Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Because I am weak

115 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Yamis,

    The New York one was never built as it was not wanted by the local popluation (the people who were coughing up a lot of the dough and would have caused transport chaos. Even though it would have its own subway terminal, 75,000 people will snarl up any system.

    The Seoul World Cup Stadium built for the 2002 football world cup seats 64,000 and has its own subway station.

    Having been through it on game days when it's been soldout for various internationals I can honestly say that it doesn't get anywhere near snarled up.

    I've also been to other large stadiums in Korea which don't even have subway stations servicing them and people get in and out just fine. All you need is space on the approaches to the entry points.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report

  • brian poffley,

    i think this stadium is a blatent attempt to move in on thailand's potential tourists. we will soon be able to invite tourists to view our white elephants.

    onehunga • Since Nov 2006 • 4 posts Report

  • Yamis,

    Aucklanders have proved themselves over the years to be very unloyal and disinterested in their Provincial sports teams. Indeed I believe every time they have lost the Ranfurly Shield it has been in half empty stadiums, where the Challengers had as many supporters there as the A Team.

    Us Aucklanders are just clever. We stopped going to watch our NPC team long before everybody else stopped going to watch theirs this year.

    Seriously though, if the Blues do well they would damn near fill it for a Super 14 semi, and almost certainly fill it for the final. They would fill Eden Park now and with a better stadium that is easier to get to they would have no problem getting 60,000.

    There's a slight problem though. They are rubbish.

    I can't see the Kiwis ever filling it. Maybe they could get 30,000 if they were going well and we were playing Aussie in a Tri-Nations final or WC final.

    If we ever get to co-host the football WC with Aussie we could go close to filling it with the right match.

    Test cricket obviously won't get near filling it unless we suddenly start thrashing Aussie by an innings and 300 runs with regularity. One dayers might fill the area of seating they would use (ie. 45,000) for a game v Aussie and if the atmosphere was awesome and hype big enough they could possibly go close now and then for other games.

    The only other possibilities that I can see for filling it would be for the odd big rock concert. BDO wouldn't work there because they need multiple stages.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report

  • Gregor Ronald,

    Are we sure that we really need a 60,000 seat stadium, even in our biggest city? Does one World Cup final justify all that expense? Rugby crowds have been declining as the TV gives us an overdose, rock concerts don't pull those numbers in the MP3 age - who's going to buy tickets for this place over the 20 years after the World Cup?

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 103 posts Report

  • Manakura,

    My opinion of my fellow Jafas has gone up after reading the overwhelming opposition to a waterfront stadium, (I think the artistic impression so far look like Haemorrhoid cushions), about %75 of 2400 respondents in a NZ Herald Poll said no.

    There are two questions about this no one seems to have answered yet:

    How is a stadium is public space, which is consistently being touted as part of any floating haemorrhoid cushion stadium? Can I wander down there on a Sunday arvo with mates and have a friendly game of touch, followed by a BBQ and a few cold ones? Not likely, even minus the coldies.

    And, why is private ownership of land suddenly a barrier to development for the government? We have such a rich history of confiscating land in this country that I think depriving the poor developer of his patch at Carlaw Park should be a cinch, and its not as though Clark's crew is out of practice. I beleive the Public Works Act would serve us right here, don't even need to draft up special legislation this time.

    I think it is amusing (in a black comedy kind of way) that the same bunch of theives that could ram through legislation to legalize illegal use of taxpayers funds in one day, are scared of offending one greedy little property developer - yo Mallard (cue lame duck jokes) he probably doesn't like ya anyway!

    Carlaw Park seems to be the sensible option, having the same same benefits and drawbacks as the waterfront re: PT and use of public land, but it wont wreck anyones view, and its not likely to sink or become an aquatic park due to rising sea levels... well not in the next decade anyway.

    Anyone know where/how one can put pressure on Mayor Hubbard and the ACC to reconsider there options? Or is public consultation yet again not a priority?

