotiates opposing views as they arise. Let the record spin.