Design Ideas for new Perth Stadium

[Admiral Byng]

It is not worth arguing with cos any longer, guys. He clearly has no interest in arguing anything from a logical perspective, and is continuing to deliberately miss the crux of the issue (a better site than Burswood) because he knows that he doesn't have one.

Yeah, I might leave it at that for a while.

 

[wedgetail]

Publicly stated at $300 million by some seemigly intelligent people not me.

Lets assume a 60-75,000 seat stadium costs $750 million. The number isnt important, its just for illustrative purposes.

A stadium at Subiaco will cost $750 million plus demolition & staging costs.

A stadium at Burswood will cost $750 million plus deep piling and compress & cap siteworks to deal with the uncontrolled fill. Not $300 million extra.

Simple maths says you're wrong.
The amount of additional land and cost would be small in the scheme of things.

The amount of land required to build a special event station at West Leederville? LMAO. It would cost 100 million just to resume the properties before you even start building. The land for the railway modifications at Burswood is free.

Thats the point though, the railway expansion at Subiaco isnt really an option meaning any Subiaco stadium will always have sub standard railway stations.

You've been hanging around AB too long. It isn't the issue you make out it to be.
If it is then it is simpler to go to the CBD and discount the rail infrastructure cost against land aquisition.

*facepalm*

The station congestion is already an issue, and once you nearly double the patronage it will become a genuine nightmare. Dont brush it off, its a real problem.

Once again (and again).... where in the CBD?

Dispersion is not just about having roads but have sponge network to soak up and disperse traffic.
Traffic has difficulty getting onto those main roads as it is from Burswood.
It simply couldn't handle any larger crowds presently.

Traffic modelling disagrees. You are over estimating the number of vehicle movements post-game. Its alot less than an ordinary peak. Once the traffic clears the tunnel it will enter an off-peak distributed network and move very freely. Sure there will be a fair bit of movement, but it will be fine, honestly.

Because it defetas your argument that's why.

No, because the East Perth site is simply too small. It would have resulted in a concourse 10m wide, and was only included in the taskforce report because they needed a red herring alternative to justify the thing.

 

[seanoff]

Oh, and I looked up the Sydney Olympics railway line. Never been there myself, but it seems like it is only short distance of about 3km and not part of the usual main suburban service network. It links the stadium to the nearest major railway station on the suburban network. It runs on a loop pattern so trains don't have to be turned around with drivers switching ends. That's actually a more expensive solution than terminating sidings.

Like I said, I've never been there (maybe someone else can confirm), but it looks to me like you can't get a train at your usual suburban railway station and have it take you direct to the stadium - you need to catch a train to the station at the other end of the line and then switch trains over to the loop line for the short journey out to the stadium - which is about 5 minutes away? The same sort of time and distance for passengers catching the connecting train form Perth to Burswood, even though half of them won't need to change trains?

normally you have to change at Lidcombe for Olypmic Park, not a huge impost tbh.

however for event days trains are available direct to the station. this works very well. it worked like this for the olympics and was designed to work like this.

ie V8s

"Saturday 1 and Sunday 2 December
Direct services between Central and Olympic Park stations are operating every 15 minutes throughout the day, from 6am until 7pm. These services stop at Redfern and Strathfield stations.

Customers travelling from other locations should travel to Lidcombe Station and change for Olympic Park services, departing every 10 minutes between Lidcombe and Olympic Park stations. Services run every 20 minutes after 10pm."

coming from the West it gives 3 options, travel to Lidcombe, catch the flyer, or travel to strathfield and catch the express or (much less likely) travel to central, travel back. (this one for the train spotters only)

how the station works on event days is

trains pull up to the station.

the doors open to the middle and the people get off.

once everybody is off the doors close.

people waiting to leave olympic park are waiting on the outside platform.

when the train is preparing to depart, the doors to the outside platform open and people get on.

train goes.


so for the supercars trains to and from central will be on one track and the sprinter to and from lidcombe on the other.

 

[cos789]

Building longer platforms and running longer trains doesn't make Cockburn any closer, or the journey time any shorter.

