Stadium madness
OK, so what do people think about this stadium business? I’ve been loosely following it over the past week or so and I must say I find it hard to come to grips with all the issues and the various interested groups who have a stake in the decision, and who actually gets the final say.
Keith has been leading the Green charge of opposition to a waterfront stadium, and will be joining forces with (of all people) Rodney Hide to express their opposition in the next few days.
Some of the issues from a Green perspective:
- The cost of a waterfront option, which is much higher that the option of redeveloping Eden Park, and probably has also been underestimated, meaning taxpayers will inevitably pick up the tab when it blows the budget.
- The fact that Auckland desperately needs public transport infrastructure, and the money would be far better spent on that.
- Transport issues, such as access, congestion, and parking.
- The lack of Government consultation of the small parties, despite the Greens’ agreement to abstain on confidence and supply.
- The fact that the stadium will most likely end up underwater due to climate change!
Bookmark to:
November 14th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Part of the problem is that the stadium is not a sports news story (or at least it shouldn’t be) it should be an urban development issue/story. The game of rugby in question will get played one way or another - so whatever happens to the Auckland waterfront and to Eden Park should be part of a broader urban plan rather than a sudden need to have an extra 12,000 seats available for an hour and a half in 2011.
Realistically after listening to Gary Moore on the radio yesterday I reckon Christchurch sounds like it has the best capacity to handle the event because it has already made integrated decisions about transport, accomodation and infrastructure that Auckland appears to have not yet made.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I think it is a great place for a stadium, I think NZ needs something like this.
I do however draw the line at paying for the thing, if the people of Auckland want a stadium then they (along with the NZRU) should pay for the bloody thing.
In all reality Eden park is dead, the resource management act and the fun police mean that the uses for Eden Park are limited at best.
If Cullen has 500m that he can “spare” from the budget surplus (MY MONEY) then I would quite like it back, failing that I want the money spent on Herceptin or on finishing the much needed motorway extension in Auckland and the Transmission Gully route in Wellington.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Firstly, I dont live in Auck.
If the two realistic choices are Eden Pk and waterfront, then my instinct says waterfront.
I’m a Tottenham Hotspur football supporter. The one and only time I visited their stadium in North London it was a shambles getting to and from the venue. And they have a real train line. This is one of the key reasons that Spurs are considering a move from Tottenham High Road.
Eden Pk needs a mass transit mass-makeover in order to be a modern stadium. It seems illogical to build transit infrastructure on that scale in isolation for one Auckland suburb that is reasonably central. Do it on the waterfront where it can be (better) integrated with britomart.
My instinct says that over the lifetime of a new stadium, the presesnt value of a waterfront stadium and its associated transport needs will be a whole lot less than of keeping Eden Park alive. The partly-aged, infrastructurally isolated, and residentially located Eden Park will need continual incremental upgrades in order to remain competitive.
To be considering apples with apples surely there is a benefit in the residual land/redevelopment value of Eden Park if the waterfront option is taken. So $6-7-800m project is aided with the offsetting of the alternate value of Eden Park. Assuming that the Eden Park administration is simply moved to the new venue.
Eden Park is now a poor cricket venue. As is Jade Stadium. When Wellington wanted a decent venue Athletic Park (bless it) was canned. Wellington now hosts superior rugby and cricket fixtures. Why not future proof Auckland (and lets face it, NZ) as a sporting location with a modern facility that will last generations.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
mikeymike Says.”I’m a Tottenham Hotspur football supporter”
You poor sod!….
November 14th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
A survey is running at:
http://www.telltrevor.co.nz/
Large numbers of Aucklanders seem to have voted in the last few hours, shifting the results towards Auckland venues.
People have put some interesting comments and suggestions on the site.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
bruv, i dont really know how it happened…
i’m tormented most weekends.
