Stadium of Canterbury
-
@mofitzy_ said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Just noticed the successful womens world cup 2023 bid (joint Aus/NZ) in includes:
"Christchurch Stadium, capacity: 22,556"
So it will be completed by 2023? Or will they just put up additional stands at Rugby League Park?
i very much doubt it can be built for 2023 unless theyre about to start very shorty
25-30k is more than enough as far as im concerned, worked on the rebuild (including the current stadium) and lived in chch for a number of years, worked on the build of FB before that
people seem t forget, the permanent seats for FB is only like 18,500, the rest are the temp stands at either end, thats why its a nice little design, can get to the +30k when they get an AB test every other year but didn't need the same outlay for every other game, it also focus most of the crowd to the main stand so it looks more full on tv which makes it looks popular which attracts the casual fan
lets also not forget, the final published cost was $220m...but there were lost of reports at the time of costs being deferred (such as claims by contractors) which suggested the total build including land was closer to $300m , add a decade to that and the general cost of building going up in chch and $500m doesn't seems stretch for the same thing
i now work in aus and i dont think it fair to compare cost across countries, the construction industry is so much bigger over here, more competition means things get done cheaper, pretty simple. Shit get built faster here too, first job i worked on was "Vic one" a 78 story apartment building, it was on something like floor 35 when i started and they topped out less that two years later...the seven story hotel at chch airport has taken something like 4 years to build....
you have to incude concerts in the business case for the simple reason thats is more events bringing money in and if it needs a roof to get those concerts then so be it
-
- FBS is not a "nice little design". It's a very basic plastic box. It's the stadium equivalent of building to residential code minimums ie the worst possible building spec that can be built for XYZ budget.
- Christchurch is three to four times the size of Dunedin by population, possibly more if you're taking 'greater Christchurch' ie inc the satellite towns. Projected population was 750k by 2050. A stadium the same size as Dunedin's is badly under-equipped.
- We don't need a roof. A roof is only essential to pick up the occasional gig that will otherwise go to Dunedin. And even without a roof, why does the artist care about spectator comfort if they can get another 10,000 ticket sales?
- For the same money - now down to only $475m btw - we could have a really cool, very comfortable, feature-rich open air stadium.
- Already the shrinking budget - add in inflation and rising costs over a four year design and build projection - has seen the demise of a second tier concourse. Anyone who doesn't expect further down-sizing or down-spec'ing is dreaming. And it'll be veeeery basic to look at which for a large building in the middle of a rebuilt CBD whixh contains some cool buildings and developments is a gross embarrassment.
Mark my words. When this fucking ridiculous little 'MUA' is complete, probably behind schedule and over- budget despite being a dump, there will be an uproar. If not immediately then shortly afterwards when it's limitations become blatantly obvious.
-
@mofitzy_ said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Just noticed the successful womens world cup 2023 bid (joint Aus/NZ) in includes:
"Christchurch Stadium, capacity: 22,556"
So it will be completed by 2023? Or will they just put up additional stands at Rugby League Park?
It's embarrassing that Christchurch Stadium is being used. I don't want it seen as the face of my city on such a large international stage.
This is exactly the kind of event we should be able to capitalise on. If we had a great new 40,000 seat open air stadium by 2023 we'd get bigger games, more cashed-up international visitors etc.
Fucking short-sighted councillors and politicians who just want to pander to fucking Ed Sheeran fans.
-
-
Yeah and CHCH was not doing so great even selling out for ABs tests, so a huge stadium might not be the best idea!
Only Italy but still. Also these two "Before reconstruction, Christchurch failed to reach its 36,000 capacity for Tri-Nations tests against South Africa in 2007 and Australia the year before." pretty shit effort by the Cantabs etc
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/2517802/Poor-ticket-sales-threaten-Christchurch-tests
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.
So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.
40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.
So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.
40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.
Yes, because otherwise they may not use it, and it becomes even more of a white elephant.
-
@shark so let me get this straight, you don’t think they should do what Canterbury rugby want or concert promoters or the vast majority of the people in Christchurch ie have a roof...even though they would use it 90% of the time? And we should build a huge stadium that will only be full 3 or 4 times every 12 years just because “chRiStcHurCh iS biG”
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I repeat earlier comments - the roof was requested by Canterbury Rugby who will be the main tenant. Also, if we were pandering to Ed Sheeran fans, it would be 40,000 capacity since we could sell that out for Ed.
So you think Canterbury Rugby's desires should be the ultimate consideration? Put before issues like future proofing, the standard of roofed stadia etc? No way they should. OF COURSE the Crusaders and Canterbury would want a roof and 20k to 25k seats as it suits their needs.
40,000 with a roof isn't/wasn't an option for $475m.
Yes, because otherwise they may not use it, and it becomes even more of a white elephant.
They'll use whatever gets built.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark so let me get this straight, you don’t think they should do what Canterbury rugby want or concert promoters ie have a roof...even though they would use it 90% of the time? And we should build a huge stadium that will only be full 3 or 4 times every 12 years just because “chRiStcHurCh iS biG”
You're kind of onto it, but not quite getting it.
