[SWP] Lot 14 (Old RAH Site)

[Levesque]

How is $600m a lot to spend? If anything $200m was nowhere near enough even as a projected price tag. No one would be saying the same if this were a contemporary gallery, which would cost the same (if not more)…

In a state such as South Australia with a fairly small budget, how is $600m not a lot to spend? That's also ridiculous - I think many people would be saying the exact same thing if it were $600m for a contemporary gallery. It's a huge outlay and I would guess quite possibly electoral suicide for any government. Just look at the issues the proposed AFL stadium is currently causing the Tasmanian Government - and that's a far smaller sum of money on arguably something with much broader appeal.

A stadium for the unwashed masses may have more total appeal, but then the next question is of who it appeals to and what value does it bring to the table.

An AFL stadium may bring in some interstate dollars, but when you factor in that the same money goes straight back the other way for an away game, it's a bit of a zero sum game there.

A museum on the other hand has the potential of specifically targeting a tourist dollar that may not be captured because there is no substitute. In this case, I'd only support an Aboriginal gallery over a contemporary art gallery. In around 10 years of living in Europe, I can say I have had precisely 0 people ever say to me that they need to see an Australian contemporary art gallery before they die. On the other hand, Aboriginal/First Nations cultures do conjure some fairly strong interest. I haven't lived all around Europe, but I can say from experience that Germans and Austrians have really been proactive in seeking this info from me with the view for travel. Anecdotal of course, but I think it serves a pretty basic point that contemporary art has its substitutes and Aboriginal culture/art has none. You can only see it in Australia and if we just happen to be sitting on a vast collection in a warehouse, why not put what is there to use!

Specifically on the issue of the Tasmanian stadium proposal (as you brought it up), the ultimate spend is over 700 million and it really calls into question the priorities of a government that is addicted to federal money to solve its own problems, and when that money is there, would spend it on a 24,000 seat stadium rather than address the real issue that 51% of the state's adult population is functionally iliterate. I don't bring it up to butt heads on that topic, but rather that I think opposition may be organised around a single issue of the total spend (which indeed is high for both), but formed in quite different contexts.

Completely agree with this. Literally one thing on European's minds for Australia. That is Australian culture. Our Anglo culture isn't a drawcard at all for them, and our very large Asian representation is also of little value to someone who can spend less on a ticket to Asia itself than to Adelaide. A museum like this is the unique culture that distinguishes Australia on the world stage. Additionally, it fits snugly into our development and slowly changing image as Australia's cultural capital. If we dont do something like this, what culture can we really show the world? We don't have the beaches of the east coast, the rainforest on the doorstep like Brisbane, the opera house, the harbour bridge, the metropolitan glamour of Melbourne or anything remarkable. If this wont be our landmark, what will?

[rhino]

the metropolitan glamour of Melbourne

What is metropolitan glamour?

[Benm16]

I think it will be extremely disappointing if this doesn't go ahead. The price tag of 500-600 million seems appropriate. If we look at other museums/ galleries around the world the costs align pretty well and if we want this to be an "Adelaide Icon" or a reason for people to come visit Adelaide then I believe we shouldn't do this on the cheap.

If we look at the Polish Jewish Museum in Warsaw, Poland that had a price tag of 150 million dollars 10 years ago.

Tate London cost 250 million dollars 30 years ago and the Tate extension cost 487 million in 2012.

On the other hand Adelaide Oval was originally budgeted at 410 million and the costs ended up around the 610 mark. I don't hear anyone complaining now about the costs of the Adelaide Oval. Once we saw how successful it has been and the money the oval has brought in, everyone seems to forget the price tag. I am certain the same will go for this. I am sure this will bring in a lot of money to the city and state.

I don't think an art gallery is the way to go as it will mean we will not only be competing with the other galleries around Australia but also galleries around the world. No other country will be able to tell the story of our first nations people expect us. And if your argument is that other Australia cities will have first nation culture centers, my response is they also have art galleries.

[rev]

I think it will be extremely disappointing if this doesn't go ahead. The price tag of 500-600 million seems appropriate. If we look at other museums/ galleries around the world the costs align pretty well and if we want this to be an "Adelaide Icon" or a reason for people to come visit Adelaide then I believe we shouldn't do this on the cheap.

