Sensational-Adelaide.com

Pikey wrote:Thread cleaned.

Any more off topic posts, well, guess the rest...

my comment was on topic. I dont see why it was censored.

Pikey wrote:Thread cleaned.

Any more off topic posts, well, guess the rest...

Good, lets keep this thread streamlined and focused. Pics and/or specific talk about the current construction at Adelaide Oval

It wasn't. We're not trying to stifle debate on this, but have separated the threads for the construction of the new western grandstand and the proposed redevelopment of AO generally. This was due to a lot of complaints from members who preferred to avoid the bigger picture/political shit-storm and just wanted to check the progress of the new members' stand.

The general discussion thread's here - http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... f=7&t=3046

i just commented that i didnt like the roof...nothing to do with the bigger picture debate which i'm completely bored of

I didn't delete it. You've repeated it anyway, so no harm done.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5911102174

THE prospect of a future fund "fortune" and partnership in a $1.1 billion River Precinct development will sweeten football's move to Adelaide Oval, Acting Treasurer Pat Conlon says.

He met South Australian National Football League directors and clubs on Thursday to "rubber stamp" support ahead of next Tuesday's government-imposed deadline for football and cricket to pursue a venture in the city.

The deal for football could be boosted by the upgrade of a suburban stadium, paid for by any development of the SANFL's West Lakes property.

"We are going to put a tramline to West Lakes in 2016 so there is an opportunity to do a development on the AAMI grounds that would make a fortune," Mr Conlon said.

"You could create a premium development around first-class transport that underwrote SANFL's future forever and put some funds into upgrading another SANFL oval."

The Advertiser understands the SANFL yesterday lodged with the Government a letter of intent to co-habit with SA Cricket Association at a 50,000 capacity, $535 million Adelaide Oval from 2014. A final agreement could be deferred until December, allowing time to deal with SANFL deal stipulations.

Mr Conlon "can't see anyone walking away from this opportunity" despite issues such as capacity for 3800 car parks, a promoter's agreement and parklands control requiring resolution. "The absolute key is that all of football wants to go Adelaide Oval. The rest is just working out detail," Mr Conlon said.

"The league directors' enthusiasm was obvious. They have seen the financial and long-term benefits."

Mr Conlon said he gave football the chance to "walk away" from the project but instead, it and cricket would benefit from a $1 billion River Precinct rejuvenation.

"Football will eventually be at Adelaide Oval, there is a certain inevitability about it. The great thing about doing it now is that we have $400 million going into the convention centre, $200 million the casino is willing to invest, $535 million into the oval, so we have a chance to put $1 billion into the precinct."

SACA president Ian McLachlan and SANFL boss Leigh Whicker last night said they were looking forward to next week's "announcements".

As I said over on skyscraper city...there we go, it's happening. Can we stop dreaming of covered stadiums in the parklands already? As much as labour give me the shits, there is no way that we'd be seeing even the allocation of a specific site for a new stadium by now let alone completion by 2014 if the libs were elected.
 

Spiller, everyone is frustrated by the way the entire project is being mishandled.

'Can we just move on, people?' may be a traditional method of closing the door on a disaster and declaring yourself blameless, but it neither solves the problem nor stops the waste.

One more time then:

This project's core problem is that it is politicised.
The project is unnecessarily expensive. Cheaper options exist which deliver more and everyone knows it.
It will deliver no more net sports seats for a total (including AAMMI tramway and redevelopment) that may be near $2 billion.
Three main beneficiaries: SANFL, AFL and SANFL will not pay one cent for the huge benefit they will receive at public cost.
There's a serious question of sustainable practice over this project. Read the government bullsh*t about sustainability then consider the economics and and ecologics of demolishing perfectly good, near-new grandstands, to replace them with - new grandstands of equal capacity.

The government's record as a hands-on project manager is disastrous. What we are seeing here is the government's management skills producing the most expensive, most difficult, least broadly useful way of obtaining a sports stadium it would be possible to imagine.

Another problem with moving on is that you don't learn anything. If the dog's breakfast at Adelaide Oval is going to be swept under the carpet in the 'SA way' and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it this time, we should at least try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Why not submit government projects which involve the private sector to proper analysis? We have the Public Works Committee, but it has trouble getting past 'commercial confidentiality' and is less involved in public/private partnerships.

To those here interested only in the structures, until we can control the politicisation of projects like this, discussion of the buildings will be difficult.

I have tried to obtain a copy of, or at least get a look at, the plans for the proposed 'Eastern Grandstand' - the one costed at $535 million, to be paid for by the taxpayer. I'm a taxpayer, I want a look. I'm an architect too - I'm interested.

The answer I got last week from AOSMA and DTEI and SACA, several times and after being run around: 'No.'

The reason? 'Commercial confidentiality.'

What am I going to do? Build my own??

You reckon you're frustrated.

Stumpjumper, your contributions, particularly to this topic, as a relative "insider" are insightful/interesting but I can't help but feel for you in the sense that your frustrations will not be eased no matter how active you are on S-A. You probably don't want/need my sympathy and not taking anything away from S-A as it has quite a bit of exposure for a relatively small Internet forum, but at the end of the day, it is just a small forum with a limited audience. Have you ever considered a career in politics? You're obviously fairly passionate about this stuff (not being condescending in anyway)

stumpjumper wrote:Spiller, everyone is frustrated by the way the entire project is being mishandled.

'Can we just move on, people?' may be a traditional method of closing the door on a disaster and declaring yourself blameless, but it neither solves the problem nor stops the waste.

One more time then:

This project's core problem is that it is politicised.
The project is unnecessarily expensive. Cheaper options exist which deliver more and everyone knows it.
It will deliver no more net sports seats for a total (including AAMMI tramway and redevelopment) that may be near $2 billion.
Three main beneficiaries: SANFL, AFL and SANFL will not pay one cent for the huge benefit they will receive at public cost.
There's a serious question of sustainable practice over this project. Read the government bullsh*t about sustainability then consider the economics and and ecologics of demolishing perfectly good, near-new grandstands, to replace them with - new grandstands of equal capacity.

The government's record as a hands-on project manager is disastrous. What we are seeing here is the government's management skills producing the most expensive, most difficult, least broadly useful way of obtaining a sports stadium it would be possible to imagine.

Another problem with moving on is that you don't learn anything. If the dog's breakfast at Adelaide Oval is going to be swept under the carpet in the 'SA way' and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it this time, we should at least try to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Why not submit government projects which involve the private sector to proper analysis? We have the Public Works Committee, but it has trouble getting past 'commercial confidentiality' and is less involved in public/private partnerships.

To those here interested only in the structures, until we can control the politicisation of projects like this, discussion of the buildings will be difficult.

I have tried to obtain a copy of, or at least get a look at, the plans for the proposed 'Eastern Grandstand' - the one costed at $535 million, to be paid for by the taxpayer. I'm a taxpayer, I want a look. I'm an architect too - I'm interested.

The answer I got last week from AOSMA and DTEI and SACA, several times and after being run around: 'No.'

The reason? 'Commercial confidentiality.'

What am I going to do? Build my own??

You reckon you're frustrated.

A few things:

- How is the cost of a tramline to West Lakes relevant to this project? And don't say they're building it to increase the value of AAMI Stadium land and get the SANFL on board for the Adelaide Oval shift because that'd be pure speculation. It would also go against your previous suggestions that the government wasn't really interested in Adelaide Oval and came up with a half-baked proposal to get over the line in the election, following which they would sit idly by, watch it all collapse and say they tried.

- How'd you get anywhere near $2billion anyway? Even if Adelaide Oval blows out to $700million, do you think it'd cost $1.3 billion to build a tramline out to West Lakes?

- If you're an architect, you understand what a redevelopment is. Can you therefore please stop rehashing the tired, inconsequential arguments about demolishing relatively new stands and not getting much more in terms of capacity? It has to be done to get anywhere near 50,000. What we're interested in is cost per total seats, not cost per new seat, especially given that the oldest stand of the new Oval will have been completed only this year.

- How many developers/architects do you know that give out tender drawings to interested members of the public? Concept drawings maybe, but tender drawings? Yes they're using public funds, but it's still a private development - not that you'd get tender drawings for a State project or PPP anyway. And the $535million isn't just for an eastern stand. The southern stand and concourse is included, as, from memory, is $85million for the western stand currently under construction.

- As for past criticism of the project itself, do you want a soulless, uniform, enclosed concrete bowl, or a unique nod to the Adelaide Oval of old with individual stands, 78% seat coverage, a grassed hill and historic scoreboard? I'm sure Mr Cox and Mr Jackson know what they're doing.

535million dollars for effectively 14,000 extra seats.

thats what he mean in simple terms

I know what he means, but it's not that simple.

Hooligan wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5911102174

THE prospect of a future fund "fortune" and partnership in a $1.1 billion River Precinct development will sweeten football's move to Adelaide Oval, Acting Treasurer Pat Conlon says.

He met South Australian National Football League directors and clubs on Thursday to "rubber stamp" support ahead of next Tuesday's government-imposed deadline for football and cricket to pursue a venture in the city.

The deal for football could be boosted by the upgrade of a suburban stadium, paid for by any development of the SANFL's West Lakes property.

"We are going to put a tramline to West Lakes in 2016 so there is an opportunity to do a development on the AAMI grounds that would make a fortune," Mr Conlon said.

"You could create a premium development around first-class transport that underwrote SANFL's future forever and put some funds into upgrading another SANFL oval."

The Advertiser understands the SANFL yesterday lodged with the Government a letter of intent to co-habit with SA Cricket Association at a 50,000 capacity, $535 million Adelaide Oval from 2014. A final agreement could be deferred until December, allowing time to deal with SANFL deal stipulations.

Mr Conlon "can't see anyone walking away from this opportunity" despite issues such as capacity for 3800 car parks, a promoter's agreement and parklands control requiring resolution. "The absolute key is that all of football wants to go Adelaide Oval. The rest is just working out detail," Mr Conlon said.

"The league directors' enthusiasm was obvious. They have seen the financial and long-term benefits."

Mr Conlon said he gave football the chance to "walk away" from the project but instead, it and cricket would benefit from a $1 billion River Precinct rejuvenation.

"Football will eventually be at Adelaide Oval, there is a certain inevitability about it. The great thing about doing it now is that we have $400 million going into the convention centre, $200 million the casino is willing to invest, $535 million into the oval, so we have a chance to put $1 billion into the precinct."

SACA president Ian McLachlan and SANFL boss Leigh Whicker last night said they were looking forward to next week's "announcements".

We don't get much for $1.1 billion do we. Just an upgrade to existing facilities. How exciting (sic)

contractor wrote:

Hooligan wrote:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 5911102174

THE prospect of a future fund "fortune" and partnership in a $1.1 billion River Precinct development will sweeten football's move to Adelaide Oval, Acting Treasurer Pat Conlon says.

He met South Australian National Football League directors and clubs on Thursday to "rubber stamp" support ahead of next Tuesday's government-imposed deadline for football and cricket to pursue a venture in the city.

The deal for football could be boosted by the upgrade of a suburban stadium, paid for by any development of the SANFL's West Lakes property.

"We are going to put a tramline to West Lakes in 2016 so there is an opportunity to do a development on the AAMI grounds that would make a fortune," Mr Conlon said.

"You could create a premium development around first-class transport that underwrote SANFL's future forever and put some funds into upgrading another SANFL oval."

The Advertiser understands the SANFL yesterday lodged with the Government a letter of intent to co-habit with SA Cricket Association at a 50,000 capacity, $535 million Adelaide Oval from 2014. A final agreement could be deferred until December, allowing time to deal with SANFL deal stipulations.

Mr Conlon "can't see anyone walking away from this opportunity" despite issues such as capacity for 3800 car parks, a promoter's agreement and parklands control requiring resolution. "The absolute key is that all of football wants to go Adelaide Oval. The rest is just working out detail," Mr Conlon said.

"The league directors' enthusiasm was obvious. They have seen the financial and long-term benefits."

Mr Conlon said he gave football the chance to "walk away" from the project but instead, it and cricket would benefit from a $1 billion River Precinct rejuvenation.

"Football will eventually be at Adelaide Oval, there is a certain inevitability about it. The great thing about doing it now is that we have $400 million going into the convention centre, $200 million the casino is willing to invest, $535 million into the oval, so we have a chance to put $1 billion into the precinct."

SACA president Ian McLachlan and SANFL boss Leigh Whicker last night said they were looking forward to next week's "announcements".

We don't get much for $1.1 billion do we. Just an upgrade to existing facilities. How exciting (sic)

I feel you are been deliberately misleading. This is not a redevelopment. A redevelopment implies that existing structures are upgraded. This is NOT what is happening.

The $1.1 billion will fund a completely new stadium and new convention centre. The Bradman and Chappel stands aswell as the original Convention Centre will be demolished and not renovated as implied by your post.

I think i've got a better graspe of what an upgrade is and what is new based on your reply Will

With the impending state budget I doubt there will be any new developments for a few years to the riverbank now (that is new Will, not upgrading structures that have the same use).

A move to Melbourne has never looked better. Am I allowed to say that on here?