Hard News: Assault by Monstrous, Cancerous Used Condom Destroys Auckland. And so on ...
87 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Just out of interest, the Westpac Stadium has a list of all the events they've hosted. Other than rugby, the events included:
- one-day cricket
- Aussie Rules
- football
- Edinburgh military tattoo
- Wellington Wheels Expo
- Capital Business Show
- Home & Garden Shows
- Celebrate Jesus 2000
- Dunkley's Great NZ Craft Show
- Capital Wine & Food Festival
- Robbie Williams
- NBR Stadium Spectacular
- Carols by Candlelight
- David Bowie
- Neil Diamond
- Crusty Demons
- 2Hot2 Handle Motor Show
- WWE Smackdown
- Rolling Stones
- The Lion Man Show - Out of Africa
- Year of the Veteran Military PageantWhile there's a whole lot there that I'd pay handsomely not to have to attend, we can safely say that stadia are not just for rugby. Many of those events used the internal concourse rather than the stadium itself, and for those sorts of events, the waterfront location of the Auckland stadium would be an attractive point of difference. While you certainly don't need a 60,000 seater stadium for those, they would be a way to keep the area in use year-round.
-
I think the stuff that gets waved around by economic analysts about how much events and facilities bring to an economy are a little misleading. Lets say the World Cup does bring in 'a billion dollars', that's a billion dollars spread over the whole economy. All good for hospitality and tourist industries etc, directly not much good for me.
In terms of who is paying for the facilities to make the Cup possible - the government and various city councils, they'll make income from the tax on that, so in theory an additional billion dollars in economic activity would produce say... $300 million for the government and city councils, mostly the former.
That being said, if you could build facilities and then have them a third to a half paid for in this way within the first year of them opening, when they have a life of fifty years... that's an economic dream. It's like taking out a loan to open a business and paying off half of the loan in your first year. The country is going to pay for half of it, tourists are going to pay for much of the rest, the council has limited themselves to 50 million (?), which is what... $200 for each Aucklander? They'll no doubt spread that cost over several years. It's not exactly bank-breaking stuff.
If you want to see some real heated debate about a stadium, come down to Dunedin. Close to $200 million, paid for by a city of less than 150,000 people. They put this roof thing on the plans, which is forward thinking but clearly extravagent. The bill is probably going to be about $500/resident, more than twice what Aucklanders will pay, and the government isn't putting in a cent, or passing any special taxes to help us pay. And on top of that, our taxes are being used to pay for some 'National Stadium' up in Auckland.
Ah no wait, no heated debate. Down here we recognise that if you want big sporting events and their economic benefits, you have to build facilities to hold them at. The University is going to cough up a bunch of money so it's a multi-use venue, hosting teaching facilities. No one's over the moon about the cost, but there's no frantic polling, national breaking news, whinging Aucklanders 'oh my freaking god', on the TV every night, condoms and cushions etc etc ad nauseum.
Like Auckland, Dunedin needed a new stadium come World Cup time. Unlike Auckland, Dunedin is going to quietly go about making it happen.
We're probably even happier down here with the national waterfront stadium, and the costs, than Aucklanders seem to be.
-
"it is estimated that the tour generated more than NZ$130 million in additional foreign exchange earnings.
A separate estimate from the Tourism Research Council estimates the direct spending by visitors associated with the Lions tour at NZ$96 million" ( source: Visa International)Bart
these figures are for revenue , not profit. There are a few other costs to be accounted for before we allocate the lot to stadium building. (and dont forget to convert them to 2011 dollars)I think the length of stay depends on other factors as well the length of tournament , so may not be twice as long.
Tom
I'd also pay to have some of those events only happen in wellington , but most of the good ones them are happening in auckland already.
and we're getting Roger Waters , so there! :)Kyle
"Like Auckland, Dunedin needed a new stadium come World Cup time"
Actually we don't ,thats part of the "problem" , we're spoilt for choice . And we're mostly having perfectly civil discussions about it.
(tho I wouldn't mind if more of them were a bit heated) -
Kyle
"Like Auckland, Dunedin needed a new stadium come World Cup time"
Actually we don't ,thats part of the "problem" , we're spoilt for choice . And we're mostly having perfectly civil discussions about it.
(tho I wouldn't mind if more of them were a bit heated)Actually you do. Wellington doesn't need a new stadium come World Cup time. Auckland does, because there's currently no 60,000 seat stadium there.
