Petty politics.


Source (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/m-stadium-funding-at-risk/story-e6frg14c-1226235901800)


$50m stadium funding risk: Opposition
by: Yasmine Phillips From: PerthNow January 03, 2012 4:30PM

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2011/12/16/1226224/098758-pn-burswood-stadium.gif
The government risks missing out on millions of federal funding for WA's new 60,000-seat stadium, according to the Opposition. Source: PerthNow

WA risks missing out on Federal Government funding for its new 60,000-seat stadium, Opposition Leader Eric Ripper says.

As the Federal Government pledged $50 million towards the upgrade of the Sydney Cricket Ground, Mr Ripper today said he hoped WA did not leave its run too late.

“We’d hope the Federal Government contributes to our new sports stadium, but Colin Barnett has jeopardised any funding by a) choosing the most expensive site and b) being unable to present a fully costed proposal," Mr Ripper said.

"The Federal Government has kept many of this Government’s projects alive with their funding and Colin Barnett has always been happy to take credit for projects funded Federally, but it’s not the Federal Government’s responsibility to carry the can for Colin Barnett’s financial folly.

“It’s unlikely the Federal Government will be able to make any sort of decision until we finally get an estimate on the true cost of the project, a number which perhaps ironically, the Barnett Government is keen to keep secret.”

But the State Government said it was confident of securing a "significant financial component" from the Federal Government.

"Through informal discussions, the Federal Government has indicated support for the development of a new stadium in Perth and we anticipate this support will involve a significant financial component," Acting Sport and Recreation Minister Terry Redman said.

"The State Government looks forward to continuing those discussions once the scoping work being undertaken by global architecture firm Populous is completed in the middle of the year."

Mr Ripper's comments came after the Federal Government pledged $50 million towards the $186 million upgrade to the Sydney Cricket Ground and $30 million to the Adelaide Oval upgrade.

SA Opposition Leader Isobel Redmond said the fact that the SCG refurbishment had attracted more federal funds than Adelaide's $500 million upgrade was an embarrassment for SA Premier Jay Weatherill.

"Mr Weatherill should be embarrassed that a Liberal NSW Premier was able to negotiate a better stadium deal with the Federal Labor Government compared to his own Labor Government,'' Ms Redmond said.

In June last year, Premier Colin Barnett announced that WA's new 60,000-seat stadium was scheduled for completion in 2018, at a cost of about $700 million.
Master planning was due to be completed in mid-2012, with construction commencing in 2014.

In December, Mr Barnett announced it would be built on the northern portion of the Burswood Park Golf Course.

Reconstruction work at the SCG will begin in March to upgrade the Bradman, Noble and Messenger stands, as well as install the largest big screen in Australian sport, AAP is reporting.

The redevelopment of Adelaide Oval is also set to begin, to increase seating capacity to 50,000 and bring AFL football to the ground by 2014.


Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12488528/ripper-lashes-out-over-stadium-costing/)

Ripper lashes out over stadium costing
Georgia Loney, The West Australian January 3, 2012, 5:09 pm

Opposition leader Eric Ripper said the Barnett Government risked missing out on vital funds for its $700 million Burswood Stadium project unless it moved fast to reveal out the true cost of the 60,000 seat stadium.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard today said the Federal Government would help fund the $186m upgrade, five days after announcing $30 million for the $570 million Adelaide Oval redevelopment.

Mr Ripper said Mr Barnett’s choice of Burswood as the location of the new stadium put the funding in jeopardy.

“We’d hope the Federal Government contributes to our new sports stadium but Colin Barnett has jeopardised any funding by choosing the most expensive site and being unable to present a fully costed proposal,” he said.

“The Federal Government has kept many of this Government’s projects alive with their funding and Colin Barnett has always been happy to take credit for projects funded federally, but it’s not the Federal Government’s responsibility to carry the can for Colin Barnett’s financial folly.

Mr Ripper said the State Government was dragging its feet on revealing the true cost of the stadium.

“It’s unlikely the Federal Government will be unable to make any sort of decision until we finally get an estimate on the true cost of the project, a number which perhaps ironically, the Barnett Government is keen to keep secret.”

lol ripper KNOWS he's on his way out. sorry excuse for a politician.

But another PN article to post comment on. ;)

I would say Ripper will need to go around mid year if they want a chance to win. Though Barnett left it pretty late last time.

We know he's getting desperate the day he grows his mo back.

Nobody trusts him. Not because he's a politican but because they think they know what he's done and what he's about. Ripper is an outstanding guy, but i won't vote for him.

Either way it's not an issue, he's just clawing for ground because he's been told to take a stance. I think this one is a go.

These articles need a bit of piss-taking.

But another PN article to post comment on. ;)


No to highrise! of Telfer Posted at 8:59 PM January 03, 2012

We don't want a highrise stadium like this. There is too much highrise in Perth. We should put the money towards roads and police because they aren't highrise - unlike those new hospitals. Anything higher than 2 stories is too big and might collapse if we have an earthquake. They are too shady. And what will happen to all the lovely grass - where will I go to have a picnic if I am in the Burswood area?!

Lol, Telfer

I would say Ripper will need to go around mid year if they want a chance to win. Though Barnett left it pretty late last time.

I have supreme confidence Ripper will go by mid-year to ensure the party can change it's platform at its state conference later in the year.

There is no way someone like Ben Wyatt or Mark McGowan would go to an election with the parties ridiculous positions on trading hours and uranium (despite being relatively small issues) and Barnett slaughtering them on more important issues.

If Barnett wasn't copping a lot of shit over things like utility prices and local content, I can't imagine how low WA Labor would be at the moment.

A little off topic but according to AusStadiums Subiaco Statdium in 2011 had a total attendance 903,508. A general rough estimate for this new stadium is $700,000,000. So that is just under $775 being spent for each visit to Subiaco during 2011.

In doing this post (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=87272781&postcount=186) about national art gallery statistics. I noticed that in WA locals visit their state gallery under half in number (per capita) than those in QLD. Is the population in QLD twice as into visual art than WA? Or is it that the visual arts in QLD gained a significant foothold with the mainstream when 5 years ago it completed a $297 million building extension known as Gallery Of Modern Art? A building that today together with the Queensland AG it is the most visited art institution in the nation.

I only throw this here because if $745 per visitor scheme was applied to the Art Gallery of WA 2011 visitor statistic of 345,171 then there would be funds for $267,507,525 towards a new building, not much less than what QLD spent on GOMA. Now compare this with the massive and much needed investment with the Entertainment Centre/Burswood Dome replacement the Perth Arena. Currently running in at $550 million, plus the $700 million for this stadium + WA contracting blowout, vs. the $91 million spent on the State Theatre. And I wonder is there a reason that the government throwing significantly more money into sporting structures over arts? And if so is that because sport/entertainment lobbyists are more powerful or louder than the arts?

In my opinion a good % of people who visit art galleries (and alike) go there for the building itself and/or reputation rather than the content. Unfortunately the Perth one has neither notoriety nor an interesting building thus impacting on the number of visitors.

QLD art gallery is so different than WA though. They have some great modern art and do a lot of interactive stuff that brings families in. WA has been lagging behind for years, but the chance in director will do great things. I predict that the 2011-12 numbers will be way higher with the Princely Treasures exhibition likely being a record, and the Modern Masters in June/July.

Agree RE people visiting for the building. Obviously that isn't going to change anytime soon for WA Art Gallery, hopefully it will be the museum soon though. I really don't think there is any difference in the people willing to visit art galleries and similar in WA/QLD/NSW etc. Just need to be enticed there.

A little off topic but according to AusStadiums Subiaco Statdium in 2011 had a total attendance 903,508. A general rough estimate for this new stadium is $700,000,000. So that is just under $775 being spent for each visit to Subiaco during 2011.

In doing this post (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=87272781&postcount=186) about national art gallery statistics. I noticed that in WA locals visit their state gallery under half in number (per capita) than those in QLD. Is the population in QLD twice as into visual art than WA? Or is it that the visual arts in QLD gained a significant foothold with the mainstream when 5 years ago it completed a $297 million building extension known as Gallery Of Modern Art? A building that today together with the Queensland AG it is the most visited art institution in the nation.

I only throw this here because if $745 per visitor scheme was applied to the Art Gallery of WA 2011 visitor statistic of 345,171 then there would be funds for $267,507,525 towards a new building, not much less than what QLD spent on GOMA. Now compare this with the massive and much needed investment with the Entertainment Centre/Burswood Dome replacement the Perth Arena. Currently running in at $550 million, plus the $700 million for this stadium + WA contracting blowout, vs. the $91 million spent on the State Theatre. And I wonder is there a reason that the government throwing significantly more money into sporting structures over arts? And if so is that because sport/entertainment lobbyists are more powerful or louder than the arts?

I would be interested to know the same stats for the museum. They are budgeting $500m for that and I would have thought the stats wouldn't be too different from the Art Gallery.

eric ripper was on radio tha other day about this federal funding "risk"... i wanted to fire bomb his electoral office with emails after listening to him... he was carrying on about how kitchener park was his party's preferred site and it was tha right site... and i'm just thinking, you dumb fvck, don't you want all that development near your seat? don't you want that flow on effect eastwards... hot mess eric.

if any of his staffer b*tches come across this comment. b*tch be trippin and so are you...

Nobody trusts him. Not because he's a politican but because they think they know what he's done and what he's about. Ripper is an outstanding guy, but i won't vote for him.

Either way it's not an issue, he's just clawing for ground because he's been told to take a stance. I think this one is a go.

I've heard quite a few people say that about him, it reminds me of Kim Beasley. Everyone always said how smart/great he was but he was lacking broad appeal or the ability to sell himself or something.

no one wants a fat leader...

... and (without being parochial) a PM candidate from WA will always struggle.

I guess it depends on what outstanding means. I know a few top blokes that I wouldn't want in change of any controls.

Subi is the worst choice for the stadium. Why couldn't they see that in the first place?

^^ I would think Cockburn would be worse.

Ouch, forgot Cockburn.

I would be interested to know the same stats for the museum. They are budgeting $500m for that and I would have thought the stats wouldn't be too different from the Art Gallery.

I took a quick look through the 2010-2011 annual report and you were right they are quite similar.

WA Museum Perth branch had 379,737 visitors including school groups, down from 409,000 the year prior. 113,000 went to see A Day in Pompeii, while 50,000 went to see AC/DC: Australia’s Family Jewels.

