Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Crazy-Horse There's a Bledisloe this weekend in Dunedin which is 30k. I think it could be tight for a Lions test though.
-
@KiwiMurph yeah I fogot about the game being in Dunners this weekend. Google tells me Wellington is 34500 so this proposal will be a bit smaller.
-
So just another 1/4 of a billion to find on top of the 1/4 billion already budgeted for..
Some other articles on this proposal:
-
doesn't say anything about the $$$ they would have got for AMI stadium payout following the quakes, or has that been gobbled up already?
-
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
[link text](link url)
New report favours $496m Christchurch stadium
The original plan for a Christchurch stadium is too expensive, suggests a new report offering four cheaper options.
Christchurch's new stadium could be a 25,000-seat $496m venue with a retractable pitch, according to a new report.
An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium.An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium. Photo: Christchurch Stadium Trust
The feasibility study by the Christchurch Stadium Trust, established to manage the stadium, details four options for a multi-use arena next to the central city.A blueprint for the new stadium was drawn up in 2012 as part of the earthquake recovery plan, and the original idea was to have a 35,000-seat covered arena with a retractable roof.
But the trust's study found that option would be too expensive, and too big.
Read the full report here (PDF, 5.8MB).
The report instead detailed four other options with the cheapest, at $368m, catering for 25,000 people and having a roof covering up to 80 percent of the venue.
The most expensive would have 30,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch, for a price tag of $584m.
But the preferred option was a $496m stadium, which would have 25,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch.
The city council has already promised a quarter of a billion dollars for the project, which would take more than five years to build.
Construction could start at the beginning of 2019.
-
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
There are some answers in the articles (one of the options they were looking at was a Dunedin design)
"The retractable pitch provides the character of an arena as opposed to a stadium, which is still the predominant mode of (Dunedin's) Forsyth Barr Stadium."
A retractable tray would allow the turf to be moved outside to grow, exposing a concrete floor that could be used for events, concerts, and non-turf sports.
This option would be $31m more expensive than the Forsyth-Barr-style setup, but would allow lighting and sound systems to hang from the roof, and protect the turf from damage during concerts.
-
@taniwharugby said in Stadium of Canterbury:
doesn't say anything about the $$$ they would have got for AMI stadium payout following the quakes, or has that been gobbled up already?
That's included in the $253 million the council is putting in.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
There are some answers in the articles (one of the options they were looking at was a Dunedin design)
"The retractable pitch provides the character of an arena as opposed to a stadium, which is still the predominant mode of (Dunedin's) Forsyth Barr Stadium."
A retractable tray would allow the turf to be moved outside to grow, exposing a concrete floor that could be used for events, concerts, and non-turf sports.
This option would be $31m more expensive than the Forsyth-Barr-style setup, but would allow lighting and sound systems to hang from the roof, and protect the turf from damage during concerts.
It seems a hefty price to able to hang stuff from a roof and occasionally use a concrete floor.
Doesn't consider the extra annual operational costs of maintaining a bit of moving kit that is 130m by 70m.
I can fathom how another mid-size stadium would ever be built again with retractable parts. Dunedin showed this is now obsolete.
-
I would have thought that 25K would be perfect for a city of CHCH's size? Small enough to maintain a great atmosphere for Super Rugby or Mitre 10 Cup games, but bigger than the temporary stadium that is currently been used. Brisbane has nearly 2 million people, and its major stadium holds only 52,000.
-
-
@KiwiMurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Gold Coast has more population than Chrischurch and both their stadiums (AFL and NRL) are only in the mid 20k range.
Toronto has population 6-7 million and they've abandoned the cavernous retracable roof stadium for football and soccer and gone to an outdoor stadium that is 25K and can be expanded to 40K. It's where Canada's mens national rugby team plays most of their test matches the past several years (though ABs get them in Vancouver this Nov. I suspect another test years hence might be held at BMO in Toronto.). It's ideal. If it's good enough for a city the size of TO where the weather can get ferocious it could than likely do the same trick for Christchurch and it didn't cost them much to construct -- built ten years ago for NZD$69-million, at todays' adjusted cost for inflation $120-million.
