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.
-
@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.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
NZHERALD:
The Eden Park Trust has asked Auckland Council to take over a $40m loan and provide $64m for maintenance over the next decade, prompting one council source to call it "a $100m bailout".It can creep up on you. One of the keys is being able to use it for multiple (non sporting) events each year.
They're not profitable, but they are an asset to the community. Hosting the RWC party wasn't profitable either, but a hell of a good time. As I say - if you wanna host a party, you got to spend cash on some piss
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
NZHERALD:
The Eden Park Trust has asked Auckland Council to take over a $40m loan and provide $64m for maintenance over the next decade, prompting one council source to call it "a $100m bailout".It can creep up on you. One of the keys is being able to use it for multiple (non sporting) events each year.
They're not profitable, but they are an asset to the community. Hosting the RWC party wasn't profitable either, but a hell of a good time. As I say - if you wanna host a party, you got to spend cash on some piss
That's for the entire stadium, I'm talking about the maintenance costs for 10,000 seats.
-
-
It must be hard to make the numbers stack up for a decent stadium though.
I mean look at Suncorp Stadium in Brisbane. It's awesome, but not huge at 52,000. But it's used all year between the Reds; the Broncos; and the Roar. Then at least one Wallaby test, at least one Origin, and then other events like the full NRL round there in May. Then you add to that every big concert tour that comes to Aus for at least one night, if not two. And it services a Brisbane population of 2.1M people
What can you offer in Christchurch? A quarter of the population, less games, and less events, attended by less people.
That's a hard equation to put together.
-
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
-
Godder raises good points re light and noise issues. For a moment I panicked and thought an open stadium on the site might be too close to significant residential areas (apartments in this case) but mostly it’ll be bordered by other commercial developments and only one future slum (part of the East Frame I think). So probably not a big deal.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
That's only $30k or so a seat. Only need to return 2-3k/year per seat (over operating costs) to make it worthwhile. So that's only $150 - $200 per event per seat for 10-15 events over and above operating costs to generate a return.
So, yeah.
By comparison, the Cake Tin cost $130M in 2000 dollars to build. Only 3-4 orders of magnitude higher, with 2/3 the seats... what could possibly go wrong?
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
-
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
I want to like this 100 times
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
