Good on it. The people decided it didn't want a permanent fixture: as 85% support for the council's new master plan for the park- sans grandstand- makes clear. The first time is always a bit awkward, and they are setting up the (minimal) permanent infrastructure required to support the temporary erection of grandstands in the future. And how much worse would it be if there were no grandstand, or it wasn't finished in time? What an embarrassment!
Further to the parklands being dry- I support no further watering from the Murray. That really is robbing Peter to fund a gambling addiction. However, all methods of water collection, recycling and saving must be employed, because the parklands need water. As Melvin so rightly points out (it's not often we agree), the social and psychological benefits of these oases encircling our City and around our suburbs is incalculable.
3 Kommentare:
A politician had to do a whole lot of backtracking a while ago, because he had supposedly suggested the government should restrict what crops are grown in Australia, and all the farmers arced up against him..
But was he really that stupid? cotton? rice? pine trees? we don't have the climate for any of those...
We also lack the government balls to legalise the growth of industrial hemp, which uses some minute percentage of the water but can be used as a cotton replacement, as well as a replacement for pine.. just to name a few!
Adelaide has become the victim in this, the victim of arrogant eastern states who couldn't care less about who lives down the river.. If things could change, we'd get the beauty back that is this ring of public space..
That said, I think, given the money that Clipsal brings in to Adelaide, we could actually have some foresight to build a permanent stand, and it's only a handful of naysayers, who don't understand economics, that want Adelaide to stay as a backwater standing in the way..
I don't understand the link between higher economic growth in the CBD and greater metro area, and building a grandstand in Victoria Park.
Perhaps this makes me one of these naysayers, but I am studying the subject at university, so I must have some idea what I'm talking about.
I argue that given the money the Clipsal brings in, we can afford the slight annual cost for set up and tear-down in exchange for not destroying several hectares of this "ring of public space".
As for restricting crops, that's beyond (far beyond) my jurisdiction. To offer an opinion, though: I'd be for it in certain, broad, circumstances.
Yeah.. it would get interesting, telling farmers what to grow..
I guess if there was another use for the grandstand other than clipsal, it'd get more support...
But then, like the council down here.. they're too busy arguing about trees that should be cut down to actually have vigourous discussion about taking the city forward..
Kommentar veröffentlichen