Stadium of Canterbury
-
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
-
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
That's only $30k or so a seat. Only need to return 2-3k/year per seat (over operating costs) to make it worthwhile. So that's only $150 - $200 per event per seat for 10-15 events over and above operating costs to generate a return.
So, yeah.
By comparison, the Cake Tin cost $130M in 2000 dollars to build. Only 3-4 orders of magnitude higher, with 2/3 the seats... what could possibly go wrong?
-
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Godder said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Chris-B Lancaster Park was insured for $143 million apparently, and the Council are currently putting in $253 million plus some level of ongoing operating costs. Central gov't are putting in $220 million plus $90 million already spent on the land.
A major reason for the roof besides the obvious weather-proofing, I gather, is NIMBYism - basically, to minimise noise 'leakage' if we attract concerts.
Agree that it should be 30,000 + 5,000 temporary seating, but probably doesn't need to be bigger than that any time soon.
Additional costs of the seats after building the facility are presumably any additional debt servicing, maintenance/replacement (still have to maintain and replace the additional seats and other facilities e.g. gates from time to time), lighting during games (lights will be designed for the size of the stands whether full or not).
An obvious issue with building it is that Dunedin's stadium will see less use as one suspects that at least some of the concerts and games it would have hosted would be in Christchurch instead.
Am I reading right? They are spending $700 million on a stadium with a 25,000 capacity?
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
-
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
I want to like this 100 times
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
-
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
What's interesting is how different they can be. People with some knowledge of the behind the scenes ... it would (should) affect how you choose the company you deal with.
It's like travel insurance. Lowest cost cover may not mean best cover if you need it
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
they'll just point at the engineers. It's always someone else's fault ... same as ACC -- they just argue it's the doctors who say most of teh damage was 'pre existing'
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp insurance companies are massive, massive fluffybunnies.
What's interesting is how different they can be. People with some knowledge of the behind the scenes ... it would (should) affect how you choose the company you deal with.
It's like travel insurance. Lowest cost cover may not mean best cover if you need it
-
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
@Kirwan said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@nzzp said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
The CCC's $243m includes the $143m insurabce recovery. They're then using $220m of the recovery fund the Govt contributed. Total $463m which is already down on the initial estimate of $500m for a MUA. This is another reason why I think we'll end up with a small, barely functional eyesore.
I don't think they got the full $143M. Another reason why insurance is such a frustrating thing to deal with. Loss adjustors can slap on a coat of paint and call it 'fixed'.
*The council had Lancaster Park insured for $143m and believed it was damaged beyond repair so it was therefore entitled to get the full amount, but Civic disputed that.
It said three loss adjustment firms each determined the stadium could be restored for less than $50m.*
Perhaps they should do that, and hold the directors of the insurance company criminally responsible for anybody that gets killed in the stadium for the next earthquake.
And make the insurance company liable for cost overruns as a result of construction work necessary to make the stadium safe and functional again: You said it would cost $50 million, but it will now cost $230 million...
-
most insurance policies have an option (for the insurer) about settlement sums if you choose not to rebuild on the same site or take cash settlement, although if existing site ground is not suitable for a repair/rebuild I dont expect they would invoke said clause.
-
The council uses Civic Assurance, as do most of the councils I think, not surprisingly given it was set up by and for local government in NZ. CCC settled for around $900 million paid out from a supposed maximum amount of about $1.2 billion. That was on advice of lawyers because otherwise they'd be fighting in court for years, and the funds wouldn't be paid until after that. Essentially, we got shafted by our own insurance company, and I doubt any other companies would be better to deal with...
The $50 million claim collapsed when the councillors and mayor got a guided tour of Lancaster Park by the engineers who costed actual repairs at over $200 million, hence the decision to build a new stadium.
-
The council uses Civic Assurance, as do most of the councils I think, not surprisingly given it was set up by and for local government in NZ. CCC settled for around $900 million paid out from a supposed maximum amount of about $1.2 billion. That was on advice of lawyers because otherwise they'd be fighting in court for years, and the funds wouldn't be paid until after that. Essentially, we got shafted by our own insurance company, and I doubt any other companies would be better to deal with...
The $50 million claim collapsed when the councillors and mayor got a guided tour of Lancaster Park by the engineers who costed actual repairs at over $200 million, hence the decision to build a new stadium.
@Godder yes I think most Councils are through Civic, thing is alot of the money coming in for this will be through the off-shore re-insurers anyway, so regardless of how well intentioned the local company is, the big wigs off shore will be writing the cheques once an event triggers the re-insurance, and it's these re-insurers that have forced many NZ insurers to change the way they offered home insurance post-Christchurch.
-
Can someone with more knowledge than me in the area of insurance let us know whether the park was under insured?
-
@Nepia not really an area of Insurer expertise, that comes back to the rebuild cost, which would need to be determined by a Valuer.
@taniwharugby said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Nepia not really an area of Insurer expertise, that comes back to the rebuild cost, which would need to be determined by a Valuer.
I guess what I was asking was whether the owners of the park under insured it - maybe because they assumed they'd never need a complete rebuild.
I guess there can't be too many stadium valuers out there to get a correct valuation.
-
@taniwharugby said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@Nepia not really an area of Insurer expertise, that comes back to the rebuild cost, which would need to be determined by a Valuer.
I guess what I was asking was whether the owners of the park under insured it - maybe because they assumed they'd never need a complete rebuild.
I guess there can't be too many stadium valuers out there to get a correct valuation.
@Nepia Would fall into the similar category as valuing a multi-story building or high rise, there are companies that specialise in that sort of thing, as it needs to include the cost to demo the structure, fees associated with rebuilding (council fees, architects, engineers etc) as well as the actual re-build
As to under-insuring something, highly likely, under-insurance is a bit of an issue in NZ.
-
Can someone with more knowledge than me in the area of insurance let us know whether the park was under insured?
@Nepia said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Can someone with more knowledge than me in the area of insurance let us know whether the park was under insured?
Absolutely.
The rebuild cost would have assumed decent ground to build on. Once liquefaction and higher seismic risk was front of mind, the cost of the rebuild skyrockets.
So - almost certainly undervalued, but not necessarily anyone doing anything 'wrong' -- just costs that weren't contemplated at the time (by anyone I expect)
-
One of the issues uncovered by the Canterbury earthquakes was that even apparently correct insurance was liable to be under if the disaster is big enough because we don't have the spare labour capacity, so end up having to import workers and pay premium rates to get people to move to the area, which drives up costs.
A view before the earthquakes was that CCC were overinsured, and complaints from ratepayer groups basically said they should reduce insurance and rates. How wrong that was, but that was conventional wisdom at the time.
