[COM] Victoria Park Redevelopment

All high-rise, low-rise and street developments in the Adelaide and North Adelaide areas.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#76 Post by Omicron » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:10 pm

I am utterly confused. A permanent grandstand is unacceptable to the ACC because it will be used only sporadically for the Clipsal and horse racing over the year and will take up public land, but a temporary grandstand of the same size requiring the same areas to be fenced off for 11 months and used for only 4 days is acceptable?

Did I miss something?

User avatar
monotonehell
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5466
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Adelaide, East End.
Contact:

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#77 Post by monotonehell » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:13 pm

Omicron wrote:I am utterly confused. A permanent grandstand is unacceptable to the ACC because it will be used only sporadically for the Clipsal and horse racing over the year and will take up public land, but a temporary grandstand of the same size requiring the same areas to be fenced off for 11 months and used for only 4 days is acceptable?

Did I miss something?
Yep they expect the 11 months to be reduced to only a few months after they learn how to do it better. So eventually the site will be clear for 'most' of the year.

But yeah..... gawd.


Looking at the bright side: Even though this costs a packet-load on a regular basis, being non-permanent means that there's the potential for a better permanent development in the future after the revolution when certain people have been up against the wall... ;)
Exit on the right in the direction of travel.

User avatar
Wayno
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:18 pm
Location: Torrens Park

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#78 Post by Wayno » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:21 pm

monotonehell wrote: Looking at the bright side: Even though this costs a packet-load on a regular basis, being non-permanent means that there's the potential for a better permanent development in the future after the revolution when certain people have been up against the wall... ;)
my thoughts exactly! i wish i could do my home renovations the same way - try before you buy!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.

User avatar
rhino
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 3093
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Nairne

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#79 Post by rhino » Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:52 pm

Well I hope those bloody NIMBYs are happy now. They're actually going to end up with less parkland for most of the year, due to construction and demounting, for years to come, than they would with a permanent structure. Plus, they've lost the SAJC. Dickheads.
cheers,
Rhino

Will
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 5864
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Adelaide

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#80 Post by Will » Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:26 pm

What a farcical situation. How embarrassing for Adelaide.

As usual, due to the extreme nostalgia brigade, we are left with a second class result.

aussie2000
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:12 pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Contact:

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#81 Post by aussie2000 » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:10 pm

oooooooooooo our governments such a bitch . . . I LIKE IT!!!! :D

rev
SA MVP (Most Valued Poster 4000+)
Posts: 6424
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 12:14 pm

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#82 Post by rev » Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:39 pm

Up until last week they were still clearing Victoria park of Clipsal 500 related stands and pits etc. They may even still be there.

They started in December, and its almost May now. Practically half a year spent putting things up and taking them back down.
This is what NIMBY's and certain groups(who I dont think we can mention their names because they might sue Howie because they don't like being humiliated for their backwardness and selfishness /takes breath/), want for Vic park?
Vic park to virtually be a construction zone with large swaths of it off limits?
They like living with all the noise of giant forklifts and cranes for 5-6 months?

Build permanent facilities on pit straight, and limit the noise and disruption.

I personally hope Vic Park turns into a dust bowl, and nearby homes covered in dust year-round.
Let's see them then complain that Vic Park should be maintained as a lush green private park for them selves, and try justify it.


Btw, isn't it an offence to let you're dog do its business and not clean up after it? I have never seen any of the dog walkers in Vic Park, all 5-10 of them, ever clean up after their dogs.

muzzamo
Legendary Member!
Posts: 1029
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 4:44 pm

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#83 Post by muzzamo » Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:21 pm

There is actually only one person in this state who can change this current situation: Jane Lomax-Smith.

Foley and Rann have the option of using the legislation proposed by the Liberals, they could rush it through parliament right now but Lomax-Smith threatend to resign over the issue, and loosing the seat of Adelaide would be a disaster for Foley and Rann as it is quite often seen as the Litmus test for the rest of the state.

If Lomax-Smith had some guts she would back the government on this one, but despite being a member of cabinet she did not.

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#84 Post by Ho Really » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:49 pm

Why do you guys cry over the Victoria Park development so much? The proposed grandstand was only for the corporates and a lucky few and not for the people of SA. It was a crap design and would have eventually turned into a white elephant. If they had realigned the racetrack (circuit) and planned the grandstand along Fullarton Road they could have included other facilities within it. Planning it so that sporting and community organisations, etc., could use it year long. Those opposing the proposal don't want Victoria Park permanently cut in half. So why not propose one on the edge of the park? At least compromise!

