Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Duluth the rugby attendance figures seemed ... optimistic
six to seven Super Rugby games (15,000 attendees), and four to five provincial rugby games (7000 attendees).
anyone have the 2019 attendance figures? I can't find them with a quick google (but this was itnerestinghttps://www.austadiums.com/sport/comp_results.php?sid=5)
that said, this article from 2017 may mean 15k is achievable. I just remember being at AMI for the Mitre 10 cup final in 2010, and there were less than 3,000 people there.
The Hurricanes were attracting an average of 16,901 people to Westpac Stadium each week, more than 3000 more than in 2015. Blues crowds were up 18.27 per cent, an extra 2000 people each night. The Chiefs and Crusaders had small gains, but gains they had.
Only the Highlanders saw crowds decline in that period, down from an average of 18,500 in 2015 to 14,751 in 2017 - a drop of 20.26 per cent.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/104613809/new-zealand-super-rugby-crowds-good-but-south-africa-australia-on-life-support -
@nzzp The super rugby attendance figures sound about right but the provincial attendance figures sound optimistic - does any team pull 7k average home crowds?
@KiwiMurph said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp The super rugby attendance figures sound about right but the provincial attendance figures sound optimistic - does any team pull 7k average home crowds?
I very much doubt it.
15k every year for a football match also seems highly unlikely without a sweetheart deal which defeats the purpose. Unless they know something I don't, the only team that has a chance of pulling that number is the phoenix and they've played maybe 2 games in chch. Planning for one per year is nuts. Maybe one every 4 years would be realistic.
If they did do a deal to get the phoenix down every year then 15k won't happen, I'd guess an average around 10k based on the Auckland experience and accounting for the lower population base.
1 rugby league per year match also seems optimistic, but at least there's a track record of Aussie teams taking home games to Christchurch.
Overall though, I think it just shows how hard it is to make the numbers for a stadium stack up. They're a terrible investment (otherwise the private sector would have long since built one) but do accrue some social benefits, and I suspect that the council have stretched plausibility to make this business case as palatable as possible.
-
It must be incredibly frustrating to put together the case for a rugby stadium in NZ.
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
So, do you build for what you actually need? Or do you put together an optimistic case to pay for what you want.
NZ Rugby's admirable sentiment of spreading the ABs around really does make things more difficult.
-
It must be incredibly frustrating to put together the case for a rugby stadium in NZ.
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
So, do you build for what you actually need? Or do you put together an optimistic case to pay for what you want.
NZ Rugby's admirable sentiment of spreading the ABs around really does make things more difficult.
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
Yep, so you build a 25k stadium would be my guess.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
Yep, so you build a 25k stadium would be my guess.
@Snowy said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
Yep, so you build a 25k stadium would be my guess.
which seems like a half-pregnant approach to me.
-
It must be incredibly frustrating to put together the case for a rugby stadium in NZ.
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
So, do you build for what you actually need? Or do you put together an optimistic case to pay for what you want.
NZ Rugby's admirable sentiment of spreading the ABs around really does make things more difficult.
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
It must be incredibly frustrating to put together the case for a rugby stadium in NZ.
You know, if you get an AB test, you can sell 35,000 easily. But that will be once a year. Every other game you barely need 15,000.
So, do you build for what you actually need? Or do you put together an optimistic case to pay for what you want.
NZ Rugby's admirable sentiment of spreading the ABs around really does make things more difficult.
Crusaders will probably sell out a 25k seater a couple of times a year (and probably more the first few years after opening).
15k is basically what they have now the crusaders are complaining is too small. An average crowd of 17k probably is 2 games at 13k, two games at 17k and 1 or 2 at or near capacity.
-
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/119944757/crown-approves-christchurch-stadium-funding
About time, now things can get moving.
@Godder that's about $20k/seat.
Needs to be hosting a heap of rugby, cricket and concerts to even pay interest on that, and keep maintained - let alone actually pay down the capital costs of the construction.
Forsyth Barr cost $200M for 30,000 seats, or about a third of the per seat cost ($6.6k). Of course, this stadium may kill concerts at Forsyth Barr, so hey that's life.
Stadium expenses just don't add up. I'm not opposed to them, but by god this is an expensive way of tackling it. Still, anything's better than the current venue
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
-
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
-
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
-
@Godder that's about $20k/seat.
Needs to be hosting a heap of rugby, cricket and concerts to even pay interest on that, and keep maintained - let alone actually pay down the capital costs of the construction.
