Stadium of Canterbury
-
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
They play at GIO with the Raiders, yeah? I took my kid to a Raiders game v the Warriors a while back and we loved it - that middle concourse was really good for getting around the ground, and the free bus home was good (though we had to keep quiet as the Warriors had managed an unthinkable/unbelievable come-from-behind win)
a day game?
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
They play at GIO with the Raiders, yeah? I took my kid to a Raiders game v the Warriors a while back and we loved it - that middle concourse was really good for getting around the ground, and the free bus home was good (though we had to keep quiet as the Warriors had managed an unthinkable/unbelievable come-from-behind win)
a day game?
I was going to ask the same. OK stadium on a sunny day. Once that cold breeze hits in the evening you want to make sure you are rugged up like you are about to retrace the steps of Shackleton.
-
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
They play at GIO with the Raiders, yeah? I took my kid to a Raiders game v the Warriors a while back and we loved it - that middle concourse was really good for getting around the ground, and the free bus home was good (though we had to keep quiet as the Warriors had managed an unthinkable/unbelievable come-from-behind win)
a day game?
-
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
They play at GIO with the Raiders, yeah? I took my kid to a Raiders game v the Warriors a while back and we loved it - that middle concourse was really good for getting around the ground, and the free bus home was good (though we had to keep quiet as the Warriors had managed an unthinkable/unbelievable come-from-behind win)
a day game?
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@voodoo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
They play at GIO with the Raiders, yeah? I took my kid to a Raiders game v the Warriors a while back and we loved it - that middle concourse was really good for getting around the ground, and the free bus home was good (though we had to keep quiet as the Warriors had managed an unthinkable/unbelievable come-from-behind win)
a day game?
It's a wind swept concrete hole in the ground. It has overpriced shit food. Overpriced shit beer. There's no bars, pubs, restaurants anywhere near it. If you're there for a night game after Anzac Day, it is miserable. The concourse is a homage to Midnight Express so the insane can wander around to keep warm.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Are we sort of at the point where they should ignore the numbers and just build a great, modern 45,000 seat stadium?
@shark loikes this post
@hooroo said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
Are we sort of at the point where they should ignore the numbers and just build a great, modern 45,000 seat stadium?
@shark loikes this post
Yeah, got there eventually
-
@duluth said in Stadium of Canterbury:
What a revelation. 25k is too small for a greater metropolitan of approx 500k? Who the fuck would have predicted that eh?
It's a fucking joke. I really can't wait for all the whingers who haven't said a fucking word thus far to pipe up when Christchurch misses it's first big event. The first of many.
-
I'll just point out people are much more likely to utilise a stadium that is well serviced by supporting infrastructure (pubs, restaurants, etc.), easily accessible and one where you don't need to wear a doona to watch a game.
For example there are people who simply won't go to watch the Brumbies because of the stadium.
@antipodean said in Stadium of Canterbury:
a doona
Jesus - you really do need to get back over here for a holiday, don't you?
-
I watched a show about Tottenham Hotspur's recently built stadium this arvo. It was 1 billion (GBP?) and is in a different league therefore to what we could have had, but it clearly showed how amazing a stadium without a fully enclosed roof can be.
The stands have pretty good cover from the extended roofing, which could have also been done in Christchurch. Large covered concourses, on site hospitality and heaps of food options which were also entirely possible if we'd gone for something more like Bankwest in Sydney. The stadium taking in hospitality earnings in the hours immediately prior to and after a game makes enormous sense to it's viability.
The irony in having this MUA in the city centre with limited transport access is that if it's wet, most punters will get wet on the way in from wherever to they are prior or the nearest drop off point, then arrive at a really basic venue for the event. An alternative could have been a state of the art open stadium with all of that hospitality already there. People in their thousands could arrive hours prior and soak up the hospitality rather than the rain. Extended roof cover would then shelter the vast majority from most rain.
-
I watched a show about Tottenham Hotspur's recently built stadium this arvo. It was 1 billion (GBP?) and is in a different league therefore to what we could have had, but it clearly showed how amazing a stadium without a fully enclosed roof can be.
The stands have pretty good cover from the extended roofing, which could have also been done in Christchurch. Large covered concourses, on site hospitality and heaps of food options which were also entirely possible if we'd gone for something more like Bankwest in Sydney. The stadium taking in hospitality earnings in the hours immediately prior to and after a game makes enormous sense to it's viability.
