we also need the river torrens precinct upgrade - once you have been to south bank in melb you will see why. higher density city living, need for employment in building industry - it's all a must.

would have been keen for a 25-30,000 seat enclosed arena like melb - that is a top facility

Yeah would have love a roofed stadium but this state needs a kick in the butt and hopefully this can make that whole area more vibrant. It makes it so much easier to just catch a train into town now. Don't buy the whole parking complaint, there is ample parking and the point of a city stadium is to encourage people to take public transport and stay in town.

Really surprised it got up,I have just become so conditioned to expect every ounce of development or progress to be voted down in this town. Have we grown up?

I have been offered free tickets twice this year to Pleurisy Park and turned it down just because it is such a horrible venue/location. I would prefer to watch the games on TV, but probably would have accepted each time if it was at Adelaide Oval.

Watching sport at Melbourne's venues has spoilt me for thinking going to West Lakes is worth the effort. And the parking/transport options for Adelaide Oval are 100 times better than Footy Park, where in the past I have had to park several suburbs away.

XY - you gotta know the history of why football park exists.

The demographic / politics have changed and more are speaking up "for" adelaide oval rather than "against".

Find the history of SANFL, SACA Football Park and Adelaide oval.

It is all interesting to look at the history of Waverley and the MCG - deja vu.

Vale Football Park, She was a good mistress who happily accommodated our weekly pleasures in her younger days however time has caught up and ongoing facelifts just could hold off the spectre of change from striking her down.

Enjoy her while you still can folks for in the very near future our sweet Football Park will be no more.

Wax on/off, I have had the unfortunate need to review the Adelaide Oval Act 1897, the Adelaide Oval Conservation Plan and spend time delving through dusty records at the ACC archives all about the heritage value of the oval. The politics that sent football out to West Lakes doesn't make the stadium any warmer on a rainy Sunday evening!

I too would have prefered a new stadium where we are currently building a severely overpriced, overbudget and unnecessary hospital when we apparently can't afford to staff the current one to keep all the usable wards open - but that is another topic entirely - however an improved Adelaide Oval is at least better than no change at all.

Fantastic news,sure hope we can bring Adelaide out of the 70s and into a vibrant happening place.Lets hope it brings the money in after the development if not well at least my friends from interstate/overseas wont pay me out any more on the infrastructure of the city.

Well said anon.

I'm extremely happy with the Adelaide Oval upgrade going ahead, and i actually like the designs as well. I'm also excited for the new casino/upgrade, convention centre upgrade, river bank upgrade and festival square.


During the election first and foremost, i wanted a new stadium very much like Etihad, and was hoping for a Liberal win for this to go ahead. Sadly that was not the case, however this is better than nothing, or the current situation and it will still help the city greatly.

why not throw a roof on memorial drive and fill the ends in with extra seating. Instant sporting precinct.

Small detail overlooked in the Libs plan - the cost of the new stadium and the required upgrade works to the RAH was never funded. The Libs released a very sexy artists impression of the new stadium precinct and upgraded hospital, but never released a detailed plan with costings.

It's not correct to lump the river precint development into the category of 'associated works' to the stadium upgrade. That project is a seperate, very overdue and worthwhile project (if done well).

Lets hope it is done better than the Port Adelaide revitalisation. What a fail that has been to date.

The point remains that the Libs plan wasn't costed, so can't be considered a credible alternative. Read the articles today about the RAH costings - construction costs remain at $1.7B. The "blowout" claim is old news, and relates to associated costs such as finance and pre-construction costs (project development, documentation etc).

My point about the river precinct development is that it should have occured a long time ago, and is needed regardless of any oval upgrade. Every other city in the world takes advantage of it's waterfront, whilst Adelaide has neglected its.

See Melb and Brisbane as examples of what can be done to make a traditionally dirty, neglected waterway into the heart of the city precinct.

Anon - what's your view on the oval and river projects? My view is that Adelaide needs a major project like this to avoid becoming irrelevant outside of the March festival season.

Hey Doc, I've just gotta ask, how can you say that Labour budgets which are out by a billion dollars are credible, when the Libs 'estimates' are not?

I've worked on major projects for 30 years, and rarely do things come in under or at budget, unless many compromises are made along the way. Problem is, weve got the compromise solution BEFORE we start, and whilst the pictures look all warm and fuzzy, the reality will be much cheaper and crappier. As long as Media Mike gets his name on another project he doesn't care about the long term. Havn't you heard, he's going to live in Italy when he gets the flick he so deserves.

I would've prefered a new facility, or an opening roof over Adelaide Oval, but thats not to be. So as usual, we get a half baked product because we are Adelaide.