    BTW according again to the NZHerald, the number of ACC councillors supporting Carlaw Park actually outnumber those supporting the Haemorrhoid Cushion, (9 to 7) yet they are described as 'rebels'??

    Whaingāroa • Since Nov 2006 • 134 posts Report

  • reece palmer,

    Trust us to get all wound up over a game of rugby. Yes if we mess this up we'll never get another chance. Can we build it on time? Two words, Mangere Bridge. Can we build it under budget? Two more, Aotea Centre. It's quite amazing though that the carlaw park option has been so quickly dismissed, I understand that nearly 3ha of the domain would be history, but a train station could be integrated into the design and there would be loads of scope for a bus hub (rather than the wind tunnel at the bottom of Queen st). Major underground parking could be another revenue stream to recover costs over time. Currently the PT options for Eden Park are trains which rumble past my place quite regularly on game days and there is a circuit shuttle bus around the venue (free, no really). But in all honesty why are we all even mentioning PT when it is painfully obvious that Dorklanders have some sort of deep seated aversion to it. If it's to be a 60,000 seat stadium they'd better include a 60,000 space carpark.
    I've had a lot of fond memories at Eden Park, in 25 years of competitive rugby I never got to play on it's hallowed turf, but I have been lucky enough to coach a championship winning team that played and won there. The world cup final back in '87 was amazing (on my 16th birthday no less) as were many other matches seen there, every testplaying nation more than once, lions tours, campese's debut, in the sheds after the auckland teams defended the shield against counties. Memories are great but they don't pay the bills. This will be a great opportunity that we as Aucklanders and New Zealanders are more than capable of royally screwing up, the embarrassment could be huge. But it could also be a new field of dreams that the generations to come speak of in the same hushed tones we now speak of Eden Park, Athletic Park, Carisbrook and Lancaster Park (sorry but the corporates can bite me) Nothing in this life is certain barring death or taxes, so lets get on with the job or we'll be dying of embarassment and taxed up to the eyeballs to pay for it all.

    P.S. I still think Eden Park is a goner regardless, Not in MY electorate said helen...

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report

  • reece palmer,

    Also a contender for the greatest match would have to be the comeback from the dead at lang park against the wallabies in'96 the year of the inaugural tri nations, as far as 25-9 behind in the second half. Remember Michael Brial trying to take out buncey in the first exchanges? For the record, Bunce scored in injury time to take the match 32-25,also the year of the slaughter at athletic park (43-6) not to mention the first series win in S.A. I understand where you were going with the Henry angle and yes he will go down as one of our best ever coaches, although I doubt Pinetree will ever retract his uncomplimentary remarks (Verna doesn't make humble pie, see) but also reckon you've overlooked some awesome displays. Still with a team this good for this long thats not a difficult thing to do.

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report

  • Tony Kennedy,

    With the exception of Mr Wevers contribution, the merit of my suggestion of Melbourne is actually starting to grow on me.
    Maybe this will help. I have a least two friends who were adamant at the time that Porirua should have been the site of new Wellington replacement for Athletic Park, both of them now deny vehemently ever espousing such and opinion.
    The waterfront site is the “best” site, embrace it, get involved, and offer constructive suggestions as to the form and function of the finished stadium. Make it something that all New Zealand can be proud off.
    Don’t fuck it up

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 225 posts Report

  • Yamis,

    I'm doing my best Tony but some people!!!!!

    I was saying that Carlaw Park should have been redeveloped to be the number one stadium in Auckland years back when the Auckland Rugby league went tot he ACC and asked them if they would get behind it.

    Unbelievably they said stuff off and so the ARL had plans drawn up for a retirement village.

    And now low and behold the same council is pointing to it saying "look, we can build there instead"!

    to those who think we can't take any domain land I suggest you go walking round the back there. It's weed infested no mans land that nobody ever sets foot in. It would be missed about as much as a 5 inch boil on your backside.

    Since Nov 2006 • 903 posts Report

  • Tony Kennedy,

    Auckland – City of Sails – Stadium on the Waterfront
    Christchurch – Garden City – Jade Stadium
    Wellington – Absolutely Positively
    Btw – The Carlaw Park site would make an excellent “Park and Ride” terminus for that public transport thing that you Aucklanders love so much :-)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 225 posts Report

  • Che Tibby,

    something that just occurred to me skimming these comments (soz... it's late), was this. we aren't building tent. aren't the arguments that it won't be filled all the time kind of beside the point?

    the idea is to build something that'll be used for 10 or 15 years, then upgraded. the location will be great for that. as auckland matures into a city with world class things like public transport, and an urban centre, the stadium could be there for people to enjoy.

    no really, just imagine that.... auckland, a city with an recognisable centre... sigh...

    but, failing that, someone did point out that we could just include a free trip to melbourne/sydney in the price of the ticket. http://dropkicks.blogspot.com/2006/11/hire-stadium.html gotta be cheaper than the stadium itself....

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report

  • Manakura,

    I am always loathe to build on greenbelts but I have to agree, that part of domain is a not exactly accessible to the public, nor would it be worth accessing.

    Tony, the waterfront is not the best site, it has its advantages to be sure, but the drawbacks - cost (does anyone really beleive its only going to cost $500 mil!?), engineering issues, that not many Aucklanders want it, the inconvenience to the 1 billion dollar shipping industry, and the potential for time and cost overruns (far more likely on this site than any other) make it a dodgy prospect.

    If anyone wants to let the council know what they think, (not they seem particularly interested!) I suggest trying this email address: mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz or go here http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/contact/ for other contact details

    Re: Aucklanders aversion to PT, true, but we haf wayz to make zem valk! For example, we put money into ensuring the trains run on time. a discount on tickets to matches purchased with PT tickets could also be a goer. I personally like the idea of impounding all SUV's found in the city fringe on match/concert nights for say 30 days, or forever...

    Whaingāroa • Since Nov 2006 • 134 posts Report

  • reece palmer,

    The discount on tix for using PT could be the antecedent needed to make Aucklanders get on the bus/train. Show me someone who wouldn't take advantage of that and I'll show you someone who probably watches the match on the tv in the corporate box anyway (toss).

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report

  • Compie,

    Several issues.

    The embarrasing and astounding lack of public architecture in this country in favour of tilt slab commericial hell is beyond belief.

    Visit many overseas cities and the civic pride associated with striking architectural feats and look back home and weep. Take Bilbao, population of CHCH, add some innovative civic leaders, mix with Frank Gehry results stunning architectural feat.

    Look at what Beijing is doing for the olympics, the water cube swimming pool, not to mention the stunning lattice main stadium.

    Why did Apple computer build an entrance to their flagship New York shop that rivals the Louvre? Why did they redevelop the Tate Modern gallery to such stunning icon standards? Simply that great architecture is a public good, as mentioned look at Melbourne.

    Great public architecture serves a purpose greater than a single rugby match. It should become a destination in its own right. Dissapointingly someone here has already alikened it to haemorrhoids, I guess the Beijing Olympic pool will not be to their taste either.

    With the talkbacks jammed with naysayers, and reactionary tv media running snap polls all saying no, bugger it. Auckland you've shot yourself in the foot already with this crappy attitude, stip it off them now and give the money to someone else excited by the prospect of a waterfront stadium.

    What the hell is the problem with Kiwis. A chance to build a world class entertainment stadium in one hell of a unique location, and we are talking about beige options like Eden Park and Carlaw Park. Christ why do we go for the mediocre, when the sky is being offered.

    The history of Eden Park. Yeah Yeah. Athletic Park, Wembley, Arsenal Stadium... Get over it, the past is the past, look forward to the new exciting history.

    Finally, why is it Aucklanders demand to drive from door to door. Some of my fav sporting moments have been walking from the tube to the football grounds in London to see my belovered Everton get their butts kicked. Our stunning waterfront stadium to be built here in Duendin has sparked such radical ideas as linking trams to the Octogon, public walkways linned with trees and cafes.

