Some thoughts:
A conservative estimate is that there are 400,000 Victoria Park visits each year for active recreation (walking, walking the dog, running, cycling, doing the fitness circuit, running up the steps of the SAJC grandstand).
An estimate, indeed. By whom? From what source? Based on what research?
As well there are school sports and other very well-patronised events such as Pedal Power, archery, the soaring club, University sports. Given our concerns with the lack of exercise many children and adults are getting shouldn't we (and leading sportsmen) be applauding the State Government for not letting a well-used urban park become a dedicated motor sport venue that would eventually preclude these activites taking place in the Park?
Ms. Nimmo seems to be of the belief that the entire grounds of Victoria Park will become off-limits to the general public if the new development were to take place - that one could no longer run around the track or stroll across the grass. I was always under the impression that Victoria Park would remain open; realigned yes, but still part of the freely-accessible parkland space. Yes, it is true that the most recent proposal would take up a portion of land that is not currently being utilised, but the construction of a building in one location does not automatically result in the banning of public access to the rest of the land. I believe that the permanent Grand Prix pit structures in Melbourne are essentially in the middle of Albert Park, yet their existence does not mean that Albert Park becomes a no-go zone to any extent - in fact, I'm sure that aside from entering the buildings themselves, visitors have just as much freedom of access as they did before.
(Tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think you can run around the grass with your kids at the Adelaide Oval)
That is correct, Ms. Nimmo, you cannot. You can, however, run around the grass with your kids on the grass at the Cresswell Gardens, Pennington Gardens, Light's Vision, Pinky Flat, Elder Park, Angas Gardens, Pioneer Women's Memorial Gardens, Grundy Gardens, Palmer Gardens, Brougham Gardens, Botanic Park, Botanic Gardens, Rundle Park, Rymill Park, Hindmarsh Square, Victoria Park (in both pre and post development forms), Hurtle Square, Veale Gardens, Osmond Gardens, Lundie Gardens, Kingston Gardens, Light Square.....
Let's get behind active recreation.
Most certainly.
That's the way of the future and the young - not horse racing which is not supported by young people (except as an opportunity to party).
I should like to know how horse racing will survive without a shift in that direction. There is a reason why the marketing focus behind the horse racing industry of South Australia has been shifted towards creating a more youthful party atmosphere, and it has a hell of a lot to do with people simply becoming bored with traditional horse racing and betting. I am also intrigued by this belief that 'active recreation' makes up the entire future of the young - a part of it, yes, but by no means all of it. There is far more to recreation than going for a run in one particular park of Adelaide.
Get yourself down to Vic Park (early morning and evenings in summer) and see how many young people and young families are using it to relax and keep fit. And think how many more we'd have if the park was developed as a genuine people's park with a fitness circuit (instead of a horse track?) and cycle paths and more shade etc. The presence of the car race in the park for 4-5 months makes this more difficult but not impossible. But of course there's no money to be made from individual active recreation so that's why certain sections of the business and sporting communities have no interest in supporting it. We mustn't let vested interest take control of public land for commercial gain trumped up as civic pride. And re the letter about Perth, let's also remember that Perth recently said no to a car race in its city streets.
Will then the cycling, athletics, archery, University sports and soaring clubs, as well as the Parklands and Residents' Associations put in the money for the new fitness circuit, cycle paths, additional shade and seating, rubbish bins, appropriate lighting for safety, demolition of existing buildings and landscaping (as well as the labour costs) desired by Ms. Nimmo? In effect, are these organisations who clamour for the restoration of Victoria Park as entirely open parkland willing to pay for this, or are they merely going to demand payment from elsewhere because, as Ms. Nimmo has pointed out, there is no money for them to make from individual recreation?
With proper development at the site, not only can the track remain a well-kept, grassed area for the use of all Adelaideans, it becomes a useful facility for both the SAJC and the Clipsal 500. It is not going to be a large, privately-owned, fenced-off, restricted area, and that is a damaging misconception.