Agree RE people visiting for the building. Obviously that isn't going to change anytime soon for WA Art Gallery, hopefully it will be the museum soon though. I really don't think there is any difference in the people willing to visit art galleries and similar in WA/QLD/NSW etc. Just need to be enticed there.

I think the whole building needs to open up. The entrance is like a sandstone bunker with some small glass doors that doesn't really entice people in, even the pedestrians who are walking past from Perth Central. The National Gallery in ACT a few years ago did a massive modification of their entrance because it suffered similar problems.

I took a quick look through the 2010-2011 annual report and you were right they are quite similar.

WA Museum Perth branch had 379,737 visitors including school groups, down from 409,000 the year prior. 113,000 went to see A Day in Pompeii, while 50,000 went to see AC/DC: Australia’s Family Jewels.

The Pompeii exhibition was brilliant

Exhibitions in both institutions look set to improve quite dramatically over the next 4 years because of deals with MoMA and London's V&A as well as new curators at both.

Linley Lutton and the Gatekeepers of Perth have released their vision for the new Perth Stadium.
You can see it's actually just the esplanade, St Georges Cathedral is visible in the background. Perth City area will naturally be returned to 1840's to ensure it's heritage values are maintained into the 21st Century as you can see from this render.

http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/17/1741/PBK3D00Z.jpg

Lol...wouldn't they just love to drag Perth back into the 19th Century!

I think some of you guys might be struggling to tell the Museum from the Art Gallery.
Art Gallery - sandstone bunker
Museum - Edwardian redbrick pile.

The Art Gallery suffers indirectly from that nightmare 70's railway car park development on the eastern edge of the old station building that shifted access to a over-street walkway. When they built the gallery, it was going to be linked to the old sandstone Police Court and so logically had it face into the 'precinct' rather than Roe Street. Hence its bunker like appearance. Maybe one day, if they eventually see the light and sink the rest of the platforms in Perth central -then the Galley can be re-orientated to face Roe Street.

the Museum building is a totally different issue. The current director has a massive vacant lot at the back of the Edwardian structure into which he can expand. A big, bold, statement is what's needed there.

I don't think anyone is getting them mixed up. If and when the Art Gallery needs to expand in the future I imagine it will be to where the carpark is now.

As for the museum, yes there is a massive parcel of land for them to expand into. It still isn't going to be easy. It is a difficult site to integrate all the buddings into.

The Pompeii exhibition was brilliant

Went and saw it in Boston as it happened to be in town when I visited a month ago (after it had toured Perth ironically), it was excellent.

The main priority for expansion should be the Museum imo there's nowhere near enough space. Are they renovating the old library section of the museum? I noticed last time I visited in November they'd scaled back considerably the WA history section. I also think they should consider rotating exhibits rather than just mothballing the majority of their items in the warehouse, its basically been the same exhibits on show since they opened the new entrance/extension of the museum 10 or so years ago.

They're building an entire new museum. There is some very early planning going on, expect $$$ for proper planning and design in the next budget. Whether they will keep the current buildings as part of the new museum is as yet unknown. Govt is planning on spending around $500m. For a little perspective, in 1999/2000 the Melbourne Museum designed by Denton Corker Marshall cost I think $250-300m. So add the time different, and the Perth difference I would expect something of similarish quality.

Really with the new WA museum and the Indigenous cultural centre at the foreshore, which I would expect to cost as much as the museum that is a significant cultural investment. And considering how much Barnett keeps talking up the indigenous cultural centre the architectural centrepiece of the development it will hopefully be of decent quality.

I'm already not liking McGowan:

***

Update, 9.30am: Burswood Casino owner James Packer should be made to pay for part of the new football stadium, Labor's leader-in-waiting Mark McGowan says.

On ABC Radio this morning, Mr McGowan said he supported building a new stadium but he was concerned about the money which would be spent on building it at the selected Burswood site.

“Every dollar you spend unnecessarily is a dollar you can't give back to families and I think we have to be real about that," he said.

“I was racing and gaming minister and the casino is a great venue for entertainment for people across Western Australia, but I don’t understand why, if the casino is going to be a big beneficiary of having a stadium next door, why Mr Barnett didn’t ask the casino owners to make a contribution?”

Mr McGowan said if contracts were signed and Labor got back into office at the next election, he wouldn’t halt the process but would seek ways to save money.

“I don’t understand what the issue is with asking the big beneficiary of a stadium being established to put his hand in his pocket," he said.

Mr McGowan yesterday made a pitch to WA's so-called mortgage belt, telling voters he understandood their hopes and dreams because he was "one of them".

In his first public appearance since the leadership crisis began engulfing the party two weeks ago, the Rockingham MP immediately drew comparisons between himself and Premier Colin Barnett. "I can tell you this," he said. "I have an air-conditioner at my house.

"I have the internet on at home.

"I don't regard them as luxuries."

The 44-year-old former navy lawyer has emerged from the party's latest internal revolt to replace Eric Ripper, who yesterday resigned as leader and ruled out running for his seat of Belmont in the 2013 election.

Mr McGowan must wait until a caucus meeting on Monday to be elected formally by his colleagues.

"If I do become the leader there will be big changes in policy, direction and approach," he said.

"You will not die wondering what I stand for.

"You will not die wondering what we offer to the people of WA.

"I understand the needs, wants and desires of West Australian families far better than Mr Barnett does."

But even before Mr McGowan had attacked what he called the Barnett Government's "arrogance and complacency", a former Liberal senator launched a scathing assessment of the incoming Labor leader's character.

Noel Crichton-Browne said Mr McGowan had a meeting with him 11 years ago looking for "dirt" on the Liberal Party and then "lied" about it when the meeting became an issue.

Mr McGowan said: "That's very unbecoming language and I don't want to get into a conflict with people from the past.

"Eleven years ago I had a cup of coffee with him. We had a discussion. That's the extent of it."

Earlier, Mr Ripper said he reached a decision to quit as leader after many telephone conversations with Labor colleagues, including the party powerbrokers who ultimately sealed his fate.

His decision has avoided a divisive party room challenge for the leadership, which was likely to have gone Mr McGowan's way by 25 votes to 12.

"In a strange way it's a lifting of the burden," Mr Ripper said.

"I've done everything I can to communicate the Labor message.

"Sometimes in politics it just doesn't work."

Mr Ripper was told last Friday by his deputy Roger Cook and other senior MPs that it was time he considered resigning for the sake of the party.
The 60-year-old former treasurer in the Gallop and Carpenter governments said it was unlikely he would be on Mr McGowan's reshuffled frontbench.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12649732/i-understand-families-says-anointed-labor-leader/

I actually think it is a valid point about the stadium. I almost wonder if the stadium location was a 'unofficial' pre requisite of the recent investment decision by Packer to spend another 500m-1bn on Crown Perth.

I don't like the emphasis on cost of living though. The whole reason power prices are going up so rapidly in WA is because the previous labor Gov held them artificially low for a long time. I firmly believe people should be forced to pay the true cost of services they consume.

It's mostly his comments about families that are already getting me. Just feels too much we will lose out on the big changes we've seen over the last decade and going back to suburban planning and keeping everything quiet.

It's mostly his comments about families that are already getting me. Just feels too much we will lose out on the big changes we've seen over the last decade and going back to suburban planning and keeping everything quiet.

Theres no reason both can't happen. Although what he says is just a popular sweeping generalised statement - it doesn't seem to actually mean anything.

“Every dollar you spend unnecessarily is a dollar you can't give back to families and I think we have to be real about that

fuck me

what about their incompetence in handling the perth arena contract?

The team that did that contract was worthless compared to the transport people who did the New Metro Rail job.

That one was almost freakishly contained (went over budget by less than ten per cent) despite delays, strikes and massive input cost increases over the life of the contract while the arena has gone massively over budget despite a single contractor, smaller size, lower complexity, no strike action and no massive increases in costs over the life of the contract

yeah didnt they only go over by $150m or something like that for the railway?

I think the Arena was part design change (carpark underground which took a year or so to dig out) and part the builder not knowing wtf they are doing. There is also some financials that weren't tied up on government ends as well.

Remind me again why the government insisted on an underground car-park when the CBD already has more than enough car parking to service the needs of the arena?

Because this is built on a carpark. People don't like carparks being taken away. Elder Street made up for the loss, so I think it should be been left at that. But I am much happier to have the carpark underground the above ground along Roe St as originally planned.

But the question must be asked - why on earth was it so necessary to have a carpark on-site at all anyway - for a lazy $50m, the State could have paid the City to put another 5 levels on the Elder Street car park. There was always going to be limited parking for corporates etc, but let's face it, this carpark will be 90% used for CBD commuter parking.

From memory Perth Wildcats whinged that they didn't want their VIPs having to walk the 100m or so from the above ground carpark (over the railway) to the Arena.

The team VIP makes me chuckle all the time

But the question must be asked - why on earth was it so necessary to have a carpark on-site at all anyway - for a lazy $50m, the State could have paid the City to put another 5 levels on the Elder Street car park. There was always going to be limited parking for corporates etc, but let's face it, this carpark will be 90% used for CBD commuter parking.

Also isn't the Elder st car park a short-term white elephant because PA isn't in operation yet??

If memory serves me correct, the Elder st car park was built to service to 'massive' crowds at PA.

The team VIP makes me chuckle all the time

In Perth that means Basil Zemplas and Rick Hart! :lol:

Also isn't the Elder st car park a short-term white elephant because PA isn't in operation yet??

If memory serves me correct, the Elder st car park was built to service to 'massive' crowds at PA.

Actually it's pretty full during the week.

Actually it's pretty full during the week.

I would imagine so considering how lazy we Perth fucks are.

In Perth that means Basil Zemplas and Rick Hart! :lol:

Even worse - the number one ticketholder for the Wildcats is Lachlan Reid... :lol:

Elder is taking trade from the old PEC carpark. We probably need both. What if there was a day show on ;)

Dark whispers are circulating that the Burswood Dome may be the temporary home of Perth Glory while Perth Oval is redeveloped again.

We don't want any excuse to keep that shit hole around.

has anyone ever noticed how dark tha green spaces/streetscape is adjacent to tha casino?

really annoys me.

has anyone ever noticed how dark tha green spaces/streetscape is adjacent to tha casino?

really annoys me.

i wood of thort a coon lover like yous would be happy as the dark spaces give your people plenty of opportunity to make money/rob whiteys

lol. well! funny you say that. these idiot kids (blackies) were running along near that lake/bus shelter... it's actually easy to miss them if you're not paying attention!

i always toot my horn when i see kids loitering around near busy roads... little cvntz are always up to no good with rocks and whatever else they can throw...

another time, coming back home thru ascot in a taxi... these cvntz threw something at tha car and hit tha window side i was sitting near... fvckn shat myself. taxi driver decides to pull over and i'm like, ahhh no. don't stop near where they are!

crapy paintshop.