For the money ChCh is looking at they could build four of them.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Stadium of Canterbury:
For the money ChCh is looking at they could build four of them.
Or the Cake Tin. Cost $130M in 1999. Capacity of 35,000. Not covered though... but do you have to be? Maybe night rugby makes that play, but an extra $350M for a covered stadium is serious serious cash. And all the OPEX with keeping grass alive with shade... something Dunedin innovated heavily on.
-
built ten years ago for NZD$69-million, at todays' adjusted cost for inflation $120-million.
Not sure on those sums. According to that wiki link it cost more like $220 million NZD (the original build + the renovations).
Sounds like from those articles a roof is a non-negotiable.
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Stadium of Canterbury:
a city the size of TO where the weather can get ferocious...
Reading to the bottom of that wikipage i had to chuckle:
The largest attendance for any event at the stadium was recorded on January 1, 2017, when the Toronto Maple Leafs hosted the Detroit Red Wings in the NHL Centennial Classic in front of 40,148 people
I checked weather database it was -2 degrees C a mild balmy winters' afternoon at the lake.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Sounds like from those articles a roof is a non-negotiable.
From the report:
The sentiment and support for a roof was so strong that many commentators and consultees believe that if the MUA is not covered, the city should not commit to the facility. Concert promoters and sports interests reflected the same views, and all referenced the success of Forsyth Barr Stadium. Without the roof, the MUA simply couldn’t be a competitive, attractive or successful venue. It would be a provincial stadium
A roof is definitely preferable, but I think they are overstating how essential it is. But a good part of this is provincial dick waving.. so now that Dunedin has a stadium with a roof they were never going to consider a regular open stadium
-
@KiwiMurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Sounds like from those articles a roof is a non-negotiable.
Toronto learned lesson of Montreal Alouettes football team, that almost collapsed. Montreal has population of over 4-million, they don't want to watch sports in a roofed Olympic Stadium, they want to watch it outdoors in smaller more intimate venues.
"The revived Alouettes franchise played their first two seasons at Olympic Stadium, but attendance in the cavernous domed stadium was very poor at first. The future of the franchise was very much in doubt until a twist of fate revitalized the floundering club. When a scheduled November 1997 U2 concert at Olympic Stadium conflicted with an unexpected home playoff game against the Lions the team decided to move the game to Molson Stadium, where they had played from 1954 to 1967. Interest in the team soared and the game was sold out, prompting the team to relocate permanently to the smaller venue beginning with the 1998 season. At the time of the Alouettes' return to Molson, the stadium's capacity was 20,202; an expansion completed prior to the 2010 season brought the current capacity to 25,012. Prior to every Sunday home game, the club plays "Sunday Bloody Sunday" over the PA system in tribute to the unintended role U2 played in saving the franchise. The team did not completely abandon Olympic Stadium – from 2001 to 2009 the Alouettes hosted one regular-season per year, as well as any home playoff games, at the much larger stadium. Since the expansion of Molson Stadium, the team now only uses the "Big O" for playoff games."
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Toronto has population 6-7 million and they've abandoned the cavernous retracable roof stadium for football and soccer and gone to an outdoor stadium that is 25K and can be expanded to 40K
Given their temperatures in winter, I guess it's not used then.
A 25-30000 capacity makes sense. A multi-use/ purpose stadium makes sense to increase revenue. A covered stadium given Christchurch's weather also makes sense.
Make the funding an election issue.
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Given their temperatures in winter, I guess it's not used then.
Not regularly according to wiki page but last winter had the Leafs vs Red Wings hockey (as above) at 40K in January minus-2 degrees in afternoon and a few weeks earlier in December hosted MLS Final -5 degrees C at night Brrrrrrrr 36K pass the whisky flask.
-
Assuming we want serious concerts and the like (as a ratepayer, I do) as well as sporting fixtures, it needs to be a decent size and have a roof and retractable grass. I think we should do 30000 rather then 25000, but options for temporary seating might be an option. I am more than happy to pay some extra rates to make it work.
BMO Field - Wikipedia
