Dutchy wrote:Didnt answer my question!
About what? The MCG? I had no attachment to the aesthetics of that ground. In fact, I don't even think I lived in this country when it happened. I don't remember...
Yankee Stadium? Couldn't give a hoot about some baseball stadium.
Never professed to be an "all round historical architecture do-gooder". Adelaide Oval was a class oval and the Bradman Stand was beautifully made to fit in with the existing stands to keep the great old cricketing ground feel to the place. The Chappell Stands were a poor decision and from where I stood, most people thought as much. Are those same people used to them now? Probably, but being used to something, as we all know, doesn't necessarily mean we like them.
Like anything that will be done to Adelaide Oval, people in SA are going to have an opinion about it. Its not "just" Unley Oval or "just" Glenelg Oval, its one of the iconic sporting arenas of this state, the only one probably, and its a ground which has international standing and recognition. As such, when things are done to that ground, people will comment. When they put lights up, people said this and that, when they put the Chappell Stand up, people said this and that.
This is no different.
Do I expect my opinion or dislike for the SACA's decision to change their minds or business direction? Not at all. If I were on the SACA board, I wouldn't be particularly bothered by the ravings of one person. However, that said, the ravings of many thousands of people, if collective thoughts could be documented, would be important, as lets face it, if the public doesn't like the ground, then people won't go.
For me the ground was the best ground in the state. I loved it and wanted SANFL finals played there every year rather than the ghost town that is AAMI, however that just wasn't happening. Taking away what I think was one of the major selling points of the ground, its historically aesthetically pleasing feel is a negative. The SACA, I'm sure, will be thinking $$$, as it needs to at times, but regardless of motives, I still think its a bad decision to turn the ground into "just another modern sports stadium".
... and that is an opinion I can have and express even if I'm not a member.
In the end, who does the SACA want at its ground, just members or members of the public?
