Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Sorry Sarah
That most definately is not the cutest thing I have ever seen. I'd go so far as to say it's downright icky.
eww bugs
cheers
Bart -
Hi Rich
Sorry didn't think I needed to do this part.
$130 million in 2003 will double in 2011 dollars + $260 million
not 8 times as many people but probably twice as many people and yes we do have twice as many beds now and will probably have more by 2011 = $520 million
The world cup is twice as long as the Lions tour so people could be expected to stay longer = $1 billion
But the above properly belongs on the same envelope with the estimates of the stadium costs.
Like I said it's a guess but I don't think it's an aweful guess.
cheers
Bart -
Hi Mike
we've already got the hosting rights , we dont need to 'build it and they will come ', they're already coming.
er no - the hosting rights are conditional on NZ providing at least one 60000 seat stadium for the final. Yes we could do it cheap but then we might just give the tourists the impression we are cheap (and nasty) and they might be less keen to spend time holidaying in our country.
All I'm saying though is this staium will in all likelyhood be paid for by the revenue that NZ gets from the 2011 world cup. Note that is from the perspective of the whole of NZ, I fully expect the actual shell company that is created to build manage and run the stadium will somehow make a huge loss and either demand to get govt or city money to recover from their "losses" or go bankrupt and not pay their staff (kinda cynical I know). But from a net NZ perspective this stadium will not cost NZ much at all and my guess is it will make GDP for NZ.
cheers
Bart -
Hi
I thought this thread died and I have no idea why I'm replying to someone with such a tagline but....
Dear Insolent you said
You bloody socialists won't be satisfied until you have spent every dollar of the surplus on wasteful projects with no economic return as a justification for not giving us tax cuts.
In the first thread on the stadia I pointed out that the Lions tour generated ~$130 million increase in revenue for New Zealand as a whole. It is not too big a stretch to expect the 2011 world cup to generate close to $1 billion in revenue for NZ.
I accept that we will spend a lot upgrading stadia around NZ and in building a new stadium. But I seriously doubt anyone in treasury would describe the stadium as wasteful. It almost certainly will pay itself (from the perspective of the whole country) in 2011. And if it gets built in a place where it can have more use than just for rugby games (ie not at Eden park) then it will almost certainly continue to generate income for the city of Auckland and NZ as a whole well beyond 2011.
BTW it wasn't hard to find the info about revenue from the Lions tour and it doesn't take much thought to realise that the 2011 world cup has serious economic implications for a tourism-centric country like NZ. As a result your post comes across as rather foam flecked.
On a slightly different note - one thing that makes me sad about this whole deal is that no matter what happens we are likely to lose Eden park No2 which was starting to become a very pleasant place to watch cricket. If they upgrade Eden Park it will become a parking lot and if the build on the waterfront the folks at Eden Park have implied they'll have to sell the site to developers who will no doubt build more medium density ....er.... housing.
cheers
Bart -
Hi Tamaki
Yup I agree the thread is over - I do so love seeing people who know a little history - even history of the net:). Everyone is repeating themselves now. I certainly don't know enough to be sure I'm right in my opinion and I haven't seen anything here to indicate anyone else is certain either:).
cheers
Bart -
Ok just a couple of comments and thoughts
Why spend 500 mill to 1 bill on a stadium? Here is a good clue. This will be 10 years on and with a lot more tourists. My guess is even if we (the country) spend a billion on the stadia upgrades we will make on the deal just from the world cup on it's own. But I'm not an economist so my guess is just that.
Several people have commented on the fear that it will turn out ugly. I agree it might turn out ugly - So we should try really really hard to make sure our input makes it turn out, if not beautiful, than at least iconic. As I said before that's my worry, that we won't take the time to make it look cool.
Many comments about the stadium not being open to the public - er well no - but really I don't want to go play on the field inside the stadium. What I want to do is make sure that around the stadium (beside the water) there are things like walkways and beach volleyball courts and random patches of grass to play on and seating so you can look at David's house in Devonport and watch him training for the next Auckland marathon. That's the public space and that's the key to making this thing "fit into the city" and not "on top of the city".
As for the majority saying no - well I'm sorry but the majority of whingers who could be bothered writing to the Herald said no as did the majority of whingers on talkback. Since when is that the majority of Aucklanders or New Zealanders. And even if the majority say no - who cares - the majority of people in Germany thought Hitler would make a good politician - the majority of people who voted in the US thought Bush was bright enough to be in charge, heck here in NZ we voted for Muldoon! - the point being "the majority" of people often don't know squat. What is more important to me is if we get a panel of thoughtful knowledgable urban designers together and they have a good think about this and they then say no - then I think we ought to step back from it.
Meanwhile, behind that fence at the bottom of Quay Street- beyond the cheap crappy import cars - beyond the pile of containers that spoil the sightlines - beyond the stinking great container ships ---- is a city of sails harbour! I personally do not believe that land will ever be developed into a public space without the excuse of a world cup stadium.
Go for it - just make it cool.
cheers
Bart -
Auckland has terrible weather...
hehe I was just stirring, and it's nice to see someone bit. I remember hearing from a couple of Americans that they had never been in a city with more rain the Auckland ... and they were from Seattle! :).
Actually I don't think rain is the problem and personally I think rugby players should play in the rain. I think the major issue for grass is cold and it's in places like the northern states of the US where having a stadium with a with roof is essential. To be honest there is nowhere in NZ with that kind of weather, not even Dunedin.
cheers
Bart -
Hi
Like Russell I think the current use of the waterfront is ugly and essentially useless to most kiwis, unless you import and sell used Japanese cars.
I live down Dominion Road and I love watching cricket on the number 2 ground so I'm not keen on a revamped Eden Park, traffic chaos and losing the No2 ground are too big a loss. However it sounds as though if it isn't revamped then it will be sold off and developed into medium density housing - nice.
As for the waterfront option I agree with Russell it could be great.
BUT
Given the rush to get it done, and given the steps along the way that will be skipped in the name of getting it done on time - I'm very worried that what will be built will be the Stadium and nothing else. No "architecture", no creation of walkways along the waterfront, no creation of cafes, no art, no attempt to make a German stadium somehow a New Zealand stadium and of course no parking.
In short this could create the monstrosity we all fear. It could also create something special with a genuine attempt to feel "ours". It could open up that part of the waterfront for real people to use and enjoy.
The trick over the next couple of years will be to keep the powers that be focussed on the whole package and not just the piece of grass with seats around it.
BTW stadia with lids generally have real trouble growing grass and are only usually used when the climate is so aweful that you can't have an open roof. Auckland just doesn't have weather that bad so it's probably best to have an open roof. Dunedin on the other hand would benefit from a roof.
cheers
Bart -
erk of course I ment I hope it isn't illegal to speculate like this
-
Could this end up being a self fulfilling prophesy?
If like me you've been thinking about a 2nd Mac (because if one is pretty then two will be prettier:)).
And if you hear rumours that Rennaisance and their markup will be taken out of the supply chain. And you guess that if Apple come into NZ directly they'll do it with a fanfare with opening specials...
Then you might decide to hold off purchasing this month.
So would a sudden drop in sales indicate to Apple they need to step in quicker or scare them off NZ.
If you want to add complete conspiracy theory to this - despite record Mac and ipod sales over the last year Rennaisance shares have continued to fall. Why? Well in the NZ sharemarket inside knowledge is everything and if a company's share price is falling steadily, past experience suggests some very bad news is coming and it really wouldn't get much worse news than Apple ditching Rennaisance as the NZ distributor.
ooo this is fun - I hope it is illegal to speculate like this?
cheers
Bart