Stadium of Canterbury
-
This is no surprise to me. After the CCC already quietly down-spec'd it around a year ago by removing a concourse, now they've fucked around for so long they've run it smack bang into the biggest construction boom/crisis in NZ in living memory. The only options for them now are to reduce the size or further remove features.
The real solution is to ditch the fucking "We want Ed Sheeran" roof which might be $150m of the cost (wild guess but it's no doubt a huge proportion of the build cost), make it 40k seats with all the creature comforts and bring it in on or around budget. Problem is this would now take God knows how long to design and get moving as they never seriously considered it in the first place so don't even have concept designs. They could default to their design and build contractors' Australian experience and adopt and modify an existing design to suit.
-
@crazy-horse said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I can see Christchurch ending up with a disappointing compromise that pleases nobody and they end up regretting in years to come. When they eventually start the thing that is...
That was what we already had at 25k seats.
-
I wrote the following letter on 18.12.2019 and sent it to local and central government politicians and tried to get Stuff to publish it. Check out the last sentence of the first full paragraph.....
Dear Sir or Madam
I am writing to express my concerns around the Christchurch Stadium / ‘Multi-Use Arena’ project.
Firstly, I was extremely disappointed to read in the news on Monday 18/11/19 that there was already a shortfall in funding and that this was in actual fact getting worse by the month as building costs rise. Disappointed, but not at all surprised. After all, of the initial $500m projection of funds required to build a fully enclosed stadium of approximately 30,000, the total available between the CCC and central government was only $485m. So there was immediately a shortfall which could only mean either a shrinking in size of the stadium or a reduction in quality (aesthetic and/or functionality), ala the Metro Sports Centre. Naturally over time, the deficiency in funds only grows as costs rise, inflation takes an effect and more and more feasibility studies and the like are potentially commissioned.
Subsequently, on Monday 09.12.2019 it was reported the stadium would take the form of a 25,000 seat, fully roofed $470m project. This is an immensely disappointing announcement for a number of reasons including the low capacity and the accompanying narrative around the removal of several features in order to save costs. I understand the “elevated walkway” referred to is actually a mid-level concourse including toilets and concessions which now means all the toilets and concessions will be at ground level. This is not an optional extra, but a basic pre-requisite of a quality, modern stadium. Reduction of the façade area can only mean an aesthetic/architectural feature is being discarded. Similarly the roof design has changed. More and more, it seems this stadium is becoming a very basic (‘plastic’ roofed) box and I’ve already heard it referred to as a “click clack container”.
A basic 25,000 seat stadium is not an investment in our future, nor a vote in confidence for our region. It’s the absolute bare minimum requirement and little more than a lemon.
This stadium – irrespective of the nature of the project in terms of fully enclosed or not (and I’ll get to this later) simply must be aesthetically pleasing as it will be a centrepiece of our largely rebuilt central city. It should look impressive when lit up at night for events and it should possess some architectural features akin to some of the interesting buildings which have sprung up in the CBD since 2011. You should want people who approach the stadium on foot to be drawn to it and those walking past it should want to stop and photograph it. It also must, must, be of a size which can a) attract top-shelf sporting events, and b) be future-proofed for a population which CCC figures project could top 700,000 regionally within 50 years (well within the lifetime of any new stadia).
Instead, based on the ever-reducing funds available, the stadium continues to shrink in capacity (original talk was of a 30,000 or even 35,000 seat stadium but this is now 25,000 seats) and in all likelihood it will evolve into a very simple design which certainly won’t enhance our city-scape and may actually detract from it. We will end up with a very basic design like Forsyth Barr Stadium (FBS), only smaller again and just as ordinary-looking, if not moreso. Apologies here to Dunedinites, but novelty value is one of the few things your stadium has going for it. It’s functional but relatively small, it isn’t fully surrounded by seating - and normally doesn’t have any at all at one end – and it’s far from an architectural marvel aesthetically with it’s vast plastic cladding and the two end stand areas looking like additions. Compared to the likes of the Dallas Cowboys’ AT&T stadium – aesthetically, not in size – FBS is very, very ordinary. Again, functional, but ordinary.
Looks aside, such a small stadium leaves Christchurch in a chasing pack of several stadiums who would bid for All Black tests, including FBS, Waikato Stadium, Albany/QBE, McLean Park and possibly even Trafalgar park in Nelson. The majority of the ‘Tier 1’ tests would continue to go to Auckland and Wellington due to their greater capacities. Christchurch would never see a Lions test or any RWC knock-out games should we host this tournament again. The rugby public might be sated temporarily should a deal be struck with NZ Rugby for regular tests for the first few years, but after that it’d be open season and big games would be as rare as hens’ teeth (all you need to do is review the stats around All Black domestic test venues since 2012 to see how few Tier 1 games are shared around the smaller venues such as FBS, Waikato Stadium and Albany). For New Zealands’ second-largest city, this is simply unacceptable.
Why is there such a drive to build a small, roofed venue? Is the bang for our buck equation there with the MUA option? I think not.
As far as concerts go our only advantage over Dunedin would be ease of access from other centres and their own accommodation issues. However, as far as promoters are concerned, are these concerns? I’d say no, given people travel to Dunedin in their droves regardless. Could events at our stadium charge more for tickets, making Christchurch more attractive than Dunedin as a venue to promoters? I don’t see any reason why we could, with the added issue potentially of a smaller capacity. I understand also that FBS is provided at no charge to promoters in order to encourage big acts to Dunedin. Is the CCC (or V-Base) going to offer this?
What about other events which might attract people to Christchurch outside of rugby and concerts? I can’t think of any other major money-spinners.
The alternative, making good use of the $470m now available to us? A state-of-the-art (or close to it), ‘open roofed’ (that’s no roof, but fully covered stands) fully seated, fully surrounded (ie the stands all join up without gaps) stadium of approximately 40,000. Bankwest Stadium in Parramatta, Sydney, was recently completed at a cost of AUD360m (NZD382m) and seats 30,000. Upgrades to this design could be enclosed concourses and an attractive solid wrap all around the stands and concourses for weatherproofing and as a design feature, but there may be other costly features which wouldn’t be required. At AUD12k per seat, a similar design seating around 40,000 could be completed for approximately what’s currently available to the CCC. And a bonus: this stadium only took 19-20 months to build.
Part of the reason for the lack of resistance thus far to the MUA proposal is that people are so used to the extremely uncomfortable stadium we’ve had to deal with at Addington for the last seven years. But that doesn’t warrant an extreme reaction in another direction ie an enclosed rugby stadium, for this is to all intents and purposes – and rightly so - a rugby ground which can be used for other stuff on occasion. A truly world class new stadium, a jewel in the city’s crown, would by default attract hordes of people including even the most casual of fans initially for the experience, before settling back to above recent average crowds for rugby games as has been the experience in Dunedin since FBS was built. I attended dozens of games at Lancaster Park/Jade/AMI Stadium and no-one ever lamented not having a roof over our heads. On occasion, sitting in the cold, rain (or even heavy fog!) is simply part of the experience.
The opportunity cost of an open stadium? A concert every two years perhaps? One or two other small events….perhaps? What exactly is Forsyth Barr Stadium hosting that is ‘hurting’ our local economy so badly and so often that so desperately makes the CCC want to abandon sane principles such as future-proofing and the economic boosts provided by regular Tier 1 All Black tests and other major rectangular field sporting events? Given such a large chunk of the economic boost provided to Dunedin by the likes of Ed Sheeran concerts is hospitality sector income from Cantabrians travelling and being forced to spend money on accommodation, food and beverage for a night or two, how exactly do we benefit from this when the same fans would simply be driving from their homes to a local stadium, and back again, with a far lesser percentage of visitors than Dunedin receives due to our much greater local population? Surely an annual All Black test – even if not always sold out – is a bigger boost to our economy than a biennial concert we might otherwise miss out on to FBS? The larger open stadium could also attract stadium concerts we currently miss out on such as U2, Elton John etc.
From a national stand-point, if we are to ever attract a global event such as a Rugby World Cup again, having another large capacity stadium in addition to Eden Park and Westpac Stadium would be crucial when competing with other nations/regions. But it’s not just rugby; there are FIFA events (NZ Football has just announced a joint bid with Australia for the 2023 Womens’ Football World Cup for an example of the type of even which can and will come up) and more which we would also be able to host, and we could host finals matches with a stadium of significance.
An under-sized, otherwise aesthetically boring but roofed stadium is simply not the way forward for a recovering and growing region. A decision to build a 25,000 seat stadium – and particularly a basic design – would soon be regretted and lamented on a large scale throughout Canterbury and New Zealand in general as it’s limitations became apparent. An opportunity to build a landmark project is on the verge of being lost to what seemingly amounts to ill-placed Dunedin-envy. At the very least, some serious due diligence should be undertaken re non-roofed stadium designs, or if it already has, make the findings public and a legitimate topic for debate based on arguments for both options being fairly represented in an open forum. Has there even been a feasibility study commissioned/completed for an open stadium option? How much consideration has been given to this option? It feels at the moment as if after 8 years of inaction, the first idea to be somewhat ratified by CCC is now being rushed through and to hell with what’s best long-term.
-
-
Design of new Christchurch indoor stadium confirmed
Council advised the price estimate for the stadium had increased by $130 million.
-
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
insert all the facepalms here
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
@shark will rightly be all over this. FFS, it' giong to be the worst of both worlds - an expensive, but small stadium that doesn't attract the games.
If 25k was OK (which people are now trying to say), it could have been built years ago for a fraction of the cost.
Remember: Wellington stadium, $130M in 2000 dollars; 34.500
Dunedin $198M in 2011 dollars, 30,000 capacity (fully enclosed) -
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
@shark will rightly be all over this. FFS, it' going to be the worst of both worlds - an expensive, but small stadium that doesn't attract the games.
and with the roof little chance to expand it down the track
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
@shark will rightly be all over this. FFS, it' going to be the worst of both worlds - an expensive, but small stadium that doesn't attract the games.
and with the roof little chance to expand it down the track
stadia don't make financial sense, and that's OK. America's cup and RWC hosting always cost money, and that's OK -- they contribute to the 'wellbeing of the community'.
This, though, is pretty annoying; I reckon Canterbury could have had a world class stadium if people had been realistic about the costs and times, and just got on and pushed it through. Ah well, probably means we'll see more of the ABs in Auckland
-
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Just build a path through and around it and call it the Christchurch Urban Network Trail (for) Syclists (sic). The government will throw hundreds of millions at it.
Add a velodrome into the roofed stadium, probably get an extra $750 mill for the setup…
-
@kiwimurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
so it's basically going to be FMG Stadium Waikato except with poor turf conditions and a roof.
And a massive price tag
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@tim 25K seats! Isn't Christchurch the second most populated urban centre in New Zealand?
and confirmed as @tim posted this afternoon.
This is a terrible decision, I reckon this deeply compromises the stadium capability. Damn
-
just checking, is this 25k plus temp seating so 30k ish or grand total of 25k including temp seating?
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
just checking, is this 25k plus temp seating so 30k ish or grand total of 25k including temp seating?
I think it is 25k upto 27.5k with temporary
-
@machpants said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
just checking, is this 25k plus temp seating so 30k ish or grand total of 25k including temp seating?
I think it is 25k upto 27.5k with temporary
I think it's 25, and if they can find efficiencies, will be 27.5 with temp. 'hope is not a strategy' ... except here in politics
-
i dont want to seem disingenuous, @shark and i have gone back and forward on this, so to be clear
I am happy enough with a lower number of permanent seats (Forsyth Barr only has 18-20K depending on your source) if thats whats needed to bring the project to an acceptable budget, my experience being you only need those upper capacities for a couple of event a year....but...you do need that ability to seat those bigger crowds for those couple of games....and...preferably there should be some scope to expand down the track
basically, as has been said...worst of both worlds
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
i dont want to seem disingenuous, @shark and i have gone back and forward on this, so to be clear
I am happy enough with a lower number of permanent seats (Forsyth Barr only has 18-20K depending on your source) if thats whats needed to bring the project to an acceptable budget, my experience being you only need those upper capacities for a couple of event a year....but...you do need that ability to seat those bigger crowds for those couple of games....and...preferably there should be some scope to expand down the track
basically, as has been said...worst of both worlds
Yeah, that's where I come down on this too. I thought that a Forsyth model would have been fine. They'd probably not get Springbok tests but would still one to two tests a year. With this, the conversation changes a bit. I'd personally have taken out the concourse and had a regularly 20,000 seater than than be extended to 30,000 for tests.
-
