[COM] Adelaide Convention Centre - Stage 3 | $350m

[Will]

8 years and this is it? It smacks of the sort of mediocrity that too often defines Adelaide and irraties so many of us.

The railyards is the only logical site for a riverside precinct of even a modest scale.

I disagree. Although the Libs plan is visually more audacious, after much thought, it would be a white elephant. (that is, if they actually followed through and built it. I suspect they'll use the traditional Liberal excuse and blame the previous governemnt for leaving a financial 'black hole' and cancel it)

It would be another wine centre. The simple fact is location. The railyards are too far away from major active zones in the Adelaide CBD.

People would be hesitant to visit it, as apart from the 22 days when there is a footy game, why would people go there? It is a good site for a stadium, but not for an entertainment precinct.

Although, the Labor plan is less visually stunning, it has a higher chance of success. It is close to the casino and Railway Station. It is close to major hotels and Hindley Street. Also, with the redeveloped Adelaide Oval, there will be people there not just for 22 nights per year, but also during summer when the cricket is on. Not to mention it is close to the Festival Theatre, which has performances spaced throughout the year. And where do you think the staff at the new RAH and research centre will eat?

[Prince George]

Myself, I'm neither here nor there about the designs themselves. Massive convention centres bore me: I've been in Seattle's (which was big) and Anaheim's (which was truly gargantuan), and neither of them were places that you could be proud of. And I'm particularly uninterested in arguments along the lines of "the convention industry puts people in Adelaide's hotels and restaurants" -- which I think of as the "white-collar theme-park" argument. I don't like that plan, which amounts to saying "other places will generate wealth, and they can come and stay in Adelaide for a couple of nights". I want to see a plan for generating wealth in the state beyond a pile of service-industry wages.

I can imagine that conferences could be useful for giving connections between local industry and visiting experts or reps of external markets, but this seems like a scatter-shot approach. I'd prefer to see us identify the key areas that we wanted to host major conventions around, things that are either current or potential growth areas for us -- wine & food, bio-tech, green-tech, mining, defence -- and pursued them vigorously. Unless we actually needed the extra space to host some of them, I view building this as a bit of a waste.

I wonder if anyone's looked at what the follow-on effects are for Melbourne of hosting events like Fashion Week. Beyond just putting some journalists in expensive hotel beds, what impact has it had on Melbourne's creative industries - fashion, design, etc? What kind of event could we host to spark the same effect?

[how_good_is_he]

I agree with most... I also suggest the walking bridge be undercover as AFL is a winter sport and most spectators hate walking in the rain - esp. if umbrellas arent allowed [in the stadium like AAMI]!

Maybe they need to look at a monorail option to give something for the tourists to do and link it with other things of interest [which is a struggle to find!]. Maybe thats the point - we need more to attract people and make sure it isnt tacky and becomes a white elephant - but what?
You almost need to bulldoze a lot more ... would a man made beach [heated] done like the Esplanade Cairns or Southbank Brisbane work or an outdoor ice rink like NY or just a massive Crown casino-like entertainment venue and high-rise city?

[Hippodamus]

can everyone please stop using the word "underwhelming"... come on people, use a thesaurus, it seems to be the new catch phrase of this discussion forum...

[Nort]

I agree with most... I also suggest the walking bridge be undercover as AFL is a winter sport and most spectators hate walking in the rain - esp. if umbrellas arent allowed [in the stadium like AAMI]!

Maybe they need to look at a monorail option to give something for the tourists to do and link it with other things of interest [which is a struggle to find!]. Maybe thats the point - we need more to attract people and make sure it isnt tacky and becomes a white elephant - but what?
You almost need to bulldoze a lot more ... would a man made beach [heated] done like the Esplanade Cairns or Southbank Brisbane work or an outdoor ice rink like NY or just a massive Crown casino-like entertainment venue and high-rise city?

We're too cold most of the year for something like Brisbane Southbank (which is a shame as I lived in Brisbane for a couple of years and absolutely love Southbank) and an outdoor icerink would be hard to justify economically. Even the Ice Arena (what remains of Mt Thebarton) struggles to remain open.

I think some people in this thread are being reverse NIMBY's. Stop thinking about this development as being a crap riverside rejuvination, and start looking at it for what it is, an upgrade of the Adelaide Convention Center that makes the area better than it currently is.

[SRW]

For what it is, it contains a lot of the right elements. But what it is, in fact, is two separate projects -- a redeveloped stadium and a redeveloped convention centre -- linked together by a flashy bridge and flashier fountains. I fail to see how the Riverbank itself is actually redeveloped or invigorated.

The Convention Centre expansion looks promising, with the North Terrace and Morphett Street visualisations particularly so. I would probably like to see a different design for the building replacing the original centre, but I'm happy enough with additions to the main centre keeping consistent. However, I should hope rather more thought will go into actually integrating the Centre with Elder Park; rather more, anyway, than just sprucing up the existing promenade above an open roadway. Part of the problem, as mentioned by others, is that the issue of the spaces around the Festival Centre (here's looking at you, Festival Plaza), and how it itself relates to them, has not been addressed.

At least this proposal leaves a base to build upon, and doesn't irrevocably condemn the Riverbanks as the Liberals' proposal appears to do (and that's a significant point, IMO, given the ASER legacy...).

As for the merits of the expansion, I don't think the conventions economy is anything to sniff at. It might not be (or deserve to be) a huge part of the picture, but the dollars are there to be captured and events management is an industry in which our state excels.

Maybe they need to look at a monorail option to give something for the tourists to do and link it with other things of interest [which is a struggle to find!]. Maybe thats the point - we need more to attract people and make sure it isnt tacky and becomes a white elephant - but what?

Am I missing the sarcasm, or did you just seriously show a concern for white elephants after having proposed a monorail in the preceding sentence?

[contractor]

I like the proposal and essentially it is a continuation of Labor's vision for the Torrens. Because of the timing it is being viewed with skeptism. I think Labor should have announced this sooner and therefore avoided the tag of buying votes.

We don't have a Southbank or Yarra River so I think it is in keeping with the scale of the River Torrens. The Liberals vision is Disneyland in Tasmania and is not what we are about. Essentially the Labor proposal IS Adelaide, classy but not extravagant, and what's wrong with that? I don't understand why some people want to proceed with the 'build it at all cost' mentality. There are plenty of other places in the world that can offer this.

I think the seating area would be a great place to meet someone for coffee in the morning after catching the train before heading to work. It could also serve as a place to meet for an after work drink before catching the train home.

If Labor get into power will they proceed with it? How long has there been talk about building the bridge over the Torrens and still no development? I hope it goes ahead for the greater good.

[olliepee]

I was going to write something here but the 2 posts above say exactly how I feel...

[stumpjumper]

From an urban design point of view, it doesn’t really matter whose idea this was or what priority for funding it should be.

It’s plain that the area is hardly ‘public space’, and it’s also well known that the convention centre could do with more space.

The driver of the proposal is the desire to increase a semi-private use (the convention centre) of a space which also offers the opportunity of adding increased public usage and even transport options, especially across the river. The existing heavy rail usage is a physical constraint, and the health of the competing Hindley Street retail precinct should be considered,

Assuming that what we’re seeing here is the result of a comprehensive and rational assessment design process, and not just some wild, unconsidered grab for votes based on the bread and circuses principle and a glitzy set of CAD renders, here’s my few cents’ worth:

- ‘Activating the area’: let’s hope the design allows for plenty of circulation through the area; more than just thoroughfares, with intermediate ‘destinations’- eg pleasant, sunny spaces with coffee shops, retail etc. Such facilities need delivery/service access which will have to be carefully provided for.

- The river aspect is due north, meaning shading requirements will compete with access to views.

- There’s a large permanent and transient residential population and a large worker population along North Tce in this area, presently served by Hindley Street businesses. Care should be taken that this redevelopment doesn’t relegate Hindley St to second class status, and conversely that the area doesn’t attract some of Hindley Street’s less desirable aspects. Perhaps closing the area after hours, like a mall, could be considered.

- Proper integration with the Adelaide Oval redevelopment and an awareness that the casino may not be where it is forever (or perhaps this will ensure that the casino stays where it is).

- I’d consider as a concept swinging the tram through the redevelopment and across to the oval on a combined tram/pedestrian bridge across the Torrens to the oval redevelopment, perhaps as a single line looping back up King William Road (or a back and forth single line shuttle).

- Perhaps the suburban railhead could be moved to west of the Morphett Street Bridge to be served by high capacity shuttles to the present embarkation area, using much less space than the present setup. The shuttle/s could eventually be extended underground along North Tce to meet the O’Bahn.

[how_good_is_he]

Interesting idea - the tram being part of the pedestrian bridge may work. I think there really needs to be a transport link to the stadium [and ideally from the train station] - just how do you do it?

I agree to earlier posts that this development is suited to Adelaide but that is now and may be ok for probably the next 10-15 years but do you think we should be looking even further ahead esp. as once it is done thats it for North Terrace - its unlikely to upgrade again signficantly [without starting again].

The question to me is do we ever see ourselves being an international city [even in say 20-50 years] and should we try to future proof it more by having a grander longer term vision. Or do we accept that everything becomes outdated and will we be upgrading and bulldozing this in the next 20 years like the previous version.

While the liberals plan looks more pie in the sky etc the vision is more long term and could be iconic if done properly. Thats the risk - only in hindsight will we know if its a success.

[Omicron]

While this proposal is a little underwhelming, it answers the question I had of the Lib's previous proposal -- every building in the plan has an established business purpose. The Lib's vision was just a load of purpose-unspecified architecture plonked where it looked good and almost zero economic justification. This vision has a reasonable business case behind it. A lot of people will call this vision mediocre or similar but the bottom line is the bottom line, there's no economic justification behind the other more grandiose ideas. If it can't pay for itself, it'll be an abandoned wasteland in six months.

So, underwhelming, yes but only slightly. It will open a lot of areas that are currently pedestrian-wise isolated. The link with the Oval is a good thing, and will probably see some continued use when there's no event on at the Oval (but only pedestrian, like the Uni footbridge). I doubt the pictured cafe`s and etc will see much business outside those times when there's major conventions or events on. Although I have been to the convention centre area a few times recently on other business and there's always some activity there. There's a surprising amount of conferences and the like going on that most people aren't aware of.

Some people have commented on using the same architecture as the existing Convention building as a negative. I actually think it's a good idea, in that it doesn't make the new building look like an afterthought.

Stop saying things I agree with - it makes me look as if I have no original thoughts of my own!

[rhino]

Stop saying things I agree with - it makes me look as if I have no original thoughts of my own!

[Benski81]

Ok so I'm going to break ranks with most of the posts about this and say that I actually really like to proposal! I think it looks great and I think it's a great FIRST step in the torrens redevelopment. I don't think this is a complete solution nor is it meant to be but the economic benefits are there and this is needed to ensure we retain our share which is all it's designed to do. I don't think this and the casino expansion are necessarily mutually exclusive.

[paul]

paul wrote:
8 years and this is it? It smacks of the sort of mediocrity that too often defines Adelaide and irraties so many of us.

The railyards is the only logical site for a riverside precinct of even a modest scale.

I disagree. Although the Libs plan is visually more audacious, after much thought, it would be a white elephant. (that is, if they actually followed through and built it. I suspect they'll use the traditional Liberal excuse and blame the previous governemnt for leaving a financial 'black hole' and cancel it)

It would be another wine centre. The simple fact is location. The railyards are too far away from major active zones in the Adelaide CBD.

People would be hesitant to visit it, as apart from the 22 days when there is a footy game, why would people go there? It is a good site for a stadium, but not for an entertainment precinct.

Although, the Labor plan is less visually stunning, it has a higher chance of success. It is close to the casino and Railway Station. It is close to major hotels and Hindley Street. Also, with the redeveloped Adelaide Oval, there will be people there not just for 22 nights per year, but also during summer when the cricket is on. Not to mention it is close to the Festival Theatre, which has performances spaced throughout the year. And where do you think the staff at the new RAH and research centre will eat?

Blame the previous government? I can't think of any reason why a past Liberal government would possibly resort to such nonsense. They are of course ( excluding the convention centre expansion), quite different plans. One is a "me too" comprise based on the public response to the other plan ( much like the proposal to butcher Adelaide oval), the other aims to be a true entertainment precinct. The Libs plan has a lot of questions still be answered. Of course, some may argue that to finalise a design and to gain public expressions of interests from developers and casino operators would require the Libs to be in government. Others do not require such detail to declare categorically that there is no business case or economic justification for such a plan.

Questions remain but to completely dismiss a plan that has clearly not (and in reality can not until the Libs are in government) been finalised is not logical. The anti Libs thing in these forums is very tiresome and equally as illogical given how little Rann and Lomax-Smith have done for the city centre.

[monotonehell]

...Questions remain but to completely dismiss a plan that has clearly not (and in reality can not until the Libs are in government) been finalised is not logical. The anti Libs thing in these forums is very tiresome and equally as illogical given how little Rann and Lomax-Smith have done for the city centre.

There's both anti-Libs and anti-Labor in this forum, so if you're only seeing one, then you're a bit biased

There's those two stances and then there's rational question asking. Where do you draw the line between a plan with some merit that has a few unanswered questions, and a nebulous plan that's simply a load of sketch-up architecture stuck on a site? Not having a plan is where white elephants come from. I liked the boldness of the Lib's plan, but when there's next to zero economic justification as to why a particular building is there, you need to send them away and ask them to come back when they've filled in (most of) the blanks.

I expect some difference in quality of research and justification between a vision from a Government in waiting and a group of people on a forum. As it stands our submission on the matter was better fleshed out than the Lib's.
http://www.sensational-adelaide.com/for ... m.php?f=19