Sensational-Adelaide.com

The Scooter Guy wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:44 pm

https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sou ... 5SU3PGBNEI

Would you be able to kindly paste the article?

Adelaide Crows withdraw plan to build headquarters on the parklands in North Adelaide
The Adelaide Football Club has formally withdrawn its plan to demolish the Aquatic Centre and build a new headquarters in the North Adelaide parklands.

The Adelaide Crows have shelved plans to demolish the Aquatic Centre and build a $65 million training and administration complex in North Adelaide.
The club announced it had contacted Adelaide City Council to withdraw the plan, which had been opposed by parklands preservation supporters.
The council now faces repair and upgrade bills of up to $15 million to bring the ageing centre up to scratch.
Adelaide Football Club’s chief executive Andrew Fagan said tough economic conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic meant the side was “not in a position to advance to stage two”.
“We are extremely disappointed to officially withdraw our proposal however, we cannot meet the required obligations of the formal process right now,” Mr Fagan said.
“We have done an extraordinary amount of work … and we still consider the proposal to be compelling and one that is positive for the community, football club and council. I like to think that by 2021 we might be able to revisit the opportunity should it remain a viable option.”
The Crows released draft plans for a training and administration complex to the public in December last year.
The building, which would have been within the existing footprint of the Aquatic Centre, would have been no higher than two storeys and separated into three integrated sections – a new aquatic centre, community building and training and administration building.
It also included an eight-lane, 50m pool, a children’s pool and splash area and unfenced ovals, where the Crows would train. Some land would have been returned to the Parklands. The council could now have to spend up to $15 million to bring the centre up to scratch. But that would do little to improve services or reduce its burden on ratepayers, a report into the site said.
Issues with the centre, which is visited by 715,000 people each year, include concrete damage and rust.
Adelaide City Council Lord Mayor Sandy Verschoor said the council would discuss community consultation findings into the Aquatic Centre and its role in the community on Tuesday. “Then (we will) have a look at what the scope of what Aquatic facilities might look like going forward,” Ms Verschoor said.
Mr Fagan’s announcement came after the council released consultation findings on the proposal, with 59 per cent of the 2051 respondents in support of the proposal.
Adelaide Park Lands Preservation Association president Shane Sody was pleased the plans had been pulled.

Ahh, the Adelaide Cuty Council and its naysaying fellow travellers. Dithered again, in the face if someone wanting to improve the sad old parklands. Suppose they will go cap in hand to the government to bail them out if this, and still get a half arsed outcome of the least effort possible. But hey, the parklands have been saved to continue to rot in all their under-utilised glory.

claybro wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:40 pm

Ahh, the Adelaide Cuty Council and its naysaying fellow travellers. Dithered again, in the face if someone wanting to improve the sad old parklands. Suppose they will go cap in hand to the government to bail them out if this, and still get a half arsed outcome of the least effort possible. But hey, the parklands have been saved to continue to rot in all their under-utilised glory.

Regardless of the $$$ issue due to current events being the immediate reason for this to be put on hold, let’s not forget the people who were,and are extreme in their views to protect the parklands at all costs, that made this process difficult, a significant core band of these people are not from the ACC area. Add in the people from outside of the ACC area who didn't want to give up 'their pool'. The ACC did vote in favour of furthering the AFC proposal to next level, so they didn't block the process.

The Advertiser tried in its usual fashion, along with its many supporters via ‘the comments’ sections, to demonise both the ACC and the specifically the residents of North Adelaide, yet for the most part both parties were supportive of the process and willing to see the final detailed proposal.

The ‘public meeting’ held in the Community Hall at North Adelaide in February attracted several vocal extreme opponents of the proposal who did not live in the ACC area.

We will never know if this was a golden opportunity lost or not.

Now it will just be speculation and people talking about the Aquatic Centre and what do with it, but I expect it will just slowly run down from here.

Nothing will happen until all these selfish old bastards die.
I noticed in Hindmarsh Square yesterday they removed all the low shrubbery and replaced with mulch .


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

No Crows takeover of the Aquatic Centre is a good outcome.

ChillyPhilly wrote:No Crows takeover of the Aquatic Centre is a good outcome.