November 14th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
My gripe is not so much where it goes, but how it gets there. Every indication is that if the waterfront option is selected, Government will pass legislation to override the Resource Management Act to put it there. For that reason, I would favour the Eden Park option - whatever you think of environmental planning law, it ensures there is ample opportunity for public consultation, and it shouldn’t be overridden just because people haven’t got their shit together in time. The waterfront is environmentally sensitive - hell, it’s on reclaimed land - and I just can’t work out how they’ll be able to get crowds in and out without absolute chaos when they can only access it from one side. Unless, of course, they plan to have ferries coming from the Eastern Suburbs, North Shore and Te Atatu and docking into it on the harbour side. Piloted in by flying pigs, of course.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Why is ALbany not mentioned? It appears to be more do-able than Eden or Waterfront.
I prefer Jade. I think Chch can handle it. Central. A city that does big events very well.
I believe that Ports of Auckland need their space to attend to shipping.
Waterfront? Climate change? World class for water polo? Would a waterfront stadium be a bit like Te Papa? If I lived in or near Auckland I would not be happy about all those $$$$ for a blot on the landscape. Joy.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Lets be serious here, if you want a city that can really handle an event then there is really only one option (and no I do not live there) and that is Wellington.
I am sure that the cheapest option of all would be to lift the roof off the cake tin and add another 25,000 seats, everything else is ready to go.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
the best option is the old carlaw park site…
the only objections raised are that it is in private ownership..
well..so what..!
it’s called the ‘public works act’…
the govt uses it all the time..
that’s why i’m so surprised at their ’shock..!..horror..!..no way..!..’..in this case…
the other reason given is that a small corner of a very large domain will be used..
to my mind the environmental trade-off of that small piece of domain to avoid the carbunkle on the waterfront…is a no-brainer..
now..these are the only two reasons i’ve seen cited..
and they are both bullsh*t..eh..?
carlaw park is streets ahead of any other option…
phil(whoar.co.nz)..
and if those deciding this were at al gore today..they might be considering siting it on top of mt eden..eh..?
or..if they go with the waterfront option..factoring in pontoons into the design…
November 14th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
I’m conflicted. Christchurch is undoubtedly a more sensible option. As an Aucklander I actually like the idea of an iconic stadium on the waterfront … subject to the design being really excellent.
I like the centralized location… forget about driving there for a match or a concert, public transport becomes obligatory. And I love the idea of “ferries coming from the Eastern Suburbs, North Shore and Te Atatu and docking into it on the harbour side.” — if the project can give major impetus to maritime commuting, then that’s cool.
Eden Park is a non-option. A big stadium like that needs lots of concerts and other events that are not compatible with its residential location. A waterfront stadium would give Western Springs residents a break from the compulsory free concerts… hmmm… wonder if the speedway would fit too?
I’m not comfortable with the Greens systematically opposing the thing. The criticisms (non consultation, bulldozed planning, cost) are valid, but don’t play well. A mega-stadium is going to get done, come hell or high water (!), so there’s a need to engage to ensure it’s done well.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:25 pm
I’m surprised by my gushing tone. Perhaps I’m unduly influenced by the fact that I went to see the Blacks thrash France on Saturday in Lyon…
Lessons? Despite having a spur-line metro station downstairs, Gerland stadium is hell for transport, and they are going to build another one out in the suburbs… easier to drive to you see. Bad move eh?
November 15th, 2006 at 9:17 am
Albany is not an option, Joy, because of Auckland’s appalling public transport planning. There’s no rail line running anywhere near it, and from much of Auckland it takes three buses and up to 2 hours to get there. There are already major traffic jams when it is full at its current capacity, so the prospect of 60,000 people driving there is a nighmare.
Alistair, I don’t quite get the bit about Eden Park being a non-option because it requires events that are “not compatible with its residential location.” Anyone who has bought property near Eden Park over the last 50 years must have known what they were buying into. Like Western Springs with its speedway and concerts, I think it’s a bit precious for Johnny Come Lately residents to bleat about noise from activities that have been going on for many years before they moved into the area.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:39 am
And another good reason why the waterfront option should not be an option - tsunamis.
There is simply no way 60,000 people could be evacuated from a stadium with egress on only one side and moved to higher land in 15-20 minutes, which is all the warning we would have if there were a major undersea earthquake or volcanic eruption off the east coast.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:51 am
I wrote that the water front sadium is madness, especially when the Auckland and Taurunga harbour borads talked of almagamating to lessen heavy trucks on the road and use more rail. Auckland has a stadium and if the locals in Eden whinge about it well get a grip send it all to Christchurch to Jade where it will be welcomed. Time to grow up and behave professionaly as adults. The waterfront concept has no benefit other than those who wish to line their pockets and does no good for the rest of the country nor justify the expenditure when people are working trying to hold an honest job on appalling 3rd world class wages. And go hungry trying to be honest .
November 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Here is my take on the location of the stadium. The Greens should be arguing for the waterfront location.
Why?
Climate change is happening, and climate change refugees will become one of the biggest issues New Zealand will have to face in the next decades. With the major influx of refugees we will need a substantial holding pen for them while we sort out what to do with them. Ideally such a base should be by the water so it can easily deal with all the boat people.
So once the stadium has been used for the World Cup, followed by Clark’s 2011 election victory party (why else are they building it), it will still have a purpose. Oh yes, and why not make it so it can float!
November 15th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I’m dismayed the Greens are arguing against the waterfront option, not becuase of their reasoning, becuase it sounds “reasonable”, but becuase it is another opportunity for the Greens to slide on a bananna skin. The Greens didn’t need ot have a position on this, and would have done well to have said nothing.
As to my opinion, Waterfront is the only sensible Auckland option, as it’s an opportunity to have a new multi-purpose venue, rather than to patch up a footy and cricket ground. But, as a Canterbury resident, I’d be very happy for the job to fall to Jade…
November 15th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
“The fact that Auckland desperately needs public transport infrastructure, and the money would be far better spent on that.”
The proposal is to site a major transport user next to a railway station, a bus terminal and ferry landings, and within easy reach of motorways. That seems quite sensible to me.
“Transport issues, such as access, congestion, and parking.”
Do you seriously think Eden Park is a better option on any of those counts? There are 20,000+ carparks near the stadium site, and the ability to close Quay St to traffic for major events, without causing undue disruption. Unlike Eden Park, the stadium perimeter will be public space.
I really think the Greens have this one wrong. If the waterfront stadium proposal fails, that part of the waterfront will remain a park for used Japanese cars for the foreseeable future.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
I have to agree with Russell.
Transport not a problem, unless you are scheduling a test match for 4pm thursday evenings, a test sat night in that part of town or even sunday afternoon would work a charm.
But my big beef with this whole debate has been the fact that NZ doesn’t have a civic architectural pride. We (like our public holidays) have a sort of cultural cringe when it comes to great public architecture.
good public architecture is iconic and provides more to the cultural heritage of an area than the singularity of a rugby world cup final. this is a chance to build something that will rival other great achitectural feats around the world, something that will install pride and bestowe the feelings of progress, pride and confidence.
Why are we willing to live with beige options all the time. Just because our music and cinema have in the past been bleak, why does the architecture need to be so? I agree that the new drawings leave a lot to be desired, but in the hands of a progressive architect, lets see what iconic oceanic stadium we can come up with.
imagine overlooking the harbour on a warm summers evening and seeing the glow of the stadium as the winning runs are hit against australia, or the roar of The Who playing in NZ for the first time in decades, or the vibrancy of another lIons tour, a sthe crowd spills out to the new revamped waterfront site.
Auckland has had some architectural disasters in the past, shoebox appartments etc. This is a chance to go big, do it properly, do it as green as possible, and lets get a chance to be proud of a National stadium.
I for one will have no feeling of belonging if Eden park is upgraded, where as a National Stadium on the waterfront being beamed around the globe saying come to this great place look what we have will win me over.
Build the bloody thing. Seriously Auckland almost doesn’t deserve this much attention and money if all it wants is a beige upgrade option.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
The Greens should forma a long line behind the folks that have not been consulted so far. The Greens didn’t get enough votes from the public to get enough MPs to form a Government with Labour, remember? Many wish that had not been so but democracy happens.
I am not that surprised that until there were some solid options the Government kept much of this under wraps.
In that context the Green’s opposition seems petulant. I would like to see Auckland CBD become a vibrant and interesting place to visit, much like Wellington has become, and I think this could be the catalyst for that to take place. The other complaint about the environment…well there’s a friggin port there right now, hardly a pristine nesting site for little blues
November 15th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
By the way, according the the ACC’s site *both* options need legislation to bypass the RMA.
