Stadium of Canterbury
-
Here's my two cents, as posted on FB last night. It's also pretty much an abbreviated version of a letter I sent to the CCC, Megan Woods, other Canterbury MPs, and Stuff.
This is the most underwhelming stadium that could be built. With a population tipped - by local govt no less - to reach 750k in around 2050, 25k is pitiful. It's hard to imagine the acoustics being any better than Forsyth Barr which means consistently disappointing concerts, and it's too small to host Tier 1 All Black tests. The business case must have been: "We have some money, let's build something. And we'll put a roof on it because that's a hideously expensive way of eating into the funding, really just for novelty value rather than any form of relevant suitability". And as well as being grossly dysfunctional, it'll be ugly, and it's smack back inside the Four Aves where everyone gets to feel consistently underwhelmed by it. Don't let the artist's impressions fool you; this'll be basic. The budget is already being chewed into and the $500m originally committed to it shrunk by $20m before even gaining approval. Back in 2012 or so, $500m might have built a nice, 30k seater (still under-sized) with a roof. Not now. Not even a nice 25k seater. They've already removed an upper concourse from the design to save costs! So don't expect any bang for the remaining buck, Cantabs. It's too late now - and believe me, I've sent a few letters to various people about this - but the only way to get a future-proofed, modern, comfortable stadium we could have been proud of - for the same money - was to build a 40k seater, with extended stand cover, indoor concourses, architectural features and the bells and whistles people expect of a new stadium. The approved design will please no-one in practice. It's essentially Addington inside a massive click clack container.
-
To make this worse, a shit tip like Townsville just got a ripper of a new stadium. 25,000 seats in a cool building for $250m
Parramatta Stadium opened last year, seats 30k, looks, and is by all accounts amazing.
Optus Stadium is also not long opened, holds 60k, and is amazing.
The blueprints were there
Stuff being the guy pitching the business cases in NZ though
-
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.Well, this is partially funded by their insurance payout isn’t it? Seems a weird flex to begrudge a city that got devastated a half decent rugby stadium to replace the one they lost.
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.Well, this is partially funded by their insurance payout isn’t it? Seems a weird flex to begrudge a city that got devastated a half decent rugby stadium to replace the one they lost.
Begrudge? Nope. I don't begrudge them a new stadium.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
So those unhappy want the roof taken away and more seating added? Not from what I have heard. I would support that.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback My preference would be something without a roof and approaching 40,000 seats. Extended stand cover, indoor concourses across a couple of levels, some kind of interesting cladding to make it an architectural centrepiece given it'll be in the middle of the city. This boutique 'multi-use arena' is a concession where there needn't be one. There has been next to no resistance from locals because we've had to put up with Addington for 8 years so anything looks good by comparison. But people don't realise the massive cost of the roof and the concessions that have to be made in other areas to have one. To what end? Hosting a couple of Ed Sheeran gigs every few years? Because that's legitimately what people are fucked off we missed out on. It's nuts. So we're now denied the opportunity to build a future-proofed, modern stadium of high quality, in order to build an occasional concert venue and avoid sitting in the rain for the one game a year - at best - when it comes down.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Stadium of Canterbury:
People are actually unhappy about getting a 25000 covered stadium? That is largely funded by tax payers in other regions that don't even a stadium?
Cry me a river.I think they want a bigger stadium. If you build one and have it only 25k you aren't going to get big tests against South Africa or Australia, let alone versus the Lions. I'm sure the stadium would be good but it doesn't seem worth it for 500 million.
Correct. The only way we'll get Tier 1 tests will be the occasional RC game, out of pity rather than on merit.
-
The roof is also to minimise sound leakage so Christchurch can host concerts with less resource consent problems, which in turn makes the stadium slightly more viable. There should be another 5,000 temporary seats at some point which means a 30,000 capacity which should get some tier 1 tests occasionally.
The stadium will also be a conference etc venue.
That said, stadiums don't make money, they lose it - if they made money, private developers would build them. I'd build bigger, but there are plenty of taxpayers and ratepayers who complain vociferously about their money being wasted on such things, and politicians have to find a balance between the competing demands.
-
-
@Godder So is the cost of a roof actually going to contribute to anything the than opex? I can't see how a couple of concerts a year are going to cover the extra capital expenditure of providing it.
As far as I can work out the only major rugby stadiums with roofs are Millenium and FB? It's a winter game. I think @shark has it right. 35K minimum across two tiers with the ability to screen off the top tier and as much cover for the spectators as is feasible yet cost effective- and steep stands. Better viewing and atmosphere.
-
The problem with more than 25k is that people just don't go to live rugby much any more. Even pre-earthquakes, the crowd at the ITM Cup Final at Jade was about 3,000. So how often are you getting more than 10-15k? Once a year at an AB test? Those are very expensive seats you have to fill.
Stadium business cases should be about the least bad option, but frankly this seems overpriced for what gets delivered. Not that impressed.
-
If the roof means more concerts wouldn't that be a moot point anyway? Forsyth-Barr can hold 36,000ish for a concert so a bigger act will see that as where to go in the South island, particularly now with the power shift when it comes to South island concerts.
-
@Yeetyaah said in Stadium of Canterbury:
If the roof means more concerts wouldn't that be a moot point anyway? Forsyth-Barr can hold 36,000ish for a concert so a bigger act will see that as where to go in the South island, particularly now with the power shift when it comes to South island concerts.
Why would Forsyth Barr be seen as a better place to go for concerts than the new Christchurch stadium when the new Christchurch stadium can also hold 36k for a concert (supposedly), has a bigger population to draw on and logistically easier to get equipment in with a bigger more accessible airport?
-
The concert hosting thing is a particularly intriguing one, and an absolute sham as part of a business case. Why? Because part of it is about the economic benefits to Christchurch of drawings acts (in lieu of Dunedin). Dunedin does so well out of concerts because so many people travel from Christchurch. They're filling hotel and motel rooms, and spending up on hospitality simply because there's no other option. What happens if and when Ed Sheeran comes to Chch? The vast majority of the crowd will be locals who will car pool to the gig, have a couple of drinks and a pottle of chips, then drive home again. And this happens how often? Every couple of years? So this part of it is garbage. Compare that to 40k rugby fans at a Tier 1 AB test on the hoon before and after a game, pretty much annually. Which is more beneficial??
-
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I repeat my earlier comment - if stadiums made money, private developers would build and operate them, so basically all NZ cases for larger stadiums except maybe in Auckland are shams (according to Eden Park's accounts, they make an operating profit - their issue is depreciation i.e. they don't make enough money to also pay for the asset replacement costs). Councils/ratepayers fund them because locals want them - business cases are just fig leaves. It doesn't help in Christchurch's case that cricket has moved to Hagley Oval, as that would have provided a few extra events. The Council funding is primarily insurance, so had to be spent anyway, but no doubt we could have spent less of the government contribution if we wanted to.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to spend two days and $500 on a trip to Dunedin, or miss out because I didn't book the accommodation as soon as the concert was announced (not when the tickets go on sale - accommodation in Dunedin sold out within hours of Queen being announced). Selfishly, I want a concert venue in Christchurch that will reliably bring the big names if they are going somewhere besides Auckland, and while my costs for a Christchurch concert are much lower than travelling to another concert, I will still spend my money somewhere eventually, and that somewhere will most likely be in Christchurch - that's an implied part of a business case that isn't usually discussed heavily, that locals don't travel and spend elsewhere, so they can spend that money locally.
Practically, we probably only need 20,000 permanent seats for Super Rugby and maybe a few thousand temp seats for finals - anything bigger than that is for tests, which the ABs don't play that many in NZ, and we (Chch) will only ever get 1-2 per season. Realistically, AB tests are as spurious as concerts in the business cases - it just comes back to people wanting them.
I think it's quite realistic for a stadium to be able to cover its operating costs if its well designed and well run. But a private developer would want their initial investment back plus a decent return, which you rightly point out ain't gonna happen.
Overseas it seems fairly common for sports teams to build and own their own stadiums, which presumably makes the business case more feasible as they are factoring in ticket sales, concession stands etc rather than just the stadium rental fees that a privately (or publicly) held stadium would rely on.
I don't know if the Crusaders ever looked into that as a viable option. I assume that the capital requirements would be prohibitive. Overseas it looks to be a mix of loans (epl football teams) and sweetheart deals from owners or cities trying to attract teams (nfl), neither of which would be realistic for them.
