The plan outlined was essentially kicking the can down the road so more 'delaying' end of life rather than actually fixing anythingThe Quirk report said all the end of life issues can be fixed for $1 billion.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
The plan outlined was essentially kicking the can down the road so more 'delaying' end of life rather than actually fixing anythingThe Quirk report said all the end of life issues can be fixed for $1 billion.
This is kind of my thinking too.....it was unnecessary to make a stadium commitment beyond holding the 100 day review.This is true. It just seems like a big unforced error by Crisafulli to make himself a public liar within a few months of getting into office.
Oh well, I don't care as long as we get a good solution.
It is indeed.I assume (image below) this is what you are talking about.
I think you might have mixed two different things together here. There already is rail to the airport. What Brisbane City Council are now proposing is to extend their "Metro" (in reality a longer bus that uses busway or bus lanes) to the airport either through the Airport Link tunnel, or by converting the Doomben railway line to busway and connecting one end to the airport and the other end to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (though they haven't specified how this going to happen).As you mentioned the recent government announcement of rail to airport most likely stops this proposal.
The costs would be very high, but so would the benefits. When it comes to moving lots of people frequently and reliably, there's no better mode of transport than a true metro, by which I mean a train line that is underground or elevated for its full length, and doesn't share tracks with other lines. (The state government prefers the term "subway" like in New York). There are rarely delays and it carries more people than our existing trains can.That's one hell of a tunnel. Toowong to Newstead then Newstead to Hamilton
Not saying it is not worth doing but what would be the costs.
CRR had some complex issues, like the pandemic, huge increases in material costs, industrial action and having to integrate the line with tracks also used by other services. Hopefully the cost of construction starts to fall the further away we get from the pandemic, but who knows.Just looking at Cross River rail.
Costs now around $6.3 billion with just 6km underground.
View attachment 2098793
True. At the end of the day, the Gabba stands were only designed with a 50 year shelf life. They all have to be replaced sometime, and the repairs Quirk talked about for that $1 billion didn't involve full replacement of the stands. But it will repair the stuff that's going to conk out within the next ten years.The plan outlined was essentially kicking the can down the road so more 'delaying' end of life rather than actually fixing anything
Crisafulli would do well to remember what happened to Tony Abbott after he immediately broke his word after winning the election. And what happened to Campbell Newman after he immediately broke his word after winning the election. So I am a little worried that he's talking so tough about it. But at least the stadium plans will be too far gone to change course by the time the 2028 election rolls around.However Tony Abbott said before an election no new taxes then immediately introduced a "debt levy" after victory....so it does happen....but you'd think he'd at least be softening his language about it by now if Vic Park was a possibility.
Modern politics is all about looking good. That's why although I have political leanings, I try not to put any faith in individual politicians.Saddest thing is both politicians treat us constituents as so dumb....they are trying to pretend they are "saving" the state money but all both are doing is ensuring we spend and waste oh so much more for less!
Dumb, Dumb & Dumber!
Schrinner backflipped on his Vic Park position after the LGA elections in March. So, it's not the wildest idea to think he'll change his position on it post-October election.Crisafulli would do well to remember what happened to Tony Abbott after he immediately broke his word after winning the election. And what happened to Campbell Newman after he immediately broke his word after winning the election. So I am a little worried that he's talking so tough about it. But at least the stadium plans will be too far gone to change course by the time the 2028 election rolls around.
It's fundamentally not a council decision in the end, and people don't pay as much attention to council. I don't disagree he'll probably change his position, it's just a weird risk for him to take.Schrinner backflipped on his Vic Park position after the LGA elections in March. So, it's not the wildest idea to think he'll change his position on it post-October election.
I would hardly call it a risk.It's fundamentally not a council decision in the end, and people don't pay as much attention to council. I don't disagree he'll probably change his position, it's just a weird risk for him to take.
Vote 1 Section 5How can the LNP get out of a statement (promise) via the review.
You also have to remember you need to get the IOC on board as well as the Commonwealth.
He could say after the review (assuming they recommend a new stadium).
............................................................
I said on a few occasions i did not want a new stadium.
I did not give reasons at the time, but it was obvious to me we could not afford a $3 billion stadium when we only have $3.535 billion in total to spend. Of that total $935 million was agreed to co fund the minor events. So not possible.
Labor was probably looking at it this way too.
I also hated wasting $1.6 billion on the QSAC idea being the majority of funds available.
So was hoping the review will come up with alternatives and they have.
Today i announce that i and the LNP have accepted most of the review's recommendations.
The major recommendations we will go forward with are
Renegotiate the State and Commonwealth funding deal to 50/50 split. The total funding remains the same being $7 billion.
I have contacted the Commonwealth, and they are onboard as long as their contribution stays the same and minor venue agreement also stays the same.
By doing this it opens up where we can spend funds more efficiently and get what's best for Brisbane.
The proposed 2nd site of the Brisbane Arena has to many limitations and will still be extremely costly and not really viable according to the review.
Today i announce a new stadium at Victoria Park or Hamilton to be a priority with an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.
An urgent validation reports and business case needed on both sites.
The results of these reports will determine the chosen site.
So, how can i justify changing my mind on no new stadium.
The review believe Brisbane needs a new entertainment Centre and a new oval stadium but can't afford both at the same time.
After reading the review i have come to the same conclusion.
The review states we can get both, but an oval stadium is needed more for Olympics than an Entertainment Centre with a drop in pool.
This plan has no legacy for swimming. Swimming Australia and past greats have been stating this for many months. Australia usually wins more gold in the pool than other sports.
The review recommends a legacy for swimming at Chandler and still retain one for Athletics at QSAC be it an expensive one.
The QSAC site is used by way more local people than Lang Park, The Gabba and other venues, so very important to the community.
The review recommends upgrading QSAC even though it will only be used as a training venue for the Olympics.
A training track has not been mentioned in previous Brisbane Games plans.
This was an oversite as they need someone to train, and it has to be world class.
QSAC will still get that major upgrade to a modern 14k capacity and be a great legacy for athletics in the future.
These are the basic figures.
$3.2 billion: New Stadium at Victoria Park/Hamilton
$0.5 billion: Gabba upgrade stays the same
$0.62 billion: New pool Chandler (Quirk review costing)
$1.87 billion: Minor venues stays the same
$0.6 billion: QSAC training venue only. Legacy mode 14k upgrade. (Quirk review costing)
$6.79 billion: total
After the Olympics the Gabba site to have a new Entertainment Centre. Partly funded by land sales from the Gabba site.
Sale of land in this site to developer for units/mixed business/greenspace.
Validation reports at the appropriate time.
Consideration to see if the Entertainment Centre can be built on the Cross-River Rail location above Wooloongabba rail station.
This would make more space available on the Gabba site to sell to developers which would be preferrable.
Spot on. But it may be more politically savvy to not spend a cent on the Gabba and allocate that $500m to Suncorp.How can the LNP get out of a statement (promise) via the review.
You also have to remember you need to get the IOC on board as well as the Commonwealth.
He could say after the review (assuming they recommend a new stadium).
............................................................
I said on a few occasions i did not want a new stadium.
I did not give reasons at the time, but it was obvious to me we could not afford a $3 billion stadium when we only have $3.535 billion in total to spend. Of that total $935 million was agreed to co fund the minor events. So not possible.
Labor was probably looking at it this way too.
I also hated wasting $1.6 billion on the QSAC idea being the majority of funds available.
So was hoping the review will come up with alternatives and they have.
Today i announce that i and the LNP have accepted most of the review's recommendations.
The major recommendations we will go forward with are
Renegotiate the State and Commonwealth funding deal to 50/50 split. The total funding remains the same being $7 billion.
I have contacted the Commonwealth, and they are onboard as long as their contribution stays the same and minor venue agreement also stays the same.
By doing this it opens up where we can spend funds more efficiently and get what's best for Brisbane.
The proposed 2nd site of the Brisbane Arena has to many limitations and will still be extremely costly and not really viable according to the review.
Today i announce a new stadium at Victoria Park or Hamilton to be a priority with an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.
An urgent validation reports and business case needed on both sites.
The results of these reports will determine the chosen site.
So, how can i justify changing my mind on no new stadium.
The review believe Brisbane needs a new entertainment Centre and a new oval stadium but can't afford both at the same time.
After reading the review i have come to the same conclusion.
The review states we can get both, but an oval stadium is needed more for Olympics than an Entertainment Centre with a drop in pool.
This plan has no legacy for swimming. Swimming Australia and past greats have been stating this for many months. Australia usually wins more gold in the pool than other sports.
The review recommends a legacy for swimming at Chandler and still retain one for Athletics at QSAC be it an expensive one.
The QSAC site is used by way more local people than Lang Park, The Gabba and other venues, so very important to the community.
The review recommends upgrading QSAC even though it will only be used as a training venue for the Olympics.
A training track has not been mentioned in previous Brisbane Games plans.
This was an oversite as they need someone to train, and it has to be world class.
QSAC will still get that major upgrade to a modern 14k capacity and be a great legacy for athletics in the future.
These are the basic figures.
$3.2 billion: New Stadium at Victoria Park/Hamilton
$0.5 billion: Gabba upgrade stays the same
$0.62 billion: New pool Chandler (Quirk review costing)
$1.87 billion: Minor venues stays the same
$0.6 billion: QSAC training venue only. Legacy mode 14k upgrade. (Quirk review costing)
$6.79 billion: total
After the Olympics the Gabba site to have a new Entertainment Centre. Partly funded by land sales from the Gabba site.
Sale of land in this site to developer for units/mixed business/greenspace.
Validation reports at the appropriate time.
Consideration to see if the Entertainment Centre can be built on the Cross-River Rail location above Wooloongabba rail station.
This would make more space available on the Gabba site to sell to developers which would be preferrable.
Yes, politics is always an issue.Spot on. But it may be more politically savvy to not spend a cent on the Gabba and allocate that $500m to Suncorp.
I imagine they can do a drop in pool anywhere.Can they do a drop in pool at qsac?
Or lang park?
Quick question.How can the LNP get out of a statement (promise) via the review.