$475m isn't enough to build a well equipped, roofed stadium with any sort of interesting design that can seat up to 30,000. Or do you think it is? Because you've already been proven wrong given a second tier concourse has already been removed to save cost.
With the possibility of a quality indoor stadium seating up to 30,000 removed, and it has been, the options are a) shrink the capacity even further b) maintain 30k capacity but build an even more basic design or c) build an open stadium which for the same money could seat 40,000 if required (for, let's say, a FIFA women's World Cup) and have many of the features expected of a modern stadium (deep covered stands, enclosed concourses across multiple levels, numerous concession windows, entertainment attached, great screens etc etc). A larger stadium doesn't need to be used in its entirety for a rugby game so the cost of opening it right up isn't a valid issue, but capacity is there if and when needed.
The obsession with a roof at all costs is mind boggling.
-
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Further, it's not at all outside the realm of possibility now that Australia and NZ could host a FIFA World Cup, or New Zealand another RWC. How many of those games will a crappy 25,000 seat MUA get?
Nz is tiny on the world stage, if Aus got a football World Cup auckland would be the only city to get any slightly big games, any other stadiums would only get Minows so a 30k stadium would be fine
But we’re not going to get fifa world cups...so we should build something that might get close to breaking even each year...so concerts and rugby
Actually, the fifa World Cup is held in our winter...so a roof would probably make it more attractive seeing we wouldn’t fill the stand from local support and so would have to rely even more heavily on tourists
-
@Kiwiwomble If we had a 40k stadium we would get games, should that possibility come to fruition. Keep in mind a bunch of the Australian stadiums aren't rectangular field grounds which counts against them. They've got five or six which stand out as being suitable for a FIFA men's WC. A 30k stadium would only attract minnow games inc any future RWC held here. And if it was a FIFA men's WC, there wouldn't be ANY issue attracting fans from all around the globe.
-
I get what Shark is saying. If Christchurch goes this route then when the Lions tour in 2029 it will be two tests in Auckland and one in Wellington. Again. If we host another Rugby World Cup, they won't get a KO game. They will get Rugby Championship tests but are more likely to get Argentina or a 3rd Bledisloe than Australia or South Africa.
I think on balance he is wrong. The smaller stadium with a roof won't attract more events to Christchurch but those events are few and far between anyway. It will be a better experience for 95% of events and that should be the consideration.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I get what Shark is saying. If Christchurch goes this route then when the Lions tour in 2029 it will be two tests in Auckland and one in Wellington. Again. If we host another Rugby World Cup, they won't get a KO game. They will get Rugby Championship tests but are more likely to get Argentina or a 3rd Bledisloe than Australia or South Africa.
I think on balance he is wrong. The smaller stadium with a roof won't attract more events to Christchurch but those events are few and far between anyway. It will be a better experience for 95% of events and that should be the consideration.
I'm not wrong. It's fucking simple. The budget is shrinking, costs are rising and the project has already downsized in spec. It'll be downsized and/or down spec'd again.
It's easy for those outside the region especially, to look at the situation and think the Canterbury public should accept what's being offered up. And unfortunately the vast majority of the local populous simply assume they're going to get a great facility and never miss out on a great event. But for $475m you simply can't have both.
-
As local tax payer, I think you're wrong.
Even though I live overseas, I own land in Canterbury - driving distance from the stadium - and will definitely go to games in a roofed stadium.
In a freezing massive regular assed stadium where there is a good chance that half the seats are miles away from the action? Not so much.
The limited size of Christchurch is what makes it nice, and is why we chose it. But it won't get a Lions test.
-
@gt12 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
As local tax payer, I think you're wrong.
Even though I live overseas, I own land in Canterbury - driving distance from the stadium - and will definitely go to games in a roofed stadium.
In a freezing massive regular assed stadium where there is a good chance that half the seats are miles away from the action? Not so much.
The limited size of Christchurch is what makes it nice, and is why we chose it. But it won't get a Lions test.
Roof or no roof, it's a rectangular stadium so you're off the mark re seating being worse if there isn't a roof. And freezing? Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees? Nooooo. It'll keep the rain off whilst seated, but the way the design is going you'll probably get soaked as soon as you go for a beer and chips.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
And freezing? Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees?
Actually, yes. Have you been to Dunedin? The stadium heats up with a few thousand people inside - about a hundred watts a person, so every 10k is like 500 fan heaters on full bore. It won't be 2 degrees inside, and the rugby will be fantastic - dry balls, etc.
That said, it's a massive amount of money for a stadium. Stadium economics don't make sense, so spend what you need to get a decent venue --but as you say, it's a tradeoff between a roof and big events with the current budget.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Do you think being in a large plastic box will prevent the crowd from being cold if it's 2 degrees?
Throw in a 40kt southerly at 2 degrees and a roof is really quite a good idea, especially as the event will be better. Cancelling concerts due to weather and watching rugby teams struggle with the conditions isn't that appealing.
Agree about the concourse and design though. It should be an attractive design (that doesn't cost much) and you should be able to get beer and chips without getting wet.
