Stadium of Canterbury
-
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
-
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
-
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
I would be interested in seeing how Dunedin is laughing all the way to the bank - is there any facts around whether this actually makes money? I would imagine no way to covering the cost of it, outside of indirect money into the local economy.
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
I would be interested in seeing how Dunedin is laughing all the way to the bank - is there any facts around whether this actually makes money? I would imagine no way to covering the cost of it, outside of indirect money into the local economy.
@machpants isn't that the case with pretty much all stadia? none make money in their own right, but the suppliers (food, cleaners etc) do and the wider community (hotels, bars etc) does
-
@machpants isn't that the case with pretty much all stadia? none make money in their own right, but the suppliers (food, cleaners etc) do and the wider community (hotels, bars etc) does
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@machpants isn't that the case with pretty much all stadia? none make money in their own right, but the suppliers (food, cleaners etc) do and the wider community (hotels, bars etc) does
pretty much spot on. Stadia are not a sensible investment from a direct $$$ point of view. But then, neither is a community swimming pool or library - you have to figure out the intangible contribution as well, and that's where people's perspective skews wildly.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@machpants isn't that the case with pretty much all stadia? none make money in their own right, but the suppliers (food, cleaners etc) do and the wider community (hotels, bars etc) does
pretty much spot on. Stadia are not a sensible investment from a direct $$$ point of view. But then, neither is a community swimming pool or library - you have to figure out the intangible contribution as well, and that's where people's perspective skews wildly.
@nzzp i guess there is a simple test, i dont think there are many (any?) companies that just own and run stadia, they all generally seem to be owned either by the main sports team that play there and so their finances are bundled up in lots of other things or by councils/government in which case they are "for the greater good"
...if they made money, someone would be out there perfecting running them and making money doing it
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
this is a rant worthy of the Fern.
when you start calling people gutless in a published article, you're probably not advancing strong rational arguments.
I would be interested in seeing how Dunedin is laughing all the way to the bank - is there any facts around whether this actually makes money? I would imagine no way to covering the cost of it, outside of indirect money into the local economy.
@machpants I think he means that Chch will now lose out to Dunedin when it comes to AB tests, which is likely, but what he missed was that the entire rationale for the MUA concept was on the back of a massive local uproar that FBS got a bunch of Ed Sheeran gigs and Chch missed out, and the MUA is now smaller than FBS. I saw some dopey bitch was wanking on about how the concert capacities will still be the same despite the reduction in seats but I fail to see how that can be the case when you start from a 2,500 seat disadvantage and the pitch sizes are both 100m x 75m.
-
@machpants I think he means that Chch will now lose out to Dunedin when it comes to AB tests, which is likely, but what he missed was that the entire rationale for the MUA concept was on the back of a massive local uproar that FBS got a bunch of Ed Sheeran gigs and Chch missed out, and the MUA is now smaller than FBS. I saw some dopey bitch was wanking on about how the concert capacities will still be the same despite the reduction in seats but I fail to see how that can be the case when you start from a 2,500 seat disadvantage and the pitch sizes are both 100m x 75m.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@machpants I think he means that Chch will now lose out to Dunedin when it comes to AB tests, which is likely, but what he missed was that the entire rationale for the MUA concept was on the back of a massive local uproar that FBS got a bunch of Ed Sheeran gigs and Chch missed out, and the MUA is now smaller than FBS. I saw some dopey bitch was wanking on about how the concert capacities will still be the same despite the reduction in seats but I fail to see how that can be the case when you start from a 2,500 seat disadvantage and the pitch sizes are both 100m x 75m.
Depends on the design. If Chch is an almost 3/4 stadium - e.g. like a smaller roofed version of New Lansdowne Road. Then almost all the 25k permanent seats are in play for concerts. E.g. if anything like the sketches.
Where as Dunedin removes about approximately 3k of its (temporary) seats for concerts.
-
on a related but completely opposite note, the same dreamers who are always pushing this stuff are trying to leverage our possibility of hosting Olympic football in 2032 to once again try for a 20,000 seat stadium
In a city of 150,000
without a major sports team to play in it
I am sure the 800 strong crowd at a Northern Pride game will loooove all the additional space
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
-
on a related but completely opposite note, the same dreamers who are always pushing this stuff are trying to leverage our possibility of hosting Olympic football in 2032 to once again try for a 20,000 seat stadium
In a city of 150,000
without a major sports team to play in it
I am sure the 800 strong crowd at a Northern Pride game will loooove all the additional space
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
isn't that @booboo ? I know he does booboo but even so you're being a bit harsh.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
isn't that @booboo ? I know he does booboo but even so you're being a bit harsh.
