Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Aiming for mediocrity. Again.

103 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Hamish,

    Another thing, a 67 floor tower block is just about to be dumped into Auckland's city centre, no doubt blocking off plenty sky, space and having a lot of other impacts.

    I'm all for it - more [quality] inner-city living is exactly what Auckland needs. But aside from whether you like it or not, it's a private investment in the central city. And lets face it, if you live in an inner city block and you're concerned about having your view cut off, maybe you should think about whoevers view your building cut off first. Its the CBD - the one place in Auckland where big buildings should be built.

    Anyway, it won't cause the same kind of kerfuffle because budget overruns don't become a tax-payers problem.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 152 posts Report Reply

  • Hamish,

    Why has the nation been suckered into this dumb competition by the IRB?

    Heh, first time I've heard someone actually come out against the whole concept of a rugby world cup.

    Lets be fair, having the rugby world cup here will be a huge boom time for business. The company I work for had stellar sales during the Lions Tour and RWC will be bigger than that. If we can just not screw it up too much we will come out in the black.

    The A.K. • Since Nov 2006 • 152 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Thomas,

    noelle interviewed brash on bfm this morning, he seems to have chilled out a bit. He said its up to auckland which stadium we want, he's just concerned with the timeframe and budget of the waterfront proposal. it was his "personal" view that eden park was the better option.

    ps. someone on this site suggested if we built the waterfront stadium, eden park could revert to a cricket ground a la basin reserve. i like the sound of that

    pps. has anyone seen the pictures of that 67 storey behemoth? UGLY!
    elliot tower

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 315 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    I'm all for it - more [quality] inner-city living is exactly what Auckland needs. But aside from whether you like it or not, it's a private investment in the central city.

    Exactly. It's not Gordon's best work, but the height doesn't bother me because it makes for better proportions. There are some earlier renderings over at the slightly mad http://skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=402736&page=4 SkyscaperCity which make it look very daringly slender. If only we had some of that boldness in Wellington: so many of our "skyscrapers" end up looking short & squat.

    I was always tentatively in favour of the waterfront site, but after yesterday's Campbell Live I'm much more sure. How refreshing to have some sensible discussion about what's actually planned! If anything, it looks too low and deferential: it needs some vertical elements to give it more drama and rhythm. But in terms of fitting into the urban landscape (as far as one can talk of such a think in that location), I think it's good.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1039 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    Err, that's SkyscraperCity. What's wrong with good old fashioned HTML?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1039 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Err, that's SkyscraperCity. What's wrong with good old fashioned HTML?

    If we let people use any old HTML they want, the terrorists would win ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18521 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    [Brash] said its up to auckland which stadium we want, he's just concerned with the timeframe and budget of the waterfront proposal. it was his "personal" view that eden park was the better option.

    OMG, who does that ass Brash think he is? Like, wanting to actually see some hard details before he commits his party to supporting enabling legislation and funding committments that will have a longer life than the current Government. What a wet, wimpy, unpatriotic girly-man... :)

    Now, when are we going to have a politician with the balls to say "If 'Auckland' really wants it, then 'Auckland' can pay for it - and decide how. Now if you'll excuse me, I think a pig just crash-landed on the roof...

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11786 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Rowe,

    That Apartment Tower looks fugging ugly but at least they are going through the RMA process to get it built. No amount of lipstick will make that pig attractive though....

    My understanding is that the front layer of seats can be removed to make room for a cricket oval (available for the 2015 Cricket World Cup no less).

    Lake Roxburgh, Central Ot… • Since Nov 2006 • 557 posts Report Reply

  • Robert Harvey,

    What seems odd about all of the politicking is not only the startling absence of Carlaw Park from the pro/con discussions (officially dismissed, for some unstated reason) but also the tank farm, which seems to be a spot which would satisfy the most important criteria and have least negative impact.
    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Westmere • Since Nov 2006 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • Gary Hutchings,

    What seems odd about all of the politicking is not only the startling absence of Carlaw Park from the pro/con discussions (officially dismissed, for some unstated reason) but also the tank farm, which seems to be a spot which would satisfy the most important criteria and have least negative impact.
    Just my 2 cents worth.

