Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The grass doesn't get munted by hordes of people at concerts because the ground is perfectly dry and the grass in perfect condition.
WTF are you talking about? I've seen perfectly dry grass ruined by hordes of people walking on it.
-
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The grass doesn't get munted by hordes of people at concerts because the ground is perfectly dry and the grass in perfect condition.
WTF are you talking about? I've seen perfectly dry grass ruined by hordes of people walking on it.
Where? And in what conditions?
I've also seen wet grass not ruined by hordes of people walking on it (GnR at cake tin etc).
A retractable pitch is an expensive solution to a non-existent problem.
The reason natural grass struggles to grow in some of the stadiums with retractable roofs is because of the lack of natural light. This isn't a problem in a 30-35k stadium using the Dunedin polymer method.
-
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The grass doesn't get munted by hordes of people at concerts because the ground is perfectly dry and the grass in perfect condition.
WTF are you talking about? I've seen perfectly dry grass ruined by hordes of people walking on it.
Where? And in what conditions?
Splendour in sunshine for example. Foo Fighters at ANZ Stadium. Bieber and Adele concerts (neither of which I went to) which required 4500 square metres of new turf according to the curator.
-
Another $120M If National Wins
Council has $253M aside, Govt pledge $179M = $432M.
30K seats and a roof is $496M.
So now a sixty-four million dollar question...
-
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Is 30000, including temp seating, big enough for the major tests? What is the capacity in Wellington?
Wellington is 34,500.
With temporary seats it goes up to 37,500. Although for the Lions this year they had capacity of 38,500 which was more than I thought it was capable of holding. -
The two options which met potential users' criteria were:
- A 25,000-seat arena with a transparent roof. Estimated cost $465 million
- A 25,000- seat arena with a solid roof and retractable pitch. Estimated cost $496m Capacity could be increased by 5000 temporary seats.
I'm going to assume option A is the Dunedin style. Which cost $224m 7 years ago (construction costs were cheap then as during a recession).
But a $200m difference?
-
What's happening to the Albany Stadium upgrade? It was meant to have been completed this year.
North Harbour Rugby Union
The North Harbour Rugby Union was formed in 1985 and during this time has developed a reputation for playing colourful and entertaining rugby through all grades
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11486539
-
I went to the Rolling stones at the newly upgraded Adelaide oval a couple of years ago. The grass was covered in a sort of plastic/rubber matting to protect it from the crowd. Don't see why that wouldn't work on a Dunedin style ground. A retractable surface seems like an expensive and complicated solution to a problem the see through roof largely solved.
-
I wonder what the ongoing maintenance costs are for a retractable pitch. I can only imagine there are some serious hydraulics and rollers etc to move that sort of weight. I bet that gets expensive if shit breaks down. I think it is fairly common in the North American stadiums?
-
@chimoaus said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I wonder what the ongoing maintenance costs are for a retractable pitch. I can only imagine there are some serious hydraulics and rollers etc to move that sort of weight. I bet that gets expensive if shit breaks down. I think it is fairly common in the North American stadiums?
This is why I think the retractable option is stupid. The operational costs of maintaining all those moving parts.
Go the Dunedin route, it's just common sense. They've already done the ground-breaking risk taking for you, and proven the technology.
-
(Never been a fan of Veitch but what he says here is spot-on. )
Why New Zealand needs to get real on stadium size
The biggest reaction to the Christchurch stadium proposals this week is that, at 25,000 seats with the ability to add another 5000, it's too small.
Why would a city the size of Christchurch need anything over 30,000?
The All Blacks would presumably play there each season - that's one guaranteed sell-out a year.
Don't bank on the Crusaders doing that for anything other than a Super Rugby final.
Let's not ignore trends overseas. The NRL are reassessing their stadium strategies.
Crowds are down and the old Olympic stadium looks awful empty, so they're considering going back to suburban grounds.
Auckland should be looking at a centralised stadium of no more than 35,000 seats. Why go big when it's going to spend most of its working life half-empty?
Can you imagine the Warriors, or Blues, or a Mitre 10 game in a cavernous 50,000-seat stadium?
There's a simple case for smaller equalling better. Create a fabulous, intimate, rectangular arena for not just sport, but events that will make turning up fun and the experience bearable again.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11911828
-
@Salacious-Crumb said in Stadium of Canterbury:
(Never been a fan of Veitch but what he says here is spot-on. )
Why New Zealand needs to get real on stadium size
The biggest reaction to the Christchurch stadium proposals this week is that, at 25,000 seats with the ability to add another 5000, it's too small.
Why would a city the size of Christchurch need anything over 30,000?
The All Blacks would presumably play there each season - that's one guaranteed sell-out a year.
Don't bank on the Crusaders doing that for anything other than a Super Rugby final.
Let's not ignore trends overseas. The NRL are reassessing their stadium strategies.
Crowds are down and the old Olympic stadium looks awful empty, so they're considering going back to suburban grounds.
Auckland should be looking at a centralised stadium of no more than 35,000 seats. Why go big when it's going to spend most of its working life half-empty?
Can you imagine the Warriors, or Blues, or a Mitre 10 game in a cavernous 50,000-seat stadium?
There's a simple case for smaller equalling better. Create a fabulous, intimate, rectangular arena for not just sport, but events that will make turning up fun and the experience bearable again.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11911828
Well for me, the issue is the choice of the cheaper to build, economical to maintain, and light option v the dark, expensive option with acres of expensive moving parts to maintain.
But now he mentions it, I disagree, it is too small. Not by much (just 5k imo). Don't need the 43k like for like Lancaster Park replacement.
But with a roofed stadium , that is it, no extended capacity at a later date. I fullly expect nz to bid for a RWC approx 24 years after 2011. Christchurch won't even qualify for quarter finals.
A 28k expandable to 33k or 30k expandable to 35k gives them a bit more future proofing without creating an empty cavern.
Besides we've seen no details about the temporary seats. Are they like Dunedin? In that they're behind the posts and budgetary decisions meant they went the temp option? And they'll spend 90% of the time with them in place?
Having those Dunedin style temp seats behind at least one of the in-goals are good for concerts as the stage area.
-
Crusaders didn't sell out often. I went to the last ITM cup final at Jade Stadium/Lancaster park and there were maybe 3,000 people there. It was wet, but it was in November. But jeez, 3,000.
Building a stadium to fill once a year makes no sense. Smaller stadia, and then encourage season memberships. Look at the NFL for that - people maintain seats for decades and pass them on inthe family to allow them to get to games. That's what you want to aim for, the walk up crowd can get in line.
-
If Auckland built a new stadium with just 35,000 seats it would be expensive to go to games and we would never get to host any big events. There is no way they would go for that if they decided to build a new stadium there. As for Christchurch, if they build a 25k seat stadium, good for them. That won't get them a Lions test or a WC QF should we ever host one again. If Christchurch wants big events then they need it to be expandable to at least 35,000.
-
@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.
