Algernon wrote:Stalls in Rundle Mall is just a token gesture. How about the ACC get rid of (bankrupt) Imax and give us back what we already had
Howie wrote:Algernon wrote:Stalls in Rundle Mall is just a token gesture. How about the ACC get rid of (bankrupt) Imax and give us back what we already had
Amen to that. Did you guys hear the statement Imax directors made when they left? "I guess adelaide's not ready for Imax yet"... yeah right, if they had marketed it and not charge an arm and a leg for a half hour crappy documentary then maybe we would've all gone and seen a flick there.
Pants wrote:Rundle street especially, deserved a bit of colour and a bit more class than what we've been given.
Algernon wrote:* Raise the street to the same level as the footpath. This is actually an interesting technique implemented in some European countries. Having cars and pedestrians on the same level has been observed to create safer environments for pedestrians. Drivers are more conscious of the pedestrians, and vice versa. I could crap on about it all day if I could be bothered.
AtD wrote:Having a think about it, if the Rundle St traders really want something done to improve Rundle St, then why donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t they get together and do it themselves? Not being an expert in the area, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure how much crap anyone would have to go through to do this, but consider:
Rundle Street traders all have a common goal, increasing the number of customers in the precinct. Since the vast majority of customers walk to the businesses (as opposed to parking in them), the goal of the traders must be to increase the number of pedestrians in the street.
The ACC collects funds from all residents and business in Adelaide and North Adelaide, and distributes them according to the preferences of the constituents. The ACC are concerned not only about Rundle Street, but also Rundle Mall, Hindley Street, Goudger Street, OÃ¢â‚¬â„¢Connell Street, Melbourne Street, etc. Anything the ACC does must take in the considerations of traders in these areas, as well as residents around Rundle Street who would be apposed to increases in pedestrians.
It seems logical to me that the Rundle St traders form a business group and get things done themselves rather than rely on the ACC to do it for them. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure of the legality or feasibility of this, but the traders could pool resources and get the street upgraded themselves, providing all the services and facilities theyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve been lobbying for privately. Since the benefits are almost exclusively distributed amongst traders (as opposed to all ACC residents), then it seems fair that they pay for the services.
For example, rather than complaining about the lack of car parks driving customers away, an organisation could be established to build car parks. These car parks could be financed by traders, and left exclusively for the traders who contribute. For example, spend $x at participating businesses and receive y hours free parking. Stay longer, and youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to pay for it. This would help stop the car park being used by people who arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t paying for it.
Take it another step, and the organisation could help fund (or fully fund) an upgrade of the street itself. The traders (assuming they can agree) could submit the design such that they get what they want out of it, space for tables, public facilities, ease of pedestrian access to businesses, ease of access to the PT services on North Terrace and Grenfell Street, taxi ranks and so on. I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see a reason why the ACC would flatly reject this idea because they have everything to gain (rates are based on property value, correct?) and nothing to lose. One problem I can see is traders arguing that more vehicle traffic past their shop means more business in their shop, as if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a giant drive-thru.
Not sure if itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll work, and it needs someone with the guts and the backing to get it started, but itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s food for thought at least.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests