Sensational-Adelaide.com

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:04 am

If an arena is timed to be complete first, build a new football/soccer stadium on ETSA Park and tie in a relocated Mile End train station plus touted tramline to Adelaide Airport, or alternatively, you have the Entertainment Centre site which has tramline access and nearby trainline access. There is no need to chew up more parkland for these projects.

The point here is that there is no perfect location if you are looking for a site for a 30K stadium near the city. It just depends on your priorities. Currently there is no consensus on a northern inner-city Soccer stadium.
With the current government now making this into a medium to long term project this would make a western city venue a viable option for consideration. Both the netball and athletics stadiums would come under this category.
Both are capable of a 30K stadium, close to the city, close proximity to rail line, potential for light rail, possible connectivity of Keswick terminal to the city, Government owned. While it may not have a riverside view it does tick a lot of boxes.
The link between rail and stadium could be done with a reinstatement of a Keswick station and a pedestrian overpass. With the future proposed underground Through-City Rail returning near this location it would mean that it could be served by all electrified trains without transfer.
Netball relocation to a 15K multi-purpose stadium to replaced the Next Generation Gym. The two relatively small businesses on Railway Tce immediately west would have to be acquired though.
Athletics could be relocated to State Sports Park at Gepps Cross.

Patrick_27 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:04 am

claybro wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 27, 2020 8:27 pm

Honey of a City wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 27, 2020 3:16 pm

Seems to be an appetite for chewing up some more parklands for this. How about considering the Showgrounds? Multiple train routes and the tram already right on the doorstep, and major traffic arteries radiating in all directions. Local parking infrastructure currently servicing tens of thousands of people at the Show and other events. Financial win-win for the Ag Society and other stakeholders. Worked historically for Centennial Hall, cricket, football, trots and many other major events. Currently under-utilised site most of the year. Worth a look?

The idea of spending a lazy few hundred million for a sports stadium is to get vibrancy and activity back into the city and build on the already well facilitated sports precinct. While we agree that Wayville Showgrounds are under utilised, swapping one inner suburban location for another one to build the rectangular stadium is not what they had in mind.

If an arena is timed to be complete first, build a new football/soccer stadium on ETSA Park and tie in a relocated Mile End train station plus touted tramline to Adelaide Airport, or alternatively, you have the Entertainment Centre site which has tramline access and nearby trainline access. There is no need to chew up more parkland for these projects.

The area east of Adelaide Oval may be "parkland" (park 12) but it already has built forms on it, and is used for sporting codes already.
Building a proper venue on there would merely be a huge upgrade of a sporting facility. As I've posted before this is my personal preference. The tram line will eventually be sent further north up King William and into North Adelaide and beyond. It's close to existing hot spots in the city/cbd, it's proximity to the east end would also help give the east end a shot in the arm. It creates a wider sporting precinct.

Building it west of Adelaide Oval on part of the Golf Course. So what? A few less holes for golf?

Building it in the southern parklands which parts of are under utilized and not even maintained..well that's a huge improvement then isn't it? Especially if the surrounding parklands are not only improve/upgraded but are from then onwards maintained properly. It's also a major win if that side of the city sees a surge in building activity, new residents moving into new apartments, new hotels, eateries/bars/nightlife. It adds to the vibrancy of the city. It's already a part of the city that's growing (slowly) with apartments and what not.

Building it over the rail yards/part of that grassed area/outdoor carpark next to the Morphett street bridge behind the bio-med precinct would also add to the vibrancy of the city.
I don't think this is the spot for a stadium, I think it should be kept open as it is for future expansion of the bio-med precinct either for new research facilities or expansion of the RAH or expansion of the future nWCH. It would be very short sighted if they built a stadium there.

The argument against simply can not be "oh we can't build anything more on parklands" and leave it at that.
There's a wider argument and bigger picture that should be looked at which my post touches on some of that.

Karen Rolton Oval across from the RAH has been upgraded from what it was. We had several warm up games for the womens cricket t20 world cup there. Wouldn't have had them otherwise. A rectangular stadium "upgrade" of Park 12 would give us the opportunity to host large sporting code events which use such venues, like both mens & womens FIFA world cups, Bledislo cup, state of origin, etc etc. We would likely see more NRL games played here. We missed out on hosting Asian Cup games here in 2015. They used Canberra Stadium ffs, but we missed out. Look how crap that stadium is, look how crap the Newcastle stadium they used is.

Personally I'd rather we sacrifice some small parts of the parklands ring around the city, for purposes that will bring in hundreds of millions in revenue and create thousands of jobs, if it means that the remaining majority of parklands are improved and maintained to a higher standard.

