Stadium of Canterbury
-
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.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
Man I wish I'd trained to be a consultant. It's money for jam right now
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
trained to be a consultant
Active listening mate. Ensure at every step you know what the client wants to hear because you repeat it back to them in different words. All they're after is plausible deniability; you did the work, not them. You're the expert.
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
trained to be a consultant
Active listening mate. Ensure at every step you know what the client wants to hear because you repeat it back to them in different words. All they're after is plausible deniability; you did the work, not them. You're the expert.
And advise that every current process must take twice as many steps in order to be more effective and efficient
-
Sigh. I'm getting a little sick of this stadium shambles. The CCC seems intent on making it as 'boutique' as possible. All of the focus appears to be on having a venue that can host a large concert once a year, with fuck all concern for future-proofing or hosting signifcant rugby matches (Tier 1 tests, Lions tests, RWC matches, Crusaders finals games etc). 25,000 - 30,000 seats is far too small for a growing population of 400,000 which the CCC itself projects will be 700,000 within 50 years. Further, if the NZRU policy is still that you need 35,000+ seats to automatically qualify for Tier 1 tests (witness the Lions in 2017) or you have to rely on charity (witness the FBS deal with the NZRU), then this stadium is already below the minimum it needs to be, let alone being large enough to cope with a population boom.
There was a really good story written a few month ago which made a case for a larger, open-air stadium. It - I believe quite rightly - pointed to the fact that Cantabrian rugby fans have had such a terrible facility for the last seven years now, they can't see past a fully enclosed facility as the only solution going forward. That, combined with the fact it's taken so damn long just to get to this phase, means there are very few people questioning the MUA proposal. And now we're almost at the point of no return. Yet I believe 100% that with the benefit of hindsight in a few years' time these same fans will be questioning why we don't have a smart 40,000 seat open-air stadium. I'm quite sure that for the same money (approx $475m) we could get a really cool (excuse the pun) open air stadium which people would still flock to, we wouldn't outgrow in a hurry, and it would be a draw for large stadium acts ala Western Springs or Mount Smart.
This concept will end up being an ugly little boutique stadium which in no time at all will be questioned as the correct solution.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Sigh. I'm getting a little sick of this stadium shambles. The CCC seems intent on making it as 'boutique' as possible. All of the focus appears to be on having a venue that can host a large concert once a year, with fuck all concern for future-proofing or hosting signifcant rugby matches (Tier 1 tests, Lions tests, RWC matches, Crusaders finals games etc). 25,000 - 30,000 seats is far too small for a growing population of 400,000 which the CCC itself projects will be 700,000 within 50 years. Further, if the NZRU policy is still that you need 35,000+ seats to automatically qualify for Tier 1 tests (witness the Lions in 2017) or you have to rely on charity (witness the FBS deal with the NZRU), then this stadium is already below the minimum it needs to be, let alone being large enough to cope with a population boom.
There was a really good story written a few month ago which made a case for a larger, open-air stadium. It - I believe quite rightly - pointed to the fact that Cantabrian rugby fans have had such a terrible facility for the last seven years now, they can't see past a fully enclosed facility as the only solution going forward. That, combined with the fact it's taken so damn long just to get to this phase, means there are very few people questioning the MUA proposal. And now we're almost at the point of no return. Yet I believe 100% that with the benefit of hindsight in a few years' time these same fans will be questioning why we don't have a smart 40,000 seat open-air stadium. I'm quite sure that for the same money (approx $475m) we could get a really cool (excuse the pun) open air stadium which people would still flock to, we wouldn't outgrow in a hurry, and it would be a draw for large stadium acts ala Western Springs or Mount Smart.
This concept will end up being an ugly little boutique stadium which in no time at all will be questioned as the correct solution.
I don't know why we are so keen to put a roof on a stadium in any case. We have that down the road in Dunedin already, why do we need another?
-
