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
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
-
Is it 2002 and I've lost a couple of decades?
I'll eat my hat if there's ever a waterfront stadium in Auckland.
Is it 2002 and I've lost a couple of decades?
I'll eat my hat if there's ever a waterfront stadium in Auckland.
Do you like eating hats? I grant you it seems a logistic, geographic, and environmental nightmare but that makes it far more likely for the politically appointed.
-
Is it 2002 and I've lost a couple of decades?
I'll eat my hat if there's ever a waterfront stadium in Auckland.
Do you like eating hats? I grant you it seems a logistic, geographic, and environmental nightmare but that makes it far more likely for the politically appointed.
@nostrildamus Ain't going to happen, it's just wishful thinking.
-
The chance to relocate the main stadium in Auckland was missed before the RWC, and instead they upgraded Eden Park. Turning around and deciding to build one on the waterfront now would be pretty crazy.
I do like the idea of a slightly more central stadium, but at the same time, Eden Park is a fantastic facility, so it feels like they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.
-
The chance to relocate the main stadium in Auckland was missed before the RWC, and instead they upgraded Eden Park. Turning around and deciding to build one on the waterfront now would be pretty crazy.
I do like the idea of a slightly more central stadium, but at the same time, Eden Park is a fantastic facility, so it feels like they're trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.
@No-Quarter Eden Park is not a fantastic facility at all, it is a jumbled mess. It's our biggest, sure, but it is a hodge podge of bits. Not that I don't enjoy it there but there is work to be done in making it navigatable and user friendly
-
@No-Quarter Eden Park is not a fantastic facility at all, it is a jumbled mess. It's our biggest, sure, but it is a hodge podge of bits. Not that I don't enjoy it there but there is work to be done in making it navigatable and user friendly
@Machpants said in Eden Park:
@No-Quarter Eden Park is not a fantastic facility at all, it is a jumbled mess. It's our biggest, sure, but it is a hodge podge of bits. Not that I don't enjoy it there but there is work to be done in making it navigatable and user friendly
Which is what this upgrade is designed to fix. Matching stands on the sides then the ends.
It's a good stadium, comically easy to get to, pretty user friendly IMO. Short walk after parking for free, or a train straight to it or you can walk easily from the top of Queen Street.
-
@Machpants said in Eden Park:
@No-Quarter Eden Park is not a fantastic facility at all, it is a jumbled mess. It's our biggest, sure, but it is a hodge podge of bits. Not that I don't enjoy it there but there is work to be done in making it navigatable and user friendly
Which is what this upgrade is designed to fix. Matching stands on the sides then the ends.
It's a good stadium, comically easy to get to, pretty user friendly IMO. Short walk after parking for free, or a train straight to it or you can walk easily from the top of Queen Street.
@Kirwan I understand that this is the 'fix'. But comically easy to get to is the cake tin, Eden Park is average on a full crowd. I am not anti any of these proposals, love to see an improved EP or an awesome new one. I just can't see any happening in the current economic environment
