Stadium of Canterbury
-
Brilliant. I can tell you what we're NOT going to get for $500m with approx 30,000 seats and that's anything that's remotely 'architectural' ie pleasing to the eye. We'll get a functional MUA with MAYBE just enough seats.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Brilliant. I can tell you what we're NOT going to get for $500m with approx 30,000 seats and that's anything that's remotely 'architectural' ie pleasing to the eye. We'll get a functional MUA with MAYBE just enough seats.
The numbers just don't stack up for stadia, ever.
$500M for 30k seats is $17k PER SEAT. You are not going to return any sort of sensible return on that, the business cases are basically 'we like sports, and would like a stadium please'.
Remember - Westpac cost $130M in the late 90's, at around 4k/seat. Far more manageable.
-
Brilliant. I can tell you what we're NOT going to get for $500m with approx 30,000 seats and that's anything that's remotely 'architectural' ie pleasing to the eye. We'll get a functional MUA with MAYBE just enough seats.
-
Would it be cheaper and a bit more retro cool if if it was made entirely from Lego blocks?
-
This is an unpopular opinion but I'm starting to lean toward a 40,000 seat uncovered stadium with 'street appeal', given the budget. I think the media beat-up around three Ed Sheeran gigs in Dunedin has had far too much sway. I think the good folk of Chch - after 10 or so years attending games at the craphole in Addington - would flock to a flash 40,000 seater without a roof, as long as the stand roofing extended a decent way forward. This gives us an arena capable of hosting Tier 1 tests and other sports and international tournaments and nationally it'd be a capable lieutenant to Eden Park or any new National Stadium. It'd also be future-proofed in terms of population growth (forecast to get up to 500k well within a new venues' lifespan).
I can envisage a very real scenario whereby we get basically another FBS ie around 30,000 seats at full capacity with no visual appeal whatsoever. Then after a few years the over-riding complaint would be that it's too small and also a visual blight nestled among an otherwise attractive central city. It's ability to host the occasional concert would be overshadowed by missing out on sporting events due to capacity issues and people will ask "why didn't we have the foresight to build something bigger and/or prettier?"
-
This is an unpopular opinion but I'm starting to lean toward a 40,000 seat uncovered stadium with 'street appeal', given the budget. I think the media beat-up around three Ed Sheeran gigs in Dunedin has had far too much sway. I think the good folk of Chch - after 10 or so years attending games at the craphole in Addington - would flock to a flash 40,000 seater without a roof, as long as the stand roofing extended a decent way forward. This gives us an arena capable of hosting Tier 1 tests and other sports and international tournaments and nationally it'd be a capable lieutenant to Eden Park or any new National Stadium. It'd also be future-proofed in terms of population growth (forecast to get up to 500k well within a new venues' lifespan).
I can envisage a very real scenario whereby we get basically another FBS ie around 30,000 seats at full capacity with no visual appeal whatsoever. Then after a few years the over-riding complaint would be that it's too small and also a visual blight nestled among an otherwise attractive central city. It's ability to host the occasional concert would be overshadowed by missing out on sporting events due to capacity issues and people will ask "why didn't we have the foresight to build something bigger and/or prettier?"
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof please
-
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof please@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof pleaseDo you really wanna see your team lose that bad?!
-
Something with the roof cover of Wembley would do.
-
Or Twickers
-
@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark while a roof would add hugely to cost it seems (as a out of towner) as a must have imo. If we had a roof at the cake tin there would def be a higher base audience, even the Phoenix might see another couple of hundred folks attend!
I wonder how far they can take weather protection without a full roof? If 3/4s of your crowd has decent cover that'd make a massive difference, but would that be much cheaper than a full roof?
I hope you guys get something awesome though. Just make sure its fog proof pleaseDo you really wanna see your team lose that bad?!
-
@shark I saw nothing!! Similar the to the canes
@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I saw nothing!! Similar the to the canes
I left the ground and went to a pub, hoping it’d be better on tv. It wasn’t!
-
@paekakboyz said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark I saw nothing!! Similar the to the canes
I left the ground and went to a pub, hoping it’d be better on tv. It wasn’t!
@shark on TV we had a better view of fans leaving than the bloody game.
-
My 2 cents worth. Rugby is a winter game, played in all conditions. If we build all our stadiums with roofs in the end we will not know how to play wet weather rugby. AB win ratio will drop. They say in Sweden "there is no bad weather just bad clothing". If you dont like being cold while following a winter sport move to Brisvagus and follow the Queensland Reds (good luck with that one)
-
My 2 cents worth. Rugby is a winter game, played in all conditions. If we build all our stadiums with roofs in the end we will not know how to play wet weather rugby. AB win ratio will drop. They say in Sweden "there is no bad weather just bad clothing". If you dont like being cold while following a winter sport move to Brisvagus and follow the Queensland Reds (good luck with that one)
@wreck-diver wouldn't cry too much if Canterbury and the Saders lost their edge in the wet
But I'd imagine they'd rack up even bigger totals if they always played on a dry track at home!! -
This is an unpopular opinion but I'm starting to lean toward a 40,000 seat uncovered stadium with 'street appeal', given the budget. I think the media beat-up around three Ed Sheeran gigs in Dunedin has had far too much sway. I think the good folk of Chch - after 10 or so years attending games at the craphole in Addington - would flock to a flash 40,000 seater without a roof, as long as the stand roofing extended a decent way forward. This gives us an arena capable of hosting Tier 1 tests and other sports and international tournaments and nationally it'd be a capable lieutenant to Eden Park or any new National Stadium. It'd also be future-proofed in terms of population growth (forecast to get up to 500k well within a new venues' lifespan).
I can envisage a very real scenario whereby we get basically another FBS ie around 30,000 seats at full capacity with no visual appeal whatsoever. Then after a few years the over-riding complaint would be that it's too small and also a visual blight nestled among an otherwise attractive central city. It's ability to host the occasional concert would be overshadowed by missing out on sporting events due to capacity issues and people will ask "why didn't we have the foresight to build something bigger and/or prettier?"
@shark yeah, you are 100% right. Aesthetics don't really do much other than add to the cost of a stadium. Ultimately, all that really matters is being close to the action & having a good view from all seats.
Oh and for the love of god, don't make it a cricket / rugby hybrid.
-
Problem is, if you build your new stadium smack bang in the middle of a newly rebuilt city, it can't just be a FBS-esque functional box. It'll require some form as well as function. And the only way you get that for $500m is to sacrifice seats. Of which there probably won't be enough in the first place.
I really don't think the indoor MUA supporters club have completely thought through all aspects of this project.
-
I've never been to AMI/Christchurch Stadium; is it true what Ross Karl says about the food? I've been to Westpac Stadium in Wellington plenty of times and it's terrible (including the pricing).
https://twitter.com/CrookedFeed_/status/1099441306361769984
https://twitter.com/CrookedFeed_/status/1099447472504487936
