18 hours ago, dpositive said:

Like some of this. Build over the already ugly Swan Street . Open up views over Punt rd and Goshs.

Covered walk way beside rail line to the existing footbridge direct entry to the G . You can even wander through the trees if you wish.

Land and air space in Richmond probably cheaper than East Melb.

Jolimont is the perfect spot. Gregory, my driver, can park and wait at the Sofitel while I have a scotch or two with the lads before travelling home. Swan street is a bit of a cess pool. 

47 minutes ago, CBDees said:

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! 

Hahaha, I've just done the same thing CB.  1st time I've communicated with a Green politician in my life!  My message slightly different to yours possibly!

Im a bit lost here...what real loss to parkland ?

In a fashion youll have some rubbishy grassed area not reall usuable for much other than parkibg cars....being replaced by an area of grass usuable by club and community alike.

The grass will still be green...no ?

7 minutes ago, chookrat said:

Jolimont is the perfect spot. Gregory, my driver, can park and wait at the Sofitel while I have a scotch or two with the lads before travelling home. Swan street is a bit of a cess pool. 

Actually, this is probably closer to the truth of the true drivers around this project than anything in this thread to date!

26 minutes ago, Redleg said:

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.

Unfortunately, despite the logic and reasonableness of your comments, people don't like change.

Also, in public administration, there has been increasing support for passive recreation over active recreation, particularly when sporting club/s are involved, even where the area is not heavily used by the public. 

2 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

Hahaha, I've just done the same thing CB.  1st time I've communicated with a Green politician in my life!  My message slightly different to yours possibly!

A long time reader, very infrequent poster.

@copuchas I disagree with the majority of what you have written on this thread, clearly you're thinking only from a personal perspective of how much your property price will be impacted (which I think you're wrong anyway). Think about your wider community, as regardless of whether you will use it or not, a state of the art sporting facility open to the surrounding community would only improve it. Where's your current access to such atm? That's without even mentioning the physical therapy facilities on site local residents would have door mat access to - I'd imagine the older punters in the community would get some benefit out of that, whilst their grandkids are snapping goals on the training field like their heroes.

As for loss of parkland to walk your dog, really? It's not the whole park being built over, just a small pocket of it. I'm sure there can be a vets chucked into the commercial complex, not too mention a dog park for them to roam off leash. Such a privileged comment, any resident of Melbourne would kill to have access to the park lands within a driver length of East Melbourne - Botanical Gardens, Fitzroy Gardens, Parliament Gardens and the Yarra Park carpark/dog walking lands. We are talking about building over train tracks (soften noise pollution) and building one oval in amongst a car park that can't be used majority of the year anyway. Community activation greater than car parking/dog walking of the area that's unused more days than not...it's an all round win.

A problem forever with the MFC is 'what community are we a part of?' - this site would give us a genuine connection to our roots on the very land of our creation in the shadows of the mighty MCG, without some manufactured story of growth corridors of Melbourne etc. A place tourists can easily access in conjunction with the MCG, a place in the heart of Melbourne to represent all of Melbourne. From my 'selfish' perspective, this is exactly what the MFC needs! 

But, some people are never happy unless they are whingeing - so have a whinge about this and make yourself content. I hope you're wrong.

What an exciting period of the clubs history we are moving into - clear direction, strong people and culture across the board, admin, footy dep, players. It feels so bizarre...C'Mon Dees!

I don’t know how people can be so vehemently against it when none of the details have been released.  It’s based purely on a touched up sketch in the Herald-Sun.

Talk about going into things with an open mind. ?

56 minutes ago, Copuchas said:

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.

 

Really good insights - thanks for taking the time to write it 

Not bad for a second post there witch!

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

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.

I'd be classified as a "Greenie" and can't disagree with what you've said. Full steam ahead, project's a go

1 hour ago, Copuchas said:

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.

 

Is Yarra Park governed by Melbourne City Council or MCG Trust? It really isn't land that can be solely managed for the benefit of the local residents considering its part of Melbourne's Sporting Precinct and in particular the MCG which people from all over the city/state/country descend on on a weekly basis.

14 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I'd be classified as a "Greenie" and can't disagree with what you've said. Full steam ahead, project's a go

I'm green on the environment (amongst other things) and it's a go

6 minutes ago, timbo said:

I'm green on the environment (amongst other things) and it's a go

The only possible objection I could understand is if the development would impact sacred indigenous land. As long as the scar tree isn't impacted (which I doubt it will be) I don't think that's an issue.

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

The only possible objection I could understand is if the development would impact sacred indigenous land. As long as the scar tree isn't impacted (which I doubt it will be) I don't think that's an issue.

There's lots of possible objections I guess it's a case of what's rationale and has a sound basis

1 hour ago, hemingway said:

Unfortunately, despite the logic and reasonableness of your comments, people don't like change.

Also, in public administration, there has been increasing support for passive recreation over active recreation, particularly when sporting club/s are involved, even where the area is not heavily used by the public. 

ernie, yarra park is plenty big enough for both passive AND active recreation

the fact that people don't like change is axiomatic but not in itself a very compelling planning argument to a tribunal

I am thoroughly in favour of the site:

a, i would be shameless in promoting the indigenous links afl has to the local community and put our players men and women at the front of it. this use is consistent with what the area was and has been used for ever.

b, mention that you are converting a car park to an oval 

c, emphasize how often the oval will be available to the public. versus it's use as a carpark.

d, incorporate a water conservation strategy into the proposal, also maybe a zero emmission strategy - how Melbourne is looking to reduce its energy footprint, linkbit to preserving the snow at Buller... but seriously a little effort in that regard to try and bring the greens into the conversation rather than treating them as the enemy. that way if they take a mindless nimby approach they can be called out for it.

e, be smart about lighting, come up with a plan that doesn't pi$$ off the neighbours

f, pedestrian access, focus on access to site that doesn't pi$$ off the neighbours, so they dont get scared by demonlanders loitering doing training reports.

g, offer the neighbours on the closest street the use of the gym and some game tickets etc even get Hunt carry the old biddy's shopping home.

h, speak to local councils about youth unemployment, see if something can incorporate some training for local youth on landscaping and other activities associated with developing the site.

Really want this project-if enough community consultation is done we can get over the nimby factor

Apart from the historic MCG and Punt Road grounds, where is there a sporting oval or field that side of the train tracks?

As a MFC supporter, sure I'd like to see it happen. But a cursory look tells me it should be where the sporting density is: on the other side of the tracks.

Loss of open parkland (as opposed to sports facility) and mature trees will be a hot topic at election time. 

IMV building over the train line is the easier part to get done, if we can get the funding.

Maybe this has gone a fair way towards being approved, i dont know. Sure hope we aren't suffering from premature elation. At the end of the day I trust PJ to make the right call. 

Edited June 21, 20186 yr by Moonshadow

How long will this actually take for us to be training on it? 2 years? 10 years?

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Is Yarra Park governed by Melbourne City Council or MCG Trust? It really isn't land that can be solely managed for the benefit of the local residents considering its part of Melbourne's Sporting Precinct and in particular the MCG which people from all over the city/state/country descend on on a weekly basis.

Always thought Yarra Park was controlled by Melbourne City Council.

I remember several years back there was a stoush between the Council and the MCG over the food vans outside the ground.They are on Council land and the MCG doesn't get a take on the licence fees etc for the food vans.

14 hours ago, CBDees said:

It’s a nice map link but I’m not sure how many times you have been to training?

The MFC trains at the Southern half of Gosch’s Paddock (not abutting Swan Street). There is a series of soccer fields in between which are heavily used and an effective barrier between the AFL oval and any mooted administration/training  HQ mooted over Swan Street. 

Also, make no mistake, the buerocratic and logistic hurdles involved trying to gain approvals and then build over Swan Street and the tram lines vs taking a 99 year lease over rail lines (already sunk within a culvert) makes it a much inferior option.

And for what? With the Yarra Park proposal we have a potential HQ with street frontage, immediately abutting rail and tram, overlooking our training oval and 100 metres from the MCG. In your option, we would have a costly elevated HQ overlooking soccer fields, further from the MCG and essentially equidistant from our current training oval than current facilities are.

We used to train close to Swan st. There seems no built in barriers to changing the setup, which is layed out on the grass... unless they have layed concrete kerbs, and put fences in there, since I last went to training.

A layout made with white chalk lines, defining where clubs train is not above being changed.

Are you suggesting that the soccer club is over and above Us, in the city ?  If we wanted to build over Swan st and had approval I feel sure that we would get the lay of land which suited our proposal.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

look, answer a simple question, straight out for me.   In our growth corridor that we are developing, around the Casey region, 

Do you think we are more likely to get any interested visitors, from down around Berwick, Pakenham, or Cranbourne to watch training and see Our players,,,  at Gosch's Paddock,,,, or  Yarra Park.

Which do you think they would find easier to attend, to show interest in and visit with their children ?

 

See, I'm not about catering to the rusted-on patrons of the club, as they will go to either location...  I am all about, 'new people interest' in our club. 

With people, just starting to take an interest in us...   Not the full-on Demon diehards who are already attached.

11 hours ago, timbo said:

No, but you mentioned Bentleigh, Moorabbin, Sandy, Cranbourne etc. Why mention them if you don't think they're options.

So, where do you think it should be built?

Those are the areas of our support base stronghold; so these are areas we need to cater for, making it easier for them to feel connected to the club, and easier for them to attend training sessions, functions, etc.

Cranbourne is a new area we are supposed to be building relationships with.  In a view to attraction more new supporters. To help them be interested in Mfc and in Aussie Rules footy.

3 minutes ago, DV8 said:

 

Do you think we are more likely to get any interested visitors, from down around Berwick, Pakenham, or Cranbourne to watch training and see Our players,,,  at Gosch's Paddock,,,, or  Yarra Park.

Which do you think they would find easier to attend, to show interest in and visit with their children ?

DV8 seriously!!

Anyone with kids keen enough to put kids into a car, drive to a train station, unload kids from the car, get on the train, get off the train at Richmond... isn’t going to be put off by an extra 150m walk.

11 hours ago, hells bells said:

DV8 have you been involved in the planning/concept of this option?  The details on where different floors would sit in relation to proposed promenades etc leads me to think that you have looked at this option in great depth. 

No,,, I have nothing to do with the design, or political concept of it, at all;,,, Except that I am the one who has been pushing this barrow of a HQ's and Training/Social Base since back around 2008-9__ or somewhere back there...  so that the club can get its Soul Back again... and to reconnect with the people.

In order for this club 'to stop bleeding internally' (supporter numbers), and so it might start to grow once again.

I am the sole player in this, pushing for the club to be independent and grow bigger and stronger,,, and to stop leaning on the support of the Mcc.

Because that is purely survival based;,,,  instead of creative aggressive growth based ideas, around making this club

enter into this New-Millennia and get more power, stronger in its own right.

 

To stand on its own, under its own strength, and will !

15 minutes ago, DV8 said:

Those are the areas of our support base stronghold; so these are areas we need to cater for, making it easier for them to feel connected to the club, and easier for them to attend training sessions, functions, etc.

Cranbourne is a new area we are supposed to be building relationships with.  In a view to attraction more new supporters. To help them be interested in Mfc and in Aussie Rules footy.

Sorry I would need to see a heat map of the post codes of members to qualify this statement

otherwise do you have some other valid survey / research upon which this assertion is based 

re: where our supporter stronghold is

not saying we shouldn't expand 

9 minutes ago, hells bells said:

DV8 seriously!!

Anyone with kids keen enough to put kids into a car, drive to a train station, unload kids from the car, get on the train, get off the train at Richmond... isn’t going to be put off by an extra 150m walk.

Are you kidding me.  These people, some will have to travel a fair way.  On a train or trains...  the whole idea of enticing new people to the club, is to make everything easy for them to start showing interest, and attendance.  

To make it as easy as possible for these potential newbies, that are not committed either way.   Those with just a hint of interest.

Some may be single parents: some not interested if foot: but the children maybe.

 

IF Gerry Harvey was to start his business on a status model, designed to be 'pretty', and to attract those already attached to the club, He would go broke, before he was in business for 2 years.

He would not get the high volumes of passing trade that he needs to stay afloat,   by having his outlets in difficult to get to spots.  He would make the stores as easy as possible, to attend, and to buy his wares.

 

I think this Yarra-Park concept is aimed at the already attached, and  'the well to do',,, who travel Wellington Pde on a frequent basis.

I DO NOT think this is about growing our base, and increase our Casey Region relationships, at all.