Waverley Park (VFL Park)

[mianfei]

Very interesting.

Again, an insight into the truer history of VFL/AFL football. Any weakness – in fact, anything other than being Australia's sporting behemoth – is glossed over. As a younger guy who grew up in WA, I never even knew this. Why did people see the VFA as a better alternative?

The parking thing is also pretty interesting. I guess car culture was a bit more prevalent back then? If there was a train line out there, less people would be parking, and so the car hassle stories would've been way less prevalent. Y'know, less perpetuation.

People probably saw the VFA as a better alternative because it was cheaper and they tolerated the very low quality for that reason (people in the outer suburbs still seem to take the cheapest alternative regardless of quality). Actually, there were large areas to the east of Waverley with no VFA clubs: the surrounding ones were Dandenong, Frankston, Mordialloc, Sandringham, Moorabbin, Oakleigh and Waverley (with latterly Springvale and briefly and insignificantly Berwick and Kilsyth).

The parking issue is really irrelevant. Car culture is as prevalent as ever in the conservative outer suburbs: it is tough to tell whether people really want reasonable quality public transport (for one thing, those with children would know that with top-quality mass transit their children would never raise a family because housing would be too dear)

Tv is terrible in full sun with roof open

Architechture freshman could have predicted that.

I have no recollections of that problem in (limited) watching of football at Docklands on television, so some examples would be very helpful to say the least.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The parking issue is really irrelevant. Car culture is as prevalent as ever in the conservative outer suburbs: it is tough to tell whether people really want reasonable quality public transport (for one thing, those with children would know that with top-quality mass transit their children would never raise a family because housing would be too dear)

I know you just keep going with this theory but it doesn’t bear out in reality. People don’t use public transport in the outer suburbs because (a) it isn’t available, and (b), what is available is useless. Bus services that run once or twice an hour and go vaguely in the rough direction that you’re heading, probably leaving you with a 20 minute walk at either end.

Of course people use it where it works. Get on any train service to or from the outer suburbs in peak hour. They’re all packed. They get people to where they need to go (the CBD), and they run regularly, so people use them.

Your theory that people somehow object to it because it might increase the value of their homes is a ridiculous bow to draw.

 

[mianfei]

Of course people use it where it works. Get on any train service to or from the outer suburbs in peak hour. They’re all packed. They get people to where they need to go (the CBD), and they run regularly, so people use them.

Your theory that people somehow object to it because it might increase the value of their homes is a ridiculous bow to draw.

The Public Transport Users’ Association - too moderate for a country that is by far the worst offender in the world re greenhouse gas emissions - admits that very minor changes in the last years of the Kirner Government suggest outer suburbanites would use public transport if it were available, and that the cost of making public transport throughout Melbourne of the standard found in European or Asian cities would be greatly less than the sum wasted on freeway building over the past 45 years. However, when you consider how Guy Pearse has demonstrated that the car and energy industries have basically written Australian transport policies throughout this period and that no protests for change even with the current rainless spell and bushfires exist, one cannot expect improvement!

The suburban population is simply too apolitical to fight hard for better public transport - it’s off topic but international pressure on Australia is justified and a more likely answer.

Back to Waverley Park, if high-quality mass transit had been available it would have had many benefits for the stadium, not only reduced demand for parking but potentially the possibility of better sponsorship, which would have allowed for improvements needed in the 1990s.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The Public Transport Users’ Association - too moderate for a country that is by far the worst offender in the world re greenhouse gas emissions - admits that very minor changes in the last years of the Kirner Government suggest outer suburbanites would use public transport if it were available, and that the cost of making public transport throughout Melbourne of the standard found in European or Asian cities would be greatly less than the sum wasted on freeway building over the past 45 years. However, when you consider how Guy Pearse has demonstrated that the car and energy industries have basically written Australian transport policies throughout this period and that no protests for change even with the current rainless spell and bushfires exist, one cannot expect improvement!

The suburban population is simply too apolitical to fight hard for better public transport - it’s off topic but international pressure on Australia is justified and a more likely answer.

Back to Waverley Park, if high-quality mass transit had been available it would have had many benefits for the stadium, not only reduced demand for parking but potentially the possibility of better sponsorship, which would have allowed for improvements needed in the 1990s.

I can agree with those points.

It’s a bit different to saying people actively don’t want it however, based on some bizarre theory of it increasing the value of their houses. If it was there, and it was reliable, and frequent, people would definitely use it.

The lack of transport was one of the major issues for Waverley, no doubt. It never really had a chance.

 

[Cole Dammett]

Does anyone know if the top tiers of seating are ever open for people to go in anymore? I was in Melbourne earlier this week and took the drive out there to check it out, but obviously picked the worst time of year to go there when there is no staff from Hawthorn there at all.

 

[Pessimistic]

Does anyone know if the top tiers of seating are ever open for people to go in anymore? I was in Melbourne earlier this week and took the drive out there to check it out, but obviously picked the worst time of year to go there when there is no staff from Hawthorn there at all.

Probably not but i remember on a clear day you could see the coast down to cape liptrap from there

 

[mianfei]

The lack of transport was one of the major issues for Waverley, no doubt. It never really had a chance.

It’s interesting to speculate whether Waverley was a reflection of a league who was still living in an era dominated by pubic transport (whose share of travel has fallen by 80 percent in the past fifty years) and had no understanding of what culture would develop in the outer suburbs?? It is easy to imagine that, when they developed Waverley, the VFL had no understanding of the economic or political conditions that forbade and forbids expansion of public transport in Melbourne, though the lack of new public transit in postwar suburbs between the Glen Waverley and Lilydale lines already hinted at such.

The lack of public transport did more than kill Waverley, it cut into attendances at the inner-city grounds and was thus probably a major factor in the heavy losses of the VFL (and WAFL) in the 1980s, and consequently in the development of the national competition and the radical changes to football that have resulted therefrom. In Enriched World nations where politics and economics allows vastly superior public transport (despite correspondingly less ecological need therefor) team sports have not been nearly so radically changed as football has.

 

[Teagueeee15]

Does anyone know if the top tiers of seating are ever open for people to go in anymore? I was in Melbourne earlier this week and took the drive out there to check it out, but obviously picked the worst time of year to go there when there is no staff from Hawthorn there at all.

I've been interested in going up to that top level for some time. Hawthorn do official tours of Waverley Park on Wednesday mornings and I'm thinking that going on one of these tours is my only chance. Has anybody been on one of these tours and gone up to that top level?

 

[Doss]

Probably not but i remember on a clear day you could see the coast down to cape liptrap from there

Cape Liptrap? That's quite a view if true- that's miles from there!

I'd be interested in going on one of those tours one day, as well.

 

[Pessimistic]

Cape Liptrap? That's quite a view if true- that's miles from there!

I'd be interested in going on one of those tours one day, as well.

Its a long time ago obviously, i recall i saw the sea and high ground off to the right hand side as you face the oval from the very top of the stand. The current stand extended more round to the right but looking at the map todey, it was probably arthurs seat I saw, which is a way away but obviously not so far

 

[brisbane13]

Its a long time ago obviously, i recall i saw the sea and high ground off to the right hand side as you face the oval from the very top of the stand. The current stand extended more round to the right but looking at the map todey, it was probably arthurs seat I saw, which is a way away but obviously not so far

not sure what your on, but you cannot see the see from the top deck of waverley and sure as hell you cannot see arthurs seat

 

[Pessimistic]

You can see arthirs seat from most place on the bay on a clear day at sea level

Waverley is 25 km from the bay which would require an elevation above sea level of 50 Metres When you and what you can see both have elevation, you can see further than the horizon, for example if arthurs seat were also 50 metres, each would be visible frk the other at a distanc of 50km

The distance is probably about 60 km so youd need a combined elevation. ( top of waverley and arthurs seat summit ) of 150m. That doesnt sound too unreasonable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HorizonDistance.png

 

[Matt Stevic]

I had a recent look here at a Time magazine list of the ten worst sports stadiums in the United States.

I wonder if you think Waverley, when the AFL hinted at selling it in the middle 1990s, compares badly with the stadiums listed by Time?? The middle 1990s was a time when many new stadiums were built in the United States with public money (as to some extent was Docklands), so its fascinating to see whether, apart from the complete absence of “luxury boxes”, Waverley was really as bad as these stadiums??

No it wasn't. Really apart from benches (which could easily be replaced with bucket seats) and a 20 year old screen (which could be replaced anyway, no reason why we couldn't have an MCG style mega screen) there was exactly nothing wrong with Waverley. I was young at the time but I'd even say that some of the anti-Waverley opinions come from AFL record propaganda from the Jackson era which tried to promote the new "Victoria Stadium".

Sir Kenneth Luke's idea to build VFL Park in the first place was some magnificent forward thinking. Wayne Jackson's decision to sell it for a half eaten bag of samboys was pure idiocy.

 

[Matt Stevic]

Was this because NSWRL games were on Saturdays?

No they were on Sundays, it was because of a Victorian state government law stating that VFL seniors was played on Saturdays only and VFA on Sundays.

Not that I really remember much considering I wasn't around in the VFA heyday. I'd love to know more about the VFA and in particular my local team the Sunshine Crows. Hardly any footage seems to exist. Unfortunately nobody I actually know ever supported a team (although that's probably due to most of the teams being in the leastern suburbs).

 

[Silent Alarm]

No it wasn't. Really apart from benches (which could easily be replaced with bucket seats) and a 20 year old screen (which could be replaced anyway, no reason why we couldn't have an MCG style mega screen) there was exactly nothing wrong with Waverley. I was young at the time but I'd even say that some of the anti-Waverley opinions come from AFL record propaganda from the Jackson era which tried to promote the new "Victoria Stadium".

Sir Kenneth Luke's idea to build VFL Park in the first place was some magnificent forward thinking. Wayne Jackson's decision to sell it for a half eaten bag of samboys was pure idiocy.

How could you be so passionate about a stadium you never attended?

From all reports the viewing was shocking, the incline was too gradual to give good viewing, it was in an area that just attracted freezing weather, it took half an hour to get out of the carpark, there was no public transport, and it was in an area that was convenient for only a certain section of the populace it was supposed to cater to.

A centralised stadium is a better idea. Etihad has great viewing points. It's accessible via a train station no farther than a four minute jaunt (and that's not just metropolitan Victorians – this station is pretty convenient for the Geelong people who come up a bit, and the country Victorians who get to the city for a game). It's also a lot more comfortable.

For spectators, it seems like the only people who romanticise Waverley are those who lived 15 minutes by foot from it and people who saw classic games and have special memories there.

 

[Doss]

Its a long time ago obviously, i recall i saw the sea and high ground off to the right hand side as

You can see arthirs seat from most place on the bay on a clear day at sea level

Waverley is 25 km from the bay which would require an elevation above sea level of 50 Metres When you and what you can see both have elevation, you can see further than the horizon, for example if arthurs seat were also 50 metres, each would be visible frk the other at a distanc of 50km

The distance is probably about 60 km so youd need a combined elevation. ( top of waverley and arthurs seat summit ) of 150m. That doesnt sound too unreasonable

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HorizonDistance.png

not sure what your on, but you cannot see the see from the top deck of waverley and sure as hell you cannot see arthurs seat

you face the oval from the very top of the stand. The current stand extended more round to the right but looking at the map todey, it was probably arthurs seat I saw, which is a way away but obviously not so far

Yeah, based on distance and geography I would think Arthurs Seat would be a feasible view. If you had an extraordinarily clear day, you might even be able to see Cape Schanck. Maybe. Although even then, you have the range around Red Hill sort of in the way so maybe not.

Cape Liptrap, though? Too far. That's well south east of Westernport Bay and Phillip Island.

 

[Matt Stevic]

How could you be so passionate about a stadium you never attended?

From all reports the viewing was shocking, the incline was too gradual to give good viewing, it was in an area that just attracted freezing weather, it took half an hour to get out of the carpark, there was no public transport, and it was in an area that was convenient for only a certain section of the populace it was supposed to cater to.

A centralised stadium is a better idea. Etihad has great viewing points. It's accessible via a train station no farther than a four minute jaunt (and that's not just metropolitan Victorians – this station is pretty convenient for the Geelong people who come up a bit, and the country Victorians who get to the city for a game). It's also a lot more comfortable.

For spectators, it seems like the only people who romanticise Waverley are those who lived 15 minutes by foot from it and people who saw classic games and have special memories there.

Just because I have never attended Etihad doesn't mean I don't know it's awful. The playing surface is bad enough (just ask Danny Southern for example), not to mention the way it reams struggling clubs over. It could have seats which massage your butt for all I care, and I would still hate the dump.

Oh and I live in the west. It takes 1hr 30min to get to Mulgrave from where I live (without shittystink). But I guess you're right about the special memories bit at Waverley. For us Hawks fans we had our fair share, so it's a bit different when you see things as a Docker. Just wondering, were you in Melbourne when Waverley was still used? I never had any problems with the view, but of course I wasn't driving as a kid in the 90s!

What I never got is if the land was available in Docklands for a new stadium, why didn't the AFL sell Waverley and build a brand new AFL owned stadium. One which wouldn't be a compromise. One which would give back decent profits to the struggling smaller clubs. And that way we could still have all those state of the art whatevers and a central location.

 

[Starburns_]

Lack of public transport was the killer for Waverley. Sure the cold and the seating weren't ideal, but they probably would have been tolerated for a bit longer if people could get there easier. But it was a nightmare to get out of, with (from memory) only 3 exits, and just about everyone driving there.

For spectators, it seems like the only people who romanticise Waverley are those who lived 15 minutes by foot from it and people who saw classic games and have special memories there.

I lived reasonably closed to it (5-10mins by car), and I don't particularly miss it. The move to two centrally located stadium was the right call, everything about it made sense.

What I never got is if the land was available in Docklands for a new stadium, why didn't the AFL sell Waverley and build a brand new AFL owned stadium. One which wouldn't be a compromise. One which would give back decent profits to the struggling smaller clubs. And that way we could still have all those state of the art whatevers and a central location.

They didn't have the funds, the deal they currently have is a sensational one for what they paid.

 

[Wallaby]

Oh well, the argument about Waverley vs Docklands will go on for eternity - even after both stadiums are gone.

One thing you have to admit the AFL got right (finally). They knew Waverley (or any stadium) had to have public transport to work. The first time they built a ground (Waverley), they put it in the most logical spot and trusted the Government to keep their promise about building public transport to the ground.

Lesson learned, the second time they decided to build the Stadium right next to an already existing Public Transport hub.

I think there's something we can all take out of this....................................

 

[Pessimistic]

Yeah, based on distance and geography I would think Arthurs Seat would be a feasible view. If you had an extraordinarily clear day, you might even be able to see Cape Schanck. Maybe. Although even then, you have the range around Red Hill sort of in the way so maybe not.

Cape Liptrap, though? Too far. That's well south east of Westernport Bay and Phillip Island.

I corrected cape liptrap. It woould have been direcly opposite from the kenn like stand. What i saw was ninety degrees at least from the front view, off to the right, which is bayside

 

[Pessimistic]

Point is they could have had three stadiums or more of metricon size for what etihad cost. One each direction from the city. Big games at the mcg which has, crazily enough a much lower break even crowd size than etihad

Maybe once the afl get their hands on etihad they will sell it to melbourne heart / manchester city / etihad if they havent all falllen out by then

And build some purpose built afl grounds

 

[Silent Alarm]

Point is they could have had three stadiums or more of metricon size for what etihad cost. One each direction from the city. Big games at the mcg which has, crazily enough a much lower break even crowd size than etihad

Maybe once the afl get their hands on etihad they will sell it to melbourne heart / manchester city / etihad if they havent all falllen out by then

And build some purpose built afl grounds

What's the point in three small grounds in different corners of Melbourne? What good is that going to do? Let's say you have Western Oval, Optus Oval, and Waverley all having this 20,000 boutique capacity. What happens to those games, the most common, that require 25-33-ish-thousand? You have three grounds catering to niche markets with each ground servicing one group and alienating the others. You're then paying the upkeep on three grounds. You also have to rely on the government consistently upgrading rail lines too. Stadium ownership has plenty of issues. Having that threefold would drive the AFL insane.

And why would the AFL let go of an asset like Etihad when it rakes in money with sponsorship and TV deals? Why would they sell it for a few hundred million but then spend another few hundred million on another stadium? You're never going to get an area that close to the city (city stadiums work best – that's why everyone likes Adelaide Oval and hated AAMI) and that easily accessed by a train station. It's illogical.

Then building purpose made grounds is just a sentimental thing. It's way too expensive. Ground rationalisation was a good thing. I personally think it's a bit of a shame we didn't maintain a third ground, but that's purely for comfort's sake. You don't really need a 30,000 capacity ground when Etihad services most lower drawing games. Which is actually an interesting point – why do people hate low drawing games at Etihad but never speak of the glum, cauldron-like, deathly 'atmosphere' for games drawing just as few people at the MCG?

Why Victorians persistently hate a stadium like Etihad is beyond me. Every other city would absolutely love to have it. And not just Perth – New York, London, Paris...

 

[madmug]

What's the point in three small grounds in different corners of Melbourne? What good is that going to do? Let's say you have Western Oval, Optus Oval, and Waverley all having this 20,000 boutique capacity. What happens to those games, the most common, that require 25-33-ish-thousand? You have three grounds catering to niche markets with each ground servicing one group and alienating the others. You're then paying the upkeep on three grounds. You also have to rely on the government consistently upgrading rail lines too. Stadium ownership has plenty of issues. Having that threefold would drive the AFL insane.