Forsyth Barr cost $200M for 30,000 seats, or about a third of the per seat cost ($6.6k). Of course, this stadium may kill concerts at Forsyth Barr, so hey that's life.
Stadium expenses just don't add up. I'm not opposed to them, but by god this is an expensive way of tackling it. Still, anything's better than the current venue
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
yeah the conference and/or multi use is important.
NEC is in constant use for events large & small, rather than being the white elephant many of the anti-brigade touted through thier loud halers, it has been a success and bought plenty of events here that would not otherwise have come, or made some much better.
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Will this have conference capacity? Can make a massive differnece to the ongoing operational costs (NH Stadium was the only stadium in Auckland to consistently make a good profit I understand), largely due to its conference facilities
yeah the conference and/or multi use is important.
NEC is in constant use for events large & small, rather than being the white elephant many of the anti-brigade touted through thier loud halers, it has been a success and bought plenty of events here that would not otherwise have come, or made some much better.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
What nz should do is have a covered 25’000 for the major cities including Auckland then an 80’000 national stadium in Auckland. But it’s not really the nz way to have a national stadium that gets all the plum AB games.
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
What nz should do is have a covered 25’000 for the major cities including Auckland then an 80’000 national stadium in Auckland. But it’s not really the nz way to have a national stadium that gets all the plum AB games.
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
What nz should do is have a covered 25’000 for the major cities including Auckland then an 80’000 national stadium in Auckland. But it’s not really the nz way to have a national stadium that gets all the plum AB games.
Do that, and you can cut the cable, run the north island out of power, and stop folk eating proper lamb
It'll be a secession! -
@taniwharugby $18.5M for what, 10,000 seated? It's less than a tenth of the cost per seat of Canterbury's covered stadium. Great investment, likely to return a surplus, and probably economically viable.
Also a good stadium to watch rugby at!
@nzzp yeah costwise isnt comparable, but just makes sense to make it as multi-purpose as possible.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
You can’t put a monetary value. Chch needs a stadium. Full stop. It’s not a financial/money-making investment though.
I absolutely agree, but not at any price. $500M looks to me to be twice as much as the next biggest spend in NZ on stadia. Covered stadiums are expensive, but that's a really really expensive build. For context, it's probably cheaper to have an uncovered stadium and give everyone attending a night rugby game a $100 bill as they walk in the door than build it covered. I'm not serious about that, but $20k/seat is eye watering.
Ya gotta have a car, but you don't necessarily have to have a Ferrari
-
Here's my two cents, as posted on FB last night. It's also pretty much an abbreviated version of a letter I sent to the CCC, Megan Woods, other Canterbury MPs, and Stuff.
This is the most underwhelming stadium that could be built. With a population tipped - by local govt no less - to reach 750k in around 2050, 25k is pitiful. It's hard to imagine the acoustics being any better than Forsyth Barr which means consistently disappointing concerts, and it's too small to host Tier 1 All Black tests. The business case must have been: "We have some money, let's build something. And we'll put a roof on it because that's a hideously expensive way of eating into the funding, really just for novelty value rather than any form of relevant suitability". And as well as being grossly dysfunctional, it'll be ugly, and it's smack back inside the Four Aves where everyone gets to feel consistently underwhelmed by it. Don't let the artist's impressions fool you; this'll be basic. The budget is already being chewed into and the $500m originally committed to it shrunk by $20m before even gaining approval. Back in 2012 or so, $500m might have built a nice, 30k seater (still under-sized) with a roof. Not now. Not even a nice 25k seater. They've already removed an upper concourse from the design to save costs! So don't expect any bang for the remaining buck, Cantabs. It's too late now - and believe me, I've sent a few letters to various people about this - but the only way to get a future-proofed, modern, comfortable stadium we could have been proud of - for the same money - was to build a 40k seater, with extended stand cover, indoor concourses, architectural features and the bells and whistles people expect of a new stadium. The approved design will please no-one in practice. It's essentially Addington inside a massive click clack container.
-
To make this worse, a shit tip like Townsville just got a ripper of a new stadium. 25,000 seats in a cool building for $250m
Parramatta Stadium opened last year, seats 30k, looks, and is by all accounts amazing.
Optus Stadium is also not long opened, holds 60k, and is amazing.
The blueprints were there
Stuff being the guy pitching the business cases in NZ though