By your own logic is does, because it reduces the need to shuttle.

Travel time, convenience and comfort are important, critically important; which makes Cockburn a non-starter..

WTF do you throw convienince and comfort in there just to make your case seem stronger.
Cockburn takes longer - fact.
I see no reason what so ever that the comfort should be any different.
The convenience for the majority of people will be the absense of changing trains.

Cockburn a non-starter..

Again you prediliction for overkill. Cockburn ranks low on the list that's all.

Perth is the only railway station on the entire network where all of the lines converge

So a stadium in the CBD would be extremely valuable and wouldn't require all this transport infrastructure that you say is so critical to bring all these aother sites up to scratch.

so logically the stadium needs to be as close and convenient to Perth as possible.

You sound like Goldilocks . This one's too far, this one's too close, this one is what Col wants so that's what we get.

.

 

[The Speaker]

You sound like Goldilocks

The only one believing in a fairy tale here is you.

 

[Admiral Byng]

By your own logic is does, because it reduces the need to shuttle.



WTF do you throw convienince and comfort in there just to make your case seem stronger.
Cockburn takes longer - fact.
I see no reason what so ever that the comfort should be any different.
The convenience for the majority of people will be the absense of changing trains.




Again you prediliction for overkill. Cockburn ranks low on the list that's all.



So a stadium in the CBD would be extremely valuable and wouldn't require all this transport infrastructure that you say is so critical to bring all these aother sites up to scratch.



You sound like Goldilocks . This one's too far, this one's too close, this one is what Col wants so that's what we get.

.

Look, I'm going to leave it here. We're just repeating ourselves now and going round in circles. I've addressed every single point before, you still haven't understood the realities on ground. There's nothing more I can do if you don't want to consider facts.

Clearly, you don't like Colin Barnett and therefore anything associated with him, regardless of merit. On the SRP boards below I'm often accused of being an ALP or Greens stooge. I'm not a member of any political party, but on this issue I'm backing a Liberal premier - on merit.

 

[cos789]

Look, I'm going to leave it here. We're just repeating ourselves now and going round in circles.

Totally agree.

've addressed every single point before, you still haven't understood the realities on ground. There's nothing more I can do if you don't want to consider facts.

I've addressed every single point before, you still haven't understood the realities on ground. There's nothing more I can do if you don't want to consider facts.

Clearly, you don't like Colin Barnett and therefore anything associated with him, regardless of merit.

When I voted for him he had certain qualities which put him way out in front of the younger members of his party. Unfortunately, as happens so often he has become arrogant and has shelved consensus.

Like his flippant gas hub remark "the ships wont hit the whales".
They wont - they'll just scare them away from their breeding ground.
43 sites were considered and Col is fixated on one site just like Burswood.

You seem like an intelligent man but you deffinitely have blinkers on with this one with an unwillingnes to give an inch on any detail. Just as I don't have a spreadsheat with all the costings and all of the requirements I cannot give an exact judgement just like you cannot give deffinitive judgements. Remarks like "ignore East Perth", "ignore Lathlain", "non starter" don't belong in debate.

I'll finish by just repeating something that has been lost in the argument.
I was for this Burswood stadium even though it is more money for the same build.
I was for the Burswood plan because it was comprehensive plan for the Eastern Gateway.
I am now dissilusioned because the plan has gone out the window and we are left with just a stadium.
Yes, that does leave the door open to finish the plan at a later date - don't hold your breath.
The other options are now back to being options, at least theoretically.

.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

You seem like an intelligent man but you deffinitely have blinkers on with this one with an unwillingnes to give an inch on any detail. Just as I don't have a spreadsheat with all the costings and all of the requirements I cannot give an exact judgement just like you cannot give deffinitive judgements. Remarks like "ignore East Perth", "ignore Lathlain", "non starter" don't belong in debate.

