The WACA - Downfall

[Admiral Byng]

You're still putting the fanticies together to wrong way around to arrive at the wrong conclusion.



So now you're admitting that there is heaps of parking and great dispersion.



I'd by dumping a lot of cars on whole Perth CBD.
If you're so protective about East Perth WTF are the WACA looking at development ?



No - it was the WACA princesses who wanted to live in their backward cocoon.
Where was the report made on the WACA ?



So Subiaco was a stuff-up and now you're saying get rid of the WACA as it is a stuff-up also ?



They can only be used for stadium events FFS. Logic fail from you their Admiral.



Let's for argument sake say Burswood was the only real alternative the fact is and it is a huge fact that the WACA wanted to nothing to do with the new super stadium. The WACA didn't get up their home ground to share Burswood - they wanted NO PART of the super stadium. The more you argue about the merit of Burswood over other sites then the more you can criticise the WACA for not participating. Pretty simple Admiral.

The main stadium report that was quoted immediately above your last post. This report was done in 2006 or 2007. It rules out developing the WACA site into the main stadium, regardless of whether the WACA organisation were on board with it or not. Even if they were on board with it the report deemed the site unsuitable, for all of the reasons mentioned: lack of public transport access by rail, narrow streets which would get too congested with cars and pedestrians, lack of pedestrian and car traffic separation.. etc... it has all been linked above. The WACA Princesses have not cost the taxpayer anything.

The report recommended either Kitchener Park (subiaco) or East Perth Power station site, both of these sites had constraints but were thought at the time to have cheaper build costs. Burswood was third on the list, being the ideal unconstrained location but likely to involve greater cost in terms of site works. However, the estimate of costs for the Burswood site works was based upon physically digging up and removing the top 10- 20m of dirt and refilling it with clean sand. What was later realised is that the wick drain method could be used instead to stabilise the soil without needing to remove it. That brought the cost down to more or less on par with the first two options but ahead on unconstrained location. So they went with it.

The area is now the start of a new sports precinct, which can be built using the same infrastructure. The new pedestrian bridge is quite a popular addition to the area regardless of whether it is game day or not. It links the residents of East Perth with a huge expanse of recreational space on the opposite bank. There is nothing stopping the railway station from becoming a permanent station on the line rather than special events only once residential apartments start going up on the Belmont Park racecourse site over the road.

Oh, and lastly, the report recommends very strongly that the government only consider sites which it owns or controls, without having to enter into agreements with outside parties that might compromise the independence of the stadium management. It recommends that the stadium be managed independently in the best interests of all people and all sports or events. That's another compromise cross in the list for the WAACA.

 

[RedV3x]

The report recommended either Kitchener Park (subiaco) or East Perth Power station site, both of these sites had constraints but were thought at the time to have cheaper build costs.

Subiaco and East Perth had much of the same constraints as you mentioned for the WACA.

The area is now the start of a new sports precinct,

Really ? I always thought the idea of a sports precinct was the worst ever logic.
Always best to separate the sports so there's less intereference.

The new pedestrian bridge is quite a popular addition to the area regardless of whether it is game day or not.

But you have just spent endless posts saying people don't walk.
What is it to be Admiral - people wont walk to the WACA or people walk to Burswood ?

There is nothing stopping the railway station from becoming a permanent station

Except costs a reason to do so.
A stadium in the CBD uses existing transport infrastructure.

the report recommends......

The reality is still that we have a stadium that could have been built for much less or in a much better location if
the WACA princesses had come to the party.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Subiaco and East Perth had much of the same constraints as you mentioned for the WACA.




Really ? I always thought the idea of a sports precinct was the worst ever logic.
Always best to separate the sports so there's less intereference.




But you have just spent endless posts saying people don't walk.
What is it to be Admiral - people wont walk to the WACA or people walk to Burswood ?



Except costs a reason to do so.
A stadium in the CBD uses existing transport infrastructure.



The reality is still that we have a stadium that could have been built for much less or in a much better location if
the WACA princesses had come to the party.

We're going around in circles now saying the same thing in different ways.

Check out the report someone else linked earlier.

The criteria for assessment of the available sites included railway access within 1 km. This is what they decided was "walking distance". That is not to say people don't walk, just that they don't like to walk too far. Once you're designing a facility for mass public use you have to bear in mind that some people have mobility issues, without calling them lazy. Distance from WACA to nearest train station is about 1.8 km, so it din't even make the short-list.