The irony in having this MUA in the city centre with limited transport access is that if it's wet, most punters will get wet on the way in from wherever to they are prior or the nearest drop off point, then arrive at a really basic venue for the event. An alternative could have been a state of the art open stadium with all of that hospitality already there. People in their thousands could arrive hours prior and soak up the hospitality rather than the rain. Extended roof cover would then shelter the vast majority from most rain.
@shark you make some great points. It's the whole experience, not just the 80 minutes that's important. One of the things that makes Millenium Stadium in Cardiff special is the ability to fall out of a bar and into the stadium (or vice versa).
That said, covered is the new gold standard for watching sport. Dunedin's stadium is amazing, and turns ugly winters nights into decent watching experiences. Buuuuut ... if the tradeoff is 'covered' against 'another 15k seats', it may be a tough discussion.
Too late now, though, the project is way too advaned to change again. Just build something and enjoy it
-
I watched a show about Tottenham Hotspur's recently built stadium this arvo. It was 1 billion (GBP?) and is in a different league therefore to what we could have had, but it clearly showed how amazing a stadium without a fully enclosed roof can be.
The stands have pretty good cover from the extended roofing, which could have also been done in Christchurch. Large covered concourses, on site hospitality and heaps of food options which were also entirely possible if we'd gone for something more like Bankwest in Sydney. The stadium taking in hospitality earnings in the hours immediately prior to and after a game makes enormous sense to it's viability.
The irony in having this MUA in the city centre with limited transport access is that if it's wet, most punters will get wet on the way in from wherever to they are prior or the nearest drop off point, then arrive at a really basic venue for the event. An alternative could have been a state of the art open stadium with all of that hospitality already there. People in their thousands could arrive hours prior and soak up the hospitality rather than the rain. Extended roof cover would then shelter the vast majority from most rain.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I watched a show about Tottenham Hotspur's recently built stadium this arvo. It was 1 billion (GBP?) and is in a different league therefore to what we could have had, but it clearly showed how amazing a stadium without a fully enclosed roof can be.
The stands have pretty good cover from the extended roofing, which could have also been done in Christchurch. Large covered concourses, on site hospitality and heaps of food options which were also entirely possible if we'd gone for something more like Bankwest in Sydney. The stadium taking in hospitality earnings in the hours immediately prior to and after a game makes enormous sense to it's viability.
The irony in having this MUA in the city centre with limited transport access is that if it's wet, most punters will get wet on the way in from wherever to they are prior or the nearest drop off point, then arrive at a really basic venue for the event. An alternative could have been a state of the art open stadium with all of that hospitality already there. People in their thousands could arrive hours prior and soak up the hospitality rather than the rain. Extended roof cover would then shelter the vast majority from most rain.
Why would the covered stadium have basic hospitality compared to an uncovered one?
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
I watched a show about Tottenham Hotspur's recently built stadium this arvo. It was 1 billion (GBP?) and is in a different league therefore to what we could have had, but it clearly showed how amazing a stadium without a fully enclosed roof can be.
The stands have pretty good cover from the extended roofing, which could have also been done in Christchurch. Large covered concourses, on site hospitality and heaps of food options which were also entirely possible if we'd gone for something more like Bankwest in Sydney. The stadium taking in hospitality earnings in the hours immediately prior to and after a game makes enormous sense to it's viability.
The irony in having this MUA in the city centre with limited transport access is that if it's wet, most punters will get wet on the way in from wherever to they are prior or the nearest drop off point, then arrive at a really basic venue for the event. An alternative could have been a state of the art open stadium with all of that hospitality already there. People in their thousands could arrive hours prior and soak up the hospitality rather than the rain. Extended roof cover would then shelter the vast majority from most rain.
Why would the covered stadium have basic hospitality compared to an uncovered one?
@rapido Because for $473m you get a basic, small roofed stadium. Go the other way and spend $473m on a Bankwest-esque stadium and you get larger capacity and bells and whistles.
Are people really so oblivious to this scenario? It's what I've been bleating on about for about three years.
-
@rapido Because for $473m you get a basic, small roofed stadium. Go the other way and spend $473m on a Bankwest-esque stadium and you get larger capacity and bells and whistles.
Are people really so oblivious to this scenario? It's what I've been bleating on about for about three years.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@rapido Because for $473m you get a basic, small roofed stadium. Go the other way and spend $473m on a Bankwest-esque stadium and you get larger capacity and bells and whistles.
Are people really so oblivious to this scenario? It's what I've been bleating on about for about three years.
We stopped listening
Using that Tottenham Stadium as an example is not the best. Apart from costing most of NZs GDP it was delivered late and had huge cost over-runs.
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
-
Fair call Crucial
I'm not using Spurs' stadium as an example of a financial model that would work for Christchurch. But I am picking the eyes out of it in some regards.
- The extended roofing over the stands. In lieu of a fully enclosed stadium and the money saved would have gone to greater capacity
- Covered multi-tiered concourses. This should be a given. But the Christchurch MUA has already been reduced from two tiers to one
- Multiple food and beverage options (doesn't need to be as extensive as they appeared in the show I watched, but it's surely not too hard to have outlets that offer more than burgers, hot dogs and chips)
-
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
-
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
-
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
what's incredible is, those numbers stack up somehow given an NFL team plays 8 home games a year...
-
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
what's incredible is, those numbers stack up somehow given an NFL team plays 8 home games a year...
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@mariner4life said in Stadium of Canterbury:
it's so shit that NZ is a tiny little country in the middle of nowhere because
SoFi Stadium in LA is the perfect blueprint. And it only cost like $5B+
The Raiders' stadium in Vegas is amazing too, and can be yours for only $2B
I'll take three.
what's incredible is, those numbers stack up somehow given an NFL team plays 8 home games a year...
... if the city provides the stadium on a sweetheart deal because ... sports?
-
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
I'm am probably giving way to much credit for thought to the decision makers here but surely directing punter's spending toward already existing ratepayer businesses is better than having a multinational provider with the catering contract take $ out of the region?
I went to FBS for the first time a couple of weeks ago and tbh I think the formula they have there (with a few extra seats ) would work well for you.
As punters we spent money locally for most of our food and drink but still spent a bit at the stadium. The offerings were as expected. Being close to other food and drink options meant that the stadium offerings weren't an issue.
By far the biggest bonus was the roof. -
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@rapido said in Stadium of Canterbury:
@shark said in Stadium of Canterbury:
bells and whistle
Tottenham and Parramatta stadiums' bells and whistles hospitality are based on size and amount of use.
Parramatta won't have loads more bells and whistles because of its 5,000 extra capacity. But because it has 2 financially viable tenants playing in longer competitions (than pro RU) bringing in about 2.5 times as many match-days all year round as Christchurch (which will be basically be a one town / one team stadium).
Tottenham also, with it's average of 25 home games a season, is at 2.5. times the use of Christchurch.
No one builds loads of bars in concourses if the venue gets used bugger all, unless it is public money with no consequences ...
I think there would have been scope for greater hospitality if all the focus hadn't been on the roof. I'm not saying you have to have multiple food courts, a gastro pub, 471 different craft beers and a Bubba Gumps available, but I look at how much money gets spent at the venues down Lincoln Road before people wander down to the dump and think how much better the business case would have been for any new stadium had the powers that be factored in getting a piece of it.
I'm am probably giving way to much credit for thought to the decision makers here but surely directing punter's spending toward already existing ratepayer businesses is better than having a multinational provider with the catering contract take $ out of the region?
I went to FBS for the first time a couple of weeks ago and tbh I think the formula they have there (with a few extra seats ) would work well for you.
As punters we spent money locally for most of our food and drink but still spent a bit at the stadium. The offerings were as expected. Being close to other food and drink options meant that the stadium offerings weren't an issue.
By far the biggest bonus was the roof.@crucial I thought of that trade-off, too. But moving the stadium already spells the death-knell for at least one of the Lincoln Rd venues. I don't see Morrell & co and the Pedal Pusher surviving without the revenue they get from Crusaders games. And the existing venues within the Four Avenues opened without regard to the MUA as it was always years away. So unless the CCC somehow forces punters to go to the Lincoln Rd venues, or grant them new licences near the new venue, that argument doesn't hold water.