    God it's bloody wasted on you lot, give us the moeny and well just get on and do the thing.

    Dunedin/Vancouver • Since Nov 2006 • 114 posts Report

  • Michael Burns,

    Just a few ideas:

    I fully agree with Davesparks as to the value of the TV shots of an iconic stadium showing off Aucklands waterfront to the world, especially if Yamis' idea of hosting a couple of matches in Australia's Football World Cup of 2014/2018 is more than a pipedream. Wouldn't it be nice to think the Southern Alps aren't NZs only selling point, the advertising on TV and in the press over here in the UK completely overlook Auckland's beautiful gulf. Also as Compie says public architecture can be a destination of it's own, I know so many people who say they have been to Sydney and seen the opera house, but no-one who has seen a concert (let alone opera) there.

    The comparison of the economic benefits of pre/post-match eating and drinking in downtown Auckland with sports fans wandering the residential streets of Sandringham, is obvious and also points to the fact that fans going to a downtown venue will be more spread out in their travelling times. Also the ability to hold concerts must help justify any extra investment.

    Aucklanders' reluctance to use public transport and the consequential lack of investment there-in is a disaster. Discounted tickets for sports fans is a good idea and may help educate Aucklanders that travelling without a car is not impossible (maybe some will try to use it Mon-Fri).

    As Compie said the experience of walking to a sports ground with thousands of fans (in my case Arsenal to stadiums both old and new) is something special and to think that when I come home to Auckland I could do the same down Queen St, from the Devonport ferry, or from a restaurant in the Viaduct to a world class stadium is very exciting.

    London • Since Nov 2006 • 4 posts Report

  • Jackie Clark,

    I know nothing of sports, nor of the other civic issues involved with having a big stadium downtown but I am in complete agreement with Compie. Make it big and beautiful or give the bloody thing to someone else.

    Mt Eden, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 3136 posts Report

  • Don Christie,

    Come on Aucklanders, time to stop behaving like a bunch of petulant school kids. Just 'cause the Herald gives you a line it does not mean you need to slavishly follow. The rest of us are not making a hell of a lot of noise about the fact that large dollops tax payer money will be pumped into this project. We can, on the whole, see the great long term value it could bring.

    I heard one of your councillors on the radio this morning saying what Auckland needs is a 50 year plan for its waterfront not a 10 to 15 year plan. Well fine, give it to us, now, in time for the RWC that 95% of the country (including, I thought, Aucklanders) was so pleased about winning the rights to. Don't say you haven't had enough time, Auckland's been a big boy for over 100 years and if you still don't have your bleeding 50 year plan I for one would like to call time on you.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report

  • Hamish,

    Come on Aucklanders, time to stop behaving like a bunch of petulant school kids.

    Aucklanders are right to be resistant to a major change on our waterfront foisted on us seemingly at the last minute by Wellington politicians who seem to have little regard for what Aucklanders actually think (or, at least, didn't bother to find out).

    I'm not saying the waterfront option isn't the best, but don't patronise us for discussing all the options or providing different view points that are not based on your particular gung-ho attitude to urban planning.

    The real crime here is that these issues were not raised a year ago.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 155 posts Report

  • Don Christie,

    Helen Clark and Dick Hubbard are *not* Wellington politicians, nor last time I looked was Michael Cullen.

    We do have some representation through Trevor Mallard, sorry if that offends you.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report

  • Don Christie,

    "The real crime here is that these issues were not raised a year ago."

    See my "patronising" comment about your demands 50 year plan. The real crime is that this is a demand *now* when we should be focussing on 2011.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1645 posts Report

  • davesparks,

    Has this thread taken over from Mother we've been goosed as the offical stadium spat thread? If so...

    I was lucky enough to be in SF when this came online:

    AT & T Park

    and living just across the road as it happened. In terms of transforming the arse-end of a light industrial/waterfront area it was awesome. And I mean literally awe-inspiringly awesome.

