$100m from Government to be spent on Football Park

[Mego Red]

in the context of your point, a clearly defined area, that has eligibility requirements and precedence certainly does not exist.

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Well, there's me and the 261,000 pages that refer to "Adelaide's Cultural Precinct" on one side of the argument (including the websites of the State Government, tourism commission, three universities, civic trust of australia, etc), and you on the other.

I guess it is a pity that you missed last month's Art Gallery exhibit, "The Buildings Behind the Lights: A History of Adelaide’s Cultural Precinct" ...

in that list, I don't see how a hospital is out of place. unless you're saying universities are out of place. as they are usually part and parcel of the same institution.

Hospitals are civic buildings, like prisons. Universities are places of education and intellectual growth. All essential things, but there is a reason they call it civic planning ...

this is the part that I genuinely think makes no sense.

the argument is footy park (13kms and 25 mins away) is too far, and too inconvenient. even if that's agreed (it's not), how exactly does the argument that we need to move this more central, to make it easier for people to get to take precedence over access and convenience to a major health institution?

Not forgetting that Hospitals are very often part of universities, should they be moved out while we're at it so footy fans can have increased convenience.

45,000 people visit the stadium every week for seven months of the year. As you have already evidenced - many do not come each week due to the inconvenience, despite ALREADY having purchased their tickets. The dollars lost to the local economy are considerable.

People NEED a convenient hospital. But on the rare occasions you have to (hopefully) visit a family member in the hospital, I imagine your first thought isn't the extra five minutes you have to drive.

Oh, and the RAH is already in your cultural precinct is it not?

what you've failed to understand when you confected an idea you thought you could win with, was that places like Hospitals were there first.

"The site of the present RAH was an early misuse of the parklands and we should be mature enough now not to repeat the mistake with a new complex over the rail yards, which would be similarly inappropriate ... A new RAH is very welcome. This would be a purely urban development, so a suitable site
such as Clipsal at Bowden needs to be found ... If the existing RAH site is to be vacated then it should be redeveloped more sympathetically with the original parklands and the North Terrace cultural precinct."

The Australian Civic Trust, A Vision for Adelaide published 2008.

 

[GlaCial]

You have all these in one building you can only have two entrances all congregating in together inside. Whereas you have all these departments with separate entrances no congestion.

I don't think it is an advantage to have multiple entrances to a place like a hospital, at all. If you think about how a hospital works, the people to go there are either
a) Employees, who know where they are going and what they are doing,
b) Emergency patients, who head for the big red emergency sign,
c) Out-patients who are prone to getting lost and confused,
d) Patient visitors, who just want to park and go to the ward of the patient they are visiting,
e) Criminals who want to steal stuff from the any of the above and each other.

For each entrance, you need
security to keep e) out,
staff to tell b), c) and d) where to go now that they are there,
and signage to remind a) b) c) d) and e) where they are going.

It's a definite disadvantage to have more than one entrance.

 

[Mego Red]

And you could make the same argument for Hindley St being a cultural precinct. You have movie houses, book stores, strip clubs, restaurants of different ethnicity, hotels, coffee shops, pizza places, orchestra hall and clubs to name just a few.

Now tell me that's not a cultural precinct.

And the same argument could be made for a sports stadium.
You can't have it just one way.

Oh, Hindley Street is DEFINITELY a cultural precinct, and a prime area that will benefit from increased city visitation based around a stadium (or other urban revitalisation project). Very good point. It is a shame what Hindley Street became through the 70's and 80's and it would be fantastic to see it evolve.

And regarding the hospital location - his point was about closeness to the Uni, which I would argue had no relevence to the location of a sports stadium.

 

[Mego Red]

FWIW in this actual example, what you would have is TWO large stadiums in your most central area. your argument fails to acknowledge what is already there. A tennis complex, a cricket ground, 2 universities amongst other things.

there is a scale attached; much larger than a new gallery or museum. comparing like for like, the area does not need a new and additional sporting complex to enrich it or make it more complete.

* Wembley is out of London (too far)
* Stade de France is out of Paris
* ANZ Stadium is out of Sydney
* For obvious reasons, there are no big stadia in centre of Manhatten. what's the nearest - Meadowlands? which is about 11KMS out. how long does it take to get there???
* the new WA Stadium won't be in the centre of Perth.
* Colonial is not in the "cultural precinct" of melbourne

Oh, I WISH we could just redevelop Adelaide Oval into an international standard stadium instead of a museum ground.

