Stadium of Canterbury
-
I can understand the argument that there are probably things higher up the priority list, but a decent stadium for a city the size of Christchurch is not a "nice to have", it's a necessity.
-
@No-Quarter said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I can understand the argument that there are probably things higher up the priority list, but a decent stadium for a city the size of Christchurch is not a "nice to have", it's a necessity.
yeah that's my opinion too mate.,... Unfortunately I've also had the same discussion as @Godder with a few people I know.
I also share his opinions about said people
-
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@SammyC do you find that the majority you talk to share your view or not?
I do realise the negatives are always the loudest but are you finding them to be the most populous as well?
Good question
Negatives are definitely the loudest.. So I find myself in discussion with them more than the others.
I think rugby is in a pretty bad place down here and a lot of people no longer go to the stadium to watch the Crusaders.
Probably a general feeling of apathy more than anything else, nobody cares as much as they used to. I hold 3 season tickets to Canterbury and the Crusaders, and it's a struggle to find others to go with when my regular 2 mates are out of town. Was never the case a few years ago.
By the way, I blame Riach for that, not the new stadium. He should be doing more to involve the community (as Rennie and Smith have done superbly at the Chiefs)
-
-
@SammyC said in Stadium of Canterbury:
By the way, I blame Riach for that, not the new stadium. He should be doing more to involve the community (as Rennie and Smith have done superbly at the Chiefs)
Maybe Scarlette could move south . . .
-
-
Although I'm extremely pro growth, pro the stadium, pro the spending, I can 100% understand where the locals are coming from. It'd be pretty soul destroying driving over a crappy unkempt road which needs fixing to get to the flash brand new stadium.
However, I don't think the ability of these sorts of things to lift places should ever be underestimated. Basic infrastructure should always come before luxuries, but if the budget is there, the contractors are there, and everything is there ... then not get cracking on it?
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Smudge why do you have Hoyte as your avatar? Such a plesant relxed picture
When I changed my username, MN5 hated it as it reminded him of Jason Hoyte's character "Smudge" from Nothing Trivial. Even though Smudge was my childhood nickname, I thought I would throw in the pic of Hoyte just to make MN5 angry every time he sees my posts.
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Incredible really. Is ChCh second or third largest city?
To not have a decent stadium beggars belief.
Third. Wellington's bigger.
I've never been to AMI Stadium but on TV it looks like the kind of stadium I'd expect from one of the smaller NPC teams. Totally understandable that they've had to use it after the earthquakes but baffling that anyone would consider that good enough moving forward for a city of Christchurch's size.
-
@MajorRage said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Although I'm extremely pro growth, pro the stadium, pro the spending, I can 100% understand where the locals are coming from. It'd be pretty soul destroying driving over a crappy unkempt road which needs fixing to get to the flash brand new stadium.
However, I don't think the ability of these sorts of things to lift places should ever be underestimated. Basic infrastructure should always come before luxuries, but if the budget is there, the contractors are there, and everything is there ... then not get cracking on it?
Is it as simple as "put the money from project A to project B" though? Whenever I hear someone saying "why are they doing that, they should do this instead", that's usually the thing I find that they're completely ignoring. It's not like they can just move the stadium contractors over to work on the roads after all, they're different jobs with different budgets and different costs.
-
@Unco Yeah 100% that's right. Which is why I've just mentioned infrastructure as opposed to peoples homes etc. Maybe it's slightly differnt when it comes to people doing the work, but there would certainly be cross over in labour, and also perhaps engineers.
-
@Unco said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Incredible really. Is ChCh second or third largest city?
To not have a decent stadium beggars belief.
Third. Wellington's bigger.
I've never been to AMI Stadium but on TV it looks like the kind of stadium I'd expect from one of the smaller NPC teams. Totally understandable that they've had to use it after the earthquakes but baffling that anyone would consider that good enough moving forward for a city of Christchurch's size.
That's exactly what it is.
-
I think it's that they don't want to commit the money (borrowings) when there's other stuff to spend it on still.
Eg Insurance payout 300m for Lancaster Park, new stadium is 400m. They'd rather spend that 100m they need to borrow elsewhere at the moment, and borrow it later.
(These numbers are made up btw) -
the Canterbury earthquakes highlighted how underinsured a lot of NZ were (largely still are) for both private and commercial insurances.
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido Could it be that they have already spent the insurance money received from Lancaster Park?
Not that I'm aware of - full and final insurance settlement was only made in the past financial year.
I don't believe CAVE has a majority by any stretch, but they're noisy and active. I've been following local politics more than usual this year because I've been involved in a campaign, and the councillor involved has no doubt from streetcorner meetings etc that the silent majority is in favour of big projects, as long as the streets and other repairs are still happening at a good pace. As noted, the funds come from different places than the funds for repairs, and we wouldn't get them without the anchor projects because the government won't pay otherwise, but it's very hard to convince some people of that.
@taniwharugby - very true, and yet, we were considered overinsured by the above idiots before the earthquakes. People have underestimated the increased costs post-disaster, and also that insurers won't pay out without a lot of prodding, and you won't get the full amount and will have to negotiate as well.
