The Pencil Guy: Hourann's illogical blog

Stadium planning 0, vested interests 1

Today’s announcement from the WAFC confirms the biggest problem behind Perth getting an awesome new oval stadium: there are too many vested interests thinking they deserve primacy ahead of others who might want to use a facility that will ultimately (factoring in budget blow-outs) cost a billion dollars or so.

No, the new stadium shouldn’t remain in WAFC control. No, Subiaco is not the ideal site (that honour goes to the Burswood Peninsula proposal — it’d create so many opportunities for revitalisation!). And no, I don’t expect that the way things turn out will be anything like what they should be.

One of the design proposals for Beijing's National Stadium. Creative Commons licence does not apply to this image.

Meanwhile, weekend reports said that western suburbs realtor Errol Marron reckons we should build a stadium according to this design (rejected for Beijing 2008 in favour of a “bird’s nest”) somewhere near where he lives. Aside from his ridiculous site suggestions (stadiums need road access and rail access, fer crying out loud), what he’s proposing in terms of paying for (partly paying for?) the stadium’s construction seems awfully vague.

But the design is quite nice — certainly better than any other design suggested so far, although the official planning process isn’t yet at that stage anyway. And why is he falling for the Langoulant line of 60 000 seats when the Beijing design is for 80 000, and Perth needs (IMHO) at least 70 000?

(Unrelatedly: the destruction of rock art on the Burrup Peninsula for Woodside’s Pluto project maybe isn’t as bad as the Perth-based critics have said. Or maybe the bloke in that ABC report has been paid out … I’m not sure.)

No comments on this post.

Care to leave a comment?