But further to your other points - Madison Square Garden is in the dead center of Manhattan, and the other international cities are hardly fair comparison to Adelaide.

Closer in size are other one or two sport towns like Baltimore (Orioles downtown, Ravens within a few minutes) or San Diego.

 

[KingsCrow]

Ill tell you one big item it doesn't have that Docklands has, a bloody harbour.

Really...well ____, I didn't even realise.


Except it doesn't change the fact this is probably THE last large peice of land close to the CBD primed for a huge redevelopement. And we are building a hospital there.

How can you not understand this. Even on Sensational-Adelaide everyone was like 'Why are they building it on the railyards?'


Its just stupid. And as for the stadium comment, I don't really care if they build a stadium on the railyards or not, just as long as it is quite close to the CBD. An adelaide oval upgrade would be my first choice though.

 

[Cap]

you what is disappointing

the kind of passion for Adealide seen on this thread never seems to make it through to our leaders. Why don't you guys get more involved in running the place ? its not like we are overflowing with passionate people

for ____s sake we have Kevin Foley and Mike Rann

 

[KingsCrow]

you what is disappointing

the kind of passion for Adealide seen on this thread never seems to make it through to our leaders. Why don't you guys get more involved in running the place ? its not like we are overflowing with passionate people

for ____s sake we have Kevin Foley and Mike Rann

Heard Martin HS on the radio the other day and he talked about doing up the railyards, building a new stadium and looking at the possibility of a Southbank style redevelopement of the Torrens front.

Whether he is all talk I don't know. Was good to hear that sort of talk about Adelaide though.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Really...well ____, I didn't even realise.


Except it doesn't change the fact this is probably THE last large peice of land close to the CBD primed for a huge redevelopement. And we are building a hospital there.

How can you not understand this. Even on Sensational-Adelaide everyone was like 'Why are they building it on the railyards?'


Its just stupid. And as for the stadium comment, I don't really care if they build a stadium on the railyards or not, just as long as it is quite close to the CBD. An adelaide oval upgrade would be my first choice though.

Firstly having a harbour or even a decent river for that matter as a backdrop
is important for investment. Building a Docklands type precinct on that piece of land is just plan stupid. Having a Southbank type precinct on the river bank is a much better solution to get people to the CBD.
As I said earlier, that parcel of land was picked for the hospital because of it's close proximity to the university because of it being a large teaching hospital. An area that large needs a large parcel of land to plonk it on.

And you think because of a popular web site has people agreeing with your point of view, that you are in the majority.

I would suggest that if you read the letters to the editor to our daily rag you will find for every letter of support for a stadium in the CBD there are at least three opposing even spending the paltry $100mil on FP let alone the much larger amount needed to spend to build a new one.

 

[johnnypanther]

Talk is cheap and easy by politicians when one is in opposition - he can take the populist stance without having to prove the economics of it all.

In fact, M HamiltonSmith has quite clearly stated previously that the new stadium plans etc etc are not definite but subject to a proper and detailed financial evaluation.

My own personal opinion is that ideally Adelaide Oval is the best location, however, given the self interest of both SACA & the SANFL (and one can understand both their positions), I cannot see that the 2 parties are reconcilable therefore short of a legislative takeover there is no chance of that happening.

Until i see some PROPER figures etc, given the cost of similar stadiums in aust & o/s i just cannot see such a project (ie building another stadium) being economically viable and certainly a govt doing that alone would be irresponsible in the extreme.

And as for the renovating the current hospital MHamSmith vs a new hospital argument ...well....... of course a new hospital to serve us into the next generation is the only way to go. Nobody can ever say that a new footy stadium takes preference over a new hospital ....thats just crazy.
If private investors/developers can come up with a fully costed and rational plan for a new stadium then that's another ballgame but one cannot expect a govt alone to do it. In any case, apart from the financial side, there are also the other factors to be resolved - such as the SANFL ownership interests etc etc

Having said all that, Footy Park itself does have major issues & drawbacks, although i feel that a lot of people have simply jumped on a bandwagon and that the deterrent effect of the drawbacks stopping people from attending are way overstated.
Nevertheless, i would just like to see a comprehensive overall upgrade plan rather than ad hoc improvements.
My own major dislike of Footy Park is the low angle of the seating - now i dont know if its economically viable to rebuild the seating so that we have a steeper view as most modern stadiums do.
As for the time to travel there ....if some people lived in Melb or Sydney then they would have cause to complain. Public transport & car parking issues can be overcome in time.

