Perth's new stadium and unicorns

[Rob]

Subiaco is a wonderful site.

Go home yob, you're drunk.

[yob]

Subiaco is a wonderful site.

Go home yob, you're drunk.

If I'm drunk I might piss $100 up the fence.

Beats pissing $1 billion on James Packer's tomato bush when you guys are sober.

[AndrewM]

Yob actually may have a point. Just look at the Perth Convention Centre. Two fantastic sites that had amazing potential. Some of the designs proposed were really had a wow! factor. Look at what we got..

[kilonewton]

Pedantry alert.

Greenfields look easy, but they're tricky beasts. Everything you take for granted - water utilities, electricity, you have to start from scratch. A lot require site remediation, which sounds funny for an undeveloped site.

If it needs site remediation, its been used for something = brownfield

And not to mention from a risk point of view, if something like a stadium has already been built on the land.... you know you won't have problems building a stadium on it.

Ask Multiplex about Wembley.

[Egan]

I thought the first 60,000 upgrade proposal only got as far as being a proposal before the government of the day set up the Stadium and the City study which got no further than being a proposal. At least this current proposal has funds allocated and all preliminary site investigations and land use approvals in place. I'd say its now progressed to the stage where they have a proposed start date.

Theres never been a major sports stadia plan until the Labor Government got in 2001. The state has made error after error in how it formulates, plans and looks long term with stadium funding.

If you remember back all those years ago, I was a big fan of Cockburn being built. Its still where I would build the stadium. Most cost effective venue and the town centre is really taking shape ATM.

It's ridiculous that 12 years on we are still debating the best site. That $400 million would not have future proofed us to expand in the future and I for one am glad we are building in Burswood, people forget that Packer gave land worth millions to Barnett and if there was a massive piece of land not next to the casino close to the city they would have built it there.

Perth really needs to increase density in the inner core rapidly, will be far easier to attract more major infrastructure eg the billion dollar apartment project at Belmont Park with this major stadium then increasing the density in Subiaco without causing world war iii

Let's hope the project is at least started ahead of schedule...

[gyfox]

Pedantry alert.

Greenfields look easy, but they're tricky beasts. Everything you take for granted - water utilities, electricity, you have to start from scratch. A lot require site remediation, which sounds funny for an undeveloped site.

If it needs site remediation, its been used for something = brownfield

And not to mention from a risk point of view, if something like a stadium has already been built on the land.... you know you won't have problems building a stadium on it.

Ask Multiplex about Wembley.

From memory Subiaco is on an old swamp anyway so there would be issues building anything there, its just that the issues would be different to a site with alluvial deposits that has been used as a rubbish dump.

[gyfox]

I thought the first 60,000 upgrade proposal only got as far as being a proposal before the government of the day set up the Stadium and the City study which got no further than being a proposal. At least this current proposal has funds allocated and all preliminary site investigations and land use approvals in place. I'd say its now progressed to the stage where they have a proposed start date.

Theres never been a major sports stadia plan until the Labor Government got in 2001. The state has made error after error in how it formulates, plans and looks long term with stadium funding.

If you remember back all those years ago, I was a big fan of Cockburn being built. Its still where I would build the stadium. Most cost effective venue and the town centre is really taking shape ATM.

It's ridiculous that 12 years on we are still debating the best site. That $400 million would not have future proofed us to expand in the future and I for one am glad we are building in Burswood, people forget that Packer gave land worth millions to Barnett and if there was a massive piece of land not next to the casino close to the city they would have built it there.

Perth really needs to increase density in the inner core rapidly, will be far easier to attract more major infrastructure eg the billion dollar apartment project at Belmont Park with this major stadium then increasing the density in Subiaco without causing world war iii

Let's hope the project is at least started ahead of schedule...

The $400m proposal was for a 55k AFL venue only and not a multi sports venue as both the later proposals are. In the Stadium and the City document the $400m proposal was costed at about $650m once transport and other issues where included anyway and it required the construction of the 35k rectangular venue which brought the total project cost up to about the same as the Stadium and the City recommended venue at Subiaco. Additionally to bring it up to 60k required the closure of a road plus land resumption and resulted in overshadowing problems as well so it really hadn't been fully thought through. These additional works were costed at $35-$50 iirc.

[yob]

Upgrading infrastructure around Subiaco has a dual use of servicing a stadium and providing every day infrastructure to an established urban area.

Upgrading transport infrastructure around burswood has a dual purpose of serving a stadium and James Packer's pockets. And perhaps even some form of mud beast that dwells in the swamps.

And seriously, multi purpose? There's no such thing. The only time multi purpose ever gets raised is whenever the AFL wants a new stadium to get over the line with everyone else's money. Stop playing their game.

[gyfox]

Upgrading infrastructure around Subiaco has a dual use of servicing a stadium and providing every day infrastructure to an established urban area.

Upgrading transport infrastructure around burswood has a dual purpose of serving a stadium and James Packer's pockets. And perhaps even some form of mud beast that dwells in the swamps.

And seriously, multi purpose? There's no such thing. The only time multi purpose ever gets raised is whenever the AFL wants a new stadium to get over the line with everyone else's money. Stop playing their game.

Seriously? The ultimate capacities for AFL were the same once the extra 5k capacity works were included but the original proposal required a larger rectangular stadium to be built than has been and also meant that the WACA would need to be upgraded which is not the case with the current proposal. In order to compare the value of the stadium options all the assets required to be built need to be included. Leaving "multi purpose" out is simply comparing apples and oranges. Additionally the original proposal utilises assets that have already consumed much of their design life so need remedial upgrading sooner than a new venue.

[yob]

In order to compare the value of the stadium options all the assets required to be built need to be included.

So you can compare an AFL stadium that is rubbish for rectangular sports with a purpose built rectangular facility? Sounds like...

simply comparing apples and oranges.

[Egan]

So we've been debating merits of sites for 12 years now...what's going to happen when this thing finally gets built...

[dibo]

Talk about the next thing?

[Egan]

Site selection for this stadium has generated more posts than most. There are about 7-8 threads with 20+ pages about it.

In the end, Barnett wanted Belmont Park, they chucked too high a price on it. The only land available was next to the casino, site will meet many government planning objectives. Particularly bringing more people to the river, promoting more high rise development, not going to have massive road infrastructure issues that was stated in the major stadia task force report about Subiaco, ability to expand to 80,000 at a later date, Subiaco wasn't.

Look back over the threads and Belmont Park was the preferred option.

[Boba Fett]

So we've been debating merits of sites for 12 years now...what's going to happen when this thing finally gets built...

Whinge about what they should have done?

[gyfox]

In order to compare the value of the stadium options all the assets required to be built need to be included.

So you can compare an AFL stadium that is rubbish for rectangular sports with a purpose built rectangular facility? Sounds like...

simply comparing apples and oranges.

Who is comparing an AFL stadium with a rectangular stadium? The original proposal that you favoured had no provision whatsoever for rectangular pitch sports. The proposal was simply to redevelop the AFL venue and do nothing for the other sports. With both multi purpose proposals the development of a rectangular pitch venue was included as an essential element of sporting infrastructure for the state. The first stage of the rectangular pitch venue has already been delivered with the Stage 2 upgrade to 25k to be delivered when demand requires it. The multi purpose venue caters for AFL and Cricket and is a compromise venue for rectangular pitch sports for the occasional event that will draw greater than 25k. There is no way that a larger rectangular pitch venue could be justified.