#VIS: Riverside (Entertainment Precinct)

[monotonehell]

This is a good 'what if' vision, but nothing more. It's not a plan. There's been no logistical thought put into it from what we can see so far. Right now this proposal is at the level of Sensational-Adelaide members' ability. In that it's not much better than what we've come up with over the years. It fails to answer all the questions that we've raised so far. Plonking a cut and paste of the Docklands Stadium is something Shuz and others have done in the past (actually I think his vision was better in some respects).

Just a few questions for consideration and moving forward:

1. Where's the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 car parking spaces that this complex will need going? Underground?
2. Where's the all week people attractors that will support the cafe area? All the attractions except the science centre are efemeral event hosts, and the science centre will mostly attract primary school groups. From this set of offerings the place will be deserted most of the time, as the site is remote from the CBD and its daily activity (about 15mins walk).
3. What sort of place will this area be at night? Where's the night time entertainment? What sort of elements are attracted to remote wide open spaces at night?
4. How will a dual line railway station and a tiny tram line cope with all the ingress and outgress of a statium?

[flavze]

Well waz, how did I know you were going to pipe up?

I think you will find that the SANFL and AFL would jump ship very quickly to use this new stadium.

.

Why would the SANFL go from a sole ownership to a partnership, doesnt make much sence unless you are given a crap load of incentives which is exactally what MHS will have to do.


(does work well at Etihad Stadium currently which is why they get 40-50,000 each game).

If its that good for soccer why bother building a new $30-40 (?) million new stadium. seems to me like that would be stupid, not a vision.

Unfunded bollocks, like all of MHS policies.

The new Melbourne rectangular stadium was originally to be built for Rugby not soccer, it was part of a pitch to get a super 14 franchise wich ended up going to perth instead but with the Storm needing a decent stadium it was decided to go ahead with and was to be around the 20-25k capacity. It was only after the massive success of the Melbourne Victory in drawing nig croweds in Season 2 of the a-league that they become a viable major summer tenant for the stadium and used their newfound influence to push it up to 31k capacity.

The SANFL could easily sell off AAMI stadium and the surrounding area's and chuck the money in the bank and play the Power an Crows out of a new stadium and be just as well off, plus the clubs would undoubtably draw bigger crowds and be better of for it as well.

[mattblack]

The SANFL could easily sell off AAMI stadium and the surrounding area's and chuck the money in the bank and play the Power an Crows out of a new stadium and be just as well off, plus the clubs would undoubtably draw bigger crowds and be better of for it as well.

[/quote].

I dont understand how the SANFL would benefit from selling their biggest asset when its completely unnecessary?

I want a inner city stadium, this is the wrong place for it. It will be disused for most of the week with no attractions to lure people there. It will be another fesival plaza 90% of the time. I also dont understand this whole thing with federation sq people keep relating to. Yes, it has trasformed what was a eyesore before but it is not a destination because of its attractions. It is only popular because it is central and a meeting spot and sometimes events get shown on the big screen. This plan has none of those attractions and it should be up to Vic sq to fill this void.

I do think that the wetlands and second weir is a bloody good idea though.

[Tyler_Durden]

The SANFL could easily sell off AAMI stadium and the surrounding area's and chuck the money in the bank and play the Power an Crows out of a new stadium and be just as well off, plus the clubs would undoubtably draw bigger crowds and be better of for it as well.

lol
That's a pretty comprehensive feasability report you've presented there. Well done. If anyone is failed to be convinced by that then they just don't know what's good for them.

[Queen Anne]

Just a few questions for consideration and moving forward:

1. Where's the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 car parking spaces that this complex will need going? Underground?
2. Where's the all week people attractors that will support the cafe area? All the attractions except the science centre are efemeral event hosts, and the science centre will mostly attract primary school groups. From this set of offerings the place will be deserted most of the time, as the site is remote from the CBD and its daily activity (about 15mins walk).
3. What sort of place will this area be at night? Where's the night time entertainment? What sort of elements are attracted to remote wide open spaces at night?
4. How will a dual line railway station and a tiny tram line cope with all the ingress and outgress of a statium?

All valid questions, Mono.

I feel very uncomfortable regarding the distance this precinct is from the CBD. It's too far, imo. It's hard to see how either the CBD or Riverside could prosper. I worry the distance involved could make them rivals, rather than two parts of a whole.

After a lifetime of waiting for Adelaide to thrive, I hate to throw a wet blanket on this proposal, but it doesn't sit right with me, sadly. I guess it can't hurt to wait for further info though..

[flavze]

The SANFL could easily sell off AAMI stadium and the surrounding area's and chuck the money in the bank and play the Power an Crows out of a new stadium and be just as well off, plus the clubs would undoubtably draw bigger crowds and be better of for it as well.

lol
That's a pretty comprehensive feasability report you've presented there. Well done. If anyone is failed to be convinced by that then they just don't know what's good for them.