Another of the criteria was that somewhere around 50%-70% of stadium patrons would use public transport to get there, in order to avoid traffic congestion and associated issues. This is why the 1 km walking zone is a key issue.

It was always known and expected that Kitchener Park/Subiaco, East Perth Power Station or Burswood sites would require a rebuild of the railway station to accommodate the larger numbers safely. However, all these sites made the shortlist because they are less than half a km away from the railway and could be accessed safely if pedestrian only walkways were built as part of the project.

This is nothing to do with the WACA being stuck up. They were not on the shortlist even if they wanted to be. Read the report and you'll see why. Walking from the CBD to the WACA was ruled out by them, not by me. Having the stadium within walking distance of the CBD was not considered essential or even strictly necessary, what mattered most was access by public transport rail. Stop making up nonsense arguments about walking from the CBD to the stadium as if it is some kind of standard, it is nonsense. The new walk bridge is only about 300m long, so for people living in East Perth the other side of the river is well within the 1 km walking distance benchmark, plus it is popular with cyclists too.

I am happy to go along with the gist of the report. it is all clearly explained and logical. And yes, I did download it and read it at the time, as well as the second one commissioned by Barnett that switched the preferred option from Kitchener Park to Burswood as the costs difference was not so great as originally feared.

 

[RedV3x]

We're going around in circles now saying the same thing in different ways.

You're the one going around in circles with a whole range of conflicting statements.
The WACA simply is a shorter walking distance than Burswood.
The WACA has more access to parking than Burswood.
The WACA has better dispersement than Burswood.
The WACA has less public transport requirements than Burswood.
The WACA would have been a much cheaper build than Burswood.
It looks like your WACA princesses cannot acknowledge reality.
Until your WACA princesses acknowledge reality you cannot move on..

 

[greatwhiteshark]

The reality is that the WACA was never seriously considered or looked at as a possible spot for the main Perth stadium because for 30-40 years the people running the WACA never ever thought that cricket would leave the WACA. They sat their twidling their thumbs for decades and only DK Lillee looked to the future when he was in charge. He may of got his picture wrong but he was at least looking.
Our great new stadium is now here and the WACA was left behind because of terrible management for decades.
I am still a believer that the WACA should be hosting all test matches but unfortunately the WACA management ran the place into the ground and once the fans don't enjoy the experience anymore and notice the management not make any effort to fix issues then you end up where we are now.
I like the new stadium a great deal, it's a good place to watch cricket but it's not the WACA and does not have it's cricketing charm. The new stadium will probably never get higher than 25k-30K for a days crowd at a test match and if they do then their will be more people sitting in the sun than their was at the WACA.
I say knock the WACA over now unless it becomes WAFL headquarters and game of the round is played their weekly. If it is simply a community hub with womens cricket and shield cricket then any investment is a waste of money.
Reconfigure ground to a footy oval dimension, crowd facility at 20-25k, play all test cricket and WAFL finals there.

 

[Admiral Byng]

You're the one going around in circles with a whole range of conflicting statements.
The WACA simply is a shorter walking distance than Burswood.
The WACA has more access to parking than Burswood.
The WACA has better dispersement than Burswood.
The WACA has less public transport requirements than Burswood.
The WACA would have been a much cheaper build than Burswood.
It looks like your WACA princesses cannot acknowledge reality.
Until your WACA princesses acknowledge reality you cannot move on..

These are your own made up criteria.

The decision to build the stadium was made using different criteria - the criteria that were drawn up by the Major Stadium Taskforce and published in their report. These are not my personal criteria, I'm just explaining the process. Committees and reports are the normal work of governments, it is how ministers and cabinet make decisions.

The Taskforce set up the requirement that at least 50% of people attending the stadium should use public transport to get there. Whether you personally agree with this or not is irrelevant, this is the criteria that was used to drive the site selection, and this basic choice sets out the path for the rest of the assessment process.

It follows from this that since rail is the most efficient means of public transport that the new stadium be built close to the railway line, they set a maximum distance of 1 km. Since the government owns the railway line already they could build or rebuild a suitable station anywhere they needed to, and this was recommended to be included as part of any stadium design. Again, whether you personally agree or disagree with these criteria is irrelevant, this is the criteria that was actually used in site assessment.

