Stadium of Canterbury
-
@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.
-
I was at the game yesterday. Rugby is a winter sport and adverse conditions are a part of that.
Having been wet the whole time, to varying degrees, I believe even more that the genuine need is for a state of the art open stadium with extended stand roofing.
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
I've been to several games at FBS, and a couple of those were on really cold nights. It was only marginally warmer inside.
-
-
minor upgrades should be fine, Football are more likely to be day games which makes the experience much more enjoyable, i went to a few games during the Fifa u-20 world cup and it was nice on a sunny day
It's highly unlikely a new stadium could be completed for it, or at least to any respectable standard, best to go with this seeing as everyone will know the history of why its there than to try and fail to do a new one
-
I'd be astonished if FIFA gave a shit about hosting matches in Christchurch to the point of agreeing to pay for upgrades to infrastructure when you could just schedule them elsewhere.