If we look at the Polish Jewish Museum in Warsaw, Poland that had a price tag of 150 million dollars 10 years ago.

Tate London cost 250 million dollars 30 years ago and the Tate extension cost 487 million in 2012.

On the other hand Adelaide Oval was originally budgeted at 410 million and the costs ended up around the 610 mark. I don't hear anyone complaining now about the costs of the Adelaide Oval. Once we saw how successful it has been and the money the oval has brought in, everyone seems to forget the price tag. I am certain the same will go for this. I am sure this will bring in a lot of money to the city and state.

I don't think an art gallery is the way to go as it will mean we will not only be competing with the other galleries around Australia but also galleries around the world. No other country will be able to tell the story of our first nations people expect us. And if your argument is that other Australia cities will have first nation culture centers, my response is they also have art galleries.

Not sure what the cost comparison with inflation factored in would look like, and I have missed this bit of information, but I think there's generally a lack of information on what this Aboriginal culture and arts centre is going to feature exactly.

If it isn't already, I think there should be a strong focus on a technological aspect as opposed to a traditional museum.
Interactive elements should be a strong feature, even perhaps something like a virtual reality type setup where you can take a step back in time.
There should be lighting elements that connect it with the surrounding area as well.
Would be great as well if they could find a way to connect it with the Adelaide Oval precinct, for example using the River Torrens to represent the rainbow snake from the Dream Time during NAIDOC week and the AFL's Indigenous Round.

[ml69]

I think it will be extremely disappointing if this doesn't go ahead. The price tag of 500-600 million seems appropriate. If we look at other museums/ galleries around the world the costs align pretty well and if we want this to be an "Adelaide Icon" or a reason for people to come visit Adelaide then I believe we shouldn't do this on the cheap.

If we look at the Polish Jewish Museum in Warsaw, Poland that had a price tag of 150 million dollars 10 years ago.

Tate London cost 250 million dollars 30 years ago and the Tate extension cost 487 million in 2012.

On the other hand Adelaide Oval was originally budgeted at 410 million and the costs ended up around the 610 mark. I don't hear anyone complaining now about the costs of the Adelaide Oval. Once we saw how successful it has been and the money the oval has brought in, everyone seems to forget the price tag. I am certain the same will go for this. I am sure this will bring in a lot of money to the city and state.

I don't think an art gallery is the way to go as it will mean we will not only be competing with the other galleries around Australia but also galleries around the world. No other country will be able to tell the story of our first nations people expect us. And if your argument is that other Australia cities will have first nation culture centers, my response is they also have art galleries.

Not sure what the cost comparison with inflation factored in would look like, and I have missed this bit of information, but I think there's generally a lack of information on what this Aboriginal culture and arts centre is going to feature exactly.

If it isn't already, I think there should be a strong focus on a technological aspect as opposed to a traditional museum.
Interactive elements should be a strong feature, even perhaps something like a virtual reality type setup where you can take a step back in time.
There should be lighting elements that connect it with the surrounding area as well.
Would be great as well if they could find a way to connect it with the Adelaide Oval precinct, for example using the River Torrens to represent the rainbow snake from the Dream Time during NAIDOC week and the AFL's Indigenous Round.

Agree the indigenous centre should be an experience that draws you in and tells stories of the culture, with artefacts that lend authenticity to the experience.

[floplo]

If you seriously think that some vaguely defined cultural centre will bring you planeloads of tourists without significant ongoing financial expenditures, you will be in for a very rude awakening.

Yes, there are some German "cultural" tourists, who might show up, but that's a fairly small number and getting them to Adelaide for a night isn't really going to make much of an impact economy-wise nor does it finance ongoing operations of the centre.

The main problem is that there is already an aboriginal "icon", namely Uluru. Why go to some random museum in Adelaide when you can experience a culturally & religiously significant place, and get the outback experience additionally as well?

You will never create some kind of "global icon" with that kind of budget, I mean how much money are the sheiks in the middle east putting into things, how much money is there in Asian metropolis to build fancy buildings, and how much money can you invest if you dozens of millions of people living in day trip distance (as most European/US/Asian centres have).

