Stadium of Canterbury
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
If Auckland built a new stadium with just 35,000 seats it would be expensive to go to games
I thought the cost of opening Eden Park was eye wateringly large. Far far more than other stadia. It may be more expensive for big events, but got to be cheaper for smaller ones, surely
-
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
-
maybe instead of a retractable pitch, have extendable sides like in those caravans when the sides go out to give more space...25k with expandable sides to 35k, easy
-
@Wurzel said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
I think they may get concerts over Wellington if they have a roof. Dunedin seems to get a few concerts as it is. I agree wholeheartedly about capacity though.
-
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Wurzel said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
I think they may get concerts over Wellington if they have a roof. Dunedin seems to get a few concerts as it is. I agree wholeheartedly about capacity though.
One of the problems Wellington has with attracting concerts is the short runway at the airport means that bigger shows can't fly in all their gear. The solid roof is also one of the selling points for attracting shows because it's easier for setting up lighting, speakers etc and also has better acoustic performance.
The other reason that they prefer solid roof/retractable turf over the Forsyth Barr style is that you have a bunch of design limitations in terms of stadium orientation and stand profiles that Forsyth Barr has as a result of needing to ensure the grass gets enough light.
Based on the report they've produced the rugby tenants (CRU/Crusaders/NZR) won't be enough to cover costs so they need to be as attractive as possible to other events like music/shows etc.
-
Use CGI. Just make it look like there are 35,000 seats. Problem solved - ground always appears sold out.
-
Interesting. "Why is there so much resistance to stadiums being built"
Sir Eion Edgar, businessman and philanthropist who was fundamental in the planning and creation of Forsyth Barr Stadium, talks through what Christchurch needs to do in order to move the process of building their stadium forward faster and how they can make it more commercially viable. -
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Wurzel said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
I think they may get concerts over Wellington if they have a roof. Dunedin seems to get a few concerts as it is. I agree wholeheartedly about capacity though.
One of the problems Wellington has with attracting concerts is the short runway at the airport means that bigger shows can't fly in all their gear. The solid roof is also one of the selling points for attracting shows because it's easier for setting up lighting, speakers etc and also has better acoustic performance.
The other reason that they prefer solid roof/retractable turf over the Forsyth Barr style is that you have a bunch of design limitations in terms of stadium orientation and stand profiles that Forsyth Barr has as a result of needing to ensure the grass gets enough light.
Based on the report they've produced the rugby tenants (CRU/Crusaders/NZR) won't be enough to cover costs so they need to be as attractive as possible to other events like music/shows etc.
While it would be ideal to have purpose built stadia from a viewing experience perspective, I think that in NZ with the limited funds available multi-use venues like the caketin make most sense. Find a good solid site, preferably not in a built up residential area, build an oval and use it for rugby, cricket and concerts. Learn from the Eden Park and Western Springs examples, if possible safeguard usage rights from future influx of housing and militant residents' associations!!! On the subject of a roof, I'm not sure how much of a big deal they are. Rugby has always been played outdoors, all the big concerts in Auckland are at the roofless Mt Smart; the crowd capacity is all important because they can make more money per show. Smaller (but not necessarily less major) shows in Auckland go to Spark, indoors, better acoustics etc
-
What's the old saying? If you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody.
I think they should forget about factoring in cricket. They have Hagley Park.
-
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Wurzel said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
I think they may get concerts over Wellington if they have a roof. Dunedin seems to get a few concerts as it is. I agree wholeheartedly about capacity though.
One of the problems Wellington has with attracting concerts is the short runway at the airport means that bigger shows can't fly in all their gear. The solid roof is also one of the selling points for attracting shows because it's easier for setting up lighting, speakers etc and also has better acoustic performance.
The other reason that they prefer solid roof/retractable turf over the Forsyth Barr style is that you have a bunch of design limitations in terms of stadium orientation and stand profiles that Forsyth Barr has as a result of needing to ensure the grass gets enough light.
Based on the report they've produced the rugby tenants (CRU/Crusaders/NZR) won't be enough to cover costs so they need to be as attractive as possible to other events like music/shows etc.
While it would be ideal to have purpose built stadia from a viewing experience perspective, I think that in NZ with the limited funds available multi-use venues like the caketin make most sense. Find a good solid site, preferably not in a built up residential area, build an oval and use it for rugby, cricket and concerts. Learn from the Eden Park and Western Springs examples, if possible safeguard usage rights from future influx of housing and militant residents' associations!!! On the subject of a roof, I'm not sure how much of a big deal they are. Rugby has always been played outdoors, all the big concerts in Auckland are at the roofless Mt Smart; the crowd capacity is all important because they can make more money per show. Smaller (but not necessarily less major) shows in Auckland go to Spark, indoors, better acoustics etc
I'm not sure why you'd compare Christchurch's weather with Auckland's for a predominately winter sport. Dunedin has shown the way forward for what is reportedly an excellent venue (I haven't been there yet), well situated and purposed. Anyone who has been to dedicated stadia knows the benefit. A rugby game on a cricket oval is a tedious viewing experience - you're too far away. And make it small enough to have any atmosphere and you end up with a cricket ground an eight year old can hit boundaries on.
