Stadium of Canterbury
-
@shark hey fella,
without weighing in again on the stadium, thought this was an interesting perspective on Dunedin stadium 10 years on. It's a fantastic stadium - we travelled down to see the Blues in 2011 - but the funding has still ben a major headache. Frankly, business cases for stadia are like those for big events - not worth the paper they are printed on.
Spending on public facilities is fine, but utlimately it's a judgement call as to the cost/benefit. $500M is a massive amount for a stadium in NZ. I don't think any others have cost anything like htat - Dunedin was $200M, from memory Wellington was $135M at the time, I think Waikato Stadium cost about $30M (if Wikipedia is correct), the upgrade at Eden Park was about $200M. Albany was $40M in the late 90s.
seems to say that open air stadia with minimal covering is cheap - if you have the land. Roofs don't seem to stack up in the business case; massive costs incurred and huge geotechnical and structural implications. That said, playing outdoors in winter at night is bcoming a thing of the past.
A decade on, stadium scars remain
Just a decade ago, Dunedin was a fractured city. Emotions were at boiling point as the DCC continued to push forward with a vision for a roofed...
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Waste of money, on this dump.
not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy
It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.
How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.
this, seems like a weird strawman augment to accelerate building a new stadium "wont someone think of the tourisim!"
most people from anywhere outside Aussie will only come to NZ once, maybe twice if they do north once and south the other....if theyve already been and seen the "shitbox" as you call it (an awesome feat of engineering being design and built in like 6 months for me)...there was probably little chance of them coming back even if coming to see a stadium was the reason the travelled
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Waste of money, on this dump.
not if the alternative is Chch missing out of hosting games, the end goal for any of this or the new stadium isn't the stadium....its what it brings to the city, either events for people to enjoy or boosts to the economy
It'd be a great look: Christchurch, a city largely rebuilt 12 years after a series of 'quakes, and the image - the shop window - we offer to the largest global audience any event here has ever had, is of that absolute shitbox. Sure, we'd get a couple of crowds of maybe 20k but what damage is done to future tourism in the process? No thank you.
How many cities have your bypassed because you once saw a rubbish stadium on the telly? I think you're far too emotional around this to have a clear thought process.
People travel to cities because of iconic buildings and landmarks. I went to Dallas last year largely because of a cool stadium which was the shop window. And I can tell you the city itself - aside from a neighbourhood called Deep Ellum - is a bit of a bore. You don't think the inverse can be the case?
you may do that but you cant think thats the norm for everyone, and we're talking chch, world renowned buildings of significance were never on the cards other than some of the clever emerancy works done after the earthquake...like the shit box you hate so much
chch is the gateway to the south island, thats its main draw card, people expecting Wembley or the Camp Nou have delusions of grandeur
You're kidding, right?? The entire argument for the MUA which is going to be built is tourism! It's about Ed Sheeran concerts. The fact that it creates a dry sporting arena is secondary. If you're not abreast of that then you have no place in this debate.
no one is travelling from outside Nz to come see a concert in chch, doubt too may people will be coming from outside the south island and if they are they coming to see the concert and not the stadium as you alluded too as a tourism pull earlier, maybe pick an argument and stick to it
and as for "Knee jerk decision"...its taken the better part of a decade...i cant imagine anything less Knee Jerk if i tried
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums.
Because most acts go to Auckland and that's it. Before Spark Arena was built that stat would have been completely different.
It might still be so if Eden Park could hold concerts.As I said how many concerts do they think they'll get? How many acts want to book a 25k seat stadium in a city with a population of less than half a mill and a broader catchment of under 1 Mill?
Dunedin normally gets a couple of big ones year plus lots of smaller local events and thats a much smaller population base
You're obviously not familiar with my standpoint on this. That combined with the fact that the debate has become a little convoluted over the last few posts.
I'm certainly not arguing for a MUA, let alone for the ludicrous reason that it might attract the occasional big gig. You've just made the sound point that very few people would travel to Chch for a gig. This is another reason the MUA is a major fuck up.
I'm not saying people will travel to Chch for a stadium. I'm saying people can be put off travelling to Chch due to a shit stadium - the existing one - being their sole vision of the city.
-
@Kiwiwomble It's knee-jerk in that a huge part of the reasoning behind the MUA is to get concerts which may otherwise go to Dunedin, and by far the concerts which have attracted the most publicity in this regard are the series of Ed Sheeran gigs Dunedin got a couple of years back. From that point on, the momentum swung unequivocally towards the MUA concept and those concerts remain a focal point whenever anyone promotes the economic benefit of the MUA.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
doubt too may people will be coming from outside the south island
The sheer bloody number of people I saw going to Ed Sheeran from Welly and further afield would beg to differ.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
-
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I think you're overdoing the whole FIFA thing but I agree with you about the roof.
How many concerts do they think they will get anyway?
Given the choice my priorities for a stadium would be
1 A rectangle - fuck all this multi sport shit
2 Correctly aligned vis a vis prevailing winds
3 Great Viewing lines from every seat.
4 Steep stands see 2 above but also for atmosphere
5 65% of spectators stay dry
6 Good amentities for spectators
7 Good links to public transport
8 Covered stadium
9 Pretty designSomeone talking sense.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Yes, and it all comes down to capacity. Spark can only hold 12K.
