Stadium of Canterbury
-
Sigh. I'm getting a little sick of this stadium shambles. The CCC seems intent on making it as 'boutique' as possible. All of the focus appears to be on having a venue that can host a large concert once a year, with fuck all concern for future-proofing or hosting signifcant rugby matches (Tier 1 tests, Lions tests, RWC matches, Crusaders finals games etc). 25,000 - 30,000 seats is far too small for a growing population of 400,000 which the CCC itself projects will be 700,000 within 50 years. Further, if the NZRU policy is still that you need 35,000+ seats to automatically qualify for Tier 1 tests (witness the Lions in 2017) or you have to rely on charity (witness the FBS deal with the NZRU), then this stadium is already below the minimum it needs to be, let alone being large enough to cope with a population boom.
There was a really good story written a few month ago which made a case for a larger, open-air stadium. It - I believe quite rightly - pointed to the fact that Cantabrian rugby fans have had such a terrible facility for the last seven years now, they can't see past a fully enclosed facility as the only solution going forward. That, combined with the fact it's taken so damn long just to get to this phase, means there are very few people questioning the MUA proposal. And now we're almost at the point of no return. Yet I believe 100% that with the benefit of hindsight in a few years' time these same fans will be questioning why we don't have a smart 40,000 seat open-air stadium. I'm quite sure that for the same money (approx $475m) we could get a really cool (excuse the pun) open air stadium which people would still flock to, we wouldn't outgrow in a hurry, and it would be a draw for large stadium acts ala Western Springs or Mount Smart.
This concept will end up being an ugly little boutique stadium which in no time at all will be questioned as the correct solution.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Sigh. I'm getting a little sick of this stadium shambles. The CCC seems intent on making it as 'boutique' as possible. All of the focus appears to be on having a venue that can host a large concert once a year, with fuck all concern for future-proofing or hosting signifcant rugby matches (Tier 1 tests, Lions tests, RWC matches, Crusaders finals games etc). 25,000 - 30,000 seats is far too small for a growing population of 400,000 which the CCC itself projects will be 700,000 within 50 years. Further, if the NZRU policy is still that you need 35,000+ seats to automatically qualify for Tier 1 tests (witness the Lions in 2017) or you have to rely on charity (witness the FBS deal with the NZRU), then this stadium is already below the minimum it needs to be, let alone being large enough to cope with a population boom.
There was a really good story written a few month ago which made a case for a larger, open-air stadium. It - I believe quite rightly - pointed to the fact that Cantabrian rugby fans have had such a terrible facility for the last seven years now, they can't see past a fully enclosed facility as the only solution going forward. That, combined with the fact it's taken so damn long just to get to this phase, means there are very few people questioning the MUA proposal. And now we're almost at the point of no return. Yet I believe 100% that with the benefit of hindsight in a few years' time these same fans will be questioning why we don't have a smart 40,000 seat open-air stadium. I'm quite sure that for the same money (approx $475m) we could get a really cool (excuse the pun) open air stadium which people would still flock to, we wouldn't outgrow in a hurry, and it would be a draw for large stadium acts ala Western Springs or Mount Smart.
This concept will end up being an ugly little boutique stadium which in no time at all will be questioned as the correct solution.
I don't know why we are so keen to put a roof on a stadium in any case. We have that down the road in Dunedin already, why do we need another?
-
-
-
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
it's more than a shame if the dominant rugby region of the past 20 years can't get the big tests. Build it big, and build it well, and make it the South Island centre for big AB games. Dunedin can have the shit tests.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
it's more than a shame if the dominant rugby region of the past 20 years can't get the big tests. Build it big, and build it well, and make it the South Island centre for big AB games. Dunedin can have the shit tests.
Yep, that's a better way to put it. The last stadium was insured, at the very least they should be left with a stadium with the same capacity as before.
-
With 30,000 + 5,000 you also get your 35,000 (if that's the desired minimum number of seats for test matches). I can see the point of having empty seats for most games as being a problem, though. It's not just a sporting decision; it needs to be economically sound, too. I don't have the answer. I'm just saying that there are more considerations than just getting 1 big test match a year (only Eden Parks gets two a year). And then there's the question what size is best for a multi-purpose stadium ...