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:13 pm

The area east of Adelaide Oval may be "parkland" (park 12) but it already has built forms on it, and is used for sporting codes already.
Building a proper venue on there would merely be a huge upgrade of a sporting facility. As I've posted before this is my personal preference. The tram line will eventually be sent further north up King William and into North Adelaide and beyond. It's close to existing hot spots in the city/cbd, it's proximity to the east end would also help give the east end a shot in the arm. It creates a wider sporting precinct.

Building it west of Adelaide Oval on part of the Golf Course. So what? A few less holes for golf?

Building it in the southern parklands which parts of are under utilized and not even maintained..well that's a huge improvement then isn't it? Especially if the surrounding parklands are not only improve/upgraded but are from then onwards maintained properly. It's also a major win if that side of the city sees a surge in building activity, new residents moving into new apartments, new hotels, eateries/bars/nightlife. It adds to the vibrancy of the city. It's already a part of the city that's growing (slowly) with apartments and what not.

Building it over the rail yards/part of that grassed area/outdoor carpark next to the Morphett street bridge behind the bio-med precinct would also add to the vibrancy of the city.
I don't think this is the spot for a stadium, I think it should be kept open as it is for future expansion of the bio-med precinct either for new research facilities or expansion of the RAH or expansion of the future nWCH. It would be very short sighted if they built a stadium there.

The argument against simply can not be "oh we can't build anything more on parklands" and leave it at that.
There's a wider argument and bigger picture that should be looked at which my post touches on some of that.

Karen Rolton Oval across from the RAH has been upgraded from what it was. We had several warm up games for the womens cricket t20 world cup there. Wouldn't have had them otherwise. A rectangular stadium "upgrade" of Park 12 would give us the opportunity to host large sporting code events which use such venues, like both mens & womens FIFA world cups, Bledislo cup, state of origin, etc etc. We would likely see more NRL games played here. We missed out on hosting Asian Cup games here in 2015. They used Canberra Stadium ffs, but we missed out. Look how crap that stadium is, look how crap the Newcastle stadium they used is.

Personally I'd rather we sacrifice some small parts of the parklands ring around the city, for purposes that will bring in hundreds of millions in revenue and create thousands of jobs, if it means that the remaining majority of parklands are improved and maintained to a higher standard.

I appreciate what you're saying, but I think the argument behind your ideas presents the problem I (and many others) have. It's not about being a NIMBY or anti 'bring the parklands up to a high, usable standard' but rather scrutinising this mentality that they're there completely for the taking. If we further become complacent with the amount of development on the parklands then it starts to become a free-for-all. If we focus development on the parts of parklands that are already extensively built on and improve on those areas with new facilities that bring a new clientele to the parklands, then great! i.e. the ORAH, or NRAH but the southern parklands idea for instance or the parklands east of AO, sure, both areas have a couple of club buildings situated on them, but said buildings have a combined footprint the size of perhaps four/five large suburban houses joined together? What you're suggesting is a facility with a footprint six times that, if not more. And hypothetically say any of your proposals come to fruition, then the goal posts will shift again: "Oh but, you allowed that multipurpose stadium to be built on there own that patch of open land, so why can't we build this hotel resort on that bit of open space next to the V8 track?" These goal posts shifting is how we went from having parliament/government house(s), a smaller university of Adelaide campus, the ORAH, the Museum/Library/Art Gallery and ARS on that belt of parkland next to North Terrace to now having a built up UoA campus, a new business hub on the ORAH, the NRAH, biomedical precinct, the convention centre, the AFC, the InterContinental, the Adelaide Casino, Walker's new tower PLUS all the others aforementioned. Where does it stop? Make the parklands community friendly, be philanthropic and invest billions into these parks and bring them to a standard similar to that of Hyde Park in London or Central Park in NYC but complacency will be the bane of our city's rather unique layout. And if you thin that I am being hysterical in my above suggestion, just look at how easily and quickly they've filled up all of that open space at Glenside campus all because we became complacent in our thoughts: "Oh, they're only rebuilding the psychiatric hospital and building a new film studio" - well, the rest is now history.

The problem with arguing about preserving the parklands is that they aren't anything special or worthy of preserving in their present form (other then preserving them as is simply because it's the only major continuous "green" belt in Adelaide), not in the sense that the pro-don't touch the parklands people try and portray them as.
I mean seriously, go for a walk all the way around, or drive around the perimeter. It's like scrub land and bush land with some areas of denser tree coverage.
Most of the "grass" is dead, or wild and the surface in general is mostly unusable for large tracts of the parklands.