    Tank farm would be a great site, but no chance of it being ready for RWC2011, ARC has been pressuring the current tenents ( all with legal leases) to make other arrangements when these leases come up for re-negotiation, but the signs are not great.

    Also the oil companies' pipeline from marsden point ends there, so any new site would also have to have the pipeline laid to it,

    The impression I get of the waterfornt continues to improve as actual drawings appear, but the fact that the "design is not yet finalised" still rings big bells in the back of my head, along with Cath Tizard poo pooing resistance to the waterfront with "its just like the comments against the aotea cetre when it was proposed" doean't exactly fill me with confidence given the cost overruns and current state of the carpark.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 108 posts Report Reply

  • Nick Bryant,

    Taking a 30-50 year view, the waterfront is the best place for it. When you hear "white elephant" arguments along the lines of how seldom stadiums in Auckland are used today I believe one has to take into account (so I'm told, I'm not an expert on this - RB probably is) how few large music acts have been coming to Auckland in recent years for lack of a suitable stadium. If this is true it's a situation that has an impact on the rest of New Zealand too. I'm told that when promoters and music labels assess the financial viability of a tour to a place as far flung as NZ they look to whether they can get one or more really big sold-out gigs, and the best chance of them doing that is in the largest population centre, Auckland. Once they've made the effort to get here many of the biggest costs (freighting staging a long distance, long-haul travel etc.) are over, which means it becomes feasible to hold concerts in Wellington and Christchurch too. So it seems that lack of a decent entertainment venue in Auckland - one that's large, comfortable, modern and doesn't have the restrictions of residential stadiums - has been impacting on the rest of New Zealand's exposure to international music.

    Another point - which is far more important - is what I call, as a former resident of Melbourne, "the MCG effect." When people talk about the waterfront stadium's proximity to Auckland's only multi medium transport hub being a big reason for its being built, they have a huge point. A second, linked and equally important point is the proximity to the central city. Not only is the MCG almost at the hub of Melbourne's train, tram and bus depots, it's a gentle walk down the hill from Collins St. The ability for people with high disposable incomes who work in the CBD to wander down to the stadium for the final session of a cricket test, followed by a drink or dinner nearby, or to spend less than 10 minutes walking to a Friday (or Monday) evening Super 14 rugby match, not to mention catching most of a day-night one day cricket international, is a huge part of keeping a stadium like that proposed for the waterfront filled. Where's the precedent? The MCG, where personal membership is so popular that sons and daughters are placed on the waiting list at birth and corporate entertaining is able to be done to a standard not seen in this country because of the venue's popularity. That’s on top of the thousands of Melbournians who regularly attend “the G” every year.

    The argument over whether Aussies or Kiwis love sport more is un-winnable. A large section of both populations are as sporting mad as each other. But why are Melbournians always highlighted as a group of people who love sport so much they'd attend a flea race en masse? I proffer that it's because of the MCG's proximity to the city's major transport hub and the CBD. As a result "going to the ground" has become part of Melbournians’ DNA.

    Auckland could use a bit of the vibrancy and energy generated by Melbourne's status as a great place to host sporting and other events. What is standing in the way is too many half-arsed stadiums dotted around residential and semi-industrial sites of Auckland and in the case of Albany stadium, being miles from Auckland's CBD. Many of my demographic never consider stuffing about with traveling to Eden Park and then finding a car park, let alone taking membership. It's TV or nothing for huge numbers of CBD workers, yet huge numbers of us prefer live sport.

    Build it and we will come - Melbourne has been proving that for decades.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12 posts Report Reply

  • Clarke,

    As a Wellingtonian, it's interesting listening to the Stadium/Te Papa comparison. As a few people have pointed out, Te Papa may not be the best possible building that could have been constructed on the site - and in the opinion of some, has all the charm of a maximum-security prison - but the development of Waitangi Park and the surrounding areas are beginning to give the whole precinct a degree of coherence.

    In my view, the stadium should be on the waterfront ... but don't let the debate stop there. Auckland should then figure out what the surrounding urban landscape looks like, so that the stadium has some context. It's the coherence of the entire area that will eventually decide whether it's a successful development or not.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 78 posts Report Reply

  • Paul Rowe,

    Nick:

    "The ability for people with high disposable incomes who work in the CBD to wander down to the stadium for the final session of a cricket test, followed by a drink or dinner nearby, or to spend less than 10 minutes walking to a Friday."