I'll finish by just repeating something that has been lost in the argument.
I was for this Burswood stadium even though it is more money for the same build.
I was for the Burswood plan because it was comprehensive plan for the Eastern Gateway.
I am now dissilusioned because the plan has gone out the window and we are left with just a stadium.
Yes, that does leave the door open to finish the plan at a later date - don't hold your breath.
The other options are now back to being options, at least theoretically.

.

What have all these pages been about then.

The Peninsular is getting comprehensive change, at Belmont park, the Casino, the Springs, in the long term the Dome site and the the industrial area (Eastside by the MRA). It would be stupid for the government to rush any development around the stadium when you consider the above, and even more so when you consider the importance of getting the Waterfront, CityLink and Riverside well developed.

The plans clearly state the option to active land in and around the Stadium in the future.

 

[cos789]

in the future.

The Wildcats are playing in a $500+ million now.
The rectangular codes will playing in their stadium soon.
Football at best will have a stadium at best in 2016.
The other stuff - in the future - sure - in the future.

.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I don't think the argument over location is what has held up construction of the stadium. It was put on hold for two years because of the soccer world cup bid, if Australia had won that then the Perth stadium would have been on the list of host venues. FIFA have a list of criteria which stadiums must follow - it would have been a major design restraint. I think it was the correct decision to wait and see which way the wold cup bid went, it would have been irresponsible not to.

Oh, and there was that GFC thing too.. Global Fiancial.... something...

 

[cos789]

I don't think the argument over location is what has held up construction of the stadium. It was put on hold for two years because of the soccer world cup bid,

Oh, and there was that GFC thing too.. Global Fiancial.... something...

You really are an apologist for Col aren't you.
The WC is some time ago and it's main constraint was size.
Why has everything else gone ahead and not the stadium?
It could just as easily have been the reverse.

Now Col has sold a $500 million development for $250 million.
IMO we have FA chance of this new stadium now.

.

 

[Kwality]

You really are an apologist for Col aren't you.
The WC is some time ago and it's main constraint was size.
Why has everything else gone ahead and not the stadium?
It could just as easily have been the reverse.

Now Col has sold a $500 million development for $250 million.
IMO we have FA chance of this new stadium now.

.

Not hit the airways in either Tootgarook or Tallarook, pls elaborate cos !!

 

[Admiral Byng]

You really are an apologist for Col aren't you.
The WC is some time ago and it's main constraint was size.
Why has everything else gone ahead and not the stadium?
It could just as easily have been the reverse.

Not so. The stadium plan we have now is radically different to what we'd have if it had to host soccer world cup matches too. What we have now will be optimised for Aussie Rules with other sports possible but in a less than optimal configuration. A stadium compliant with FIFA rules would probably have needed banks of moveable seating and stuff like that because their requirements are optimised for rectangular config. It's a significant extra cost which would be rarely used. We're geting a cheaper overall stadium by waiting till after the bid was announced.

 

[Kwality]

Not so. The stadium plan we have now is radically different to what we'd have if it had to host soccer world cup matches too. What we have now will be optimised for Aussie Rules with other sports possible but in a less than optimal configuration. A stadium compliant with FIFA rules would probably have needed banks of moveable seating and stuff like that because their requirements are optimised for rectangular config. It's a significant extra cost which would be rarely used. We're geting a cheaper overall stadium by waiting till after the bid was announced.

So will there be any soccer/rugby games at the proposed venue or will they be played at the rectangular stadium?

 

[Admiral Byng]

So will there be any soccer/rugby games at the proposed venue or will they be played at the rectangular stadium?

Club matches will be at the rectangular stadium, internationals (and maybe domestic finals) at the new stadium. Having looked at the overall plan of the new stadium, it will be better than Subi, but not as good as a stadium with moveable banks of seating like the Dome in Melbourne or the Olympic stadium in Sydney. According to the plan there will be plug-in seating in between the oval fence and the straight sidelines, so those fans that can afford it can get right up close to the action.

 

[cos789]

A stadium compliant with FIFA rules would probably have needed banks of moveable seating and stuff like that because their requirements are optimised for rectangular config.

FFS they were going to use the MCG.
Stop apologising.
Admnit we've been sold a pup.

