Stadium of Canterbury
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/119944757/crown-approves-christchurch-stadium-funding
About time, now things can get moving.
-
@Godder that's about $20k/seat.
Needs to be hosting a heap of rugby, cricket and concerts to even pay interest on that, and keep maintained - let alone actually pay down the capital costs of the construction.
Forsyth Barr cost $200M for 30,000 seats, or about a third of the per seat cost ($6.6k). Of course, this stadium may kill concerts at Forsyth Barr, so hey that's life.
Stadium expenses just don't add up. I'm not opposed to them, but by god this is an expensive way of tackling it. Still, anything's better than the current venue
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
-
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
yeah the conference and/or multi use is important.
NEC is in constant use for events large & small, rather than being the white elephant many of the anti-brigade touted through thier loud halers, it has been a success and bought plenty of events here that would not otherwise have come, or made some much better.
-
@taniwharugby $18.5M for what, 10,000 seated? It's less than a tenth of the cost per seat of Canterbury's covered stadium. Great investment, likely to return a surplus, and probably economically viable.
Also a good stadium to watch rugby at!
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
What nz should do is have a covered 25’000 for the major cities including Auckland then an 80’000 national stadium in Auckland. But it’s not really the nz way to have a national stadium that gets all the plum AB games.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
What nz should do is have a covered 25’000 for the major cities including Auckland then an 80’000 national stadium in Auckland. But it’s not really the nz way to have a national stadium that gets all the plum AB games.
Do that, and you can cut the cable, run the north island out of power, and stop folk eating proper lamb
It'll be a secession! -
Here's my two cents, as posted on FB last night. It's also pretty much an abbreviated version of a letter I sent to the CCC, Megan Woods, other Canterbury MPs, and Stuff.
This is the most underwhelming stadium that could be built. With a population tipped - by local govt no less - to reach 750k in around 2050, 25k is pitiful. It's hard to imagine the acoustics being any better than Forsyth Barr which means consistently disappointing concerts, and it's too small to host Tier 1 All Black tests. The business case must have been: "We have some money, let's build something. And we'll put a roof on it because that's a hideously expensive way of eating into the funding, really just for novelty value rather than any form of relevant suitability". And as well as being grossly dysfunctional, it'll be ugly, and it's smack back inside the Four Aves where everyone gets to feel consistently underwhelmed by it. Don't let the artist's impressions fool you; this'll be basic. The budget is already being chewed into and the $500m originally committed to it shrunk by $20m before even gaining approval. Back in 2012 or so, $500m might have built a nice, 30k seater (still under-sized) with a roof. Not now. Not even a nice 25k seater. They've already removed an upper concourse from the design to save costs! So don't expect any bang for the remaining buck, Cantabs. It's too late now - and believe me, I've sent a few letters to various people about this - but the only way to get a future-proofed, modern, comfortable stadium we could have been proud of - for the same money - was to build a 40k seater, with extended stand cover, indoor concourses, architectural features and the bells and whistles people expect of a new stadium. The approved design will please no-one in practice. It's essentially Addington inside a massive click clack container.
-
To make this worse, a shit tip like Townsville just got a ripper of a new stadium. 25,000 seats in a cool building for $250m
Parramatta Stadium opened last year, seats 30k, looks, and is by all accounts amazing.
Optus Stadium is also not long opened, holds 60k, and is amazing.
The blueprints were there
Stuff being the guy pitching the business cases in NZ though
-
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.Well, this is partially funded by their insurance payout isn’t it? Seems a weird flex to begrudge a city that got devastated a half decent rugby stadium to replace the one they lost.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.Well, this is partially funded by their insurance payout isn’t it? Seems a weird flex to begrudge a city that got devastated a half decent rugby stadium to replace the one they lost.
Begrudge? Nope. I don't begrudge them a new stadium.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
So those unhappy want the roof taken away and more seating added? Not from what I have heard. I would support that.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback My preference would be something without a roof and approaching 40,000 seats. Extended stand cover, indoor concourses across a couple of levels, some kind of interesting cladding to make it an architectural centrepiece given it'll be in the middle of the city. This boutique 'multi-use arena' is a concession where there needn't be one. There has been next to no resistance from locals because we've had to put up with Addington for 8 years so anything looks good by comparison. But people don't realise the massive cost of the roof and the concessions that have to be made in other areas to have one. To what end? Hosting a couple of Ed Sheeran gigs every few years? Because that's legitimately what people are fucked off we missed out on. It's nuts. So we're now denied the opportunity to build a future-proofed, modern stadium of high quality, in order to build an occasional concert venue and avoid sitting in the rain for the one game a year - at best - when it comes down.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
Correct. The only way we'll get Tier 1 tests will be the occasional RC game, out of pity rather than on merit.
-
The roof is also to minimise sound leakage so Christchurch can host concerts with less resource consent problems, which in turn makes the stadium slightly more viable. There should be another 5,000 temporary seats at some point which means a 30,000 capacity which should get some tier 1 tests occasionally.
The stadium will also be a conference etc venue.
That said, stadiums don't make money, they lose it - if they made money, private developers would build them. I'd build bigger, but there are plenty of taxpayers and ratepayers who complain vociferously about their money being wasted on such things, and politicians have to find a balance between the competing demands.
