Eden Park
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
-
For interest, this was a little-known Quay Park proposal from 2017 that came to light in 2021. The feasibility study which Goff commissioned (but kept secret from Council - including the outraged Eden park supporters on Council) came back with the Quay park site being rated the best of five different locations studied.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/an-unseen-magical-downtown-stadium-for-auckland
-
For interest, this was a little-known Quay Park proposal from 2017 that came to light in 2021. The feasibility study which Goff commissioned (but kept secret from Council - including the outraged Eden park supporters on Council) came back with the Quay park site being rated the best of five different locations studied.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/an-unseen-magical-downtown-stadium-for-auckland
For interest, this was a little-known Quay Park proposal from 2017 that came to light in 2021. The feasibility study which Goff commissioned (but kept secret from Council - including the outraged Eden park supporters on Council) came back with the Quay park site being rated the best of five different locations studied.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/an-unseen-magical-downtown-stadium-for-auckland
So why didn't it get the green light?
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Yeah I’m ambivalent about that proposal only for the outrage it would create lol. It’ll be far too hard to persuade people to support it. Hence my support for Quay Park.
But wouldn’t the idea be to reclaim land from the harbour? It wouldn’t necessarily be plonking a stadium in the harbour like Kelly Tarltons.
-
Yeah I’m ambivalent about that proposal only for the outrage it would create lol. It’ll be far too hard to persuade people to support it. Hence my support for Quay Park.
But wouldn’t the idea be to reclaim land from the harbour? It wouldn’t necessarily be plonking a stadium in the harbour like Kelly Tarltons.
Yeah I’m ambivalent about that proposal only for the outrage it would create lol. It’ll be far too hard to persuade people to support it. Hence my support for Quay Park.
But wouldn’t the idea be to reclaim land from the harbour? It wouldn’t necessarily be plonking a stadium in the harbour like Kelly Tarltons.
If you don't need to reclaim though, as the railway proposal suggests, why bother doing so? Just more expense
-
For interest, this was a little-known Quay Park proposal from 2017 that came to light in 2021. The feasibility study which Goff commissioned (but kept secret from Council - including the outraged Eden park supporters on Council) came back with the Quay park site being rated the best of five different locations studied.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/an-unseen-magical-downtown-stadium-for-auckland
So why didn't it get the green light?
Council didn’t support Goff pursuing it. I remember there were quite a few Eden Park supporters on council - eg: Mike Lee, Wayne Walker, John Watson, Efeso Collins, and Daniel Newman who were vehemently opposed to a new stadium. These all happened to be the “opposition” (B team) who never voted with Goff on many things during Goff’s terms.
-
Council didn’t support Goff pursuing it. I remember there were quite a few Eden Park supporters on council - eg: Mike Lee, Wayne Walker, John Watson, Efeso Collins, and Daniel Newman who were vehemently opposed to a new stadium. These all happened to be the “opposition” (B team) who never voted with Goff on many things during Goff’s terms.
Council didn’t support Goff pursuing it. I remember there were quite a few Eden Park supporters on council - eg: Mike Lee, Wayne Walker, John Watson, Efeso Collins, and Daniel Newman who were vehemently opposed to a new stadium. These all happened to be the “opposition” (B team) who never voted with Goff on many things during Goff’s terms.
Shame they didn't share Fran Wilde's foresight on the issue. IIRC the government were willing to stump up a big chunk of the money
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
Based on the artist's rendering the stadium would have sat above ground, I assume they would have built on pilings driven into the sea? I seem to recall another concept that actually had the field sat under the water level. Either way I would prefer to save the money spent on geotech by moving onto more solid ground a short distance away. If I actually had a say....
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater?
You have to do it properly though. Unlike Seascape (currently under construction) who failed Council inspections on their (5 story) basement and consequently had an expensive two-year construction delay.
The original design for Britomart station included an 8-story underground car park / bus terminal
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
Engineer here, definitely agree its not an issue. A quarter the Netherlands is under sea level, some of it more than 6m. The Fontvieille project on the waterfront in Monaco goes as deep as 40m!
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable. Hell, they were doing it reliably 50 years ago - the wost thing yo uget is a bit of seepage if things aren't perfect.
Plus, the port reclamation typically has Auckland rock (very soft rock, but good for building on) nice and shallow. You'd just sit on that, build up - it's a few metres of excavation at most. By comparison, Westpac Stadium is sitting on shitty old reclamation, and has monstrous seismic loads (like 6-8 times bigger than Auckland).
I'll stand by my assertion that Engineering isn't the issue
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable.
and lots have sump pumps working day and night to keep them "dry", and those are all a tiny footprint compared to that of a stadium. Im not saying its not achievable...but id still argue its a huge engineering undertaking
I have just completely missed "why", reclaim it have have above water, below the water line just feels like potential cons outweighing the pros
-
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable.
and lots have sump pumps working day and night to keep them "dry", and those are all a tiny footprint compared to that of a stadium. Im not saying its not achievable...but id still argue its a huge engineering undertaking
I have just completely missed "why", reclaim it have have above water, below the water line just feels like potential cons outweighing the pros
@Kiwiwomble said in Eden Park:
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable.
and lots have sump pumps working day and night to keep them "dry", and those are all a tiny footprint compared to that of a stadium. Im not saying its not achievable...but id still argue its a huge engineering undertaking
I have just completely missed "why", reclaim it have have above water, below the water line just feels like potential cons outweighing the pros
Also for any Govt or Council supported venture the environmental/carbon future benefits and disbenefits need to be taken into account. Committing to years and years of running sump pumps could derail funding
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Eden Park:
The Sunken Stadium guys on the waterfront are about to mount a counter-proposal to Eden park 2.0 in the next two weeks.
The sunken stadium idea is crazy. A sunken stadium would have got big time flooded in the floods earlier in the year
Respectfully, the engineering for a stadium down there is not particularly complex. Keeping water out isn't hard, and in some ways flooding is a lower risk beside the sea. There are lots of issues with a stadium there, but engineering isn't the issue
You might know more than me on the subject. But in my experience water is pervasive, it will find a way in eventually. So a stadium that sits basically underwater is a big risk. I don't think it pays to fight mother nature when it comes to a billion dollar investment
you realise that all the basements downtown (and in most cities) are underwater? Waterproofing is part of design, and it's readily achievable.
and lots have sump pumps working day and night to keep them "dry", and those are all a tiny footprint compared to that of a stadium. Im not saying its not achievable...but id still argue its a huge engineering undertaking
I have just completely missed "why", reclaim it have have above water, below the water line just feels like potential cons outweighing the pros
Also for any Govt or Council supported venture the environmental/carbon future benefits and disbenefits need to be taken into account. Committing to years and years of running sump pumps could derail funding