Mt Smart Stadium is the top-ranked New Zealand stadium in Pollstar’s Top 50 Outdoor Stadiums worldwide (#15), according to rankings released at the end of June. The 2020 mid-year Mid-Year Special rankings are based on ticket sales, with Mt Smart Stadium rising 10 spots since 2018.But I've also been to a concert at Mt Smart that was shortened because of the impending bad weather.
-
I'm torn because on the one hand, battling the elements is a part of rugby but on the other hand, games in Dunedin tend to be of a higher quality. As long as the majority of games in NZ are held outdoors then there shouldn't be an issue of players not being used to playing in sideways rain.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Hocum yourself - I specifically said not 100% of the time.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The commercial landlord went to the principal tenants and asked what they wanted before starting, just like every commercial landlord in the country would. Said tenants said they wanted a roof, so the landlord discussed the impact on budget and the number of seats, and the tenants still wanted a roof, so that's what they're getting.
Also, most international concerts and similar events in NZ tend to be at covered arenas, not open air stadiums. Obviously that's not the case 100% of the time, but it's a lot more common than not.
Your last paragraph is hocum. Elton John played his NZ gigs earlier this year outdoors. And in 2015 we saw him at the Cake Tin.
Springsteen played at Christchurch Stadium and we saw him at Mt Smart.
A lot of major gigs are held at open stadiums.
Hocum yourself - I specifically said not 100% of the time.
The truly big shows are at outdoor stadiums. U2, the Foo Fighters also. Quite a lot of them.
The point is, is the MUA actually even big enough to attract these acts?
-
@mofitzy_ said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'm torn because on the one hand, battling the elements is a part of rugby but on the other hand, games in Dunedin tend to be of a higher quality. As long as the majority of games in NZ are held outdoors then there shouldn't be an issue of players not being used to playing in sideways rain.
Playing in rain soaked bogs isn't an issue with modern drainage, but bad weather is compounded by the kickoff times. Players with the skills and conditioning of modern Test players in good conditions provide a much better spectacle. And while NZ's player base is generally more skilled than its opponents, it would make sense to provide a better climate for players and fans alike.
-
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Increase the budget and build a larger, better quality stadium with a roof. Problem solved.
-
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@pukunui Yep, well, if only that were possible. Best of both worlds right there. I hoped for a moment that the Govt would deem the stadium worthy of further investment to stimulate jobs after the loxkdown, but I think that's a dead duck.
Agree that would be the best option.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
Here are sone facts for you. The initial budget was $500m. The amount eventually contributed by the CCC and Govt was $485m. The council chose for some reason to only take $235m from a pool of recovery monies the GOVT had committed. The amount now available is $473. This is on record. When you dig out the council doco re the stadium (link to this somewhere far above) and read it, you find that the concept design has already been down-spec'd and an upper concourse deleted. Build costs go up by the month. We have inflation. The design as far as I'm aware isn't complete and all the CCC has been able to do thus far is notify the market of an impending tender. That'll take several weeks, once available.
Then, in the wake of Covid-19, rising unemployment and Fletcher Building scaremongering, we'll have a huge public debate when they award it to an Australian contractor who imports significant materials from overseas, which is the cheapest way of building it but possibly not the most socially acceptable in the current climate. This will create further delays. When all this is said and done, the existing design will no longer be achievable for $473m, and it'll have to be down-spec'd again as it already had been after $12m was squandered on something.
All the while, the CCC will be blowing wads of cash on cycleways even the cyclists don't use.
-
@Kiwiwomble And by the way, I have sent a letter to every CCC official and MP i think could make a difference. Unfortunately they're all behind the MUA.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
seems like some of us are going around in circles and things are getting mixed up, apologies if thats the case @shark
to summarise my feelings, i dont think chch needs a huge stadium, in the years i lived there i never heard of people not being able to get tickets for games when they wanted, other than maybe an AB's test and i dont think building a stadium for once a year (or less) let alone for lions tours is a good idea
a smaller (dunners or slightly bigger fixed seating) sized is more than enough and if it is believed that can be built with a roof for the budget they have then great, anything we can do to get people going to games again is a win for me and if more comfortable does that then great
Herein lies the problem though, and its something not one single poster has been prepared to respond to: $473m isn't enough even to build a FBS sized indoor stadium with all the comforts of a modern stadium and any kind of aesthetic appeal. And you certainly won't get anything larger.
So we're left with a Dunedin-sized stadium at best, with minimal features and comforts, and minimal to no aesthetic appeal. Potentially a building people will complain about the look of, and already under-sized, let alone in 25 years.
Alternatively, for $473m we could build a truly world class 35,000 to maybe 40,000 seat stadium with extended stand cover, multi-level fully enclosed concourses and genuine aesthetic appeal.
Which is it..."its not enough to even build FBS" or "we're left with a FBS size stadium"
and if you're going to have a go at everyone for not addressing it...prove it...the engineers and architects believe its doable, what eveidence had you got to prove its not..because someone stould give that to someone that actually matters
Read the full sentences and they make perfect sense. You're being extremely petty trying to catch me out like that, and quite incorrectly. $473m isn't enough to build another FBS WITH bells and whistles. At best it gets us a FBS without bells and whistles. Makes perfect sense.
You keep saying that like is just an accepted fact...it’s not, Ive explained I work for an engineering consultancy, in chch on the rebuilt and now in melbourne...what your background that allows you to know something as a fact no one else does?