What a beautiful setting. Screw Subiaco. Building in subi is like building it at coventry markets site in morley:/



http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2027/aerialj.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/690/aerialj.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
original pic from
news.com.au

^^ NIMBY's would go crazy if you showed them that...way too over-scale.

'You can see it from space!'..

Nimbys are already crazy mofos.

It looks small compared to belmont park but big compared to burswood towers?

Vale the Vincent Bangalow ...

http://tiny.cc/btt2a

Oh, if anyones interested, the Populous workshops/meetings that are going on for the design brief of the stadium are apparently going well. Amongst the team they've got the guy who did the London Olympic Stadium and the one who did Ashburton Grove and another one of their major stadiums, but I can't remember which one (maybe Dallas?)

Oh, if anyones interested, the Populous workshops/meetings that are going on for the design brief of the stadium are apparently going well. Amongst the team they've got the guy who did the London Olympic Stadium and the one who did Ashburton Grove and another one of their major stadiums, but I can't remember which one (maybe Dallas?)

Cowboys (Dallas) Stadium would make sense as the taskforce visited the stadium on their tour last year. Strange they're discussing the Olympic venue and Arsenels stadium considering they mostly visited stadiums in the US and Wembley in the UK.

They spent about equal time in the UK and the US (not including the first trip to the US). So, they did also visit Millennium in Cardiff as well as the Olympic site and Ashburton.

Also, I think the one from the Olympic Stadium is Australian, so perhaps he's coming from the Brisbane office.

Apparently Populous engaged local architects Christou to work with them on the project definition plan.

How do you poison a plastic palm tree? Get commentking to piss on it.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12907766/burswood-junk-raises-stadium-blowout-fears/)


Burswood junk raises stadium blowout fears
Gareth Parker Exclusive, The West Australian Updated February 15, 2012, 2:50 am

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/wan/20120215/00/3688393172.jpg
Site contains putrid organic waste, building rubble, coal ash, tyres, timber and car bodies.

Premier Colin Barnett's hand-picked site for Perth's new 60,000-seat stadium contains junk including putrid organic waste, building rubble, coal ash, tyres, timber and even car bodies.

The revelation has sparked questions about whether costs will blow out if building conditions prove to be unsuitable.

The findings about the Burswood site - that it contains "uncontrolled fill" such as tyres, glass, rubber and tin cans to depths of up to 8m - are contained in tender documents calling for detailed geotechnical work associated with the stadium project.

In announcing last December that the stadium would be built on the northern nine holes of the Burswood golf course, Mr Barnett and Sports Minister Terry Waldron said there would be no "show stoppers" in preliminary geotechnical work to prevent the stadium being built there.

But the Government will not know for sure until this latest work, due by the end of June, is complete.

Environmental consultants, who declined to be named because they work on government projects, yesterday told _The West Australian _ that developing the site was likely to be complicated.

"It would be reasonable to expect that it will cost a lot and be an expensive site to develop," one consultant said.

"Investigating and working in contaminated sites is always a largely unknown exercise until works commence and the site has a long and chequered history relating to previous land uses."

Another consultant said: "We're doing some work on similar sites elsewhere in Perth.

"It all has to come out and be backfilled and compacted. Wherever you've got putrescibles in a landfill, that needs to be investigated and ruled out as a health risk."

Despite the revelation, Mr Waldron said yesterday the Government was confident about its assumptions that led to the announcement of the $700 million indicative cost for the stadium.

"The Burswood Peninsula has been subject to extensive historic geotechnical investigations associated with major residential and commercial developments and infrastructure projects," he said.

"The indicative estimate is based on the 2007 Perth Stadium Taskforce Report which allowed for measures to manage ground conditions."

That report, which put the cost of a Burswood stadium at $1.12 billion in 2007 dollars, said of Burswood that it was "a comparatively, $300 million-plus, more expensive site (than alternatives at Subiaco and East Perth)".

"(This is) due to the need to provide substantial transport infrastructure as well as the additional costs associated with site conditions (ie. reclaimed flood plain and site previously used as the Perth Municipal Rubbish Dump which included industrial as well as domestic landfill up until 1971)."

Opposition Leader Mark McGowan said the new revelations further buttressed Labor's case for the stadium to be built at Subiaco or East Perth.

"Dealing with all these issues will add to the cost of the stadium and a world-class stadium could be built much more cheaply elsewhere," he said.

Building stadiums on formerly contaminated land is not new.

There are dozens of examples around the world where stadiums have provided the impetus to clean up toxic sites.

The 2012 Olympic stadium in East London is built on land once used as a heavy chemicals storage facility. It cost the British taxpayer £13 million ($19.1 million) to remediate the site.

On a much larger scale, Sydney's Olympic precinct saw the remediation and restoration over 10 years of 160ha of contaminated land on the Parramatta River at a cost of $137 million.

Revelations? We've known about the site's landfill history forever.

shock horror exclusive findings!! wow gareth, who would have thought you'd find random decaying waste on what was an old rubbish site???

oh no gareth... i'm scared of what they'll unearth this exclusive findings... :(

i sense an exclusive findings hall of fame needing to be inaugurated that gareth can have a seat in...

#bbt.

I like how its environmental consultants reporting on how much extra environmental work will now be required.

LOL, if only the general public was half as intelligent (or would read beyond headlines) as SSC.

They kind of killed the whole sensationalist tone of the article with this:
Building stadiums on formerly contaminated land is not new.

There are dozens of examples around the world where stadiums have provided the impetus to clean up toxic sites.

The 2012 Olympic stadium in East London is built on land once used as a heavy chemicals storage facility. It cost the British taxpayer £13 million ($19.1 million) to remediate the site.

On a much larger scale, Sydney's Olympic precinct saw the remediation and restoration over 10 years of 160ha of contaminated land on the Parramatta River at a cost of $137 million.

Any mess can probably be accounted for with another few million, probably already allowed for in the $700m allocated. It isn't a showstopper.

'Too late' to cancel stadium at Burswood
Gareth Parker, The West Australian
Updated February 16, 2012, 2:10 am
1 Comment
tweet
Email
Print

'Too late' to cancel stadium at Burswood
The State Opposition has conceded it may be unable to reverse Colin Barnett's decision to build WA's major stadium at Burswood even if it wins the next election.

Labor has consistently said it believes a new stadium should be built at Subiaco or East Perth because the 2006 Langoulant report found those sites would be about $300 million cheaper than the Burswood option.

But deputy Opposition Leader Roger Cook yesterday acknowledged that the stadium project might have progressed too far by the time West Australians go to the polls in March 2013 for his party to change the location.

"We have to see where the contract process is up to at the next election," Mr Cook said.

"The fact of the matter is that if construction contracts have been signed, if we've already moved too far down the process to extract ourselves from a costly decision to go to the Burswood site, we may ultimately have to plough on with that particular development."

Government timelines say the "project definition" phase will last until June, with documentation and tendering to run until July 2013 with construction starting in 2014.

It is unclear just how far down that path the project will have travelled by election time.

Yesterday, _The West Australian _ revealed that junk including putrid organic waste, coal ash, building rubble, tyres and car bodies is buried at depths of up to 8m at the Premier's hand-picked site.

"The taxpayers of WA are going to be the big losers," Mr Cook said.

"Colin Barnett, because of his arrogance, has decided to plough on with the Burswood option and, quite frankly, he doesn't know how much it's going to cost."

Mr Barnett said he remained comfortable with the site conditions at Burswood.

"This project is being done properly, in sharp contrast to the way the previous government handled the (indoor) Arena project," he said.

"That area is an old tip area. But, it has a casino built on it, it has two hotels, it has apartment towers and it can have a stadium.

"It is a done deal. We're now getting down to the detailed work on that site.

"Look, if someone finds an old bit of tin or a car body, I guess we'll dig it up and move it. It's not that hard."

"There are always people who are going to say you can't do it, you can't do it, you can't do it. Well, I'm sorry, we are doing it. That's where it's going, it's going to be built."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12918417/too-late-to-cancel-stadium-at-burswood/

The more Colin talks the more I get to like him. But I can certainly see why some people find him arrogant.
This is going ahead, Colin said a few months ago that the said contracts will be awarded before the 2013 election.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/12918417/too-late-to-cancel-stadium-at-burswood/)
edit:oops - beaten to it...



'Too late' to cancel stadium at Burswood
Gareth Parker, The West Australian Updated February 16, 2012, 2:10 am

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/wan/20120215/23/880675877.jpg
'Too late' to cancel stadium at Burswood

The State Opposition has conceded it may be unable to reverse Colin Barnett's decision to build WA's major stadium at Burswood even if it wins the next election.

Labor has consistently said it believes a new stadium should be built at Subiaco or East Perth because the 2006 Langoulant report found those sites would be about $300 million cheaper than the Burswood option.

But deputy Opposition Leader Roger Cook yesterday acknowledged that the stadium project might have progressed too far by the time West Australians go to the polls in March 2013 for his party to change the location.

"We have to see where the contract process is up to at the next election," Mr Cook said.

"The fact of the matter is that if construction contracts have been signed, if we've already moved too far down the process to extract ourselves from a costly decision to go to the Burswood site, we may ultimately have to plough on with that particular development."

Government timelines say the "project definition" phase will last until June, with documentation and tendering to run until July 2013 with construction starting in 2014.

It is unclear just how far down that path the project will have travelled by election time.

Yesterday, _The West Australian _ revealed that junk including putrid organic waste, coal ash, building rubble, tyres and car bodies is buried at depths of up to 8m at the Premier's hand-picked site.

"The taxpayers of WA are going to be the big losers," Mr Cook said.

"Colin Barnett, because of his arrogance, has decided to plough on with the Burswood option and, quite frankly, he doesn't know how much it's going to cost."

Mr Barnett said he remained comfortable with the site conditions at Burswood.

"This project is being done properly, in sharp contrast to the way the previous government handled the (indoor) Arena project," he said.

"That area is an old tip area. But, it has a casino built on it, it has two hotels, it has apartment towers and it can have a stadium.

"It is a done deal. We're now getting down to the detailed work on that site.

"Look, if someone finds an old bit of tin or a car body, I guess we'll dig it up and move it. It's not that hard."

