Stadium of 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?
-
-
-
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
it's more than a shame if the dominant rugby region of the past 20 years can't get the big tests. Build it big, and build it well, and make it the South Island centre for big AB games. Dunedin can have the shit tests.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
it's more than a shame if the dominant rugby region of the past 20 years can't get the big tests. Build it big, and build it well, and make it the South Island centre for big AB games. Dunedin can have the shit tests.
Yep, that's a better way to put it. The last stadium was insured, at the very least they should be left with a stadium with the same capacity as before.
-
With 30,000 + 5,000 you also get your 35,000 (if that's the desired minimum number of seats for test matches). I can see the point of having empty seats for most games as being a problem, though. It's not just a sporting decision; it needs to be economically sound, too. I don't have the answer. I'm just saying that there are more considerations than just getting 1 big test match a year (only Eden Parks gets two a year). And then there's the question what size is best for a multi-purpose stadium ...
-
@Kirwan I wonder whether capacity was a set figure or metric for them. You'd bloody hope so, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were caveats around overall cost, or focusing on like-for-like in terms of material or construction approach rather than seating.
-
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
There's an infatuation with hosting Ed Sheeran and The Eagles.
I hear you but Auckland have managed that at Western Springs, Mt Smart for so many years
No argument from me!
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'd say, cover the stands, so the crowd stays dry, but no need to cover the field.
This proposal for 25,000 + 5,000 seats seems a bit small, but I'm not convinced you need a 35,000+ stadium. How often would that sell out? Once or twice a year? That's probably not enough to justify the extra costs. And you don't have to plan for a population growth in 50 years time; stadiums don't last that long.
Because if it's less than 35,000 no more Tier 1 AB games, and I think that would be a shame for the region.
Yes, and also Stargazer is completely wrong about stadiums in NZ not lasting 50 years. They pretty much all have to! That aside, the projection obviously means there'll be an upward curve over time so in 20 years we might be at 550,000 for example. It's not like the population will stagnate at 400,000 for 50 years then suddely nearly double.
Let's say the stadium did have a lifespan of 50 years though for arguments' sake, from 2022. In that time NZ will have hosted Lions tours in 2029, 2041, 2053 and 2065 plus potentially another couple of RWCs and who knows what other global events both in rugby and other rectangular field ball sports. For these events we'll need another good-sized stadium for sure.
-
@Stargazer said in Stadium of Canterbury:
With 30,000 + 5,000 you also get your 35,000 (if that's the desired minimum number of seats for test matches). I can see the point of having empty seats for most games as being a problem, though. It's not just a sporting decision; it needs to be economically sound, too. I don't have the answer. I'm just saying that there are more considerations than just getting 1 big test match a year (only Eden Parks gets two a year). And then there's the question what size is best for a multi-purpose stadium ...
They're talking about 25,000 + 5,000 which is in no mans' land.
Obviously I'm leaning toward a larger open stadium which qualifies for tier 1 tests by default and suits the regions' population for a long period of time.