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
isn't that @booboo ? I know he does booboo but even so you're being a bit harsh.
slightly harsh maybe, but the decisions that are made often defy belief.
But sure, if you are going to force this to be serious, obviously there are pressures from all sides, but how many decisions are made that actually end up pleasing no one?
-
@dogmeat said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
isn't that @booboo ? I know he does booboo but even so you're being a bit harsh.
slightly harsh maybe, but the decisions that are made often defy belief.
But sure, if you are going to force this to be serious, obviously there are pressures from all sides, but how many decisions are made that actually end up pleasing no one?
@mariner4life mate you're singing to the choir - I live in Auckland.
No matter what infrastructure fuck ups you quote I guarantee I can trump them!
-
on a related but completely opposite note, the same dreamers who are always pushing this stuff are trying to leverage our possibility of hosting Olympic football in 2032 to once again try for a 20,000 seat stadium
In a city of 150,000
without a major sports team to play in it
I am sure the 800 strong crowd at a Northern Pride game will loooove all the additional space
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
on a related but completely opposite note, the same dreamers who are always pushing this stuff are trying to leverage our possibility of hosting Olympic football in 2032 to once again try for a 20,000 seat stadium
In a city of 150,000
without a major sports team to play in it
I am sure the 800 strong crowd at a Northern Pride game will loooove all the additional space
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
It's interesting the stadium capacities for NZ towns and cities compared to size of town. They are ridiculous.
(I've used the new proposed one for Chch)
OK, some of them are just a grandstand plus banks and terraces. But still.
Invercargill is probably not much different to current Cairns. But I assume the new Cairns proposal is more bells and whistles than Rugby Park, and whatever Cairns have. They used an athletics stadium in the RLWC? That was a bit shit, I admit.
Population Stadium Capapcity % of population
Whangarei 54400 18500 34%
Auckland 1470000 47000 3%
Pukekohe 26500 12000 45%
Hamilton 176500 25800 15%
Tauranga 151300 5000 3%
New Plymouth 57600 22000 38%
Napier-Hastings 115300 19700 17%
Palmerston North 81500 15000 18%
Wellington 429700 34500 8%
Nelson 51100 18000 35%
Christchurch 383200 25000 7%
Dunedin 106200 30748 29%
Invercargill 50200 18000 36% -
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
on a related but completely opposite note, the same dreamers who are always pushing this stuff are trying to leverage our possibility of hosting Olympic football in 2032 to once again try for a 20,000 seat stadium
In a city of 150,000
without a major sports team to play in it
I am sure the 800 strong crowd at a Northern Pride game will loooove all the additional space
I am becoming more and more convinced that the people who work in public infrastructure are mentally deficient
It's interesting the stadium capacities for NZ towns and cities compared to size of town. They are ridiculous.
(I've used the new proposed one for Chch)
OK, some of them are just a grandstand plus banks and terraces. But still.
Invercargill is probably not much different to current Cairns. But I assume the new Cairns proposal is more bells and whistles than Rugby Park, and whatever Cairns have. They used an athletics stadium in the RLWC? That was a bit shit, I admit.
Population Stadium Capapcity % of population
Whangarei 54400 18500 34%
Auckland 1470000 47000 3%
Pukekohe 26500 12000 45%
Hamilton 176500 25800 15%
Tauranga 151300 5000 3%
New Plymouth 57600 22000 38%
Napier-Hastings 115300 19700 17%
Palmerston North 81500 15000 18%
Wellington 429700 34500 8%
Nelson 51100 18000 35%
Christchurch 383200 25000 7%
Dunedin 106200 30748 29%
Invercargill 50200 18000 36% -
@rapido want to do the same for the Aussie stadiums?
-
-
The most enjoyable looking rugby atmosphere i have seen in NZ in recent years (apart from club finals on grassroots rugby) has been NPC games at Tauranga.
With a stadium of just 3% of their total population, and no lights, so all sunny afternoon matches. Looks good fun.
Albeit, on an athletics stadium with a temporary seating built over the track.
Dumb mistake to build an expensive athletics track on the domain once Builder Bob built that enormous stupid speedway stadium in the swampy boondocks. Yet, despite this, the best looking rugby atmosphere in the country. I guess that is a sign of how dire things have got in NZ rugby.
