Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Rapido Could it be that they have already spent the insurance money received from Lancaster Park?
@Hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Rapido Could it be that they have already spent the insurance money received from Lancaster Park?
Not that I'm aware of - full and final insurance settlement was only made in the past financial year.
I don't believe CAVE has a majority by any stretch, but they're noisy and active. I've been following local politics more than usual this year because I've been involved in a campaign, and the councillor involved has no doubt from streetcorner meetings etc that the silent majority is in favour of big projects, as long as the streets and other repairs are still happening at a good pace. As noted, the funds come from different places than the funds for repairs, and we wouldn't get them without the anchor projects because the government won't pay otherwise, but it's very hard to convince some people of that.
@taniwharugby - very true, and yet, we were considered overinsured by the above idiots before the earthquakes. People have underestimated the increased costs post-disaster, and also that insurers won't pay out without a lot of prodding, and you won't get the full amount and will have to negotiate as well.
-
-
-
@Duluth knowing better, I still looked at the whining about rugby or publicly funding a stadium in the comments section.
-
It reminds me of all the whining in the ODT when the Dunedin stadium was first proposed.
@Wally nation of whiners...well a small number whine very loud.
People moaned about the Stadium upgrade here, has been and continues to be a great facility for us and has attracted multiple events that would never have come otherwise, people moan about something else now.
-
-
Is 30000, including temp seating, big enough for the major tests? What is the capacity in Wellington?
-
Is 30000, including temp seating, big enough for the major tests? What is the capacity in Wellington?
-
@Crazy-Horse There's a Bledisloe this weekend in Dunedin which is 30k. I think it could be tight for a Lions test though.
@KiwiMurph yeah I fogot about the game being in Dunners this weekend. Google tells me Wellington is 34500 so this proposal will be a bit smaller.
-
So just another 1/4 of a billion to find on top of the 1/4 billion already budgeted for..
Some other articles on this proposal:
-
doesn't say anything about the $$$ they would have got for AMI stadium payout following the quakes, or has that been gobbled up already?
-
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
[link text](link url)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/337798/new-report-favours-496m-christchurch-stadiumChristchurch's new stadium could be a 25,000-seat $496m venue with a retractable pitch, according to a new report.
An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium.An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium. Photo: Christchurch Stadium Trust
The feasibility study by the Christchurch Stadium Trust, established to manage the stadium, details four options for a multi-use arena next to the central city.A blueprint for the new stadium was drawn up in 2012 as part of the earthquake recovery plan, and the original idea was to have a 35,000-seat covered arena with a retractable roof.
But the trust's study found that option would be too expensive, and too big.
Read the full report here (PDF, 5.8MB).
The report instead detailed four other options with the cheapest, at $368m, catering for 25,000 people and having a roof covering up to 80 percent of the venue.
The most expensive would have 30,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch, for a price tag of $584m.
But the preferred option was a $496m stadium, which would have 25,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch.
The city council has already promised a quarter of a billion dollars for the project, which would take more than five years to build.
Construction could start at the beginning of 2019.
-
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
[link text](link url)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/337798/new-report-favours-496m-christchurch-stadiumChristchurch's new stadium could be a 25,000-seat $496m venue with a retractable pitch, according to a new report.
An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium.An artist's impression of a new Christchurch stadium. Photo: Christchurch Stadium Trust
The feasibility study by the Christchurch Stadium Trust, established to manage the stadium, details four options for a multi-use arena next to the central city.A blueprint for the new stadium was drawn up in 2012 as part of the earthquake recovery plan, and the original idea was to have a 35,000-seat covered arena with a retractable roof.
But the trust's study found that option would be too expensive, and too big.
Read the full report here (PDF, 5.8MB).
The report instead detailed four other options with the cheapest, at $368m, catering for 25,000 people and having a roof covering up to 80 percent of the venue.
The most expensive would have 30,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch, for a price tag of $584m.
But the preferred option was a $496m stadium, which would have 25,000 permanent seats, a solid roof and retractable pitch.
The city council has already promised a quarter of a billion dollars for the project, which would take more than five years to build.
Construction could start at the beginning of 2019.
@Rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Why isn't the Dunedin Stadium design an option that Chch is looking at?
Why are they looking at more expensive options, when Dunedin's groundbreaking design showed you don't need a retractable roof or retractable pitch. Is the dick in someone's pants not retractable? ( the architect? Or trust board?)
This is just retarded. Why do they want retractable? What is the benefit?
There are some answers in the articles (one of the options they were looking at was a Dunedin design)
"The retractable pitch provides the character of an arena as opposed to a stadium, which is still the predominant mode of (Dunedin's) Forsyth Barr Stadium."
A retractable tray would allow the turf to be moved outside to grow, exposing a concrete floor that could be used for events, concerts, and non-turf sports.
This option would be $31m more expensive than the Forsyth-Barr-style setup, but would allow lighting and sound systems to hang from the roof, and protect the turf from damage during concerts.