Also, Aboriginal culture is not particularly suitable for that kind of purpose

• You cannot build a religiously significant site and there only a very small number of adherents, so you can't get a pilgrimage site (i.e. Rome, Mecca, Ganges, various shrines, temples, churches and mosques)

• Pretty much all historical art is rock art, and that can't be collected and exhibited

• There are no metal or pottery objects, this means that the range of objects you can exhibit is very limited, a few weapons and wooden/stone tools.

• There are almost no performing arts. Yes, there is some folk dancing and singing, but it's very limited, not particularly accessible, and doesn't bring people back for different or repeat performances. And you don't need a million dollar venue for that to begin with.

• Hunter & gatherer culture means that a small site in the middle of a city isn't exactly the place to have some "living" museum type of experience either, as you need much more space and don't have that much to experience anyway.

Effectively you are left with two types of things you can exhibit:
- pre-historic tools and weapons, which literally every other culture on earth has as well, and in many cases better researched and documented (that's the SA museum collection)
- modern aboriginal painting,which is one particular subset of contemporary art (that's the AGSA collection). However, it's very limited and doesn't really have a lot of variation or artists with star appeal either (I mean how many Australians can even name a single aboriginal artist?)

Building some "virtual" or "interactive" experience is just a fancy version of the SA museum type of approach, and that is very easily replicable by other venues throughout Australia nor does it lend itself to repeat visits or be a reason for intercontinental travel.

The only way this could potentially work is to build some kind of reconciliation venue / dedicated memorial (like the war memorial in Canberra) to increase the significance and public awareness. This would have to be financed and maintained federally rather than be a state undertaking. Though I have quite some problems to figure out why that would be built on North Terrace in Adelaide....

To build anything like this, it has to be for "consumption", meaning that you cannot make this work financially and have to do it because you are willing to spend the money year for year on that kind of thing (btw, that's the same for the Adelaide500, from a state government budget perspective this does not make any sense, but it's done for cultural and social reasons).

So instead of spending 500 million, spend 200 to build something "local/state" level significant and then give substantial parts of the building to SA museum and AGSA to run the exhibition side of it. You can then add some cultural programming. And if you really want to spend more money on a museum, you can then finance AMOSAH in the Masonic lodge tower...

oh, and about the "nobody complaining about the Oval anymore", ten years and three premiers after completion should be enough time to move on.....
but the point of the Oval is that these things only work if you have a business case for local visitors, not just a handful of international ones.

And if you really want to attract more foreign tourists, spend the money on attracting more international students.... you get not only the spending by the student itself (which is substantially higher than what 99% of tourists spend), you also get friends and family coming for tourist visits...

[Algernon]

And if you really want to attract more foreign tourists, spend the money on attracting more international students.... you get not only the spending by the student itself (which is substantially higher than what 99% of tourists spend), you also get friends and family coming for tourist visits...

Universities are federally funded. It's not something for a state government to "choose to spend money on" unless you want the government to be a property developer and build student blocks.

[rhino]

Universities are federally funded. It's not something for a state government to "choose to spend money on" unless you want the government to be a property developer and build student blocks.

That was all you took from Floplo's post?
I'm afraid I have to agree with Floplo on this - there is no way that this facility is going to bring international tourists to Adelaide in significantly greater numbers. There's a good chance it will be something they visit if they were coming here anyway, but I honestly don't think those numbers are going to justify the build cost. Sad but true, I'm afraid. Distance is not our friend, here is Australia, from an international perspective.

[Llessur2002]

+1 from me.

I feel that aside from exhibiting our vast but potentially narrowly focused collections, whatever we do from a technological/interactive perspective will very quickly be outdone by similar institutions in richer states. At $200M it felt like a gamble, at $500M it almost certainly is one.

A more modest project providing extra exhibition space for AGSA would still enable more of our collection to be shown and would be far more marketable on an ongoing basis to the local population through touring exhibitions (like the aforementioned Andy Warhol collection) at a lower ongoing running cost.

[Algernon]

Why not build nothing? It costs nothing besides the annual costs of a weed whacker. Adelaide needs a new dirt car park since the le cornu site got developed. Makes sense to move South Australia's heritage closer to the heart of the city.

[Llessur2002]

Why not build nothing? It costs nothing besides the annual costs of a weed whacker. Adelaide needs a new dirt car park since the le cornu site got developed. Makes sense to move South Australia's heritage closer to the heart of the city.

