Opinion New AFC HQ: We're on like Donkey Kong!

[Bovo]

Looks like we are really making a splash. I say we should dive right in before we get wet behind the ears. So hold your breath cause we are throwing it all in the deep end. Mackay better not pee in the pool.

 

[BunjiMC]

If they are going underground car park can they use the old car park space as footprint?

 

[Truck25]

Probably but that'll be enough.

Will it, you still have to put the Olympic pools and the diving tower somewhere, I suppose they can fill the kiddy's pool with ice for the after game.

 

[mulz]

after listening to lord mayor or whoever she is on 5aa today man I hope we don't go there, find another site, will be more trouble than its worth being there, leave them with their shit hole

 

[SaltPeter]

Will it, you still have to put the Olympic pools and the diving tower somewhere, I suppose they can fill the kiddy's pool with ice for the after game.

It would be interesting to know what is actually expected to replace the existing pool complex. I'd be surprised, with the primary facility now available at Marion, that a new new diving pool would need to built for example.

 

[CrowEater888]

She came across as an entitled biatch who loves wielding her power

She needs to be snippy, believe me, the other members are equally as arrogant if not more so.

 

[Big Gazoongas]

after listening to lord mayor or whoever she is on 5aa today man I hope we don't go there, find another site, will be more trouble than its worth being there, leave them with their **** hole

Pretty much how I feel. Leave them the money pit and we should go elsewhere. Given ACC history don't understand why we are even wasting our time and effort.
Exhibit A - the former Le Cornu site............nothing more to be said about the ACC.

 

[CharlieCrow]

I find the arguments about the parkland to be particularly self righteous and elitist. The only position that is genuinely being held is that the city council is made up of members with a single view about themselves only. They dress is up as stewardship for the greater good, however, it is really only about them and their needs and wants.

OUR parkland has many areas that are taken by sporting clubs - Veterans tennis, French petanque and of course the netball mega courts, two golf courses and the soccer pitches of West Terrace. Then there are the ovals for the restricted use of the few, namely the elite private schools whose membership is purchased not shared, plus Adelaide High which is almost in the same category. There's a horse adjistment property owned or leased by who knows and then there are tennis courts that are locked and used also by the privileged few.
Then there are hectares of undeveloped bushland, kept 'pristine' for the neighbours, but are just dusty or weedy in turns and provide little sense of the natural. This proposed under-development, disguised as environmentalism just would not happen in Melbourne, Sydney or London or New York.

The rules and opinions are just what is in the head of a few and those heads need to roll.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

So no increased size beyond the existing hoofprint?

 

[Deaneus!]

I met Anne Moran last year, and the thing i noticed about her immediately... was her height. She is not tall.

Now, I've long been of the belief that she is the major impediment to any kind of development in North Adelaide. Whether that's correct is immaterial.

I think she raises as important point - do the ratepayers of Adelaide even want the development there? If anything like this was being built in another council, that council would be well within its rights to check the development.

And this raises a further, more fundamental question - why do only the ratepayers of Adelaide Council get a say?

They get a say because it's in their area. Which leads me to the next logical question, should the development of the parklands be under the stewardship of just the ACC?

It's clear the majority of Adelaidians think, no it shouldn't.

Does this mean it should be under the State Government, under some sort of "greater public good" provision?

Watching the video, there was a bit of talk about the pools being returned to open-air public baths. I LOL'd, though it could happen.

Moran is correct though, there's been some jumping of the gun.

As for asking the ratepayers through some sort of plebiscite, aye carumba.

Thankfully that other councillor pointed out they're elected to make decisions, not defer decisions on everything to ratepayers*.

Reminds me when the SACA voted to bring footy back... everyone got a bit ahead of themselves and the vote was closer than people thought...

*think of all the things that could have been improved by elected governments making decisions they've been empowered too - Brexit, SSM...

 

[NTRabbit]

If they are going underground car park can they use the old car park space as footprint?

That would be the point of doing that, yes.

 

[AFC3000]

Some Google Maps screenshots and very bad Photoshop suggests that if you actually include the carpark you'd get about 4 of our current training facilities on the site, looks like our current one would fit in the Aquatic Centre car park?

It's too late at night to factor in that most Pools have high roofs/single level and then that your not going to park under the pool, so I've just used 2 current facilities so there should be plenty of room left over to make sure everything fits.

I thought it might be an issue earlier, but I don't think footprint would be the problem.

 

[AmericanCrow]

Water the lawn down there for goodness sake

 

[mattymac]

Some Google Maps screenshots and very bad Photoshop suggests that if you actually include the carpark you'd get about 4 of our current training facilities on the site, looks like our current one would fit in the Aquatic Centre car park?

It's too late to factor in that most Pools have high roofs/single level and then that your not going to park under the pool, so I've just used 2 current facilities so there is plenty of room left over.

I thought it might be an issue earlier, but I don't think footprint would be the problem.

View attachment 691291

Wasn't one of the stipulations that no tree can be harmed because each one is a living connection with years of dog piss?

 

[Fuller McCallister]

after listening to lord mayor or whoever she is on 5aa today man I hope we don't go there, find another site, will be more trouble than its worth being there, leave them with their **** hole

What did you hear/deduce from the interview that you didn’t like? I think we should definitely tread cautiously and pick a deal that is Solely to suit us

 

[1970crow]

I met Anne Moran last year, and the thing i noticed about her immediately... was her height. She is not tall.

