Stadium of Canterbury
-
@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 said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
The caketin was never touted as having a roof as a later option. You are mis-remembering.
-
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
The caketin was never touted as having a roof as a later option. You are mis-remembering.
@rapido first google search
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10640357/Stadium-price-tag-through-the-roof
I do understand this part
"The reason for the costings being as high as they are is, structurally, the stadium was never built to take a roof. So to a large extent you are building a stadium over a stadium in terms of structural capability."
..but the reason the report was even done was on the back of the council saying for ages that they would investigate the possibility down the track. I have no idea if that was empty noises which the had to pay money to then wipe away but I do remember the noises.
-
@rapido first google search
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10640357/Stadium-price-tag-through-the-roof
I do understand this part
"The reason for the costings being as high as they are is, structurally, the stadium was never built to take a roof. So to a large extent you are building a stadium over a stadium in terms of structural capability."
..but the reason the report was even done was on the back of the council saying for ages that they would investigate the possibility down the track. I have no idea if that was empty noises which the had to pay money to then wipe away but I do remember the noises.
-
@crucial
That's 15 years after it was built!In the 1990s when this was being designed and built no one was touting it as being able to be roofed at a later date.
-
@crucial said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@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.
The caketin was never touted as having a roof as a later option. You are mis-remembering.
This post is deleted! -
Had a friend working on the stadium during the foundations stage. It would have been a way bigger job to lay foundations for a roof later, way too expensive etc, etc.
-
@booboo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
https://twitter.com/ChristchurchCC/status/1466574940241469442?t=KI_PHC5Kpf_Lfgvn_8QlbQ&s=19
I don't think that looks bad at all. This best part is location.
IIRC seated capacity is 30K, which isn't bad considering the population. Suncorp is ~52K with Brisbane more than double the population of the South Island.
-
@booboo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
https://twitter.com/ChristchurchCC/status/1466574940241469442?t=KI_PHC5Kpf_Lfgvn_8QlbQ&s=19
I don't think that looks bad at all. This best part is location.
IIRC seated capacity is 30K, which isn't bad considering the population. Suncorp is ~52K with Brisbane more than double the population of the South Island.
@antipodean Now if they could get on with it and avoid cost overruns due to taking so long....
-
I have zero faith we'll get anything that looks as good as that prelim design. If the latest construction start date is August 2022, that means we'll lose at least another $9m more month to month in costs in the meantime, whilst also watching steel prices soar globally amongst other key materials, then there's inflation and rising labour costs in a tight market. So let's say that's another $15m off the budget. Unless the prelim design already takes into account the shrinking pool of cash, it'll have to change which means a degradation in spec.
-
https://newsline.ccc.govt.nz/news/story/councils-arena-noise-management-rules-given-the-green-light
Summary: 6 concerts a year till 11pm, NYE 12:30am. Unlimited events under 65 DB.
-
Is it actually possible to reject the name gifted? Imagine the outcry!
-
Is it actually possible to reject the name gifted? Imagine the outcry!
@billy-tell said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Is it actually possible to reject the name gifted? Imagine the outcry!
Te Kaha seems pretty safe as far as names go.
-
$301m is to be spent on 13 new cycleways. The CCC is a fucking Muppet show lunatic asylum. They actually believe this will encourage people to cycle to work. I'm all for cutting down emissions, but this is a waste of money of biblical proportions. How's this relate to the stadium? Well I'm not going to suggest the $301m be thrown at it, but I am going to suggest $50m should be as that's probably what'll be needed to get it built now to spec, and the other $250m goes into light rail links running from high density suburbs past a handful of major facilities and directly into the centre of the four avenues.
-
$301m is to be spent on 13 new cycleways. The CCC is a fucking Muppet show lunatic asylum. They actually believe this will encourage people to cycle to work. I'm all for cutting down emissions, but this is a waste of money of biblical proportions. How's this relate to the stadium? Well I'm not going to suggest the $301m be thrown at it, but I am going to suggest $50m should be as that's probably what'll be needed to get it built now to spec, and the other $250m goes into light rail links running from high density suburbs past a handful of major facilities and directly into the centre of the four avenues.
@shark fair enough a bit more distribution of funds would be good....but, im not sure its so much a case of building cycleways to encourage people to cycle...but more a response to so many people in chch already cycling, i use to bike to work in chch and there was always a steady streams of people and that was before alot of the rebuild of the CBD
-
Are the neighbouring councils going to contribute now? The stadium will be a regional facility, not just a Christchurch facility.
@bovidae last i heard the surrounding councils were still out, anecdotally, they weren't consulted on what they would like to see as you might expect if they were going to chip in...but also CCC has kind of gone ahead without them so they're probably thinking. great, get the benefit without having to pay...poorly handled all around
I have family in wider canterbury and i know they all signed those petitions re the size and roof etc, did not appreciated when i asked if they were paying...its all fucked up
-
@shark fair enough a bit more distribution of funds would be good....but, im not sure its so much a case of building cycleways to encourage people to cycle...but more a response to so many people in chch already cycling, i use to bike to work in chch and there was always a steady streams of people and that was before alot of the rebuild of the CBD
@kiwiwomble I don't see many people biking to work. It's that simple.
-
@kiwiwomble I don't see many people biking to work. It's that simple.
@shark as I say, I use too and there were hundreds of others when I did, and that’s just along the route I took
-
@shark as I say, I use too and there were hundreds of others when I did, and that’s just along the route I took
@kiwiwomble I live here. I work within the four avenues and I'm out and about on the road all day. I don't see many cyclists. Certainly not enough to warrant half a billion dollars worth of cycleways (assuming what's already been spent is somewhere up towards $200m).
-
@shark as I say, I use too and there were hundreds of others when I did, and that’s just along the route I took
@kiwiwomble said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark as I say, I use too and there were hundreds of others when I did, and that’s just along the route I took
Hang on, you used to see HUNDREDS of others as you cycled in? Were they all on 10 speeds? I suspect they carried on in a large pack up into the hills and you mistook commuters for racing cyclists.