 

[KingsCrow]

Firstly having a harbour or even a decent river for that matter as a backdrop
is important for investment. Building a Docklands type precinct on that piece of land is just plan stupid. Having a Southbank type precinct on the river bank is a much better solution to get people to the CBD.
As I said earlier, that parcel of land was picked for the hospital because of it's close proximity to the university because of it being a large teaching hospital. An area that large needs a large parcel of land to plonk it on.

And you think because of a popular web site has people agreeing with your point of view, that you are in the majority.

I would suggest that if you read the letters to the editor to our daily rag you will find for every letter of support for a stadium in the CBD there are at least three opposing even spending the paltry $100mil on FP let alone the much larger amount needed to spend to build a new one.

Did you not read about my great 'string' post. The Hospital could be built anywhere within that area. Not on a site that even you agree could be turned into a south bank style developement.

Yes I do read the advertiser, and pretty much none of the responses are for an upgrade of AAMI. More are for a new stadium then they are for wasteing millions on the Footy Park.

As for S-A. The people on their don't give a shit about footy, but they care about getting the best out of Adelaide, especially the CBD. And they don't agree the proposed site is the right one.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Oh, I WISH we could just redevelop Adelaide Oval into an international standard stadium instead of a museum ground.

I doubt that would work either as both football and cricket seasons now over-lap.

And for that reason plus the big question of who would control the multi functioned stadium as a majority of sports use the same time frame for large events would make the scheduling a nightmare.

Who gets the top priority, where do they play if a bigger event is planned there? It creates many more difficulties than solving them.

 

[johnnypanther]

Heard Martin HS on the radio the other day and he talked about doing up the railyards, building a new stadium and looking at the possibility of a Southbank style redevelopement of the Torrens front.

Whether he is all talk I don't know. Was good to hear that sort of talk about Adelaide though.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk is cheap and easy by politicians when one is in opposition - he can take the populist stance without having to prove the economics of it all.

In fact, M HamiltonSmith has quite clearly stated previously that the new stadium plans etc etc are not definite but subject to a proper and detailed financial evaluation.

My own personal opinion is that ideally Adelaide Oval is the best location, however, given the self interest of both SACA & the SANFL (and one can understand both their positions), I cannot see that the 2 parties are reconcilable therefore short of a legislative takeover there is no chance of that happening.

Until i see some PROPER figures etc, given the cost of similar stadiums in aust & o/s i just cannot see such a project (ie building another stadium) being economically viable and certainly a govt doing that alone would be irresponsible in the extreme.

And as for the renovating the current hospital MHamSmith vs a new hospital argument ...well....... of course a new hospital to serve us into the next generation is the only way to go. Nobody can ever say that a new footy stadium takes preference over a new hospital ....thats just crazy.
If private investors/developers can come up with a fully costed and rational plan for a new stadium then that's another ballgame but one cannot expect a govt alone to do it. In any case, apart from the financial side, there are also the other factors to be resolved - such as the SANFL ownership interests etc etc

Having said all that, Footy Park itself does have major issues & drawbacks, although i feel that a lot of people have simply jumped on a bandwagon and that the deterrent effect of the drawbacks stopping people from attending are way overstated.
Nevertheless, i would just like to see a comprehensive overall upgrade plan rather than ad hoc improvements.
My own major dislike of Footy Park is the low angle of the seating - now i dont know if its economically viable to rebuild the seating so that we have a steeper view as most modern stadiums do.
As for the time to travel there ....if some people lived in Melb or Sydney then they would have cause to complain. Public transport & car parking issues can be overcome in time.

 

[Redline]

I don't think it is an advantage to have multiple entrances to a place like a hospital, at all. If you think about how a hospital works, the people to go there are either
a) Employees, who know where they are going and what they are doing,
b) Emergency patients, who head for the big red emergency sign,
c) Out-patients who are prone to getting lost and confused,
d) Patient visitors, who just want to park and go to the ward of the patient they are visiting,
e) Criminals who want to steal stuff from the any of the above and each other.

For each entrance, you need
security to keep e) out,
staff to tell b), c) and d) where to go now that they are there,
and signage to remind a) b) c) d) and e) where they are going.

It's a definite disadvantage to have more than one entrance.

Correct, in fact in a hospital the less entrances the better.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

Did you not read about my great 'string' post. The Hospital could be built anywhere within that area. Not on a site that even you agree could be turned into a south bank style developement.