And why would the AFL let go of an asset like Etihad when it rakes in money with sponsorship and TV deals? Why would they sell it for a few hundred million but then spend another few hundred million on another stadium? You're never going to get an area that close to the city (city stadiums work best – that's why everyone likes Adelaide Oval and hated AAMI) and that easily accessed by a train station. It's illogical.

Then building purpose made grounds is just a sentimental thing. It's way too expensive. Ground rationalisation was a good thing. I personally think it's a bit of a shame we didn't maintain a third ground, but that's purely for comfort's sake. You don't really need a 30,000 capacity ground when Etihad services most lower drawing games. Which is actually an interesting point – why do people hate low drawing games at Etihad but never speak of the glum, cauldron-like, deathly 'atmosphere' for games drawing just as few people at the MCG?

Why Victorians persistently hate a stadium like Etihad is beyond me. Every other city would absolutely love to have it. And not just Perth – New York, London, Paris...

London, New York, Paris in the AFL, WoWWeeeeee

 

[Starburns_]

What's the point in three small grounds in different corners of Melbourne? What good is that going to do? Let's say you have Western Oval, Optus Oval, and Waverley all having this 20,000 boutique capacity. What happens to those games, the most common, that require 25-33-ish-thousand? You have three grounds catering to niche markets with each ground servicing one group and alienating the others. You're then paying the upkeep on three grounds. You also have to rely on the government consistently upgrading rail lines too. Stadium ownership has plenty of issues. Having that threefold would drive the AFL insane.

And why would the AFL let go of an asset like Etihad when it rakes in money with sponsorship and TV deals? Why would they sell it for a few hundred million but then spend another few hundred million on another stadium? You're never going to get an area that close to the city (city stadiums work best – that's why everyone likes Adelaide Oval and hated AAMI) and that easily accessed by a train station. It's illogical.

Not to mention that aside from perhaps the Bulldogs having a foothold out West for any potential new arrivals, footballing allegiances in Melbourne aren't particularly geographic anymore. Playing a game out East alienates fans from the North and West, etc. There are no more traditional footholds to take advantage of with suburban grounds.

Then building purpose made grounds is just a sentimental thing. It's way too expensive. Ground rationalisation was a good thing. I personally think it's a bit of a shame we didn't maintain a third ground, but that's purely for comfort's sake. You don't really need a 30,000 capacity ground when Etihad services most lower drawing games. Which is actually an interesting point – why do people hate low drawing games at Etihad but never speak of the glum, cauldron-like, deathly 'atmosphere' for games drawing just as few people at the MCG?

Because that only happens at Melbourne home games, and it's just expected now.

Why Victorians persistently hate a stadium like Etihad is beyond me. Every other city would absolutely love to have it. And not just Perth – New York, London, Paris...

Simply because we have a better stadium down the road, plus the MCG doesn't fleece the clubs playing there.

 

[Pessimistic]

What's the point in three small grounds in different corners of Melbourne? What good is that going to do? Let's say you have Western Oval, Optus Oval, and Waverley all having this 20,000 boutique capacity. What happens to those games, the most common, that require 25-33-ish-thousand? You have three grounds catering to niche markets with each ground servicing one group and alienating the others. You're then paying the upkeep on three grounds. You also have to rely on the government consistently upgrading rail lines too. Stadium ownership has plenty of issues. Having that threefold would drive the AFL insane.

And why would the AFL let go of an asset like Etihad when it rakes in money with sponsorship and TV deals? Why would they sell it for a few hundred million but then spend another few hundred million on another stadium? You're never going to get an area that close to the city (city stadiums work best – that's why everyone likes Adelaide Oval and hated AAMI) and that easily accessed by a train station. It's illogical.

Then building purpose made grounds is just a sentimental thing. It's way too expensive. Ground rationalisation was a good thing. I personally think it's a bit of a shame we didn't maintain a third ground, but that's purely for comfort's sake. You don't really need a 30,000 capacity ground when Etihad services most lower drawing games. Which is actually an interesting point – why do people hate low drawing games at Etihad but never speak of the glum, cauldron-like, deathly 'atmosphere' for games drawing just as few people at the MCG?

Why Victorians persistently hate a stadium like Etihad is beyond me. Every other city would absolutely love to have it. And not just Perth – New York, London, Paris...

I dont see the point when two teams with supporter bases out east get scheduled for etihad at night time, completely flooding the city loop and annoying regular night time city visitors.

Im not so passionate as you, but note that soccer, a small sport in melbourne soon saw the problems with etihad and had another stadium built for them.
Dont mind the stadium so much, its not my clubs its killing off