Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Nepia not really an area of Insurer expertise, that comes back to the rebuild cost, which would need to be determined by a Valuer.
-
@taniwharugby said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Nepia not really an area of Insurer expertise, that comes back to the rebuild cost, which would need to be determined by a Valuer.
I guess what I was asking was whether the owners of the park under insured it - maybe because they assumed they'd never need a complete rebuild.
I guess there can't be too many stadium valuers out there to get a correct valuation.
-
@Nepia Would fall into the similar category as valuing a multi-story building or high rise, there are companies that specialise in that sort of thing, as it needs to include the cost to demo the structure, fees associated with rebuilding (council fees, architects, engineers etc) as well as the actual re-build
As to under-insuring something, highly likely, under-insurance is a bit of an issue in NZ.
-
@Nepia said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Can someone with more knowledge than me in the area of insurance let us know whether the park was under insured?
Absolutely.
The rebuild cost would have assumed decent ground to build on. Once liquefaction and higher seismic risk was front of mind, the cost of the rebuild skyrockets.
So - almost certainly undervalued, but not necessarily anyone doing anything 'wrong' -- just costs that weren't contemplated at the time (by anyone I expect)
-
One of the issues uncovered by the Canterbury earthquakes was that even apparently correct insurance was liable to be under if the disaster is big enough because we don't have the spare labour capacity, so end up having to import workers and pay premium rates to get people to move to the area, which drives up costs.
A view before the earthquakes was that CCC were overinsured, and complaints from ratepayer groups basically said they should reduce insurance and rates. How wrong that was, but that was conventional wisdom at the time.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
One of the issues uncovered by the Canterbury earthquakes was that even apparently correct insurance was liable to be under if the disaster is big enough because we don't have the spare labour capacity, so end up having to import workers and pay premium rates to get people to move to the area, which drives up costs.
A view before the earthquakes was that CCC were overinsured, and complaints from ratepayer groups basically said they should reduce insurance and rates. How wrong that was, but that was conventional wisdom at the time.
Yep - and because no one had dealt with a situation like that in NZ before. As PJ Montgomery famously said - experience is what you get just after you needed it
-
If anyone didn't read this excellent piece in this week's Fairfax, I urge you to do so now.
[https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/110674808/plunder-how-the-bill-for-the-canterbury-earthquakes-was-passed-on](Everything was Fucked.)
-
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
can they raise the stands, like they did at the Caketin, to allow temporary seating on to the field below on test day?
Problem with that is your regular seats end up being miles from the action. The caketin uses the extra space from being an oval to accommodate those seats.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Turnout to rugby matches in NZ is very poor. Stupidity to build more than 30'000, which would be filled once a year for an AB match.
30k with potential to increase to 40k with temporary seating is about right.
That's not an option unfortunately. As it stands (excuse the pun) we're looking at 25,000 - 30,000 seats under a roof. The only way to get anywhere near 40,000 is to build an open stadium.
No need for 40000. It’d be an empty white elephant. Yes you could fill it for AB tests, possibly a lions match every 12 years vs the cruaders, possibly a super rugby final but for run of the mill super rugby and npc games 40000 is way too much. Better smaller, closer to capacity with better atmosphere.
-
It seems strange to go for 25K + 5K, rather than 30+5.
However, despite the predicted population growth, I think there may be a movement across most venues to go smaller. I can’t see NZ getting the WC again, concerts can add shows if there is more demand, and getting 30K to any non AB game is a trick now. So, given the trends during the last 15 years, smaller covered grounds could be a better bet (and I say this as someone in the process of buying a property in Canterbury).
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It seems strange to go for 25K + 5K, rather than 30+5.
However, despite the predicted population growth, I think there may be a movement across most venues to go smaller. I can’t see NZ getting the WC again
Yep, spot on. we don't have the money or the timezones to make it worthwhile. There's an argument for supply/demand too - if tickets are hard to get for big events, they value of them goes up.
If you can partially cover the stadium it woudl be good too. Makes winter test matches a very different proposition
-
As an example, Leinster, who are much better supported than the crusaders, with a catchment population of at least a million, have a stadium with 20’000 (RDS) and it’s just much better than a half empty aviva (old Lansdowne). I think the plans are spot on in terms of capacity.
-
Probably rehashing something from earlier in the thread, but doesn't 25 -30 mean Christchurch runs the risk of missing out on major AB tests? Might be something the city will regret if that's the case.
-
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
-
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
With all the space in the Christchurch rebuild, as well as all the space in Logan Park Dunedin and two new separate facilities built there, it drives me mad that the councils haven't seen to cost saving logic of something like these:
Auckland aren't even thinking about this, yet talk is being thrown around of moving both rugby and cricket.
Makes sense, but you need a lot of space and a lot of cash. I'm sure the EP residents would go ape about that one. The Auckland way will be to do a piecemeal job that isn't totally fit for purpose and needs replacement or massive redevelopment far too early