-
@Kirwan I wonder whether capacity was a set figure or metric for them. You'd bloody hope so, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were caveats around overall cost, or focusing on like-for-like in terms of material or construction approach rather than seating.
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There's an infatuation with hosting Ed Sheeran and The Eagles.
I hear you but Auckland have managed that at Western Springs, Mt Smart for so many years
No argument from me!
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
Yes, and also Stargazer is completely wrong about stadiums in NZ not lasting 50 years. They pretty much all have to! That aside, the projection obviously means there'll be an upward curve over time so in 20 years we might be at 550,000 for example. It's not like the population will stagnate at 400,000 for 50 years then suddely nearly double.
Let's say the stadium did have a lifespan of 50 years though for arguments' sake, from 2022. In that time NZ will have hosted Lions tours in 2029, 2041, 2053 and 2065 plus potentially another couple of RWCs and who knows what other global events both in rugby and other rectangular field ball sports. For these events we'll need another good-sized stadium for sure.
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
With 30,000 + 5,000 you also get your 35,000 (if that's the desired minimum number of seats for test matches). I can see the point of having empty seats for most games as being a problem, though. It's not just a sporting decision; it needs to be economically sound, too. I don't have the answer. I'm just saying that there are more considerations than just getting 1 big test match a year (only Eden Parks gets two a year). And then there's the question what size is best for a multi-purpose stadium ...
They're talking about 25,000 + 5,000 which is in no mans' land.
Obviously I'm leaning toward a larger open stadium which qualifies for tier 1 tests by default and suits the regions' population for a long period of time.
-
Just to be clear on my preference, I think 40,000 seats with a partial roof (ie extended well ovber the stands but not covering the pitch) is the way forward.
40,000 comfortable seats plus lounges, boxes and most importantly, world class facilities (concessions etc, two big screens) for spectators.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Just to be clear on my preference, I think 40,000 seats with a partial roof (ie extended well ovber the stands but not covering the pitch) is the way forward.
40,000 comfortable seats plus lounges, boxes and most importantly, world class facilities (concessions etc, two big screens) for spectators.
That's been my preference from the start - Canterbury needs capacity > roof if it wants this new stadium to meet all the requirements.
-
@shark I mentioned 30,000 + 5,000 just to show that an increase in seating (compared to 25,000 + 5,000) doesn't necessarily have to go as far as 35,000+ (the number suggested by others). Several options are possible. Note that in my first comment on the article I said that 25,000 + 5,000 seemed small. I just think that people lose sight of the fact that it needs to make economic sense, too, and that it isn't just about getting one test match a year (a few more, if we get a World Cup in rugby or football, but we simply don't know whether and how often that will happen; they're rare ocassions anyway). I don't know what the right number of seats is. Just that the decision-making is not that simple and one-sided.
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I mentioned 30,000 + 5,000 just to show that an increase in seating (compared to 25,000 + 5,000) doesn't necessarily have to go as far as 35,000+ (the number suggested by others). Several options are possible. Note that in my first comment on the article I said that 25,000 + 5,000 seemed small. I just think that people lose sight of the fact that it needs to make economic sense, too, and that it isn't just about getting one test match a year (a few more, if we get a World Cup in rugby or football, but we simply don't know whether and how often that will happen; they're rare ocassions anyway). I don't know what the right number of seats is. Just that the decision-making is not that simple and one-sided.
Economically, you make zero from the All Black Tests you don't get.
So if it's less that 35,000 you are certainly down an least one annual payday. And in rare circumstances more than that.
For an uncovered stadium, the difference between 25/30,000 to 40,000 seats will not make it suddenly unviable.
-
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kirwan I get that, but how much do they lose on empty seats?
Surely that's a one off cost, with a minor amount for maintenance. Also offset by money made on the extra people buying things in the stadium.
If they choose a less expensive design (without a roof) you can reclaim those costs there anyway.