Where on god's earth is anywhere within that area that would have enough space to build a hospital complex. Your really astound me with you reasoning sometimes. There is now where except other, and I repeat again, other park-lands.
Comprehension is not one of your strengths is is? I said the river bank as the back drop for a South Bank. That is near the Festival Theatre not some backward out the way joint. [/QUOTE]

Yes I do read the advertiser, and pretty much none of the responses are for an upgrade of AAMI. More are for a new stadium then they are for wasteing millions on the Footy Park.

As for S-A. The people on their don't give a shit about footy, but they care about getting the best out of Adelaide, especially the CBD. And they don't agree the proposed site is the right one.

Everything you write you think is great. It just is not.

It's plain to see you only read what you what you agree with apparently.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

I don't think it is an advantage to have multiple entrances to a place like a hospital, at all. If you think about how a hospital works, the people to go there are either
a) Employees, who know where they are going and what they are doing,
b) Emergency patients, who head for the big red emergency sign,
c) Out-patients who are prone to getting lost and confused,
d) Patient visitors, who just want to park and go to the ward of the patient they are visiting,
e) Criminals who want to steal stuff from the any of the above and each other.

For each entrance, you need
security to keep e) out,
staff to tell b), c) and d) where to go now that they are there,
and signage to remind a) b) c) d) and e) where they are going.

It's a definite disadvantage to have more than one entrance.

I know how a hospital works. The RAH has something like 30 buildings in it's current locality with most of them having more than one entrance.
Now please read a little deeper into what I did post and not just what you noticed you would like to dispute.

Every large major building has a floor plan outside of its perimeter to explain where different departments are and therefore direct visitors to where they want to go.

Security is only in the Emergency Dept for obvious reasons and no where else. Modbury, the QEH both who's buildings are extremely busy at night visiting hours do not have security. Neither do large private hospitals near the east and south parklands, where one would expect them to be.

And lastly this hospital was planned for just the reasons I gave, so your telling me that you know better that the architects who drew them up?

 

[Markthirtytwo]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talk is cheap and easy by politicians when one is in opposition - he can take the populist stance without having to prove the economics of it all.

In fact, M HamiltonSmith has quite clearly stated previously that the new stadium plans etc etc are not definite but subject to a proper and detailed financial evaluation.

My own personal opinion is that ideally Adelaide Oval is the best location, however, given the self interest of both SACA & the SANFL (and one can understand both their positions), I cannot see that the 2 parties are reconcilable therefore short of a legislative takeover there is no chance of that happening.

Until i see some PROPER figures etc, given the cost of similar stadiums in aust & o/s i just cannot see such a project (ie building another stadium) being economically viable and certainly a govt doing that alone would be irresponsible in the extreme.

And as for the renovating the current hospital MHamSmith vs a new hospital argument ...well....... of course a new hospital to serve us into the next generation is the only way to go. Nobody can ever say that a new footy stadium takes preference over a new hospital ....thats just crazy.
If private investors/developers can come up with a fully costed and rational plan for a new stadium then that's another ballgame but one cannot expect a govt alone to do it. In any case, apart from the financial side, there are also the other factors to be resolved - such as the SANFL ownership interests etc etc

Having said all that, Footy Park itself does have major issues & drawbacks, although i feel that a lot of people have simply jumped on a bandwagon and that the deterrent effect of the drawbacks stopping people from attending are way overstated.
Nevertheless, i would just like to see a comprehensive overall upgrade plan rather than ad hoc improvements.
My own major dislike of Footy Park is the low angle of the seating - now i dont know if its economically viable to rebuild the seating so that we have a steeper view as most modern stadiums do.
As for the time to travel there ....if some people lived in Melb or Sydney then they would have cause to complain. Public transport & car parking issues can be overcome in time.

A very common sense approach to the whole debate there Johnny.

Plus if KC want to believe everything a politician sprouts then I have some very attractive mangrove land I want to sell him.

 

[Alex99]

I doubt that would work either as both football and cricket seasons now over-lap.

And for that reason plus the big question of who would control the multi functioned stadium as a majority of sports use the same time frame for large events would make the scheduling a nightmare.

Who gets the top priority, where do they play if a bigger event is planned there? It creates many more difficulties than solving them.

sorry but that’s just a bullshit KG and Cornes argument.