Tis pretty obvious that it wasn't an attempt to be comprehensive smartarse. :wank:
As an asset to them AAMI stadium is only worth the money that it can generate for them from the Crows an Power games, which is decreasing every year and with the clubs wanting a bigger share of the pie is going to decrease even further.
If the SANFL sold it off, put the money into the bank/invested it as well as negotiated a slice of the revenue from the new stadium then i fail to see how it's going to be worse off.
A new stadium won't be built unless the SANFL can be convinced to move the crows and power there, and if the deal is sweet enough than they will.

[Shuz]

[quote="monotonehell"] It fails to answer all the questions that we've raised so far. Plonking a cut and paste of the Docklands Stadium is something Shuz and others have done in the past (actually I think his vision was better in some respects).

Too kind, Mono, too kind.

[Brando]

Just a few questions for consideration and moving forward:

1. Where's the estimated 15,000 to 20,000 car parking spaces that this complex will need going? Underground?
2. Where's the all week people attractors that will support the cafe area? All the attractions except the science centre are efemeral event hosts, and the science centre will mostly attract primary school groups. From this set of offerings the place will be deserted most of the time, as the site is remote from the CBD and its daily activity (about 15mins walk).
3. What sort of place will this area be at night? Where's the night time entertainment? What sort of elements are attracted to remote wide open spaces at night?
4. How will a dual line railway station and a tiny tram line cope with all the ingress and outgress of a statium?

All valid questions, Mono.

I feel very uncomfortable regarding the distance this precinct is from the CBD. It's too far, imo. It's hard to see how either the CBD or Riverside could prosper. I worry the distance involved could make them rivals, rather than two parts of a whole.

After a lifetime of waiting for Adelaide to thrive, I hate to throw a wet blanket on this proposal, but it doesn't sit right with me, sadly. I guess it can't hurt to wait for further info though..

Really this nothing more than a mere concept at this stage. If up 4 developers are keen to submit proposals, they will will maximise space and value for dollar. If you look at the renders, you can see an area opposite the torrens which appears to be a small cafe precinct maybe. I'm no too sure. It appears to be a larger area than the Red Ochre.

As for parking, Mono you must admit 15000 to 20,000 car spaces is a slight exageration. Etihad stadium only has 2500 car spaces which are underground. The MCG has the surrounding Yarra park, although i'm not sure of exact numbers, it can be very muddy and useless during a real wet week. So the reliance on off street parking, PT and city car parking works.

As for the dual line, PT is not my forte so i can only speculate.

It has been mentioned that Skycity could be a possible player it's the precinct, which would add the required people and vibrance.

Let's just wait for the election first and any more concept plans before we jump on this one. I'm sure if this were to go ahead it would be done right and add real substance to the area. Still much more to be heard and read on this one.

I heard Nathan Paine from the property council will be submitting a proposal for the CBD which will include plans for the Railyards.

[monotonehell]

I don't know how I came to 15000 to 20000. I meant to say 10000 to 15000. Etihad may have only 2500 under the dome, but that's only for when they run conferences etc. (The parks there are $25 a pop) There's another 3000 odd parks in the immediate proximity, and a lot of people park further away. Some take the train.

This site would need to cater for at least 10000. If every one of the 50000 seated fans drove in cars carrying four then you get 12500 parks needed. If twice the normal PT rate (because it's in the CBD) is achieved then knock off about 20%. 40000 fans still equates to at least 10000 parks.

Really this nothing more than a mere concept at this stage.

That was my point.

[Strangled Cat]

I don't see why parking is such a big issue. What is the problem with parking in one of the many car parks on North Tce? When I go to the football at Etihad stadium I park in the Crown casino car park and walk down Spencer street. It's a 10-15 minute walk. I can't see that being shorter than walking from North Tce over to the other side of the Torrens. Sure, maybe walking 1 km isn't practical for some, and most of you lot are used to walking straight out of AAMI and into the car park. But the thing I've always had a chuckle about is that it takes longer to get out of the AAMI stadium car park than it does to walk the 15 minutes from the Docklands to Crown. Now, if Skycity on the other hand want to base themselves next to a city sports stadium and provide a big car park to go with the hotel that they want, I can see them doing very well, and potentially killing two birds with one stone.

[waz94]

Well waz, how did I know you were going to pipe up?

I think you will find that the SANFL and AFL would jump ship very quickly to use this new stadium.

.

Why would the SANFL go from a sole ownership to a partnership, doesnt make much sence unless you are given a crap load of incentives which is exactally what MHS will have to do.

Why wouldnt the SANFL jump ship if someone was building them a brand new modern stadium. In fact let them run it how they want to. The incentive for them is bigger crowds, bigger revenues, bigger profits. Compared to what they are getting at the moment with just AFL (and very ordinary Power crowds). They could get revenue all year round from A-league games in the summer months.

does work well at Etihad Stadium currently which is why they get 40-50,000 each game.

If its that good for soccer why bother building a new $30-40 (?) million new stadium. seems to me like that would be stupid, not a vision.