If Auckland didn't need a new stadium, the debate would be between brand new expensive waterfront stadium, and existing Eden Park stadium costing $0. That's not the choice you're making however. My point is that both cities need to do something to have a stadia of World Cup quality. There's a lot of hot air about the one in Auckland, I think a lesson could be taken from Dunedin as to how to go about the whole process.
-
It's clear that anyone who thinks the stadium looks like a "used" condom has never used one.
ahahaaha!
-
Though I've supported the waterfront option to date (even emailled the Herald for their silly bleaters poll and commented on the Auckland City online thingy) I just listened to Rod Oram (stadium opponent) on Nat Rad ( audio hereabouts) and he sounded like he had a couple of good points.
Apparently we won the hosting rights for 2011 on the promise to temporarily extend Eden Park to 60,000 seats at a cost of about $120 million. Given that cost, the event was supoosed to have a net benefit to the country of about $500 million.
He posits that if the government is happy to spend that $500 million in Auckland there are better things to spend it on than a stadium (a stadium that will compete for events for the rest of its natural life with Eden Park and the Vector Arena across the road).
Rail network electrification anyone ($350 million)?
He mostly seems worried that a) there is no business model for waterfront stadium b) costs of building new stadia always blow out c) given the current choice in venues in Auckland (North Harbour, Eden Park, Vector Arena, Mt Smart) a new stadium is not required.
If people are determined to to put $500 million into a stadium I guess I'd still rather see it on the waterfront instead of the current car yard - but maybe its not too late to question whether we need to spend that cash at all??
-
Ian,
Sure he may have some good points, unlike Bob the Builder in the herald this morning, but I've got a feeling the argument from the govt goes something like this.
half a billion (or whatever the figure is) for a stadium, not half a billion for a stadium or 168,000 hip operations or cateract operations.
They are going to front up with the money for this or keep it in their purses, not spend it on other things.
-
Ian,
I cannot stand Rod Oram, but he does make some excellent points.
With one particular flaw. Most government spending on non-capital works items has nil economic benefit. Labour has basically doubled health spending in the last seven years, with no additional health outcomes. Labour has ballooned the size of central government to unprecedented levels of public spending. For zero return.
Sure, there are many better things that the Government COULD spend the stadium money on. Even better, the Government could perform some major surgery on itself, and hand the money back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. But Labour isn't going to do that.
One way or another, Labour will blow the surplus by the next election. At least with a waterfront stadium we get a world class facility for it.
-
i also thought rod oram had some good points (in my opinion he's a pretty good commentator in general).
but i get the feeling that if we designed our cities, indeed if we built all our cultural icons etc, on a purely economic basis, we'd be left in a rather bland concrete jungle watching cheap american re-runs on the telly.
i'm sure an architect/urban designer could put that more eloquently.
anyway, i still think if it comes down to throwing big wads of cash around, the waterfront is a better place for it than eden park. i'm under no illusions that it'll pay for itself, indeed it'll probably end up being near a billion bucks. but we should have a relatively pretty stadium with some nice green areas and promenades which at least some of us would be proud of. and i'll be able to see where all my tax dollars went
-
I've heard (and it was a few years ago) that Mt Smart is the only stadium in New Zealand that makes a profit. Just wondering if anybody can confirm or deny this????? Obviously things change for each stadium from year to year because they get a different number of events and different numbers showing up.
If (and it's a big if) a waterfront stadium gets built and goes off is it conceivable that it may actually have some cash left over once all the bills are paid?
It would have significant advantages over other venues in New Zealand, ie location, location, location and also that it would be truly multipurpose. It can feature rugby union, rugby league, cricket, soccer, rock concerts, irb sevens circuit (sorry Wellingtonians) convention facilities and.... ("and...." means I can't think of any more for the moment). Most other venues in NZ are home to one or two teams and feature the odd interntaional match.
-
I believe Jade Stadium does .. though it's hard to make out it's balance sheets as they're all tangled in with Christchurch City Council operations as the management company (Vbase) is part of CCHL (a Council owned trading company).
Not sure how it makes a buck as it gets maybe 1 test match, a couple of one dayers, and about 12 - 15 rugby games a year. Though they do a lot of conferences and host warehouse type sales on a regular basis so I guess that adds to the cashflow.
-
Today's post
Well, if the waterfront stadium gets nixed and Eden Park is anointed as the World Cup final venue, it'll be situation normal:I know it is not an option but what about the half completed shell of North harbour Stadium? or is it simply that it is on the wrong shore. Anything is better than Eden Park.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.