Presumably the cheapest option by far would be to turn over the site, or the majority of it, to the Botanic Garden. From a political perspective this has surely got to be tempting - it will keep the APPA and the like happy, it's not going to offend anybody and it would genuinely be a worthy addition to North Terrace. The site could even incorporate some level of Aboriginal theming - through landscaping, bush tucker plantings and perhaps even a small performance/ceremony area. I imagine the government could very easily sell this to voters in terms of fiscal responsibility, environmental benefits, offsetting parklands encroachment by the nWCH, improving a popular tourist attraction etc.

The opportunity, however, to relieve some of the pressure on AGSA or the SA Museum would be lost - although I wonder if there are creative options to expand one or both on their current sites somehow?

The indigenous gallery/center is the brainchild of a previous government whose cost has blown out by a magnitude of 3-4 so it's difficult to envisage a huge level of political or voter fallout by ditching it. If I were Malinauskus I'd be seriously considering this option.

[Algernon]

Why not build nothing? It costs nothing besides the annual costs of a weed whacker. Adelaide needs a new dirt car park since the le cornu site got developed. Makes sense to move South Australia's heritage closer to the heart of the city.

Presumably the cheapest option by far would be to turn over the site, or the majority of it, to the Botanic Garden. From a political perspective this has surely got to be tempting - it will keep the APPA and the like happy, it's not going to offend anybody and it would genuinely be a worthy addition to North Terrace. The site could even incorporate some level of Aboriginal theming - through landscaping, bush tucker plantings and perhaps even a small performance/ceremony area. I imagine the government could very easily sell this to voters in terms of fiscal responsibility, environmental benefits, offsetting parklands encroachment by the nWCH, improving a popular tourist attraction etc.

The opportunity, however, to relieve some of the pressure on AGSA or the SA Museum would be lost - although I wonder if there are creative options to expand one or both on their current sites somehow?

The indigenous gallery/center is the brainchild of a previous government whose cost has blown out by a magnitude of 3-4 so it's difficult to envisage a huge level of political or voter fallout by ditching it. If I were Malinauskus I'd be seriously considering this option.

Considering the sheer depth of the site, I have thought all along that an institutional building could make more use of the northern portion and a good chunk of the site could accommodate a westward expansion of the botanic garden. Funnily enough, it's something that North Terrace - the whole thing - doesn't have. A garden. I don't mean parkland open grass, but an actual garden.

[floplo]

And if you really want to attract more foreign tourists, spend the money on attracting more international students.... you get not only the spending by the student itself (which is substantially higher than what 99% of tourists spend), you also get friends and family coming for tourist visits...

Universities are federally funded. It's not something for a state government to "choose to spend money on" unless you want the government to be a property developer and build student blocks.

Have a look who pays for "StudyAdelaide": https://studyadelaide.com/about-study-adelaide

And although main funding does come from the federal government, universities are chartered by the states. And with the merger negotiations between UoA and UniSA, the universities will certainly try to squeeze a lot of money out of the state budget to pay for it....

[floplo]

Why not build nothing? It costs nothing besides the annual costs of a weed whacker. Adelaide needs a new dirt car park since the le cornu site got developed. Makes sense to move South Australia's heritage closer to the heart of the city.

welcome to the Parade ground.....

[floplo]

Why not build nothing? It costs nothing besides the annual costs of a weed whacker. Adelaide needs a new dirt car park since the le cornu site got developed. Makes sense to move South Australia's heritage closer to the heart of the city.

Wait, isn't there a state law that says government needs to seriously consider reverting any land in the parklands back to grass? so yes, building nothing is actually a serious option here.

My point was more that we need to be confident enough to admit that certain projects are not financially self-sustainable, so we build them because we want them and want to spend "our" money on it. Currently, we have the tendency to see everything purely in financial terms, and so we create these business cases that paint these rosy pictures somewhat divorced from reality...

My view on the Adelaide500 is that in financial terms it's hopeless, but we should pay for it because a lot of people enjoy it, especially those whose hobbies and cultural interests are not supported by the taxpayer... It's the same with the parklands, we pay for them because people enjoy them and like having them available, not because they make money.

And it should be the same with this site. We should build something because we want to have it with the full knowledge that we will have to pay for it (and not put up some business case smoke screens...). Oh, and to be clear, it's not about completely ignoring financial issues, it's about being prudent, knowing what we can afford and what not.