Sensational-Adelaide.com

Hippodamus wrote:Things I would like to commend about the proposal:

- urban design upgrade of Morphett St Bridge Great which becomes tree lined, with riverside walk open and with cafe and restaurants

Actually that is one of the defects, you have a big bridge over the rail lines, and you build a bridge etc over the top right. So where the hell do you find space for the huge ball of tree roots those trees would have ? The whole thing has been designed as if there wasn't a railway underneath.

One problem with the Adelaide Convention Centre at the moment (bar it being a second ACC) is the walkway between North Terrace and the River is public access, but has Convention buildings on both sides. Its a massive security headache, and also is a bottle neck for attendees when a convention is using both buildings. This proposed redevelopment does northing to solve this.

IMHO the small building should be removed and replaced with shops or something.

It would be a great idea to move the thinking for urban design of the city away from three major, pernicious influences:

First - the ridiculous and growing tendency for urban design/redesign and renewal to be seriously considered only as part of a gigantic auction held every fourth year in order to capture the imagination of the swinging voter

Second - in other years ongoing and secretive lobbying for rezoning or approval of non-complying developments and general cherry picking by the construction and property industries.

Third - porkbarrelling and pursuit of pet projects by powerful politicians.

Some may be easier to fix than others.

There should be a generally accepted, holistic vision for the whole city, not just for the 'good bits'. As an example of what not to do - consider the development of Newport Quays where stage 2a has been completed and there is still no plan whatsoever for the 'mill precinct', among other areas. A first year urban design student would have been failed for presenting such an incomplete and cherry-picked programme, yet LMC and its partners? Clients? Bosses? big end of town developers managed to produce such a flawed plan.

If everyone wants to build, and buy, non-complying development, then the development regs should be revisited. While the development regulations are supposed to guide development, they should also reflect demand. It's like the chicken and the egg. They are interdependent and should inform each other, while respecting the principles of good design and the amenity of all stakeholders including the troublesome community whose reasonable requirements must be respected not just polled and ignored.

There is a legitimate need for commercial confidentiality in the bid and tender process, but there is also a responsibility of the government to ensure that expenditure of taxpayers' funds is as transparent as possible. The default should be transparency.

As to thinking, oh well we can knock it down in a few years and start again, overseas experience shows that increasingly the real cost of carbon and other historic inputs lost by demolition must be balanced against the cost of adaptive reuse. In some cities, 'no demolition' is the default. A case must be made to demolish any building at all - easy in some cases, harder in others. It would be very hard, for example, to demolish the 19 year old Bradman Stand, regardless of heritage considerations, especially when the resulting redevelopment will still not give us an international standard stadium, because of the carbon it locks in, and the historic capital and labour inputs. Loss of sequestered carbon and other historic inputs should be added as a negative to the developer's equation for new development.

I think the result would be a better planned and built city.

Brisbane Southbank began in 1989 when the city wa a little bigger than Adelaide. No over the river bridge was included but it succeeded - possible suggestions to improve this one and draw people there would be an artificial beach enclosure, a piazzo for entertainment, boardwalk with cafes adjoining WITH the current proposal otherwith. I like sets of similar bldgs - but what are the high rise bldgs that seem to be next to the west sideMorphett St Bridge?

IMO I prefer this to the liberals proposal but think that in both cases the proof of the pudding will take some time and much will not eventuate due to the proximity of release to the elections.

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CIY SKYLINE

how_good_is_he wrote: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?

Imagine 10,000-20,000 people trying to get on a handful of trams taking people into the city. I really don't think it is necessary or even practical. It's a very short walk back to Nth Tce from AO and from there people can disperse using various methods of transport going to different destinations.

The proposal looks quite nice in the video but as a fan of our current Convention Centre (the bit with the massive glass windows overlooking the Torrens I am a little worried that any addition to that will ruin the awesomness of that existing building. Maybe I'm overrating that building but I really like it.

Tyler_Durden wrote:The proposal looks quite nice in the video but as a fan of our current Convention Centre (the bit with the massive glass windows overlooking the Torrens I am a little worried that any addition to that will ruin the awesomness of that existing building. Maybe I'm overrating that building but I really like it.

You're definitely not overrating the building, I reckon it's one of the most recognisable structures for Adelaide. I don't think the additional building will deter from the main centre that much. Once done it would look amazing lit up at night, especially with the water feature in the foreground!

It seems the general consensus of this redevelopment is that it's the first of several stages of development along the riverbank, I hope that's so. I'm all for it

Briggzy_03 wrote:

Tyler_Durden wrote:The proposal looks quite nice in the video but as a fan of our current Convention Centre (the bit with the massive glass windows overlooking the Torrens I am a little worried that any addition to that will ruin the awesomness of that existing building. Maybe I'm overrating that building but I really like it.

You're definitely not overrating the building, I reckon it's one of the most recognisable structures for Adelaide. I don't think the additional building will deter from the main centre that much. Once done it would look amazing lit up at night, especially with the water feature in the foreground!

It seems the general consensus of this redevelopment is that it's the first of several stages of development along the riverbank, I hope that's so. I'm all for it

Once this is built along with the RAH and HMRI the only exposed bit of rail from North Terrace will be between the HMRI and the bridge. I would not be surprised at all to see that make that spot of land become very appealing for some sort of development over the trainlines.

paul wrote:

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.

I just read this and I have to say that supporting a new stadium as part of a riverside precinct while lamenting the "butchering" Adelaide oval doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they built a new stadium exactly how many matches would be played at adelaide oval given the poor attendance of the domestic cricket matches. Wouldn't Adelaide oval then essentially be dependant on 1 test match a year and the domestic cricket matches that hardly anyone attends? Given that the SACA makes money from memberships and sales at the gates I would have thought a new stadium would be the end of Adelaide oval as the revenue just wouldn't be there. Wouldn't all AFL matches and possibly even the SANFL matches be played at the new stadium? Not that it matters now I suppose, but I thought it might help us to move past the fact that we're not getting the riverside precint that a lot of people wanted.

I just read this and I have to say that supporting a new stadium as part of a riverside precinct while lamenting the "butchering" Adelaide oval doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If they built a new stadium exactly how many matches would be played at adelaide oval given the poor attendance of the domestic cricket matches. Wouldn't Adelaide oval then essentially be dependant on 1 test match a year and the domestic cricket matches that hardly anyone attends? Given that the SACA makes money from memberships and sales at the gates I would have thought a new stadium would be the end of Adelaide oval as the revenue just wouldn't be there. Wouldn't all AFL matches and possibly even the SANFL matches be played at the new stadium? Not that it matters now I suppose, but I thought it might help us to move past the fact that we're not getting the riverside precint that a lot of people wanted.



Just in answwer to the cricket attendance, it appears that the SACA (and domestice cricket in general) will be given a significant boost with the new 20 20 format. From memory it is being launched next season (maybe year after next) with a city focus, eg Adelaide will play Melbourne etc instead of SA vs Vic, and all signs point to higher crowd numbers at these games than football (soccer). Just look at the recent crowds with both domestic and international crowds being the highest with 20 20. I think that this (and the ashes test) were large driving forces behind the current Adelaide Oval revamp and I for one seriously think that 20 20 will be a significant revenue earner. Also, look at the international focus with the IPL, and the Champions League as well as World Cup 20 20 and it starts to look interesting.

Kevin Foley hints at new additions to torrens riverbank plan

TREASURER Kevin Foley has foreshadowed "grander" new additions to Adelaide's riverbank precinct while defending costings for the Adelaide Oval Redevelopment.

The Opposition this morning raised fresh concerns over the credibility of the redevelopment because the Federal Government made no mention of a funding commitment for the project in yesterday's Budget.

Opposition finance spokesman Rob Lucas said the absence of federal money raised "significant doubt" about the project, which he believed could blowout to a cost of up to $600 millon.

