Whitten Oval set to be revived

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Johnny Bananas said:
That's all well and good, but a crowd of 42 000 isn't going to clear quickly if they're relying on buses and trams, or walking for a kilometre or more to get to Royal Park station. While a journey like that is manageable for the able-bodied, special provision would need to be made for the elderly and disabled.
Click to expand...
MCG to Jolimont ranges between 200m (MCC Gate) to 700m (Gate 5/6)
MCG to Richmond ranges between 500m (Gate 5/6) to 1km (MCC Gate)
MCG to Flinders St ranges between 1.2km (Gate 1/2) to 1.6km (Gate 4/5)

So princess park wouldn't be that much worse than the MCG. You can set up the tram stop to give priority to Disabled/Elderly firist, kind of like a theme park priority line. So you set up two lines, one for Disabled/Elderly, the other for the general public. Board the trams from the disabled/elederly queue first. If the tram is full, send it off, if there's space, general public until it's full. Advertise the service, and encourage people who can do so to walk to the train because it could be a 45min wait for a tram with space for them. Easy.
 
Johnny Bananas said:
That's all well and good, but a crowd of 42 000 isn't going to clear quickly if they're relying on buses and trams, or walking for a kilometre or more to get to Royal Park station. While a journey like that is manageable for the able-bodied, special provision would need to be made for the elderly and disabled.
Click to expand...

If the stadium had been built to the specs we wanted, with lights and to 42k, there simply is no way we wouldn't still wouldn't be playing there. The yuppies and the need for votes on the Melbourne City Council killed us. The carpark underneath the ground which was part of the plan I assume by now would have a bus bay to get the tiny minority who can't get themselves to the station in an accessible bus to get them there. This carpark would've massively solved the parking issues the locals loved to sook about.

The campaginers that campaigned against it literally have the biggest green space in Melbourne (Royal Park) over the road. More to the point, our proposal wouldn't have affected the parkland amenity at Princes Park at all really, aside from the legends stand end being a mere ten meters back. As I said, their carparking pressure would've been alleviated by our planned carpark under the ground and the adjacent cricket ground. The entrance would've been on current carparking space.

What's more, we would've been paying for it ourselves. Entirely. Would've paid for itself by now. One would assume a post Elliott regime would see the sense in offering favourable deals to Melbourne clubs to play games there rather than gouging them as we used to. There would be 25 games there a year at least.

Anyway, I'll stop dwelling on, just can't believe it got the kybosh all because the Johnny come lately locals couldn't deal with little baby Tarquin having stadium lights on until 10pm.
 
DeIulio2Pearce said:
One would assume a post Elliott regime would see the sense in offering favourable deals to Melbourne clubs to play games there rather than gouging them as we used to. There would be 25 games there a year at least.
Click to expand...
Regardless of what price was charged, there's a fundamental problem with trying to get other clubs to move to PP: it's Carlton's ground, not their own. Whitten Oval would have the same issue for anybody besides the Bulldogs. Docklands at least is neutral territory, and that matters to supporters who value their club's identity and don't want to feel like second-class citizens. PP can't serve two masters, at least for the men's game, there's just too much baggage. You might say "what about the MCG? That was Melbourne's before it became communal", and I'd respond that grand final hosting and Melbourne's general lack of success mean there was a lot less baggage to overcome.
 
Johnny Bananas said:
Regardless of what price was charged, there's a fundamental problem with trying to get other clubs to move to PP: it's Carlton's ground, not their own. Whitten Oval would have the same issue for anybody besides the Bulldogs. Docklands at least is neutral territory, and that matters to supporters who value their club's identity and don't want to feel like second-class citizens. PP can't serve two masters, at least for the men's game, there's just too much baggage. You might say "what about the MCG? That was Melbourne's before it became communal", and I'd respond that grand final hosting and Melbourne's general lack of success mean there was a lot less baggage to overcome.
Click to expand...

As far as traditional grounds go it was the most neutral. Hawthorn didn't seem to have too many qualms from 74-91. In fact from 1987-1991 3 Clubs called Princes Park home. Carlton, Hawks, Fitzroy. Fitzroy actually moved to Princes Park for a worse financial deal in '87 from Vic Park because Princes Park was seen as neutral while Vic Park was a magpie shrine.
 
