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.
-
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.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
how basic and under-sized it is.
i was going to make a dick-measuring joke, but then Shark made it for me
-
@Kiwiwomble I am pleased you've canvassed "all the professions current working on it (the stadium)" and can throw that considerable weight behind your assertion that money does in fact grow on trees.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
how basic and under-sized it is.
i was going to make a dick-measuring joke, but then Shark made it for me
We have now had a measure-up on Zoom .
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
how basic and under-sized it is.
i was going to make a dick-measuring joke, but then Shark made it for me
We have now had a measure-up on Zoom .
i knew that program would eventually become useful
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble I am pleased you've canvassed "all the professions current working on it (the stadium)" and can throw that considerable weight behind your assertion that money does in fact grow on trees.
when did i say money grows on trees? i'm just choosing to trust the professionals stance over what it will cost ,with some standard construction contingency, and not your stance that those people have got it so wrong
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble I am pleased you've canvassed "all the professions current working on it (the stadium)" and can throw that considerable weight behind your assertion that money does in fact grow on trees.
when did i say money grows on trees? i'm just choosing to trust the professionals stance over what it will cost ,with some standard construction contingency, and not your stance that those people have got it so wrong
Your position is valid but as much as I think @shark is finding reasons to support what HE wants as a result, cost blowouts in your industry appear to be quite normal.
On of the big drawbacks we have in NZ is that the lack of big construction capabilities and competence means that once a path is started it can become a money pit. Can't afford to finish, can't afford to not finish.
Look at roading projects like transmission gully. NZTA can only keep throwing money at it to get it done now. -
@Crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble I am pleased you've canvassed "all the professions current working on it (the stadium)" and can throw that considerable weight behind your assertion that money does in fact grow on trees.
when did i say money grows on trees? i'm just choosing to trust the professionals stance over what it will cost ,with some standard construction contingency, and not your stance that those people have got it so wrong
Your position is valid but as much as I think @shark is finding reasons to support what HE wants as a result, cost blowouts in your industry appear to be quite normal.
On of the big drawbacks we have in NZ is that the lack of big construction capabilities and competence means that once a path is started it can become a money pit. Can't afford to finish, can't afford to not finish.
Look at roading projects like transmission gully. NZTA can only keep throwing money at it to get it done now.fair enough, i will just add that cost blow outs are most often associated with grounds works, Transmission gully for example is civil infrastructure so "ground works" make up most of the build, the difference in foundations between a stadium with a roof and one without would be comparably small and they would probably be offset by larger foundations needed for a larger capacity stadium
-
Sadly, poorly costed and constructed projects are quite normal. And the Government's preferred contractor has an appalling recent record. The other truly significant player here locally is an Australian owned and operated concern who may or may not procure domestically where possible. This is bound to cause an uproar if the general public becomes aware of the ins and outs. Imports in some categories keep the cost down but don't support the local economy to the same extent as domestic procurement does. Just in this regard, I'd supporting some form of independent oversight structure to ensure balanced and accurate decisions are made irrespective of who the main contractor is.
-
@Crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble I am pleased you've canvassed "all the professions current working on it (the stadium)" and can throw that considerable weight behind your assertion that money does in fact grow on trees.
when did i say money grows on trees? i'm just choosing to trust the professionals stance over what it will cost ,with some standard construction contingency, and not your stance that those people have got it so wrong
Your position is valid but as much as I think @shark is finding reasons to support what HE wants as a result, cost blowouts in your industry appear to be quite normal.
On of the big drawbacks we have in NZ is that the lack of big construction capabilities and competence means that once a path is started it can become a money pit. Can't afford to finish, can't afford to not finish.
Look at roading projects like transmission gully. NZTA can only keep throwing money at it to get it done now.To digress ...
Wish I could find it but years ago I read an article in the IPENZ (Institution of Professional Engineers) magazine when it was still hardcopy (ie., ancient) that basically spelled out how Transmission Gully was a pipe dream and whilst it was not unbuildable it was essentially unaffordable.
Don't know how true it was but seems it may have had some basis.
Regardless, sometimes I wonder (well, we probably all know) that some projects are manipulated to be affordable for political expediency.
I'm not commenting on the Chch stadium with the above BTW.
FWIW my ill informed opinion is the roof is the better option. Just can't see the need for a larger capacity that will get used once a year.
-
Christchurch stadium: $473m joint funding agreement signed off
Christchurch City Council and the Crown have formally signed off on a joint funding agreement for a new stadium in the city. Both parties agreed on...
more progress, still not sure if theres even a reference design out there
-
Haha yeah triggered a little. I'm PMSL over all the restrictions the CCC is now looking to impose on their own MUA. Curfews and limits to the number of loud events ie concerts, which are the main fucking reason for this debacle of a stadium.
Sheer and utter incompetence.