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/stadium/comparison.asp
November 15th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
as for d buckley saying the greens should have no opinion..
i would like to go on record as saying i was chuffed to see them stepping up on this..
of course green concerns must extend to local/civic issues..
and um..why is nobody looking at/evaluating carlaw park..
just because we are told we only have two options..dosen’t necessarily make it so..eh..?
are we sheep..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
When discussing the stadium issue with people this week, the one benefit of the waterfront stadium that they all mentioned first, was “it’ll bring people to the city - imagine the crowd spilling out into bars and restaurants”.
There are cheaper and more frequent ways of bringing people into the city. How about a public square with a big screen TV that shows all the big games live for free?
The soccer world cup in Germany this year is widely recognised as having been a huge success, not because of the quality of the football or the stadia, but because of the fan-friendly atmosphere that was encouraged by the organisers with huge fan parks set up with big-screen TVs and tent bars and other activities and the like, and also the way the local communities were encouraged to adopt the team that were based in their town.
The trouble with Auckland is that a civic square that could be used for organising downtown events is an anathema - any open space in Auckland must be converted into a car park. Sigh.
November 15th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
I am always amazed at what people want to put on wterfronts. The event center - shopping mall thing in Wellington was amazing. Wellingtons waterfront is great, so build two boxes that have no external windows? Good idea.
There is only so much waterfront. Why not use it for water related things.
don
November 15th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
I formally dubb the Locke/Hide duo “The Polar Pair”.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Phil - you are supporting the Greens position, which is to fix up Eden Park.
This is a binary decision, you can opine what you think that should happen, but the options are (a) Waterfront, or (b) Eden, and if you are opposing Waterfront you are voting for Eden.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
i think hide and locke should go on dancing with the stars…
as a couple…
and as rodney has been working out…i guess he’ll be ‘he’….eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 15th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
dbuckley - ??
phil has exercised his right to say what he likes … as anyone else can. You might also be interested in the variety of comments on the “Tell Trevor” site I noted above. There seemed to be quite a few last night that were promoting Carlaw Park. I understand that a whole bunch of these comments are going to be sent to Mallard.
A lot of people were saying also that Auckland has too many stadiums already that aren’t being used enough, and that this new one is an expensive proposition essentially for one event. Some were commenting that the Cup should be held in Australia.
I like Stuey’s comments above. Not everyone wants to sit in a stadium.
November 15th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Stuey, Prim,
The issue at present is with the stadium. Regardless of what happens or doesn’t happen with civic squares, the need for a field to play the bloody rugby on doesn’t diminish.
Given that this is proposed as a binary choice, then the argument “the waterfront stadium will bring spectators into the central city and the eden park option wont” seems pretty cut and dried.
Civic squares and stadia aren’t exclusive you know.
November 15th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
i’ll say again.
cut a deal with eden park. build on the waterfront. relocate eden park admin to the waterfront. flog off the eden park assets to offset the waterfront cost.
a no brainer.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
don’t get me started on the binary choice, and phil was clearly arguing for a 3rd option so don’t blame him … personally I am in favour of the original very cheap spruce up Eden Park a wee bit option, I don’t see why we need a 60,000 seater hugely expensive stadium at either location when Auckland is over abundant with stadia which struggle to break even already … business case? what business case … see how they say that exhibitions and trade fairs can go in the stadium, er what about the brand new Vector Arena? And how many touring artists will really fill a 60,000 stadium? I’d maybe support a waterfront stadium if they pulled down some of the existing ones and got other sports to use it too.
I guess it’s like who you vote for, Phil and I don’t want that to only be a binary choice either.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
waterfronts are ideal for many things. They are ideal for loading and unloading ships, for siting rowing clubs, yacht clubs and ceremonial waka houses, for fishing off wharves, to go to be close to nature or to pose with the beautiful people, and they’re good locations for apartments as they can’t be blocked out. In fact, about the only thing they’re not obviously suited to is playing rugby.