They wasted millions at Footy Park on the Northern stand, the new seating, extension to the function centre, and recently the Crows Westpac Centre. Always patching things up, rather than putting a master plan into effect which would give us a 'future standard facility'. And as for the big tent membrane roofing, that only has a 20 - 25 year lifespan, so then what? Another $100 million to replace it?

In one sense I'm glad for the city to be revived, and for the game to come back to Adelaide Oval, but I bet you anything you like it wont be as good as Etihad.

I'm not spruiking for either patry's proposal, just pointing out the need for the river precinct project (independent of the hospital and oval) and that the Libs have yet to date offer a genuine alternative. As for the RAH costings, reading beyond the Advertiser headline suggests that the 'blowout' is in fact finance and ancillary costs rather than an increase in construction costs, which remain at the projected $1.7B (for now). I'm not aligned politically (in fact, now live interstate). Both parties are pretty uninspiring at the moment. I'm just commenting on the issue generally.

Ever seen government-funded development anywhere that hasn't seemed overpriced? Doubt it'd be common.

Yep government project automatically means contractors add more margin, its just a given that it runs over its just by how much.

Two new stands at adelaide oval is bound to be cheaper than an entirely new roofed stadium surely?

Plus, AFL, private funding, federal government, saca, sanfl will probably cover beyond the $535mill.

Footbridge is included under the convention centre budget now i believe :P

Liberal didn't develop their plan enough, it was just placing the Telstra Dome into a position and putting garden around it. They needed to put some more time into it and the details really..

regardless of cost if we need a new hospital , we need one.

We don't need one. Ask the doctors who work at the RAH. If more capacity is needed (it isn't) you could just re-open some of the wards that have been closed due to lack of staff and maintenance spend.

Same as building two new grandstands at Adelaide Oval will be cheaper than a brand new stadium, so will renovating a currently working hospital rather than building a new one. Though many won't agree with me, I think the stadium would be the better long term investment for the economy of the State than the hospital.

The RAH in its present position is in a unique medical precinct with the medical research units of the Hanson Institute, Adelaide Uni and the Med school. In its new position, it will be next to UniSA which is planning to build its own Med school - at Mawson Lakes.

But what is done is done.

XY,

Instead of asking doctors, ask an architect. The current building is approaching the end of it's intended lifespan and we can either bite the bullet and build a new hospital now or waste money fixing up a building which will need replacing soon no matter what anyway.

I know someone who is a very senior doctor (higher that Katsoras) who if he expresses an opinion about anything, it's worth listening to.

He states without condition that a new RAH is the only option. He has said that the current buildings even if renovated still would not do the job. He hasnt been in the media, as he doesnt like getting into politics, so only has expressed his opinion to friends/associates etc.

As for the Libs not having the costings done, as soon as it is a caretaker Government, the opposition have access to Government departments as well, in particular Treasury to be able to cost their plans, it is a convention of the Westminster system. They refused stating they didnt trust Treasury, and it would get leaked.

DC, I think you mean a structural engineer. An architect would be more than happy to design a multi-stage plan to renovate and reinvigour the existing RAH (and leave the engineers with the headache as to how to do it!).

The age of the building means nothing. There was plenty of space to progressively build and replace wings of the hospital, including on the old RAH car park site which was returned back for use by 'the People' about 10 years ago. It still remains a vacant block with fences around it to keep 'the People' out.

Furthermore, an upgrade to the current hospital is a capital expenditure which could have been spent over 20-25 years, rather than over $2.7B now.

But as I say, not much point arguing over it as this Government has chosen the path we will all be stuck with no matter what. FWIW, I have no Liberal party leanings but did think their plan from opposition made more sense overall.

XY, good call on the structural engineer - bit of a bonehead statement on my part.

Still I have hear (like The Answer) from people in the know that a new building is the only way to go.

In regards to the capital expenditure why not just bite the bullet and spend the $2.7 billion now? The budget is there to service the economy and the people; I think there is way too much scare mongering about debt in this country. One of the sums I heard was 1 million dollars a day over 30 years, or effectively a dollar a person per day for a brand new hospital, pretty reasonable deal to me I would have thought.

I look at it this way:

New Stadium + Redeveloped Hospital = Win

Redeveloped Adelaide Oval + New Hospital = Win


Depends how much we needed the new hospital i guess.

Hard to argue with that K.E.T. Probably just a matter of the margin at the end of the game.

hey can u guys help me out with answering the following question ??? it would be much appreciated.

Do you believe that the upgrade of Adelaide oval would be a positive impact for tourism in Adelaide? Why?


Do you think more people from Interstate will travel to Adelaide for sporting events at Adelaide oval? Why?


By upgrading Adelaide oval do you think there should be a transport upgrade as well?

Do you travel to the city on a frequent basis and believe the upgrade should not go ahead due to the traffic?


Will the upgrade be beneficial to the local businesses?