#VIS: Riverside (Entertainment Precinct)

[monotonehell]

Btw, I thought the last round of major sell-offs of public infrastructure was to retire debt left over from the state bank collapse?

I wasn't referring to historic specifics, just generally what's supposed to be the fundamental differences between the two parties.

In that case, if the Liberals are known for privatising everything, then sure its fair to say that Labor is known for putting the state into debt... there, thats fair!

BTW, i'm getting a little bit sick of all this Liberal/Labour bashing on this board, it seems every thread is being tainted by certain people sticking the boot in at every opportunity, but rather than further contaminate this thread, i will take my rant to the pub...

Not sure why you decided to attach your rant to my post... I don't treat politics as a team sport. I'm a swinger baby (keys in the bowl at the door ; ) ) Again; I was talking about the supposed ideologies that are the basis for each of the parties. Labor are supposed to be socialists (nationalise!) and Liberal are supposed to be capitalists (privatise!). But in recent times those lines have greyed somewhat.

[Shuz]

So if I just may interject; what are the options? I want to see all the cards of the deck on the table please.

[bm7500]

Thats a fair response mono, my apologies for singling you out. I do get frustrated with the overtly biased political commentary in this forum at times, but i guess i had my grumpy pants on when i wrote that.

[adam73837]

Adam, I love your comment that MHS's vision is "what most of Adelaide wants"

Why thankyou; and the smilies do nothing but emphasise your approval of my statement. thankyou rhino .

Where did you get that? Adelaide Now? High Schools?

Close, but you're way off! peachey beat me to it, but yes I did get it from Sensational-Adelaide; you know, just the general feel of things on these forums...
Not only that, but everywhere I meet people; family, friends, etc. (don't worry, they're not singles and teenagers; in fact because I go around a lot with my family to functions, etc. and most of the people there are families anyway, so I don't really see the point of the rest of your argument which I posted below: ) They're all in favour of rebuilding the RAH where it is, leaving the Riverside West site open for something more exciting. Besides, what are families (not just locals, but tourists) more likely to go to to enjoy themselves, a HOSPITAL, or a PUBLIC PLAZA? Besides, people are greatly uninformed about this new hospital, not to mention the fact that Media Mike is painting it as a 'resort' of some sort. Is it not a place that you wish to leave ASAP? Once again, I HAVE visited elderly relatives in the hospital recently.

A GROUP of angry Save the RAH supporters have turned on a wheelchair-bound woman because she opposed their view for the new hospital.

The incident came after some of the state's richest and most influential citizens rallied in the Save the Royal Adelaide Hospital cause.

They have formed "RAH/Glenside Board-in-Exile", and include multimillionaire businessman Rob Gerard, brewery baron Dr Tim Cooper and fish king Michael Angelakis, former radio star Jeremy Cordeaux and eminent psychiatrist Professor Robert Goldney.

The self-appointed group hopes to persuade the State Government to reconsider its plan to demolish the RAH in favour of a new $1.7 billion hospital.

Speaking at a Save the RAH rally in the east parklands, Mel Leckie, 25, said she had fallen through the cracks and a new hospital was the only way forward

The crowd of about 200 people booed Ms Leckie until the microphone was taken from her.

"I have had to wait over two years to get a referral to see a spinal surgeon and I am now still on an indefinite waiting list, ` Ms Leckie said.
Building a new Royal Adelaide has got to be the only way forward.

JOIN THE DEBATE. SHOULD THE RAH STAY OR BE MOVED? FILL IN THE COMMENT BOX BELOW.

"Don't think of the net 10 or 20 years, think of the next 50 or 100 years to come. It's the children and the grandchildren. The people with disabilities.

"We need new facilities and all of the doctors you are still going to have a world class hospital. As for the medical students they can walk."

Save the RAH spokesman Dr Jim Katsaros said the treatment of Ms Leckie was regrettable and unsporting.

"This poor girl has reached the wrong conclusion about what will improve her medical condition," he said.

"What we need is better medical services. She needed better medical services two years ago not a new hospital in 10 years time."

Now, don't get me wrong; I do feel sorry for Mel Leckie, however she, like MANY OTHERS are very ill-informed about this so-called 'masterplan'. A new hospital will NOT solve the problem, as Katsaros said, she needed better services two years ago, not a new hospital 10 years from now. Um... HELLO? He hit the nail right on the head, unfortunately several people are falling to the Rann Propaganda and think that this 1 new hospital will mean an end to our problems. Sorry, not the case. Did anyone read what Mr Gerard stated? Of course John Hill, being under Media Mike and having subsequently caught the 'propaganda flu' , hit back stating that Gerard was offering the Clipsal site to them for the new Hospital. Gee, Mr Hill try as you may, but you won't stop these guys from actively voicing their opinion; Mr Gerard may have offered you the site beforehand, but he's now joining the people opposing your plan.

People in Adelaide who have families and responsibilities are quite happy to see money being spent on a brand new hospital, and don't have a problem with the site either. Thankfully, these people, while not making up the bulk of posters on Adelaide Now's stupid polls, do make up the bulk of voters.

What really bugs me is that I'll come up with something better to say in a few weeks, but where did YOU get that information that "Adelaide who have families and responsibilities are quite happy to see money being spent on a brand new hospital, and don't have a problem with the site either"???????
BTW, cut the crap with that 'families and responsibilities' argument; because let me assure you that a significant amount of the things that I post here come from discussions that I have with people who do have these responsibilities of which you talk about; people who consistently work out of hours to provide for their families and rush around organising not only their own, but several other people's lives (and businesses). And I'm not just referring to my immediate family of parents, aunties and uncles thankyou very much! YOU may think that the riverfront railyards is the perfect place to smack a hospital (that already has an artist's impression that doesn't look attractive to the eye, I'm not saying that the current one does... ) and then build a casino next to 2 Universities and a research centre; but let me tell you now that I know, read about and discuss with MANY groups of people that are against this Rann-led plan.
<end rant>

[monotonehell]

So if I just may interject; what are the options? I want to see all the cards of the deck on the table please.

We just don't know, that's the problem. What's being put out there is drip fed and spun, so the public is crowding in and out of opinions on the basis of ignorance (not the pejorative, just a fact, we're all being kept in the dark).

[Cruise]

but i guess i had my grumpy pants on when i wrote that.

That's why i perfer not to wear pants at all.

[Briggzy_03]

This argument seems to just keep going back and forth, good entertainment .

I don't think we will get any clear answer until the lead up to the election next year.

That being said, I went to the Docklands for the first time the other weekend to watch the Crows play Essendon (Great match) and I had heard a lot about how impressive the area is, but I didn't realise how much of a difference a stadium in the city could make. Being able to walk out and and go to one of the bars lining the banks and then take a quick tram ride back to Fed. square is a small and simple comfort, but very bad on the wallet . I guess what I'm trying to say is, I can see how a city stadium (whether it be a redone AO or a new stadium) could inject a lot of money back into the state compared to our current Aami stadium.

That's just my observation however and I respect both sides of the argument. I'm a swing voter as well mono, so I'm still sitting on the fence.

As Marge Simpson once said: "Now let's forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice-cream".

[Norman]

Did you also see how dead the Docklands were?

[Briggzy_03]

Did you also see how dead the Docklands were?

Initially after the game, the bars and restaurants were packed, but yes we went for a walk afterwards and it was noticeably dead. The area is largely private residential though yes? So I wouldn't expect for the place to remain busy well after the game, most people I saw caught the adjacent trams back into the main part of the CBD.

Also on a side note: I reckon there were more towers under construction in Melbourne then there are towers in Adelaide.

[monotonehell]

As Marge Simpson once said: "Now let's forget our troubles with a big bowl of strawberry ice-cream".

