Stadium of Canterbury
-
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof please 😁 -
@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof please 😁Do you really wanna see your team lose that bad?!
-
Something with the roof cover of Wembley would do.
-
Or Twickers
-
@shark I saw nothing!! Similar the to the canes 😁😁
-
@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I saw nothing!! Similar the to the canes 😁😁
I left the ground and went to a pub, hoping it’d be better on tv. It wasn’t!
-
My 2 cents worth. Rugby is a winter game, played in all conditions. If we build all our stadiums with roofs in the end we will not know how to play wet weather rugby. AB win ratio will drop. They say in Sweden "there is no bad weather just bad clothing". If you dont like being cold while following a winter sport move to Brisvagus and follow the Queensland Reds (good luck with that one)
-
@wreck-diver wouldn't cry too much if Canterbury and the Saders lost their edge in the wet
But I'd imagine they'd rack up even bigger totals if they always played on a dry track at home!! -
@shark yeah, you are 100% right. Aesthetics don't really do much other than add to the cost of a stadium. Ultimately, all that really matters is being close to the action & having a good view from all seats.
Oh and for the love of god, don't make it a cricket / rugby hybrid.
-
Problem is, if you build your new stadium smack bang in the middle of a newly rebuilt city, it can't just be a FBS-esque functional box. It'll require some form as well as function. And the only way you get that for $500m is to sacrifice seats. Of which there probably won't be enough in the first place.
I really don't think the indoor MUA supporters club have completely thought through all aspects of this project.
-
Christchurch stadium concept plans revealed
25,000 permanent seats with another 5,000 more for football configuration, multi uses considered, this is a "concept plan" not a design but looks pretty good to me.
(
@Stargazer - yep the food from the Vbase concessions is your normal stadium shit, but for big events they get in local food truck operators who do a roaring trade - like good mexican, burgers, banh mi, Jonny Schwass etc.
-
Didn't Lancaster Park seat about 40,000 people?
If you're building the city's premier stadium for the next 50 years, 25K permanent capacity seems pretty limited to me.
Traf. Park has 18K capacity and I've been to plenty of events that have been sell outs there - and Nelson- Ta$man has a much smaller population than Christchurch-Canterbury.
-
@Chris-B said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Didn't Lancaster Park seat about 40,000 people?
If you're building the city's premier stadium for the next 50 years, 25K permanent capacity seems pretty limited to me.
Traf. Park has 18K capacity and I've been to plenty of events that have been sell outs there - and Nelson- Ta$man has a much smaller population than Christchurch-Canterbury.
Lancaster Park lost capacity when they converted it to being fully seated, but was still bigger than this would be. Basically, a large stadium is very expensive and loses money, which is why the main ones in NZ are all publicly-owned and funded. I support putting in more money from taxes since Chch could strongly argue that the rebuild has been underfunded by gov't and our rates increases just to repair the city of 5% p.a. show that, but if central gov't doesn't stump up more, ratepayers are understandably opposed to even higher rates increases to fund it.
-
@Godder Presumably there is some insurance money from AMI's destruction (with a degree of irony that it's not enough to rebuild). I support using tax money to rebuild a stadium as well - I like spending on infrastructure - even if I rarely or never get to use it. $50 million per year for five years is a pretty small proportion of government revenues and, in my view, far better spent on a stadium than on flags or re-entries.
-
@Chris-B said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder Presumably there is some insurance money from AMI's destruction (with a degree of irony that it's not enough to rebuild). I support using tax money to rebuild a stadium as well - I like spending on infrastructure - even if I rarely or never get to use it. $50 million per year for five years is a pretty small proportion of government revenues and, in my view, far better spent on a stadium than on flags or re-entries.
Or 200 or so working groups.
Redirect Notice
