Stadium of Canterbury
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble re your last comment, yes, absolutely. Had there not been this hopelessly mis-guided obsession with an indoor stadium, we could have whacked up an upgraded 40k seater Bankwest Stadium years ago and had the best stadium in NZ, a true international class venue and possibly even had change leftover.
The Crusaders should have spent more time pushing for day games and an uncovered stadium
Many people should have pushed for an open stadium. It'd be done by now.
I doubt it, even the metro facility isn't completed yet.
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble re your last comment, yes, absolutely. Had there not been this hopelessly mis-guided obsession with an indoor stadium, we could have whacked up an upgraded 40k seater Bankwest Stadium years ago and had the best stadium in NZ, a true international class venue and possibly even had change leftover.
The Crusaders should have spent more time pushing for day games and an uncovered stadium
Many people should have pushed for an open stadium. It'd be done by now.
I doubt it, even the metro facility isn't completed yet.
conversely the "temp" stadium went up in 100 days, metro sports has many more stakeholders and even its definition/purpose was very vague for a long time, i think an off the shelf bowl rectangular stadium like we see 100's of in europe or copy and paste forsyth barr for a smaller covered stadium and it could have been ready for 2017
-
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble re your last comment, yes, absolutely. Had there not been this hopelessly mis-guided obsession with an indoor stadium, we could have whacked up an upgraded 40k seater Bankwest Stadium years ago and had the best stadium in NZ, a true international class venue and possibly even had change leftover.
The Crusaders should have spent more time pushing for day games and an uncovered stadium
Many people should have pushed for an open stadium. It'd be done by now.
I doubt it, even the metro facility isn't completed yet.
conversely the "temp" stadium went up in 100 days, metro sports has many more stakeholders and even its definition/purpose was very vague for a long time, i think an off the shelf bowl rectangular stadium like we see 100's of in europe or copy and paste forsyth barr for a smaller covered stadium and it could have been ready for 2017
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble re your last comment, yes, absolutely. Had there not been this hopelessly mis-guided obsession with an indoor stadium, we could have whacked up an upgraded 40k seater Bankwest Stadium years ago and had the best stadium in NZ, a true international class venue and possibly even had change leftover.
The Crusaders should have spent more time pushing for day games and an uncovered stadium
Many people should have pushed for an open stadium. It'd be done by now.
I doubt it, even the metro facility isn't completed yet.
conversely the "temp" stadium went up in 100 days, metro sports has many more stakeholders and even its definition/purpose was very vague for a long time, i think an off the shelf bowl rectangular stadium like we see 100's of in europe or cut and paste forsyth barr for a smaller covered stadium and it could have been ready for 2017
Totally agree - my cynical observation is that requires decisionmaking, and city council seems to be beset by analysis paralysis.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble re your last comment, yes, absolutely. Had there not been this hopelessly mis-guided obsession with an indoor stadium, we could have whacked up an upgraded 40k seater Bankwest Stadium years ago and had the best stadium in NZ, a true international class venue and possibly even had change leftover.
The Crusaders should have spent more time pushing for day games and an uncovered stadium
Many people should have pushed for an open stadium. It'd be done by now.
I doubt it, even the metro facility isn't completed yet.
conversely the "temp" stadium went up in 100 days, metro sports has many more stakeholders and even its definition/purpose was very vague for a long time, i think an off the shelf bowl rectangular stadium like we see 100's of in europe or cut and paste forsyth barr for a smaller covered stadium and it could have been ready for 2017
Totally agree - my cynical observation is that requires decisionmaking, and city council seems to be beset by analysis paralysis.
@godder yes, i think think if they had just decided to build what they could afford, either smaller and covered or larger and uncovered, and live with some complaints they would have already had a few years enjoying a new stadium and we'd only have the odd comment down the pub "they should have done this or that"
God forbid they show real forward thinking and build an uncovered stadium with the capacity to have one added down the track
-
@godder yes, i think think if they had just decided to build what they could afford, either smaller and covered or larger and uncovered, and live with some complaints they would have already had a few years enjoying a new stadium and we'd only have the odd comment down the pub "they should have done this or that"
God forbid they show real forward thinking and build an uncovered stadium with the capacity to have one added down the track
-
@kiwiwomble in fairness, I don't think you save much by trying to future proof structures like that. You'll spend most of the cost inn the supports and foundations... And then finish without a roof.
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it, for Forsyth barr the roof is almost a free standing structure, the huge columns in the corners and the beam across the front of the main stand could all be removed to ground level i believe
I thin it becomes more of an issue is all that structure needs to be hidden in the stand structure itself, if you accept it can be seen then it becomes more simple
-
FBS still has tremendous novelty value and of course it has its benefits, but isn't a good example of a roofed stadium. It's essentially three separate stands with a plastic canopy.
