The WACA - Downfall

Remove this Banner Ad

RedV3x said:
After the WACA ruled out building the super stadium on their lease.
Probably because they were flushed with the apartments idea.



After the WACA ruled out building the super stadium on their lease.



Yes, spend big on a report only to dismiss it completely.



Well considering the outlay on the new stadium and the money it could have saved by using the WACA
the W.A. government was going to be anything but sympathetic to the WACA.
It was only the idea of a multi-purpose WACA that drew funding ideas.
Click to expand...
Wow. So it could've been built there and they rejected it. What a bunch of peanuts. Though I've often heard it's in a horrible location. Would they have built a spur train line out there or something?
 
DeIulio2Pearce said:
Wow. So it could've been built there and they rejected it. What a bunch of peanuts. Though I've often heard it's in a horrible location. Would they have built a spur train line out there or something?
Click to expand...
I suppose they could have replaced the existing bridge for the Armadale line with an underground line from the city, stopping at the ground and with a new underground station in the Crown car park, connecting back up with the rest of the line at Victoria Park. Would have also made trips on the line a bit faster. The cost would have been quite large though.
 
The WACA can still build the apartment developments, they just have to cough up either almost all the profit or a couple of hundred million dollars. At the time that was initially floated it was costing a couple of hundred grand per floor of about eight half million dollar apartments. The returns aren't as good anymore and the area really needs access upgrades.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

RedV3x said:
After the WACA ruled out building the super stadium on their lease.
Probably because they were flushed with the apartments idea.



After the WACA ruled out building the super stadium on their lease.



Yes, spend big on a report only to dismiss it completely.



Well considering the outlay on the new stadium and the money it could have saved by using the WACA
the W.A. government was going to be anything but sympathetic to the WACA.
It was only the idea of a multi-purpose WACA that drew funding ideas.
Click to expand...
Cool, so it’s all Dennis Lillee’s fault then.

In mid-2006, the WACA was talking with Rugby WA about hosting the Western Force at the WACA, in a redeveloped and larger facility designed for rectangular sports. They were obviously into it at the time because here's a John Townsend article from 2006 saying the WACA believed Langoulant would recommend a two-stadia solution, one for footy and then the WACA site for rugby and soccer.

Following the release of interim stadium report, the Carpenter Government ordered Langoulant to work on the assumption of a two-stadium solution, and specifically investigate the possibility of the WACA being that second stadium (the footy ground being the first, of course), pretty much what the WACA wanted.

On that very same day, the WACA/Rugby plans fell apart, with rugby going back to support the redevelopment of Perth Oval as the rectangular/second stadium. Around the same time, the WACA started talking to Ascot Capital, which I’m sure we can all agree was a complete disaster for the WACA. The WACA submitted their plans for the property development for consideration by Langoulant but it was too late in proceedings (see below).

I don’t think it’s right to say the WACA ruled out the super stadium on that site because it was never in contention. For a start, it was only ever going to be a secondary facility (35k only barely fits, so 60k was never going to happen), and secondly, it’s more that the plans fell apart.

I don't get why you think it would have been cheaper to build at the WACA, though? Burswood plus Perth Oval wouldn't have been massively different in price to a footy stadium in Subi plus upgrading the WACA to 30,000+, assuming the WACA redevelopment would have brought the facilities into the 21st century.




image1661907828-622192-jpg.3746149


image1661907840-283894-jpg.3746150


image1661907850-726262-jpg.3746151


image1661907858-416048-jpg.3746152


image1661907866-885322-jpg.3746153



image1661907882-240894-jpg.3746160
 
RedV3x said:
Yes, spend big on a report only to dismiss it completely.
Click to expand...

Actually a Burswood Stadium was the third preferred option.

It was the best outcome, but was listed lower because it would have a greater cost due to the underground conditions and need to spend on transport infrastructure.

But I think we can all agree it was the best outcome.
 
RedV3x said:
Burswood cost more due to extra $300,000 build on marsh/tip necessitating a concrete floating pan design.
Burswood cost more due to extra $600,000 transport infrastructure build.
Click to expand...
WACA redevelopment would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars, plus another few hundred million in improving transport links, too.
 
big_e said:
WACA redevelopment would have cost hundreds of millions of dollars,
Click to expand...

