Sensational-Adelaide.com

Sorry PeFe - that was a mistake on my part - I meant to write Trains don't come anywhere near the centre of the City. I've now corrected it.

As for the buses, we may not look too bad in a comparison of cities - but the service is too bad to prevent cars ruling the CBD.

Hi all,

Does anyone know what's happened to the Vic. Square upgrade plans. I thought I read that something was being released at the very end of 2009 for public comment?
Interesting that there was no mention of anything in the election campaign either - so where is it at now?

Victoria Square event-hub part of Gago's plan for city development

VICTORIA square is a "lump" in the city's centre which must be revamped to host events while there is potential to develop the parklands, new City of Adelaide Minister Gail Gago says.

In her first interview since taking on the portfolio, Ms Gago told The Advertiser she would like to see the square - which she described as an "uninviting island" - host more events but warned against permanent structures such as cafes.

She also signalled a shift in attitude to the parklands, claiming that while they were a "precious asset" Colonel Light's vision did not "exclude" development. Ms Gago took over the role from Jane Lomax-Smith, who was voted out of her seat of Adelaide at the March 20 state election.

Critics accused Dr Lomax-Smith of being idle in the portfolio and favouring influential North Adelaide residents and parklands protectors.

She most infamously opposed the Government's plans for a permanent grandstand in Victoria Park and excused herself from Cabinet deliberations over the parklands.

Less outspoken than most of her Cabinet colleagues, Ms Gago is a member of Parliament's Upper House, has lived in North Adelaide for more than two decades and previously ran as a federal candidate for the seat of Adelaide.

Her comments open the door for a more progressive approach to development in the CBD and surrounds, which will be welcomed by business and developers and benefit the expected influx of residents and workers to the city in coming years.

Victoria Square has long been a blight on the city landscape and Ms Gago admitted "it needs improvement".

"It's a completely uninviting island, you have to brave the elements to cross it," she said.

"It needs to be better connected to the rest of the city, it's just this lump in the middle.

"Surely it has more potential than just a starting place for rallies."

Ms Gago said it was not up to her alone what happened to the square but said she would personally like to see facilities that would allow events without obstructing the open space.

While Ms Gago agreed with her predecessor that parklands are "an incredibly precious asset" which must be protected, she said they held untapped potential.

"Colonel Light's vision for our parklands was multi-use, his vision never excluded the parklands from developments and activities," she said.

"Some people's views are that all of those sorts of activities and developments should be excluded but that was never part of the vision, never part of the intention. It was about involving people."

She warned precautions must be taken so as not to "destroy or over-use" the city's greenbelt. "It should be a parkland for everyone, not just if you want to go and look at the trees," she said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5849053468

I agree with most of Gail Gago views here,

I hope the redevelopment of Victoria Square begins this year, or should I say this decade?

Unsure how to treat this. Is Gail Gago simply posturing due to the Nov 2010 Mayoral elections? she has already declared her intent to run for the job you know...

Just another Peter cried wolf story......blah blah blah...

Until we see proper progress being made, i'll just skim over any news article regarding Vic Square.

I agree with what Gail Gago has to say about our parkland's, they should be better utilized by people. Our parkland's could be what the Harbor is for Sydney so why shouldn't we develop the parkland's and still emphasize the greenbelt at the same time.

ynotsfables wrote:I agree with what Gail Gago has to say about our parkland's, they should be better utilized by people. Our parkland's could be what the Harbor is for Sydney so why shouldn't we develop the parkland's and still emphasize the greenbelt at the same time.

our parklands are already well utilised... we even have the west terrace safari park being developed and this should become a major tourist attraction in the future.

Um what?

zap brannigan wrote:our parklands are already well utilised... we even have the west terrace safari park being developed and this should become a major tourist attraction in the future.

That's... ummm... probably racist.

I think all we're seeing here is the best Gail Gago and her staff can come up with in the search for a headline.

Under Lomax-Smith, 'Minister for the City of Adelaide' was a title only.

Gago, a former head of the Nurse's Federation, is a factional hack taking her turn in parliament. She has struggled in previous ministerial roles, and has no expertise in planning or urban design.

If Ms Gago really intends to leave her mark on the urban face of Adelaide, I'd like to be sure that she is receiving adequate advice and support from Urban Development and Planning, Environment and Heritage and so on.

Her statement in relation to the Park Lands is a concern. I wonder which parts of the Park Lands she has in mind for development and in what fashion? I wonder whose view her statement represents? If Ms Gago is all that stands between the Property Council and the hectares of free, centrally-located Park Lands which they drool over (see the PC's Adelaide2036 report), then I fear for the future of Adelaide's defining and historic element of urban design.

What exactly is concerning about her views on the parklands? The idea of people occupying and enjoying them, rather than them being (apart from a few notable exceptions) uninviting scrub and bushland?

ChrisRT wrote:What exactly is concerning about her views on the parklands? The idea of people occupying and enjoying them, rather than them being (apart from a few notable exceptions) uninviting scrub and bushland?

Because Labor's going to fill them with giant, Chairman Mao style billboards proclaiming the undying greatness of Media Mike and his underhanded cronies, and order everybody to bow down to them, or else they'll use seedy backroom deals that I have no evidence of to have them taken to death camps and beaten with sticks. Of course, even though The Advertiser is anti-Media Mike, they will never find anything linking the death camps to the (Hard) Labor Party, but believe me, the notes I've written on the back of this napkin in crayon prove CONCLUSIVELY that small children and pensioners will be routinely grabbed off the footpaths, sometimes by Media Mike himself, bound with piano wire and will be made to break rocks in secret underground bases until they are made to forget any notion that Media Mike is anything less than the re-incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. CAN'T YOU PEOPLE SEE IT???

...that, or they'll cut down a couple of trees. EITHER WAY!!!

Very illuminating, dsriggs

I'm not a parklands fundamentalist, but I am concerned at the more or less continuous commercial pressure on the land itself. Almost by definition, the parklands are ideally located.

With the powerful Park Lands Act 2005 behind it, the present government has shown what can be done - areas of formerly publicly owned and accessible land can be handed over by long lease to private operators who then enjoy a huge advantage in location over their competition. I'm thinking here of Steve Ploubidis' original proposal for a large, year round 'Lucky Horseshoe' bar, dining and pokies facility in the parklands, on the main route home for city workers living in the eastern suburbs. That was the commercial proposal underlying the 'Victoria Park Grandstand', which wasn't viable with race meetings and the Clipsal race. My source for this is a former ACC councillor, himself a hotelier and a former licensee of the hugely popular bar at the Adelaide Bowling Club which exploited a loophole to exist.

Why not cover the parklands with pubs, if that's what people want, I hear you shout. A good question.

The answer is founded on two concepts -

First, the value of the parklands to the city depends on their continued, non-commercialised existence. It is up to us to leverage the almost unique survival of the wide, freely accessible undeveloped space around our city into something that will draw people to the city as visitors or to stay.

Second, the principle that to be fair, rules must apply to all. If you can't build a residence in the parklands, then neither should I or anyone else be able to. It is very difficult to have partial development of the parklands: who participates and who doesn't? Who decides that?

I suggest that the highest and best use of the parklands is as freely accessible open space, but that we should do far more to promote and present the asset.

Uh, this is a Victoria Square thread, not Victoria Park. I know you like your stories stumpie, but sometimes...