.

 

[Rob]

Club matches will be at the rectangular stadium, internationals (and maybe domestic finals) at the new stadium. Having looked at the overall plan of the new stadium, it will be better than Subi, but not as good as a stadium with moveable banks of seating like the Dome in Melbourne or the Olympic stadium in Sydney. According to the plan there will be plug-in seating in between the oval fence and the straight sidelines, so those fans that can afford it can get right up close to the action.

It's actually still going to be an oval venue even in rectangular mode. Just a slightly smaller oval. A bit like what they've got at Skoda currently, where the first few rows of seats are actually temporary.

I'd be surprised if they use it in winter, the damage to the surface will probably be substantial. Might get a run in summer if the Glory want to play there, or the Wallabies schedule a test in late September or later. Concerts might want the extra seats as well.

 

[Admiral Byng]

It's actually still going to be an oval venue even in rectangular mode. Just a slightly smaller oval. A bit like what they've got at Skoda currently, where the first few rows of seats are actually temporary.

I'd be surprised if they use it in winter, the damage to the surface will probably be substantial. Might get a run in summer if the Glory want to play there, or the Wallabies schedule a test in late September or later. Concerts might want the extra seats as well.

I don't think it will be used for rectangle sports often, maybe only two or three times a year. It will be adequate but not optimal. Certainly we don't need to go into expense of installing moveable seating.

 

[Admiral Byng]

FFS they were going to use the MCG.
Stop apologising.
Admnit we've been sold a pup.

.

Sold a pup because it doesn't have expensive moveable seating that we don't need?

Once again you're all over the place. The MCG doesn't count, that's in a different category because it was going to host finals.

 

[cos789]

Sold a pup because it doesn't have expensive moveable seating that we don't need?

Once again you're all over the place. The MCG doesn't count, that's in a different category because it was going to host finals.

Over the place? You brought up the WC.
I've never seen the need for any extra seating.
We've been sold up pup because we're not getting what was promised.

.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Over the place? You brought up the WC.
I've never seen the need for any extra seating.
We've been sold up pup because we're not getting what was promised.

.

I mentioned the soccer world cup in answer to a direct question you asked about why the stadium was delayed by two years.

The correct answer is that it was because the proposed stadium was part of the Australian world cup bid. For two reasons; meeting FIFA's minimum requirements would have imposed a different set of design parameters on the overall layout, and secondly Federal funding committed to the stadium was contingent upon a winning bid.

A stadium which satisfies both FIFA and AFL footy/cricket would be a more complicated and more expensive project. We would have looked pretty foolish, either way, if we had leapt into construction of a more expensive stadium only to lose the bid and have the Federal funding pulled; or to have gone ahead building a stadium which didn't meet FIFA requirements and then had to rebuild it later. The correct and prudent decision was to wait for a FIFA decision. I can't see how that counts as being sold a pup.

 

[cos789]

if we had leapt into construction.

Get off the source AB, we have the exact opposite - total inaction.
The wc was just an opportunity to squeese fed millions that never eventuated and the susbsequent inaction just show how shallow Col's actions were.

.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Get off the source AB, we have the exact opposite - total inaction.
The wc was just an opportunity to squeese fed millions that never eventuated and the susbsequent inaction just show how shallow Col's actions were.

.

Quite the opposite. We have progress:

• A preferred site has been identifed,

• Geotechnical work has been done to confirm the site is suitable

• The top global firm in sports stadium design were hired to come up with a project definition plan (see here) which has been completed and published.

• Detailed transport infrastructure planning and costing is due by December.

All this work needs to be done first. You can't just turn up to site and make it up as you go along.

 

[cos789]

You can't just turn up to site and make it up as you go along.

And complete it like all the other projects that have been in the mean time.

In effect we have nothing the as we had the year before and the years before that.

.

 

[Admiral Byng]

And complete it like all the other projects that have been in the mean time.

In effect we have nothing the as we had the year before and the years before that.

.

We never had anything concrete under Carpenter either, so what's your point?