Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc
-
i might be loosing my mind, doesnt EP currently have retractable seating?
-
i might be loosing my mind, doesnt EP currently have retractable seating?
@Kiwiwomble said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:
i might be loosing my mind, doesnt EP currently have retractable seating?
I don't think it's retractable, but they do put in temporary - I think!
-
this is what i remembered from the redevelopment before the 2011 RWC
-
this is what i remembered from the redevelopment before the 2011 RWC
-
@Kiwiwomble that’s the south stand
-
@Duluth i realise that, i was just meaning the chat seemed to be amazed about this new idea
@Kiwiwomble said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:
@Duluth i realise that, i was just meaning the chat seemed to be amazed about this new idea
My understanding is that the proposed retractable seating would be much more significant than the current arrangement. I think they are basically looking to put in a whole new lower half to the North Stand.
-
Probably the best outcome given the realities of funding. A staged implementation to develop the best compromise is all we can hope for.
-
Pretty much agree with Gregor's opening point
Let’s get this straight: on Thursday Auckland Council voted in favour of redeveloping a stadium it doesn’t own or manage on the basis the city needs a state-of-the-art facility, and the country a national venue to attract the best sport and entertainment.But the council doesn’t want to pay money towards redeveloping it and says it doesn’t have any. The Government is also suggesting it too doesn’t want to contribute the $100 million Eden Park needs to begin its upgrade that it says will cost $546m in total, but others say will be closer to $1 billion.On top of that, you have a national sports body in New Zealand Rugby, which has openly declared – through its support for the Quay Park bid – that it does not want Eden Park to be the national stadium, and had ambition and desire to see the All Blacks play in a contemporary, larger venue that aligns more with their brand values and commercial aspirations.
Frankly, it’s hard to tell how this situation could be any less inspiring or underwhelming, as what Auckland Council voted for was precisely nothing – a prolonged stalemate over stadium development that will last until bits of Eden Park are literally falling off, which will force one body – probably the government – to reluctantly provide the cash for the urgent maintenance work.
As the RFU put it, quite pithily, 'if you want more money, build your own stadium'. Well NZR are never going to be able to build from scratch, but as partners in a bigger venture, they would've been in a much better place than paying money 'too much, had been hinted before' to a third party
-
The councillors comments about the vote sums up the situation (see video)..
https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360631753/eden-park-revamp-gets-backing-over-new-waterfront-stadium
-
Pretty much agree with Gregor's opening point
Let’s get this straight: on Thursday Auckland Council voted in favour of redeveloping a stadium it doesn’t own or manage on the basis the city needs a state-of-the-art facility, and the country a national venue to attract the best sport and entertainment.But the council doesn’t want to pay money towards redeveloping it and says it doesn’t have any. The Government is also suggesting it too doesn’t want to contribute the $100 million Eden Park needs to begin its upgrade that it says will cost $546m in total, but others say will be closer to $1 billion.On top of that, you have a national sports body in New Zealand Rugby, which has openly declared – through its support for the Quay Park bid – that it does not want Eden Park to be the national stadium, and had ambition and desire to see the All Blacks play in a contemporary, larger venue that aligns more with their brand values and commercial aspirations.
Frankly, it’s hard to tell how this situation could be any less inspiring or underwhelming, as what Auckland Council voted for was precisely nothing – a prolonged stalemate over stadium development that will last until bits of Eden Park are literally falling off, which will force one body – probably the government – to reluctantly provide the cash for the urgent maintenance work.
As the RFU put it, quite pithily, 'if you want more money, build your own stadium'. Well NZR are never going to be able to build from scratch, but as partners in a bigger venture, they would've been in a much better place than paying money 'too much, had been hinted before' to a third party
@Machpants NZ is never going to have a national stadium (where all home tests are played) either, so it seems even less likely.
-
A quick Google tells me EP is currently the world's smallest cricket ground with a 55 metre straight boundary. Whereas the basin reserve boundary is between 137 and 150 metres.
I wonder what would the new dimensions of EP be with the retractable seating? Does it bring it up to test standards?
Currently EP is not test standard, but it was awarded test status before the minimum boundary length was brought in, so that's how EP gets test cricket.
-
A quick Google tells me EP is currently the world's smallest cricket ground with a 55 metre straight boundary. Whereas the basin reserve boundary is between 137 and 150 metres.
I wonder what would the new dimensions of EP be with the retractable seating? Does it bring it up to test standards?
