Plans released for proposed Unley Oval upgrade

Interesting, looks like the Oatey stand is to go and various things moved around the oval, new perimeter fencing and relocation of the bowls club. Could be a winner!

http://www.unley.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/Att%202%20Item%20817%20FCM%208%20July%202013-1.pdf

It did not take long, our good friend Councilor Mike Hudson has been quick off the mark with a few thoughts on his blog site,

Unley Oval’s possible revamp is going pear-shaped.
JULY 1, 2013
I’ve lived for nearly thirty years with the importance of retaining Unley Oval for the benefit of all. An oval that I (together with the Council of 1985) was instrumental in opening up for the general public.

I’m not about to give that up for a castles-in-the sky “consultation”.

Watch this space for a plan which could have you, the ratepayers, seeing $10million or so spent on a concept based on
a vision which may not take into account the possible change in circumstances of two of its principal users… the Double Blues and the Sturt Cricket Club.

WATCH THIS SPACE TO FIND OUT HOW Y0U CAN HELP FOIL ANY IDEA OF MORE FENCING. HOW YOU CAN ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. HOW YOU CAN HELP BOWLS AND TENNIS PLAYERS RETAIN THEIR INDEPENDENCE.

This is one of the biggest issues to face Unley in decades.

MAKE SURE YOU ARE FED FACTS, NOT FAIRY FLOSS.

http://grumpyinunley.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/unley-ovals-possible-revamp-is-going-pear-shaped/

This is one of the biggest issues to face Unley in decades.


If this is one of Unley Councils biggest issues in years, then they have nothing to worry about.

Some comments on this plan;

- The oval has been moved north by about 15 metres, but hasn't "grown" any bigger. There would have been opportunity to do this.
- The northern entry is very close to the new oval fence and therefore a very narrow spectator area behind northern goals.
- The distance between the playing fence and playing boundary behind the northern goals is very narrow and not AFL standard. I can see a goal umpire or two getting cleaned up with such a reduced area to work in.
- Perimeter fencing (finally) gets a gig. Seems to concur with what everyone has been saying for a long time. I note that on the NW corner of the space the perimeter fence is brought in from what will now become effectively permanent parkland. Note also the Bali Bombing Hut memorial in this area.
- The terrace area width in front of the McKay stand is reduced quite a bit. The new boundary fence seems to go through the back of the current players race structure. The changerooms under this stand would seem to remain, so how the race is altered is critical to this concourse area being functional.
- The plan does not state if the southern areas will be spectator zones. If not, then there is a 20m wide wasted space behind the southern goals.
- New practice cricket wickets (9 of) seem to account for the northerly shist of the oval, but they seem to rob the southern end of its space efficiency. If these areas become public spectator zones, then that is ok and makes up for what is lost on the western side.
- The Oatey Stand is a goner, and in its place a bigger facility incorporating Stand, clubrooms, admin, Changerooms (bowls), toilets and canteen. No mention of a gym.
- The western entry link grows much wider between the stands.
- The tennis club seems to remain status quo.
- The bowls club get 2 new synthetic greens with access to the new Stand / Clubroom facitlity.
- There are plenty of access locations to the space. The dog-walker brigade should be happy with that.
- The family recreation space in the northern zone, is very large. This would have to form part of the game day spectator area. It is compromised a bit for this purpose if mounding is not featured. This is not detailed on the plan.

Without seeing more specific details on some of these changes, the main issue for me is this shift in the playing surface to the north. Unless it is demonstrated that the resulting increase in space to the south adjacent to the Tennis Court is a spectator zone, then critical usable area will be lost.

I query how functional the concourse areas in front of both stands will be as the width is significantly less than current (by about 3 terrace steps).
This is the area where most of your standing patrons are congregated.

If the turf practice wicket area is allowed to be part of the oval playing surface, then it iseems to me there is opportunity to increase the length of the oval and not move it so far north. This would involve less messing around with the race on the western side in front of the McKay Stand too.

The new stand will cost a packet. Not sure who pays for that.
Still a few details that need to be explained perhaps.
_________________
Proud Member of the ENVESTRA Choir: #2

Waiting on the band leader to find us a new song!

BUMP

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/messenger/east-hills/unley-council-rejects-another-plan-for-the-upgrade-of-unley-oval/story-fni9lkyu-1226816430803

why can't they put up a permanent fence & the council open the gates up everyday ? (when no organized sport, fairs & so forth are on) just like what happens at the bay oval

Nothing I can contribute really. Living 80kms away in rural isolation. But I just keep shaking my head, at what a hopeless, reactionary council it is at Unley. From the viewpoint of the Sturt Football Club, we have a very capable director in charge of negotiations, in David Reynolds, an experienced civil engineer. It's very frustrating as he said.
From the wider community view, it's just a practice run for the bigger challenges that lie ahead for the Unley Council. If they can't deal with this one, relatively small issue. How are they going to cope when State Planning changes confront them with high rise building developments and other urban intensification projects? They look like King Canute, trying to hold back the ocean.  

Well said, CC, I sympathise with that view.

Ho Hum......

Don't know about King Canute.

But I liken it to Nero (Unley Council) sitting about fiddling whilst Rome (Oval precinct) burns.

I saw the original plan and commented on it above. It had unacceptable flaws in my view. But if both of these proposals collectively cost $90,000 then ratepayers should be justifiably concerned.