Bold new stadium plan for East Perth

[blueandblack]

Item at link has designs

Perth's new multi-purpose stadium could be built on a pocket of land between the Graham Farmer Freeway and Royal Street in East Perth under a bold plan by the City of Perth.

In what is expected to revive debate over where a new 60,000 seat stadium should be built, the council has unveiled the idea as the first concept in its much-touted "what if" project to generate new ideas and debate for key city sites.

City architect Craig Smith said yesterday that the idea, while not intended to be in competition with State Government plans, was designed to get people thinking about alternatives if the Subiaco-based options did not work out.

An East Perth stadium would require demolition of the council's Royal Street carpark, which would be relocated under the stadium and relocating the City Farm community garden and planned St Bartholomew's House. An East Perth stadium considered and rejected by the stadium task force was in another location.

However, Mr Smith said the site, which is under East Perth Redevelopment Authority control, "ticks all the boxes for a major stadium".

It was walking distance to Northbridge and two train stations, was near the freeway, serviced by buses and not too close to homes. It could be built by either sinking the railway line or leaving it in place.

Mr Smith said adhering to the dimensions used by the stadium taskforce, the East Perth site - immediately south of the Graham Farmer Freeway's eastern entry - was selected because of good public transport and a premise that "the place for big sport is in the city".

"The MCG is probably one of the biggest contributors to Melbourne having such a great urban feel," Mr Smith said. "A project like this could help define the city."

In January, the council said it would pay 10 design consultancies $10,000 each to come up with new ideas and solutions for key areas of the city. The council worked on the stadium idea separately.

Lord Mayor Lisa Scaffidi said it was important to appreciate and at least "explore and imagine" changes in the city and the East Perth site was worthy of consideration.
In December, Premier Colin Barnett indicated his preference for a staged rebuilding of Subiaco Oval, though the Government has put the stadium project on hold until next year.

[RugbyZAP]

Does anyone else feel a little... like... bleah about these reports?

There have been so many 'let's redevelop Perth' and 'let's build a new stadium' and 'let's build light rail facilities in Perth' type reports that these become just another waste of money.

I don't understand why soooooo many reports are generated, and nothing ever happens.

It's getting to the point where I just don't care anymore... I don't care what happens, just do SOMETHING!!!

[Burgs]

That's politics I guess, but "something" is close than it was yesterday anyway

[RugbyZAP]

That's politics I guess, but "something" is close than it was yesterday anyway

Yes it is unfortunately... But frustrating none-the-less.

Maybe what we need is another show of 'Force' similar to the one that helped us get the Force in the first place.

[GIGS20]

That's politics I guess, but "something" is close than it was yesterday anyway

Yeah but that Something Burgs is a repositioning of the flawed MPS.

The whole reason for the inception of weneedcorners and the whole lobbying process that we undertook with that was the idea that the concept was fatally flawed. I'm fine witht he Perth Council developing a great big oval near town for the AFL crowd, but to call it a Multi Purpose venue, and count on the rugby public going there to build your business case is just wrong, and eight and a half thousand WA residents agreed with that premise enough to sign a petition before the rugby.

I would personally prefer to watch rugby in the shithole that MES is than a brand new, state of the art stadium with a view that would have been worse than that at Subiaco!

[RugbyZAP]

I would personally prefer to watch rugby in the shithole that MES is than a brand new, state of the art stadium with a view that would have been worse than that at Subiaco!

Absolutely... I'd like to see some larger scale redevelopment, as per what I think the Packers proposed a number of years ago.

And that was to build an oval field, a rectangular field and a larger tennis facility on the Belmont Park peninsular next to Burswood. Built on top of the golf course that is there.

Good access to public transport and the Freeway. Lots of space to build it up. Only problem is it's separated from the City by the River. It'd be nice to be able to get there direct from the CBD like you can in Melbourne (MCG, Rod Laver Arena etc and also Etihad Stadium in Docklands)

So maybe a better option would be to re-vamp the WACA into the oval field, then build a rectangular field on that bit of land between Trinity and the Causeway...

[Burgs]

Was more reffering to there being talk=progress rather than this specific proposal, which has about as much chance of getting up as any other.

Still reackon Claremont Oval is the best spot using the Showgrounds for a social venue and focusing in on the use of the rail network is the best option but anyway, old ground, almost healed "scars"...

[Naggs]

I find it really funny and a little frustrating that a lot of football people that you speak to blame rugby's refusal to commit to the original multi purpose oval as the reason why it isnt going ahead.

They dont realise that staying at Subi or being based at an oval would be like taking a nailgun to our eyeballs. Lots of pain and you end up having the same view of the rugby.

There is definate economic concerns about building a stadium that pricey with it sitting there unused for large periods of time though.

[travelling_gerry]

I recently saw a program on Foxtel ( I love my Foxtel) about a stadium that some team built in the US for a little over a billion (their dollars) that was multi-configurable and crowd variable ( 70,000 to 100,000) that was covered and had 4 HD screens 70 foot tall hanging from the roof.

So the $1.3bn Aus dollars for an oval with no roof and prety lights to show Eagles and Dockers colours seems considerably overpriced.

[Naggs]

I recently saw a program on Foxtel ( I love my Foxtel) about a stadium that some team built in the US for a little over a billion (their dollars) that was multi-configurable and crowd variable ( 70,000 to 100,000) that was covered and had 4 HD screens 70 foot tall hanging from the roof.

So the $1.3bn Aus dollars for an oval with no roof and prety lights to show Eagles and Dockers colours seems considerably overpriced.

I heard that our new Perth Arena is costing more than the New Stadium would have cost.

[Sheikh]

Gerry, that's Cowboys Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Stadium) which is an awesome stadium. It's probably cheap because it's built with Mexican labour!

[Darren]

I've no issue with a "multipurpose" stadium, so long as they expect the rectangular multipurpose aspects to only kick in for Test matches and perhaps a Force home final, otherwise I reckon 25K seating is what we need for a week to week.

Season 2011 will be interesting with the extra 'derby' games - it'd be silly to put anything into action before seeing what happens with that

[travelling_gerry]

Gerry, that's Cowboys Stadium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_Stadium) which is an awesome stadium. It's probably cheap because it's built with Mexican labour!

Thats it.

And we can bring in Victorians if we need.

[shasta]

Season 2011 will be interesting with the extra 'derby' games - it'd be silly to put anything into action before seeing what happens with that

You sound like a WA politician, Boss.

[tragic]

If stadia were made of pretty pictures and hot air, we'd be overrun with them by now.