Sydney Stadium Plan

[Sir Chadley]

I've just read the last ten posts from us learned people and it's brilliant how much logic is there.

Which begs the question. Why hasn't anyone thought about this before?

Surely they must have discussed it. It's a no brainer.

There must be some reason why they can't.

Aboriginal sacred land?
Too expensive?
Afraid to admit they got it wrong?

 

[slide rule]

Politically they have trouble trying to use parkland for it. People blow up.

At one stage they were looking at building it in the park across the road from the old SFS. This would have been a slightly better location because it's closer to the city/central (it's only minimal but it is better). The current SFS space was going to be returned to parkland. There were massive blow ups about using the park.

 

[slide rule]

I've just read the last ten posts from us learned people and it's brilliant how much logic is there.

Which begs the question. Why hasn't anyone thought about this before?

Surely they must have discussed it. It's a no brainer.

There must be some reason why they can't.

Aboriginal sacred land?
Too expensive?
Afraid to admit they got it wrong?

Cricket Ground Trust politics would be the biggest.

Bit scared of the bald man and his early morning rants.

 

[bort]

At one stage they were looking at building it in the park across the road from the old SFS.... The current SFS space was going to be returned to parkland. There were massive blow ups about using the park.

*facepalm*

 

[HaroldBishop]

That doesn't really stop governments when it comes to roads and other things.

Yeah, they could get it done if they really wanted to.

As usual though, Governments tend to take the easy option and think short term.

 

[snowman]

Politically they have trouble trying to use parkland for it. People blow up.

At one stage they were looking at building it in the park across the road from the old SFS. This would have been a slightly better location because it's closer to the city/central (it's only minimal but it is better). The current SFS space was going to be returned to parkland. There were massive blow ups about using the park.

its the same everywhere in the world

try being a football team trying to build in london

qpr couldnt build on land they own because people walk their dog through that field

 

[HaroldBishop]

Cricket Ground Trust politics would be the biggest.

Bit scared of the bald man and his early morning rants.

Yep. No doubt in the world Stuart Ayres is getting something out of it.

 

[bort]

As usual though, Governments tend to take the easy option and think short term.

Government thinking long term is unrealistic - shoot for short term wins to stay in power.
Anything long term requires parties to agree and actually work together for the common good, an unreasonable request.

 

[slide rule]

its the same everywhere in the world

try being a football team trying to build in london

qpr couldnt build on land they own because people walk their dog through that field

I do get it, to an extent. Parkland in and around the city is important.

But if the old stadium site is returned to parkland there really isn't any overall loss of land.

If the stadium is placed in a better location for transport access then that is the "greenest" solution possible. Overall it's a win on many fronts.

 

[Mark^Bastard]

Here's a few thoughts:
- The government should have reserved land earlier.
- But they didn't. They can still make it happen but they won't, because they don't really give a **** about punters and they assume they'll put up with anything.
- There's a **** load of politics involved.
- Sydney's planning is some of the worst I've ever seen in the world.
- People don't like parks being removed and fair enough, but there are other options. Didn't Sydney Park used to be a dump? Same with Sharks Park? Industrial areas get rezoned into apartments all the time for example. See my first point.
- If it were the olympics or some other one off glamour event they'd crack eggs. Why don't they do stuff like this for things that will actually be used for several decades?
- Any loss of parks can be offset by both old stadiums turning back into parkland.
- A new stadium in say Redfern could be part of urban renewal and be surrounded by a precinct of bars etc.

 

[Sir Chadley]

Here's a few thoughts:
- The government should have reserved land earlier.
- But they didn't. They can still make it happen but they won't, because they don't really give a **** about punters and they assume they'll put up with anything.
- There's a **** load of politics involved.
- Sydney's planning is some of the worst I've ever seen in the world.
- People don't like parks being removed and fair enough, but there are other options. Didn't Sydney Park used to be a dump? Same with Sharks Park? Industrial areas get rezoned into apartments all the time for example. See my first point.
- If it were the olympics or some other one off glamour event they'd crack eggs. Why don't they do stuff like this for things that will actually be used for several decades?
- Any loss of parks can be offset by both old stadiums turning back into parkland.
- A new stadium in say Redfern could be part of urban renewal and be surrounded by a precinct of bars etc.

