Island Life: All stadium, all the time
99 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
I wonder if Keith Locke did a study on the amount of air pollution caused by private motor vehicles going to a 60,000 seat Eden Park as opposed to how people might use PUBLIC TRANSPORT ENMASSE! to get to a waterfront stadium. Or has that not occured to him. Odd seeing as how its a particular bug bear for the Greens. It would also attract gigs like the U2 concert which I'm sure most people drove to. Locke thinks he represents all greens with this soapbox he's been on. Well not this f**ker!!!!!!
Locke: And when I get that feeling, I've got, selective thiiiinking, selective............... thiiiiiiinking.
-
Some good posts and much food for thought. Its funny how an issue like this brings out parochial myopia. Posters to this column seem well aware of the hollowness of the straw man arguments.
The reality is that the city needs a publicly accessible major event stadium that belongs to the city and nation, not an interest group.
Most tourists from overseas would be horrified at the thought of having to drive to a venue and yeah I know that the bus companies would be able to drag out a few old leftover Bedford schoolbuses to transport folks but the issue remains, from where?
I know Sydney's Olympic stadium isnt perfect (its mighty good tho and, you can see the harbour bridge and the tower) but its a whole lot better than the festering cesspit of industrial waste that was there and the ability to just amble off the train straight into the venue just rocks.
The point that the ports need space is real, but it is mighty easy to jamb a few piles into the mud and expand the port space. We could put a railway line or three in while we are at it. My point is that it is an absolute cakewalk to create cargo handling facilities and these could be simultaneously constructed. I think the arc have their heads stuck in the 80s and something other than Aucklands and the nations best interest at heart. Follow the money here guys! -
The provincial parochialism is all very interesting and that... but at the end of the day its not just Auckland but New Zealand that is in desperate need of a world class stadium and the world cup is only 4 and half years away.
Eden Park is all very well for nostalgia and all that but its the 'cheap blu-tack' option and its in the middle of chuffin' suburb. Having grown up two streets away from Eden Park I can asure people from outside of Auckland that after the rugby there is absolutley nothing to do and nowhere to go. How are 60,000 thirsty and hungry punters supposed to get into downtown Auckland from suburban Mt Eden? Simple. They won't. And with that a perfect chance to recoop some kind of revenue for revamping EP will be missed.
The Waterfront Stadium, while more pricey, is the best option in the long term. I won't go over its enormous logistical benefits as this has already been covered ad nauseam.
Can anyone tell me are there any plans for either stadium to cash in on the AB's or NZ rugby's world fame and have a decent onsite merchandising outlet? .......
-
The reality is that the city needs a publicly accessible major event stadium that belongs to the city and nation, not an interest group.
-
I'll try that again
The reality is that the city needs a publicly accessible major event stadium that belongs to the city and nation, not an interest group.
Well posted, Indeed the nation needs public accessible etc. The "cake tin" represents the prototype and while I would love the WC final to be at an upgraded "layer cake", I recognise that Auckland is where it should be.
Also agree with the comments regarding Keith Locke, he does not represent me and he is not doing the Green Party any favours.
-
What "motorwayed environment"? We have one small bit of motorway going north, plus another one going south. That's that, but there's no avoiding either.
Keith Locke should've campaigned on a carbon tax platform. Imagine 60,000 flatulent rugby fans in one place blasting holes in the ozone layer! Has to to be worse than the greenies farting around in their pre-emission control petrol and diesel cars, eh?
-
RE: Matt Jeffs
Great points there Matt, having been to many games at Twickers over the last 4 years I was always amazed at the amount of people that would flood into the shop there and spend up large, we had a friend who would regularly part with 50 quid a game.
And then the town of Twickenham would be awash with supporters, all mingling and reliving the spectacle they had witnessed. Something that we owe to travelling supporters, and a chance for us to show what New Zealanders are really made of, some true Kiwi hospitality, something I feel we are sorely missing at the moment, and what New Zealand used to be about. And as musch as I have had some great nights there, I'm not sure if the Kingslander can accommodat 60,000, although after the last game I went to it was like they were trying!!
-
I think that most of you don't realise how much Auckland needs the container wharf. Most people seem to think that the shipping can just be moved to New Plymouth or Tauranga....but quite simply - it cant.
Tauranga hasn't got a big enough turning basin to support the biggest ships that come into Auckland....what that means is that ships come in then can't get back out. Also - the Tauranga Port cannot support the large amount of imports that come into Auckland.
