- Moderator
- #901
This is almost certainly true of local councils everywhere IMO, they cant see the big picture, which is why more often than not state governments handle all the details.
Perth Stadium (Optus Stadium)
- Thread starter HaroCant
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This is almost certainly true of local councils everywhere IMO, they cant see the big picture, which is why more often than not state governments handle all the details.
Its the residents that vote - & I dont disagree with your comments.
Damn long bow your grace !!
Don't know if this has been mentioned but was redeveloping the WACA for both footy and cricket ever bought up? I am glad a new purpose built stadium is underway, just seems unlike the government and the local council not consider a cheaper option
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
The council, the opening of Claremont quarter, diversification of other regions of Perth have all drawn people away from Subiaco. Subiaco isn't "just another strip" it's one of the weaker ones these days. On par with Maylands only it comes with pretensions and wank.
Anyway this just got approved for the old markets site (thanks to SSC for the images), some 292 apartments and a heap of new retail space. Thanks to the DAP's (Design Advisory Panel) we're seeing councils sidelined from the decision making process on large developments.
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
The sites very small. It's hard to build a modern 60k stadium with uniform seating arrangements on such a site. Probably wouldn't have been much cheaper either, plus the transport options are worse at the WACA.
The WACA ground is owned by the WACA too, not the state government.
FootyFan96
Senior List
On the news tonight I saw they are finally selling the old power station site. If that turns into a cultural area where there can be some nice cafes and restaurants but also some nightlife and areas for live performances it would be great for the 5-10,000 people that are expected to walk past it before and after events at the new stadium.
O yeh well that's fair enough, I forgot they actually use common sense over in the west. Do you think that 60k is enough? could go 80k. eagles and freo are the originals when it comes to attendance, before the portress.
It will be upgradeable to 80k but that'll only happen for a major international event, like the FIFA world cup or a Commonwealth or Olympic games. Freo and WC will be very happy for it to remain 60k for a few years.
yep was the upgradeable to 80k in a paper over there? I must of missed that
FootyFan96
Senior List
http://www.perthstadium.com.au/news-and-information/fact-sheets/the-new-perth-stadium
Look under "Stadium-key design features"
It says it will be upgradeable to 70,000. Honestly it will be enough at 60,000.
Government says it will make 10,000 seats non-member seats. Which increases the member seats by 11,000 which is plenty plus even at 60,000 seats it will be the 3rd biggest stadium in the country behind the MCG and ANZ. The only reason to upgrade it would be for an olympic games.
- Comm games not needed because not many people interested anymore for example Metricon for Gold Coast is only being upgraded to around 40,000 temporarily
- FIFA World Cup not needed because for a Semi Final, which is probably the most we will get in Perth, 60,000 is plenty because think of the Big soccer stadiums in the UK they are around the 60,000 mark
Too big reduces the money to the game, Adelaide at 50k is good - the Cats play at Geelong for the same reason, 30k? 60k is good for Perth. Mindless wanting more & more seating is just that.
See the position Port finds itself in:
Port Adelaide chief executive Keith Thomas — whose bond with the most-basic fan at Alberton is now rock solid — makes no apology for “underselling” the Power’s tickets. After all, the club — after betraying all Port Adelaide stood for after the 2007 success, both on and off the field — had to win back the fans.
Now that the Power appears on the verge of challenging for a premiership again, Thomas remains reluctant to put a premium on ticket prices. And, as Thomas has reflected with his monthly bulletins to the members, he is not going to ignore the fans while drawing more and more money from board rooms around the world.
http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/pr...chelangelo-rucci/story-fnelctok-1227231837801
Last edited:
FootyFan96
Senior List
Sorry to bring up this subject again, but looking into it more, Subiaco Council may own the stadium but they can not actually own the land. So they are on a 99 year lease so it is crown land. Which means that the state government can force them to pull down the stadium at any stage so the state government can sell it off. Same as the WACA.
You're wrong about that. The WACA is on a 999 year lease and under the common law it's recognised as being as good as freehold.
FootyFan96
Senior List
Sorry my mistake however it is still Crown Land and that means that the WACA has to ask for state government permission to developed the land in any sort of way. ALso something that is interesting is that it is the only stadium with a 999 year lease.
No State government will ever intervene in any WACA plans to develop or divulge the land, given that the purpose of a 999 year lease is because the Government wants nothing to do with the land. In practice the WACA owns the land and can do what it likes with it without State government interference.
In my experience in Subi the 99 year lease was with the City of Subi, not the State Govt.
FootyFan96
Senior List
Yes for the stadium however the land is classified as crown land. With Subiaco Council having the management order to look after it but the state government having ownership of it. With the WAFC having management of the stadium.
So the lease is with the City of Subi, who will need to be satisfied IF the land is to be redeveloped. Suggestions Subi Oval is a potential cash source for the new stadium is a bonanza for the lawyers, no simple solution any time soon.
FootyFan96
Senior List
http://www.austadiums.com/news/news.php?id=559
Just reading through this article I wouldn't of believed that Etihad stadium was designed without coaches boxes because the designers forgot.
But going to Etihad for a few Big Bash games while in Melbourne I did notice them being rebuilt and also that instead of being part of the main structure of the stadium it seemed as if some seats were taken out and some interior walls were put up to create the coaches boxes.
Just thought that for a ground that was even more primarily built for AFL then the Perth Stadium just forgot to put in coaches boxes was hilarious.
PS. What I am talking about is in the last paragraph
Just reading through this article I wouldn't of believed that Etihad stadium was designed without coaches boxes because the designers forgot.
But going to Etihad for a few Big Bash games while in Melbourne I did notice them being rebuilt and also that instead of being part of the main structure of the stadium it seemed as if some seats were taken out and some interior walls were put up to create the coaches boxes.
Just thought that for a ground that was even more primarily built for AFL then the Perth Stadium just forgot to put in coaches boxes was hilarious.
PS. What I am talking about is in the last paragraph
Eh? No it doesn't.
FootyFan96
Senior List
If the state gov. had a good enough case to do so they could. Remember a 99 year lease is not like a normal lease it is more of an administrative tool so that property can be given to someone else but if the government notices that the land is not being used for its purpose as stated on the lease or is being run in a way that is not favourable they can resume full control. That is the reason why the Perth Airport has not been sold but is on a 99 year lease.
The WACA has to ask for council permission (as do all developers) but they don't have to ask the state.