The overlapping of season isn’t a problem in Brisbane (with the lions and the Bulls), Sydney (swans and the blues) or at the MCG with cricket and football. This is able to occur because the organizations are willing to have a little bit of brilliance rather than a lot of crap. The sporting organizations and government know that to have something fantastic they have to compromise, not one sporting organization in South Australia has any idea about compromising.

In a state with just over 1 million people why do we need a 30,000 seat venue for cricket, a 50,000 seat venue for football, a 16,500 seat venue for soccer, a 4000 seat venue for netball, a 8000 seat venue for basketball, a 13,000 seat entertainment centre and now a new 2500 seat mini venue to be built at the Enterainment Centre for small functions.

Where as if the state government simply said – with the historical element to Adelaide oval, that venue can stay and we will preserve the history and heritage associated with that for the next 100 years. The Adelaide oval is an important part of South Australia and Australia sporting landscape. However AAMI Stadium and Hindmarsh Stadium should be bulldozed and we will find a strategy to make one super stadium in the heart of the city – FFS show some leadership and tell both organizations if they don’t take this option they will never get any more funding ever. Even if it take 15 years, devise a strategy and head in that direction.

As soon as the BASA was showing signs of insolvency they should have taken back ownership of that venue and refused to build ESTA Park. Netball is played in the winter and for the formidable future basketball is played in the summer – easy compromise. But no we need individual venues.

The SANFL would try and use that argument of an overlapping of season as to why they shouldn’t compromise with the A League and Adelaide United but Port could play Wizard cup games at Alberton and Crows could play at either Norwood or Thebarton if Adelaide United was plying finals football. But no they don’t understand the word compromise – they would rather have their own shithole stadium that they control, rather than have something brilliant that the state can be proud of and show off and only have 50% management control of.

There would be no where else in the world that anyone would find a state with only 1 million people and have some many stadiums that turn into white elephants.

Sporting organizations have to compromise for the betterment of the sporting public. It can and does happen in every other state but Adelaide.

 

[GlaCial]

And lastly this hospital was planned for just the reasons I gave, so your telling me that you know better that the architects who drew them up?

The architects or planners or who ever it was that came up with the design for the Marj were working to a Working Parties instructions.

If the Working Party instructed, lets have multiple entrances, then they would design it with multiple entrances.

Now, I don't know what the instruction were, but I would imagine that a higher priority than the number of entrances would have been to make it as low profile (ie 2 levels above ground maximum) as possible, because after all it is located on Parklands, and we don't want to put someone's nose out of joint by having a multiple story structure on parklands, do we. In other words, the design of the Marj is compromised by its location.

As for security, a fundamental design of any new major public building is to have secure entrances where everyone entering and leaving can be "screened". I'd be very surprised if the public was able to enter the hospital from multiple points, as it means more security (personnel, cameras, doors, sensors and the like). Security personnel don't like multiple entrances, as they are hard to manage. Employees may be able to enter at multiple points with security cards, but this design is compromised, as employees are notoriously bad at challenging people and closing doors in peoples faces etc.

 

[GlaCial]

Sporting organizations have to compromise for the betterment of the sporting public. It can and does happen in every other state but Adelaide.

Not likely. There is no way the SANFL or SACA would play second fiddle to any other sporting organisation. It just won't happen......... unless they go bankrupt!

 

[Alex99]

Not likely. There is no way the SANFL or SACA would play second fiddle to any other sporting organisation. It just won't happen......... unless they go bankrupt!

And this is why we will always have inferior stadiums to the rest of Australia.

 

[Redline]

Security is only in the Emergency Dept for obvious reasons and no where else. Modbury, the QEH both who's buildings are extremely busy at night visiting hours do not have security. Neither do large private hospitals near the east and south parklands, where one would expect them to be.

Your wrong, the QEH does have security that covers the whole hospital 24/7, although not enough, They have also been for years trying to come up with ways of reducing entrances to the hospital to bring itself in line with standards for hospitals around the world. I think they would give anything to have one entrance.

 

[King Elvis]

Where on god's earth is anywhere within that area that would have enough space to build a hospital complex. Your really astound me with you reasoning sometimes. There is now where except other, and I repeat again, other park-lands.
Comprehension is not one of your strengths is is? I said the river bank as the back drop for a South Bank. That is near the Festival Theatre not some backward out the way joint.

If it's mutli-storey, just about anywhere.

Balfours site, Franklin St Bus Station Site.

Any of the vacant/empty land in the city could be developed; somewhere on South Terrace would be idea.

