Railyards... what do you want done to them?

[Ho Really]

[...]

So as far as this cynical duck sees it, it's a choice between Rann who might know what he's doing, and Marty who has no idea what he's doing but has pinched a few good ideas from the public. Like I said - I'm cynical.

[...]

Can a populist Martin Hamilton-Smith win the next state election?

Cheers

[Omicron]

[...]

So as far as this cynical duck sees it, it's a choice between Rann who might know what he's doing, and Marty who has no idea what he's doing but has pinched a few good ideas from the public. Like I said - I'm cynical.

[...]

Can a populist Martin Hamilton-Smith win the next state election?

Cheers

Perception is everything. We members of a South Australian development website are far more inclined towards the consideration of the Liberal Party as an alternate government, but I believe that Liberal Party has not done enough to win over the majority of the population.

In other words, I would think that an election called for next month would not result in any more seats for the Labor Party, but would not result in a Liberal government.

[wilkiebarkid]

Did anyone see this article in the Sunday Mail on 4th May?

City Stadium for $520m

Libs: Taxpayers won’t pay a cent

BRAD CROUCH

A CONSULTANT'S report commissioned by the State Opposition estimates a sports stadium could be built in the city for about $520 million.
The costings, by an international property and construction consultants, and provided to the Sunday Mail by the Opposition, does not include GST, land costs or site remediation.
The estimate was immediately dismissed by the State Government, which accused the Opposition of "recklessness" for citing anonymous sources.
The Government has repeatedly ruled out any support for building a city stadium, putting its likely costs at more than $1 billion.
However, the Opposition claims the new estimate shows a stadium could be built at City West without being a burden on taxpayers.
Opposition Leader Martin Hamilton-Smith said the estimate exposed the Government's $1 billion claim as a scare tactic.
"We can now debate this issue in a more sensible and rational light," he said yesterday.
"These numbers show how taxpayers won't be slugged a cent for the stadium.
"Firstly, it stacks up as an attractive private investment, and secondly, in the event it was government funded, savings made on rebuilding the RAH at its current site would exceed this figure. The ideal prospect would be to have private investment in the stadium and the other savings invested into additional health services.
"So the choice for taxpayers is either you have The Marj and nothing else at City West, or you have a new hospital and a new stadium, better health services and a much better use of the City West precinct." The estimate is based on:
A stadium for AFL football, soccer, rugby and cricket.
BUILT to FIFA World Cup standards.
ABILITY to close the roof.
CAPACITY of 50,000 seats.
CORPORATE facilities.
CAR parking for at least 2500 vehicles.
CONFERENCE facilities for at least 1000 people with the ability to reduce the size of rooms to accommodate 300-400 people.
CAPACITY for concerts.
USE of recycled water and solar panels.
The Opposition says the multi-national firm that prepared the costing wanted to remain anonymous for commercial reasons. The Sunday Mail has been given the firm's name.
But Treasurer Kevin Foley accused the Opposition of "gross recklessness" in citing such a report. "To trot out figures by an unnamed consultant shows they have no credibility and demonstrates how reckless they would be if they ever got their hands on the state's finances," he said.
"Telstra Dome cost more than that a decade ago, and the Perth stadium is costing upwards of $1.5 billion.
"To trot out an unverified figure by an unnamed consultant is gross recklessness. Labor will not be building a stadium in the city."
The SANFL, Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Football Club all have backed an upgrade of AAMI Stadium rather than a new city stadium.


Foley has made it quite clear that a Labor Government will not build a new stadium, no matter what location. It is simply not on their radar.

[Shuz]

Why only have capacity for 50,000 and not more than AAMI?

The highest attendances at AAMI have been between 46-51k. I would consider it a safe bet to say, that any new stadium within the city would be more beneficial to the wider community in terms of accessibility (and therefore larger crowds) so any new stadium should at least accomodate a 10-20% increase in capacity to cater for that growth. A new stadium should have at minimum 56,666-61,818 seats, with room to expand in future a further 20% capacity on the highest figure - to 74,181 thereabouts, which would ultimately suffice for demand, particularly if Adelaide is to have 2m people by 2050.