This is a combined stadium with rugby as well. Very clever business paractices combining two different codes, to share the costs. Hmmm, this mode of operation sounds very familar and quite feasible. If only we had some sort of combined stadium in Adelaide. Just cant quite put my finger on it.

Unfunded bollocks, like all of MHS policies.

To all those worried about parking at any new CBD stadium, then you miss the whole point of having a CBD stadium directly located nearby major public transport. You wont need as much parking as AAMI stadium. The MCG and Etihad Stadium have limited parking as people use public transport to get there (train, tram or bus). Its a no brainer. This is why AAMI doesnt work as people have to drive there.

[adam73837]

I agree waz94, people don't need to look too hard on http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... ?f=8&t=520 to see that that is precisely one of the reasons that I want an Inner-City Stadium.
Looks like the Editor and The Advertiser are getting a bit pissed off and having their say too:

Today's Editorial
One debate our Premier doesn't want

| April 06, 2009

His performance yesterday, when attempting to debate Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith's vision for the state's capital city, was as predictable as it was questionable.

Speaking on 891 ABC Adelaide, Mr Rann continued a long-term personality trait by taking exception to The Advertiser's coverage of the Liberal plan for the CBD's northwestern fringe.

This has, as its centrepiece, a new multipurpose sports stadium on the city railyards, putting the Opposition directly at odds with the State Government's plan to build a $1.7 billion hospital on the same site.

Mr Rann opened the interview by, rightly, declaring that he welcomed debate. But this was clearly a slick one-liner, because he then reverted to his well-established media policy of blaming The Advertiser when things go wrong for

the Government or someone dares raise an idea which contradicts the Government line.

Mr Rann argued that The Advertiser wants a new city stadium, falsely implying that this was a policy which overwhelms our job of presenting the news. He also boldly declared that The Advertiser's coverage was "extraordinary" because the newspaper was "backing Martin Hamilton-Smith".

Any major newspaper has a responsibility to further debate, in the public interest, by presenting policies from governments and oppositions.

The truth is The Advertiser does believe Adelaide needs a new world-class stadium, but, as Mr Rann should be acutely aware, this does not mean the newspaper stifles debate.

Indeed, The Advertiser has strongly and repeatedly endorsed his Government's unpopular plans for the new Royal Adelaide Hospital and tram extensions.

It is customary for newspapers to endorse a party ahead of state and federal elections. But the next state election is on March 20 next year - meaning the phony campaign is in full swing. Mr Rann might also remember that The Advertiser endorsed Labor at the 2002 and 2006 elections - for only the second and third time in the paper's 150-year history.

Politicians often forget that this newspaper's constituency is every bit as large as that of a major political party and our first priority is always to our readers. We will, as will any newspaper, give coverage to issues of note.

We will always hold strong opinions in editorial columns but we will ensure that we actively host debate on our news pages.

Any premier does nothing to further debate by accusing a news organisation of bias simply because he does not agree with a political rival's policy. Former WA premier Alan Carpenter is a telling case in point.

Every morning, Advertiser journalists walk past a message from Sir Keith Murdoch: "The press must be more than merely free. It must be fact-finding, truth-telling, truth-seeking to the limit of human capacity and enterprise."

This is our charter - to further debate in the interests of informing our readers.

Responsibility for all editorial comment is taken by The Editor, Melvin Mansell, 31 Waymouth St, Adelaide, SA 5000

I also find this image to be quite funny:

0,,6566558,00.jpg (74.09 KiB) Viewed 4807 times

BTW, is that guy with the wine glass in the right of the picture meant to be John olsen? I'm just curious because I saw a picture of him Saturday's Advertiser wearing a long coat like that, standing in Time Square, New York.

[paul]

You are the only one to notice Pants
I guess I am not impressed by the MHS run Liberal govt.
And I can't believe people on here will vote for MHS on this project alone!
It wasn't that long ago that our forumers were slamming MHS for trying to block the tram extension.

How things change...

A welcome respite from the endless Mike Rann worshipping that goes on in many forums!....

This is one of the most exciting proposals I've seen in many years for Adelaide. I hope people judge it on its merits at the next election, as you'll find very little difference between the Libs and Labor on the 'nuts and bolts' of health, education and law and order.

[Vee]

To all those worried about parking at any new CBD stadium, then you miss the whole point of having a CBD stadium directly located nearby major public transport. You wont need as much parking as AAMI stadium. The MCG and Etihad Stadium have limited parking as people use public transport to get there (train, tram or bus). Its a no brainer. This is why AAMI doesnt work as people have to drive there.

Precisely why Riverside is the ideal location for such a precinct! Access to public transport (train, tram, bus) is a critical element for success - now and into the future! It's the same rationale behind the environmentally friendly TODs for future residential developments.
Agree with Waz re AAMI - wrong, wrong, wrong location.

Opportunity exists for grand plans for the Railway Station for better integration into the precinct when SkyCity eventually vacates. An extended inner/near city tram network adds to the appeal.

[frank1]

If MHS agrees to build a new stadium, electrify the rail system and continue to build light rail e.g north adelaide, i think it will be a landslide agianst rann.