The WACA was excluded because it did not meet the assessment criteria, as decided by the Stadium Taskforce. Neither the Carpenter government nor the Barnett government ever got to the point of overriding the taskforce on this issue, they followed the report and picked one of the 4 sites recommended as feasible. The WACA was not one of those 4 on the shortlist.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the taskforce for their report. They recommended not just building a stadium as a standalone item, but insisted it be integrated into the rail network. It was their decision, nothing to do with the WACA.

Anyway, I'm out. I'll leave it to someone else to reply to the next post. I am not personally involved or invested with either the WACA or with Burswood stadium.

 

[RedV3x]

I am still a believer that the WACA should be hosting all test matches.

Yes. I don't know what proportion to blame - the WACA or Sydney central.

I like the new stadium a great deal, it's a good place to watch cricket but it's not the WACA and does not have it's cricketing charm.

And this seems to be a problem with a lot of cricket fans. You cannot have both.
It's either capacity or hick charmsville. I prefer the excitement of the big event.

 

[RedV3x]

The decision to build the stadium was made using different criteria

That's what I've been trying to get through to you. It wasn't built with the best location, best transport or best cost options.

It follows from this that since rail is the most efficient means of public transport that the new stadium be built close to the railway line.

Closer to a railway station you mean.

If you want to blame anyone, blame the taskforce for their report.

No. The buck ALWAYS stops at the government no matter how many reports were undertaken.

I am not personally involved or invested with either the WACA or with Burswood stadium.

Well, as a Western Australian taxpayer, I do have an investment with government proceedings and IMO there could have been a much result for Perth, football fans, sports fans and W.A. taxpayers.

 

[holybishop]

Email received this morning:

Dear Members

I write to provide you another update on the WACA Ground Improvement Project.

As I’m sure you all recall, in December 2019 the WACA secured a $30 million funding commitment for the WACA Ground Improvement Project from the Federal Government and last year the State Government confirmed a further $30 million to support the Project with the inclusion of a community aquatic facility to be funded by the City of Perth.

I am pleased to advise that planning for the Project has been progressing well and we are currently working through the schematic design phase. Donald Cant Watts Corke have been appointed as project managers who will be responsible for bringing to life our vision for this historic ground. Element Advisory have been appointed as planning consultants for the Project. We have progressed our development application with Development WA to gain approval for early works and demolition to make way for our new, multi-purpose facilities.

We have also closed our much-loved museum to begin storing our most cherished memorabilia in preparation for the new, reinvigorated museum that will honour the rich cricket, sporting and entertainment history of the Ground.

However, I am sure many of you have seen the recent media commentary regarding the inclusion of an aquatic facility as part of the overall Project.

There has been several months of collaboration between the WACA, the State Government and the City of Perth to determine the feasibility of the integration of an aquatic facility into the WACA Ground Improvement Project. It remains our position that while we are willing to supply the land that will allow an aquatic facility to be integrated into the overall Project, the WACA will not fund the operation and maintenance of any such facility.

In consultation with the WACA’s architectural team, the City of Perth has developed concept designs of an aquatic facility which includes a 6 lane 50m pool, a 25m learn to swim pool, a splash pad and a plunge pool for the 2 water slides that wrap around the light tower. We understand and appreciate that the City of Perth is examining the financial viability of their investment, which will fund not only the construction of the aquatic facility, but the ongoing costs related to the community asset.

It is important to note that the aquatic facility formed part of the $1.5 billon Perth City Deal which was signed between the Federal Government, State Government and the City of Perth. We remain confident that we can work with the City of Perth, through our Project Steering Committee, of which the City is represented, to ensure that the aquatic facility forms part of our vision to transform the WACA Ground into a sustainable community and sporting hub.

We are grateful for the support of the State Government who have been strong advocates for our vision for the WACA Ground and believe that the inclusion of community aquatic centre will add vibrancy to the East Perth precinct and ensure that the WACA Ground will be a much-loved and well used community facility.

We look forward to sharing further progress of the WACA Ground Improvement Project with you and intend to present our designs to you, our Members, during this first quarter of 2021.



Thank you.



Yours sincerely,
Tuck Waldron

 

[holybishop]

In consultation with the WACA’s architectural team, the City of Perth has developed concept designs of an aquatic facility which includes a 6 lane 50m pool, a 25m learn to swim pool, a splash pad and a plunge pool for the 2 water slides that wrap around the light tower.

That sounds very cool actually

 

[big_e]

Email received this morning:

Dear Members

I write to provide you another update on the WACA Ground Improvement Project.