Even the Clipsal site.

 

[Crow-mo]

Sheesh, this from the accountant ...

the prosecution rests.

only an arts wonk would call into question the relevance of a financial background, on a discussion entitled "$100 M from government to be spent..."

 

[Crow-mo]

Then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Well, there's me and the 261,000 pages that refer to "Adelaide's Cultural Precinct" on one side of the argument (including the websites of the State Government, tourism commission, three universities, civic trust of australia, etc), and you on the other.

well how come you can't define it in less than the broadest conceptual terms then? or do you think colloquialisms actually have hard currency?

is there any reference to such things in the planning and strategy documentations? any particular priority assigned by the development commission? any zoning?

oh wait, that would require something more than loose vernacular and slang.

I guess it is a pity that you missed last month's Art Gallery exhibit, "The Buildings Behind the Lights: A History of Adelaide’s Cultural Precinct" ...

well if the arts gallery has something called that, then the zoning can only be minutes away.

I guess next you'll be telling me what an "intellectual hub" is, or any of the new buzz words without meaning are.

yet for all this airy fairy talk, I still can't see a boundary, area, constituency, eligibility criteria or anything specific to give meaning to such a term.

or am I confused, perhaps it's ok to be specific when talking about what shouldn't be included, but not specific enough to stand up to any scrutiny about what IT is. is that the point? redraw or retreat depending on the convenience?

Hospitals are civic buildings, like prisons. Universities are places of education and intellectual growth. All essential things, but there is a reason they call it civic planning ...

but this ignores that Hospitals are often PART of universities. Or are you now trying to suggest that only certain faculties of a university should be included?

the RAH is a teaching campus of the University of Adelaide. No really, you can't have it both ways. honest!

Or is it that you are you saying universities should now be excluded from your cultural utopia?

if that's the case, we need to hark back to what you actually think your cultural precinct is and stands for? 261,000 google hits, surely someone's done something with that.

45,000 people visit the stadium every week for seven months of the year. As you have already evidenced - many do not come each week due to the inconvenience, despite ALREADY having purchased their tickets. The dollars lost to the local economy are considerable.

Look this is just fundamentally wrong. no ifs, no buts, just contrary to the most basic tenets of economics.

I've explained earlier to Elvis, have a read. Unless you are defining the local economy as the Adelaide City Council, this is just plain wrong.

People NEED a convenient hospital. But on the rare occasions you have to (hopefully) visit a family member in the hospital, I imagine your first thought isn't the extra five minutes you have to drive.

very true. but I don't think the convenience of the able bodied visitor is the main point.

"The site of the present RAH was an early misuse of the parklands and we should be mature enough now not to repeat the mistake with a new complex over the rail yards, which would be similarly inappropriate ... A new RAH is very welcome. This would be a purely urban development, so a suitable site
such as Clipsal at Bowden needs to be found ... If the existing RAH site is to be vacated then it should be redeveloped more sympathetically with the original parklands and the North Terrace cultural precinct."

The Australian Civic Trust, A Vision for Adelaide published 2008.

Ok, now this is something to discuss.

but before we go anywhere lets not go making out these people are some sort of official body:

"Originally named the Civic Trust of South Australia Inc., the Trust is a proudly independent and voluntary association based in Adelaide"
http://civictrust.net.au/page3.htm

these guys are an amateur community association, which is great. but lets put them in context before we call them gospel.

I wonder how many people will agree with the continuation of your quoted passage, and what they mean by being more sympathetically redeveloped :their suggested use for the old RAH site: "A world-class sculpture park? An Aboriginal celebration of the original land?"

Having read through some of their proposals, they seem a very anti-development focused community group. I can't see that they would support your idea for a new stadium either. They might well agree an outdoor finger painting and interpretative dance space though

But that said, I can possibly take onboard ideas about where else the hospital might have been located; but the hypocritical duality of promoting a stadium in its place is a bit much.

 

[Crow-mo]

Oh, Hindley Street is DEFINITELY a cultural precinct, and a prime area that will benefit from increased city visitation based around a stadium (or other urban revitalisation project). Very good point. It is a shame what Hindley Street became through the 70's and 80's and it would be fantastic to see it evolve.

how many cultural precincts do we have now?

And regarding the hospital location - his point was about closeness to the Uni, which I would argue had no relevence to the location of a sports stadium.

no. the hospital is a teaching campus of the university. it is not "close" to the university.