Sensational-Adelaide.com

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 6:39 pm

A-Town wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 4:47 pm

rubberman wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 4:25 pm

If we have to build a new Entertainment Centre every thirty years, it's probably cheaper for people to fly to Melbourne and Sydney...unless taxpayers are to subsidise it. Plus, of course, that's still no reason to put it in the Parklands. That argument applies wherever it's built. Rebuild on the existing site...every thirty years, or on the Parklands. But, by all means, if the Liberals want to convert Adelaide to a permanent safe Labor seat, I can't stop them. There's simply zero reason for putting the Entertainment Centre in the Adelaide Parklands.

It would make for an interesting case study. What's better for the parklands and the Adelaide CBD; the existing dirt roads, car parks and boat sheds, or a new arena that would revitalise the area and bring in more tourists to the parklands and the CBD?

It would make an even better case study to compare building a stadium on the existing site, and with the money saved, revitalise that piece of the Parklands including opening it up via a connection to the Convention Centre. River frontage is a golden opportunity that's forever wasted if a stadium is built there. In fact, heck, why not even do a master plan for that whole parkland precinct...which at its end could link to a whole complex of buildings incorporating the Entertainment Centre. Oh...not to mention the land near the (ex) brewery. What an amazing world class area that could be.

If the exact same arena that was proposed for the CBD was built at the existing entertainment centre site, then you wouldn't be saving much (if any) money. You'd also miss out on revenues from television and movie production companies like Netflix who were interested in occupying the site.

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:41 pm

This only results in no net loss if you don't consider the area the arena was to occupy as parklands, which is... incorrect. In any event, the proposal removed the boat sheds because the space was required for... the arena. Not parkland.

The boat sheds on the eastern side of Morphett St bridge weren't required for the arena itself. They were being removed to further beautify the arena and improve pedestrian access in the overall vicinity.

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:41 pm

It's a bit cheap to characterise opposition to building on parklands as lacking vision when that could just as easily be applied to your point of view.

If there are other current visions for this area that's barren wasteland, I'd like to see it.

SRW wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 01, 2022 5:41 pm

Most people lament how underdeveloped and degraded our CBD has been and is becoming. Imagine how much better an area such as Currie Street or the West End would be if projects like the Innovation Centre were built there instead of land that was otherwised promised to (and naturally suits) the Botanic Garden. Hell, the old Greater Union site on Hindley St is for sale, and you could just about aquire everything else (except the Rosey) to the west, including a open air car lot, and fit an arena. Sure, land aquisition costs, but parkland also isn't free, and renewing a blighted area and delivering activity to the heart of the city is a multiplying investment.

Currie St overall is a disgrace. There have been little to no efforts by the ACC and various govts to beautify the street. A little bit of extra greenery wouldn't go astray

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:11 am

If there are other current visions for this area that's barren wasteland, I'd like to see it.

The previous Government had all the opportunity in the world to come up with one that made sense...and didn't. Instead, they came up with something that had no real advantages over any of the other possibilities and was electoral poison.

Almost all of the land in the arc from the Outer Harborline at Bowden, through the Entertainment Centre, along Port Road from South Road right back to the Ice Arena is begging for redevelopment. Associated with that is the Parklands as a complementary project, including opening up the riverbank past the Convention Centre. From a political perspective, there's something for everyone: lots of work for developers and the construction industry, lots of housing, Parklands improvements, no nimbys getting their panties in a bunch about loss of amenity...and depending on the housing built, lots of potential Liberal voters.

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 5:37 pm

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:11 am

If there are other current visions for this area that's barren wasteland, I'd like to see it.

The previous Government had all the opportunity in the world to come up with one that made sense...and didn't. Instead, they came up with something that had no real advantages over any of the other possibilities and was electoral poison.

A modern arena that brings in tourists and more people than ever before to this part of Adelaide's parklands and adding life to a tired part of the CBD has no real advantages? Right...

Meanwhile, Labor's proposal for the barren wasteland is?

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:03 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 5:37 pm

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:11 am

If there are other current visions for this area that's barren wasteland, I'd like to see it.

The previous Government had all the opportunity in the world to come up with one that made sense...and didn't. Instead, they came up with something that had no real advantages over any of the other possibilities and was electoral poison.

A modern arena that brings in tourists and more people than ever before to this part of Adelaide's parklands and adding life to a tired part of the CBD has no real advantages? Right...

Meanwhile, Labor's proposal for the barren wasteland is?

I still believe any arena would've been better situated at Memorial Drive, rather than the half assed approach that has been taken there. Grouping concerts, tennis, basketball and even netball together, makes sense. As I've stated before, my main concern with the riverbank proposal was that it makes a lot of assumptions about international conferences returning to exactly how they were pre-Covid for it to be economical. I don't think there's any guarantee we'll see business willing to pay for large overseas junkets in the way they once did.