As I’m sure you all recall, in December 2019 the WACA secured a $30 million funding commitment for the WACA Ground Improvement Project from the Federal Government and last year the State Government confirmed a further $30 million to support the Project with the inclusion of a community aquatic facility to be funded by the City of Perth.

I am pleased to advise that planning for the Project has been progressing well and we are currently working through the schematic design phase. Donald Cant Watts Corke have been appointed as project managers who will be responsible for bringing to life our vision for this historic ground. Element Advisory have been appointed as planning consultants for the Project. We have progressed our development application with Development WA to gain approval for early works and demolition to make way for our new, multi-purpose facilities.

We have also closed our much-loved museum to begin storing our most cherished memorabilia in preparation for the new, reinvigorated museum that will honour the rich cricket, sporting and entertainment history of the Ground.

However, I am sure many of you have seen the recent media commentary regarding the inclusion of an aquatic facility as part of the overall Project.

There has been several months of collaboration between the WACA, the State Government and the City of Perth to determine the feasibility of the integration of an aquatic facility into the WACA Ground Improvement Project. It remains our position that while we are willing to supply the land that will allow an aquatic facility to be integrated into the overall Project, the WACA will not fund the operation and maintenance of any such facility.

In consultation with the WACA’s architectural team, the City of Perth has developed concept designs of an aquatic facility which includes a 6 lane 50m pool, a 25m learn to swim pool, a splash pad and a plunge pool for the 2 water slides that wrap around the light tower. We understand and appreciate that the City of Perth is examining the financial viability of their investment, which will fund not only the construction of the aquatic facility, but the ongoing costs related to the community asset.

It is important to note that the aquatic facility formed part of the $1.5 billon Perth City Deal which was signed between the Federal Government, State Government and the City of Perth. We remain confident that we can work with the City of Perth, through our Project Steering Committee, of which the City is represented, to ensure that the aquatic facility forms part of our vision to transform the WACA Ground into a sustainable community and sporting hub.

We are grateful for the support of the State Government who have been strong advocates for our vision for the WACA Ground and believe that the inclusion of community aquatic centre will add vibrancy to the East Perth precinct and ensure that the WACA Ground will be a much-loved and well used community facility.

We look forward to sharing further progress of the WACA Ground Improvement Project with you and intend to present our designs to you, our Members, during this first quarter of 2021.



Thank you.



Yours sincerely,
Tuck Waldron

A pool is such a great idea that we want someone else to pay for it!

Which has pretty much been the WACA's modus operandi for this century, at least.

 

[holybishop]

A pool is such a great idea that we want someone else to pay for it!

The pool is essentially the WACA gifting a portion of its land to the Council for an aquatic centre for the locals. Of course someone else should pay for that.

 

[RedV3x]

The pool is essentially the WACA gifting a portion of its land to the Council for an aquatic centre for the locals. Of course someone else should pay for that.

The government gifted the land to the WACA so not that magnanimous at all.

 

[BronCrow]

And this seems to be a problem with a lot of cricket fans. You cannot have both.
It's either capacity or hick charmsville. I prefer the excitement of the big event.

Can't you?

I would suggest that for the most part Adelaide Oval still managed to maintain its charm despite the rebuild.

 

[RedV3x]

I would suggest that for the most part Adelaide Oval still managed to maintain its charm despite the rebuild.

Huh ? Cricket fans don't want Adelaide Oval to increase it's capacity.
They complained bitterly about losing the SCG hill.
They WACA wanted not part in a super stadium but now wants to play there.

 

[BronCrow]

Huh ? Cricket fans don't want Adelaide Oval to increase it's capacity.
They complained bitterly about losing the SCG hill.
They WACA wanted not part in a super stadium but now wants to play there.

I merely responded to you stating that you cannot increase capacity of a stadium and still maintain it's charm. I would continue to state that the Adelaide Oval redevelopment makes a mockery of that statement. It can be done if you want it to be.

 

[RedV3x]

I merely responded to you stating that you cannot increase capacity of a stadium and still maintain it's charm.

Who cares ?

 

[BronCrow]

Who cares ?

You do, otherwise you would not have originally complained about cricket fans wanting both.

 

[RedV3x]

You do, otherwise you would not have originally complained about cricket fans wanting both.

I go to the AFL to (hopefully) watch a big match. I go to the WAFL for a different experience and charm would be included.
IMO it is the height of stupidity to expect both charm and capacity when they are such obviously opposing forces.