Good points MB.

Agree with you about Sydney's planning, definitely worst in the world.

About the only thing they got right was the harbour bridge, back in 1922 someone (Bradfield probably) had the foresight to make it a six lane highway either way. That type of thinking didn't exist for the M4, M5 or M7.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Good points MB.

Agree with you about Sydney's planning, definitely worst in the world.

About the only thing they got right was the harbour bridge, back in 1922 someone (Bradfield probably) had the foresight to make it a six lane highway either way. That type of thinking didn't exist for the M4, M5 or M7.

Yep. The North Connex tunnel is up my way. The ****wits are building it two lanes each way with the provision to add a third lane in the future.

Makes zero sense. None.

 

[Mark^Bastard]

Good points MB.

Agree with you about Sydney's planning, definitely worst in the world.

About the only thing they got right was the harbour bridge, back in 1922 someone (Bradfield probably) had the foresight to make it a six lane highway either way. That type of thinking didn't exist for the M4, M5 or M7.

Yeah that's the annoying thing, Sydney has gotten some things right. The harbour bridge and opera house are world world iconic. A new stadium should be seen as something on that level, a chance to do a grand, central, functional architectural masterpiece.

Yep. The North Connex tunnel is up my way. The ****wits are building it two lanes each way with the provision to add a third lane in the future.

Makes zero sense. None.

To be honest it may end up being smart given the radical changes coming to cars (self driving etc).

 

[Sir Chadley]

Yep. The North Connex tunnel is up my way. The ****wits are building it two lanes each way with the provision to add a third lane in the future.

Makes zero sense. None.

Ridiculous. Just make the ****ing third lane now. Crazy.

 

[bort]

Yep. The North Connex tunnel is up my way. The ****wits are building it two lanes each way with the provision to add a third lane in the future.

Makes zero sense. None.

Because they need to spend the money elsewhere to keep up a favourable impression.

The third lane will probably end up costing twice again what it would to just put in now, but then that's a future governments problem. And they know that it will be needed eventually (I assume, I don't know the area) but they are doing/spending the bare minimum to get by.
Meanwhile they have a better chance to be reelected because they've been able to use that third lane money elsewhere.

 

[Mark^Bastard]

I wonder if they factor in how unproductive it is to have so many people stuck in traffic james when they build a road with two lanes @ 100km/h then a few years later reduce the road to 60km/h for a 2 years as they add in the third lane.

Look at the Gold Coast over the last how many years. The road wasn't adequate so many years of roadwork (making the road worse in the mean time) will add a couple of lanes. Insane.

Then look at how retarded people are when driving on a road over 3 lanes. They can't get it in their heads that they don't need to stay in the right lane.

They'd be better off leaving highways at 2 or 3 lanes but building more of them IMO, even if they're in parallel.

 

[bort]

I wonder if they factor in how unproductive it is to have so many people stuck in traffic james when they build a road with two lanes @ 100km/h then a few years later reduce the road to 60km/h for a 2 years as they add in the third lane.

That's them being unproductive in their own time, as long as they get to work Govt doesn't care how much of their down/family/leisure time they lose in traffic

 

[Addy]

I believe firstly they should burn down Brookvale Oval, and then everything should fall into place

 

[Thresher]

I believe firstly they should burn down Brookvale Oval, and then everything should fall into place

There's some Parra fans from the '80s who have the know-how.

Time to get the band back together.

 

[Capital_Shark]

I believe firstly they should burn down Brookvale Oval, and then everything should fall into place

Brooky surface cops it a bit unfairly for mine. 1300SMILES for example putrid, looks like they staged an equestrian event after 20mins.