Eden Park
-
@chris-b said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@shark I'm not sure that the Auckland market can actually sustain the attendance numbers for a national stadium if you play every big test there.
Sure, you could sell out three Lions tests no problem - but, would you sell out three French tests? And then Oz and SA as well? And the equivalent year after year?
I reckon the market would rapidly be saturated once the novelty of a new stadium wore off.
If all the big games are in Auckland people will travel from around the country to attend
@canefan Maybe.
To be honest, it's years since I've been to an ABs test and more years since I traveled specifically to go to one.
I don't really know anyone in Nelson who regularly travels to test matches or, in fact, is keen on driving as far as Blenheim to watch the Mako.
The novelty of traveling wears off - especially once you're adding flight and accommodation costs.
-
@shark I'm not sure that the Auckland market can actually sustain the attendance numbers for a national stadium if you play every big test there.
Sure, you could sell out three Lions tests no problem - but, would you sell out three French tests? And then Oz and SA as well? And the equivalent year after year?
I reckon the market would rapidly be saturated once the novelty of a new stadium wore off.
@chris-b said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@shark I'm not sure that the Auckland market can actually sustain the attendance numbers for a national stadium if you play every big test there.
Sure, you could sell out three Lions tests no problem - but, would you sell out three French tests? And then Oz and SA as well? And the equivalent year after year?
I reckon the market would rapidly be saturated once the novelty of a new stadium wore off.
I think @shark mentioned the top three being in AKL and the rest by allocation/bid throughout the rest which in my eyes means France would play in Wellington/Christchurch/Dunedin.
-
@chris-b said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@shark I'm not sure that the Auckland market can actually sustain the attendance numbers for a national stadium if you play every big test there.
Sure, you could sell out three Lions tests no problem - but, would you sell out three French tests? And then Oz and SA as well? And the equivalent year after year?
I reckon the market would rapidly be saturated once the novelty of a new stadium wore off.
I think @shark mentioned the top three being in AKL and the rest by allocation/bid throughout the rest which in my eyes means France would play in Wellington/Christchurch/Dunedin.
-
I go to at least one AB Test p.a. usually at EP but in my dotage I am looking at travelling to overseas tests or other NZ venues more and more. The issue when looking at elsewhere in NZ is infrastructure. I looked at a Dunedin test two years ago. Nearest I could get accommodation was Oamaru.
This year I can meet up with some people in Sydney for a weekend far cheaper than I could do Dunedin
-
The ship has sailed as far as I'm concerned - can't justify spending what it would cost, and then leaving eden park to rot.
Having said that, the national stadium argument isn't a bad one, but it would to be dotting the i's and crossing the t's to bring EP up to that. It's 50% away from being a true world class stadium, as both the north and south stands are excellent, but the ends are rubbish.
-
The ship has sailed as far as I'm concerned - can't justify spending what it would cost, and then leaving eden park to rot.
Having said that, the national stadium argument isn't a bad one, but it would to be dotting the i's and crossing the t's to bring EP up to that. It's 50% away from being a true world class stadium, as both the north and south stands are excellent, but the ends are rubbish.
@majorrage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
The ship has sailed as far as I'm concerned - can't justify spending what it would cost, and then leaving eden park to rot.
Having said that, the national stadium argument isn't a bad one, but it would to be dotting the i's and crossing the t's to bring EP up to that. It's 50% away from being a true world class stadium, as both the north and south stands are excellent, but the ends are rubbish.
Kind of needs to be one or the other (ie rugby/soccer sized) or cricket sized. It's neither.
-
Yeah, I totally agree. Reality his that Auckland simply isnt' big enough to have multiple stadiums for multiple sports.
Mt Smart should have been ditched years ago, with the warriors also playing (and funding) Eden Park.
Beautiful stadium that Albany is, what does it add to the equation?
for really big cricket matches requiring the capacity ... play them in wellington.
Why can't Auckland be the "home of NZ rugby" and Wellington the "home of NZ cricket? Wellington arguably already is with the Basin Reserve anyway. The travelling distances aren't THAT inhibitive. Both cities have plentiful hotel accomodation, and to put on additional flights (or even some more trains) for travel between isn't going to present any more logistical challenges than it already does.
-
Yeah, I totally agree. Reality his that Auckland simply isnt' big enough to have multiple stadiums for multiple sports.
Mt Smart should have been ditched years ago, with the warriors also playing (and funding) Eden Park.
Beautiful stadium that Albany is, what does it add to the equation?
for really big cricket matches requiring the capacity ... play them in wellington.
Why can't Auckland be the "home of NZ rugby" and Wellington the "home of NZ cricket? Wellington arguably already is with the Basin Reserve anyway. The travelling distances aren't THAT inhibitive. Both cities have plentiful hotel accomodation, and to put on additional flights (or even some more trains) for travel between isn't going to present any more logistical challenges than it already does.
@majorrage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
Why can't Auckland be the "home of NZ rugby" and Wellington the "home of NZ cricket? Wellington arguably already is with the Basin Reserve anyway. The travelling distances aren't THAT inhibitive. Both cities have plentiful hotel accomodation, and to put on additional flights (or even some more trains) for travel between isn't going to present any more logistical challenges than it already does.
Probably because cricket is more weather dependent and Wellington has worse weather?
-
@hooroo That's one of his options - but, I'm responding to the first option he's suggesting for if we have a "National" stadium in Auckland.
@chris-b said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@hooroo That's one of his options - but, I'm responding to the first option he's suggesting for if we have a "National" stadium in Auckland.
A national stadium doesn't mean playing every test in Auckland. I said it would be the big games (Tier 1?) which is Au, SA and the Lions. Maybe the occasional test VS England or France depending on who's likely to draw a crowd. So we're talking two to three tests a year most years. Then the rest of the centres around the country would bid for the balance.
-
Yeah, I totally agree. Reality his that Auckland simply isnt' big enough to have multiple stadiums for multiple sports.
Mt Smart should have been ditched years ago, with the warriors also playing (and funding) Eden Park.
Beautiful stadium that Albany is, what does it add to the equation?
for really big cricket matches requiring the capacity ... play them in wellington.
Why can't Auckland be the "home of NZ rugby" and Wellington the "home of NZ cricket? Wellington arguably already is with the Basin Reserve anyway. The travelling distances aren't THAT inhibitive. Both cities have plentiful hotel accomodation, and to put on additional flights (or even some more trains) for travel between isn't going to present any more logistical challenges than it already does.
@majorrage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
Why can't Auckland be the "home of NZ rugby" and Wellington the "home of NZ cricket?
I agree - but Eden Park is half owned by a Trust to promote cricket - and they compromise the shit out of designs and facilities toa ccommodate both.
I said before 2011 that we had just missed the boat in terms of the opportunity to develop a dual purpose venue. How good would Eden Park be if there was a dedicated rectangular stadium on one side, and an expanded No 2 ground on the other. Shared facilities, etc. Still has issues with consent conditions on operation and access, but you'd have a viable stadium for about the same amount of $$$ you have spent already.
-
The blues are dragging down Eden Park with them
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12187857
-
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12188217
-
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12188217
@MajorRage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
He's a serial whiner but the article does, at least, highlight the clusterfuck of decision making throughout greater Auckland when in comes to stadia.
I have to concede that most cities in NZ only end up with good stadiums out of luck and timing, but Auckland seems to go out of it's way to avoid opportunity then even further to ensure they make the already bad situation worse.
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
If Auckland wants a venue to watch 2 rugby tests and the occasional ODI or T20 a year then they have to be flexible enough to let it pay it's way. Reduce compliance costs and allow the odd concert. -
@MajorRage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
He's a serial whiner but the article does, at least, highlight the clusterfuck of decision making throughout greater Auckland when in comes to stadia.
I have to concede that most cities in NZ only end up with good stadiums out of luck and timing, but Auckland seems to go out of it's way to avoid opportunity then even further to ensure they make the already bad situation worse.
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
If Auckland wants a venue to watch 2 rugby tests and the occasional ODI or T20 a year then they have to be flexible enough to let it pay it's way. Reduce compliance costs and allow the odd concert.@Crucial said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
What's the legal situation on this? Can the council tell them to do so?
-
@Crucial said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
What's the legal situation on this? Can the council tell them to do so?
@Tim said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
What's the legal situation on this? Can the council tell them to do so?
It's worth noting the competing interests.
'Auckland Stadiums' runs Albany, Mt Smart and Western Springs etc, they are part of 'Regional Facilities Auckland' who are part of the council. When Eden Park is restricted the other Stadiums pick up the slack.
Are the council and the Eden Park nimbys on opposite sides?
To me it seems like the council wants Eden Park to die. They will call it a national issue and request all NZ taxpayers pay for a new Auckland stadium. Of course the new stadium would be directly controlled by 'Auckland Stadiums' like the others
-
@Crucial said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
What's the legal situation on this? Can the council tell them to do so?
@Tim said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@Crucial said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
What's the legal situation on this? Can the council tell them to do so?
Moot point really as I can't see how EP can even hope to cover costs even with a few extra events.
Only two things attract sizable crowds to sports in NZ. An AB test against a Tier 1 opposition and a T20 on the right day (with the right weather). Any stadia has to be multi purpose and for that to work needs to be in a location that is both accessible and separate enough from residential sops.Geography plays a part as well. For those that recall the days of big concerts at Western Springs it was like a natural loudhailer to surrounding houses. In those days though no one cared as the suburbs there weren't populated by softcocks upset that the sound of guitars were putting little Harry off his ipad.
All of this was pointed out in the lead up to 2011 but instead of making the tough decision to create a venue for the future they sunk wasted $ into a white elephant and made it fatter.
Looking at a map of Auckland I can see 3 'options' as a place to cut the EP losses and invest in modern multipurpose infrastructure.
- Waterfront. The obvious one for transport links and potential to create a 'destination' piece of architecture. An example of the mix of everyday usage is the O2 in London. People go there as a shopping and/or tourist destination and other stuff is attracted to the area (funnily enough even housing). Downside is cost challenges.
- Chamberlain Park. Although I appreciate the idea of providing a public golf course for use by non club members the fact is that this is a massive waste of land usage when judged against the benefit to ratepayers. Modern 'interactive' parkland (eg commercial operators leasing for family and tourist attractions) combined with a stadium would provide much better value. Sell bits of the fringe to developers for apartment housing as well.
- Ellerslie. Similar to CP but a waste of private land instead. A no goer.
-
@MajorRage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
He's a serial whiner but the article does, at least, highlight the clusterfuck of decision making throughout greater Auckland when in comes to stadia.
I have to concede that most cities in NZ only end up with good stadiums out of luck and timing, but Auckland seems to go out of it's way to avoid opportunity then even further to ensure they make the already bad situation worse.
The NIMBYs around EP should be told in simple terms to suck it up. Having a large volume venue near your house is common in many cities and doesn't mean the end of the world. EP and the neighbours coped OK back in the days before crowd management, traffic and transport planners etc and there's no reason they can't co-exist now.
If Auckland wants a venue to watch 2 rugby tests and the occasional ODI or T20 a year then they have to be flexible enough to let it pay it's way. Reduce compliance costs and allow the odd concert.@Crucial said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
@MajorRage said in Eden Park - the fortress no one wants:
This is actually a very fair article by TFF (the Fern's favourite)
He's a serial whiner but the article does, at least, highlight the clusterfuck of decision making throughout greater Auckland when in comes to
stadia. any infrastructure whatsoever.Fixed it for you.
On a side note, way back in the day I was forced to attend community board meetings as part of a journalism paper. Cos I lived in Kingsland at the time, I went to the local one. My god. Never had I heard such a bunch of piston wristed gibbons. They way they whined, it was if Eden Park had just appeared that year.
-
In my view, the real fuck up started when rugby stadiums weren't considered for the Warriors to make their home back in 1995. NZ as a country, is big enough to deserve to have a decent track and field stadium, and Mt Smart should have been left as it was. Unfortunately, the only option against it was Carlaw park, which by that stage literally was a toilet, if not worse.
Although given the phenomenal support from South Auckland communities to the warriors, I do wonder if having them inner city would limit the success of their fanbase.
A stadium which could be viewed as the offical home of the All Blacks, Blues, Warriors, and the spiritual home of Mate Ma'a Tonga with deals with Manu Samoa, Tonga rugby for gate takings etc, would have been a superb use of rectangular waterfront stadium. With it being close to vector as well, then the transport links could be properly updated for both.
-