    For a start, as a former Carlaw-curious fence-sitter I'll actually buy in to Trev M's comments about pedestrian flows to and from a game being much much better with the waterfront option. The open area around the waterfront option (in SF) really reduced the claustrophobic feel of a big crowd, and the dispersal to both PT and carparks was merry and good natured. Because people could loiter and wander at their own pace and not feel hustled or crushed it actually made taking a family to the game not just possible but practical.

    So you saw a lot more families in the crowds, and more casual attendance - going was an experience in itself, not just for the hardcore fan or sports-ground boozer.

    The beauty of the setting had an effect. Even being outside the game, the atmosphere combined with the location was in itself was moving. To hear that many people cheer then see them spill onto the streets buzzed up and enjoying themselves made me want to be inside and experience that first hand - and I had zero interest in baseball.

    Its driving me insane to hear people beat this thing up, put their hands on their hips and try to score petty points by saying 'could be better', 'i wasn't asked', 'someone else wants it so I'll make sure they can't have it'.

    What, if you say dirty words like 'bedpan' and 'hemorrhoid' and get snicky at people for dropping apostrophe's out of the their ads that makes your argument somehow smarter, your ideas so much worthier and by extension yourself so so much more important?

    This could be magnificent. What we have there now isn't, and there are no other plans for it to be so.

    If you don't want to have anything magnificent in your city, or in your life, fine, there is *plenty* of mediocre out there for you to wallow in. But don't ruin it for the rest of us by shouting down the benefits with mean-minded prophecies of doom.

    *Could* the cock-knocking in this place get any worse ffs?!?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 45 posts Report

  • Hamish,

    ...your demands 50 year plan

    My 50 year plan? I would be quite happy with a 5 year plan for now (I'm guessing that is what your second sentance means - it's a bit cryptic), but I'm not going to stick it to councillors who are doing their job by looking out for their city. Should we be shocked that not everyone agrees on what is best? No.

    This has been rushed, which means it will most likely be botched. Don't get all 'petulent child' about people who give a damn about their city. That's what "offends" me.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 155 posts Report

  • rodgerd,

    Aucklanders are right to be resistant to a major change on our waterfront foisted on us seemingly at the last minute by Wellington politicians who seem to have little regard for what Aucklanders actually think (or, at least, didn't bother to find out).

    I'd love it if Aucklanders could grow up and lose the enourmous chip on their shoulders about Wellington; given the way it's infected Russell of late, I guess neither of us will be getting what we want.

    I'll echo the comment that it would perhaps be best located in Christchurch, if we have to have a "National Stadium" at all; as a previous poster noted, Aucklanders seem almost singularly uninsterest in showing up to sporting events in their fair city when compared to other centres, and Christchurch certainly doesn't suffer from that problem.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report

  • Brett Larsen,

    The One Trick Pony

    ONLY ONE OPTION- upgrade Eden Park-(clip ons may the best option-take them down post 2011). Waterfront is a dead ugly dude. Now you got the big LCD/plasma-good television sets- major factor. (Counties-Manukau at Mt Smart? (Better start winning a few). It will be one third full for Super 12 games and NPC.How many 60000 rock concerts are there per year? (Perhaps one every two years). Like I say ..a damn ugly one trick pony.

    Manurewa • Since Nov 2006 • 4 posts Report

  • Richard C.,

    What I'm interested to read is an explanation of how the government intends to acquire the land. That is, something more detailed than vague statements about "fast-tracking" the RMA.

    As I understand it, the waterfront site sits on land that's an important part of the Port's container operations (as opposed to a holding pen for car imports which lies further West).

    So, if it's used for the stadium, what does the Port do? 'Reclaim' yet more of the harbour? Sting the government for lost revenue? Up wharves and move to Tauranga?

    Given that Aucklanders own the Port, isn't this something we should also be considering? Would be keen to hear if other people know more...

    Waiheke Island • Since Nov 2006 • 5 posts Report

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

This topic is closed.