"There are always people who are going to say you can't do it, you can't do it, you can't do it. Well, I'm sorry, we are doing it. That's where it's going, it's going to be built."

some may disagree but I like barney's attitude. and he's right there's always a million reasons in Perth why we can't do it.

"Look, if someone finds an old bit of tin or a car body, I guess we'll dig it up and move it. It's not that hard."

Says it all really.

I like how he trivialises everything. You need mongrels like him to get shit done in this town (I hope kelli doesn't see this)

Hello Samboy.

As long as it's in a metropolitan or other region boundary, It makes me happy to see him on the rampage. It's only outside that he needs a leash.

Remeditaing old tip sites isn't a small uncomplicated job because often some nasty stuff can be found (much worse that car bodies). Cancer causing agents, asbestos, etc. I have no idea what they are likely to find there or where on the peninsula the tip(s) was.

(not that I am arguing against the site)

It could be quite an issue. Even if it's possible, it can take years to remediate even just an old industrial or agricultural site.

I thought tip sites were generally out of bounds for development. Like the Bayswater and Ascot tip sites, I'm pretty sure they're never to be built on.

That's what they said about Burswood until they built the resort.

That's why I said 'could' be an issue, depends what is under that exact place and what they want to build there.

I like how he trivialises everything. You need mongrels like him to get shit done in this town (I hope kelli doesn't see this)

this^^

#needsmoresledgehammerapproach...

"Look, if someone finds an old bit of tin or a car body, I guess we'll dig it up and move it. It's not that hard."

Says it all really.

i've heard him on a number of occasion saying "it's not that hard..." at tha end of explaning an issue etc...

#it'snotthathard...

WA. Progress.

#It'snotthathard

Oh wait..

Even if it is hard its never as hard as its made out to be by our sensationalist media.

Barney is like that annoying boss who doesn't take no for an answer. His staff may hate him but shit gets done.

Perth needs an annoying boss to stand up to all the annoying whingers.

It amazes me how so many on this site can think of Barnett as a guy who gets things done. How quickly people have forgotten how he put every major project on hold, including the stadium, after he took office at the same time the Feds were trying to pump stimulus dollars into the economy to get things rolling.

There's a difference between getting good projects off the ground based on evidence and independant research and railroading your personal ideas to suit your agenda.

I don't think it's unusual to put projects on hold, when they are not far progressed, when you have just come into government after 8 or so years in opposition.

Barney would not have been able to put them on hold if they had actually progressed past infancy.

I really did think Barney was going to be a tool of a premiere (remember Colin's canal) but he really is taking Perth to the next level.
As someone else put it he is Perth's Kennet.
You really do need his level of arrogance to get anything done in this nimby infested town.

Not to mention that the GFC was going on and noone new where that was going. I think the only thing he hasn't bought back into the fold is the east perth power station.

Citylink, waterfront and riverside planning were really all under way before barny werent they?

And there is reason for that. With three major city projects and the stadium going at once, adding East Perth Power Station would be a bit of a stretch.

Citylink, waterfront and riverside planning where really all under way before barny werent they?

All in conceptual/planning stages. Masterplans had been done but no detailed work, and no contracts awarded.

^^ Yes so just the natural continuation of the projects then???? Has he hastened any of the projects???? Any thing new besides moving the Stadium to Burswood- which I like?

Actuallty yes. Labour had pretty much put NB Link on hold for a few years, so I think we would be a bit further behind on that if they were still in govt, but further progressed on a stadium.

From my memory yes. But whether it was his doing or circumstances in general that lead to it, I give Barnett credit for at least pushing the go button and taking on the risk.

Mega Projects like this blow out all the time in the private sector, but usually by then the only alternative is to just finish them, and by the time they are up and running producing revenue the problems are forgotten. If anything the public sector has the greater comfort of having the govt to pick up the bill for cost blowouts - albeit you will probably be voted out. With Perth still booming (relatively) to the rest of the world now is the time to just get it done...

It amazes me how so many on this site can think of Barnett as a guy who gets things done. How quickly people have forgotten how he put every major project on hold, including the stadium, after he took office at the same time the Feds were trying to pump stimulus dollars into the economy to get things rolling.

There's a difference between getting good projects off the ground based on evidence and independant research and railroading your personal ideas to suit your agenda.

Strange first post..... welcome

Second that, welcome to the forum Mr. McGowan.

It amazes me how so many on this site can think of Barnett as a guy who gets things done. How quickly people have forgotten how he put every major project on hold, including the stadium, after he took office at the same time the Feds were trying to pump stimulus dollars into the economy to get things rolling.

There's a difference between getting good projects off the ground based on evidence and independant research and railroading your personal ideas to suit your agenda.

There was definitely a good deal of pigheadedness when he first came in as Premier. Refusing to read Langalounts report, for example. And he has plenty of "thought bubble" moments - which made his accusation of McGowan's thought bubble a couple of days ago (I think about moving depts to the country) a bit rich. And he has followed the standard Liberal line of paying little notice to PT.

That said, he does seem to pay little heed to the numerous groups that spring up to shout down any proposal. And after the delay of the Waterfront changes at least it looks like it is going ahead, along with the NBL. It seems like his Govt have also struggled with BGC over PA (partly the previous Govts fault).

And there is reason for that. With three major city projects and the stadium going at once, adding East Perth Power Station would be a bit of a stretch.

Yeah i know, i was just adding to the point that there are reasons as to why he put all the porjects on hold and that all of them were bought back on line bar one, which IMO is the least important one.

My biggest gripe with him is that he doesn't particularly support the arts. Labor were very generous in their last term with arts funding, and Barney cut it all immediately. If he turns that around I'll be very happy. Otherwise, I think he's been doing almost everything else right, and I don't think Labor would have done the same with those major developments, other than the new Museum and the Waterfront. The NB Link and Stadium would probably have stayed on hold indefinitely. Labor became obsessed by Budget Surpluses in the end.

...Labor became obsessed by Budget Surpluses in the end.

How to build stuff and and aim for a balanced budget at the same time? = Barnett raises state royalty rates on our resources.

Even came with the added bonus of putting a hole in the Fed Govt Resources Super Profits Tax (as royalties are deductible in the federal calculation) when you don't trust them to give you the state funding anyway. Best move I've seen in a while. Didn't even hear the resource majors complaining really.

The thing that gets me about the Barnett government lovefest on here, is the lack of analysis of any quality of their leadership other than their ability to build things.

The thing that gets me about the Barnett government lovefest on here, is the lack of analysis of any quality of their leadership other than their ability to build things.

Really? On this website? :P

I guess it is a development forum. While we are certainly interested in other things, it's going to be the number one priority of most people here.

The thing that gets me about the Barnett government lovefest on here, is the lack of analysis of any quality of their leadership other than their ability to build things.

yeah true but we (at least I) have pretty much resigned to the fact that leadership in general at every level will be shit no matter who's in charge. Next best thing is to get things built. After all this is Perth and we're starved for development.

I'm not too into WA politics, but my dad - who's traditional more left wing - thinks pretty highly of him from more than just a development perspective.

yeah true but we (at least I) have pretty much resigned to the fact that leadership in general at every level will be shit no matter who's in charge. Next best thing is to get things built. After all this is Perth and we're starved for development.

+1

The thing that gets me about the Barnett government lovefest on here, is the lack of analysis of any quality of their leadership other than their ability to build things.

This is what we are deseperate for though. Big public projects that will transform our lacking city.

Of course it will take a cultural change as well to make any difference. But I already am starting to see that slowly change.

How to build stuff and and aim for a balanced budget at the same time? = Barnett raises state royalty rates on our resources.

Even came with the added bonus of putting a hole in the Fed Govt Resources Super Profits Tax (as royalties are deductible in the federal calculation) when you don't trust them to give you the state funding anyway. Best move I've seen in a while. Didn't even hear the resource majors complaining really.

Of course they didn't, they know how good they have it here and to complain too much could cost them potential further development opportunities, much to Kelli's dismay (and mine sort of).

The thing that gets me about the Barnett government lovefest on here, is the lack of analysis of any quality of their leadership other than their ability to build things.

Because stupid cunts make stupid laws no matter who is in charge. We just want shit built.

Some of his decisions I haven't been happy with but they don't really effect me. Although I suspect you are thinking more about the environmental side of things - seems to get swept under the carpet quite a bit.

the environment is overrated anyway

we all know a nuclear war is gonna wipe us out anyway. Forget about the environment, live it up!!

-.-

I think there's an inherent contradiction on this site between 'getting shit done' and then criticism of the standard of design when it actually gets built.

I was recently at one of the state initiated Development Assessment Panels (in Maylands) where the local community's desires for an iconic, mixed use development was railroaded by Coles and the Lib/Nat appointees on the DAP. The chair even acknowledging that the development approved (1,250m² liquor store with 2 levels of office above) was bland and only satisfied the minimum aspirations of the council's plans (ie. Town centre, 6-8 stories, res + multiple shops).

I'm not saying it's all bad but I just see so many people responding to BUILD IT BUILD IT BUILD IT and then bitching and moaning about the result.

I'm pro quality development. I'm not a supporter of the status quo. If Barney really had balls and vision, he'd be aiming a lot higher than he is.

That's partly what motivated me to actually post. Long time reader.

Hey Dtab, I know nothing about this particular development so can you pls confirm something for me. Did the local community ask for a better design for the proposed liquor store with additional mixed use components? or were they opposing the liquor store being built there and requesting an 'iconic' building instead?

i think it was the latter samboy, i remember a few "interest groups" saying it would lead to alcoholism and other nonsense like that

I had a feeling it may be that Sanj but didn't know for a fact.

That's the thing, I'm all for better designs but I've rarely seen the public in Perth campaign for iconic designs (as DTAB indicated). I wish they did. They generally simply oppose anything off-hand rather than constructively proposing a better alternative. In this case it appears to be the same. The 'better/iconic design' argument is merely an excuse to oppose the liquor store.

I'm happy to be corrected though.

The Northbridge drive thru Maccas is an example where people on here were totally against a development because it was under-development.

The council consulted with the community to establish the maylands activity centre zone. It should have been worded stronger but the DAP process is very new and in fairness the council wasn't to know.

Sure the discount liquor barn was a major issue but not because of the rubbish reasons the police commissioner always gives. Council & community were happy with an earlier proposal which included a tavern.

I think there's an inherent contradiction on this site between 'getting shit done' and then criticism of the standard of design when it actually gets built.

