capetownguy
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 3,206
- Reaction score
- 0
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be watching the FIFA World Cup Final?
V&A Waterfront Vision
- Thread starter capetownguy
- Start date
Sackboy
Executive Member
As I said before Stade de France, a highly successful stadium operator will manage the venue pre and post 2010 and will be responsible to events. They have paid over R100 million to lease the venue for about 10 years.
They manage 5 stadia across the world successfully. One of their successes, the 80,000 seat Stade de France, which has hosted rugby world cup and football world cup matches, including the IAAF world champs in 2003.
They will manage the stadium and urban park, ensuring its maintained and appropriate for their events and business plan.
They have formed a consortium with SAIL, the largest sports management company in South Africa with large stakes in rugby unions including the Blue Bulls and WP Rugby.
"freely accessible common" hahahaah
I really wonder sometimes which world people live in.
Our green lung green point common, where people love to take walks!
The old stadium was a safety hazard that the city was too scared to have people walk around.
The new stadium is significantly more accessible. A pedestrian boulevard from the waterfront. New pedestrian underpass from the circle. Grand stair cases on three sides.
I don't think you actually listen, which is why there was no real public participation (typical of this country) and the contempt with which you hold the 12 official objectors.
It was a forgone conclusion, of that I'm convinced. The Council demolished the old stadium before objections about the project could be heard, claiming that it was a separate issue. That's how sneaky & desperate they were.
What you are saying about the old stadium crumbling is irrelevant because it was too small. You refuse to go into why these things are crumbling/dangerous or disused in the first place, which irks me.
I don't believe the operators can make a profit from such a large venue. They are going to remove a lot of the seats for a start. With the optimistic forecasting, it will be more than 10 years before the cost of building just the stadium will be recovered (at today's value).
Last edited:
Sackboy
Executive Member
hj2k_x
Honorary Master
How anyone with any sense can object to what is going on there is quite beyond me.
Sackboy
Executive Member
I'm sure a lot of reasoning is 'beyond' you
http://www.capeargus.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4040356&fSectionId=3510&fSetId=
I'll have to revise my estimate. Let's say 50 YEARS TO PAY IT OFF? Anyone object, no, OK, that's final then
Not to be rude...or maybe to be because some of what you're saying it laughable...but I don't think Stade de France would have paid R100 million to lease something they didn't think would turn a profit. The stadium will host concerts and other events besides sporting events.
With regards to the removed seats...the top tier is temporary seating. I don't get what relevance it has considering they will be replacing those seats with VIP booths last time I heard. If you had any sort of knowledge with regards to stadium operation I'd listen, but it's clear you don't.
Are you honestly and truly saying you would prefer to have had the city keep the old Greenpoint stadium? Not only was it crumbling and extremely ugly, but the area around it was nowhere near safe and said area was also ugly. What exactly do you have a problem with with regards to the new stadium? The fact that the public can't waltz right in? One couldn't do that with the old stadium either. You seem to be under the impression that public space will be removed, when it's quite the opposite. I wouldn't have gone anywhere near the old stadium other than for a concert or two even if you payed me. Now, apart from getting an iconic world-recognisable venue we can be proud of, they're pedestrianising the area, making it far more presentable and in fact doing all they can to attract people to the area.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lx0wexiYk
Last edited:
Sackboy
Executive Member
At over R2 BILLION and rising, the rest of Cape Town is not laughing.
- Can you tell me what stops SdF from walking away after a year or two?
- Do you agree about the recouping costs timeline?
Sackboy
Executive Member
Define public space. I don't doubt some of it will be an improvement, but both you and cptguy keep shirking the question about why an improvement is necessary at all.
hj2k_x
Honorary Master
Never mind then. It is not really worth 'discussing' this any further with you.I'm sure a lot of reasoning is 'beyond' you
See you at the stadium in 2010
1) Have you heard of contracts? (and if Stade de France were to walk away, one of the many other bidders would be knocking on the door to take off where they left off)
2) There's absolutely no mistaking that the stadium is costing a fair deal, but I repeat my question - would you prefer the old delapitated, unsafe and ugly stadium remained in its place? I can understand if the costs were never to be recouped, but they are. It's simply a matter of time. Also, you're thinking very short-sightedly with regards to the impact of hosting a successful world cup. Not only will a major cash injection in the local economy be seen by the tourists flocking here during the world cup, but if we do a good job of it those tourists will be coming back. It's a long-term investment. Apart from those tourists we have the billions of TV viewers too.
Are you blind? Honestly...no one is shirking anything. You're clearly seeing what you want to see. What part of it is UNSAFE, UGLY, DIRTY and EMBARRASSING is so hard to grasp? You clearly haven't visited the area much if you deny any of these points.
Sackboy
Executive Member
You are doing it again. You've not answered my question about HOW LONG it will take to pay the stadium off or why the current stadium is crumbling. I've emboldened it so you don't miss it.
Asking me whether I would want a crumbling stadium or a toilet bowl is not really a fair option. I would say fix the old stadium and use it for whatever purpose it was designed. Then put the toilet bowl where it should have been - Culemborg or Athlone. However Athlone had too many poor people living there, so that was scrapped and you went for the mountain backdrop for the TV viewers. When the objections came in, the city proceeded with undue haste to frustrate the process demolishing the old site in a weekend (!), such was the contempt for public participation.
Sackboy
Executive Member
I'm not totally blind, but I'm partially deaf as it happens. {Can we cut the rudeness}
You are doing it again. You've not answered my question about HOW LONG it will take to pay the stadium off or why the current stadium is crumbling. I've emboldened it so you don't miss it.
Asking me whether I would want a crumbling stadium or a toilet bowl is not really a fair option. I would say fix the old stadium and use it for whatever purpose it was designed. Then put the toilet bowl where it should have been - Culemborg or Athlone. However Athlone had too many poor people living there, so that was scrapped and you went for the mountain backdrop for the TV viewers. When the objections came in, the city proceeded with undue haste to frustrate the process demolishing the old site in a weekend (!), such was the contempt for public participation.
I am not going to pretend to know how long it will take for the stadium to be payed off. As I mentioned before - it will be payed off. It is a matter of time. Eventually it will turn a profit. It's like investing in the property market.
Secondly, the old stadium was not only too expensive to fix, but the fact is that it was too small to host world cup matches (and the world cup IS happening. It's not up to Cape Town). Now let me get this straight...you propose that not only do they go ahead and build Greenpoint, but they pay MORE money to fix the old stadium? Hahahaha. Lack of logic much? Cape Town can barely handle having both Newlands and Greenpoint (WP rugby are in fact considering selling Newlands and moving to Greenpoint as a matter of fact)...but three? LOL. And lastly...stadiums such as Soccer City aren't exactly situated in the most beautiful of areas, but they are being built there anyway, so that has absolutely no relevance. Thanks but I'd rather have ONE stadium in a beautiful setting where the surrounding area is well-kept than two.
What exactly is your problem? You've mentioned:
* public space will disappear, which has been proven the opposite
* then you moved on to complain about the cost, forgetting that it will actually eventually turn a profit
* following this you proposed TWO stadiums, after complaining about the cost of one
* you've also tried to tell us you know more about stadium operation than Stade de France does
* and that the old area was safe, clean and well-kept (hahaha!)
* neglected the fact that Culemborg is a very valuable site that would be wasted on a stadium (if you knew of any future plans for the city you would be aware of this)
* you also fail to see that Athlone would not be an ideal place to host world cup matches because of transport and facility issues
* and lastly you constantly refer to Greenpoint as the "toilet bowl"...but are all for the ghastly thing that used to stand in its place
From what I can see, you're simply whining for the sake of whining. You're most likely angry that public participation was apparently non-existent, but in the process completely blind yourself to the fact that the area will be completely upgraded from its previous state. It's rather sad
Last edited:
And I present some pictures:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/3129659484_0b020975ac.jpg?v=0
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/commonwater.jpg
Some important bits from the article in picture 2:
"12.5ha has been set aside for an "enviro park" where families will be able to relax, play games, get fit and learn about conservation issues.."
"The ponds will also become a feature in the common and people will be able to paddle in them."
"Walkways, which meander from the city to the stadium, would in effect link the mountain to the sea."
"A cycling and running track open to all will encircle the common."
"Space has been planned for the Sunday morning traders close to the stadium."
"An environmental centre will be added."
"...a large grass embankment..."
"Weather-resistant fitness equipment for adults, playgrounds for children as well as specialised equipment for disabled children, will be built behind the berm."
"Parents will be able to relax close to the play parks under Pergolas."
"There will also be space for an organic produce market."
"A large oval will be built for people to play a range of games."
Now what exactly is the problem?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/3129659484_0b020975ac.jpg?v=0
http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/commonwater.jpg
Some important bits from the article in picture 2:
"12.5ha has been set aside for an "enviro park" where families will be able to relax, play games, get fit and learn about conservation issues.."
"The ponds will also become a feature in the common and people will be able to paddle in them."
"Walkways, which meander from the city to the stadium, would in effect link the mountain to the sea."
"A cycling and running track open to all will encircle the common."
"Space has been planned for the Sunday morning traders close to the stadium."
"An environmental centre will be added."
"...a large grass embankment..."
"Weather-resistant fitness equipment for adults, playgrounds for children as well as specialised equipment for disabled children, will be built behind the berm."
"Parents will be able to relax close to the play parks under Pergolas."
"There will also be space for an organic produce market."
"A large oval will be built for people to play a range of games."
Now what exactly is the problem?
Last edited:
Sackboy
Executive Member
You seem to have quoted someone else, because I'm struggling to even see how you attribute some of the points on your list to me. I just hope you aren't part of the 2010 team, because I sense an unmitigated disaster.I am not going to pretend to know how long it will take for the stadium to be payed off. As I mentioned before - it will be payed off. It is a matter of time. Eventually it will turn a profit. It's like investing in the property market.
Secondly, the old stadium was not only too expensive to fix, but the fact is that it was too small to host world cup matches (and the world cup IS happening. It's not up to Cape Town). Now let me get this straight...you propose that not only do they go ahead and build Greenpoint, but they pay MORE money to fix the old stadium? Hahahaha. Lack of logic much? Cape Town can barely handle having both Newlands and Greenpoint (WP rugby are in fact considering selling Newlands and moving to Greenpoint as a matter of fact)...but three? LOL. And lastly...stadiums such as Soccer City aren't exactly situated in the most beautiful of areas, but they are being built there anyway, so that has absolutely no relevance. Thanks but I'd rather have ONE stadium in a beautiful setting where the surrounding area is well-kept than two.
What exactly is your problem? You've mentioned:
* public space will disappear, which has been proven the opposite
* then you moved on to complain about the cost, forgetting that it will actually eventually turn a profit
* following this you proposed TWO stadiums, after complaining about the cost of one
* you've also tried to tell us you know more about stadium operation than Stade de France does
* and that the old area was safe, clean and well-kept (hahaha!)
* neglected the fact that Culemborg is a very valuable site that would be wasted on a stadium (if you knew of any future plans for the city you would be aware of this)
* you also fail to see that Athlone would not be an ideal place to host world cup matches because of transport and facility issues
* and lastly you constantly refer to Greenpoint as the "toilet bowl"...but are all for the ghastly thing that used to stand in its place
From what I can see, you're simply whining for the sake of whining. You're most likely angry that public participation was apparently non-existent, but in the process completely blind yourself to the fact that the area will be completely upgraded from its previous state. It's rather sad
Stick to copy/pasting pictures - it's safer LOL
Last edited:
Need I remind you?
This is my favourite one...
Sackboy
Executive Member
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but you're failing again.
A few points:
I should hope after spending R2 BILLION, that some of it will be an improvement. We are arguing (mostly) whether it's necessary, not that some of it (without the toilet bowl) is an improvement. Even if the improvement is now in private hands by way of lease or whatever instead of a common, which by definition belongs to all and is accessible to all. You again fail to define "public space" because you know I can't stroll where I once could. The new toilet bowl takes up a lot more area than the old. It must do, because the golf course is much smaller, the common is almost gone and the stadium is now there (can't miss it against the mountain backdrop can we).
There were better solutions, which were rejected by Cape Town (not Fifa by the way) and other interested parties.
The public participation process was a joke. You know it. I know it, which is why you won't be drawn on that either.
I'm still waiting to hear how the operators will make any profit. Did the old stadium make a profit or not. Is this why it crumbled?????????????????????
Did you check that missing (redundant link) or did you repost it for some other reason?
hj2k_x
Honorary Master
No there were not. Name me one
If the participation of which you speak was going to take the shape of people with ideas such as your own, then perhaps the lack thereof was not such a bad thing.
Do you know the answers to these questions?
If you're not sure what I'm trying to say, then I can understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp. I've laid out my points clearly, in fact going as far as quoting you to show you exactly how what I said links up to what you said. Yet you're still playing dumb.
Now let me get this straight - you're complaining because you can't simply walk where you once could, but fail to mention the fact that where you can walk now, you can not only walk, but partake in all those other activities I mentioned 5 posts back? And you'd rather walk in a dirty, unsafe area than a new, clean and well-kept one? You keep failing to answer that question I've been asking this entire time. It's clear you lack basic knowledge as to the process that was undergone in designing the final plan for the urban park, such as the fact that it was rejected a number of times by parties involved until the best solution was found. Everyone is happy, except of course you as you can't walk. Hahaha
There was in no such way better suggestions. I don't know where that one fell out of but it's utter nonsense. Greenpoint was chosen because it was the best solution. As I mentioned before, Culemborg is an extremely valuable site in future city plans that would be wasted on a stadium. Athlone is simply not suited to host world cup matches as it lacks the required infrastructure. Please, alert us as to these plans so that we may all marvel in them and mourn over the loss of their implementations.
As I mentioned before, the public participation process was most likely a joke, but with NIMBYs complaining about anything and everything I can see why. You being a prime example.
Last edited: