Stadium of Canterbury
-
@machpants said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
just checking, is this 25k plus temp seating so 30k ish or grand total of 25k including temp seating?
I think it is 25k upto 27.5k with temporary
I think it's 25, and if they can find efficiencies, will be 27.5 with temp. 'hope is not a strategy' ... except here in politics
-
i dont want to seem disingenuous, @shark and i have gone back and forward on this, so to be clear
I am happy enough with a lower number of permanent seats (Forsyth Barr only has 18-20K depending on your source) if thats whats needed to bring the project to an acceptable budget, my experience being you only need those upper capacities for a couple of event a year....but...you do need that ability to seat those bigger crowds for those couple of games....and...preferably there should be some scope to expand down the track
basically, as has been said...worst of both worlds
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
i dont want to seem disingenuous, @shark and i have gone back and forward on this, so to be clear
I am happy enough with a lower number of permanent seats (Forsyth Barr only has 18-20K depending on your source) if thats whats needed to bring the project to an acceptable budget, my experience being you only need those upper capacities for a couple of event a year....but...you do need that ability to seat those bigger crowds for those couple of games....and...preferably there should be some scope to expand down the track
basically, as has been said...worst of both worlds
Yeah, that's where I come down on this too. I thought that a Forsyth model would have been fine. They'd probably not get Springbok tests but would still one to two tests a year. With this, the conversation changes a bit. I'd personally have taken out the concourse and had a regularly 20,000 seater than than be extended to 30,000 for tests.
-
-
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
25K permanent, 36K for a concert apparently. They could have dropped the concourse on Lvl 1 and stayed at 30K seats but opted not to.
Hold on, so for a big test, they could still seat 35,000? Or does that count the stadium flooring?
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
25K permanent, 36K for a concert apparently. They could have dropped the concourse on Lvl 1 and stayed at 30K seats but opted not to.
Hold on, so for a big test, they could still seat 35,000? Or does that count the stadium flooring?
New design direction for Canterbury Multi-Use Arena
Christchurch City Council has approved a new design direction for the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena in an effort to minimise a multi-million dollar cost increase to the central city’s final anchor project.
I can't help but notice that options for temporary increases to game capacity are conspicuous by their absence...
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
25K permanent, 36K for a concert apparently. They could have dropped the concourse on Lvl 1 and stayed at 30K seats but opted not to.
Hold on, so for a big test, they could still seat 35,000? Or does that count the stadium flooring?
Might get a bit congested with 10k seats on the field when the ABs are playing!
-
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
25K permanent, 36K for a concert apparently. They could have dropped the concourse on Lvl 1 and stayed at 30K seats but opted not to.
Hold on, so for a big test, they could still seat 35,000? Or does that count the stadium flooring?
Christchurch City Council has approved a new design direction for the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena in an effort to minimise a multi-million dollar cost increase to the central city’s final anchor project.
I can't help but notice that options for temporary increases to game capacity are conspicuous by their absence...
OK, so tests against Fiji and perhaps Argentina then.
The Saders barely fill up their stadium now though, right? So the only games affected will be AB tests they won't get and Super Rugby finals?
-
Its a fucking joke. Just a fucking bad fucking joke. Local body incompetence at its absolute finest.
Finally now I see people on various social media platforms coming out pissing and whining about it now the already under-sized arena has unsurprisingly shrunk. Where have these people been and why start moaning now it's shrunk by 2500-5000 seats when it was already drastically unfit for purpose??
The writing was on the cunting wall at least two fucking years ago. The mayor and her councillors have been thoroughly exposed now as absolute fucking donkeys (harsh on donkeys who at least have value as a labourer animal) and must be held to account over this debacle.
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
25K permanent, 36K for a concert apparently. They could have dropped the concourse on Lvl 1 and stayed at 30K seats but opted not to.
Hold on, so for a big test, they could still seat 35,000? Or does that count the stadium flooring?
Christchurch City Council has approved a new design direction for the Canterbury Multi-Use Arena in an effort to minimise a multi-million dollar cost increase to the central city’s final anchor project.