Rugby stadiums can become landmarks and icons in places where there otherwise wouldn’t be any - Carisbrook is almost hallowed ground, but without a rugby stadium it would be a bleak industrial area beside a motorway that nobody outside Dunedin would have heard of, and nobody would ever get excited about going there. We should put our sports grounds in places that would have no sense of place without them. And leave the waterfront for things that naturally go with waterfronts.
They say Eden park is unsuitable cos they’re not allowed floodlights there. Well, that might be an issue in Tromso (northern Norway) where they have 4 months of continuous nighttime each winter, but in Auckland the sun rises every day. Surely any rugby match that’s worth playing is worth scheduling some daylight time for?
November 15th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Frankly, I have NO interest in a new stadium … or where it is or isn’t to be built.
I DO have an interest in WHY Government money should be found for such a venture … where that money would come from … and at the expense of what or whom else.
THEREFORE I suggest that Christchurch would be the best option because:
any needed extensions to Jade Stadium would cost much less. The City has already proved itself capable of running such an event successfully at less expense, and it seems, with less disruption to the many who are not interested in Rugby football.
In a flat area of a city which has a whole grid of roads, traffic which wanted to avoid the conjestion could do so easily, and our excellent Metro bus system would no doubt be be able to deliver spectators to the event from all directions.
AND any (mad?) Greens who for whatever reason wanted to attend this event would be welcome to stay with local Greens (including me!)
My case rests!
November 15th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
The stadium could actually have a real roof… closed… indoors… no problems with wind and rain and mud….
Wait… it’ll have to be a roof that opens so they can have wind and rain and mud…. and Rugby.
Maybe a floating stadium. We could tow it out to sea during a game
———————–
Seriously… I would go with the waterfront site if I were planning it…
I’ve had to think about it. Nobody except Mouldwarp wants to talk about anything else.
BJ
November 15th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Actually I favour Jade for the reasons elucidated by Eredwen, but you can’t tow it away during the game
BJ
November 15th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
I forgot the other advantage Christchurch would have:
It rains a lot less here than it does in Auckland.
November 15th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
sorry, I also meant to have as part of my FIFA world cup 2006 success story, as well as the big screen tvs in parks and plazas, germany also had brilliant mass public transport. (Same goes for success of Sydney 2000).
I have no confidence that RWC 2011 will be as well organised to make experience for fans pleasant. It’ll be more like what can we do to make money from them and forget about the basics like transport.
I have no confidence that we will see either free big screen screenings in parks or daylight games both due to the all powerful Sky TV.
I have no confidence that a sensible business-case decision that is best for the whole region and all sports will be made, given the politics with everyone protecting their patch.
I have no confidence that the architecture will be any good with the short timescale, nor that the architecture will be in any way environmentally friendly (Germany 2006 was “carbon neutral”!)
November 15th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
bj: The thought of towing it away (out to sea?) is … appealing ??
November 16th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Comparing this response of the government to any response to a need for actual infrastructure development (27 years to decide to build Transmission Gully), 15 years too late to upgrade rail in Wellington, No progress on Auckland Mass Transit, Privatisation and destruction of the rail network, No progress on transmission lines…. )
It is very clear that there is a “Bread and Circuses” mob in power in the major parties… and both need to have a piece torn off their sorry carcasses for this incredible display.
respectfully
BJ
November 16th, 2006 at 8:52 am
“Lets be serious here, if you want a city that can really handle an event then there is really only one option (and no I do not live there) and that is Wellington.
I am sure that the cheapest option of all would be to lift the roof off the cake tin and add another 25,000 seats, everything else is ready to go.”
I’d like to think so, too, but from what I’ve heard the engineering issues are too difficult.
If it has to be in Auckland, then it shouldn’t be at Eden Park (in the middle of nowhere, no real public transport, surrounded by NIMBYs who won’t let it be used for night games or concerts). Wellington has shown that the edge of the CBD is an ideal place for a stadium. If Carlaw Park isn’t an option (and I can’t say I’ve studied the plans in detail) then the Waterfront option is the best.
It was refreshing to watch Campbell Live last night and hear from the actual architect while seeing the actual renderings, not just random photoshop jobs. If they manage to enliven the edges with other activities, then go for it!
November 16th, 2006 at 10:01 am
>>There is no way that a 60,000 seat stadium fits harmoniously into Auckland’s precious waterfront vist
There is. The architect on Campbell Live presented a vision of how harmoniously it would fit in.