I'm not suggesting that we should allow development all over the parklands. That can easily be overcome if parliament wants it.
But I think that an acceptable trade off would be building a rectangular stadium (and the redevelopment of the memorial drive tennis courts & next gen gym area into a smaller indoor arena), if that meant that the rest of the parklands would be upgraded and drastically improved and made useable by more then homeless people and drunken indigenous people.

It wouldn't open the flood gates. None of those other developments opened up the flood gates. All those developments are on the periphery between the city and the parklands, on already non-existent parkland. The nRAH/bio-med precinct for example was built over contaminated disused train yards.

I find the general state of the parklands to be a bigger tragedy then the potential of a stadium being built on an existing sporting field with some structures already on it.
Look at Bonython Park as another example, there's a huge slab used as a car park. If the parklands actually meant that much to this state and were the treasure some people want us to view them as, then that car park would have been under Bonython park not blighting the landscape.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:07 am

The problem with arguing about preserving the parklands is that they aren't anything special or worthy of preserving in their present form (other then preserving them as is simply because it's the only major continuous "green" belt in Adelaide), not in the sense that the pro-don't touch the parklands people try and portray them as.
I mean seriously, go for a walk all the way around, or drive around the perimeter. It's like scrub land and bush land with some areas of denser tree coverage.
Most of the "grass" is dead, or wild and the surface in general is mostly unusable for large tracts of the parklands.

I'm not suggesting that we should allow development all over the parklands. That can easily be overcome if parliament wants it.
But I think that an acceptable trade off would be building a rectangular stadium (and the redevelopment of the memorial drive tennis courts & next gen gym area into a smaller indoor arena), if that meant that the rest of the parklands would be upgraded and drastically improved and made useable by more then homeless people and drunken indigenous people.

It wouldn't open the flood gates. None of those other developments opened up the flood gates. All those developments are on the periphery between the city and the parklands, on already non-existent parkland. The nRAH/bio-med precinct for example was built over contaminated disused train yards.

I find the general state of the parklands to be a bigger tragedy then the potential of a stadium being built on an existing sporting field with some structures already on it.
Look at Bonython Park as another example, there's a huge slab used as a car park. If the parklands actually meant that much to this state and were the treasure some people want us to view them as, then that car park would have been under Bonython park not blighting the landscape.

Problem with that statement is that I'm not aware of any proposals that involve using revenue from a stadium in the parklands for work on the rest of the parklands?

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:44 am

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:07 am

The problem with arguing about preserving the parklands is that they aren't anything special or worthy of preserving in their present form (other then preserving them as is simply because it's the only major continuous "green" belt in Adelaide), not in the sense that the pro-don't touch the parklands people try and portray them as.
I mean seriously, go for a walk all the way around, or drive around the perimeter. It's like scrub land and bush land with some areas of denser tree coverage.
Most of the "grass" is dead, or wild and the surface in general is mostly unusable for large tracts of the parklands.

I'm not suggesting that we should allow development all over the parklands. That can easily be overcome if parliament wants it.
But I think that an acceptable trade off would be building a rectangular stadium (and the redevelopment of the memorial drive tennis courts & next gen gym area into a smaller indoor arena), if that meant that the rest of the parklands would be upgraded and drastically improved and made useable by more then homeless people and drunken indigenous people.

It wouldn't open the flood gates. None of those other developments opened up the flood gates. All those developments are on the periphery between the city and the parklands, on already non-existent parkland. The nRAH/bio-med precinct for example was built over contaminated disused train yards.

I find the general state of the parklands to be a bigger tragedy then the potential of a stadium being built on an existing sporting field with some structures already on it.
Look at Bonython Park as another example, there's a huge slab used as a car park. If the parklands actually meant that much to this state and were the treasure some people want us to view them as, then that car park would have been under Bonython park not blighting the landscape.

Problem with that statement is that I'm not aware of any proposals that involve using revenue from a stadium in the parklands for work on the rest of the parklands?

There aren't any, I'm just making a suggestion.
A new stadium would sell it's naming rights unlike Adelaide Oval. That money could be used for that, at least for the surrounding area (probably wouldn't be enough for the whole parklands).

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:33 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:44 am

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:07 am

The problem with arguing about preserving the parklands is that they aren't anything special or worthy of preserving in their present form (other then preserving them as is simply because it's the only major continuous "green" belt in Adelaide), not in the sense that the pro-don't touch the parklands people try and portray them as.
I mean seriously, go for a walk all the way around, or drive around the perimeter. It's like scrub land and bush land with some areas of denser tree coverage.
Most of the "grass" is dead, or wild and the surface in general is mostly unusable for large tracts of the parklands.