    What a fantastic idea, I'm sold!

    IMHO the question is not whether we *should* build it, but whether we *can* build it in time.

    Oh, and after spending six years in Britain, I don't think NZers are as sports mad as we'd like to believe we are. This stadium needs to have much more than sporting utility to be worth the money. The Aotea Centre might be ugly, but it's a great space for doing stuff (Shihad in the square? again please!) and it adds to the CBD. The stadium needs to offer the same.

    Lake Roxburgh, Central Ot… • Since Nov 2006 • 557 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The ability for people with high disposable incomes who work in the CBD to wander down to the stadium for the final session of a cricket test, followed by a drink or dinner nearby, or to spend less than 10 minutes walking to a Friday (or Monday) evening Super 14 rugby match, not to mention catching most of a day-night one day cricket international, is a huge part of keeping a stadium like that proposed for the waterfront filled.

    Not to mention 20/20 cricket, which was tremendously popular when Australia played NZ... last season?

    If England is anything to go by, it's the sort of evening (weeknight?) entertainment that could easily pull thousands for a summer evening after work, and would be much more successful in the CBD.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6151 posts Report Reply

  • Juha Saarinen,

    It's just not going to happen... I told you already that Devonport said no to the Stadium but worse yet, it threatens cheap Japanese car imports too.

    That's the nail in the stadium coffin then.

    Since Nov 2006 • 523 posts Report Reply

  • Mark Thomas,

    here's an interesting interview with fletcher construction. they reckon costs are more likely to be an issue than finishing on time

    NZ Herald article

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 315 posts Report Reply

  • Gary Hutchings,

    In any project you have 3 variables,

    - Time
    - Quality
    - Cost,

    You can only ever fix two of them, given that we have already said that Time is fixed ( must be built for RWC2011), then in the case of anything not going to plan, either Quality or Cost must move, - I expect they have been told that a half assed version is *not* acceptable given the political flack, thus cost is where everything gets absorbed,

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 108 posts Report Reply

  • Robert Harvey,

    along with Cath Tizard poo pooing resistance to the waterfront with "its just like the comments against the aotea cetre when it was proposed" doean't exactly fill me with confidence given the cost overruns and current state of the carpark.

    Yeah, right. Bearing in mind that the Aotea Centre is perhaps the worst botchup in the City Council's history. Bloody appalling acoustics and the Herald Theatre is a disgrace.

    Westmere • Since Nov 2006 • 39 posts Report Reply

  • reece palmer,

    It wouldn't look so big and fat if we painted it black, heh.

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report Reply

  • reece palmer,

    and the arty types lurrrve black darling...

    the terraces • Since Nov 2006 • 298 posts Report Reply

  • Juha Saarinen,

    OK, now Burqa Bob says http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3862121a10,00.html it'll cost $1.8 squillion! He's as a stadium builder, and not a person to have been in a civil union with a homosexual, from Auckland and elsewhere, so he should know.

    That's that, surely? No more stadium alreddie!

    Since Nov 2006 • 523 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Here's an interesting article from the US on new stadiums for baseball.

    Bob Clarkson is an idiot who makes me more ashamed of Tauranga than Winston ever did. He built his frikkin stadium on a swamp for goodness sake! So of course it cost a lot of money.

    (Side note: not a bad little stadium when it's all said and done though. Go the Bay)

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Hadyn Green,

    Darn it, I did it again. The baseball story is in no way linked to the Bob Clarkson comment. Roll on that edit function.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2081 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Nick said:

    Where's the precedent? The MCG ...

    Exactly. The MCG and, not, as some people have suggested, Stadium Australia, which isn't in the CBD and is close to bugger-all.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18521 posts Report Reply

  • Lambert,

    Having read all of these informative posts, consider me convinced - the waterfront is the only option that sparks my imagination

    I'm actually quite excited by the thought of catching a train from out west to Britomart for a Saturday S14 game or test match and making a day trip of it. Catching a train to Kingsland or driving to an industrial park in Albany....not so much.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 27 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.