Currently EP is not test standard, but it was awarded test status before the minimum boundary length was brought in, so that's how EP gets test cricket.
@WestieFella said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:
A quick Google tells me EP is currently the world's smallest cricket ground with a 55 metre straight boundary. Whereas the basin reserve boundary is between 137 and 150 metres.
Those comparisons aren't apples and apples.
A 55m boundary is from the stumps to the boundary. So an edge just needs to go 55m and a straight hit is 75m::
55m plus 20m for the length of the pitch.The Basin straight is about 65m
Caketin is about 60m in all directions.
These are with the ropes and electronic signage pushing them in a few meters.
-
Ok, so will EP now be a decent cricket ground with the retractable seating in the upgrade?
From the illustrations it actually looks like it could be a very good cricket ground.
I hope they also do something with the west stand, like make it connect to the north and south stands so it's just one continuous stand. It doesn't need to go as high as the north and south. It always looks odd especially with the gaps either side of it.
But I can still remember the old old west stand and the members stand, and while that corner has improved it's still looks out of place.
I'm always sceptical of the artist impressions of buildings, cause the end result seldom looks like the impressions... -
I actually think my explanation of the 55m boundary is wrong.
To the eye, I think the straight boundaries are only about 50m.
I think 55m (that is being used) is half of the straight diameter. Which from a cricketing pov is the centre of the pitch and a totally useless starting point.
The ICC minimum is 55m, and Eden Park doesn't conform, but has an exemption.
I can't think of any ground in the world that even gets close to the 55m minimum, though. Seddon Park is probably next smallest in the world at about 58/59m straight.
-
The retractable seating in the southern stand adds 10m to the boundary length.
So, if they repeated that standard in a new northern stand. You'd add 5m to each straight boundary and reach the ICC minimum of 55m each way. Which would still be shit IMO. (Or 60m each way from centre of the pitch.)
However. At 60m each way from the centre. You now have an option to reorient the pitch along the length of the rugby orientation. Without it being too ridiculous. Basically that is McLean Park sized square boundaries.
The diameter of the current square boundaries at Eden Park are 128m. So, they would already be acceptable as straight boundaries . There is also an extra 5m that can be added now that lower tier of western stand has been demolished and is presumably going to be temporary/retractable going forward.
-
The retractable seating in the southern stand adds 10m to the boundary length.
So, if they repeated that standard in a new northern stand. You'd add 5m to each straight boundary and reach the ICC minimum of 55m each way. Which would still be shit IMO. (Or 60m each way from centre of the pitch.)
However. At 60m each way from the centre. You now have an option to reorient the pitch along the length of the rugby orientation. Without it being too ridiculous. Basically that is McLean Park sized square boundaries.
The diameter of the current square boundaries at Eden Park are 128m. So, they would already be acceptable as straight boundaries . There is also an extra 5m that can be added now that lower tier of western stand has been demolished and is presumably going to be temporary/retractable going forward.
-
@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south, and the sun goes east west.
So I can't see a realignment happening
@nzzp said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:
@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south, and the sun goes east west.
So I can't see a realignment happening
I also think it unlikely.
They are quite (demonstrably) comfortable with shit dimensions.
The East-West orientation and sunsets is a real thing for cricket grounds, I agree. But isually not when the ground is a full stadium with building heights no longer making it an issue. Although it would require modeling.
McLean Park (which has a SW orientation) has that issue, where a gap in the stands at exactly due west, causes problems at sunset at certain parts of the summer.
Eden Park orientation is very slightly WNW.
-
@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south, and the sun goes east west.
So I can't see a realignment happening
@nzzp said in Auckland stadiums - Eden Park, Western Springs etc:
@Rapido the expensive seats and corporate are north and south
For this part.
Taking Eden Park 2.0 irenders n good faith .... I'm expecting covered seating at least at one end, if not both.
I don't expect corporate at either end though, they would remain square.
That would be Adelaide Oval equivalent.
Rare, but not unknown or unsuccessful.
I would expect a corporate lounge oriented side-on that, but at a ground that actually hosts test matches again, so increases cricket days at the stadium by about 200 to 300%, to be of more value than the status quo of about 4 days use per summer.
-
I remember when the West stand was the best stand in the ground.
This is from the document that went to Council and illustrates why Eden Park 2.0 was the only choice, albeit the reality any redevelopment has been kicked down the road.
The Waterfront Stadium was, (as always thought) pretty renders and not much else