I agree with the point about iconic architecture. Let’s build something inspiring for once, rather than a dull, compromised public “facility” designed by committee.
>>The fact that the stadium will most likely end up underwater due to climate change
Oh for crying out loud….what rubbish.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am
I couldn’t care less really. It does strike me that as far as playing rugtby goes, one patch of flat muddy grass is much the same as any other, and I don’t see the point of spending half a zillion dollars so people can comfortably watch other people chasing a ball around.
Why not spend the whole pile on local sportsfields, playgrounds, balls, tiddlywinks and associated stuff, so that people get too busy playing games themselves to be bothered travelling all that distance to watch other people doing so?
November 16th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
I agree with eredwen, Jade is the best option. Most of the people I know that were opposing Jade quickly change their mind the moment it is pointed out that it is being upgraded to host 55,000 anyway.
Point in creating another new stadium to host 5000 more than that? Certainly not $500m worth…
Second best option: On top of Hamlins Hill -
Best access to public and private transport
Already council owned
Best views over the city to both estuaries and harbour
November 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
For those who don’t know Hamlins hill it is the big hill near Sylvia Park with the water tank on top,
with the Southern Railway on its left, the eastern railway on the right, flanked by Great South Road, Mt Wellington Highway and Station Road;
On ramps to the Southern (both ways), the South Eastern (both ways), and the Airport (Western? / North Western?) about 5 minutes to the west along Station Road.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
i dont like the way this is being railroaded by mallard and co. telling us (the public) we are ignorant about the options, etc, getting advice from the contractors who can really be trusted i’m sure…
waterfront seems to me to be very execessive and highly risky, all for the sake of a game you can watch on tv anyway. i reckon use Jade,
those people who really love rugby so much can find the billion dollars. id rather see the money spent on …. free beers (and herb) for everyone!
weedeater
November 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I voted for Jade on the Tell Trevor site. That site doesn’t have much info about the Jade option, unfortunately. I suspect that this will bias the results.
As taranaki and others have pointed out above, what is needed is a rugby field. If that is all they need, we have plenty of those already. A stadium is an add-on for spectators; but they can watch the game anywhere.
Ministers are political creatures; they respond to people’s opinions. Things can change fast.
November 17th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
“I want the money spent on Herceptin”
Isn’t Roche’s astroturfing wonderful:
http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2006/03/roche-herceptin-hype.html
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,3611.sm#post3611
November 17th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
richard p…
herceptin has a one in three cure-rate..
i’ve noted here b4 i think this is one the health dept cd have got right..
‘cos a teaching hospital in london is reporting around 90% success rates with a new cocktail of drugs..
none of which is herceptin..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 17th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
why has my herceptin comment disappeared..?…twice..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
frogmaster writes:
because a post that contains herceptin … drugs … herceptin … looks like spam of course. Our spam filter is Akismet by the way…
http://akismet.com/
November 18th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
frogmaster - Don’t worry most people think phil u’s comments look like spam too
November 18th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Prim - Agreed about the lack of information on Jade; most people I’ve talked to had no idea that it was going to be 55,000 seats either way. Even most of the die hard waterfront supporters crumble to agreeing that Jade is the best option in that scenario.
November 19th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
These are the objections of Civic Trust Auckland to the waterfront stadium:
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.
November 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Audrey,
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.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
Compie said:
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.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
“used for a multitude of events, limited ony by the imagination of those running the place.” unfortunately it will also be limited by competition and market forces as well.
* 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.
November 23rd, 2006 at 10:54 pm
great piece in the Herald
David Wilson: Waterfront option overlooks Metro Project messages
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/466/story.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=1041 2117
“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.”
November 28th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Fantastic news that the waterfront stadium idea (Diversion tactic) has been defeated, now all we have to do is convince Klarke and the central committee that the tax payer is not interested in funding Eden park either.
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.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Nice one, Big Bruv. Just goes to show that despite our frequent differences, there is actually something you and I agree on. Well, almost - I do think the Government has a role in fostering the arts, but certainly not in subsidising the multi-million dollar business that is international rugby.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Toad
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.