30 Reasons Why Victoria Park is Not Suitable for Permanent Olympics Venue
Written by Brisbane Residents United
Many reasons have been put forward for not proceeding with the development of Victoria Park for permanent Olympic venues, drawing from ecological assessments, community submissions, and analyses of legal and contractual obligations. These concerns span environmental, heritage, legal, logistical, and financial aspects, alongside significant community and expert opposition.
Here is a comprehensive list of the reasons we have identified so far:
I. Environmental and Ecological Impacts:
1. Massive Land and Tree Destruction: The proposed development is estimated to cause the destruction of 66% of the park, or 39 hectares, for Olympic infrastructure. This figure is significantly higher than the 12-13% initially suggested by proponents. Up to 70-75% of the North Section alone is anticipated to be disturbed and denuded.
2. Loss of Green Space and Canopy Cover: The project will result in a catastrophic loss of green space in a city with already low inner-city green space compared to other Australian and international cities. This contradicts the Brisbane City Council's aim for 50% urban shade cover by 2031, as canopy cover has already declined.
3. Destruction of Significant Trees: Thousands of trees, including 1,200-1,500 in the North Section alone, are expected to be felled. Critically, three Eucalyptus Tereticornis trees, believed to be more than 200 years old (pre-European settlement), are anticipated to be destroyed.
4. Impact on Wildlife Habitat and Biodiversity: The construction will obliterate vital flora and fauna habitats, threatening species like the Squirrel Glider… and over 68 bird species. The Squirrel Glider is particularly vulnerable to habitat fragmentation. Loss of habitat and connectivity will severely impact ecological benefits.
5. Challenging Topography Requiring Massive Earthworks: Victoria Park has hilly terrain with elevation changes of up to 25 metres in the North Section and 10-13 metres in the South Section. This necessitates massive levelling and earthworks, increasing costs, environmental impact, and construction complexity, as a stadium cannot be built on the side of a hill.
6. Flood Prone Areas: Large parts of Victoria Park are flood-prone, which could lead to increased engineering challenges, long-term risk management costs and increased flood potential for adjoining commercial and residential areas.
7. Lack of Proper Environmental Assessment: Appropriate standards and development impacts, including environmental aspects have not been addressed and appear to have been overlooked in the initial decision. A previous ecological assessment identified potential construction impacts such as vegetation clearing, vehicle movement, earthworks, dust, light/noise emissions, waste disposal, and human presence - this does not appear to have been taken into account in the multi criteria analysis undertaken by GIICA.
II. Heritage and Cultural Significance:
8. State Heritage Listing: The entire park has recently been approved for State Heritage listing.
9. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage: Victoria Park (Barrambin) holds deep importance as a First Nations meeting place and contains archaeological evidence of Aboriginal occupation. York's Hollow is identified as the most important Aboriginal cultural heritage site within the area, possessing sacred, ancient, and significant relationships within tangible and intangible cultural heritage systems. Development could severely impact or destroy Aboriginal Cultural Heritage land and cause irreversible harm to Aboriginal communities.
10. Contradiction with Victoria Park Master Plan: The proposed stadium plan is incompatible with the Brisbane City Council's 2023 Victoria Park Master Plan, which did not propose a stadium but instead emphasised preserving it as a public green space, restoring natural landscapes, revitalising wetlands, and increasing canopy cover.
11. Irreplaceable Heritage Loss: The destruction of cultural artefacts and history is considered to cause irreversible harm to Aboriginal communities and the history of Brisbane. Victoria Park is unique among comparable parklands for its significant documented Aboriginal cultural heritage values and historical archaeological potential.
III. Legal and Contractual Conflicts:
12. Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) Inconsistency: Victoria Park was granted to the Brisbane Municipal Council in 1864 and gazetted as a reserve for recreation in 1875, intended to be the "lungs of the city". It has been held in trust under a Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) for park and recreation purposes, with strict limits on secondary uses. The proposed secondary uses for Olympic venues are inconsistent with the terms of the DOGIT.
13. Conflict with IOC "New Norm" Principles: Brisbane's bid for the 2032 Games was based on the IOC's "New Norm" model, which prioritises existing venues, minimises new builds, and explicitly prohibits permanent construction on parkland, heritage sites, or culturally significant areas. Building multiple permanent venues in Victoria Park directly contradicts these commitments.