NO!!! Chocolate damit!!

[Prince George]

I, too, am strongly opposed to trusting public health to the profit/loss model, but I'm confused about the reason that this is equated with building a new hospital? What prevents them from privatising all those services in the existing RAH? Or indeed selling the entire RAH into a PPP?

[adam73837]

Mitch Williams says Liberals never had Adelaide stadium plan

ONE of the contenders for the state Liberal leadership says the party never had a policy to build a new stadium in Adelaide.

Mitch Williams told ABC Radio this morning that "I don't think we ever had a policy to build a stadium".

This is despite former leader Martin Hamilton-Smith announcing a stadium as the centrepiece of a bold western CBD redevelopment plan.

But Mr Williams believes this announcement was only a good idea dependent on other factors.

What do these statements say about Mitch Williams' ability to lead the Liberal Party. Vote in the poll at the right of this page?

He suggested the Liberals had only planned to build a stadium if Australia was host of the World Cup soccer tournament, if Adelaide was the host of the Commonwealth games, and if a large amount of federal funding was "in the mix".

The Liberals actual policy, he claimed, was to protect the North Tce railyards precinct from being underdeveloped if used as the site of the planned new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

He said the party had started off with a position of saying it would be a waste to build a hospital on the icon site in the city's west because it would take away opportunities for generations to revitalise that corner of the city.

"I don't think that we ever had a policy to say look, if we're elected we're going to build a stadium and start there next week," Mr Williams said.

Building a new stadium in the city has been a key plank of former Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith's vision to revitalise the city and has resulted in the Government accusing him of wanting to build a $1 billion stadium ahead of a new hospital.

Premier Mike Rann has pledged to make the next election a referendum on the choice between a new RAH and a stadium.

During the interview on ABC radio, Mr Williams also said he stood by his position that Mr Hamilton-smith was unable to sell the party's message in the best possible way.

He said the ballot tomorrow in which he will be standing against Vickie Chapman and Isobel Redmond was not about policy differences but about who was the best person to sell the message.

Mr Williams said he could work with either Ms Chapman or Ms Redmond should either of them win the ballot.

Liberal sources said numbers in the leadership race were tight and it was more than likely that the winner would be either Ms Chapman or Ms Redmond.

It is understood that frontbencher Duncan McFetridge will contest the deputy leadership against Steven Griffiths.

I would like to remind people that a Riverfront Precinct wouldn't need a stadium to survive. A properly upgraded AO would probably be a better option as it allows room for expansion in the future. At the moment, I don't like the Liberal's chances at the moment, particularly if Vickie Chapman becomes leader, so I wish the Government would come to its senses and realises the mistake that it is making by moving the hospital from its current site.

[Howie]

The article doesn't really tell us anything we don't know. Riverside was a vision of how the torrens/railyard precinct 'could' be used, and the stadium - as mentioned elsewhere in this thread - would be icing on the cake.

[monotonehell]

http://www.martin2010.com.au/ RIP vision.

I said it before - what the libs need is an everybody else change not a leadership change. MHS was their only member with vision. The rest of them just bicker among themselves to the point where I think they should just split the party and be done with it. 'SA Liberals A' and 'SA Liberals B'. I'll let them argue over who gets to be A and B.

Now that MHS is out I've lost all appeal for the Libs, Riverside was MHS's vision. We never got to see how it may be fleshed out economically. Or any of their practical plans for the state. Perhaps who ever gains the leadership will turn it around, but I don't hold much hope there.

The Govt's now come out with their document, which is full of sensibility, and their commitment to density and TODs is good. But it's pretty empty of any sort of excitement. Looks like if we are to have a Riverside, it will be cornerstoned with a Hospital, and scattered with research facilities. That's an okay economic underpinning which will be a positive enlivening factor in terms of daily pedestrian traffic.

Not really exciting though.

[adam73837]

monotonehell, you summed it up beautifully.