Yes, including some variations on the theme, that seems to be exactly the attitude prevalent generally in WA. Such pressure to just do stuff leads to longer timeframes, higher costs and worse outcomes than just doing it well and properly in the first place as far as I've ever seen.

Which is why I'm not a fan of that style of bulldozer approach that Barnett uses. No doubt if the new stadium starts sinking in five years because there was pressure to skimp/overrule/underplay the geotechnical issues (purely theoretical example), it won't be Barnett in peoples sights, it will be some other sucker that will get blamed for it. The unions probably, they're to blame for everything usually, one way or another :poke:.

Its because shit gets fucking talked about for a 100 years and nothing ever happens. Committees, enquiries, reports, knob polishing then its forgotten and the process starts all over again.

I think we're all just sick of it and just breathe a sigh relief when even a piece of shit gets put up on a stick. Finally SOMETHING, ANYTHING is getting done

Its because shit gets fucking talked about for a 100 years and nothing ever happens. Committees, enquiries, reports, knob polishing then its forgotten and the process starts all over again.

Most of that is just a symptom of it not being done right the first time.

more like not being done at all.

I'm not advocating being a total cowboy but someone has to take some risks in this town, even if a few mistakes are gong to be made along the line.

It's the cowboy thing that's the problem in the first place. To me it seems like advocating bigger cowboys to overcome the mess that the little cowboys made. Which in turn just encourages the little cowboys to bigger and better things, considering the culture comes from the top.

If everyone just did things properly in a logical and measured and professional way to begin with...

In an ideal world yes but this is perth we're talking about. All I'm saying is that someone needs to take some risks. Most man made wonders of the world were the result of a big mess.

Most man made wonders of the world were the result of a big mess.

The exceptions that prove the rule of the by far vaster numbers of pigs breakfasts.

Most of that is just a symptom of it not being done right the first time.

Of course. Stems from self interests, politics, general cunts just wanting to put their two cents worth in.

For some reason this seems to be more prevelant in Perth, why not other cities? Are they cowboys too or do they avoid that need?

Because in other cities there is some level of competition between nearby cities - competition for investment, for customers, competition between larger ranges of comstruction companies, civic pride - putting one over on the neighbours etc...

Perth is just so far away from anywhere else that this often doesn't come into it. Perth is Perth. If you don't like it... leave. (Where as in other cities you may just go and spend all your $ elsewhere in am evening / weekend, in Perth you are stuck unless you actually physically move away)

The West's hate of the site continues..

Experts take issue with Premier on stadium site
Gareth Parker, The West Australian
Updated February 18, 2012, 2:50 am
tweet
Email
Print

Experts take issue with Premier on stadium site
Civil construction experts who worked on the Burswood casino and golf course projects in the 1980s have warned that Premier Colin Barnett's hand-picked stadium site is highly unstable and likely to lead to huge construction costs.

John Brennan, a former project manager with Burswood Casino, and Ken Wride, who was Multiplex's external works manager, said there was simply no way of telling what was in the ground under the proposed stadium site, on the northern nine holes of the Burswood golf course.

The men recalled extensive difficulties with various aspects of the Burswood works, including a lake on the golf course "disappearing", brick paving near the casino's pool sinking nearly 2m and underground drainage and sewerage pipes collapsing owing to slushy soil conditions.

They said building waste, including previously dumped junk excavated from the casino project, had been spread across what became the golf course's fairways.

Mr Wride said a lake dug for the golf course "backfilled itself" within 12 hours because of the instability of the silty and contaminated soil.

"We dug out the lake and finished work for the day at 4pm," Mr Wride said. "When we came back the next morning, the hole had filled in, level with the ground.

"We dug it out a second time and the same thing happened."

Mr Brennan said the golf course had been constructed by spreading rubbish and covering it with a layer of uncompacted clean fill.

He said the land had been vulnerable to "differential settlement", which saw the unstable soil settling at different levels.

The construction of the hotel swimming pool had been built on piles, while surrounding brick-paved areas had not.

"In one area the paving was 1.7 metres below the edge of the pool, whereas it had been constructed flush with it," he said.

"The cost overruns on Burswood were massive. Even with prior knowledge of the things that could happen, you can't predict every- thing. Why would you choose a site with so many limitations?"

Asked this week if he was concerned about site conditions, Mr Barnett said: "Look, if someone finds an old bit of tin or a car body, I guess we'll dig it up and move it. It's not that hard."

I'm no expert, but I would assume the stadium would be built on similar massive piles into stable soil. And I also doubt they'll just dig a hole for a lake:s

I suppose the west likes the Subi site?


Of course. Stems from self interests, politics, general cunts just wanting to put their two cents worth in.

For some reason this seems to be more prevelant in Perth, why not other cities? Are they cowboys too or do they avoid that need?

Don't know, Eugenius theory sounds ok. Big fishes in a little pond, ambition but no ability.

The West's hate of the site continues..

I'm pretty sure this guy wrote the same article last Saturday

This crap reminds of the criticism of the southern rail line - 'can't tunnel in sand' 'salt spray will affect the rail lines' etc etc. Anyone can reel out an expert to suit whatever you are trying to get across.

They can build skyscrapers in the ocean, build bridges in raging torrents…yet Perth can’t build on land because it’s covered in rubbish?

We all know it’s going to need extra pilling.. OH FVCKING HELL…STOP THE PRESS...It's like the same shite over again, the tunneling for the Mandurah line..The whole city was meant to collapse on its self.
:ohno:

edit PG also remembers

No need to even go that far. Weeknight trading was meant to bring the city to its knees.

Perth is such a spoilt brat!!! Can't do this, can't do that. Just happy to sit back the reap the benefits of the resources boom which required no effort on our part.

Time to f&%ng grow up!!

/rant over

Lol at the pool bricks sinking. Because a billion dollar venue made of concrete and steel sitting on massive foundations is comparable to budget bricks slapped down on some top fill.

I suppose the west likes the Subi site?


Yep..so it give them years of reporting on traffic issues, parking issues, neighbour issues, council issues…and don’t get me started on when it’s time to increase the stadium capacity..……… and ..finally, they can report on how the stadium should have been built elsewhere.

...Years of happy reading lost;)
:puke::puke::puke:

I suppose the west likes the Subi site?




Don't know, Eugenius theory sounds ok. Big fishes in a little pond, ambition but no ability.

Would this be the same media organisation that drove C.Y. O'Conner to put a bullet through his brain?

That's what they said about Burswood until they built the resort.
they just had to change the date and replace casino with stadium:lol:

If they can build a 15 or so level building on the ground 30 years ago, I'm sure they can build a stadium on it today

Would this be the same media organisation that drove C.Y. O'Conner to put a bullet through his brain?

that was the sunday times

No need to even go that far. Weeknight trading was meant to bring the city to its knees.


When does that start?

Weeknight trading has been in place for over a year now, I cant recall exact dates though.

To be fair, the main business I see that have taken advantage of the extended trading are the supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths and probably various IGA stores that are too large to qualify as "small businesses" under the laws) and the discount department stores (K-Mart and Big W)

I think he was being sarcastic. But as you said it was obvious from the outset which outlets would take advantage of it just looking at the Eastern States.

Lol at the pool bricks sinking. Because a billion dollar venue made of concrete and steel sitting on massive foundations is comparable to budget bricks slapped down on some top fill.

Yeah. If the pool was on a large foundation and sunk then that would indeed be a potential problem. Not the other way around.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/12996967/trains-buses-set-target-of-50-000-fans-at-stadium/)


Trains, buses set target of 50,000 fans at stadium
Gareth Parker, The West Australian Updated February 24, 2012, 2:40 am

http://l.yimg.com/fv/xp/wan/20120215/23/880675877.jpg
Trains, buses set target of 50,000 fans at stadium

Trains and buses will be expected to clear as many as 50,000 spectators from the Burswood stadium within an hour of an event under State Government plans.

Transport Minister Troy Buswell outlined plans to deal with the big challenge of getting sellout crowds of 60,000 into and out of the stadium precinct.

Mr Buswell said the Public Transport Authority was working on plans for a four-platform train station at Belmont Park and an undercover bus station next to the stadium.

The bus station would be designed to deal with about 240 buses carrying 14,500 passengers. Trains would be expected to carry about 35,500 people with direct services on the Joondalup, Fremantle and Armadale lines.

Passengers for the Midland and Mandurah lines would have to change trains.

Mr Buswell said there were an estimated 4000 parking bays within 2km of the stadium site, mostly on the other side of the Swan River at East Perth.

Patrons would walk between their cars and the stadium on the proposed passenger bridge linking Burswood and Claisebrook.

The 2006 Langoulant stadium task force report set a target of 20,800 passengers for rail and an overall target of 61 per cent of patrons arriving by public transport. The Government's new plan is far more ambitious.

Asked if patrons would be prepared to wait up to an hour to leave the stadium on public transport, Mr Buswell said he was advised such a wait was comparable with major stadiums in other parts of the world.

Asked about costings, he said the Government was still working within the $300 million indicative budget for transport that Premier Colin Barnett outlined last year.

Shadow transport minister Ken Travers said the target was fanciful and would require an extraordinary proportion of Perth's train fleet to be pressed into service.

"This is going to cost millions and millions of dollars extra that would be better spent on public transport out in the suburbs," Mr Travers said.

An hour wait is a tough call. I wonder what stadiums he is comparing to?

Didn't take me near that long to get out of a full Wembley at the Champions league final last year.

Took me about 45mins to an hour to get put of Giants stadium in New York where it seemed public transport was the only option.

An hour wait is a tough call. I wonder what stadiums he is comparing to?

Didn't take me near that long to get out of a full Wembley at the Champions league final last year.

How long did it take to walk down Wembley way and get on the tube though!? Can take quite a bit of time when it's packed. I remember everyone being stopped at the bottom of the steps and then the police letting groups of people move down Wembley way in waves.

The more activities there are near the stadium, the longer some people will hang around and not drive back straight away. Also, peiople parking further from the stadium will disperse people a bit and stagger the traffic somewhat. However, considering most Perth people, the walk over a footbridge from East Perth or from the Casino will probably be too far resulting in cries for a carpark under the stadium, and leading to years of delays! :lol:

I actually walked to the next furtherest station. About half an hour from leaving to getting on a train. I guess having so many options helped.

I think this is ridiculous- excuse my ignorance but whats the diff with moving 60000 out of Burswood where there is quick access to major road routes and a direct train line to Subi where we need to crowd 60000 into small surburban streets which lead to major road routes????