However, Mr Foley said the State Government had an offer of $100 million of more "on the table" and would ask for that money in the financial year in which it was needed.

Construction is not due to start for about two years and will take about another two years to complete.

Mr Foley reiterated the State Government would contribute a maximum $450 million to the oval upgrade but would not say if any federal contribution would be counted within this figure or in additon.

He said he was "very confident" the "rock solid" proposal would go ahead and he had received no indication football and cricket stakeholders would not reach a consensus before the July 1 deadline.

In the meantime architects and engineers had been "working away at a rapid rate" to complete designs.

"When we get the go ahead from the codes we will be at an incredibly advanced stage and we'll be able to demonstrate ... that we simply haven't been waiting and doing nothing," he said.

The oval upgrade will be part of a "fully integrated riverbank precinct", linking with Casino, Festival Theatre and upgraded Convention Centre, and Mr Foley hinted "there might be more" to the overall plan.

"The reason I might be trying to hold back some of the excitement I have within myself for this project is that we might be designing other things or we might be changing a few things, we might be making it a grander project in other aspects," he said.

But he ruled out a roof for the new stadium, instead suggesting the additions would be elsewhere in the precinct.

However, Mr Lucas was "sceptical about the prospects" of the oval upgrade and did not believe the July deadline would be met.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/kevin-fol ... 5865572241

Rann gives Riverbank priority over Vic Square
DANIEL WILLS From: The Advertiser June 15, 2010 11:30PM

PREMIER Mike Rann has backed the Victoria Square overhaul plans but says the Riverbank precinct takes priority as a host of CBD building projects stretch the state Budget.
Mr Rann said he had been heavily lobbied to fund the "exciting" Victoria Square proposal, which carries a pricetag of about $100 million.
Adelaide City Council has budgeted $24 million and will seek help from the state and federal governments after completion of detailed engineering and design studies.
Mr Rann said Adelaide faced a rare opportunity for lasting reform, with building plans in the pipeline for several sites across Adelaide's CBD.
"Southbank has done a lot for Melbourne, really re-invigorated Melbourne. I want the Riverbank, the Convention Centre, a hospital and a park and a redeveloped Adelaide Oval to make this city even more vibrant," he said.
"We've got a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring off something in terms of the face of our city for the next 100 years."
The council is collating almost 200 public submissions on the plans released on May 10. The State Government has provided $2 million to the consultation and final design process.
Lord Mayor M ichael Harbison yesterday said the council was awaiting outcomes from deliberations of the State Government's new Integrated Design Commission.
"The idea really is to put all of these projects together and try and work out where they all stand in terms of priority and what the essential elements are that you need to get done," he said.
Federal Member for Adelaide Kate Ellis is in South Africa for the soccer World Cup and was unavailable for comment yesterday.

I can't really criticise that decision, who would want to fund an overpriced "epic fail" upgrade to Vic Square? Integration of North Terrace/Adelaide Oval/Torrens Riverbank will bring more long term benefits to Adelaide.

again following Melbourne blindly will be the downfall of this development

the precinct around the Torrens is nothing like that around the Yarra where there are buildings and populations on both sides

the Torrens area will always be dead..whats suddenly going to encourage hoards of these 'photoshop' people to flock there?

IMO Victoria square has more going for it

Agree about not following Melbourne, but disagree about the Torrens area.Think about the numbers of people. for whatever reason,that will come for a REASON to this area as a DESTINATION. This will have flow ons, such as retaining the people with additional onsite attractions such as cafes, boardwalks etc

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

skyliner wrote:Agree about not following Melbourne, but disagree about the Torrens area.Think about the numbers of people. for whatever reason,that will come for a REASON to this area as a DESTINATION. This will have flow ons, such as retaining the people with additional onsite attractions such as cafes, boardwalks etc

ADELAIDE - TOWARDS A GREATER CITY SKYLINE

I'm thinking... ummm... convention centre... what else?