New Plymouth.....well quite simply - it would be dangerous to send such a large amount of shipping into a port that is open to the Tasman sea. Ships can't get into the port when it is just slightly windy - and can you see a weeks worth of Aucklands shipping traffic just sitting there outside New Plymouth? New Plymouth also isn't big enough for the big ships and really isn't an option.The other thing most of you don't realise is that 85% of what comes into Auckland through shipping - stays in Auckland. Can you imagine the disaster if that 85% then had to be put onto the roads and freighted into Auckland on trucks???
The other thing you all dont realise is that when the ARC refer to how bad the Stadium would be to the waterfront - they are referring to the 10 year plan that is in place for that part of the city. The Auckland waterfront will be much better if the plan is carried out than if a stadium is plonked in the middle of it.
Someone else said something about 60,000 people crossing the harbour bridge to get to Albany....you do realise that the harbour bridge can be opened up to have 6-7 lanes going northward, and that this HAS been done before. Also - there will be no more people travelling over the bridge to get to Albany, than would travel over it to get to the Auckland CBD - especially as the majority of Airport and south Auckland traffic would come via the SH20 ring road.
North Harbour stadium is surrounded by over 28 hectares which is zoned for Hotels, restaurants, pubs, bars, shops etc. etc. We really need to think about the future of the city with this stadium - not just the upcoming world cup. We don't need any more stadiums in Auckland - we have plenty....too many in fact. The National Stadium needs to be in Auckland - and since Eden Park is not an option (resource concent just to hold a concert) - we do have to look at what other stadiums could be upgraded - and it is my personal opinion that North Harbour is that stadium.
-
What "motorwayed environment"?
How about this one for a start?
We don't need any more stadiums in Auckland
And we definitely don't need any more Albanys.
-
Mallard has just said its back to Eden Park, looks like cabinet torpedoed the Waterfront,
Normal transmission has been resumed....
Move along these are not the stadia you are looking for....
-
Mallard has just said its back to Eden Park
bummer, oh well i guess it was the right thing to do, politically
i'm disappointed, but i guess the ARC is happier with people funnelling through the suburbs of mt eden, than getting in the way of their lucrative containers. can we spend the leftover $500M on public transport then??
-
As soon as the ARC made its decision, it seemed inevitable. In fact, it almost seems carefully designed to save face for as many players as possible:
ACC: let's go for the waterfront site. Oh, not that waterfront site: another one.
ARC: oh no you don't, we need that for the port!
Mallard: Oh well, Aucklanders can't decide, so it's back to dowdy old Eden Park. We would have wanted the wonderful, iconic, visionary waterfront site, but it's up to you.
Mallard (to self): phew, that was close! We almost had to follow through with it.
I still believe that a CBD-edge site should have been chosen if at all possible, but it looks like it never would have been a goer from an engineering or financial point of view.
can we spend the leftover $500M on public transport then?
Amen! Or more accurately: Yeah right.
-
Amen! Or more accurately: Yeah right.
To paraphrase that tui billboard ad i heard someone talking about:
Build the stadium in Huntly -yeah right! -
I still believe that a CBD-edge site should have been chosen if at all possible, but it looks like it never would have been a goer from an engineering or financial point of view.
Spoken like a true architect :)
-
Build the stadium in Huntly
They could use one of the old opencast mines - a natural amphitheatre several storeys deep & several hundred metres in diameter.
Must have a look on google earth to see what's available.
-
Spoken like a true architect :)
Ha! :-) Actually, I'm not an architect, just someone who loves cities to be compact and lively. I didn't mean to say "stuff the costs and that pesky gravity business, just build it anyway" - just that I'm not in a position to judge the pros and cons of whether it would work. It would be a pity to build it out in the burbs, but given the costs, timeframes and lack of suitable CBD locations, I guess we're stuck with Eden Park.
Now we just need to go ahead and get it done. Maybe we should offer the members of the residents' association some places in a nice quiet retirement home somewhere?
-
Now we just need to go ahead and get it done. Maybe we should offer the members of the residents' association some places in a nice quiet retirement home somewhere?
Nah. Take over one of the wharves and build apartments there, throw all the residents in that. Build some bars, restaurants etc around Eden Park where their houses were.
And give the ARC the big finger ;)
-
Warning, ramblings of an angry young man follows.
Watching the empassioned speeches from the likes of Tessa Duder, Keith Locke and all the others bemoaning the death of NZ's connection to the water, what do I bloody do but open the Sunday Satr Times to page C13 and there in all it's blazen glory is Mighty Marsden Cove Marina opening 9 dec.
Hang on one bloody minute here. From Hoopers (developers) web site.
Marsden Cove is a canal housing and marina project located on the pristine shoreline of the Whangarei harbour.
I thought the whole debate was about too much money, blah blah blah and the connection to the water that we Kiwis are loosing, bringing dear old Tessa to tears (my arse).