My opinion so you guys know where I stand on this issue: I used love motorsports, I covered it as a photojournalist for many years, I may have even had said at that time a permanent facility would have been great (but this was at the time of the F1 GPs), but if you ask me now whether I would like to see one built in the centre of Victoria Park, I would say no. Elsewhere maybe, but give me a building that generates economical, social, cultural benefits and is accessible to all South Aussies (and tourists) and not just for the elite.

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
Omicron
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2336
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:46 pm

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#85 Post by Omicron » Tue Apr 29, 2008 12:14 am

I'm just confused as to why a permanent grandstand was rejected, but a temporary structure was approved that shares essentially the same problems (voiced so forcefully by certain council members) of size, location away from Fullarton Rd, limited usage beyond the Clipsal, limited seating for non-corporate audiences et. al., especially given the sole advantage of a temporary structure (that it can be removed) will not be fully realised for several years until the construction crew gain the necessary experience.

Ms. Moran's endearing little contradiction '...it really is a permanent temporary structure...' brought a warm glow to my day.

wally
Sen-Rookie-Sational
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:24 am

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#86 Post by wally » Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:41 am

considering the attendances at the races these days, probably a good thing to only have one venue. but to say that they should now create public space is just plain funny. does he think that there is a current shortage of public space around adelaide. geeez!!

User avatar
Ho Really
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2721
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:29 pm
Location: In your head

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#87 Post by Ho Really » Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:06 am

Omicron wrote:I'm just confused as to why a permanent grandstand was rejected, but a temporary structure was approved that shares essentially the same problems (voiced so forcefully by certain council members) of size, location away from Fullarton Rd, limited usage beyond the Clipsal, limited seating for non-corporate audiences et. al., especially given the sole advantage of a temporary structure (that it can be removed) will not be fully realised for several years until the construction crew gain the necessary experience.

Ms. Moran's endearing little contradiction '...it really is a permanent temporary structure...' brought a warm glow to my day.
Permanent means just that. If built it will be there for posterity unless some one has the money to demolish it, if it became redundant. That's why it will be temporary, even if it will be a pain in the arse to pull down and re-erect and may eventually cost the same in the long run. A permanent building should be built on the boundary as I (and maybe others) have suggested. Why can't they compromise and make everyone happy. It gives you the shites!

Cheers
Confucius say: Dumb man climb tree to get cherry, wise man spread limbs.

User avatar
omada
Donating Member
Donating Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:03 am
Location: Eden Hills

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#88 Post by omada » Tue Apr 29, 2008 11:31 am

I think they should nuke the entire site from orbit.... it's the only way to be sure..

User avatar
Clr Yarwood
High Rise Poster!
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:00 pm

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#89 Post by Clr Yarwood » Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:01 pm

Don’t believe everything you read…a few facts – its not 11 months a year – it’s a week over 5 months. 11 months is just this year and most of that is section at a time bitumen and concrete footings – the headline was not only dumb, but incorrect.

Furthermore anyone that thinks the ACC members are recalcitrants are spending more time moaning than they are doing their homework. 5 of the councillors (inc myself) are 40 years old or less and very progressive.

The others are highly intelligent, experienced and imaginative people able to listen and learn with an average age around 55…hardly old!

“Ho really” is right…it was NEVER a grandstand and you guys were never going to be invited…none of us were.

$55 million of YOUR taxes for a VIP box for people that pay no local taxes…what the???

Vision, progress, the future? How about let’s stop debating a pile of seats for a 4 day V8 race and talk about the Government investing in infrastructure that supports sustainable living and affordable Gen Y housing options.

Gen Y cannot afford to buy a house and the ice caps are melting and some people suggest the State Government should blow $55 mill on a grandstand for a business that is making good profits…hmmmm…am I missing something?

The parklands will be there 100’s years after the race has come and gone…real vision is about appreciating that one day when the world’s population is 9 billion plus Adelaide will have one of the best open space networks of any city in the world.

Vic Park? More like where is the tram going Mike Rann?
Councillor Stephen Yarwood
Candidate for Lord Mayor
Adelaide City Council

http://www.StephenYarwood.com

User avatar
skyliner
Super Size Scraper Poster!
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:16 pm
Location: fassifern (near Brisbane)

[COM] Re: Victoria Park

#90 Post by skyliner » Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:27 pm

Clr Yarwood wrote:Don’t believe everything you read. Vic Park? More like where is the tram going Mike Rann?
SPOT ON. A slight diversion I know but I have the same Q. (extremely impt. for the future - much more so than Vic. Pk). With decreasing supplies and increasing demand for oil (and much higher prices in the future), what is going on with the tram line and extension thereof? Vision, future planning for expected scenario? What's happening? As far as I can see tram usage demand will increase dramatically. City loops, Googer, Nth Adelaide all highly relevant. Vic Pk does not compare concerning priorities IMO.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE
Jack.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests