Sensational-Adelaide.com

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

Define everyone please. I see only a handful of people who aren't "happy", and only two who are constantly complaining.
Or is this another bit of "factual information" you have obtained but cant/wont reveal a source..

'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.

Disaster? What disaster?
What problem needs to be solved? Your personal desire for a multipurpose stadium with all the bells and whistles?

The redevelopment is to bring AFL into the CBD. It's going ahead. Constantly complaining on an Internet forum isn't going to stop it.

One more time then:

You've said your piece over and over.
What difference have you made? None.
Next election why don't you stop complaining for a change and run as an independent.

contractor wrote: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?

Seeya then

contractor wrote: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?

Your post highlights what frustrates me most about South Australians.

This belief that if we dont build carbon copies of what Melbourne has, then it is crap.

I am sorry the state government isn't building a Crown Casino and a Docklands Stadium. But tell me, what city has become respected or great by copying another?

My point has been that if we took politics away from this and sat the 'stakeholders' (not including governments trying to win elections) around a table with a few planners, we might have had a cheaper, better proposal that had wider support. In other words, it's about quality of planning rather than the actual design - wasting a fantastic gateway site on a hospital, for example, and disregarding or destroying obvious synergies - Uni of Adelaide medical school and the RAH; Uni SA sports sciences and a new stadium. The present proposal has numerous inherent and unnecessary bad fits that have to be expensively dealt with: the synergies mentioned, the need for the new bridge and the lack of mass transport at AO.

It's also about value for money. We have a series of solutions which are a poor fit to the problems. The result is unnecessary expense and no net expansion of facilities.

Regarding the on again/off again West Lakes tramline, apart from the uncertainty for landowners along the route caused by the government's day to day, politicised planning processes, Conlon himself has made it quite clear that the proposal is intended to boost the value of SANFL's West Lakes landholding.

As to the question of sustainability (let alone poor long term planning) involved in knocking down and converting to landfill the 7-year-old Chappell stand and the 19-year-old Bradman Stand, I suppose then that I should also send to landfill the piles of bullsh*t I receive from time to time from the government on 'sustainable practice' in the building industry.

The $2 billion is my guesstimate of the accrued cost of every patch on patch the government has had to announce since it first rushed out the decision to rebuild Adelaide Oval as a counter to the Lib's stadium on the railyards instead of a hospital idea. So, allow $1 billion for the AOSMA development including car park and transport facilities. Then there's the share of the sudden '$1.1 billion' Riverbank Precinct' redevelopment which is due to the AOSMA redevelopment. Then add the cost of the West Lakes tram, until recently unaffordable if the AOSMA proposal went ahead. My guess is heading for $2 billion all up. Time will tell.

As to the drawings, all I requested was a look at them in order to write an article including the building's energy saving features such as rainwater recycling. Considering that the AOSMA project is a huge, publicly funded project enjoying wide support, if the government is to be believed, then why is the design a secret?? If the drawings are 'only conceptual' as I was told by one flunkey, then how have they been costed??

Finally, how does building a huge carpark at Adelaide Oval draw footy goers into the city? A stadium on North Tce and a carpark, if necessary, between Hindley Street and North Tce would not present that problem.

Well, that's all from me. I thank the other readers here for their polite patience. I'd hate to repeat myself.

It was due

Will wrote:

contractor wrote: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?

Your post highlights what frustrates me most about South Australians.

This belief that if we dont build carbon copies of what Melbourne has, then it is crap.

I am sorry the state government isn't building a Crown Casino and a Docklands Stadium. But tell me, what city has become respected or great by copying another?

I am neither South Australian or Victorian. Recent visits to Melbourne, Sydney & Brisbane have confirmed (to me) that currently Melbourne is the most progressive city in terms of development.

As for the Adelaide v Melbourne thing, my understanding is that South Australian's are the only people who participate in this debate. Melbourne is competing with Sydney, and doing a very good job at the moment.

I'm really starting to like the new western grandstand, and to think the new southern and eastern stands will be much higher... Adelaide Oval is going to look great once complete

vanbasten88 @ SSC wrote:more pictures from today Monday 30Aug2010, including the view from behind the stand to see the result of keeping the brick arches:











By my reckoning, they've got about 9 weeks until the SACA and CA want to run one of the Pommy tour games here as a trial run before the test in early December...In only 10 calendar days, they've covered bubble number2, so the bubble should be done. watching other stand construction, I'm aware that seating is very simple and quick to install, its the fit-out of the interior that will be smelling of fresh paint on game day methinks. If you look closely in one of the pics taken from behind the stand, you will see the framework for an interior escalator. I guess we'll just have to pray for good weather between now and November/December eh?

I only like the western grandstand because it's got curves. Something which Adelaide lacks.
curves are sexy. Look at the convention centre for example

Though personally I don't think the arches were worth saving, not that keen on the exterior... looks kinda cheap and temporary

The middle section looks good though

crawf wrote:Though personally I don't think the arches were worth saving, not that keen on the exterior... looks kinda cheap and temporary

The middle section looks good though

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it,
I think the brickwork arches add something distinctive to the grand stand. From any angle, you'll be able to tell you're at Adelaide Oval rather than the concrete jungle that is the MCG or the hodgepodge 'behind the scemes jungle that you get at the SCG. The brickwork ties the new stand in to the existing structures from the concourses. If you walk around the oval, you will see that the only stand that doesn't make use of brickwork are the Chappell Stands and I personally think that makes them poorer for it. Still they'll be gone in 5 years. I hope the architects of the new Eastern Stands use brickwork on the facades to enhance the character of the old girl. A stand can be modern but not look modern from the outside. Cricket is an ancient feeling game where tradition is important, the cathedrals of the game, the grounds should reflect this IMHO.

stumpjumper wrote:I'd hate to repeat myself.

funny