We were told by the luddites that this was the wrong building in the wrong place, that the artists impressions showed the evil ugly side of development, no connection to the water etc.
So how are we to feel then Ms Duder about these two images.
One an imposing non connecting blight on the water.
(stadium NZ)
http://www.warrenandmahoney.com/StadiumNZ_images/SNZ-Sketch-Captain-Cook-Wharf.jpgAnd this for those who want a more urban lifestyle 1.8hrs from Auckland (well stay in the bloody city then)
http://www.coastalnz.co.nz/marsdencove/artists_impression.htm
Maybe its because having a dose of thhe Sex Pistols in Filth and the Fury coupled with the fact that John Key is now this great white young hope for NZ (if anyone makes Tony Blair comparisons I might vomit), but some people (including the bloody media) need a bullet.
But wait folks theres more. Go to the Hoopers web site and we'll see that there are 6 waterfront developments going on. Each one a monument to NZ's connection to the waterway.
How will dear ole tessa explain this one to the kids, she better have plenty of hankies.
In a voice choked with emotion, she said she would have great difficulty taking her grandchildren to North Head or Mt Eden and trying to explain the object marring their view.
"I will have difficulty holding back my tears."
Sure just around the corner is the beautiful Marsden Point oil refinery, but that's hardly the point is it. But last time I was at Cooks Beach, I do remember a relatively quiet underdeveloped area, big flat beach.
The Whitianga waterway development, was a boggy flat coastal undeveloped back lot of whitianga. Nice, as the coromandel should be.
I guess Tessa doesn't get down to Whitianga too often. Last time I was there I took a turn up the forestry road to look over the area, stunning but soon to have its slice of authentic urban waterfront development.
What a pathetic hypocritical lot we are in this country. Like Cr Robyn Hughes of the ARC in her most dignified manner telling central govt and wgtn where to go. Hmm will Cr Hughes be part of the delegation going to wgtn cloth cap in hand asking for $175million so as the ratepayers won't vote their sorry arses out next time.
Sorry but what a joke.
Put in temporary seats, skimp as bloody much as possible and revert to 1/3rd full Blues and Auckland rugby audiences after RWC2011, and lets find something we can sink our teeth into and be proud of.
Shall we start a list of who to send to quarantine island.
Istitute of Architects director, Dave Mitchell
Cr Robyn Hughes and her merry band of road builders.
Rodney Hyde
Eden Park Trust Board
Keith Locke -
Compie:
The name is Hoppers.
Hoppers are the brothers who started with Pauanui.It is hard to know if they cater to, or create the beachfront frenzy that is ripping the quiet of the coastal and rural areas apart.
Supplying property to well-heeled Aucklanders for weekenders has overwhelmed much of the meagre infrastructure in Northland.
Whangerei District Council has a moratorium on new subdivision until the infrastructure can catch up. (The Hopper project at Marsden Point was OKed before the brakes were put on)City dwellers can purchase rural land with their highly inflated incomes in a way similar to the buying power of American dollars in poorer nations.
The land-grab that is going on for extra investment properties, which most of these often uninhabited houses are, is a major factor in the inflation that the reserve Bank is trying so hard to contain.
It would seem an appropiate time for Capital Gains Tax to be paid on anything other than the primary family home.
Second properties are investment properties and the rampant rises in house prices directly relates to the good returns that they provide. Why should this income not be taxed?Tax them and relieve the pressure on what has often been good productive land. You know, the sort of land that produced tangible wealth for the country, not the inflationary 'funny' money that produces nothing but more dollars - not real wealth.
-
When I used to work for the port years ago I did wonder quite how Aucklanders, or their media representatives, rationalised that the 1% or so of the Waitemata Harbour shoreline that the port occupies was specially "theirs"; must be part of some sort of public domain and thus able to be taken away from any port use or control. However, I guess that's all a bit passe now.
Off topic, I was saddened to hear last night Te Radar inform a group of writers and screenwriters at a Queen Street function that he had been "sacked" that morning by the NZ Herald so presumably we won't be seeing his column which I certainly enjoyed
-
My father (recently retired from the ARC 'air up there') was explaining to me how the Ports were snaffled back under 'our' control a few years back by the ARC in a shrewd move on their part so that now it is a big earner for the coffers and if it were to suffer financially the rate payers would end up having to open their wallets. Either that or else the ARC would have to curb their spending on transport initiatives.
On the transport note he has described Auckland thus: "Aucklands public transport was utter shit, now it's just bloody bad". Hopefully in a decade people will be saying it's "pretty bad" and then we can work our way to "mediocre". One things for sure, we need to stop going out and keep going up, but I've been getting the whisper that the councils are starting to give in and are letting the sprawl continue. I therefore reserve the right to tell Aucklanders who complain about PT to "get fucked".