I think this is ridiculous- excuse my ignorance but whats the diff with moving 60000 out of Burswood where there is quick access to major road routes and a direct train line to Subi where we need to crowd 60000 into small surburban streets which lead to major road routes????

Yep I always can't comprehend nay sayers who say Burswood has/will have poor transport links when compared to Subi Oval.

Because naysayers don't have the ability to look at more than one thing at a time. e.g the prospect of a train station being upgraded or anything else that's beyond their extremely narrow focus.

It's also hard to take seriously the complaints about the extra spending on road and rail networks in the area given the redevelopment of Burswood, Springs, Belmont Park, GEH upgrade and the gateway project.

I suppose people always manipulate to meet their own desire regardless of the truth or the obvious!

I suppose people always manipulate to meet their own desire regardless of the truth or the obvious!

“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.” - Homer Simpson

Was talking to a family friend who is in the geotechnical industry (and knows what he is talking about) tonight and he said that it will be impossible to gaurantee the stadium site is 100% free of soil/water table/junk/rubbish related problems before construction starts, that building anything substantial or heavy on the northern part of the peninsula is a mistake and that the reason Burswood is where it is and the golf course is where it is is because the land under Burswood is much more stable and free of crap than the land under the golf course.

He also said that there were problems with the railway bridge over the river that were not picked up when it was built and required massive remedial work and that there has been ongoing litigation related to this almost since the present bridge opened and that there is no gaurantee that the new stadium wouldn't have the same issues.

I'm quite sure (just 'cause I am) that the groundworks for this will be much greater than what some people expect. My guess is that it will be built like its on water with foundation piles going far below the rubbish and swamp to support it. It is not impossible to build on water/swamps/rubbish tips.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure they will get qualified people to determine what has to be done, then do it.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean, hahaha.

take the perth mentality out of this and it CAN be built.

Elsewhere in the world everything is achievable. In Perth everything is impossible (Except new hospitals).

I bet a new hospital could be built there, along with a few schools.

there was a girl on tha GK's fb crapping on about whether tha govt had done some risk assessment on whether it was appropriate to have a splash pool at tha new waterfront which is unguarded by a lifeguard or whether it's safe to let parents be responsible of their kids in a public water feature...

there was a girl on tha GK's fb crapping on about whether tha govt had done some risk assessment on whether it was appropriate to have a splash pool at tha new waterfront which is unguarded by a lifeguard or whether it's safe to let parents be responsible of their kids in a public water feature...

Let's take this sentence in isolation...or whether it's safe to let parents be responsible of their kids in a public water feature... - seriously people think like this. Surprised then someone hasn't tried to sue God yet for people injured at beaches.

Let's take this sentence in isolation...or whether it's safe to let parents be responsible of their kids in a public water feature... - seriously people think like this. Surprised then someone hasn't tried to sue God yet for people injured at beaches.

How would you serve the papers? A few years ago a court in the US dismissed a claim against god because the claimant had not notified god.

How would you serve the papers? A few years ago a court in the US dismissed a claim against god because the claimant had not notified god.

Brilliant logic by the court there.

I think he was being sarcastic. But as you said it was obvious from the outset which outlets would take advantage of it just looking at the Eastern States.

Yep. The outlets where people like to shop.

An hour wait is a tough call. I wonder what stadiums he is comparing to?

Didn't take me near that long to get out of a full Wembley at the Champions league final last year.

Didn't wait that long out of Homebush in 2000, either.

Nor Subiaco, more recently, for that matter.

Didn't wait that long out of Homebush in 2000, either.

Nor Subiaco, more recently, for that matter.

I've waited longer at Homebush. The station gets pretty backed up.

Don't know about Subi but we're talking extra 50% capacity.

Is there some reason why nobody has yet suggested this idea to dramatically improve PT access to new Burswood stadium?

Complete the rail link from Cockburn, through the already-built tunnel under the Freeway, along the already-in-place rail reserve to Thornlie station, where it joins the Thornlie line and runs direct to the new stadium (ie the rail corridor the libs wanted to use when they built the Mandurah line). Special trains can run direct from Mandurah to the new stadium via Cockburn. The new rail line could be single track, to keep costs down.

It seems a simple, dirt-cheap no-brainer to me. (And if the govt wanted to go all-out, they could even build the proposed Nicholson Rd station, tho this would probably require double-tracking the existing line, at least to Thornlie.)

Is there some reason why nobody has yet suggested this idea to dramatically improve PT access to new Burswood stadium?

Complete the rail link from Cockburn, through the already-built tunnel under the Freeway, along the already-in-place rail reserve to Thornlie station, where it joins the Thornlie line and runs direct to the new stadium (ie the rail corridor the libs wanted to use when they built the Mandurah line). Special trains can run direct from Mandurah to the new stadium via Cockburn. The new rail line could be single track, to keep costs down.

It seems a simple, dirt-cheap no-brainer to me. (And if the govt wanted to go all-out, they could even build the proposed Nicholson Rd station, tho this would probably require double-tracking the existing line, at least to Thornlie.)

While I see a use for extending the line from Thornlie to the Mandurah line, I don't think it should be done solely for football trains. All teh lines bar Midland and Mandurah will have direct services to the stadium - that's a lot better than now with Mandurah being the only line with a direct service.

if you increase the amount of trains on the armadale line much more, a lot of those level crossings are going to need grade separation

Yeah if you added trains to the Armadale line there is no way Oats Street could handle it.
It barely handles it as it is IMO.

While I see a use for extending the line from Thornlie to the Mandurah line, I don't think it should be done solely for football trains. All teh lines bar Midland and Mandurah will have direct services to the stadium - that's a lot better than now with Mandurah being the only line with a direct service.

That is obviously ignoring the Midland and Fremantle lines that also have direct access.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13159106/plan-for-new-stadium-to-seat-70-000-fans/)


Plan for new stadium to seat 70,000 fans
Beatrice Thomas, The West Australian Updated March 14, 2012, 2:50 am

The Burswood sports stadium could be expanded to 70,000 seats for major events such as the soccer World Cup, have comfortable seats to accommodate "bigger" fans and include some standing room-only areas for spectators.

Ronnie Hurst, who is tasked with delivering the project for the State Government, said yesterday the new stadium would be designed using a "fan-first philosophy" to ensure spectators had "a superior live experience".

Revealing key goals for the $1 billion project, he said it was hoped pre-game and post-game entertainment options within the surrounding commercial precinct would activate the area seven days a week and also help stagger the arrival and departure times of fans on game days.

Mr Hurst said comfortable seats to accommodate "bigger" fans with more space between rows and improved lines of sight were also important, as were good food and beverage options and better toilet facilities.

He said while the final stadium definition plan to guide the design was not due until July, options at other stadiums being looked at included the use of "communal standing areas", giant screens and interactive technology such as stadium "apps" that provided game-day information.

Addressing businesses and community leaders at a Committee for Perth lunch yesterday, Mr Hurst said "while we are not building this stadium for the top end of town" about 10 per cent of stadium seating capacity would be dedicated to "money can buy" opportunities. He said other stadiums being studied had "social suites" for 50 to 100 people, exclusive club lounges and field clubs where fans watched players warm up and "high five" as they took off down the race.

Mr Hurst said AFL clubs had also suggested the creation of a "coach's box" where fans had 360 degree viewing access to "the antics of the coach".

He said a final briefing session next week with appointed stadium architectural consultant Populous would include discussions about how the stadium could be modified for big events such as the soccer World Cup, though capacity would be capped at 70,000 seats.

Though he did not say how this could be achieved, the 2007 Perth Stadium Taskforce report said this was possible by adding another temporary tier to either end of the 60,000-seat stadium.

Amid recent warnings about the difficulties of building on a former rubbish tip, Mr Hurst said "it certainly has some challenges" but that it had been done before and would rejuvenate the area.

Just noticed arsenal are playing at the Hong Kong Stadium in the pre-season. Can someone explain to me how a city as big as hong kong has a stadium that seats only 40, 000?

not that interested in sport? (guess)

Population really has nothing to do with it. Its more the interest in the sport.

For example the two major cricket grounds in London are tiny and sit only 23,500 and 28,000 compared with a population of around 7 million for London. Even combined they are small than the MCG and individually just give a run for the WACA.

Plenty of small American towns have large stadiums for American football too.

Its all about the popularity.

The more redneck and boring the town the larger the stadium (relatively). Complete generalisation of course.

The more redneck and boring the town the larger the stadium (relatively). Complete generalisation of course.

Quite possibly. :)

Yeah I got that feeling each time i've been to hk. Sport is just not that important. I always thought the premier league was the exception though. But still a population of 7 million should surely justify a 70,000 seater at least.

Ryan check out the stadium at the college I studied at in the state. The town has a population of about 80,000 but the stadium has a capacity of 110, 000. That's why hong kong confuses me a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Stadium

Is there anything else to do in that county? I've never been.

Not heaps. Philly is a great historical city to visit of course and there is the amish area in lancaster county which is pretty interesting. Part of Pennsylvania borders lake erie which is good to visit.

Yeah I got that feeling each time i've been to hk. Sport is just not that important. I always thought the premier league was the exception though. But still a population of 7 million should surely justify a 70,000 seater at least.

Ryan check out the stadium at the college I studied at in the state. The town has a population of about 80,000 but the stadium has a capacity of 110, 000. That's why hong kong confuses me a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Stadium

Thats amazing, I'm always in awe of cities that take their sport seriously. Although even that would be the exception rather than the rule. A stadium bigger than the population?!?

Thats amazing, I'm always in awe of cities that take their sport seriously. Although even that would be the exception rather than the rule. A stadium bigger than the population?!?

Yep and it sells out before the start of every season.

It's pretty common in US university towns for the stadiums to be bigger or close to the population.

Ann Arbor, where the University of Michigan is located, has a 109,000 seat stadium for a city of only 113,000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Stadium

Thats amazing, I'm always in awe of cities that take their sport seriously. Although even that would be the exception rather than the rule. A stadium bigger than the population?!?

A couple of European examples are the Stade Félix Bollaert in Lens and Abe Lenstra Stadion in Heerenveen.

Population really has nothing to do with it. Its more the interest in the sport.

For example the two major cricket grounds in London are tiny and sit only 23,500 and 28,000 compared with a population of around 7 million for London. Even combined they are small than the MCG and individually just give a run for the WACA.

Plenty of small American towns have large stadiums for American football too.

Its all about the popularity.

Yes - although Cricket Stadia in Australia are probably a bad example - when referring to Cricket stadiums, its not necussarily that cricket is more popular in Australia than anywhere else in the world, it is that the biggest sport in the country also uses an oval field... AFL... and so the stadiums are dual use (and whilst the MCG and SCG have "Cricket Ground" in their titles, they are in reality stadia paid for by AFL crowds that are also used for cricket.

MCG / Gabba / SCG etc are mostly empty for cricket apart from the biggest games. On the flip side, Lords / The Oval etc could easily sell more tickets than their capacity for big games such as the Ashes.... but not worth the building cost when they are only used for cricket.



Also - the comments around Hong Kong - it was a city state (so never had a reasonable sized domestic league), and is now in a country where organised professional sport is not very well attended / is known for being corrupt. If there was a regular league team playing there then maybe they could sustain a bigger stadium, but as it is most sports fans in SE Asia watch the EPL on TV and don't go to local games. Thus it is only really used for international events like the Rugby 7s and when European teams go on their pre-season tour.

Can't think of many small states with great stadia. Monaco stadium is rubbish (and was sustained by the local football team playing in the French league), and Singapore don't have a decent stadium - although one is now being built. Again, it would only be used at anywhere near its full capacity on irregular occasions for international events.

Can't think of many small states with great stadia.

Just off the top of my head Qatar, Ireland and Wales (all have populations smaller than Singapore) all have better than average stadiums.

The stadium in Monaco is awesome. Did you actually go there?

Yes - although Cricket Stadia in Australia are probably a bad example - when referring to Cricket stadiums, its not necussarily that cricket is more popular in Australia than anywhere else in the world, it is that the biggest sport in the country also uses an oval field... AFL... and so the stadiums are dual use (and whilst the MCG and SCG have "Cricket Ground" in their titles, they are in reality stadia paid for by AFL crowds that are also used for cricket.

MCG / Gabba / SCG etc are mostly empty for cricket apart from the biggest games. On the flip side, Lords / The Oval etc could easily sell more tickets than their capacity for big games such as the Ashes.... but not worth the building cost when they are only used for cricket.



Also - the comments around Hong Kong - it was a city state (so never had a reasonable sized domestic league), and is now in a country where organised professional sport is not very well attended / is known for being corrupt. If there was a regular league team playing there then maybe they could sustain a bigger stadium, but as it is most sports fans in SE Asia watch the EPL on TV and don't go to local games. Thus it is only really used for international events like the Rugby 7s and when European teams go on their pre-season tour.

Can't think of many small states with great stadia. Monaco stadium is rubbish (and was sustained by the local football team playing in the French league), and Singapore don't have a decent stadium - although one is now being built. Again, it would only be used at anywhere near its full capacity on irregular occasions for international events.

True, MCG probably wasn't a good comparison, but the WACA is. Cricket was just the first thing that sprung to mind.

Just off the top of my head Qatar, Ireland and Wales (all have populations smaller than Singapore) all have better than average stadiums.
Yeah - although two of those have large national sporting leagues / compete regularly in international competitions for both clubs and national sides in multiple sports that can use the same stadia. The other is an extremely oil rich state who wanted (and got) the world cup, and who after 2022 will have a heap of white elephants!

The stadium in Monaco is awesome. Did you actually go there?
Yeah. Its impressive how it's squeezed in, but the concrete is all cracking etc and I didn't find it very architecturaly impressive. But then I am a bit of a stadium geek and have been to a couple of hundred around the world!

Yeah. Its impressive how it's squeezed in, but the concrete is all cracking etc and I didn't find it very architecturaly impressive. I am a bit of a stadium geek and have been to a couple of hundred around the world!

Stadium geek eh. Were you there for an event or just a tour of the stadium? I agree it's a bit long in the tooth, but I reckon architecturally it's great. I love the arches at one end that let you look up to the surrounding cliffs. I was there in 2000 for an athletics meet. I haven't seen anywhere near as many as you, but this is one of the best I've been to.

Granted its a boutique size and therefore can't really be compared to Emirates or the San Siro.

Guess that's the other thing - its only around 18,000 odd seater, with crowds often lower than that, and with an athletics track around the pitch there is no atmosphere for a football match! Went for a AS Monaco league about 6 years ago.

Yeah I know what you mean. I'm not a big fan of football stadiums combining with athletic tracks.

Some of the best atmosphere for all of sport can be found at college football games.

For example, Michigan v Ohio state is one of the most heated rivalries in all of sport yet you will hardly see a travelling fan. I mean 110,000 rooting for the 1 team (or bunch of kids).

Some of the best atmosphere for all of sport can be found at college football games.

For example, Michigan v Ohio state is one of the most heated rivalries in all of sport yet you will hardly see a travelling fan. I mean 110,000 rooting for the 1 team (or bunch of kids).

Its a shame our junior sport isn't at the same level as the US. I would have had a much better run in my prime :)

You keep making references to your 'prime' far too frequently for someone your age. Better ease up on the extra meat :)

:lol:

I peaked early.

Just noticed arsenal are playing at the Hong Kong Stadium in the pre-season. Can someone explain to me how a city as big as hong kong has a stadium that seats only 40, 000?

"On 9 September 2007, Sha Tin Racecourse opened after its summer break with record 1-day crowd of about 60,000" (ref: wikipedia)

A racecourse is not a stadium. HK peeps sure do love their racing/gambling though.

SE Asians sure do love their racing/gambling though.

Fixed

That is why professional sport in China is so screwed. And the Asian gambling syndicates have bet on and influenced professional (and non-professional - even school level) sport all around the world.

:lol:

I peaked early.

Like Tom Swift?

I think I'll become a Christian one day.

I love jesus.

Stop Goran-ing all the threads.

That was Nate. I am an innocent victim. Stop persecuting me!

I love Jesus too. That hispanic gangster rocks!

Like Tom Swift?

I didn't get that far.

ABC radio said that Barnett said at a Perth FC function before their WAFL opener that the plan is to have the new stadium open by Round 1 2018 and hopefully start with a Derby.

Like Tom Swift?

lol. tha poor kid.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13200475/residents-fear-stadium-turmoil/)


Residents fear stadium turmoil
Beatrice Thomas and Bridget Lacy, The West Australian Updated March 19, 2012, 3:00 am

Burswood residents fear a major sports stadium on their doorstep will create traffic chaos and exacerbate the suburb's crime problems.

Jeff McCann, chairman of the newly formed Burswood Residents Action Group, said people living in Mirvac's Burswood Peninsula estate had accepted "a stadium is coming" but were concerned about a lack of information.

Mr McCann said there were already significant parking problems when concerts were staged at Burswood Dome.

This would only increase with construction of a stadium and any surrounding commercial precinct.

To reduce construction costs, the State Government has ruled out building a carpark under the stadium and instead plans to move the majority of crowds by public transport.

To access the estimated 4000 parking bays within 2km of the stadium site, mostly on the other side of the Swan River at East Perth, patrons would have to walk on the proposed footbridge linking Burswood and Claisebrook.

"If you believe that Perth people are going to park their cars at the railway station and catch a train, then you believe in the tooth fairy," Mr McCann said.

Mr McCann said Burswood was already one of the worst train stations in Perth for crime, with "muggings and bashings and drunks coming out of the casino".

The City of Perth called for more information on pedestrian movement, traffic and parking.

Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi said she backed the Burswood site but the council had to be consulted on the project.

Stadium project director Ronnie Hurst told a Committee for Perth lunch last Tuesday that residents and local authorities would be part of the next phase of consultation.

"If you believe that Perth people are going to park their cars at the railway station and catch a train, then you believe in the tooth fairy," Mr McCann said.


So what exactly are all of the cars currently parked at train stations doing there?


Mr McCann said Burswood was already one of the worst train stations in Perth for crime, with "muggings and bashings and drunks coming out of the casino".


So using the station for non-casino patrons would make it more dangerous? Interesting theory.

They are legitimate concerns. The Subiaco council make a killing on illegal parking around Subiaco Oval. Why would it be any different in Burswood?

surely an upgraded train station used to more frequently would be better for security?

some of the concerns are justified but as usual it is going to be tied up in a heap of shit

Because there is nowhere to illegally park?

Seriously though, I think the lack of any parking might really be an issue, but to rubbish the idea of people taking trains in Perth when it's convenient to do so is absurd, and the best thing that could happen to Burswood station is increased usage. You don't have to go a ridiculous extreme to make a point.

Your argument is much better, since some people park at Subi, and the train network will be similar, wouldn't Burswood need parking also?

The volume of traffic on the road network, despite cheaper and quicker public transport alternatives, suggests that a lot of people aren't sold on trains and buses.

Isn't the stadium going to be chiefly using Belmont Park station, rather than Burswood?

^^
Exactly what I was thinking.

The volume of traffic on the road network, despite cheaper and quicker public transport alternatives, suggests that a lot of people aren't sold on trains and buses.

Quicker than what? Walking?

If you live nice and close to a train station, and your destination also happens to be on a train line? Then yeah, nice and quick, probably on par with a car in off-peak and quicker in peak. If you rely on a bus? Expect it to take about 2x the time as a car. That's my experience and a lot of other people's too.

Quicker than what? Walking?

If you live nice and close to a train station, and your destination also happens to be on a train line? Then yeah, nice and quick, probably on par with a car in off-peak and quicker in peak. If you rely on a bus? Expect it to take about 2x the time as a car. That's my experience and a lot of other people's too.

I don't disagree with you but we're talking about getting to and from the stadium.

The volume of traffic on the road network, despite cheaper and quicker public transport alternatives, suggests that a lot of people aren't sold on trains and buses.

Generally yes and for getting to and from work I agree, but when it comes to events like footy, concerts and sky show etc I think people use PT well!

I'm curious as to the current Subiaco Oval public transport usage. Ive read that in 2009 (before the Southern Suburbs Railway) it was about 35% PT. You would assume the SSR would add another 10-15%, plus the introduction of the PT usage induced in the ticket price, currently it would be around 50% maybe higher.

I know I am being a pedant on this point, but it annoys me when the advertising says it is free PT to the footy when the ticket buyer has paid extra to cover the cost of the PT whether they use it or not. i.e. it is not free, it is pre-paid.

While that is true, I think the way it is understood is that the event organiser is paying for it rather than the ticket buyers. One assumes the organisers pay for it using a portion of each ticket price, but its possibly - though unlikely - not the case.

Nah - the ticket buyer pays. A few years ago the WCE/Freo members had the cost tacked on their Membership (and itemised as such). Now it is not itemised as a separate cost to make people think they are getting the PT for free. But it is well understood (I thought) that the sports/concert goer is pre-paying their PT trip.

Nah - the ticket buyer pays. A few years ago the WCE/Freo members had the cost tacked on their Membership (and itemised as such). Now it is not itemised as a separate cost to make people think they are getting the PT for free. But it is well understood (I thought) that the sports/concert goer is pre-paying their PT trip.

Sorry I shouldn't have used the word "free".

^^ Not just you that does it, so don't think I am going off at you. Mainly the advertising for it annoys me when they know very well that it isn't free.

I suspect the levy doesn't cover the entire cost of the travel.

The PT travel can cover different distances and I don't know how much they tack onto tickets/memberships (I can't remember how much it was when they actually told us).

I'm curious as to the current Subiaco Oval public transport usage. Ive read that in 2009 (before the Southern Suburbs Railway) it was about 35% PT. You would assume the SSR would add another 10-15%, plus the introduction of the PT usage induced in the ticket price, currently it would be around 50% maybe higher.

I dont think it would be too much higher, especially judging by all the clogged roads around Subi just after a game has finished..

Clogged because there are people walking around, there are also road closures in place and they aim to give buses priority.

The Emirates just taking it to another level again...football resort & stadium on the islands

Real Madrid's Fantasy Island Revealed

http://archinect.com/news/article/42322981/real-madrid-s-fantasy-island-revealed

Call for roof on new stadium
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13291020/call-for-roof-on-new-stadium/

The State Government is being urged to put a roof over Perth's new sports stadium.

It is believed Populous, the international company behind dozens of the world's top new stadiums and hired to develop the design brief for the Burswood ground, has argued strongly that a roof would provide a better atmosphere for fans and enable more events to be staged there.

_The West Australian _understands the issue of whether the proposed 60,000-seat stadium at Burswood should have a retractable roof, allowing the stadium to be fully enclosed in inclement weather, has been hotly discussed.

The roof idea has encountered resistance from the Government on the grounds that it would add significantly to the budgeted $700 million stadium construction cost and was unnecessary in a city that has fine weather for much of the year.

Among Populous' suite of projects, those with retractable roofs include Etihad Stadium in Melbourne and, in the US, Reliant Stadium in Houston and the new Marlins Ballpark in Florida.

The conceptual stadium costed in the 2007 Perth Stadium Taskforce report had a sculptural roof covering most of the tiered stands, but not a fully enclosable roof.

Sports Minister Terry Waldron has not ruled out the proposal.

He said yesterday that he would wait to consider the finalised project definition plan "before making any decisions as to what options are in or out of the final design brief".

"The Government never considered a retractable or totally enclosed roof as it was not part of the task force recommendations and was therefore not included in budget considerations," Mr Waldron said.

"Populous are looking at all the options for the stadium and they will be presented to the steering committee, which will then make recommendations to Government.

"The Government will then decide the options it wants to include in the brief to the architects."

Events promoter Brad Mellen said a retractable roof was appealing because it took weather out of the event planning equation.

He also ranked fellow Populous project Etihad Stadium as the "best small stadium for watching sport in Australia".

Opposition Leader Mark McGowan said all options for the design should be investigated but the cost of a retractable roof needed to be considered.

"I suspect a retractable roof would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and I think people would prefer that money spent easing the cost of living pressures," he said.

There's no need for a full retractable roof. Its just unnecessary for an outdoor sports venue in Perth. The previous conceptual design with a large roof on either side covering most, if not all, of the stands is more than enough.

Putting a roof on will add a lot to the cost and will without a doubt reduce the size of the venue in a number of areas. Not a good outcome since the project budget is already being made a big issue.

There's no need for a full retractable roof. Its just unnecessary for an outdoor sports venue in Perth. The previous conceptual design with a large roof on either side covering most, if not all, of the stands is more than enough.

Putting a roof on will add a lot to the cost and will without a doubt reduce the size of the venue in a number of areas. Not a good outcome since the project budget is already being made a big issue.

'Not being necessary' is the argument that's held Perth back for an eternity.

The best argument against a roof is that it will make the venue more difficult to expand. The intention of the venue has always been that it would have some capacity to grow as Perth grows.

As for costs, well if costs was such a concern, why choose the most expensive site? We either do this right (disclaimer: 'right' doesn't necessarily mean a roof) or not at all.

Can't they just plan for the ability to have a roof if in the future? I can't see there is any real need in a place like Perth but just design to be able to support a future roof - problem solved.

Call for roof on new stadium
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13291020/call-for-roof-on-new-stadium/
He also ranked fellow Populous project Etihad Stadium as the "best small stadium for watching sport in Australia".


Eh!?!? Small at 56,000?? Isn't it the 3rd biggest stadium in Australia? And it is terrible for rectangular sports unless they move the stands in - which they very rarely do because of the cost. They have huge problems with the pitch due to the roof as well.

I would say the best stadium for watching sport in Australia is Suncorp... and the best "small" stadium probably AAMI Park in Melbourne. Perth (or any stadium really in Australia) doesn't need a roof covering the playing surface. The ability to host other events would be concerts.... but we have a new Arena which will take care of all but the biggest concerts (and that already has a sliding roof).

'Not being necessary' is the argument that's held Perth back for an eternity.

The best argument against a roof is that it will make the venue more difficult to expand. The intention of the venue has always been that it would have some capacity to grow as Perth grows.

As for costs, well if costs was such a concern, why choose the most expensive site? We either do this right (disclaimer: 'right' doesn't necessarily mean a roof) or not at all.
The cost of the stadium grows exponentially when a roof is added. There will be pressure to make the dimensions as small as possible to accommodate the smallest possible roof expanse. With the financial constraints and pressure that will be imposed on the planning and design of this stadium that is the way it will happen.

Often expanding under a roof is impossible without lifting and rebuilding the roof. A stadium at 60000k+ with a roof wont happen here IMO and if it does it wont be able to be expanded to 70k or 80k without some serious reconstruction. There has already been enough of that sort of action and reaction over the years when it comes to Subi Oval.

How is a roof being thought of as 'not being necessary' holding Perth back? Building a roof will cause other issues. IMO retractable roof installations should be left for the smaller rectangular style stadiums (20-30k) rather than AFL/Cricket size stadiums. Maybe one day it could be done at NIB. You'd think, until then, most events that must have a roof can utilise Perth Arena.

^^This.

I just can't see the justification of spending $100 million plus on a roof in order to get half a dozen more events max and increase atmosphere

Esp with our weather probably doesn't need it in comparison to many other cities. As long as the majority of the seats are covered by a roof, I don't mind if the playing field area isn't.

Source (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13300345/stadium-plans-hijacked-by-lobbyists/)


Stadium plans 'hijacked by lobbyists'
AMANDA BANKS, The West Australian March 29, 2012, 6:37 pm

Department of Sport and Recreation chief Ron Alexander complained that Liberal Party lobbyists had hijacked negotiations over the redevelopment of NIB stadium and stymied efforts to ensure the $95 million taxpayer investment in the project was spent wisely, Freedom of Information documents released by the Opposition have revealed.

Shadow treasurer Ben Wyatt said the documents revealed that lobbyists had interfered to protect the interests of venue manager Allia and Mr Alexander’s advice that the management contract should be renegotiated on the back of the $95 million Government investment had been ignored.

Mr Wyatt said the failure to renegotiate the contract meant that opportunities to give the State access to revenue sharing arrangements, influence ongoing subsidies and promote the interests of stadium users had been foregone.

“This has been a huge missed opportunity to ensure that the taxpayers of WA got a significant benefit from their $100 million investment in NIB stadium and just as important, better access to that facility for sporting codes,” Mr Wyatt said.

“It has squandered a massive opportunity.”

The documents released under FOI include an email sent from Mr Alexander to the office of the Sports and Recreation Minister Terry Waldron on April 28 last year which complained that the department had been left in an “invidious position” because Allia had employed Liberal Party lobbyists to “work on the Government for them.”

“Trying to ensure that we develop a strong negotiating position has been difficult with (Allia) and (former Vincent mayor) Nick Catania dealing directly with the Premier’s office and our Minister’s office at will,” Mr Alexander said in the email.

“We never have been given the authority to get on and ensure the communities’ $90m + is wisely spent.

Every time one of them doesn’t like something they run off to higher office and we have to deal remotely with third hand information, hearsay and rightly or wrongly, the feeling of not being heard or supported on occasions.”

In a statement today, Mr Alexander said his job was to ensure the public were well represented in the deal. He said he had been aware the GRA Everingham had represented Allia and there was always hearsay in the community about interest groups.

“These were early days in the negotiation; the ensuing negotiations have seen a better deal,” Mr Alexander said.

“We have now greatly improved infrastructure in place at NIB stadium, which allayed my earlier concerns.”

Confronted in State Parliament yesterday over the documents, Premier Colin Barnett said his office had taken over responsibility for the commercial renegotiation of the heads of agreement for the project, which was a difficult process, and noted Allia had a contract for the management of the venue until 2024.

Mr Barnett said Mr Alexander had confirmed that to the best of his knowledge, there had been no involvement of any lobbyist in any negotiations in which he was involved.

He said Paul Everingham had made some telephone calls about the project which were of a generic nature and before negotiations over the agreement.

“There was no contact between myself, my office, or the director general with any lobbyist during the process of negotiating the heads of agreement,” Mr Barnett said.

is this thing even getting built?

Eh!?!? Small at 56,000?? Isn't it the 3rd biggest stadium in Australia? And it is terrible for rectangular sports unless they move the stands in - which they very rarely do because of the cost. They have huge problems with the pitch due to the roof as well.


The only good place to watch sport at Docklands is in the second tier. The movable lower tier is a bit of a gimmick.

If the movable seating at Docklands sucks so much, why do the proposals for the new Burswood stadium include similar movable seating (or did last I checked)?

If the movable seating at Docklands sucks so much, why do the proposals for the new Burswood stadium include similar movable seating (or did last I checked)?

It's just a cosmetic change for most of the people in the stadium - only the people in the lower tier benefit.

I was more referring to the high cost of building and operating the seating system and whether that was justified given the experience at Docklands and the limited use the Docklands system seems to get.

The low use is due to the high operating cost. The movable stands at the Sydney Olympic Stadium would get more use.

So correct me if I'm wrong but the same guys that designed the multiple purpose joint at docklands is also handling Burswood.

Doesn't quite give me total confidence.