Now, I've long been of the belief that she is the major impediment to any kind of development in North Adelaide. Whether that's correct is immaterial.

I think she raises as important point - do the ratepayers of Adelaide even want the development there? If anything like this was being built in another council, that council would be well within its rights to check the development.

And this raises a further, more fundamental question - why do only the ratepayers of Adelaide Council get a say?

They get a say because it's in their area. Which leads me to the next logical question, should the development of the parklands be under the stewardship of just the ACC?

It's clear the majority of Adelaidians think, no it shouldn't.

Does this mean it should be under the State Government, under some sort of "greater public good" provision?

Watching the video, there was a bit of talk about the pools being returned to open-air public baths. I LOL'd, though it could happen.

Moran is correct though, there's been some jumping of the gun.

As for asking the ratepayers through some sort of plebiscite, aye carumba.

Thankfully that other councillor pointed out they're elected to make decisions, not defer decisions on everything to ratepayers*.

Reminds me when the SACA voted to bring footy back... everyone got a bit ahead of themselves and the vote was closer than people thought...

*think of all the things that could have been improved by elected governments making decisions they've been empowered too - Brexit, SSM...

I’d love to know exactly how the parklands work in an ownership/control sense. Every person/vehicle I see working in and around is from the council. But what does the state government contribute to specific areas and/or the parklands upkeep in general. It seems that the council is charged with protecting the original vision of Light, but do they actually own all the land? If so, can the state government compulsorily acquire council land? How much upkeep costs comes from outside of council rates? As an Adelaide City ratepayer, I’d love to know everything that’s involved. I’m all for redevelopment of existing areas and this in particular. But I would like to know whose parklands they actually are, Adelaide City ratepayers or the whole of SA. Adelaide city ratepayers don’t seem to bleat about not being being able to develop other council’s park areas, why are the parklands within their boundary seen to be different to those from other areas?

 

[1970crow]

I find the arguments about the parkland to be particularly self righteous and elitist. The only position that is genuinely being held is that the city council is made up of members with a single view about themselves only. They dress is up as stewardship for the greater good, however, it is really only about them and their needs and wants.

OUR parkland has many areas that are taken by sporting clubs - Veterans tennis, French petanque and of course the netball mega courts, two golf courses and the soccer pitches of West Terrace. Then there are the ovals for the restricted use of the few, namely the elite private schools whose membership is purchased not shared, plus Adelaide High which is almost in the same category. There's a horse adjistment property owned or leased by who knows and then there are tennis courts that are locked and used also by the privileged few.
Then there are hectares of undeveloped bushland, kept 'pristine' for the neighbours, but are just dusty or weedy in turns and provide little sense of the natural. This proposed under-development, disguised as environmentalism just would not happen in Melbourne, Sydney or London or New York.

The rules and opinions are just what is in the head of a few and those heads need to roll.

Are they YOUR’S though? Do all park areas around the state belong to all South Australians?

 

[Fuller McCallister]

Are they YOUR’S though? Do all park areas around the state belong to all South Australians?

Yes they do..and no tree hugger is going to tell me otherwise.. chop em all down make way mofos new clubrooms coming through!

 

[Fuller McCallister]

Stupid trees

 

[1970crow]

I met Anne Moran last year, and the thing i noticed about her immediately... was her height. She is not tall.

Now, I've long been of the belief that she is the major impediment to any kind of development in North Adelaide. Whether that's correct is immaterial.

I think she raises as important point - do the ratepayers of Adelaide even want the development there? If anything like this was being built in another council, that council would be well within its rights to check the development.

And this raises a further, more fundamental question - why do only the ratepayers of Adelaide Council get a say?

They get a say because it's in their area. Which leads me to the next logical question, should the development of the parklands be under the stewardship of just the ACC?

It's clear the majority of Adelaidians think, no it shouldn't.

Does this mean it should be under the State Government, under some sort of "greater public good" provision?

Watching the video, there was a bit of talk about the pools being returned to open-air public baths. I LOL'd, though it could happen.

Moran is correct though, there's been some jumping of the gun.

As for asking the ratepayers through some sort of plebiscite, aye carumba.

Thankfully that other councillor pointed out they're elected to make decisions, not defer decisions on everything to ratepayers*.

Reminds me when the SACA voted to bring footy back... everyone got a bit ahead of themselves and the vote was closer than people thought...

*think of all the things that could have been improved by elected governments making decisions they've been empowered too - Brexit, SSM...

Just dawned on me, we’ve received a couple of these types of plebiscites in the last couple of years. So unimportant that I can’t even remember what they were and certainly didn’t respond. But I’ve never respond to the dwelling use and rental income enquiry either and I think I’m actually meant to do that.

 

[Fuller McCallister]

Just a quick question is the median age of posters on this board 87 years old?

 

[Fuller McCallister]

Question can we just bulldoze half of port Adelaide and put the clubrooms there?

 

[Hinkstuff]

Water the lawn down there for goodness sake

They can't, Adelaide water is too expensive

 

[GreyCrow]

Water the lawn down there for goodness sake

Look to your left. Thats a golf course.

Now fly out and play it and enjoy that wonderful sensation of dry dust and brown grass fly into your face as your 3 iron connects with the underlying Iron Stone creating a spark that sets that brown grass alight

 

[chazwazza]

Water the lawn down there for goodness sake

That is green, Adelaide green, just wait until January/February after months of baking in 35-45 degree heat.