Building the same stadium style as burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.

big_e said:
plus another few hundred million in improving transport links, too.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly you would've wanted to update the transport to the WACA if it had become the new super stadium
but it certainly wouldn't have approached the $ 600 million spent on Burswood

Also there would be no need for that expensive footbridge.

Most importantly, the running costs at the WACA would have been a lot lower.
 
RedV3x said:
Building the same stadium style as burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.



Undoubtedly you would've wanted to update the transport to the WACA if it had become the new super stadium
but it certainly wouldn't have approached the $ 600 million spent on Burswood

Also there would be no need for that expensive footbridge.

Most importantly, the running costs at the WACA would have been a lot lower.
Click to expand...
And the footy stadium? Another billion or so there you seem to be leaving out of this discussion.
 
big_e said:
And the footy stadium? Another billion or so there you seem to be leaving out of this discussion.
Click to expand...

FFS.
Building the same stadium style as Burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.

So instead of the $2 billion cost at Burswood you could have had the same style stadium at the WACA for $1.1 billion.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

kranger said:
Only 10,929 at day one of Australia vs the West Indies at Perth Stadium.

Seems like International Test cricket can still be played at the downgraded WACA.
Click to expand...
Half of it's closed though and I think it currently doesn't meet ICC Standards. The test would've been better off at Peel Thunder's home ground
 
RedV3x said:
FFS.
Building the same stadium style as Burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.

So instead of the $2 billion cost at Burswood you could have had the same style stadium at the WACA for $1.1 billion.
Click to expand...
The super stadium was never, ever, ever, ever going to be at the WACA. It's not possible, nor did anyone want it.

Anyway, I'll leave you and your construction engineering expertise to enjoy fantasyland.
 
big_e said:
The super stadium was never, ever, ever, ever going to be at the WACA.
Click to expand...

Thast's what I've been saying because the WACA didn't want to share their ground.

big_e said:
It's not possible,
Click to expand...

It was no physical reason why the new super stadium could not have been built at the WACA site.
It was only the selfishness of the WACA that prevented it.

big_e said:
nor did anyone want it.
Click to expand...

The WACA didn't want it.
People who had been to Eagles games at the WACA probably thought it was a good option.

big_e said:
Anyway, I'll leave you and your construction engineering expertise.
Click to expand...
It was the Labor government that stated that building the same stadium style as Burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in constructionand $600 million in transport infrastructure.
 
Last edited:
RedV3x said:
FFS.
Building the same stadium style as Burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.

So instead of the $2 billion cost at Burswood you could have had the same style stadium at the WACA for $1.1 billion.
Click to expand...
Jesus christ, are you still harping on about this?
 
RedV3x said:
Yes, because some people simply don't get it.
Building the same stadium style as Burswood at the WACA would have saved $300 million in construction
and $600 million in transport infrastructure.
Click to expand...
Last i looked waca area not really serviced well by bus or trains.
 
Billy ray said:
may just be me, but the footprint at burswood seems larger than what would have been possible at waca site, unless queens garden was partially resumed and nelson cres

View attachment 1568273
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on it but I seem to remember their being discussions of Gloucester Park being sold and the trots to be moved inside of Belmont Park and by aquiring the land of Gloucester park the new stadium could of gone here and be called the WACA. As a WACA member at the time I certainly know it was discussed, but as we know the WACA have always been anti progression and said not interested, on top of that I don't think the trots were very keen on moving either.
 
greatwhiteshark said:
Don't quote me on it but I seem to remember their being discussions of Gloucester Park being sold and the trots to be moved inside of Belmont Park and by aquiring the land of Gloucester park the new stadium could of gone here and be called the WACA. As a WACA member at the time I certainly know it was discussed, but as we know the WACA have always been anti progression and said not interested, on top of that I don't think the trots were very keen on moving either.
Click to expand...
sounds expensive ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Thebarton oval development
Replies
2
Views
496
Millsie69
Millsie69
The Victorian
Thebarton Oval
Replies
5
Views
2K
Angus Young
Angus Young

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top