[monotonehell]

Did anyone see this article in the Sunday Mail on 4th May?

Yes I read that and it annoyed me somewhat.

MHS has put this half billion figure out there without any details of how it was arrived at. That makes me suspicious. He's stated that he'll have the stadium built by private concerns so that the govt wont pay a cent. But he's also said that he'll save one billion by not building the Marge, ignoring that the Marj will be built under a similar PPP arrangement. Notice also the "in the event it was government funded." So is it private or govt funded? He seems unsure. Once again I'm suspicious of his accounting and the arrangements the anonymous developers will have regarding the upkeep once built.

Of course the Labor Govt wont build a stadium at all (according to them) while I'd like to see an innercity stadium, I'm yet to see anyone justify such an undertaking economically. I really doubt that soccer has the following to afford a lease on a stadium. Until I see some concrete figures on costing and economic justification I'm reserving final judgement (unlike Labor).

[rhino]

We members of a South Australian development website are far more inclined towards the consideration of the Liberal Party as an alternate government

Not in a blue fit. You, maybe, but please don't use this collective noun to include us all. There's a heck of a lot more to running this state than MHS has offered up so far. He hasn't costed anything remotely accurately, I doubt he'd be able to achieve half of what he's said he would do if he won government.

[Omicron]

We members of a South Australian development website are far more inclined towards the consideration of the Liberal Party as an alternate government

Not in a blue fit. You, maybe, but please don't use this collective noun to include us all. There's a heck of a lot more to running this state than MHS has offered up so far. He hasn't costed anything remotely accurately, I doubt he'd be able to achieve half of what he's said he would do if he won government.

Perhaps to rephrase - it is fair to assume we are more involved in the political arena than many people as a result of our membership of this forum and active participation in its discussions. Therefore, we are more likely to consider the arguments put forward by the Liberal Opposition and make informed judgements, rather than many people who merely dismiss anything said by a given party as 'those bloody Liberals' or 'those bloody Laborites' given their lack of regular involvement with arguments put forward by both sides, and essential ignorance of the responsibilities of voting.

I'm certainly not suggesting an affiliation or bias either way - but rather that we are more inclined (at least, I hope we are) to listen first and judge later, rather than dismiss instantly. When I say we're more likely to consider the LIberal Party for Government, I meant that we will look at what they are saying and argue accordingly - point out costing inaccuracies, for example, as you have done, rather than instantly discrediting their position based solely on far more subjective factors.

[cleverick]

I want them either returned to open parklands, or kept as railyards in anticipation of the massive increase in rail traffic expected when I'm old enough to be a rail mogul (http://www.cleverail.blogspot.com).
Neither a stadium nor a hospital floats my boat, and I will vote for anyone who tells me they'll do nothing. (Which at this stage is the Liberals, because I don't believe they'll ever actually build the stadium there. Labor might just build the hospital to spite me.)

Oh, and Omicron? Well said. But I'm not a swinging voter, I'm an independent voter. When I run for city council, it won't be with the tacit or not so tacit support of a party, it will be as an independent who wants the best for Adelaide.

[Howie]

cleverick... I think you're on the wrong website mate - you said no to rundle lantern, no to the railyards, are you sure you're not from APPA? If you ran for council, you wouldn't get too many supporters here mate.

[wilkiebarkid]

I want them either returned to open parklands

Hmmm.....and lives in North Adelaide! Say no more.

[cleverick]

Howie, I'm not on the wrong website, I'm here fair and square. I want to reasonably argue my point with a whole bunch of people who love Adelaide and want to create a better city. I'm all for development (see most other posts) but I do not see why people want to destroy the thing which makes Adelaide unique among cities in the world.
Unique.
In. The. World.
That's a big call. And I ask myself, Adelaide has such potential to be a beautiful, nice to live in, friendly city of good size and spread- so why do people want to destroy it and make it the most same Australian city?
Adelaide cannot compete with Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth for mass markets. We don't have a harbour, the population, the beaches or the river. But we're a great city to live in. People who live in those other cities hate the gridlock, the expense, not seeing the kids during the week, and barely on weekends... I had an emmigrant from Melbourne complain that no real estate agents were open on a Sunday. I said to him, "Isn't it nice to have the weekend back?" He looked at me for a second and then agreed.
In sum, Adelaide cannot afford to be the Australian city which is most like every other Australian city. Adelaide must seek to be different, and building on the parklands for any purpose will not do the job.

[cleverick]

Oh, and it's spurious to draw on my location as an argument against me. I would be arguing against this if I lived in Slovakia. I live in North Adelaide because I want to be a city councillor and help to preserve the parklands while improving on the built environment within the terraces. I believe the parklands are there for all South Australians (which is sort of spurious in itself, but I go with the flow) but I don't think SA is best served by building on the parklands.
End of story.

[Howie]

Howie, I'm not on the wrong website, I'm here fair and square. I want to reasonably argue my point with a whole bunch of people who love Adelaide and want to create a better city. I'm all for development (see most other posts) but I do not see why people want to destroy the thing which makes Adelaide unique among cities in the world.
Unique.
In. The. World.

But from what you've written in your other posts - which developments do you support? You don't want the casino in the city, you don't want rundle lantern, you don't want anything built on the railyards. Doesn't sound much like change to me - it's this mentality that has stopped us being a great city.

Adelaide cannot compete with Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth for mass markets. We don't have a harbour, the population, the beaches or the river. But we're a great city to live in.

Adelaide was our third largest city at one stage. That's something to think about.

[cleverick]

Howie,
I think the Rundle Lantern is silly. I would support a development which made Adelaide unique, or at least significantly differentiated us, such as a Guggenheim Museum or some other major attraction on that site, rather than leaving it as a carpark. I don't want to hide the UPark, I want to demolish it.
Suggesting that I am anti-development because I want to move the Casino is spurious. From the Bay's p.o.v., for example, I would be for development.
Have you read my posts on the train lines?
The trouble is, most of the ideas on this site involve building on the parklands or relatively uncreative ways to make our city look more like every other city. If you're looking for development I support, I like the Currie St glass tower (this forum's avatar, I noticed) and I'm gradually being persuaded to support the LeCornu site development as is in North Adelaide.
Oh, and that guy on the corner of South and East Tces should be allowed to chop the damn tree down. 11 pages of report about it, there were. I read them. Honestly.

[Howie]

Howie,
I think the Rundle Lantern is silly. I would support a development which made Adelaide unique, or at least significantly differentiated us, such as a Guggenheim Museum or some other major attraction on that site, rather than leaving it as a carpark. I don't want to hide the UPark, I want to demolish it.

What do you mean? Rundle Lantern is the only installation of it's type in Australia! That by definition is unique. I'd support a museum but there are more pressing developments that need to go ahead before a museum.. such as 'real' entertainment facilities. I'm sure once you actually see Rundle Lantern running you'll change your mind about it.

Suggesting that I am anti-development because I want to move the Casino is spurious. From the Bay's p.o.v., for example, I would be for development.
Have you read my posts on the train lines?
The trouble is, most of the ideas on this site involve building on the parklands or relatively uncreative ways to make our city look more like every other city. If you're looking for development I support, I like the Currie St glass tower (this forum's avatar, I noticed) and I'm gradually being persuaded to support the LeCornu site development as is in North Adelaide.
Oh, and that guy on the corner of South and East Tces should be allowed to chop the damn tree down. 11 pages of report about it, there were. I read them. Honestly.

Well as mentioned before, you can forget Glenelg/Holdfast Shores hosting a casino... they're not going to allow a casino to be built there.

When you say the trouble is most of the ideas on this site involve building on the parklands... the railyards are NOT parklands. Period. To argue otherwise is stupid. And the grandstand at Victoria Park.. well the parklands supporters should be happy you've got what you want now.

And yes i've read your posts on the train lines.. and I don't disagree with you there. But instead of knocking every good proposal that comes up on our forums, why not get behind some of the good ones. The people here have worked long and hard to get some of these proposals off the ground and we ought to give them our full support.