DeIulio2Pearce said:
As far as traditional grounds go it was the most neutral. Hawthorn didn't seem to have too many qualms from 74-91. In fact from 1987-1991 3 Clubs called Princes Park home. Carlton, Hawks, Fitzroy. Fitzroy actually moved to Princes Park for a worse financial deal in '87 from Vic Park because Princes Park was seen as neutral while Vic Park was a magpie shrine.
Click to expand...
PP was a great ground in its hey day but yes that time has gone. A faded memory for those who would have to be at least 30 YO+ to remember it. :think:

The problem with Princess Park is and always was the lack of immediate train access and parking. The former outer ring train line which cut between Sydney Road and the parkland closed in the 1920s. Since then the only massed transport available has been trams. Trams simply don't cut it for mass transit, there simply aren't enough of them. PP was only made the home for four clubs (remember that Footscray were moved there too in the late 90s after shifting from VUWO in 96) because at that time it had the third highest capacity in Melbourne (35,000) and the AFL were looking to rationalise their grounds. It was on borrowed time from the mid 90s as the AFL had already committed to the Docklands and eventual closure of VFL Park. John Elliott proposed for PP to remain as the third stadium after Docklands opened, but compared with Docklands and the MCG at the time, PP was looking decidedly dated with its old stands, dated corporate facilities, lack of lighting and its public transport access being mostly limited to just trams.

Today PP has lighting, significantly reduced capacity (20,000) due to having one-third of the old stands bulldozed and being replaced by training facilities and administration facilities for Carlton FC literally built right up to the boundary fences. The stands that remain haven’t been greatly improved or updated and it still remains accessible predominately by trams.

But there are no doubt a lot of fond memories there for older Blues and Hawks supporters and it remains a unique part of the history of the AFL. :D
 
Roogal said:
PP was a great ground in its hey day but yes that time has gone. A faded memory for those who would have to be at least 30 YO+ to remember it. :think:

The problem with Princess Park is and always was the lack of immediate train access and parking. The former outer ring train line which cut between Sydney Road and the parkland closed in the 1920s. Since then the only massed transport available has been trams. Trams simply don't cut it for mass transit, there simply aren't enough of them. PP was only made the home for four clubs (remember that Footscray were moved there too in the late 90s after shifting from VUWO in 96) because at that time it had the third highest capacity in Melbourne (35,000) and the AFL were looking to rationalise their grounds. It was on borrowed time from the mid 90s as the AFL had already committed to the Docklands and eventual closure of VFL Park. John Elliott proposed for PP to remain as the third stadium after Docklands opened, but compared with Docklands and the MCG at the time, PP was looking decidedly dated with its old stands, dated corporate facilities, lack of lighting and its public transport access being mostly limited to just trams.

Today PP has lighting, significantly reduced capacity (20,000) due to having one-third of the old stands bulldozed and being replaced by training facilities and administration facilities for Carlton FC literally built right up to the boundary fences. The stands that remain haven’t been greatly improved or updated and it still remains accessible predominately by trams.

But there are no doubt a lot of fond memories there for older Blues and Hawks supporters and it remains a unique part of the history of the AFL. :D
Click to expand...
The train access thing is a stupid argument for stupid people.

The train station is closer than flinders st is to the mcg, and the amount of people who walk from there each game would fill Princess Park easily. Not to mention the tram that stops literally out front.

The only people who think the pt to Princess Park is a problem, are the lazy boomers who expect to be dropped off directly at the front door.

And as someone who lived in and knows the area well, developing written oval is a terrible and stupid idea.
 
Last edited:
theyellowsash said:
The train access thing is a stupid argument for stupid people.

The train station is closer than flinders st is to the mcg, and the amount of people who walk from there each game would fill Princess Park easily. Not to mention the time that stops literally out front.

The only people who think the pt to Princess Park is a problem, are the lazy boomers who expect to be dropped off directly at the front door.

And as someone who lived in and knows the area well, developing written oval is a terrible and stupid idea.
Click to expand...

I used park near the Carlton Inn & tram it - no problems. VFL Park had no such luxury.
 
Roogal said:
Is that money which was previously committed to in the budget, or a new grant? I must admit that I am wondering why on Earth the new lights haven't been installed yet considering that Princess Park (which had its new lights approved and funded at the same time as WO) had its lights installed months ago. After all, it's not like they don't need them for night AFLW games. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
The lights at Whitten Oval will be ready by the time AFLW games are played there again, but that won't be until 2023 (whereas Princes Park's next AFLW game is just over a month away).
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

theyellowsash said:
The train access thing is a stupid argument for stupid people.

The train station is closer than flinders st is to the mcg, and the amount of people who walk from there each game would fill Princess Park easily. Not to mention the tram that stops literally out front.

The only people who think the pt to Princess Park is a problem, are the lazy boomers who expect to be dropped off directly at the front door.

And as someone who lived in and knows the area well, developing written oval is a terrible and stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your abuse :) Now I don't recall being abusive or offensive in my previous post. Let's talk about "stupid".

A quick geography lesson - Jollimont and Richmond Stations are adjacent to the MCG. Nobody is forced to walk to the G from Flinders Street Station, if they do, that's purely their choice because there are two stations virtually at the front door of the G. Before you start abusing perfect strangers from the anonymity and safety of your keyboard, at least have the manners to get your facts straight.

A lot of older people and people with mobility issues cannot walk 2 km. Did you think about that? I'll bet No. You're too busy being rude and disrespectful to a stranger. My father loves his footy, is a "boomer" and has Parkinson's Disease. Even with a walker it would take him an hour to walk 2 km. You'll get old one day too, perhaps you might understand then what it's like for older people. Perhaps you'll have somebody close with mobility issues and come to regret the selfishness and arrogance of yourself in 2022.

You ought to be absolutely disgusted with yourself right now!
 
Last edited:
Roogal said:
Thank you for your abuse :) Now I don't recall being abusive or offensive in my previous post. Let's talk about "stupid".

A quick geography lesson - Jollimont and Richmond Stations are adjacent to the MCG. Nobody is forced to walk to the G from Flinders Street Station, if they do, that's purely their choice because there are two stations virtually at the front door of the G. Before you start abusing perfect strangers from the anonymity and safety of your keyboard, at least have the manners to get your facts straight.

A lot of older people and people with mobility issues cannot walk 2 km. Did you think about that? I'll bet No. You're too busy being rude and disrespectful to a stranger. My father loves his footy, is a "boomer" and has Parkinson's Disease. Even with a walker it would take him an hour to walk 2 km. You'll get old one day too, perhaps you might understand then what it's like for older people. Perhaps you'll have somebody close with mobility issues and come to regret the selfishness and arrogance of yourself in 2022.

You ought to be absolutely disgusted with yourself right now!
Click to expand...
And they say the younger generations are lazy
 
Any recent official update on this? Drove past during the week and noticed that the grandstand is gone, the entire oval dug up, hill behind the goals and mound on the DH wing gone as well. Looks like the ground dimensions will be reconfigured.
 
theyellowsash said:
The train access thing is a stupid argument for stupid people.

The train station is closer than flinders st is to the mcg, and the amount of people who walk from there each game would fill Princess Park easily. Not to mention the tram that stops literally out front.

The only people who think the pt to Princess Park is a problem, are the lazy boomers who expect to be dropped off directly at the front door.

And as someone who lived in and knows the area well, developing written oval is a terrible and stupid idea.
Click to expand...

What I think is a terrible idea is the Tigers demolishing the historical and beautiful Jack Dyer stand at Punt Road in their redevelopment.
 
Dogs till i die said:
What I think is a terrible idea is the Tigers demolishing the historical and beautiful Jack Dyer stand at Punt Road in their redevelopment.
Click to expand...
The old stand was past it's used by date. It is terrible in terms of disability access, it's hard wooden bench seating and of course the pillars that support the roof obstruct spectator viewing. Similar issues affect some of the older stands at Ikon Park which detracts from the spectator experience. These grounds are being progressively upgraded to meet modern expectations as well as conforming to modern OHS safety requirements. It would be a tragedy if we were to experience a Hillsborough style fire in one of those old wooden stands which were never designed to allow people to quickly evacuate in an emergency.

Times have changed and the best that we can hope is that the designers of new stands that replace older ones are sympathetic to the history of the area and the grounds themselves and where possible try to incorporate design features or even re-purpose components of the older stands into the newer builds.
 
Should be good. What will be capacity and are they still planning on trying to play men's games there? If so, weird to put the indoor playing surface behind the goals. Why do clubs do that. Looks trash
 
JHCAT23 said:
Should be good. What will be capacity and are they still planning on trying to play men's games there? If so, weird to put the indoor playing surface behind the goals. Why do clubs do that. Looks trash
Click to expand...
There won't be men's matches and the club has stated that. I doubt the capacity will be much greater than 10k. The playing surface has been widened and with the new buildings there will be less room for spectators.

Space considerations and getting approval from the council is probably why the indoor centre is located where it is. Local residents were complaining about the reduction in parkland they could access from Barkley St.
 
Just to share an image with the interested Bulldogs supporters. I still don't know why they didn't push that Northern boundary of the oval in closer to the ground and utilise that extra ground gained for creating seating or a standing berm to make the ground more spectator friendly?

Image can be enlarged by clicking on it.

VUWO_drone_shot.jpg
 
Roogal said:
Just to share an image with the interested Bulldogs supporters. I still don't know why they didn't push that Northern boundary of the oval in closer to the ground and utilise that extra ground gained for creating seating or a standing berm to make the ground more spectator friendly?

Image can be enlarged by clicking on it.

View attachment 1839964
Click to expand...
I fully agree with you. It makes no sense. You could fit more people in if the fence was brought in
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Thebarton oval development
Replies
2
Views
485
Millsie69
Millsie69
The Victorian
Thebarton Oval
Replies
5
Views
2K
Angus Young
Angus Young
S
  • Poll
MCG redevelopment - incorporating safe standing room to temporarily increase capacity.
Replies
17
Views
1K
Pakenhamsaint
Pakenhamsaint

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top