VIS: West Lakes urban renewal (Ex-AFL use of AAMI stadium)

[rhino]

I'm not suggesting upgrading the stadium to super capacity while such capacity wouldn't be needed for 11 months of the year. I'm suggesting refraining from putting housing where the grandstands would go! Yes, there would be a cost to that, but a small proportion of the overall cost.

By the time that grandstand capacity would be required, the housing would be ready for demolition anyway. And West Lakes will be an inner suburb.

[Aidan]

I'm not suggesting upgrading the stadium to super capacity while such capacity wouldn't be needed for 11 months of the year. I'm suggesting refraining from putting housing where the grandstands would go! Yes, there would be a cost to that, but a small proportion of the overall cost.

By the time that grandstand capacity would be required, the housing would be ready for demolition anyway.

I admit I hadn't thought of that.

And West Lakes will be an inner suburb.

I thought it was already!

Serious question: if the criteria for defining inner suburbs aren't on the Adelaide Plains, south of Grand Junction Road, what are they?

[rev]

Support for permanent retention of the famous hill and scoreboard is almost universal. Nobody would get away with replacing it by a grandstand.

You mean like they got away with building a one way freeway? Or how they are getting away with spending $800million on an elevated highway while a section of the same road a few k's away has been in need of a major upgrade since before most of us hit puberty?
Haven't they also gotten away with allowing countless heritage-type buildings be demolished?
Aren't they getting away with more urban sprawl in Mount Barker despite residents objections?
I think you overestimate peoples care factor. When the time comes the hill and scoreboard will be replaced with another grand stand, I have no doubts about this.

I understood it was planned to continue using it for SANFL games. Have those plans been abandoned?

Good question. From the renders it seems it will remain the Crows home base/training ground, regardless of housing or no housing.

[Aidan]

Support for permanent retention of the famous hill and scoreboard is almost universal. Nobody would get away with replacing it by a grandstand.

You mean like they got away with building a one way freeway? Or how they are getting away with spending $800million on an elevated highway while a section of the same road a few k's away has been in need of a major upgrade since before most of us hit puberty?

No, because they're not in the Parklands. I'm thinking more of how the Victoria Park grandstand got rejected for no good reason. But with Adelaide Oval there is a very good reason: we want to keep it the best looking cricket ground in the world!

Haven't they also gotten away with allowing countless heritage-type buildings be demolished?

No. They've got away with allowing some to be demolished, but far fewer than other cities.

Aren't they getting away with more urban sprawl in Mount Barker despite residents objections?

Yes... but Mount Barker's not in the Parklands.

I think you overestimate peoples care factor. When the time comes the hill and scoreboard will be replaced with another grand stand, I have no doubts about this.

You should have doubts - Cricket is very popular, and politicians wouldn't dare stand in its way.

[rev]

What makes you think in the future SACA would not want another brand spanking new grand stand to increase capacity, to allow them to increase their membership base(revenue)?
It's the same with AAMI really, why wouldn't they sell land off for housing and retail and make money, and maintain the ground as a shadow of its former self?

And I have no doubts. It's opinions and attitudes of the current day. In decades to come these attitudes and opinions will change.
You talked about population growth. Do you think these people who will eventually move to Adelaide, will care about a grassy little hill and outdated scoreboard?

Anyway the point I was trying to make was that just because people don't want to see these things go, or change, doesn't mean governments will listen.
What do you think people care more about, putting further strain on a local community and public services, or a grassy patch at Adelaide Oval that most wont ever visit and a scoreboard most wont ever see in person?
I think you over emphasize the "value" of the hill and scoreboard. They are of little value culturally and to our state heritage, especially the "hill". Unless you want future generations to learn about bogans getting hammered on cheap beer and then being thrown out of Adelaide Oval by police and security, after getting in fisticuffs.
The scoreboard is that valuable they've put a bar at the bottom and decked it out with West End signage. We should preserve it so in 1,000 years time our descendants can look back at what a cultural achievement it was and gift to humanity.