News Collingwood involved in new sports hub

[Vicky Park]

I’ll have a look at the presser

Nah, impossible to tell from the image.

Tantalising!

 

[barrackers]

Interesting.

When you overlap your heritage register map over the satellite pic I posted a little earlier in the thread, it can be seen that the New Glasshouse already infringes on some of the L1 heritage land on the South Eastern side of the main building.

Maybe the club believe that they can get access to more of that L1 land?

Anyway, it seems that some concepts do exist as Ed referred to in his presser. He’s got pics behind him, ...

https://www.collingwoodfc.com.au/vi...onference-eddie-mcguire-on-the-new-sports-hub

... I’ve put up a screenshot below. I can’t figure out where the building would be (the 2 cars left of pic under the microphone being a clue) ...

View attachment 662832

Those cars are parked to the west of the Lou Richards statue. Given the old Glasshouse features in the image a re-working of the cafe/bar area is most likely, possibly including an overhaul of the shop and extremely large foyer. That it was stated in the presser as Eddie's idea and that space hasn't yet been re-used suggests a bigger plan has been in the pipeline. Obviously the federal election has been the catalyst for an early announcement before all funding and permits have been achieved.

 

[Markfs]

The smog is incredible. It once wasn't a thing, but it's a regular sight and has been a progressively worsening sight these past 10-15 years.

A sad situation really.



Overwork, proximity to place of work, increased time to get to work, less time with families, less physical activity are variables more strongly correlated with overstress, anxiety and happiness/unhappiness (all issues on the rise) rather than whether one owns a pool or expensive motor vehicle. Financial stress is our common ground in terms of variables we will both agree on.

In terms of financial stresses there are two key areas. Buying a property firstly - it's unreasonable for most to buy in the areas they want and/or buy the size of property they want. And for others simply being able to buy is an issue. Given this I appreciate ALP's attempts to reduce prices through limiting negative gearing to new housing and halving the capital gains tax discount as methods to make investment less appealing and reduce demand from investors to make buying more realistic for first home buyers. That's a starting point though further policies will need to be implemented to further (and gradually over time) reduce property prices to more realistic levels. On the other side of the coin, I don't view the quality of construction to be of an acceptable standard and it hasn't been for a long time. Particularly apartment complexes that have gone up over the past 10+ years have been for the vast majority very much slap dash jobs. Focus shouldn't be on affordable housing but rather quality housing that is safe and of suitable size where it's somewhere you'd actually want to live and feel comfortable living. So it's really about bringing that price down and moving that quality of property and size of property up at the same time.

The second area I consider troubling other than the property market is the childbirth rates in Australia and how low the numbers of children women have today are. It's a sign of a grossly unhealthy economy that our population excluding immigration cannot grow on its own. Per woman in Australia, my view is we need an average of 2-3 children per woman produced and to do this we need to create economic conditions conducive to this. And to do that radical tax reform is needed. I'd be looking at something along the lines of an increase to the taxation threshold to $30k. For married couples pool those total earnings together and move that up to $60k. For each additional child they have an additional $10k increase to that tax free threshold. I'd also look for people with second and third jobs for those jobs not to be taxed at a different rate to their primary job. The consequence of such an action is those in those tax brackets after that first $30k for singles, or $60k for those who are married means they'll be paying more. But ultimately if you put money in the hands of the poor, they're going to spend. Give tax cuts to the poor, it makes buying homes of suitable size realistic and having the number of children they desire realistic. With a growing population, that means a growing economy. Children coming from working families are relatively high probability to have success and help the long term economy.

I also appreciate an idea I heard a few months ago from Paul Keating about a longevity levy. Such a concept allows people to retire earlier and those who live past 85 receive the financial security to continue living even when their superannuation runs out. Covering off that age group, that's the element missing. And by people (not being forced out of work) but having the capacity if they choose to retire sooner that means job openings for our youth who today more than ever are struggling find a way into the workforce.

Economically and this is an issue globally with any party in any nation. Everything is about the short term and about GDP growth. Governments sell off public services to make a quick buck (without the long term understanding that those services will be worth so much more with each passing year). My view is economically the focus needs to be a long term economic focus and a focus on - what is it that will mean people get the best public services and are in the best financial position to own their own homes and be able to provide for a family as large as they desire and also for future generations to be able to having greater standards of living than we presently enjoy. And a major part of that final point is environment. You let Adani loose near the Great Barrier reef and let the water temperatures continue rising and there is no Great Barrier reef and no tourism industry meaning there are no longer tourism jobs. If the water way gets polluted and our air quality reduced and we lose our competitive advantage of being able to produce the best and healthiest plants and animals.

Science, research, education and healthcare I wholeheartedly agree are among the most critical economic points of difference we need to drive forward in. But we still need liveable conditions (no one wants a reduced standard of living) and don't want our other industries (tourism, agriculture, fresh water) that have potential scope to be dominant over the long term in the way our natural resources have long allowed us to be.

I love idealism....but there will be no jobs in 20 or 30 years...women wont breed more because of a tax break, they want freedom to pursue their careers and making money. I agree with things like the great barrier reef being good for tourist dollars. We might need to capture it now in a 3d experience so tourists can experience it forever under one building on the mainland...it will just cost too much to save it now. Encouraging more children is only going to hurt the environmental stuff but I agree that we need more people if we going to kick out all the muslims, because it's been the immigration in the last two decades that has maintained economic growth. I do agree with the reduction in taxation, especially for the wealthy. I see growth in jobs in areas like butlers and house cleaning. I believe that while such jobs might be replaced by robots in the wider community, the wealthy will continue to enjoy having subservient people around them.

we should return to the original meaning of this thread...i appreciate your efforts in mapping out your theories.

 

[Markfs]

Its difficult 76. The plan below shows the triangular area (building, land and 'S' for Arthur Boyd sculpture) included in the heritage register. Heritage Victoria is extremely unikely to allow a new building to be constructed between the old Olympic Pool building and Swan Street (since renamed Olympic Boulevard). Its gonna have to go somewhere else. The old pool is a much venerated Modernist building among architects and heritage heads (and others!) and blocking any more views of the building would be a no-no.

The plan also shows the old Olympic Park Stand which was demolished to allow construction of the Glasshouse and redevelopment of the oval (for us).

This heritage stuff and lobbying by architects reminds me of the Perth Council building. It was set for demolition about a decade ago. It was full of asbestos and it was so frigging ugly. It was from the 1960s and let me get a photo



A monstrosity. This is the refurbished version and its a fairly flattering photo. To put in context, the mining companies had completely destroyed the centre of Perth in the mid 1960s and basically created windtunnels... Some of the building that replaced the wonderful originals was this one.

Anyway, the architects jacked up at its demolition because evidently it was designed by a well connected university of WA educated architect. In Perth, being connected to the proper people is just about everything. It's even more important than money but money can get you well connected, although old money is a lot better. So these architects and well connected lobbied how much this building meant to Perth....well at least to their little circle of friends.

Anyway, they spent hundreds of millions getting the asbestos out..... i'm not kidding.....and the end result is this wonderful example of bad taste.

I remember going to the olympic pool in melbourne when I was teenager to watch school sports. It was a cool place. However, it was no Notre Dame. Dozens of similar building have been bulldozed in and around Melbourne over the years. I struggle to see why it should be preserved.

 

[Knightmare]

I love idealism....but there will be no jobs in 20 or 30 years...women wont breed more because of a tax break, they want freedom to pursue their careers and making money. I agree with things like the great barrier reef being good for tourist dollars. We might need to capture it now in a 3d experience so tourists can experience it forever under one building on the mainland...it will just cost too much to save it now. Encouraging more children is only going to hurt the environmental stuff but I agree that we need more people if we going to kick out all the muslims, because it's been the immigration in the last two decades that has maintained economic growth. I do agree with the reduction in taxation, especially for the wealthy. I see growth in jobs in areas like butlers and house cleaning. I believe that while such jobs might be replaced by robots in the wider community, the wealthy will continue to enjoy having subservient people around them.

we should return to the original meaning of this thread...i appreciate your efforts in mapping out your theories.

Taxation I believe needs to be greater towards the wealthy and taxation accountability on business also needs to be much greater - and it would pay off if it was. It's those financially most vulnerable - low income earners, first home buyers and the elderly are those who require the greatest support and more favourable conditions than they're currently enduring.

Re. immigration it's more about having immigration at a sustainable rate and not relying on it for population growth or to sustain the economy.

Capturing the Great Barrier Reef in a 3d experience is a good idea. It won't generate much cash, but it's something where at least you've got that data on it and can see what once was. Though environmentally I'd like to see much more aggressive action than either of our two major parties are considering across the board as the environmental damage that is happening presently will in the long run cost us a lot more (both in Australia and globally) than it will by acting to turn things around today.

 

[76woodenspooners]

This heritage stuff and lobbying by architects reminds me of the Perth Council building. It was set for demolition about a decade ago. It was full of asbestos and it was so frigging ugly. It was from the 1960s and let me get a photo

View attachment 662924

A monstrosity. This is the refurbished version and its a fairly flattering photo. To put in context, the mining companies had completely destroyed the centre of Perth in the mid 1960s and basically created windtunnels... Some of the building that replaced the wonderful originals was this one.

Anyway, the architects jacked up at its demolition because evidently it was designed by a well connected university of WA educated architect. In Perth, being connected to the proper people is just about everything. It's even more important than money but money can get you well connected, although old money is a lot better. So these architects and well connected lobbied how much this building meant to Perth....well at least to their little circle of friends.

Anyway, they spent hundreds of millions getting the asbestos out..... i'm not kidding.....and the end result is this wonderful example of bad taste.

I remember going to the olympic pool in melbourne when I was teenager to watch school sports. It was a cool place. However, it was no Notre Dame. Dozens of similar building have been bulldozed in and around Melbourne over the years. I struggle to see why it should be preserved.

How do you measure the enduring architectural value of a building?

Consider for example consider the Eiffel Tower in Paris. It was built as a temporary structure for the 1889 World Fair. Parisians hated it. It was an eyesore. It was going to be demolished and the only reason they didn’t is because the French Military commandeered it for use as a communication antenna mount.

 

[TradeDraft]

Hope they make Olympic Park better to watch Footy At too

 

[Markfs]

How do you measure the enduring architectural value of a building?

Consider for example consider the Eiffel Tower in Paris. It was built as a temporary structure for the 1889 World Fair. Parisians hated it. It was an eyesore. It was going to be demolished and the only reason they didn’t is because the French Military commandeered it for use as a communication antenna mount.

I've been to Paris. I walked around a lot in and around the Seine and I cant remember seeing a traditional CBD. I can only assume that the french decided to situate it away from the area around the eiffel tower/ arc de tri / burnt notre dame / louvre. In australia, multinationals demand the main streets to build their montrosities... and they demolish the original buildings... So to answer your question, there is no judgement in australia. Most the old stuff is thrown out the window. And then finally after almost all of it is demolished and the past dismantled, some historical society decides to anoint a few leftover scraps to be kept. As far as im concerned the horse has bolted.

Personally i think they should have sited the multinationals somewhere west of werribee ...and the central city of melbourne could have kept a lot more of its architecture.

In the case of Perth, I'd just give the multinationals the central area and restart somewhere around king's park with some tasteful stuff and let the multinationals fix the potholes and sweep the dust alleys, rather than continue to try to make the CBD more liveable. In short, the pigs made their own mess and they should have had to wallow in it.

 

[Jafo]

Fitzroy gardens, royal botanic, and the carlton gardens can go. The Alexandra gardens south of the river could be converted into something useful. Waste of space. In fact, I would be bulldozing most of richmond and putting up a string of sports foundations and research centres. Melbourne is really lacking in this area.

View attachment 662468

Pave paradise and put up a parking lot... I would suggest a revamp of these places over a removal of parkland completely. Not suggesting this is what you are saying in total but a happy medium would suit all.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I've been to Paris. I walked around a lot in and around the Seine and I cant remember seeing a traditional CBD.

That’s the La Defense district, which you get to if you start at the Louvre and walk west along the Champs Elysee, past the Arc du triomphe, and keep walking west a couple of Km’s. It’s a concrete jungle like any other city has.

There’s also the Montpanasse Tower in the south of Paris which is a single tall city skyscraper that sits on the Paris skyline like a middle finger being held up to the world.

I can only assume that the french decided to situate it away from the area around the eiffel tower/ arc de tri / burnt notre dame / louvre.

Yeah, you assume reasonably correctly. La Defense is outside of the Paris arrondissements (but Montpannasse is inside) ...

... although if you look West from the Pyramid of the Louvre, you’ll look through an in broken series of arches, starting with a reasonably small arch at the Tuileries gardens, projecting through the largish arch of arc du triomphe and then to the enormous arch at the entrance of La Defense. So they’ve kinda used that as a device to attach La Defense to the fabric of Paris.

In australia, multinationals developers demand the main streets to build their montrosities... and they demolish the original buildings...

Edited for accuracy.

Some people want to create value by making things.

Some people want to maintain value by preserving things.

How to adjudicate when these come into conflict because people are fighting over access to a finite resource?

So to answer your question, there is no judgement in australia. Most the old stuff is thrown out the window.

I think that depends where you are in Australia.

For example, I reckon it varies noticeably between Melbourne and Sydney.

I reckon Sydney is far less heritage minded. They came close to putting a wrecking ball through the Queen Victoria Building in the 80’s (The most iconic Victorian era architecture in Sydney, it not the country - certainly on par with the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne) and the only reason it didn’t happen is because the BLF put a work ban on the site. Yep, once upon a time the builder’s union was the defacto heritage protection organisation.

And then finally after almost all of it is demolished and the past dismantled, some historical society decides to anoint a few leftover scraps to be kept.

Yeah, that can happen. Probably the biggest example of that in Sydney is the Blues Point Tower - which by near universal opinion is an eyesore. The only people who don’t seem to mind how it looks are the folks who live in it because they don’t need to look at it. But it was designed by one of Australia’s most prominent architects (Harry Seidler) and had some important context when it was being build and so it is heritage listed.

As far as im concerned the horse has bolted.

I haven’t spent much time in Perth so I don’t have an opinion about that.

I think many folks in Sydney would agree (IMO Sydney has the bridge, the Opera house and the rocks, so for a long time it felt like it didn’t need to take heritage seriously)

I don’t think many folks in Melbourne would agree with your premise.

Personally i think they should have sited the multinationals somewhere west of werribee ...

I don’t think many of the developers are multinational? Happy to be corrected, but I thought developers like Lend Lease, Meriton, Goodman Felder etc, etc were Aussie?

... and the central city of melbourne could have kept a lot more of its architecture.

Isn’t that what happened with the Docklands development???

In the case of Perth, I'd just give the multinationals the central area and restart somewhere around king's park with some tasteful stuff and let the multinationals fix the potholes and sweep the dust alleys, rather than continue to try to make the CBD more liveable.

Do many people live in the Perth CBD? (Serious question, don’t know)

Traditionally the Australian CBD’s weren’t residential at all. Sydney seems to be getting quite a bit but that’s only a recent phenomenon (last 10 years)

In short, the pigs made their own mess and they should have had to wallow in it.

Isn’t that what taxation is for?

 

[Markfs]

Pave paradise and put up a parking lot... I would suggest a revamp of these places over a removal of parkland completely. Not suggesting this is what you are saying in total but a happy medium would suit all.

build a 50 storey building and put the gardens at the top....

 

[Markfs]

Do many people live in the Perth CBD? (Serious question, don’t know)

T

I've never seen so many cut and pastes. It looks like a homework assignment. So to answer your question, no one used to live in there except for a few street people. Now they've built a few appartments and converted a few banks .... to try to humanise the place which gives a pretty fair indication what these buildings are doing to the karma...

anyway, i better stop there because i'm arguing for development elsewhere in the forum...

Anyway good work.... A. I would have given an A+ but there were no references

 

[76woodenspooners]

I've been to Paris. I walked around a lot in and around the Seine and I cant remember seeing a traditional CBD. I can only assume that the french decided to situate it away from the area around the eiffel tower/ arc de tri / burnt notre dame / louvre.

Did you visit the Latin Quarter and/or Mont Matre?

Once upon a time the whole of Paris was like those two medieval quarters, but in the second half of the 19th century they put a wrecking ball through around 85% of Paris and rebuilt it with wide boulevards and Hausmann style architecture in what is probably one of the most significant redevelopment that any major city in the world has gone through.

And in case you’re wondering, it wasn’t done to make some fat cats richer. It was an exercise in social engineering. The medieval city of Paris was full of ghettos and social unrest, and gangs controlling the flow of people and commerce into and out of their quarters. By bulldozing the tiny winding medieval streets and old houses, and replacing them with wide boulevards and the 5 story Hausmann buildings, it opened the city up and prevented gangs from controlling the city.

 

[Black_White]

when you're driving over the range pack a suitcase and settle down up north...

You do realise I already live in the North?

 

[Markfs]

You do realise I already live in the North?

winter is coming....

 

[Markfs]

Did you visit the Latin Quarter and/or Mont Matre?

Once upon a time the whole of Paris was like those two medieval quarters, but in the second half of the 19th century they put a wrecking ball through around 85% of Paris and rebuilt it with wide boulevards and Hausmann style architecture in what is probably one of the most significant redevelopment that any major city in the world has gone through.

And in case you’re wondering, it wasn’t done to make some fat cats richer. It was an exercise in social engineering. The medieval city of Paris was full of ghettos and social unrest, and gangs controlling the flow of people into and out of their quarters. By bulldozing of the tiny winding medieval streets old houses, and replacing them with wide boulevards and the 5 story Hausmann buildings, it opened the city up and prevented gangs from controlling the city.

y
im not talking about freezing all development. i am talking about siting the monstrosities that businesses seem to need in places away from the centre.

As for medieval paris, i'm sure that the royals were equally assholes to the plebs as the multinationals are now. Might explain the revolution. Replacing shacks with decent buildings is not the same as bull dozing brick and stone architecture and replacing it with the concrete and glass pieces of crap that turn city centres into a generic science fiction wastelands. I doubt that any sane person has ever looked up at a skyscraper and commented on how beautiful it was. Certainly modern ones. I dont mind the chrysler building in ny. At least it has some individuality.

This has gone way past it's use by date. We need to consider others...

 

[sideswipe]

I love idealism....but there will be no jobs in 20 or 30 years...women wont breed more because of a tax break, they want freedom to pursue their careers and making money. I agree with things like the great barrier reef being good for tourist dollars. We might need to capture it now in a 3d experience so tourists can experience it forever under one building on the mainland...it will just cost too much to save it now. Encouraging more children is only going to hurt the environmental stuff but I agree that we need more people if we going to kick out all the muslims, because it's been the immigration in the last two decades that has maintained economic growth. I do agree with the reduction in taxation, especially for the wealthy. I see growth in jobs in areas like butlers and house cleaning. I believe that while such jobs might be replaced by robots in the wider community, the wealthy will continue to enjoy having subservient people around them.

we should return to the original meaning of this thread...i appreciate your efforts in mapping out your theories.

Disappointed that you haven't included a request for the state government to remove land tax on holiday houses, especially clifftop ones in Portsea. Go on, you know Alex W would be all for it.

 

[Markfs]

Disappointed that you haven't included a request for the state government to remove land tax on holiday houses, especially clifftop ones in Portsea. Go on, you know Alex W would be all for it.

i do cry ever time i think of alex paying tax on his speculative endeavours - if he does pay any tax at all instead of using some entity in the caymans. However, my main gripe is that he is warming a board seat when we could be using it to give experience to people who might take over from Ed when he retires or his time is up. Currently, the only persion who is mentioned as a successor is craig kelly and he has never been on the board. Peter Murphy would appear to be an option and its good to see the changes to the board from last year. I dont think the others are an option but Waislitz is definitely not a vice president.

You have been quite a supporter of Alex since I ran my thread on making changes to the board last year. I think my desire to get Waislitz off the board is fairly understandable. in contrast, your support of Alex is a curious thing.

 

[sideswipe]

i do cry ever time i think of alex paying tax on his speculative endeavours - if he does pay any tax at all instead of using some entity in the caymans. However, my main gripe is that he is warming a board seat when we could be using it to give experience to people who might take over from Ed when he retires or his time is up. Currently, the only persion who is mentioned as a successor is craig kelly and he has never been on the board. Peter Murphy would appear to be an option and its good to see the changes to the board from last year. I dont think the others are an option but Waislitz is definitely not a vice president.

You have been quite a supporter of Alex since I ran my thread on making changes to the board last year. I think my desire to get Waislitz off the board is fairly understandable. in contrast, your support of Alex is a curious thing.

Nah, no supporter of Alex W. Just more a critic of your incessant potshotting of him when you have zero idea of his contribution/role on the board.

 

[Markfs]

Nah, no supporter of Alex W. Just more a critic of your incessant potshotting of him when you have zero idea of his contribution/role on the board.

Anything regarding the competence of any player coach or administrator is beyond any potshotting on BF because no one on this forum has any real knowledge of what the players, coaches and administrators are doing.

So I look forward to seeing you hold everyone here accountable for their posts.

 

[sideswipe]

Anything regarding the competence of any player coach or administrator is beyond any potshotting on BF because no one on this forum has any real knowledge of what the players, coaches and administrators are doing.

So I look forward to seeing you hold everyone here accountable for their posts.

I might put that in the little text box at the bottom of my posts. Like your one mentions our esteemed VP, which I consider a little weird.

 

[Markfs]

I might put that in the little text box at the bottom of my posts. Like your one mentions our esteemed VP, which I consider a little weird.

I'm sure we will make a great team going forward flushing out opinions based on incomplete information.....

and while i accept that you are expressing a personal opinion about my personal opinion about moving alex waislitz along, i'm sure that you would accept that your interpretation of weirdness cannot be interpreted as meaning that I am weird because, as we all know, you know very little about me and it would against our new mantra to make such a claim.

 

[barrackers]

McGuire mentioned in his farewell speech that the Monash partnership development would take in this very room and was due to start at the end of the year. It looked like they were in the old cafe area. A lot of money allocated to the redevelopment of an existing space, perhaps some is set aside for research etc?

 

[jackcass]

McGuire mentioned in his farewell speech that the Monash partnership development would take in this very room and was due to start at the end of the year. It looked like they were in the old cafe area. A lot of money allocated to the redevelopment of an existing space, perhaps some is set aside for research etc?

I'd imagine there'd have to be some extension of the building to accommodate the additional activity.

 

[barrackers]

I'd imagine there'd have to be some extension of the building to accommodate the additional activity.

Maybe basement levels if heritage and slight lines are an issue?