You also have to remember you need to get the IOC on board as well as the Commonwealth.
He could say after the review (assuming they recommend a new stadium).
............................................................
I said on a few occasions i did not want a new stadium.
I did not give reasons at the time, but it was obvious to me we could not afford a $3 billion stadium when we only have $3.535 billion in total to spend. Of that total $935 million was agreed to co fund the minor events. So not possible.
Labor was probably looking at it this way too.
I also hated wasting $1.6 billion on the QSAC idea being the majority of funds available.
So was hoping the review will come up with alternatives and they have.
Today i announce that i and the LNP have accepted most of the review's recommendations.
The major recommendations we will go forward with are
Renegotiate the State and Commonwealth funding deal to 50/50 split. The total funding remains the same being $7 billion.
I have contacted the Commonwealth, and they are onboard as long as their contribution stays the same and minor venue agreement also stays the same.
By doing this it opens up where we can spend funds more efficiently and get what's best for Brisbane.
The proposed 2nd site of the Brisbane Arena has to many limitations and will still be extremely costly and not really viable according to the review.
Today i announce a new stadium at Victoria Park or Hamilton to be a priority with an estimated cost of $3.2 billion.
An urgent validation reports and business case needed on both sites.
The results of these reports will determine the chosen site.
So, how can i justify changing my mind on no new stadium.
The review believe Brisbane needs a new entertainment Centre and a new oval stadium but can't afford both at the same time.
After reading the review i have come to the same conclusion.
The review states we can get both, but an oval stadium is needed more for Olympics than an Entertainment Centre with a drop in pool.
This plan has no legacy for swimming. Swimming Australia and past greats have been stating this for many months. Australia usually wins more gold in the pool than other sports.
The review recommends a legacy for swimming at Chandler and still retain one for Athletics at QSAC be it an expensive one.
The QSAC site is used by way more local people than Lang Park, The Gabba and other venues, so very important to the community.
The review recommends upgrading QSAC even though it will only be used as a training venue for the Olympics.
A training track has not been mentioned in previous Brisbane Games plans.
This was an oversite as they need someone to train, and it has to be world class.
QSAC will still get that major upgrade to a modern 14k capacity and be a great legacy for athletics in the future.
These are the basic figures.
$3.2 billion: New Stadium at Victoria Park/Hamilton
$0.5 billion: Gabba upgrade stays the same
$0.62 billion: New pool Chandler (Quirk review costing)
$1.87 billion: Minor venues stays the same
$0.6 billion: QSAC training venue only. Legacy mode 14k upgrade. (Quirk review costing)
$6.79 billion: total
After the Olympics the Gabba site to have a new Entertainment Centre. Partly funded by land sales from the Gabba site.
Sale of land in this site to developer for units/mixed business/greenspace.
Validation reports at the appropriate time.
Consideration to see if the Entertainment Centre can be built on the Cross-River Rail location above Wooloongabba rail station.
This would make more space available on the Gabba site to sell to developers which would be preferrable.
Reckon it would sell for 10 - 20 times demolition costs.Quick question.
If the Government would have to pay to demolish the Gabba, before then being able to sell the land off to developers, would they actually come out in front?
Serious question!
Would the land alone be worth the cost of demolition of the Gabba?
I would nearly think not.
What would your forecast be for demolition costs and on sale costs?Reckon it would sell for 10 - 20 times demolition costs.
Good questions but I don't have the information and i am not qualified to answer them. Someone on BF might be.Quick question.
If the Government would have to pay to demolish the Gabba, before then being able to sell the land off to developers, would they actually come out in front?
Serious question!
Would the land alone be worth the cost of demolition of the Gabba?
I would nearly think not.
That is just nuts.Even if we doubled the capacity of the Gabba, we'd still have less seats than over 20 college football stadiums in the US..
The 25 biggest college football stadiums in the country
Here are the 25 biggest college football stadiums in the United States, beginning with the Big House in Ann Arbor with a capacity of 107,601.www.ncaa.com
There is virtually no second tier of American Football. There is just NFL. So College football is the next best thing, and the only football for cities that do ot have an NFL team (besides High School football).Even if we doubled the capacity of the Gabba, we'd still have less seats than over 20 college football stadiums in the US..
The 25 biggest college football stadiums in the country
Here are the 25 biggest college football stadiums in the United States, beginning with the Big House in Ann Arbor with a capacity of 107,601.www.ncaa.com
Have spoken to many Americans who love their College Football much more than the NFL.There is virtually no second tier of American Football. There is just NFL. So College football is the next best thing, and the only football for cities that do ot have an NFL team (besides High School football).
Many of those stadiums are old and basic with little to no cover from the elements, but the crowds are huge - they get 100K every week.
It’s a strange system - if you don’t make NFL, you can play in Canada otherwise your football career is over at 22.Have spoken to many Americans who love their College Football much more than the NFL.
Most are well aware of the tier system over there.There is virtually no second tier of American Football. There is just NFL. So College football is the next best thing, and the only football for cities that do ot have an NFL team (besides High School football).
Many of those stadiums are old and basic with little to no cover from the elements, but the crowds are huge - they get 100K every week.