14. Breach of Pre-election Bid Commitments: The pre-election bid for the Olympics nominated Victoria Park for reinvigoration as parkland, specifically for "preservation, increased greening, and potential 're-wilding'," not for permanent stadium construction.
15. Bypassing Existing Laws and Protections: The Queensland Government introduced new legislation (Planning and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2025 – POLA) to bypass existing planning, environmental, and heritage laws that would otherwise make the development illegal. This legislation removes heritage protections and limits the ability to challenge decisions, raising concerns about the "rule of law" and access to justice.
16. Jurisdictional Error and Incomplete Legislation: The new Olympic legislation is deemed "incomplete" and "inadequate" as it does not override the Land Act 1994, meaning the Brisbane City Council (as trustee) and the Minister for Resources remain legally bound by the existing Land Management Plan for Victoria Park. This creates potential grounds for jurisdictional review if the new master plan is inconsistent with the approved Land Management Plan.
17. Lack of IOC Approval: There has been no formal published approval by the IOC for the proposed permanent venues on cultural heritage land at Victoria Park. GIICA may be unable to comply with its obligations under the Act if these matters are not dealt with.
IV. Logistical and Operational Challenges:
18. Existing Traffic Congestion: Victoria Park is located in one of Brisbane's most heavily trafficked corridors, serving major institutions like the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital (24/7), QUT Kelvin Grove campus, Kelvin Grove College, and nearby private schools. Introducing two stadiums would place unsustainable pressure on this network.
19. Major Public Transport Shortfalls: The site lacks a dedicated, high-capacity public transport connection. Nearby Exhibition Station has limited capacity and would require substantial upgrades, and there are indications an entirely new train station might be necessary, escalating costs.
20. Insufficient Space for Aquatic Centre: GIICA's 100-day review explicitly stated that the Spring Hill site (Victoria Park South) for the National Aquatic Centre was "not fit-for-purpose" for Olympic and Paralympic Aquatics competition. GIICA identified significant challenges including topography, higher costs, unresolved access and transport issues, and insufficient space for temporary Games overlay.
V. Financial Concerns:
21. Higher Costs and Budget Blowouts: Independent assessments suggested considerably higher costs for the Aquatic Centre at Spring Hill than initially proposed. The challenging topography of Victoria Park increases construction costs and the risk of budget blowouts and time delays. The construction cost of venues on Victoria Park are almost certain to rise by a factor of greater than two.
22. "Free Land" Argument is Misleading: While Victoria Park may appear to be "free" land (avoiding land acquisition costs), this ignores the deep cultural heritage and public value of the site.
VI. Community Opposition and Democratic Concerns:
23. Lack of Genuine Community Consultation: The decision to develop Victoria Park disregarded a four-year community consultation process for the Victoria Park master plan, which resulted in a vision for a natural retreat and urban parkland. The stadium proposal was put forward by a "handful of submissions" (as few as five, or 1% of total submissions) to the Sports Venue Review, not widespread community support.
24. Stripping of Democratic Rights: The new legislation is seen as "an affront to fundamental democratic principles," silencing community voices and stripping residents of their rights to have a say or challenge major developments with long-term impacts.
25. Erosion of Public Trust: The process has been criticised for a lack of transparency, consistency, and honesty, leading to public distrust.
26. Strong and Growing Opposition: Community groups like Save Victoria Park, First Nations leaders, urban planners, and heritage advocates, along with thousands of Brisbane residents, actively oppose the proposal through protests and legal action.
VII. Suitability and Legacy Concerns:
27. Inherently Unsuitable Site: Victoria Park is considered a "high-risk site inherently unsuitable for stadium construction" due to its sloping terrain, hard granite, and congested location.
28. Outdated Approach to Stadium Design: International stadium design is moving away from oversized, underutilised mega-venues towards smaller, flexible, modular stadiums and leveraging existing infrastructure, an approach that Victoria Park development contradicts.
29. Poor Legacy Use: The choice of Victoria Park would result in an expensive stadium with poor legacy use, destroying irreplaceable heritage and habitat for a Games that promised to be cost-effective and sustainable. It risks creating "white elephants" if the stadium is not genuinely needed post-Games.
30. Cricket and AFL Benefitting Over Olympic Sports: Critics argue that spectator sports like cricket and AFL will profit handsomely, while core Olympic sports like athletics receive little legacy development from this process.
In summary, the reasons against developing Victoria Park for permanent Olympic venues are multifaceted, highlighting significant concerns across environmental, cultural, legal, practical, financial, and community engagement domains.