The concept art for the Christchurch MUA shows a much more complete and aesthetically pleasing design, but it'll probably end up being a facsimile of FBS in order to end up with anything serviceable for the pool of cash still available.
-
FBS still has tremendous novelty value and of course it has its benefits, but isn't a good example of a roofed stadium. It's essentially three separate stands with a plastic canopy.
The concept art for the Christchurch MUA shows a much more complete and aesthetically pleasing design, but it'll probably end up being a facsimile of FBS in order to end up with anything serviceable for the pool of cash still available.
@shark Thanks kind of what im saying, of course you can have a design the better incorporates the structural aspects....but thats what you pay for, even when we rebuild our place after the earthquake we wanted to put these big bi fold doors in and the architect explained we could either have floor to ceiling but broken with columns...or full width but with a 400mm wooden lintel...or pay a small fortune for a steel beam
you need to chose two out of beautiful (structure all hidden etc), complicated (roof) or cost...cant have them all
-
@shark Thanks kind of what im saying, of course you can have a design the better incorporates the structural aspects....but thats what you pay for, even when we rebuild our place after the earthquake we wanted to put these big bi fold doors in and the architect explained we could either have floor to ceiling but broken with columns...or full width but with a 400mm wooden lintel...or pay a small fortune for a steel beam
you need to chose two out of beautiful (structure all hidden etc), complicated (roof) or cost...cant have them all
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark Thanks kind of what im saying, of course you can have a design the better incorporates the structural aspects....but thats what you pay for, even when we rebuild our place after the earthquake we wanted to put these big bi fold doors in and the architect explained we could either have floor to ceiling but broken with columns...or full width but with a 400mm wooden lintel...or pay a small fortune for a steel beam
you need to chose two out of beautiful, complicated or cost...cant have the all
This is a rule we live by at work.
Choose two of cheap / fast / good.
-
FBS still has tremendous novelty value and of course it has its benefits, but isn't a good example of a roofed stadium. It's essentially three separate stands with a plastic canopy.
The concept art for the Christchurch MUA shows a much more complete and aesthetically pleasing design, but it'll probably end up being a facsimile of FBS in order to end up with anything serviceable for the pool of cash still available.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
FBS still has tremendous novelty value and of course it has its benefits, but isn't a good example of a roofed stadium. It's essentially three separate stands with a plastic canopy.
The concept art for the Christchurch MUA shows a much more complete and aesthetically pleasing design, but it'll probably end up being a facsimile of FBS in order to end up with anything serviceable for the pool of cash still available.
What was wrong with a facsimile of FBS anyway? I'm sure that some lessons/improvements would have come with the package and there is scope to increase capacity at build time anyway.
Everyone wants to reinvent all the time and incur costs instead of following an existing model.With the idea of adding a roof later, it has to be well designed with that in mind instead of a 'we will solve that if required' approach. See the Caketin as an example.It was always touted that when technology was available and cheaper a roof would be an option. The cheaper part never comes along with the better.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
FBS still has tremendous novelty value and of course it has its benefits, but isn't a good example of a roofed stadium. It's essentially three separate stands with a plastic canopy.
The concept art for the Christchurch MUA shows a much more complete and aesthetically pleasing design, but it'll probably end up being a facsimile of FBS in order to end up with anything serviceable for the pool of cash still available.
What was wrong with a facsimile of FBS anyway? I'm sure that some lessons/improvements would have come with the package and there is scope to increase capacity at build time anyway.
Everyone wants to reinvent all the time and incur costs instead of following an existing model.With the idea of adding a roof later, it has to be well designed with that in mind instead of a 'we will solve that if required' approach. See the Caketin as an example.It was always touted that when technology was available and cheaper a roof would be an option. The cheaper part never comes along with the better.
@crucial yes, definitely, not speculative, actually design the roof with current technology, do what parts need to be done now, hopefully a minimal amount like just foundations and then if something new/cheaper/fancier comes around its can be a plus
I always thought the stands at either ed of FSB could easily have been bigger to raise the capacity for chch
-
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it, for Forsyth barr the roof is almost a free standing structure, the huge columns in the corners and the beam across the front of the main stand could all be removed to ground level i believe
I thin it becomes more of an issue is all that structure needs to be hidden in the stand structure itself, if you accept it can be seen then it becomes more simple
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it
I really don't think it's that simple.
The design of a structure, vs a structure that has to support another structure is fundamentally different. If you design to support a roof, the actual roof cost will be pretty small - it's all of the design and construction costs associated with the support structures (stands) that is expensive. Once you've put all that in, the incremental cost for the roof isn't much -- and in some ways you should just build it so that if seismic/engineering codes change you don't get caught!
I also think Forsyth Barr is a tremendous stadium. Budget, but damn good. Capacity 30k; you could probably increase that to 35/40 with a bit of extra span and some more work at each end. That's a good capacity for Christchurch.
One thing is for sure - the pool of money is now fixed, but the costs are soaring. It's really depressing.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it
I really don't think it's that simple.
The design of a structure, vs a structure that has to support another structure is fundamentally different. If you design to support a roof, the actual roof cost will be pretty small - it's all of the design and construction costs associated with the support structures (stands) that is expensive. Once you've put all that in, the incremental cost for the roof isn't much -- and in some ways you should just build it so that if seismic/engineering codes change you don't get caught!
I also think Forsyth Barr is a tremendous stadium. Budget, but damn good. Capacity 30k; you could probably increase that to 35/40 with a bit of extra span and some more work at each end. That's a good capacity for Christchurch.
One thing is for sure - the pool of money is now fixed, but the costs are soaring. It's really depressing.
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it
I really don't think it's that simple.
The design of a structure, vs a structure that has to support another structure is fundamentally different. If you design to support a roof, the actual roof cost will be pretty small - it's all of the design and construction costs associated with the support structures (stands) that is expensive. Once you've put all that in, the incremental cost for the roof isn't much -- and in some ways you should just build it so that if seismic/engineering codes change you don't get caught!
I also think Forsyth Barr is a tremendous stadium. Budget, but damn good. Capacity 30k; you could probably increase that to 35/40 with a bit of extra span and some more work at each end. That's a good capacity for Christchurch.
One thing is for sure - the pool of money is now fixed, but the costs are soaring. It's really depressing.
Hindsight is particularly damning, but I feel like the contingency planning was lacking somewhere.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp It would cost more than not future proofing for sure but would have to be cheaper than the full thing...just purely the cost of the roof structure itself plus the labour for building it
I really don't think it's that simple.
The design of a structure, vs a structure that has to support another structure is fundamentally different. If you design to support a roof, the actual roof cost will be pretty small - it's all of the design and construction costs associated with the support structures (stands) that is expensive. Once you've put all that in, the incremental cost for the roof isn't much -- and in some ways you should just build it so that if seismic/engineering codes change you don't get caught!
I also think Forsyth Barr is a tremendous stadium. Budget, but damn good. Capacity 30k; you could probably increase that to 35/40 with a bit of extra span and some more work at each end. That's a good capacity for Christchurch.
One thing is for sure - the pool of money is now fixed, but the costs are soaring. It's really depressing.
@nzzp i dont think its fundamentally different, we're still in the same realm, different degrees of structural engineering
yes, if you go for a design like chch is touting where the roof seems completely integrated to the stand structures then yes, there will only be a smaller saving..still 10's of millions i imagine though, but the example i gave with FSB where almost everything associated with the roof structure above ground could be removed, as shark said its really 4 stand and a roof all stuck together....i dont see how that cant be significantly cheaper, the savings really depend on how complicated they want to make things
-
@nzzp i dont think its fundamentally different, we're still in the same realm, different degrees of structural engineering
yes, if you go for a design like chch is touting where the roof seems completely integrated to the stand structures then yes, there will only be a smaller saving..still 10's of millions i imagine though, but the example i gave with FSB where almost everything associated with the roof structure above ground could be removed, as shark said its really 4 stand and a roof all stuck together....i dont see how that cant be significantly cheaper, the savings really depend on how complicated they want to make things
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp i dont think its fundamentally different, we're still in the same realm, different degrees of structural engineering
agree - but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's at all as simple as you indicate - and the interaction with stands, cladding, etc all have conseqeunces.
Dunedin innovated with the plastic as well, to allow grass to grow. That was huge - a massive cost saver compared to roofed stadia that need turf attention.
anyhoo, it is what it is
-
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp i dont think its fundamentally different, we're still in the same realm, different degrees of structural engineering
agree - but we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's at all as simple as you indicate - and the interaction with stands, cladding, etc all have conseqeunces.
Dunedin innovated with the plastic as well, to allow grass to grow. That was huge - a massive cost saver compared to roofed stadia that need turf attention.
anyhoo, it is what it is
@nzzp im not saying it would be the same as no roof at all, but 20% cheaper would still be 20% cheaper and may have been enough to get it out of the ground years ago
-
Just cancel it. The current ground is good enough for Canterbury. The Crusaders should move to their new power base of Nelson
-
@booboo so great they have made it to the preliminary design phase!
I hear good things take time!
