David Penberthy: To Parklands purists a scungy industrialised zone is a sacred place

God forbid bogans spoil the serenity by listening to their infernal rock music and watching people play sport, writes David Penberthy.

The impossibility of having anything resembling a sensible conversation about development in Adelaide is epitomised by the following quotes from Lucy Hood, the Labor aspirant for the city’s state seat at next year’s election.

Ms Hood took umbrage this week over the state government’s apparently provocative attempt to initiate a public discussion over changes to the new Planning and Design Code and what they could potentially mean for development on the parklands.

“Rachel Sanderson and Steven Marshall must come clean on their plans to build on the parklands,” Hood said.

“We already know they want to build a basketball stadium on the parklands during a hospital overcrowding and ramping crisis but what is next?”

What is next indeed? A giant abattoir? A nuclear fuel dump? Disneyland? A speedway where nitrous-burning funny cars drive at high speed over flocks of ducklings?

I am not having a specific go at Hood here. I am noting that she is merely the latest in a long line of would-be and existing politicians in this often insular little town who see immense political capital in pandering to the squeaky-wheelers by overstating any proposed development as an attempt to turn the parklands into Sao Paulo.

Her Liberal opponents have tried this silliness on in the past, and will surely do so again, such is the desire to hold a marginal seat by pandering to the politically loud and organised, over those who favour a more muted and measured approach. It is rank political opportunism aimed at middle class pains-in-the-butt.

The Adelaide Aquatic Centre in the parklands. Picture: Brenton Edwards

Somewhat pointlessly, in a futile attempt to make my own views clear for the parklands protectionists, I would again make my own views on this clear.

I regard the parklands as sacred and unique and do not believe they should be subjected to any new or permanent developments or structures in areas where they are already being used as parkland.

I think that some of the ideas floating around for an open-slather approach are totally out of step with the vibe and heritage of our town. I would include in that the discussion around the construction of the new Women’s and Children’s Hospital, where it has been casually suggested that a big chunk of land near the police horse stables be turned into, of all things, a carpark.

On this idea I would go fully Joni Mitchell. This is a beautiful and special part of the parklands near the old Adelaide Gaol and those great old olive trees among the pretty horse agistments.

The notion that any of this should be hollowed out and left to neighbour a brutalist Soviet-era concrete block with a neon sign flashing the words “SECURE PARKING” is an offence to the spirit of the parklands and should be dismissed out of hand.

Where things get a little greyer, in my mind at least, is at places like the old RAH side where there were some 48 buildings and their construction began just a few years after the colony was established in 1836.

The idea of calling that built-up area parkland makes as much sense as calling West Lakes a wetland or Marion Westfield a remnant wood gum forest located near the banks of the Sturt River.

The discussion around the future of the old RAH site can (and should) include the opportunity to return more of that built-up land to green space, hopefully by handing more of it to the Botanic Gardens.

But the just-say-no parkland people have come to regard the entire area as every bit as pristine and verdant as it was in South Australia before us whiteys arrived.

In a similar vein the discussion around development on Pinky Flat and near the railyards has been met with apoplexy in the usual quarters.

My question with Pinky Flat – in keeping with the spirit of public discussion the Marshall government is hoping to inspire – would start by seeking a definition of development.

The last thing I would want to see is a row of Gold Coast apartments there. But if there is a way of activating the area with a lighter touch, or even a wholly temporary model similar to the way Botanic Park is used for Womad, maybe that could be a good thing?

As for the railyards and their immediate surrounds, I really struggle to see how anyone in their right mind could regard them as worth “saving” at all from development given what they currently look like.

The view from the olive grove slated to become a car park. Picture: Colin James

Yet in the minds of the parklands purists this scungy industrialised zone is a sacred place, and certainly wholly inappropriate for something as uncouth as an entertainment centre, where bogans will spoil the serenity by listening to their infernal rock music and watching people play sport.

I am not advocating a let-it-rip approach. But I will never cease to be depressed by this city’s capacity for raising the white flag at the behest of organised whiners and self-interested inner-city types.

These people cloak their baseless sense of ownership of their part of town in a sham spirit of community-mindedness, when in reality, much of it seems to be about keeping the great unwashed in suburbia from accessing their part of town.

The greatest example of that is the Adelaide Football Club’s attempt to replace an old, run-down, large and ugly building that costs the city council a stack of money, with a new, elegant, smaller building that would cost the city council nothing at all.

Imagine Dallas doing that to the Cowboys or Manchester doing that to Man U.

Yet here the most popular organisation in SA was treated like a pariah for proposing a thoughtful development where a crappy one currently exists.

The fact that this idea could not fly says all you need to know about our town and stands as a monument to vested interests, and the pea-hearted nature of both sides of politics, when it comes to anything within the square mile.