10 hours ago, DV8 said:

No one has proposed to build a training complex H/Q's at these suburbs Gonzo. You know that, anyway.

We are talking about Gosch's, and Jolimont.  And the need for Taxi trips to Jolimont from the southern suburbs.

another coward.

Not talking about building in those suburbs but access from those suburbs. Taxi trips would be required no matter where you build it. People coming from northern suburbs would need to take taxis to anything near/south of Richmond Station.

37 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

2 or 3 stories of the Jolimont site would need to be dedicated to car parking (unless a separate car parking building gets up).  A higher building would likely be approved for the Richmond station site given the already elevated railway and the other buildings in the area and parking would be underground.  Way more commercial space, jeez we could even open an alternative scan clinic to compete with the monopoly over at AAMI.   Car Sales.com.au don't seem to go all that badly being run out of the Punt Rd precinct!

i think you are conflating the parking issue. the mfc is part of the mcc and some parking (for club players, officials) should be available in the mcc parking area at least at certain times. the southern stand of the mcg is also to be redeveloped and no doubt will include more parking than it does now. on the building height limit, have you seen the current building heights on wellington pde? i don;t think we want to build anything higher than this

I think access for supporters is possibly the least important consideration for this venue. The primary aim would appear to be to consolidate admin and  the footy department, including the gym and all the other stuff needed for indoor training, within one site and to have it near a training oval of similar dimensions to the MCG. The next consideration is to have it as near as possible to our home, the MCG. The third aim would likely be revenue generating possibilities. I don't know whether a social club and a "Demons store" are revenue positive or not, but I suspect both are likely to be less revenue positive than other options such as leased office space, a commercial car park or even a non-Demon branded coffee shop.  My preference for that third aim would be to maximise revenue and if that means no social club or even a Demon shop, I could live with that.

Just now, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I think access for supporters is possibly the least important consideration for this venue. The primary aim would appear to be to consolidate admin and  the footy department, including the gym and all the other stuff needed for indoor training, within one site and to have it near a training oval of similar dimensions to the MCG. The next consideration is to have it as near as possible to our home, the MCG. The third aim would likely be revenue generating possibilities. I don't know whether a social club and a "Demons store" are revenue positive or not, but I suspect both are likely to be less revenue positive than other options such as leased office space, a commercial car park or even a non-Demon branded coffee shop.  My preference for that third aim would be to maximise revenue and if that means no social club or even a Demon shop, I could live with that.

This ^ (subtle demon branding please in the cafe etc without being off putting)

2 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

i think you are conflating the parking issue. the mfc is part of the mcc and some parking (for club players, officials) should be available in the mcc parking area at least at certain times. the southern stand of the mcg is also to be redeveloped and no doubt will include more parking than it does now. on the building height limit, have you seen the current building heights on wellington pde? i don;t think we want to build anything higher than this

so one minute it's the ease of undertaking commercial activity (presumably for tenants and their customers) and the next it is parking for MFC players and officials via the Brunton Ave MCG southern stand car park will be fine?     Really?   

Just now, Copuchas said:

so one minute it's the ease of undertaking commercial activity (presumably for tenants and their customers) and the next it is parking for MFC players and officials via the Brunton Ave MCG southern stand car park will be fine?     Really?   

i didn't mean only. i meant in addition to whatever parking they incorporate in the new buildings

most buildings in the cbd and inner melbourne don't have much in the way of their own private parking

parking is obviously of interest/importance but it is more a secondary concern and we shouldn't overstress it. i'm sure the club has considered it and have some good ideas. there are more important issues we should be focused on

Stop all talk of this project the greens are against it, and ALP is controlled by ALP

1 hour ago, binman said:

Absolutely. In addition to things such as apartments and gym i think a bar would do super well in that location.

My thinking is less a dees social club, more a commercial bar that we own and operate. There is bugger all in that area, particularly since the pub directly opposite closed. That pub was heaving pre and post games. 

The Hilton/pullman is a woeful place for a drink. Expensive and awful atmosphere.

I went to Nixons (what a shocking name) after the doggies game. It is in a crap location and is a pretty crappy pub but it was packed full of dees fans singing he song and celebrating as i'm sure it is after every game (obviously with other supporters). 

Jolimont would attract even more people and not be a dead area during the week - well not as dead.  A half decent pub/bar with decent food  would make an absolute killing.

Bar/pub could be open all game days for all sports or events at the G.

1 hour ago, Copuchas said:

2 or 3 stories of the Jolimont site would need to be dedicated to car parking (unless a separate car parking building gets up).  A higher building would likely be approved for the Richmond station site given the already elevated railway and the other buildings in the area and parking would be underground.  Way more commercial space, jeez we could even open an alternative scan clinic to compete with the monopoly over at AAMI.   Car Sales.com.au don't seem to go all that badly being run out of the Punt Rd precinct!

As I suggested before, the 2-3 stories required for car-parking could be accommodated in a separate building immediately to the East of the MFC proposal. As you admit (above) there is no necessity for a ‘multi-storey’ car park (which you claim in post #237) or for 2-3 floors of the MFC proposal to be allocated for parking as you now claim ((post #246).

l am sure that a well-designed car parking provision could meet Council and community expectations!

8 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Bar/pub could be open all game days for all sports or events at the G.

Absolutely. And its location means it would get thousands walking past it on each of these occasions, pre and post games, and be a natural meeting spot. 

47 minutes ago, don't make me angry said:

Stop all talk of this project the greens are against it, and ALP is controlled by ALP

Alp controlled by the ALP

Thanks for clarifying that.

5 minutes ago, CBDees said:

As I suggested before, the 2-3 stories required for car-parking could be accommodated in a separate building immediately to the East of the MFC proposal. As you admit (above) there is no necessity for a ‘multi-storey’ car park (which you claim in post #237) or for 2-3 floors of the MFC proposal to be allocated for parking as you now claim ((post #246).

l am sure that a well-designed car parking provision could meet Council and community expectations!

2-3 stories is multi-storey CBDees and is exactly what residents don't want!  Well apart from yourself....  And as for Daisycutter's let's not get too hung up on parking approach....this just exacerbates the existing problem of saturated parking for residents in East Melbourne.  And that's before parking has even been reduced or eliminated in Yarra Park... which I might add is inevitable.  I'm all for the Dees having a home but it must be where adequate infrastructure can be placed.   From any perspective, the Jolimont location looks like a forced fit.  Another possible site is the en tou cas tennis courts on Swan street that are part of the Melbourne Park complex.  Put a building in there similar to the one that was built adjacent to the tennis center, relocate the tennis courts to the roof of it.  Direct linkage across the rail lines to the G via the existing footbridge.  Redevelop Gosch's paddock to incorporate an MCG sized footprint (not that the Tigers seem to have too many MCG difficulties given training's on the small Punt Rd ground!).   All of these pushbacks and more will be thrown at this project and by any analysis it's difficult seeing it overcome them.

1 hour ago, Copuchas said:

2-3 stories is multi-storey CBDees and is exactly what residents don't want!  Well apart from yourself....  And as for Daisycutter's let's not get too hung up on parking approach....this just exacerbates the existing problem of saturated parking for residents in East Melbourne.  And that's before parking has even been reduced or eliminated in Yarra Park... which I might add is inevitable.  I'm all for the Dees having a home but it must be where adequate infrastructure can be placed.   From any perspective, the Jolimont location looks like a forced fit.  Another possible site is the en tou cas tennis courts on Swan street that are part of the Melbourne Park complex.  Put a building in there similar to the one that was built adjacent to the tennis center, relocate the tennis courts to the roof of it.  Direct linkage across the rail lines to the G via the existing footbridge.  Redevelop Gosch's paddock to incorporate an MCG sized footprint (not that the Tigers seem to have too many MCG difficulties given training's on the small Punt Rd ground!).   All of these pushbacks and more will be thrown at this project and by any analysis it's difficult seeing it overcome them.

How on earth do you know what the residents want or don’t want considering this was only announced in the Hun yesterday and hasn’t been advertised? You are making unfounded claims, albeit you obviously object as a resident (NIMBY.)! 

I have actually spoken to a number of East Melbourne residents in the past 24 hours and none seemed particularly troubled (although I suspect Rupert Myer who possibly covets his view along the rail alignment may be an ally of yours)! After all, the shops and commercial offices directly opposite where the low-level car park could potentially be sited don’t really have an issue with detriment to their amenity.

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by CBDees

36 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Alp controlled by the ALP

Thanks for clarifying that.

This comment biggest laugh for me of the day

Thanks

(Even though the both parties have been infiltrated. Jules Bishop Glorious Foundation etc etc - sorry, couldn't resist)

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by timbo

21 minutes ago, CBDees said:

How on earth do you know what the residents want or don’t want considering this was only announced in the Hun yesterday and hasn’t been advertised? You are making unfounded claims, albeit you obviously object as a resident (NIMBY.)! 

I have actually spoken to a number of East Melbourne residents in the past 24 hours and none seemed particularly troubled (although I suspect Rupert Hamer who possibly covets his view along the rail alignment may be an ally of yours)! After all, the shops and commercial offices directly opposite where the low-level car park could be sited don’t really have an issue with detriment to their amenity.

I thought Rupert Hamer died in 2004!  I know the issues that concern residents because I'm integrated in the community.  You sound like you're integrated in the construction industry.  Any conflict of interest to declare??  Anyway, let the horses run.   Hope you got your flyer in the post from Ellen today asking what concerns you?  I'm seriously thinking about filling mine in and I abhor the greens!!  Taking the dog for a walk down in Yarra Park now...

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by Copuchas

A number of elements come to play among all this... looking on as a spectator :

Almost funny anyone would see 6 Stories as a hindrance . Just look around....and up ??

 

The powers that be at the MFC seem very tight lipped these days. I'd be surprised if they relaxed the reigns on this getting out save they thought it appropriately progressed.

Further to my noting a trend to explore the construction above tracks I seem to recall somewhere ( happy to be corrected ) that for whatever reason planning permission above tracks is not a local jurisdiction.i.e Spring St can approve with stroke of a pen.

For the Greenies i propose that having built our facilities that Punt Rd be razed to the ground and rehabilitated to urban Forrest...seems only fair.

Again i think the proposal has merit...legs ? ??

Jolimont might need recasting as Demonland ???

1 minute ago, Copuchas said:

I thought Rupert Hamer died in 2004!  I know the issues that concern residents because I'm integrated in the community.  You sound like you're integrated in the construction industry.  Any conflict of interest to declare??  Anyway, let the horses run.   Hope you got your flyer in the post from Ellen today asking what concerns you?  I'm seriously thinking about filling mine in and I abhor the greens!!

Do you mean Ellen Sandell was asking what concerns locals about the MFC proposal specifically or was it a more general question not linked to yesterday's announcement? If it's the former, she's been quick out of the blocks and suggests to me that she's already decided to object to it and wants to get the community to support her. 

11 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Do you mean Ellen Sandell was asking what concerns locals about the MFC proposal specifically or was it a more general question not linked to yesterday's announcement? If it's the former, she's been quick out of the blocks and suggests to me that she's already decided to object to it and wants to get the community to support her. 

Quote

Just generic and purely coincidental Dee-vina, although one of the boxes to tick is "Protect local parks and heritage" so it's clearly one of her hot buttons!!  Think she's just researching ahead of the upcoming State Election....the outcome of which may well shape where this proposal heads next...

 

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by Copuchas

26 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

I thought Rupert Hamer died in 2004!  I know the issues that concern residents because I'm integrated in the community.  You sound like you're integrated in the construction industry.  Any conflict of interest to declare??  Anyway, let the horses run.   Hope you got your flyer in the post from Ellen today asking what concerns you?  I'm seriously thinking about filling mine in and I abhor the greens!!  Taking the dog for a walk down in Yarra Park now...

Just for the record, l have been integrated in the East Melbourne community for 38 years and have served on the Committee of the East Melbourne Group (however it is not a competition)! 

i'd be interested to know what specific problems to amenity that east melbourne/jolimont residents might have

maybe copouchas could itemise them for us so we could discuss them

(i appreciate we are not in possession of detailed plans of any mfc proposal)

The fit. Assuming Google maps is in scale with itself.

The blue is equivalent to MCG surface. Red is what we currently use at Gosches.

A little replanting and re-routing of paths.

 

 

21 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

The fit. Assuming Google maps is in scale with itself.

The blue is equivalent to MCG surface. Red is what we currently use at Gosches.

A little replanting and re-routing of paths.

 

 

Done the way you show it, a rejig of the pathway over a short distance and the removal and replanting of some trees to line that rejigged pathway, would not see any interference to the park land at all.

Surely it is better to have some community use of the area as an oval, than a car park where the ground can be damaged. 

You can still use the oval when the MFC is not training, yet chopped up ground from cars in winter is far harder to walk across.

Plant a few more trees here and there and you have improved the park area.

The new building would help deaden the train noise and improve the look of the tracks area, which is an eyesore.

I would think the nearby residents would have an improved lifestyle and raised property values. A win/win.

Now lets hear from the Greenies.

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by Redleg

I rather like the idea posted earlier of replanting trees which have to be removed on the site of the Punt Road Oval which is the real eyesore in the precinct.

I have just written to Ellen Sandell (my local Greens member) telling her that local residents (apart from Copuchas and his mates) look forward to her support for a MFC training facility in Yarra Park! 

1 hour ago, daisycutter said:

i'd be interested to know what specific problems to amenity that east melbourne/jolimont residents might have

maybe copouchas could itemise them for us so we could discuss them

(i appreciate we are not in possession of detailed plans of any mfc proposal)

Daisycutter, I'm not sure time will allow me to do justice to your request.  A few pointers for consideration though:

1) People buy in to any community in part for the amenity of the local area.  The amenity of East Melbourne is substantial and property values reflect this.  In no particular order: access to the city, quiet streets (relatively for inner city);  parks, gardens and sporting fields in close proximity (note they are ALL different, a fact lost here on Demonland); the extremely attractive street scape and views across parks and gardens eg from Wellington Pde; heritage buildings and homes; nearby sports and entertainment precincts; quick access to major arterial roads and public transport etc etc.   All are drivers.  

2) Negative amenity also exists in East Melbourne:  crime; drug and alcohol affected citizens passing through to neighbouring suburbs, restricted access to parking, high level of illegal parking by non-residents; aircraft (particularly helicopter) noise; peak hour cut throughs; outrageous council taxes; very restrictive planning regimes (good and bad perhaps); etc etc

3) The demographic in East Melbourne is an older demographic and that's likely to always be the case as homes are generally smaller in size and the nearby schools aren't attractive to those who can afford properties here.

4) The whole discussion on here presupposes that local residents would derive increased amenity from losing a current park facility in order to have it replaced by a sporting field.  In addition that the lost amenity of the Wellington Pde street scape is either unimportant or an improvement.  And that the as yet unsolved MCG car parking issue (and subsequent flow-on to East Melbourne and Richmond streets) can be exacerbated with no consequence.  

5) My contention is that the net outcome for the majority of residents is negative amenity and therefore it will be vigorously opposed.  And the fact that the seat is currently held by the Greens at both a Federal and State level and that the Melbourne City Council is a residents amenity focused council will make it difficult for a State Govt of whatever persuasion to ride roughshod over the concerns I've flagged and others that will be raised.

6) The case against becomes more compelling when the MFC can absolutely achieve the vast majority of it's requirements by staying at Gosch's Paddock, modifying it to be a truly elite facility and constructing commercial premises / HQ in an already established sporting precinct that is a stone's throw from the G.  Witness the building that went up as part of the tennis centre redevelopment project as an example and see my earlier comments on redeveloping the clay tennis courts area.

In any event, time will tell.