You might be surprised on what we agree.
I cannot agree that a government has any business fostering arts, if it is not commercially viable then it will (and should) die.

The government has no business funding sports stadia or the arts for that matter, if the Rugby Union (and I like the game of rugby) want the world cup then they should be paying for it or come up with sufficient private sector funding to pay for the thing.

“Auckland has a unique opportunity to create a wonderful public space that will benefit our multicultural society and appeal to our international visitors. Let’s make sure our policymakers get it right.”

* Other venues such as the brand new Vector Arena and the Aotea Centre will compete for trade fairs and exhibitions and concerts.

* It’s only worth it putting on a rock concert if the act is big enough to fill it. Thursday’s Herald had a quote from a promoter saying only one concert every two years, and that it would be more likely that a big act would play 2 or 3 nights at the Vector Arena than 1 night at Stadium NZ.

If there is to be a tsunami large enough to do dammage to such a structure, then the stadium is not the only waterfront structure that we should be concerned about, plrobably the least infact due to the increased strngths inherient in new building methods.

Compie, my comments re the tsunami risk didn’t relate to whether the building structure could withstand it. If you get something on the scale of the one that hit Thailand, Indonesia & Sri Lanka a couple of years back, no building structure is likely to withstand it. And that wasn’t even a really big one.

My comments related to the impossibility of evacuating 60,000 people and getting them to sufficiently high ground within the time that a tsunami warning would allow. No other building on the waterfront has that problem - as long as the tsunami warning system is adequate people could be evacuated sufficiently quickly from other waterfront buildings for loss of life to be minimal. But it’s impossible get 60,000 people out of a building that has egress on only one side and move them up to Albert Park and Constitution Hill in 20 minutes, so loss of life would be massive if a big tsunami generated off the East Coast hit a full waterfront stadium.

with all due respect “this type of development on the delicate foreshore interface between land and harbour is inappropriate”.

Could you please describe for me how a dirty great port with closed doors as delicately interfacing with the harbour?

As for physical barrier, in the light of the additions to the original plan, to include a beach and continious walkway around the stadium, in the previously mentioned locked off area of the harbour, are these views a little too idelogical.

I completely agree with the expenditure, but concidering this is a Labour govt and they aren’t spending that sort of money on those noble infrastructures, what chance would a National government. They aren’t spending that money on hips, or herceptin, or schools or grommits…

Iwi without a doubt should be consulted.

As for the risks. I have heard everything form jetboating terrorist, tsunami and other such calamitious situations being bandied about. If there is to be a tsunami large enough to do dammage to such a structure, then the stadium is not the only waterfront structure that we should be concerned about, plrobably the least infact due to the increased strngths inherient in new building methods.

As for the last point, it is a real shame that architectural aesthetics are not included in the cultural heritage of the city. Auckland city (and let’s not be fooled here) is not an altogether beautiful city, at least the aformentioned down town area isn’t. I have no doubts about the previous prisitne beauty of the uninhabbited greater Auckland area, but I am under no illusion that the swathe of industrial complexes, motorways, wharves, highrise developments, degenerating urban ghettos and insanely none too discrete apartments littering the north shore waterfronts, collectively add up to a beautiful package. There is no doubt what so ever that parts of the city are beautiful, and standing on beaches looking east can allow for beautiful vista’s, however if as Ms Duder so emotivly alluded to yesterday, there was an unobstructed view of the harbor from the city and this was built it would be an abonomation, but I can’t remember the last unobstructed view of the containerless, skyscraperless, cargo shipless view of the harbor.

Stunning civic architecture can and in this case probably will add to the aesthetic and cultural heritage of an evolving urban landscape.

Finally, this stadium is not for one single event, nor should it be, it will be used for a multitude of events, limited ony by the imagination of those running the place.

Civic Trust Auckland wishes to object in the strongest possible terms to various current proposals for the possible development of a new rugby stadium in a waterfront location, whether to be on the Waitemata Harbour foreshore, at the Tank Farm, or in one of several locations proposed in the City wharves area, or on a site on the Manukau Harbour.

We consider that this type of development on the delicate foreshore interface between land and harbour is inappropriate, being out of scale in local terms, acting as a visual barrier, blocking views from both harbours to the City volcanic cones and protected views from the Waitemata Harbour to Auckland Museum.

A major stadium would be a physical barrier placed between the City and its foreshore at a time when there is enormous public demand for public access to be granted to foreshore sites, subject in the case of the Port Authority to its ability to continue its activities and retain an appropriate level of security.

We object particularly to the development of a major non-conforming land use on land currently used by the Port Authority, in so far as it will compromise current and future Port needs and expansion potential and therefore compromise the future of the Auckland economy. Furthermore, at least one of the possible sites will also compromise the ability of an expanding ferry service to achieve additional ferry berths.

We question the viability of getting 60,000 people to and from such a venue, located either on the Waitemata or Manukau foreshores.

We object strongly to the expenditure of an amount considered to be at least $500 million and apparently costed reasonably reliably at a possible $1 billion. $1 billion will pay for 8 high schools.

This far exceeds the published cost of upgrading Eden Park (originally quoted in the vicinity of $350 million). The only reason that a new stadium was proposed in the first place, was that it was (as recently as a few weeks ago) originally supposed to cost the same as the Eden Park upgrade.

Why is it that the Eden Park upgrade costs themselves have not been questioned, and why has the possibility of adding temporary accommodation at Eden Park, which can be removed after the event, not been properly canvassed, bearing in mind that the ongoing need for a stadium of 60,000, either in Auckland or elsewhere in New Zealand, has not yet been fully justified?

We note that under the new Act concerning the foreshore, it is necessary to consult with Iwi over land development. We recognise that Iwi rights are important and should be given careful consideration.

All waterfront locations represent a tsunami risk and there is further risk from rising sea levels as a result of global warming. Why have these factors been ignored?

We object to any attempt to fund a new stadium regardless of where it is constructed, or the Eden Park upgrade, from local or regional authority rates, from a poll tax on all tourists passing through the region, or a surcharge on airline fees and charges. No matter how important the Rugby Union is in this country, it surely has no right to impose on the region or on the country as a whole, ongoing charges extending through to future generations, merely to enjoy a three week long, once only sporting event.

We urge all parties to rethink before a planning and financial disaster is imposed upon this beautiful City and the people of the region.