They weren't taking it over
They were going to spend millions fixing it
And ownership would have stayed with the ACC
Now it WILL be taken over by someone down the track who won't be as generous . That or the bulldozer.
Congratulations
By the way. Will you preface your comments by declaring that you are a Port member?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

I still think the ACC and/or the Govt will need to step up and either totally repair/modernise the centre or ideally build it new. I dont think just bulldozing and leaving nothing will be supported or a likely outcome, I hope.

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:No Crows takeover of the Aquatic Centre is a good outcome.

They weren't taking it over
They were going to spend millions fixing it
And ownership would have stayed with the ACC
Now it WILL be taken over by someone down the track who won't be as generous . That or the bulldozer.
Congratulations
By the way. Will you preface your comments by declaring that you are a Port member?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Call it what you will but management, use, pricing, opening hours and the like would have been at the mercy of private, for-profit hands. It would have been inevitable that the opening hours for the public would have been slowly whittled down to a few hours a day. I believe the same has happened with Fremantle, who also took over a public pool.

I have no issues with declaring that, but it has nothing to do with my stance. I would be just as opposed if PAFC or any other club attempted this proposal. In saying this, here are my reasons.

I'm opposed because the Parklands do belong in public hands. I certainly agree that they are underwhelming and require use and activation; however, this proposal certainly is not the way to achieve it. Despite my stance on community and public land remaining in public hands, there are plenty of underused alternatives for the Crows, who have occupied West Lakes rent-free since 1991 and until now wanted a $15m Federal Government handout of taxpayer funds for this. The taxpayer would see no return on this investment. Lastly, the proposal was plain rubbish. It was scurried together, greenwashed, and offered zero explanation of how it would improve the social status of the AAC.

ChillyPhilly wrote:

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:No Crows takeover of the Aquatic Centre is a good outcome.

They weren't taking it over
They were going to spend millions fixing it
And ownership would have stayed with the ACC
Now it WILL be taken over by someone down the track who won't be as generous . That or the bulldozer.
Congratulations
By the way. Will you preface your comments by declaring that you are a Port member?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

Call it what you will but management, use, pricing, opening hours and the like would have been at the mercy of private, for-profit hands. It would have been inevitable that the opening hours for the public would have been slowly whittled down to a few hours a day. I believe the same has happened with Fremantle, who also took over a public pool.

I have no issues with declaring that, but it has nothing to do with my stance. I would be just as opposed if PAFC or any other club attempted this proposal. In saying this, here are my reasons.

I'm opposed because the Parklands do belong in public hands. I certainly agree that they are underwhelming and require use and activation; however, this proposal certainly is not the way to achieve it. Despite my stance on community and public land remaining in public hands, there are plenty of underused alternatives for the Crows, who have occupied West Lakes rent-free since 1991 and until now wanted a $15m Federal Government handout of taxpayer funds for this. The taxpayer would see no return on this investment. Lastly, the proposal was plain rubbish. It was scurried together, greenwashed, and offered zero explanation of how it would improve the social status of the AAC.

You say it has no bearing on your stance but that is bullshit
The only reasons you give are pre determined rhetoric derived solely from that position.
You offer nothing concrete about the actual proposal , it's merits or future use.
You seem to think someone will rain down millions of their own money upon the council out of the goodness of their heart.


Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

The ACC has a nine-figure annual turnover. They can afford the fix.

ChillyPhilly wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 11, 2020 1:55 pm

The ACC has a nine-figure annual turnover. They can afford the fix.

Perhaps it's time for the state to hand over that woefully located state aquatic centre to Marion Council. Sure they will whinge about the upkeep costs, but they lobbied for it to be there in the first place. Then rebuild the North Adelaide aquatic centre into the state facility, more appropriately located. It will cost tens of millions.. but hey, the Feds just handed out 130 billion, and there will be more to come.

ChillyPhilly wrote:The ACC has a nine-figure annual turnover. They can afford the fix.

They have said many times they can't and they won't.
That's clear enough.

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

citywatcher wrote:

ChillyPhilly wrote:No Crows takeover of the Aquatic Centre is a good outcome.

They weren't taking it over
They were going to spend millions fixing it
And ownership would have stayed with the ACC
Now it WILL be taken over by someone down the track who won't be as generous . That or the bulldozer.
Congratulations
By the way. Will you preface your comments by declaring that you are a Port member?

Sent from my SM-J730G using Tapatalk

A port supporter or just your run of the mill short sighted South Australian.

We personify the saying, cut your nose off to spite your face