Anyway, nice post Compie. Certainly exposes more the hysterical, cringeworthy hypocracy that came out in the debate. And who was that &*%$# lady who was dragged out of the meeting? Seen her on the tellie before. Later describing it is a victory for democracy. No lady, it was a victory for negativity.
-
When I used to work for the port years ago I did wonder quite how Aucklanders, or their media representatives, rationalised that the 1% or so of the Waitemata Harbour shoreline that the port occupies was specially "theirs"; must be part of some sort of public domain and thus able to be taken away from any port use or control. However, I guess that's all a bit passe now.
amen.
the way people have been trivialising the function of the port has certainly been an eye opener. "Just shove it somewhere out of sight so we can rightfully enjoy OUR waterfront!" I hear them chant.
well, i've got news, lads and lasses: the port is the reason auckland is here in the first place. doh. and no, between 1840 and 1985 there were no used Japanese imports to worry about. so it goes a bit deeper than that.
and apart from that, when and if the port is "opened up" to "public access" (like princess wharf?), are we gonna have several km of viaduct-style booze barns and apartments? or will it be swimming, sunbathing and snorkling in deisel slicks and ferry effluent? sure, a public park somewhere on the water's edge and even a square for events would be really nice. but we aren't talking about kaiteriteri beach here. it's a fcuking reclaimed port ffs.
phew, end of rant. as you were...
-
A friend sent me this:
"A late bid to have the 2011 Rugby World Cup final played at the newly developed Karori Park was launched today by the Friends of Karori Park (FOKP).
“We are confident the park will be ready in time,” spokesman Big Al Graham said today. “We have just had a major upgrade of the park so the drainage, superb ambiance and everything else about the playing field is already in place.”
Graham agreed that the current seating available in the park – 22 at a pinch – is a little short of the 60,000 required by the IRB.
However, he was confident the shortfall could be fixed by the provision of bleachers on the playing field and the erection of grandstands all over the south-west Karori hills. Spectators in the hills would be given free use of binoculars except for those on Makara Peak who could rent telescopes.
Graham also noted that the public transport to Karori Park, currently 35 old and barely running trolley buses per day, would struggle to cope with a rugby crowd.
This would be solved by a temporary railway line along the top of the city’s green belt, linking with the Johnsonville line at Ngaio, and by the importing of 40,000 used bicycles from Xian, Wellington’s sister city in China. This latter move has just been given the Heart Foundation tick.
A trailer park would be established at Makara School to house the campervans used by visiting rugby fanatics.
FOKP envisaged that the All Black players would be housed on stretchers in the Karori Community Hall while the visiting team would be accommodated in the Karori West Scout Hall in Sunshine Ave.
IRB dignitaries would be billeted in the Outer Mongolian Embassy which has lots of spare flats now that it is among the good guys and doesn’t need to have 37 spies disguised as “trade envoys” living on its complex.
The international rugby field on Karori Park would be slightly smaller than usual so that it would fit between cricket pitches. Any cricket blocks which would be covered by temporary stands during the rugby would be equipped with grass growing equipment seized from local pot producers.
Graham added: “The total cost all up is estimated to be about $10,000 which will be recouped by selling the aluminium soccer goalposts previously used at the park.
“The only foreseen problem is that the City Council may close the ground on the day of the final if it rains on the Friday. Rugby fans should listen to 2ZB for cancellations.”
-
Deborah from Wellington.... thats the best post on here by far and a mile.
Blimey we're a bunch of moanin' old parochial whingers down there in NZ. I live in Pomgolia and I thought the English were bad........ But my fellow NZer's really do take the gold medal for whinging about something that will ultimatley be a great addition to Auckland and NZ.
One of the many problems was that too many people were consulted on the quandry on building a national rugby stadium. In the end it became a farcical process. Not enough direction was taken by Mallard or the NZRFU so we've been left with the 'oh sh**t is that the time?.. Quick lets build a stadium' solution.
While Eden Park ain't perfect by any stretch its the decision thats been made and I'm glad they're gonna do it properly. Its been long overdue.
At the end of the day if NZ wants to host these things ,or maybe it doesn't, it has to pay for them somehow. It's like everything else in the grown up world if you want better public transport or a better health system you have to pay for it. (granted a 60,000 rugby stadia is probably less of a neccessity to operating a succesful functioning society..... but only just.
My advice to those folk who are still aghast at NZ having the guts to actually host an international sports event is don't watch the RWC in 2011.... as it will probably be far far too horrific for you to endure.Also I will go ape sh**t if I hear one more small time politician cringfully suggesting we put in temporary seating..... Barry Curtis what are you thinking???..........
LINK
Post your response…
This topic is closed.