Sensational-Adelaide.com

rhino wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:58 pm

Rev, I respect your right to disagree with me.
It's you who doesn't respect anyone's right to disagree with you. Sometimes I put up arguments, sometimes I just can't be bothered. I still don't have to agree with you.

As Ho Really said recently, it's okay to disagree.

Get over it.

I agree with rhino. Rev, a lot of the time when you put your opinions across you portray them in such a way that is very fate accompli and if we don't eventually agree with you, you get nasty and continue to degrade our opinion as if yours is more expert than ours. For instance, I've stated fairly valid reasons for not liking this development and your way of response is to get on the defensive and bash my opinion as if it's completely ludicrous. I don't expect this forum to always be sunshine and rainbows, especially when people feel passionately about certain things (I know that I have my bad days on here and I'll usually leave the forum if I've made a couple of sour comments) but that said, you and a couple of others really need to consider why you bother coming on here if all you're going to do is command every thread with the whole 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Are we not all here for the same reason, to discuss Adelaide prospering through well-thought development?

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 3:45 pm

rhino wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:58 pm

Rev, I respect your right to disagree with me.
It's you who doesn't respect anyone's right to disagree with you. Sometimes I put up arguments, sometimes I just can't be bothered. I still don't have to agree with you.

As Ho Really said recently, it's okay to disagree.

Get over it.

I agree with rhino. Rev, a lot of the time when you put your opinions across you portray them in such a way that is very fate accompli and if we don't eventually agree with you, you get nasty and continue to degrade our opinion as if yours is more expert than ours. For instance, I've stated fairly valid reasons for not liking this development and your way of response is to get on the defensive and bash my opinion as if it's completely ludicrous. I don't expect this forum to always be sunshine and rainbows, especially when people feel passionately about certain things (I know that I have my bad days on here and I'll usually leave the forum if I've made a couple of sour comments) but that said, you and a couple of others really need to consider why you bother coming on here if all you're going to do is command every thread with the whole 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Are we not all here for the same reason, to discuss Adelaide prospering through well-thought development?

The only thing that I found ridiculous is the idea that this is going to impact parklands.
Concrete & reo are not parklands. This site hasn't been parklands for a very very long time. It's the same argument some tried to make about the festival plaza. It's not parklands. It's urbanized already.
The footprint of this hotel isn't going to impinge on the grass/trees nearby. It's going to be well within the existing urbanized part around the oval it self.

Some people like Adelaide Oval, and think it's great. Cool. Did I say that anyone can't have that opinion or view?
For me, it's a dogs breakfast. The only consistent thing about it is the colour of the seats and the style of roofs on the three grand stands. As I said as well, just a bigger version of what we had before. Mismatched stands. Different heights, different exterior finishes.
The reason I've compared it to Perth Stadium, is because their new stadium is one complete building that flows from end to end.
Yes, these are facts correct?
Now my opinion based on those visual facts that you can all go and see for your selves, or look at photos, is that they got a better deal then we did.


Some of these guys though make it seem like there's two camps here. The camp that doesn't agree with me, and the camp that does.
There's plenty who don't agree with a lot of what I say or think. Do I argue with everyone?
Does it turn nasty, and personal with everyone who disagrees with something I've posted?

Perhaps instead of always pointing your fingers at me, some people should actually take a look at your selves in a mirror for a change. For my part, I'm well aware I can fly off the handle. I'm also well aware of why I fly off the handle at certain people, a little group I like to call my fan club. Odd how things remain civil with the majority of people on this forum, even those who disagree with my opinions or views.

However at the end of the day, it comes down to this. If you Patrick, or anyone else, has a problem with how I type posts, or can't handle that I wont agree with them or bown down to them (as seems to be the case with some people, not you Patrick), perhaps consider putting me or ignore, and that way you wont have to read my posts unless you choose to view them. I've got a couple people on ignore because I cant be bothered wasting my time trying to reason with them anymore because all they want to do is make things personal. Kind of how Rhino has turned this thread about the merits of Adelaide Oval's redevelopment and the impending hotel development into a personal thing about me. Which is what this little fan club of mine usually do.