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@canefan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@cyclops said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@hydro11 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Wurzel said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It's really simple, the new Christchurch stadium needs to have a capacity bigger than the Caketin if it wants to get the pick of the events staged outside of Auckland.
Build a 25,000 seat stadium and five years later watch the complaints roll in about why they only ever host Pumas test or why Coldplay chose Wellington over Christchurch.
I think they may get concerts over Wellington if they have a roof. Dunedin seems to get a few concerts as it is. I agree wholeheartedly about capacity though.
One of the problems Wellington has with attracting concerts is the short runway at the airport means that bigger shows can't fly in all their gear. The solid roof is also one of the selling points for attracting shows because it's easier for setting up lighting, speakers etc and also has better acoustic performance.
The other reason that they prefer solid roof/retractable turf over the Forsyth Barr style is that you have a bunch of design limitations in terms of stadium orientation and stand profiles that Forsyth Barr has as a result of needing to ensure the grass gets enough light.
Based on the report they've produced the rugby tenants (CRU/Crusaders/NZR) won't be enough to cover costs so they need to be as attractive as possible to other events like music/shows etc.
While it would be ideal to have purpose built stadia from a viewing experience perspective, I think that in NZ with the limited funds available multi-use venues like the caketin make most sense. Find a good solid site, preferably not in a built up residential area, build an oval and use it for rugby, cricket and concerts. Learn from the Eden Park and Western Springs examples, if possible safeguard usage rights from future influx of housing and militant residents' associations!!! On the subject of a roof, I'm not sure how much of a big deal they are. Rugby has always been played outdoors, all the big concerts in Auckland are at the roofless Mt Smart; the crowd capacity is all important because they can make more money per show. Smaller (but not necessarily less major) shows in Auckland go to Spark, indoors, better acoustics etc
I'm not sure why you'd compare Christchurch's weather with Auckland's for a predominately winter sport. Dunedin has shown the way forward for what is reportedly an excellent venue (I haven't been there yet), well situated and purposed. Anyone who has been to dedicated stadia knows the benefit. A rugby game on a cricket oval is a tedious viewing experience - you're too far away. And make it small enough to have any atmosphere and you end up with a cricket ground an eight year old can hit boundaries on.
I've been to Forsyth Barr and overall it was pretty good. The main gripe for me was trying to squeeze into the permanent temporary seating at the end of the ground (I saw an ex AB jammed into his seat that night looking less than 100% happy) I went to what was meant to be the last night test at the Brook the year before, a few beers in and we didn't notice the cold... I know what you are saying re-ovals, the MCG would be a nightmare to watch rugby at, even at Homebush you feel miles away from the action. The Tin is a smaller oval and while it will never have the cauldron like atmosphere of a Suncorp stadium it is still a decent place to watch test rugby, wind rain and all
-
@crazy-horse said in Stadium of Canterbury:
What's the old saying? If you try to please everybody you end up pleasing nobody.
I think they should forget about factoring in cricket. They have Hagley Park.
Could do, although there's the issue that Lancaster Park was actually a cricket ground initially, and the insurance payout is in part based on that.
-
-
@stargazer that’s a very sad article a lot of History in that stadium
-
@chris Yeah, it must be sad to a lot of people in Christchurch and Canterbury to see the stadium in that state and seeing it demolished. I've never been there, so I've never seen it and experienced the atmosphere, and it also isn't my 'home' stadium, but for a lot of Canterbury & Crusaders fans there will be a lot of memories attached to it. And obviously, also a lot of sad memories of the reason for it being destroyed, that horrible earthquake.
-
@stargazer Not only the Great Test matches,Canterbury,Crusaders games. Cricket Nathan Astles double ton v England,Colin Croft shoulder charging Umpire Fred Goodall,Richard Hadlee steaming in,Peter Snell breaking 2 world records in 1962,Some great concerts held there New Zealand History very sad
-
I was fortunate enough to get a tour of the Stadium in about 2006 through a colleague who used to play for Crusaders. Even empty it was a real sporting coliseum. I have a lot of memories of the ground. Sad but lets hope Christchurch eventually get an iconic stadium - they deserve one. far rather money be spent there than on some mayoral vanity project in Auckland.
When the EP Southern Stand and Eastern Terraces were demolished they rescued a shit load of stuff and put it up for auction on Trade ME. I got the Eden Park sign that was above the players tunnel. Fucking thing was enormous had to get a truck to fit it in. Anyway wonder if they're able to do the same with Lancaster Park
Sport