I can't help but notice that options for temporary increases to game capacity are conspicuous by their absence...
OK, so tests against Fiji and perhaps Argentina then.
The Saders barely fill up their stadium now though, right? So the only games affected will be AB tests they won't get and Super Rugby finals?
Will make a difference in the winter with a roof it will help the numbers for the Crusaders
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Its a fucking joke. Just a fucking bad fucking joke. Local body incompetence at its absolute finest.
Finally now I see people on various social media platforms coming out pissing and whining about it now the already under-sized arena has unsurprisingly shrunk. Where have these people been and why start moaning now it's shrunk by 2500-5000 seats when it was already drastically unfit for purpose??
The writing was on the cunting wall at least two fucking years ago. The mayor and her councillors have been thoroughly exposed now as absolute fucking donkeys (harsh on donkeys who at least have value as a labourer animal) and must be held to account over this debacle.
Fucking useless councillors it’s been a disgrace from the start,The stadium should have been built 6 years ago.
Penny pinching fuckwits. -
-
If you take out AB tests vs major opponents the stadium is otherwise perfect size.
In the NH most countries only have one test venue: twickenham, Aviva, millenium, Edinburgh etc.
I’d rather have atmosphere for npc and super and have the 1 AB test per year vs wallabies or springboks go to Auckland.
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
Spot on with the time= cost we were all saying that years ago,
It seems the council didn’t understand that concept. -
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
By the way if you do end up a local, welcome to the region.
May have a beer sometime 😊 -
@chris said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
By the way if you do end up a local, welcome to the region.
May have a beer sometime 😊We bought land so its just a matter of time!
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@chris said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
By the way if you do end up a local, welcome to the region.
May have a beer sometime 😊We bought land so its just a matter of time!
Beers with Chris in ChCh, Sake with me in Tokyo, full of bloody promises.... you sound like a local Christchurch politician...
-
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@chris said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
By the way if you do end up a local, welcome to the region.
May have a beer sometime 😊We bought land so its just a matter of time!
Beers with Chris in ChCh, Sake with me in Tokyo, full of bloody promises.... you sound like a local Christchurch politician...
Ha ha, the sake with you (or anyone) can be had tomorrow. Come up!
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@chris said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I agree with both points.
I think the crucial error is that history has constantly told us that time = cost.
As I might end up a local, I think it will be undersized but also great for NPC and Super rugby.
By the way if you do end up a local, welcome to the region.
May have a beer sometime 😊We bought land so its just a matter of time!
Beers with Chris in ChCh, Sake with me in Tokyo, full of bloody promises.... you sound like a local Christchurch politician...
Ha ha, the sake with you (or anyone) can be had tomorrow. Come up!
Scottie says I'm not allowed to leave 😑
-
I can think of lots of stuff to blame CCC for, but this isn't one of them. Lancaster Park, and everything else, was woefully underinsured, but nobody knew that until after the earthquakes. Feedback on Council plans (long term and annual) before the earthquakes was that the Council were overspending on insurance, and they should put rates up by less instead - oops.
CCC insurance was through the Local Government insurance scheme, and they still got screwed by the reinsurer and had to settle for a fixed amount for everything above ground that didn't actually cover the whole amount ($635 million for claims of $920 million in Dec 2015) because it was better than going for lengthy legal processes which would have taken years longer and no money. So it took them years to get the money, and it wasn't all the money claimed, and the money claimed wasn't enough to replace like for like because costs had skyrocketed in the 5 years it took to get the money (Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million).
So there wasn't enough money, and the Nats weren't adding to the pot - until Labour coughed up the money, the Council was expected to somehow fund a shortfall between Lancaster Park's insurance of $143 million and the actual replacement cost, and also the $285 million shortfall of pay out and actual claim, not to mention a 5 year delay in getting the money.
It's also not like they weren't doing anything else - every other major facility was wrecked at the same time, and also in need of rebuilding, and prone to the same funding and capacity issues. If this had been properly funded by central government earlier and got off the ground in 2016 like it should have, there would be still be cost blowout issues from Covid, but in other rebuild projects instead of this one.