I'm not suggesting that we should allow development all over the parklands. That can easily be overcome if parliament wants it.
But I think that an acceptable trade off would be building a rectangular stadium (and the redevelopment of the memorial drive tennis courts & next gen gym area into a smaller indoor arena), if that meant that the rest of the parklands would be upgraded and drastically improved and made useable by more then homeless people and drunken indigenous people.

It wouldn't open the flood gates. None of those other developments opened up the flood gates. All those developments are on the periphery between the city and the parklands, on already non-existent parkland. The nRAH/bio-med precinct for example was built over contaminated disused train yards.

I find the general state of the parklands to be a bigger tragedy then the potential of a stadium being built on an existing sporting field with some structures already on it.
Look at Bonython Park as another example, there's a huge slab used as a car park. If the parklands actually meant that much to this state and were the treasure some people want us to view them as, then that car park would have been under Bonython park not blighting the landscape.

Problem with that statement is that I'm not aware of any proposals that involve using revenue from a stadium in the parklands for work on the rest of the parklands?

There aren't any, I'm just making a suggestion.
A new stadium would sell it's naming rights unlike Adelaide Oval. That money could be used for that, at least for the surrounding area (probably wouldn't be enough for the whole parklands).

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:08 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:33 am

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:44 am

Problem with that statement is that I'm not aware of any proposals that involve using revenue from a stadium in the parklands for work on the rest of the parklands?

There aren't any, I'm just making a suggestion.
A new stadium would sell it's naming rights unlike Adelaide Oval. That money could be used for that, at least for the surrounding area (probably wouldn't be enough for the whole parklands).

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

30~ minutes away east north or south of the metro area. That's where you can find your natural bush & scrub land.
The place for that setting is not in the middle of a city. What is this the 1800's? It's 2020, lets get with the times and create a usable park that is safe and inviting, that encircles the city.
Lets have our two major stadia there, lets have the 'manicured' grounds for community sporting clubs, lets have the walking trails and bike paths, lets have the ponds and lakes and areas for general use, kiosks etc, lets have the whole thing well lit so it doesn't become a haven for deviants and homeless people at night, and lets have it all well maintained finally.

What's wrong with that as a vision for our city parklands? I think something like that would finally elevate the parklands to a place of prominence and prestige.

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:08 pm

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

I live in the city and regularly run through the parklands, and the parts that are natural woodland, particularly along the Torrens, are truly special. I think people don't realise that serious revegetation only began about 30 years ago (livestock were still being grazed on parklands in the 80s) and that these plantings take time to mature. In the decades to come, this open space full of large gums will be vitally enjoyed by the growing inner metropolitan population (and the state at large).

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:03 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:08 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:33 am

There aren't any, I'm just making a suggestion.
A new stadium would sell it's naming rights unlike Adelaide Oval. That money could be used for that, at least for the surrounding area (probably wouldn't be enough for the whole parklands).

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

30~ minutes away east north or south of the metro area. That's where you can find your natural bush & scrub land.
The place for that setting is not in the middle of a city. What is this the 1800's? It's 2020, lets get with the times and create a usable park that is safe and inviting, that encircles the city.
Lets have our two major stadia there, lets have the 'manicured' grounds for community sporting clubs, lets have the walking trails and bike paths, lets have the ponds and lakes and areas for general use, kiosks etc, lets have the whole thing well lit so it doesn't become a haven for deviants and homeless people at night, and lets have it all well maintained finally.

What's wrong with that as a vision for our city parklands? I think something like that would finally elevate the parklands to a place of prominence and prestige.

30 minutes walk north gets me to Prospect. I hadn't noticed the bushland there? Where would I get east or south that is better than the Adelaide parklands?

SRW wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:40 pm

I live in the city and regularly run through the parklands, and the parts that are natural woodland, particularly along the Torrens, are truly special. I think people don't realise that serious revegetation only began about 30 years ago (livestock were still being grazed on parklands in the 80s) and that these plantings take time to mature. In the decades to come, this open space full of large gums will be vitally enjoyed by the growing inner metropolitan population (and the state at large).

Thank you for confirming my feeling as an occasional visitor to the CBD.

Sydney has scrub in the parks along the harbour. Adelaide's parklands are unique to our environment, and perhaps in how they encircle the CBD, but not unique in having undeveloped land within reach of city dwellers.

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:35 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:03 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:08 pm

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

30~ minutes away east north or south of the metro area. That's where you can find your natural bush & scrub land.
The place for that setting is not in the middle of a city. What is this the 1800's? It's 2020, lets get with the times and create a usable park that is safe and inviting, that encircles the city.
Lets have our two major stadia there, lets have the 'manicured' grounds for community sporting clubs, lets have the walking trails and bike paths, lets have the ponds and lakes and areas for general use, kiosks etc, lets have the whole thing well lit so it doesn't become a haven for deviants and homeless people at night, and lets have it all well maintained finally.

What's wrong with that as a vision for our city parklands? I think something like that would finally elevate the parklands to a place of prominence and prestige.

30 minutes walk north gets me to Prospect. I hadn't noticed the bushland there? Where would I get east or south that is better than the Adelaide parklands?

Quite obviously I meant drive.

SRW wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:40 pm

SBD wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:08 pm

I don't think the parklands must necessarily be "developed" to be useful as open space. I live in an outer suburb, so perhaps have a different perspective from people who live in the CBD, but I would value having natural bushland nearby, even in the city. If the parklands were developed into stadia, groomed lawns, ornamental gardens etc all the way round, where would be the nearest patch of scrub for city-dwellers to visit on foot?

I live in the city and regularly run through the parklands, and the parts that are natural woodland, particularly along the Torrens, are truly special. I think people don't realise that serious revegetation only began about 30 years ago (livestock were still being grazed on parklands in the 80s) and that these plantings take time to mature. In the decades to come, this open space full of large gums will be vitally enjoyed by the growing inner metropolitan population (and the state at large).

People use what is attractive to them. The most used areas of the parklands, Adelaide Oval aside are along the Torrens , Bonython Park Botanic Park-all these parks are irrigated and maintained, and the various sport fields and courts. Residents generally are not venturing into the areas that are left as dry scrub.-People vote with their feet. Remnants of scrub are fine, but dry, unkept native bush should not be the main feature on multiple approaches into the CBD. To the vast majority of people-residents and tourists alike it is not their idea of a pleasant park-we like some green relief in our hot dry climate. It doesn't have to be manicured, with exotic plants..natives are fine-just maintained and irrigated. The vast majority of people would also not be fussed if a soccer stadium was built somewhere in the parklands.

The problem with putting a stadium in the Southern Parklands is that public transport connections to the site are poor. For a low-controversy solution, one of the ovals in Park 25 (the area in Port Rd, Glover Rd and West Terrace) could be converted to a stadium.

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:08 pm

The problem with putting a stadium in the Southern Parklands is that public transport connections to the site are poor. For a low-controversy solution, one of the ovals in Park 25 (the area in Port Rd, Glover Rd and West Terrace) could be converted to a stadium.

That's not a bad idea. Wouldn't be hard to add a tram stop out there either. Could probably move the Mile End train station to the northern side of Glover Ave, or upgrade it so it's at least got over head cover and improve foot access to it from Park 25.
But I don't think a rectangular stadium (30k~) would fit on just one of those ovals, would probably take up number 1 & 3. Park 25 number 2 is Karen Rolton Oval.

My idea for the southern parklands is something I've posted about before elsewhere on here, and includes an underground station as part of the existing vision for an underground loop. I think my idea even included bringing the Ghan etc into it as part of a new major train station.
Besides there's already the tram line which runs through the southern parklands.

rev wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:26 am

1NEEDS2POST wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:08 pm

The problem with putting a stadium in the Southern Parklands is that public transport connections to the site are poor. For a low-controversy solution, one of the ovals in Park 25 (the area in Port Rd, Glover Rd and West Terrace) could be converted to a stadium.

That's not a bad idea. Wouldn't be hard to add a tram stop out there either. Could probably move the Mile End train station to the northern side of Glover Ave, or upgrade it so it's at least got over head cover and improve foot access to it from Park 25.
But I don't think a rectangular stadium (30k~) would fit on just one of those ovals, would probably take up number 1 & 3. Park 25 number 2 is Karen Rolton Oval.

My idea for the southern parklands is something I've posted about before elsewhere on here, and includes an underground station as part of the existing vision for an underground loop. I think my idea even included bringing the Ghan etc into it as part of a new major train station.
Besides there's already the tram line which runs through the southern parklands.

Or you could put an underground station on existing infrastructure e.g. western city Priceline Stadium (netball) as part of a Through-City Rail project.
At some stage the netball stadium could be replaced with a 15K multi purpose venue and the immediately adjacent SA Athletics site could be relocated and a 30K soccer stadium built.