Stadium of Canterbury
-
I'm torn because on the one hand, battling the elements is a part of rugby but on the other hand, games in Dunedin tend to be of a higher quality. As long as the majority of games in NZ are held outdoors then there shouldn't be an issue of players not being used to playing in sideways rain.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Hocum yourself - I specifically said not 100% of the time.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Hocum yourself - I specifically said not 100% of the time.
The truly big shows are at outdoor stadiums. U2, the Foo Fighters also. Quite a lot of them.
The point is, is the MUA actually even big enough to attract these acts?
-
@mofitzy_ said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'm torn because on the one hand, battling the elements is a part of rugby but on the other hand, games in Dunedin tend to be of a higher quality. As long as the majority of games in NZ are held outdoors then there shouldn't be an issue of players not being used to playing in sideways rain.
Playing in rain soaked bogs isn't an issue with modern drainage, but bad weather is compounded by the kickoff times. Players with the skills and conditioning of modern Test players in good conditions provide a much better spectacle. And while NZ's player base is generally more skilled than its opponents, it would make sense to provide a better climate for players and fans alike.
-
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Increase the budget and build a larger, better quality stadium with a roof. Problem solved.
-
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@pukunui Yep, well, if only that were possible. Best of both worlds right there. I hoped for a moment that the Govt would deem the stadium worthy of further investment to stimulate jobs after the loxkdown, but I think that's a dead duck.
Agree that would be the best option.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
Here are sone facts for you. The initial budget was $500m. The amount eventually contributed by the CCC and Govt was $485m. The council chose for some reason to only take $235m from a pool of recovery monies the GOVT had committed. The amount now available is $473. This is on record. When you dig out the council doco re the stadium (link to this somewhere far above) and read it, you find that the concept design has already been down-spec'd and an upper concourse deleted. Build costs go up by the month. We have inflation. The design as far as I'm aware isn't complete and all the CCC has been able to do thus far is notify the market of an impending tender. That'll take several weeks, once available.
Then, in the wake of Covid-19, rising unemployment and Fletcher Building scaremongering, we'll have a huge public debate when they award it to an Australian contractor who imports significant materials from overseas, which is the cheapest way of building it but possibly not the most socially acceptable in the current climate. This will create further delays. When all this is said and done, the existing design will no longer be achievable for $473m, and it'll have to be down-spec'd again as it already had been after $12m was squandered on something.
All the while, the CCC will be blowing wads of cash on cycleways even the cyclists don't use.
-
@Kiwiwomble And by the way, I have sent a letter to every CCC official and MP i think could make a difference. Unfortunately they're all behind the MUA.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
I'm in the thick of the construction industry in Christchurch, and have been since 2004.As opposed to once having had a fleeting involvement in the rebuild.
-
Christchurch seem to have got this right. I envy Dunedin with their stadium. The Wellington multi purpose stadium was where it was at once but not now thankfully. But at the time multi purpose stadiums were all the thing and any possibility of a rugby stadium was almost a non starter. But the world moves on (some reluctantly though) and now ideal (if its possible cost wise) is a smaller stadiums with a roof. And watching at home or in the pub etc on TV if the stadium is sold out.
-
@Winger said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Christchurch seem to have got this right. I envy Dunedin with their stadium. The Wellington multi purpose stadium was where it was at once but not now thankfully. But at the time multi purpose stadiums were all the thing and any possibility of a rugby stadium was almost a non starter. But the world moves on (some reluctantly though) and now ideal (if its possible cost wise) is a smaller stadiums with a roof. And watching at home or in the pub etc on TV if the stadium is sold out.
If Wellington had a FBS, there wouldn't have been a Lions test in 2017, a CWC QF in 2015 or RWC quarterfinals in 2011. Probably not an All Whites WC qualifier against Bahrain in 2009.
Then there are all the Rugby Championship tests Wellington has had which don't often go to 29,000 seaters.
Gotta be careful what you wish for.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
I'm in the thick of the construction industry in Christchurch, and have been since 2004.As opposed to once having had a fleeting involvement in the rebuild.
Is seven years fleeting? Good to see youll just take jabs to get some credibility, and I was there before the earthquake so went through all the shit too
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
I'm in the thick of the construction industry in Christchurch, and have been since 2004.As opposed to once having had a fleeting involvement in the rebuild.
Is seven years fleeting? Good to see youll just take jabs to get some credibility, and I was there before the earthquake so went through all the shit too
Ok seven years isn't fleeting, I'll grant you. But I believe my role, longevity and range of local contacts allow me a far greater overview than you would have.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
I'm in the thick of the construction industry in Christchurch, and have been since 2004.As opposed to once having had a fleeting involvement in the rebuild.
Is seven years fleeting? Good to see youll just take jabs to get some credibility, and I was there before the earthquake so went through all the shit too
Ok seven years isn't fleeting, I'll grant you. But I believe my role, longevity and range of local contacts allow me a far greater overview than you would have.
Fair enough, and I believe my time working in chch and having family there my whole life as well as working on both the fbs and the chch stadium as well as the the condition report for Lancaster park plus all the professions currently working in it agreeing with me gives me a better understanding...I guess we’ll see what gets build
-
@Kiwiwomble We all know what's getting built. That's not the point. What is yet to be seen is in practice how basic and under-sized it is.
