New City Arena

[rev]

The state government wants to build the stadium, and then have the riverbank lined with new hotel developments - it's no coincidence the Hotel Association has come out hard in favour of the stadium, and the government is currently trying to rush through legislative changes to development in the area. It's all about the election, the dirty developer money they need to fund it, and the developers making stacks of cash for themselves by getting valuable public land for nothing.

Remember there was also a hotel "proposed" nearby right on the water front in this area too. I dont think any of it is a coincidence.

Let's develop the Torrens area sure, but lets do it in a way that isn't shady as fuck with under the table dealings.

Building stadiums and hotels over the train lines now would be a mistake. Forget the waste of money that the stadium would be.
That area should be retained for future hospital expansion of both the RAH and nWCH. At most build a green plaza over the top of the train lines until the need for hospital expansion arises, and it will.

[A-Town]

It's disappointing to see so many people fighting to retain this derelict piece of land, most of whom would never step foot on the ground to the west of the Morphett St bridge. Unfortunately there's a fairly good reason why SA is seen as a backwater state by our neighbours. If some of these North Adelaide-esque anti-development NIMBYs had their way, we would never invest in new facilities and infrastructure to modernise the city.

Don't be daft, no one is fighting to maintain the land as it is. Don't get suckered in to parroting an Advertiser opinion piece.

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Every time there's a new development or infrastructure proposal in Adelaide, it's met with a chorus of discontent and opposition. These people hold up progress and projects for years, and then the projects eventually get done and the whingers move on to the next thing to get up in arms about.

[Nathan]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

[Nathan]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

There was also the Riverbank Masterplan started by the Labor government, with the goal of planning a cohesive urban park from Bowden to Hackney, but was scrapped by the Liberals along with the Riverbank Authority and replaced by a new "Riverbank Entertainment Precinct Advisory Committee" who have achieved absolutely zip. That land was included in the scope of the masterplan.

[Nort]

Love the idea that:

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all

Like, no shit? It's public land in a prominent location who else other than the government would be able to build anything here?

[A-Town]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

What's that, 10 years old now? Been very quiet since then, and there hasn't been any pressure from the public for the Govt/Council to do more with the derelict land west of Morphett St bridge. We already have enough unused space in the Park Lands

[gnrc_louis]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

What's that, 10 years old now? Been very quiet since then, and there hasn't been any pressure from the public for the Govt/Council to do more with the derelict land west of Morphett St bridge. We already have enough unused space in the Park Lands

By "derelict land," do you mean the carpark used by railway workers?

[Nathan]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

What's that, 10 years old now? Been very quiet since then, and there hasn't been any pressure from the public for the Govt/Council to do more with the derelict land west of Morphett St bridge. We already have enough unused space in the Park Lands

Okay. So we're going from "no one's been fighting to do anything with the land" to "no one has said anything within my unspecified timeline". Got it.

[SRW]

And anyway besides, let's stop mischaracterising this as a mere repurposing of so-called 'derelict' land. What's proposed is to build right up to the banks of the river and to forsake 10% of the city's green space. Much will be lost on the right of this vista.

[rev]

A lack of recent alternative proposals doesn't mean the current proposal is a good one.

That argument ignores why many people are opposed to this stadium anyway.

[VinyTapestry849]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

tbh the arena will be more economically viable then this, and would bring in more revenue ^^ But I guess this isn't up to us to decide what happens.

[Nathan]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

tbh the arena will be more economically viable then this, and would bring in more revenue ^^ But I guess this isn't up to us to decide what happens.

If you're trying to judge a park on "economic viability" and how much direct revenue it brings in, you're going to have a bad time.

[Spotto]

No one's been fighting to do anything with the land at all until the proposal for a new arena came about, that's the point.

Untrue.

Where’s this proposal from? Looks incredible!

[VinyTapestry849]

Untrue.

tbh the arena will be more economically viable then this, and would bring in more revenue ^^ But I guess this isn't up to us to decide what happens.

If you're trying to judge a park on "economic viability" and how much direct revenue it brings in, you're going to have a bad time.

If It was to remain in parklands and have events that would be nice : ). Unfortunately for those who wish for that result wouldn't be glad to know that the arena will bring in about 30m per year I believe, so the government might want that instead.

[Nort]

tbh the arena will be more economically viable then this, and would bring in more revenue ^^ But I guess this isn't up to us to decide what happens.

If you're trying to judge a park on "economic viability" and how much direct revenue it brings in, you're going to have a bad time.

If It was to remain in parklands and have events that would be nice : ). Unfortunately for those who wish for that result wouldn't be glad to know that the arena will bring in about 30m per year I believe, so the government might want that instead.

Is the arena predicted to have more than the 30 year lifespan that has been thrown around in this thread?

The predicted cost for the arena is $677 million. If it's bringing in 30m per year it's going to take 23 years just to generate back the initial spend, around the time planners will be thinking about what its next major upgrade should be.

To break it down another way, each seat in the arena will cost $45,000.

The financial case as stated simply doesn't add up.

If the argument is that it should be built as a prestige thing and we're not focusing on the direct economic benefit but the overall improvement it will bring to the city and state then it's very appropriate to question whether we could do something more impressive or useful for Adelaide with that amount of money.