I'm sick of it, and I'm sure the mods are sick of cleaning up threads. So I'm adding more to the ignore list.
We've wasted enough time on this crap. Can we get back to discussing Adelaide Oval and it's hotel development? ..if you want to keep discussing me and analysing me, feel free to PM me. All of you. Or just put me on ignore and stop ruining threads with your butthurt feelings because Rev doesn't agree with your opinions and views and passionately debates his opinions and views.

Rev having a quiet discussion without insulting anybody (from page 30):

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:22 pm

So how exactly do you think a discussion and debate occurs? I don't know how it happens over in the UK, but for the rest of the planet it generally involves people with different opinions and views sharing them and making their points.

If we all agreed with each other, there'd be no need for sites such as this to allow people to make comments.

So from where I'm standing, it seems its people like you who have the problem.
I shared an opinion, you disagreed and shared someone elses opinion, I still disagree. Now apparently I've got a problem.

Go figure.

Then accuses me of having a tantrum (I laughed out loud at that one!), of whinging (which I don't), then accuses me of turning the thread into a personal thing about him.

Well, that's his opinion, and he's entitled to it, it gives us a laugh anyway.

I'm just here to eat popcorn before the thread cleanup.

Ho Really wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:19 pm

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 8:07 am

Ok so let’s build a pig and then maybe think of putting lipstick on it down the track? You know that’s not going to happen (at least the lipstick part).

I assume you are only talking about the hotel component. Well yes it is a pig any way you look at it. I've said it before. Adding the hotel in its current form is like putting a pimple on a wart. Tarting up the pig is not much better but at least if done properly and is an integral part of the hotel design it can add some style to the exterior of the stadium. It would be best if it's on an expand stadium.

Since we can't raise Adelaide Oval to the ground and start afresh so the next best thing is to improve it and make it look better. See my reply to Patrick_27.

Do you any opinion on what is going to happen down the track?

Yep I do remember the Torrens hill well - spent hundreds of hours there summer and winter - especially at the cricket when the northern hill was fenced off and marqueed for members only and the plebs were banished to the Torrens hill frying pan. Or sardined in at footy finals with one toilet block you couldn’t even get near. Funny wasn’t thinking of the ‘real beauty’ of the venue at that time. But I do now, and the arrival experience crossing the footbridge or from the cathedral end is especially awesome....every time.

The footbridge and cathedral are separate from the hotel and stadium argument. I'm not too fussed about the footbridge. I' never commented on it anywhere. Rev sees it a little different. He wanted a more bold design and better lighting effects. That's his opinion and you need to respect that. Like all designers and architects not all will agree with each other on design matters. As for the cathedral whether you can see it from the oval or not or walking in its midst has no bearing on the quality of the stadium. There are probably many who couldn't give a toss about it anyway and perhaps even have derogatory thoughts about it.

Yes was only referring to the hotel component (in reference to the pig and the lipstick). Sorry though to clarify my comments on the bridge and cathedral - this was in reference to the context of the arrival experience at the oval, which is pretty amazing right now. The bridge and cathedral form part of that, and heighten the sense of anticipation as you pass over/by them. Sadly when the hotel’s done the final arrival experience from KW St is more likely to resemble approaching an aged care facility or student accommodation. Down the track, yep the Oval is sure to be re-developed and expanded, but will the SMA show a lot more class then than they have now? Will they consult more, or throw it out there as a secret done deal like they have with the hotel?

There's plenty who don't agree with a lot of what I say or think. Do I argue with everyone?
Does it turn nasty, and personal with everyone who disagrees with something I've posted?

Yes. It always does.

feel free to PM me. All of you.

I hope this includes me. I’ve been blocked by you for 6 months now


When you do the drama math, common denominator = yo’self

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 5:19 pm

Yes was only referring to the hotel component (in reference to the pig and the lipstick). Sorry though to clarify my comments on the bridge and cathedral - this was in reference to the context of the arrival experience at the oval, which is pretty amazing right now. The bridge and cathedral form part of that, and heighten the sense of anticipation as you pass over/by them. Sadly when the hotel’s done the final arrival experience from KW St is more likely to resemble approaching an aged care facility or student accommodation. Down the track, yep the Oval is sure to be re-developed and expanded, but will the SMA show a lot more class then than they have now? Will they consult more, or throw it out there as a secret done deal like they have with the hotel?

Thanks for clarifying. It's possible that for some it is an experience. The better for them I say. I wouldn't go as far as saying the hotel will look like an aged care facility or accommodation for students. That would surely scare guests away. I think like the experience you mentioned, the hotel will also be an experience during big events. I mentioned earlier that they could improve the look by working on the facade. They will probably not do this because it's an extra expense. We can only hope if they do expand the stadium that they will consider recladding the exterior of the hotel and the stands. There could be a steel framed curtain wall from the ground to the roof intertwined with glass and other materials. If I find some time I'll put together a sketch to give an idea.

Cheers

To those of you that don't see eye-to-eye with rev you need to understand that he is very passionate about Adelaide and SA. He's not bagging our city or state, he's frustrated and disallusioned by those in power. I too believe that we are wasting opportunities. So at times we may go overboard. So let's keep that in mind. Perhaps we can summarise it as, "play the ball not the man" or "play hard, but keep it fair".

rhino wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 10, 2019 2:58 pm

Rev, I respect your right to disagree with me.
It's you who doesn't respect anyone's right to disagree with you. Sometimes I put up arguments, sometimes I just can't be bothered. I still don't have to agree with you.

As Ho Really said recently, it's okay to disagree.

Get over it.

As long as there is no name calling or there are threats made (that's if you actually physically know each other) let's argue our points the best way we can even if they go on and on. Hopefully we'll come to a compromise or one side gives up, or acknowledges the other is right. Of course we can always disagree and leave it as that.

Cheers

This project is so bad. Can't be made any more obvious now that it's just a slush fund for SANFL and SACA.

https://indaily.com.au/news/local/2019/ ... val-hotel/

This project continues to get stinkier and stinkier.....

And their modelling projects profits..!!!!! They can't make any other revenue line profitable at the Oval so what makes them think a hotel would be any different?

When this hotel ultimately fails we are all going to pay.

Just waiting for rev and Ho Really to chime in...

Haven't I said numerous times that as part of a wider investment into sports in Adelaide, the SMA should be turned into a truly independent body, free of any influence from any sporting code (especially having members of said codes involved in the SMA) overseeing all the major stadia.


Why are people pissed off with how the SMA works now, when they were cheering it's creation? Reality hitting people hard now is it? Didn't want to listen to people warning them about the SANFL back then...suddenly it's a problem for them now. But why I wonder? Because they oppose a hotel development, so are looking at any possible argument to oppose said hotel development. So not necessarily a problem with how the SMA runs.

In which case, sucked in, and enjoy the shit show that this hotel will hopefully turn in to.

Politicians dangled a carrot in front of people..people fell for it..

And don't hate me because I was right again..the hotel will add another revenue source to Adelaide Oval. And once the loan is paid back that revenue will increase.

Interesting that the Advertiser's reporting of the inquiry is almost entirely focused on F&B pricing, with an "oh, the hotel will help keep those prices down" bit at the end.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm

Interesting that the Advertiser's reporting of the inquiry is almost entirely focused on F&B pricing, with an "oh, the hotel will help keep those prices down" bit at the end.

They could build a hotel on each grand stand, and those involved with setting the prices of f&b at the oval still wouldn't bring the prices down to being reasonable.
Why do you think they were so vehemently opposed to Ports game day village at the tennis stadium(not even part of the SMA) ?? Because it offered cheaper beer.
The SANFL should never have been given a trough to stick it's many snouts into with the redevelopment of Adelaide Oval.
We need an independent stadium authority to oversee all stadia of significance in SA.

Nathan wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 17, 2019 5:22 pm

Interesting that the Advertiser's reporting of the inquiry is almost entirely focused on F&B pricing, with an "oh, the hotel will help keep those prices down" bit at the end.

Lowest common denominator is the Advertiser's specialty