 

[BronCrow]

I go to the AFL to (hopefully) watch a big match. I go to the WAFL for a different experience and charm would be included.
IMO it is the height of stupidity to expect both charm and capacity when they are such obviously opposing forces.

But you said you could not have both charm and capacity, which the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been proven to be untrue. You not wanting both charm and capacity is very different to not being able to have both charm and capacity.

 

[RedV3x]

But you said you could not have both charm and capacity, which the Adelaide Oval redevelopment has been proven .

That I'm right. Adelaide is neither full capacity or having charm.
It looks like an unfinished project with a dicky hill at one end - totally unprofessional.
The new Perth Stadium looks professional. It has no charm but is attractive and people like going there.

You not wanting both charm and capacity

I love clowns like you that have to resort to misquoting to try and win a point.
I said it was impossible to have both - nothing about wanting at all.
What I would like is an attractive stadium, with good facilities, good sight lines, appropriate capacity with good transport options.
But whatever, I go to a stadium to watch the sport not to watch the architecture.

 

[BronCrow]

That I'm right. Adelaide is neither full capacity or having charm.
It looks like an unfinished project with a dicky hill at one end - totally unprofessional.
The new Perth Stadium looks professional. It has no charm but is attractive and people like going there.



I love clowns like you that have to resort to misquoting to try and win a point.
I said it was impossible to have both - nothing about wanting at all.
What I would like is an attractive stadium, with good facilities, good sight lines, appropriate capacity with good transport options.
But whatever, I go to a stadium to watch the sport not to watch the architecture.

You are not right, and you know it.

Whilst Perth Stadium looks to be a comfortable and modern stadium, and a more comfortable experience for the spectator than the WACA, it also appears as soulless as every other new stadium in the world.

People like you have to resort to name calling when your own quotes are used against you to disprove your own argument.

You said it was impossible to have both, and that you did not want both. I used Adelaide Oval as an example where the capacity has been greatly increased and the charm of the ground has been maintained. The facilities have been upgraded and are very good, the sight lines here are also pretty good and transport options are pretty good, due to Adelaide Oval's close proximity to the CBD, which is almost unparalleled throughout the world.

We do both agree on one thing, and that is the prime reason to go to a stadium is to watch sports and other events, i.e. major musical acts. I am just lucky enough to appreciate how beautiful the place looks as well. Something that you said can't be done.

 

[RedV3x]

Perth Stadium looks to be a comfortable and modern stadium, and a more comfortable experience for the spectator than the WACA,.

Yes, it's a great and very enjoyable experience.

I used Adelaide Oval as an example where the capacity has been greatly increased

And it hasn't been finished. it looks and feels like an unfinished stadium.

We do both agree on one thing, and that is the prime reason to go to a stadium is to watch sports and other events,

Exactly and I go to the big stadiums for the big events and the big atmosphere and I go to the small stadiums for a different atmosphere.
Look, I agree with you, test cricket is such a boring drawn out affair that you need the atmosphere of these boutique stadiums.
Having a token patch of grass caters to only a handful of old eccentrics living in the past.

 

[BronCrow]

Yes, it's a great and very enjoyable experience.



And it hasn't been finished. it looks and feels like an unfinished stadium.



Exactly and I go to the big stadiums for the big events and the big atmosphere and I go to the small stadiums for a different atmosphere.
Look, I agree with you, test cricket is such a boring drawn out affair that you need the atmosphere of these boutique stadiums.
Having a token patch of grass caters to only a handful of old eccentrics living in the past.

Never said it wasn't great and enjoyable at Perth Stadium, that was not the argument.

That would only be your own opinion, and a very unpopular opinion one at that. You must have been to Adelaide Oval to be able to say that it feels unfinished.

Please tell me where I said that test cricket is boring and drawn out. Test cricket can be anything but boring. I merely agreed with you that stadiums were first and foremost for watching sport at.

Funnily enough the old eccentrics living in the past refuse to go on the hill. It is almost exclusively the domain of those under 40. The old eccentrics are in the members and corporate boxes having their glass of Bird in Hand, which you can't get on the hill.

 

[RedV3x]

Never said it wasn't great and enjoyable at Perth Stadiuml.

What's wrong with you - I said it.

Please tell me where I said that test cricket is boring and drawn out.

What's wrong with you - I said it.
You really should try and comprehend a little harder.
You also make up a lot of things I've supposedly said.