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 03, 2022 11:03 am

rubberman wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 5:37 pm

A-Town wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:11 am

If there are other current visions for this area that's barren wasteland, I'd like to see it.

The previous Government had all the opportunity in the world to come up with one that made sense...and didn't. Instead, they came up with something that had no real advantages over any of the other possibilities and was electoral poison.

A modern arena that brings in tourists and more people than ever before to this part of Adelaide's parklands and adding life to a tired part of the CBD has no real advantages? Right...

Meanwhile, Labor's proposal for the barren wasteland is?

Labor has 4 years to come up with something.

By all means, let the Liberals try again with a stadium on the Parklands. I'm sure that the ALP would be happy for the Liberals to do that. In fact, from an ALP perspective, they'd be extremely happy with you if you keep plugging a stadium on the Parklands.

Let's be honest with our selves, that area is not exactly parkland.
The nRAH was promoted as transforming the former rail yard eyesore.
If the development is promoted correctly, it will get support.

However, the issue wasn't about the so called parkland. It was about a health care system in crisis, and prioritising that ahead of another stadium.

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:13 pm

Let's be honest with our selves, that area is not exactly parkland.
The nRAH was promoted as transforming the former rail yard eyesore.
If the development is promoted correctly, it will get support.

However, the issue wasn't about the so called parkland. It was about a health care system in crisis, and prioritising that ahead of another stadium.

Correct. In another world where there was no pandemic or 'health crisis', and the Liberals properly promoted the project, it would have gotten far more support.

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 03, 2022 5:13 pm

Let's be honest with our selves, that area is not exactly parkland.
The nRAH was promoted as transforming the former rail yard eyesore.
If the development is promoted correctly, it will get support.

However, the issue wasn't about the so called parkland. It was about a health care system in crisis, and prioritising that ahead of another stadium.

That area is riverbank frontage. A stadium is inward looking to whatever is going on inside it.

There's simply no case ever for using potentially prime riverbank real estate for something that could be placed elsewhere.

From a political perspective all a party has to do is put up something cheaper, AND which utilises the riverbank aspect to destroy an inward looking stadium. For example, opening that area up to public access and landscaping it would be cheaper and more popular if combined with a stadium on the existing Entertainment Centre site. As an alternative, it keeps the stadium vote on side, gets votes for parkland lovers and doesn't lose the NIMBY vote. That's just one example.

Having said that, if it keeps the Liberals from winning Adelaide, the ALP is probably pleased.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:29 am

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

I'd be happy if for now they just engaged in building up the median of Currie Street and doing mass tree plantings down it.

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:38 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:29 am

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

I'd be happy if for now they just engaged in building up the median of Currie Street and doing mass tree plantings down it.

I think a better choice of tree, some sort of evergreen, along the footpaths would be a massive improvement.
The footpaths and medians need something besides concrete and dull grey treatment.
The light posts need replacing.
And redoing the bitumen road surface.
Some attention to all the little side streets as well would be good.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:23 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:38 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:29 am

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

I'd be happy if for now they just engaged in building up the median of Currie Street and doing mass tree plantings down it.

I think a better choice of tree, some sort of evergreen, along the footpaths would be a massive improvement.
The footpaths and medians need something besides concrete and dull grey treatment.
The light posts need replacing.
And redoing the bitumen road surface.
Some attention to all the little side streets as well would be good.

The medians need...tram tracks.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 06, 2022 10:23 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Apr 04, 2022 8:38 pm

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:29 am

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

I'd be happy if for now they just engaged in building up the median of Currie Street and doing mass tree plantings down it.

I think a better choice of tree, some sort of evergreen, along the footpaths would be a massive improvement.
The footpaths and medians need something besides concrete and dull grey treatment.
The light posts need replacing.
And redoing the bitumen road surface.
Some attention to all the little side streets as well would be good.

Was in Melbourne last week and having not been for a couple of years it really stood out just much much the quality of the trees and footpaths makes a massive difference to how human friendly they are.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Sat Apr 02, 2022 11:29 am

As far as I can read into the situation, ACC will not do anything about Currie or Grenfell Streets without a matching, or higher funding contribution from the State Government given that it is the busiest bus corridor in Adelaide. agree with this stance, the buses (and commuters to a lesser degree) have caused so much wear and tear on the roads, DIT should at least take some responsibility to improve the streetscape.

Good case in example, North Terrace and King William Street - ACC took care of the streetscape and footpaths, DIT took care of the road and utilities when building the tram lines.

We urgently need a bus tunnel under Currie/Grenfell Streets and connect it to the O-Bahn tunnel. It's shame no one in politics talks about it.