Printable View
I thought we should give it its own thread, so we don't spam the politics thread ( or is it the religion thread?)
It seems to have taken another turn with Awabakal Council claiming the train line to be "their land"
Wasn't it built over the harbour? What can they claim in the sea? Some dead fish and a boomerang?
Geeeeez. What is with people in this town being against progression? Are we happy with boring derelict buildings while honeysuckle thrives?
Not suprising that they are vulturing in for another land grab.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha
The postoffice looks more derelict than it ever was when the gov owned it.
Not suprising to see people come in with covertly racist anti-indigenous ideas of "Land Grabs"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ranger-86
Agree the post office is terrible.
Glad I no longer live up there. Getting to work from Maitland was shit enough as it was, throwing in a switch to buses would make it just that more unbearable.
Forza Adelaide.
But wasn't the rail line built over the sea? How can you claim the sea to be yours? Unless they are God....Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmac79
Why didn't they and claim it earlier if it is well and truly theirs? In all honesty it does smell of a land grab.....
Considering the rail line has been in that area for what 100 years why was the land council not been claiming some compensation from the State Government during that time?? Surely Citirail should have been paying rent??Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmac79
It isn't racist or anti indigenous to question the motives of the land council at all. They have had ample opportunity in the past to make a claim on the area and have failed to do so.
Now the opportunity is there with the rail line going they are in trying to get some of the action.
Their motives and timing leave them wide open to any criticism coming their way
But how dare developers come in and open up more jobs, small businesses and progression in the city!
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by Grimario
most cities can have new & old buildings & can keep a train all in one city, truly amazing. Too hard for Newcastle & govt retards.
What is so progressive about replacing a train with a train?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha
Why do we need to develop that particular land when there are stacks of land and underdeveloped parts of the city already?
Why has the state govt been so damn shady with it (trying to circumvent court orders, changing heritage status on buildings?).
And no one has explained to me exactly why it needs to go? So people can get over a rail crossing quicker? 'open up the city? (What the heck does that even mean?).
People just seem to be in the 'keep it' or 'get rid of it' but I'm not hearing many compelling arguments.
In my opinion, a light rail system looks great is most other cities (Gold Coast for an example). The amount of shit that could be developed where the rail line sits now ( don't ask me what because I'd say more pubs and strippers) but you've just gotta look how good Honeysuckle looks now, the line is like the Berlin Wall, one side is good, the other is dead and derelictQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
You mean the side where the new law courts and uni campus is currently getting built?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha
The side where the redevelopment of the old museum site is under way?
Oh that side.
Gotcha.
I'll ask again, you want to spend $500m replacing a train with a train?
Why, cause it looks better?
Why not run light rail from Newy station? Save millions instead of running it back down hunter st?
By the way the light rail isn't legislated so good luck ever seeing that. Why isn't it in the same legislation as the removal of the existing line? Would seem the sensible thing yeah?
Build over it. Turn the trains into subways and build sprawling shopping centres over them. Sorted.
Look around those three things you mentioned? What else is being done to reinvigorate the city?Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
why isn't the tram line a loop around the city from wickham?
go up honeysuckle, go down the foreshore to nobbys, newy beach, fort scratchley/parnell place then back down hunter street?
then have a second loop line to darby st, junction, hammo
make the thing useful if you're going to build it ffs
why replicate a piece of infrastructure that no-one uses anyway?
One big issue here is the regeneration of the Newy CBD area doesn't actually require the removal of the train line as this is a completely separate issue.
It actually involves the Government departments actually rezoning a large part of the CBD area to residential and filling it up with units.
Get people actually living in the area and then force the sheer amount of buildings zoned commercial to shrink in number so the developers then only have so many buildings to redevelop.
The sheer number of buildings/land actually being hoarded is currently the problem. Whilst there are so many of them and no one living there how the hell can you redevelop anything. No point spending millions building a shiny new office block on Hunter St when it is surrounded by derelict buildings that have been or should be condemned
Other issue is if you redevelop the area properly and get the commercial buildings used and have thousands of residents in the area then you actually have the need for the train line. The current status has been no residents and little commercial aspect so the train line is ****ing useless.
Whole chicken before the egg concept
Lucky Country hotel, Anzac cliff top walk, the whole Hospital site, the residential building next to Great Northern, apartments at Markettown. How many more?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buddha
You are avoiding the question, you want to spend $500m replacing a train with a train. Why?
That money can be better spent on things like Q-mans idea. Expand the transport network, not just replace it.
People hide behind this word 'progression' (like 'productivity') but have very little concept of what it really means.
Best lesson in business I ever learned was to have a bloody awesome Plan A, and then to have a great Plan B.
This whole idea of ripping it up is about 40% of a pretty shitty Plan A.
making it a properly integrated piece of transport is the key
look at yer major cities i.e. tokyo etc
you get the main line train to a big station outside the main joints of where you want to go (shin-osaka, tokyo station etc), then get a higher capacity - more frequent service to the burbs
newy has the heavy rail bit but not the more frequent, high frequency connecting part of the network. inner city newcastle is by no means tokyo, but the concept remains the same.
i guess hiroshima is a good parallel to newcastle. other than the fact that both cities could be improved by a bomb (lel), you can get a main line train to the major station (read wickham/hiroshima-eki), then a streetcar/light rail the rest of the way. running an 8 car heavy train set to your front door is stupid and so expensive. the upkeep on the existing infrastructure must be immense.
build a light rail network, not just one line to somewhere already accessible. there's 900 squillion dollars from the lease of the port or whatever so don't spunk it on something dumb
ripping up the old tram tracks in the first place is the real crime here but that's another story for another time.
Removing the line does not worry me either way. What worries me is that the wishes of the plutocrats have been granted against those of an overwhelming majority.
Today a rail corridor tomorrow .... who knows.
This is my big issue too.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
After all the crap with ICAC over the last few years you would think the Pollies would be going out of their way to be upfront about everything.
Yet here we are again with them behaving just as suss as they always have.
covert bigot. God is the owner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackmac79